MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Patrick Kennedy, David Sorenson, Bart Pacekonis, Timothy Moriarty, Louise Evans, Mike Sullivan and Mark Abrahamson
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Daniel Jeski and Viney Wilson
STAFF PRESENT: Marcia Banach Director of Planning
PUBLIC HEARING - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The secretary read the legal notice as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday July 10 and Thursday July 17, 2008.
1. Appl. 08-28P, Colonial Point Christian Church, request for a special exception to Table 3.1.1A and site plan of development for the construction of a church complex located at 855 Chapel Road, RR and RR/OZ zones
Dave Johnson, minister of Colonial Point Christian Church gave the history on the site. The land was purchased and the applicant would like to go forward with the project. The new site plan was submitted with the proposed changes.
Tim Mulcahy, Engineer with PDS Engineering and Design presented the application. The building has been scaled down significantly. The design of the building is relatively the same as the original site plan.
Galen Semprebon, Professional Engineer with Design Professionals reviewed the original site plan and the updated site plan. The site abuts the I291 corridor. The new site plan is a scaled down version of the original plan. The main building and courtyard will remain in the same location as originally proposed. There are 72 parking spaces proposed for the site. The detention basin will be installed and all the main details that were originally proposed will remain the same.
Banach presented the Planning report.
1. Request for a special exception to Table 3.1 and site plan approval for the construction of a church for property at 855 Chapel Road, across from Betty Drive, RR/RRO zone. The applicant has applied the criteria for a RR zone, as churches are permitted by special exception in that zone.
2. The site size is 7.4 acres. Some of the Commission members may recall that the PZC had approved a multi-phased church project in 2005. That original project included as Phase I a 5600 sf worship hall with 250 seats; 2400 sf lobby, 4200 sf classrooms, a covered patio, a 2400 sf outdoor chapel and a multi-purpose field, walking trails and 2 parking lots with about 130 parking spaces. The original proposal included a Phase II expansion of the worship hall, classrooms and addition of a covered bridge as a "drop-off" entry and patio expansion At this time the project has been scaled back and this request is approval for just one 8,500 + sf building, 72 parking spaces and associated landscaping. Any additions would require further approval from this Commission.
3. Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 50%; 16.7% shown. Proposed building height is 30 feet; 30 feet allowed. Frontage is 1,064 ft; minimum required is 175. Front yard setback is 54.8 feet, 50 feet required.
4. This Special Exception use can be approved by the Commission only when the Commission has determined that:
" Traffic impacts will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood;
" There will be minimal adverse effects on existing uses in the area;
" Surrounding property values will be conserved and the character of the neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted;
" Impacts will not be detrimental to the capacity of present and proposed utilities, streets, drainage systems, sidewalks, and other infrastructure;
" The land is physically suited to the proposed use and minimal adverse environmental impacts are created; and,
" Due consideration to preservation of historic factors has been demonstrated.
The Special Exception regulation also allows the Commission to impose additional conditions on the application.
5. The parking requirement for places of worship is based on the number of seats provided. The proposed building will accommodate 200 seats, requiring 67 spaces; 72 spaces have been provided.
6. The applicant provided a traffic study with the original proposal. Chapel Road is a collector road and carries in excess of 2,600 cars on a daily basis. The 2005 study provided an actual count of approximately 1,600 vehicles for Sunday traffic and a Sunday peak volume of 167 cars. The original traffic analysis was based on a full-build scenario of 500 seats. At full build, it was estimated that a total of 315 trips would be generated to and from the site during Sunday morning peak (164 entering and 151 exiting). The report concluded that this additional traffic during a low traffic usage time would be easily accommodated by the existing road network. At this time the project is being built with 200 seats rather than the 500 seats originally projected.
7. Only one driveway entrance is proposed at this time. The posted speed limit is 35 mph; however the 85th percentile is 50 mph. Site distances looking east and west exceed required distances. Staff are wondering why the driveway on Chapel Road doesn't enter directly into the parking lot rather than traversing the perimeter of the future sports field; there would be a large reduction in the cost of paving.
8. Architectural and Design Review Committee reviewed the revised architectural plan on 9/20/2007. The committee had no concerns with the proposed architecture, but the proposed landscaping was rather sparse when ADRC reviewed the plan. Since that time the landscaping plan has been modified to more closely resemble the originally-approved landscaping plan.
9. The lighting plan calls for 15 lights with 14 foot poles, with full cutoff fixtures. The average lighting level throughout the parking area is approx. 3 fc. The applicant had indicated that not all lights would remain lit when there are no evening activities. They are also proposing some bollard lighting along the interior walkways that lead to the parking areas.
10. White fir and white spruce trees are proposed for screening trees along the eastern boundary to screen the residential property. There is a dense area of existing evergreen trees along the western boundary that is not being disturbed.
11. The applicant is allowed one free standing sign, 32 sq ft, at the main entrance. A secondary sign of 16 sf. would be allowed if a second entrance was added. Building signage is also allowed, with ½ sq ft of sign area for each linear foot of building frontage. We note that this site has building frontage on both Chapel Road and I-291; signage area cannot be transferred from one side of the building to the other; e.g., the applicant cannot combine the building frontage for I-291 and Chapel Road to obtain a larger sign area on the Chapel Road side of the building.
12. There are no regulated wetlands on the property, however the applicant is an existing detention basin adjacent to I-291 that has become a regulated wetlands. There is an existing IWA/CC approval in place for this project requiring a $10,000 bond.
13. There is public water and sewer available to the site. Water Pollution Control Authority approval has been granted.
14. There is a dumpster shown on a concrete pad and screened.
15. If this application is approved, the topographic plan should be modified to reflect only one free-standing sign.
There were no Engineering comments.
There was no public participation.
The public hearing closed at 7:55 PM.
2. Appl. 08-31P, Paul DeGiacomo-request for a Major Home Occupation to operate a lawn service at 58 Edgewood Dr, A-20 zone
Paul DeGiacomo presented the application. The applicant is requesting approval for a Major Home Occupation to operate a lawn service on 58 Edgewood Drive. The applicant has operated the lawn service at this location for the past 3 years. The applicant recently has applied for a building permit to build a shed to use for storage of his equipment. Normal hours of operation will be 9 AM - 5 PM. The applicant contacted the neighbors and gave them a copy of the application. The applicant submitted a petition signed by the neighbors indicating if they are for or against it.
Banach gave the following Planning report.
1. Request for a 5 year major home occupation permit to operate a service at 58 Edgewood Drive, A-20 zone.
2. The applicant has been operating a "small lawn service" under a minor home occupation permit since February 2005. At that time, the business consisted of one pickup truck with no sign on it, and no trailer on the truck; the mower was hauled in the bed of the pickup truck. There were no employees and no additional storage of business-related equipment or material, according to the minor home occupation application filed by the applicant. The applicant has provided a narrative statement describing his business.
3. This application originated as a result of a zoning complaint in May indicating that Mr. DeGiacomo is running a landscaping contractor business with storage of goods and equipment outdoors and in the garage. The complaint also included excessive noise and traffic.
4. The reasons for requiring PZC approval are to ensure that:
" the home occupation is clearly secondary to the use of the building for dwelling purposes,
" the home occupation is compatible with other permitted residential uses in the residential district,
" the residential character of the dwelling and the neighborhood are preserved, and
" all residents have freedom from excessive noise, excessive traffic, nuisances, fire hazards offensive odors and pollutants, and other possible effects of commercial uses being conducted in residential areas.
5. Performance criteria that must be met include:
" Maximum of 25% of the floor area can be used for the occupation;
" occupation cannot be visible from outside the dwelling unit;
" dwelling must maintain the character of a single family dwelling;
" no entrance or exit may be added solely for the occupation;
" no more than one non-resident employee allowed;
" the occupation can not create a volume of passenger or commercial traffic that is inconsistent with the normal level of traffic on the street;
" all parking needs must be met on-site; and
" the Commission may require screening of additional parking from the street and from adjacent residential properties.
6. There are two questions regarding the MHO regulations that need Commission consideration for this application:
" Is a lawn service considered a landscaping contractor? If yes, then it is expressly prohibited as a major home occupation.
" Is this business actually functioning as a landscaping contractor based on its track record? If yes, then it should not be approved as a MHO.
7. Staff note that in mid-June, Mr. DeGiacomo deposited material cleared from his lot onto the Town-owned open space bordering his property to the rear. The damage inflicted included damage to Town trees. Karl Reichle, Director of Operations, sent a letter to Mr. DeGiacomo in mid-June outlining what Mr. DeGiacomo needs to do to return the open space to its previous undisturbed condition by July 30. Mr. Reichle indicated that Mr. DeGiacomo has begun addressing Mr. Reichle's concerns.
8. If this application is approved, the applicant will complete a home occupation form, which contains acknowledgment that the applicant will abide by criteria contained in the zoning regulations. The applicant would also be required to return to this Commission for renewal upon expiration of the 5-year permit period.
Also, if approved, the Commission might consider adding as approval conditions:
" Shorter approval length rather than the maximum 5 years so that any issues can be addressed expeditiously
" Limitations on the amount of equipment and materials that can be stored on site;
" A ban on outdoor storage of equipment or materials;
" Limitations on the number of times the vehicles can go in and out of the neighborhood (e.g., no returning for lunch breaks)
There were no Engineering concerns.
There was public participation.
Paul, 57 Edgewood Drive, spoke in favor of this application. He stated that he was home during the day and never noted any noise, equipment or vehicles in front of the property.
Attorney Keith Yagaloth representing William and Janice Blowers discussed his clients concerns. The client's house abuts the applicant's home and has been negatively affected by the applicant's home occupation. The reason why the application should fail is because the zoning regulations expressly prohibit landscaping businesses in a residential neighborhood. In September of 2005 a similar business came forward and it was denied because it raised the same concerns. A landscaping business in a residential area creates a nuisance for the neighborhood such as noise, gasoline fumes, cleaning of equipment, and parking on the street. The operation that the applicant is proposing is not a lawn service, it is a landscaping business. If this application is approved landscapers will find a way around the regulations
and there will be an increase in landscaping businesses in residential areas.
Attorney Yagaloth submitted invoices that were issued by the applicant with the name Grounds Keeper Landscaping on it (exhibit 1). Photos were submitted for the file that show 3 different employees that work for the applicant. The applicant will be using the side yard that abuts the client's property to move the equipment from the back of the property to the front. The applicant will be storing thinners and cleaners on the property as well as pesticides. The applicant has been in violation of the requirements for a minor home occupation since he had a trailer parked on the street as well as one full time employee.
Janice Bowers, 50 Edgewood Drive spoke against this application. The grounds keeper landscaping business is trying to apply for a major home occupation. The regulations indicate that a landscaping business is not allowed in residential areas. The resident indicated that she has been disturbed by the noise for 3 years of machines and equipment being serviced by the applicant. The applicants attempted to drive a loaded bobcat through the small side yard that abuts her property. This application should be denied to protect the health and character of the neighborhood.
William Bowers, 50 Edgewood Drive spoke against this application. The following equipment has been coming in and out of the applicant's property; one truck for landscaping, one for plowing, 2 trailers, leaf blowers, welding equipment, ladders, snow plows. The following jobs are offered by the applicant; Lawn cutting, fertilizing, use of pesticides, insulating, landscaping and mulch, spring & fall clean ups, installation of retaining garden walls, installation of underground sprinkling system, deck building, tree and shrub removal, house washing and snow removal. The resident mentioned that the applicant was attempting to drive through a narrow path that abuts the resident's property with a loaded bobcat and knocked down their fence. The applicant parks his trailer on the street which poses a potential for an accident from
motor vehicles that drive by and have to use one lane. The resident is requesting for this application to be denied.
Commissioners had questions and concerns.
" Does the applicant have any comment on the opposition?
The two employees were hired to remove debris from the open space, the debris were being removed per order of Karl Reichle from the Town garage. The trailer is not longer kept on the street and the equipment is no longer kept in the back yard. The bob cat had nothing to do with the business and it was going 1 mile an hour when it hit the fence. The fence that Mr. Bowers referred to is still standing and the applicant offered to repair it or put a new one up. The insurance company is now handling the damage to the fence. No pesticides are used or kept on the property; the applicant buys fertilizer for the day and uses it the same day.
" Commissioners mentioned that the Zoning Regulations clearly state that landscaping businesses are not allowed in a residential zone. Does the applicant consider his business to be a lawn care business?
The applicant responded that he does not consider his business to be a landscaping business because he does not do pavers or retaining walls.
" Commissioners asked the applicant what equipment he uses routinely.
The applicant responded that he routinely uses blowers, hedge trimmers, ladders, power washers and lawnmowers in July and August.
" Commissioners asked the applicant how he would access the shed and what will he store in it.
The applicant responded that he will use the shed to store lawn equipment, snow blowers, rotor tillers, leaf catcher, tubing, metal hedge trimmer, and one tractor.
" Commissioners asked if access to the shed would be to the right of the garage.
The applicant responded that access to the shed would be to the right of the garage.
" Commissioners mentioned that from the description that the applicant gave of his business it sounds like the applicant is exceeding the requirements of what is allowable under a Major Home Occupation. The business has grown to the point that the applicant cannot keep all of his equipment on the current site.
The public hearing closed at 9:15 PM
3. Appl. 08-32P, DeSimone Zoning Amendment- request for an amendment to Table 3.1.2A to modify the regulations related to front yard setbacks to allow the reduction up to 10 feet strictly for the purposes of constructing a covered, unenclosed porch (in all residential zones except MFA/AA zones)
Daniel DeSimone presented the application as follows. The applicant is proposing to build a front porch but could not do so because his house is too close to the road. The applicant came before ZBA and was denied because he could not demonstrate a hardship. The applicant is coming before PZC to request for approval of a zoning amendment to allow the reduction of the front yard set backs.
Banach gave a Planning report.
1. Request for zoning amendment to Table 3.1.2A Residential Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements to allow the front building line to be reduced a maximum of 10 feet strictly for the purposes of constructing a covered, unenclosed porch. This would apply in all single family residential zones.
2. Many, if not most, single-family houses are built at or near the front building line setback. We would note for the Commission that the Zoning Board of Appeals has received many applications for front porches over the years and at least four applications during the past year. Most recently, two denials were issued because no hardship was demonstrated. This amendment would provide a resolution. New homes would be eligible for the front yard reduction also, so homeowners would have the option of either building a front porch with new construction or subsequently adding a front porch. Thus, a front porch would be an option at any time, not just when a house is originally designed.
3. The zoning amendment request was referred to CRCOG as required. CRCOG responded that they have reviewed this referral and find no apparent conflict with regional plans and policies or the concerns of neighboring towns.
4. The POCD encourages regulation revisions that would promote retaining the physical and cultural character of the town. Front porches tend to create more liveable neighborhoods, with more interaction between neighbors especially as the porches get closer to sidewalks and streets. Porches also result in "eyes on the street," which helps neighbors to look out for each other and discourages undesirable activity.
5. Staff have no concerns with this amendment. The porches would still require building permits and at that time we would review the design to ensure that the proposed porches are open as required. We note that the unenclosed porches would not be able to be enclosed at any time if they are within the reduced setback area.
6. If this zoning amendment is approved, the Commission must state on the record that they have found the amendment to be consistent with the plan of development.
There was public participation.
Steve Zrinchak, 400 Abbe Rd Ext. spoke in favor of this application. His application was denied by ZBA for the same reasons as the applicant and he supports this application.
Letters were read into the record. (Exhibit a, b, c)
Commissioners had questions and concerns.
" Commissioners asked if there was a definition for unenclosed porch.
Banach responded that an unenclosed porch is a porch with solid railings or pillars, if screening is put up it is no longer considered unenclosed. Currently the Town does not have a specific definition of unclosed porch.
" Commissioners agreed that a definition for unenclosed porch should be in the regulations; some commissioners felt that the regulations should not be changed when it would only affect a limited number of households.
4. Appl. 08-33P, Saxon Computer Center - request for a 5-year major home occupation to operate a computer repair business at 118 Steep Road, A-20 zone
Maria Saxon presented the application as follows. The applicant is requesting approval of a major home occupation to operate a computer repair business.
Banach gave a Planning report.
1. Request for a 5-year approval for a major home occupation under Article 7 for a computer repair business to be known as "Saxon Computer Center" on property located at 118 Steep Road, A-30 zone. The center will be located in the garage area of the single family home. There will still be adequate room to accommodate one vehicle.
2. The reasons for requiring PZC approval are to ensure that:
" The home occupation is clearly secondary to the use of the building for dwelling purposes;
" the home occupation is compatible with other permitted residential uses in the residential district;
" the residential character of the dwelling and the neighborhood are maintained and preserved; and
" all residents have freedom from excessive noise, excessive traffic, nuisances, fire hazards, offensive odors and pollutants, and other possible effects of commercial uses being conducted in residential areas.
3. Performance criteria that must be met include:
" Maximum of 25% of the floor area can be used for the occupation;
" Occupation cannot be visible from the outside of the dwelling unit;
" No entrance or exit may be added solely for the occupation;
" No more than one non-resident employee is allowed;
" The occupation cannot create a volume of passenger or commercial traffic that is inconsistent with the normal level of traffic on the street;
" All parking needs must be met on site; and
" The Commission may require screening of additional parking from the street and from adjacent residential properties.
4. The applicant has provided information for determining compliance with the regulations. She is not proposing to have any employees. The computer center will offer services by appointment only with business hours Tuesday - Friday 9 am - 5 pm. The applicant has indicated that most work would be conducted off-site and drop off service will be offered for major repairs. Staff are wondering how many times a week customer drop-off might occur.
5. The applicant has indicated that there is adequate parking on-site with a turnaround to accommodate parking needs.
6. There is no signage proposed at this time. The regulations allow two square feet of sign.
7. If this application is approved, the applicant will complete a home occupation permit form, which contains an acknowledgment that the applicant will abide by the criteria contained in the zoning regulations. The applicant would also be required to return to this Commission upon expiration of the 5-year permit period.
There are no planning or engineering modifications requested.
There were no Engineering concerns.
There was no public participation.
The hearing was closed at 9:45 PM.
REGULAR MEETING - MADDEN ROOM
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Patrick Kennedy called the meeting to order.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:
1. Appl. 08-28P, Colonial Point Christian Church, request for a special exception to Table 3.1.1A and site plan of development for the construction of a church complex located at 855 Chapel Road, RR and RR/OZ zones
Evans made a motion to approve the above mentioned application with 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 bonds in the amount of $ 10,000.
4. A landscape bond in the amount of $5,000 is required and must be submitted prior to filing of mylars.
5. All bonds must be in one of the forms described in the enclosed Bond Policy.
6. An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.11 of the Zoning Regulations.
7. All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
8. This approval does not constitute approval of the sanitary sewer, which can only be granted by the Water Pollution Control Authority.
9. The building street number must be included on the final plan.
10. Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas.
11. All free standing signs and/or building signs require the issuance of a sign permit before they are erected.
12. If a State Traffic Commission certificate is required, no building permits will be issued until the certificate has been issued (per CGS §14-311).
13. Plan must be labeled Special Exception/Site Plan (not site plan modification) since the original plan was never filed and the phasing of the project has changed.
14. The topographic plan must be modified to reflect only one sign.
Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
2. Appl. 08-31P, Paul DeGiacomo-request for a Major Home Occupation to operate a lawn service at 58 Edgewood Dr, A-20 zone
Sullivan made a motion to deny the above mentioned application because it is in conflict with the established performance criteria specified in the Zoning Regulations for major home occupations and for the following reasons.
1. The occupation cannot create a volume of passenger or commercial traffic that is inconsistent with the normal level of traffic on the street.
2. All parking needs must be met on-site.
3. Businesses that are prohibited include landscaping contractor businesses.
4. No external effects that are incompatible with the character of residential zones are allowed.
Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
3. Appl 08-32P, DeSimone Zoning Amendment- request for an amendment to Table 3.1.2A to modify the regulations related to front yard setbacks to allow the reduction up to 10 feet strictly for the purposes of constructing a covered, unenclosed porch (in all residential zones except MFA/AA zones)
Commissioners discussed the application. Commissioners asked staff to provide more information. Sullivan moved to table the application. Sorenson seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
4. Appl 08-33P, Saxon Computer Center - request for a 5-year major home occupation to operate a computer repair business at 118 Steep Road, A-20 zone
Evans made a motion to approve the above mentioned application with the following conditions.
1. The business must be operated by the homeowner.
2. The permit will expire on 7/22/13, and will have to be renewed at that time.
3. Only one non-resident employee can be hired.
4. Refuse from the business cannot be disposed of with residential refuse. Adequate arrangements must be made for business refuse disposal.
Hours of operation are limited to Tuesday-Friday, 9am to 5pm
Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
BONDS:
Evans made a motion to release the $12,380 site bond for Appl. 02-22P, Berry Patch. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Evans made a motion to release the $9,000 site bond for Appl. 03-83P, Berry Patch II. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Sullivan moved to deny the request to release the $ 20,000 IWA/CC bond for Appl. 02-22P, Berry Patch. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Sullivan made a motion to release the $20,000 IWA/CC bond for Appl. 06-22P, Evergreen Walk Phase III. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Sullivan moved to deny the request to release the $25,000 IWA/CC bond for Appl. 06-22P, Evergreen Walk Phase III. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Sullivan made a motion to release the $10,000 IWA/CC bond for Appl. 06-30P, Copper Ridge E & S. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Sullivan made a motion to release the $10,000 IWA/CC bond for Appl. 06-30P, Copper Ridge. Pacekonis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Sullivan made a motion to reduce the $10,000 landscaping bond for Appl. 03-83P, Berry Patch II to $2,000. Evans seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous
Sullivan made a motion to release the $5,000 landscaping bond for Appl. 02-58P, Parksite Plunkett Webster. Evans seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Sullivan made a motion to reduce the$30,000 landscaping bond for Appl.06-22P. Evergreen Walk Phase III to 5,000. Evans seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
Sullivan moved to deny the request to release the $2, 0000 bonds for Appl. 05-42P, Evergreen Run. Evans seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.
MINUTES: 5/27/08
The minutes were approved by consensus with minor changes.
ADJOURNMENT:
The regular meeting was adjourned at 10:15 PM.
_____________________
D. Maria Acevedo
Recording Secretary
| 
