Skip Navigation
 
This table is used for column layout.
 
PZC Minutes 04-14-2009
MEMBERS PRESENT:        Chairman Patrick Kennedy, Michael Sullivan, David Sorenson, Louise Evans, Bart Pacekonis, Mark Abrahamson, Timothy Moriarty

ALTERNATES PRESENT:     Viney Wilson, Daniel Van Horn, Elizabeth Kuehnel

STAFF PRESENT:          Marcia Banach, Director of Planning
        
PUBLIC HEARING – COUNCIL CHAMBERS

Chairman Kennedy called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

The Secretary read the legal notice as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday, April 2, 2009 and Thursday, April 9, 2009.

1.      Appl 09-13P, Jeannette LeSure dba Paint, Paper & Pens - request for a 5-year major home occupation to conduct art/creativity workshops at 9 Cliffwood Drive, A-30 Zone.
        Ms. LeSure presented information in support of her application.  Ms. LeSure stated that in the first floor family room, she would have workshops in which 6 to 8 adults would take art classes 3 to 4 days a week and eventually on weekends.  These classes would not be year-round and ample parking is available in the 2 driveways for up to 8 cars.  No toxic materials would be used.
Ms. Banach‘s report is as follows:
This is an application for a 5-year major home occupation permit to operate creativity workshops including various art mediums from property located at 9 Cliffwood Drive, A-30 zone. There is no building addition planned; the applicant is proposing to use a ground floor studio (previously a family room), approximately 300 sf in size.  The entire house is 3,206 sf.
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.
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 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.
The applicant has submitted a narrative (included with the Commission’s agenda package) defining the scope of the business and anticipated patronage.  She anticipates conducting 9-12 workshops a week, 9 to 10 months of the year. The applicant intends to hold the workshops during the week- up to 3 times a day, including morning, afternoon and evening workshops. Maximum participants would be eight students at a time. The Commission will want to consider whether the scope of this application meets the criteria for home occupations.
The house has two driveways, a double-wide driveway about 50 feet long, and a second driveway that is single-width. A typical parking space is 9’ x 18.’ Using this standard, the double-wide driveway would accommodate 4 vehicles and the single-wide driveway, about 4 cars. Having said that, people aren’t always willing to be blocked in by other vehicles and some may choose to park on the street.
The applicant is allowed a two square foot sign, however is not proposing a sign at this time.
The applicant would have to make provisions to separate collection of business generated refuse and recyclables.
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 upon expiration of the permit period. Also, the Commission might consider adding as approval conditions limitations on number of days and hours of operation, and number of students per class, in order to ensure that the intent of the home occupation regulations is adhered to.
The following residents spoke in opposition to this application:
Walter Umberfield, 54 Cliffwood Drive
Carol Mitnick, 81 Cliffwood Drive
Grace Puntal-Correia, 97 Cliffwood Drive
Eleanor Manfredi, 33 Cliffwood Drive
Stephanie Gudrian, 59 Cliffwood Drive
Their concerns were poor visibility due to overgrown shrubs, increased traffic, adverse change to quiet residential area, potential for cars being parked on street presenting more hazard to children, bikers, joggers, etc. due to no sidewalks along street, hazardous corner, summer would be very dangerous with children around more, frequency of school bus drop-offs on street dangerous with more traffic/cars parked on street, precedent for more businesses in residential area.
Two letters of opposition were received and read into the record by Commissioner Evans.  These letters were from the following residents:
        Sowmya Prakash, 65 Cliffwood Drive
        Rachel and Lee Anderson, 23 Cliffwood Drive
A petition in opposition was received, signed by the following residents:
        Jon and Carol Mitnick, 81 Cliffwood Drive
Richard and Patricia Bonanno, 73 Cliffwood Drive
Helen and Walter Umberfield, 54 Cliffwood Drive
Chris Veretto, 108 Cliffwood Drive
Roger and Millie Hildebrand, 43 Cliffwood Drive
Alan and Stephanie Gudrian, 59 Cliffwood Drive
Commissioners had questions and comments.
Abrahamson:  When would workshops be held?  3/day, 3 days/week – in a.m. and early afternoon.
Pacekonis: How many cars in family?  2, parked in garage.
Sullivan:  This application is not for a zoning change or to set a precedent for other businesses; seems too intense for a residential area with maximum of 6 classes/day.
Evans:  What would be least # of classes?  1/day, 3 days/week, would be during day, not when children around, could do morning or evening instead of afternoon
Evans:  What is height of hedge?  Estimated 8-10 feet.  Evans requested Banach to provide regulation to applicant regarding hedge height.
Moriarty:  In regulations, compatibility of business with residential very specific – freedom from traffic hazard, screening from neighbors.  He doesn’t see this application meeting intent of regs.
Van Horn:  Parking in driveway would be insisted upon, not any on street.  He doesn’t see a problem with parking regs if not on street.
Public Hearing closed at 8:10 p.m.
2.      Appl 03-28P, Poag & McEwen-Connecticut, LLC, - Pursuant to remand by Supreme Court – request for site plan approval for a Lifestyle Center with 284,750 +/- sq. ft. of retail shops and 3,870 +/- sq. ft. of office, to be known as “The Shops at Evergreen Walk” located on the west side of Buckland Road, north of Smith Street, and south of Deming Street, Buckland Gateway Development Zone.

Attorney Peter Alter introduced himself in representing the applicant with respect to the remand order from CT Supreme Court.  Chairperson Kennedy then asked Commissioner Evans to read the Motion for Judgment as Directed into the record.  Commissioner Evans then read Attorney Brian R. Smith’s (Robinson & Cole) letter regarding the decisions of the CT Supreme Court into the record.   Attorney Alter then proceeded by stating that  the process for the site plan approval has been reviewed by the Supreme Court and remanded to this Commission for further consideration.  Attorney Alter requested that this Commission approve the site plan for Lifestyle Center (also referred to as The Shops at Evergreen Walk) in accordance with regulations in Gateway Development Zone.  Attorney Alter submitted for the record further documentation including the last plan submitted during the earlier process, traffic studies and storm drainage studies, various expert findings – which show complete compliance per regulations in regard to permit requirements for the zone.  Also submitted were 2 updated reports addressing storm drainage (functioning as designed and operating properly) and traffic (previous impact study – conservative, improvements have been made and operating conditions are appropriate for facility).  Attorney Alter stated that the engineered design of the site has addressed all of the requirements of the Gateway Development Zone, has had no adverse impact on South Windsor or the Buckland Road area and has confirmed expert projections in its function as an existing development, as approved by the Commission.  Attorney Alter addressed the issue of waivers: 1) 3 access points onto Buckland Road; 2) buffer between Smith Street and Lifestyle Center development.  In 2003, it was determined that it was appropriate for a waiver to be granted for 3 access points onto Buckland Road, which were shown on the site plan approval, but not subsequently in the published version.  Attorney Alter requested that the Commission reapprove the waiver as part of this site plan approval.  Attorney Alter then requested that the Commission specifically address the waiver regarding the merging of buffer and setback provision in the regulations.  Merging would allow the setback to be 115 ft instead of 140 ft if kept separate.  The Commission had reviewed and approved the waiver in 2003, but there is not a reference to a specific action indicating that this particular provision had been waived.  Attorney Alter submitted that the requirements for these waivers are met, being well documented that traffic consultants agree that the 3 access points are appropriate for a development of this size and with the architectural and landscaping features at the southerly boundary, the slight reduction of the buffer is reasonable to grant. Attorney Alter further stated that since the project has been constructed, the Commission should be allowed to draw the conclusion that the waivers were appropriate and should be confirmed at this time.  Attorney Alter wanted to make it clear for the record that this site plan being considered is for the Lifestyle Center only, clearly defined as the Poag & McEwen retail development nearest Buckland Road, just westerly of Buckland Road.  To make it clear for the record - other aspects of Evergreen Walk are not part of this site plan application.
Ms. Banach presented her report regarding this application:
  • Attached to this update for historical information only are:
  • The Planning Department’s original report for Application 01-26P, the original General Plan of Development for the 240-acre Evergreen Walk property, for public hearings about eight years ago, on August 14 and August 29, 2001. The General Plan is advisory only and nonbinding for the site plan application.
  • The Planning Department’s original report for Application 03-28P; the original public hearings were held on June 24, 2003 and July 8, 2003, or almost six years ago; and
  • The Commission’s approval letter for application 01-26P, which is now void.
These reports are attached for informational purposes only, as they contain useful background information for tonight’s hearing.
2.  The Shops at Evergreen Walk were constructed, issued certificates of occupancy around October 2005, and have been operating for about 3½ years. Improvements to Buckland Road that were included with the original site plan were completed in 2005.
3.  There are two waivers requests with this application: an access management waiver request to allow a total of three driveway openings onto Buckland Road, and a waiver request to allow the buffer and side yard to be combined along the Smith Street property boundary. Both waiver requests are discussed in the 2001 Planning Department report for the General Plan of Development (page 2, item #4 of this report; and page 4, item #15). Since the Supreme Court has indicated that the General Plan is advisory only, the Commission will need decide whether to grant the two waivers and include the two waivers in a new site plan approval letter if this application is approved. The site plans comply with the 2003 zoning requirements.
4.  The Town Engineer has indicated that stormwater elements are functioning as planned. Traffic is functioning as planned. Traffic calming elements were constructed as planned and have exceeded operational expectations.
If this application is approved, Planning Dept requests no additional modifications.
The following residents spoke in favor of this application:
        Cary Prague, 60 Krawski Drive, stated that the Lifestyle Center has been good for the town, region and residents.  They continue to improve landscaping each year, are a good corporate sponsor, offering many entertainment events.  Traffic has not changed, large SW taxpayer, good for SW taxpayers.  Overall, very beneficial for town.
        Edwina Futtner, 203 Sandstone Drive, stated that of course she supports Evergreen Walk, who wouldn’t?  Do whatever can be done to make it okay.
The following resident spoke in opposition to the application:
        Wayne Gerlt, 318 Felt Road, with an office at 112 Deming Street, across the street from Evergreen Walk Development.   Attorney Gerlt noted that he does not oppose the project but the way it has been handled. Stating that the reason he brought lawsuits against the town and is at this meeting is related to the fact that the town council did not follow the charter when giving away the right of way property without the vote of the people of the town.  His concern and the Supreme Court’s concern is that the public be allowed to have its say and be fairly represented.  He was unable to locate pertinent information in regard to this hearing (i.e. application, new plans, traffic reports) prior to the meeting.  Feels the public cannot give fair comments if information is not available in thorough, timely manner.  Other issues were: notice of waivers being considered should be posted in the legal notice, further study of traffic and drainage issues needed, should have Inland Wetland’s approval due to wetlands on the property, an abutter letter to the Town of Manchester should have been sent (cannot proceed with hearing without knowing notice was received - per 8-3G of Statutes), not sufficient number of signs placed near development area.  Would like Commission to consider the precedent being asked to set.  Try to follow the rules and make sure public has a fair and honest chance to comment on applications.  Information should be available in the Town Clerk’s office.  Feels town is normally flawless in following rules, but on this application lost its way a little bit.  Wants things straightened out before going forward – proper notifications (Manchester, waivers).
Commissioners had comments and questions.                
Sullivan:  Would like to know that all proper procedures have been followed regarding the application process.  Atty Brian Smith (Robinson & Cole), special counsel to PZC for this application, responded that the remand order was to give an opportunity for both the plaintive (Atty Gerlt) and the public to comment on all aspects of the development.  Does not require a new application process. The wetlands approvals have already taken place years ago – should be satisfied.  Does not believe there has been anything improper regarding timing and availability of information.  Sullivan: Concerned that Town of Manchester was not notified and that the waivers are shown to be tied to the Poag and McEwen Lifestyle Center – was appropriate public notice given for consideration of this application?  Banach:  Manchester was notified, there were 2 application pending signs posted, waivers have never been published in legal notices, availability of applications in the Planning Dept and/or the Town Clerk’s office is published in the legal notice.  Sullivan:  We are not required to include waivers in public notice?  Atty Smith:  Regs  (3.A.4)  There is no requirement the waivers be publicly noticed in a legal notice.  The application needs to be noticed, which it has been.  A site plan application does not have to have a public hearing.  Sullivan:  How are waivers tied to Poag and McEwen?  Banach:  The waivers apply to the entire site, not just the Lifestyle Center.  Sullivan:  Is it appropriate to approve these waivers with this application if one is associated with another phase of the development?  Atty Alter responded that the buffer is only related to the Poag &McEwen Development and was part of the site plan that was approved and appealed.  Atty Alter stated that with respect  to the 3 driveways, the original traffic report reflects the total traffic anticipated from the full buildout of the entire site and that is intimately tied to Poag & McEwen’s development of the Lifestyle Center.  Atty Alter stated that both waivers are tied to the development.  Sullivan:  Satisfied if Town Attorney and Town Planner agree that it is appropriate for these waivers to be attached to this application.  Atty Smith:  If Commission is satisfied with applicant’s presentation and that the waiver is directly tied to this application, even if has incidental benefit to other portion of Evergreen Walk, Commission can grant waiver or not if not satisfied.
Pacekonis:  Was notification of Manchester recently or in past?  Banach:  In the past.  Paceknonis: Unclear about remand and what exactly should be done in regard to notifications, etc.  Wasn’t comfortable with what Town was doing when allowed access to the land without referendum back then, but Town Attorney said it was alright.  Is concerned that this meeting was not advertised properly.  Does traffic report include mixed use development that’s been approved in Evergreen Walk?   Steve Mitchell, F.A. Hefskin Associates, stated that the original traffic report was for the entire mixed use development (retail, office, etc.), on the basis of three entryways from Buckland Road.  The original traffic report and traffic pattern, which created the need for the waiver, are inextricably linked to this site plan – this site plan relies on that traffic pattern.  In the updated report, comparisons were made with traffic now and that which was projected previously, and general national averages for a project of this size.  Everything is right in line.  Original projections were conservative – traffic now is slightly less than projected.  Everything very, very, close to projected.  Comfortable with original report and improvements completed – are operating just as should be.  Banach:  Mixed use referred to by Pacekonis for residential/ town square area, approved as general plan of development – for advisory purposes only.  Could not be included in traffic report due to advisory only.  What is in plan for Evergreen Walk in regard to upkeep of outside of buildings?  Is something going to be done about the rooftop units that are unsightly?  The rooftop screening previously requested has been done and was found acceptable to the Town, nothing more is anticipated.  Banach:  All bond money set aside for rooftop screening has been released.  Atty Alter:  Owner of property will maintain and repair property on regular schedule.
Kennedy:  Noted that in the Planning Report 1.c. refers to the approval letter for application 01-26P as an attachment.  The attachment is actually the approval letter for application 03-28P – this site plan application.  Kennedy noted for the record that Evergreen Walk is a major development in town and has observed it in operation.
Sullivan:  Can additional conditions be imposed on the approval of this current site plan application?  Atty Smith:  The Commission can approve site plan as is, or with conditions, or deny, as they choose.
Atty Gerlt:  There is a requirement that you can not rely on approvals granted during the general plan of development stage because it’s preliminary.  He stated that the Commission is being asked to ignore the traffic that is going to come from part of that site.  The rooftop screening regulation (He believes it’s 4.2.10) states that the mechanical units have to be screened from public view from public roads.  These units can be seen from Buckland Road.  Atty Gerlt does not feel the notifications to CRCOG and Manchester 6 year ago is adequate.  At the very least there should be a new site plan showing conditions today, just as is required of other applicants, per regulations.  Also needed is right notice to abutting municipalities and a new traffic study.
Public Hearing was closed at 9:30 p.m.

REGULAR MEETING – MADDEN ROOM:  Called to order at 9:39 p.m.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:  None

1.      Withdrawal of Commission’s proposal to re-zone Downeast Associates property located on the southerly side of Smith Street, northerly side of Pleasant Valley Road and easterly side of Wheeler Road (2, 7, and 367 Smith Street, 22 Wheeler Road), from Design Commercial to Buckland Gateway zone.

Sorenson made a motion to withdraw the Commission’s proposal.  Moriarty seconded the motion.  The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.  

2.      Appl 03-28P, Poag & McEwen-Connecticut, LLC, - Pursuant to remand by Supreme Court –
        request for site plan approval for a Lifestyle Center with 284,750 +/- sq. ft. of retail shops and 3,870 +/- sq. ft. of office, to be known as “The Shops at Evergreen Walk” located on the west side of Buckland Road, north of Smith Street, and south of Deming Street, Buckland Gateway Development Zone.

        Pacekonis made a motion to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m.  Sorenson seconded the motion, the motion carried and the vote was unanimous.   

        Evans made a motion to approve application 03-28P with the following conditions:

Prior to commencement of any site work, a preconstruction 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 $60,000 to ensure compliance with the erosion and sediment control plan; a bond in the amount of $50,000 to ensure the installation and establishment of stormwater structures; and a bond in the amount of $5,000 to ensure the establishment of wetlands creation areas. The $50,000 and $5,000 bonds will be held for five growing seasons to assure adequate establishment of vegetation.
In accordance with Section 3.A.4.b of the Buckland Road/Sullivan Avenue Corridor zoning regulations, a waiver is hereby granted to allow three signalized driveway intersections with Buckland Road as shown on the General Plan.
In accordance with Section 5.8.6.c.6, the yard setback between Smith Street and the first building is permitted to be partially combined with the required buffer, with a combined total building setback and buffer of 115 feet instead of the full separate width of 140 feet. The site plan must reflect the 75 foot buffer and a 40 foot building setback from the edge of the buffer. The berm must be constructed and landscaped in the early stages of the construction.
An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.11 of the Zoning Regulations.
A landscape bond in the amount of $50,000 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 South Windsor.
This approval does not constitute approval of the sanitary sewer, which can only be granted by the Water Pollution Control Authority.
A State Traffic Commission certificate is required. No building permits will be issued until the STC certificate has been issued (per CGS §14-311).
The building street numbers must be included on the final plan.
The Town Engineer’s review comments dated September 11, 2003 (Buckland Road Widening plans) and September 22, 2003 (Final Development Plan) must be addressed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer.
The proposed parking lot lighting fixtures must be replaced with the fixture presented at the public hearing on September 23, 2003.
Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition at all times.
Buckland Road median landscaping plans to be finalized to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Parks and Grounds.
Adequate access to 207 Buckland Road must be provided in accordance with the requirements of Section IIIA of the zoning regulations (Buckland Road/Sullivan Avenue Corridor Requirements), if an application for site development plan approval is submitted.
Architectural elevations for buildings #500C-E must be reviewed by the Architecture and Design Review Board and the Commission for approval prior to issuance of building permits. Architectural elevations for all other buildings must be reviewed by Planning Department staff for conformance to the approved site plan prior to issuance of a building permit for each building.
In areas designated for outside dining and display, at least six feet of unobstructed sidewalk must be available for pedestrians.
The applicant shall install an irrigation system in the Buckland Road median if the materials are provided by the Town of South Windsor.
Rooftop mechanical units must be screened from Buckland Road. Landscaping along Buckland Road will be reviewed for adequacy by Town staff during the summer of 2012. If landscaping along Buckland Road is determined to be inadequate to screen the rooftop units, the applicant must provide additional landscaping..
Since the shopping center is already constructed and has been operating for several years, Town staff will review the requirements of this approval to ensure that they have been satisfied.
        Pacekonis seconded the motion.  The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.

3.      CGS 8-24 referrals from Town Council re: Sand Hill Road Pavement Rehabilitation, Lawrence Road Reconstruction, Hayes Road Reconstruction; and indoor pitching/batting facility at Nevers Rd.

        Sullivan made a motion to disapprove the CGS 8-24 referrals.  Sorenson seconded the motion.  The motion carried and the vote was 6-1.  The vote was as follows.  Pacekonis, Abrahamson, Moriarty, Evans, Sullivan and Sorenson voted in favor of the motion.  Kennedy voted against the motion.

        Pacekonis made a motion to suspend the rules and add to the agenda the 8-24 referral regarding indoor pitching/batting facility at Nevers Rd.  Sorenson seconded the motion.  The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.

        Sorenson made the motion to approve the 8-24 referral regarding the indoor pitching/batting facility at Nevers Rd.  Moriarty seconded the motion.  The motion failed and the vote was 4-3.  The vote was as follows: Pacekonis, Abrahamson, Sullivan and Sorenson voted against the motion.  Kennedy, Moriarty and Evans voted for the motion.

        Sullivan made a motion to disapprove the 8-24 referral.  Pacekonis seconded the motion.  The motion carried and the vote was 5-2.  The vote was as follows: Pacekonis, Abrahamson, Moriarty, Sullivan and Sorenson voted for the motion.  Kennedy and Evans voted against the motion.

4.      Discussion regarding request from South Windsor Ten Pin, Inc., to use bowling alley parking lot for weekend flea market.

        Commissioners decided to have South Windsor Ten Pin, Inc. make an informal presentation to the Commission to provide more useful information.

5.      Appl 09-11P, Ful-Line Auto LLC Site Plan – request for site plan approval for used car dealers license for property located at 1546 John Fitch Boulevard, I zone.

        No action.

6.      Appl 09-12P, Arroyo Auto Body LLC – request for site plan approval for used car dealers license for property located at 1546A John Fitch Boulevard, I zone.

        No action.

7.      Appl 09-13P, Jeannette LeSure dba Paint, Paper & Pens - request for of a 5-year major home to conduct art/creativity workshops at 9 Cliffwood Drive, A-30 zone.

Moriarty made a motion to deny application without prejudice and to waive application fee if Ms. LeSure submits a revised application.  Abrahamson seconded motion. The motion carried and the vote was 6-1.  The vote was as follows: Pacekonis, Abrahamson, Moriarty, Sullivan, Sorenson and Kennedy voted for the motion.  Evans voted against the motion.

BONDS:  None

MINUTES:  None

OLD BUSINESS: None

APPLICATIONS TO BE OFFICIALLY RECEIVED: None

CORRESPONDENCE:  None

ADJOURNMENT:  Sorenson made a motion to adjourn the regular meeting at 11:10 p.m.  Pacekonis seconded the motion.  The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________
Donna Thompson
Recording Secretary