Skip Navigation
 
This table is used for column layout.
 
PZC Minutes 10-22-2013
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bart Pacekonis, Billy Carroll, Viney Wilson, Betty Kuehnel, Mario Marrero, Kevin Foley, Will Butter arrived at 8 p.m.
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Stephanie Dexter, Stephen Wagner
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Lipe, Town Planner; Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer; Lauren Zarambo, Recording Secretary

APPLICATIONS OFFICIALLY RECEIVED:
  • Appl. 13-46P, Stage Door Hair Design – request for renewal of a 5-year major home occupation for a hair salon on property located at 84 Ronda Drive, A-20 zone
  • Appl. 13-47P, South Windsor Food Alliance Winter Farmers Market - request for a 2-year temporary & conditional permit to allow a farmers market weekly from November 2 through December 21, offering produce and other items such as vegetables, fruits, cheeses, meats, baked goods, soaps, candles, at the St Margaret Mary’s Church, 80 Hayes Road, A-20 zone
  • App. 13-49P, MAX BMW Motorcycles – request for a special exception to Table 4.1.1A for sales and repair of motorcycles, a Dept of Motor Vehicles License for motorcycle sales and a site plan modification for property located at 1535 John Fitch Boulevard, GC zone
  • Appl. 12-50P, T & M Building Co., Inc. - request for a Site Plan of Development modification for minor site changes and architectural changes for the approved 155 unit multi-family development, to be known as “South Windsor Woods” (formerly Nutmeg Village), on 49.5 acres, for properties identified as L023 Pleasant Valley Road, and portions of 388 Pleasant Valley Road and a portion of R003 Nutmeg Road, located on the northerly side of Pleasant Valley Road, southerly of South Satellite Road and easterly of Nutmeg Road South, MF-AA zone
PUBLIC HEARING/ COUNCIL CHAMBERS

CALL TO ORDER:  Chairman Bart Pacekonis called the Public Hearing to order at 7:30 p.m.

Secretary Commissioner Wilson read the legal notice as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday, October 10, and Thursday, October 17, 2013 into the record.

  • Appl. 13-37P, DeMallie Coverage Zoning Amendment – request to amend Article 3 Residential Zones, Table 3.1.1A, Residential Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements, to modify Impervious Coverage and Lot Coverage in MFA/AA and A-20 zones; to modify Article 7, Special Regulations, Open Space Subdivisions, Table 7.14.5A to add Maximum Lot Coverage, RR, A-40, AA-30, A-30 -20%;  and to add to Article 10, Definitions a definition for “Lot Coverage (building)” and modify existing the definition of ”Building Area”
Mr. Peter DeMallie, president of Design Professionals, Inc., presented the request to amend coverage regulations to make corrections from oversights and use the opportunity for improvement. He went over seven items concerning definitions, lot coverage and building coverage by zones and percentages.

Town Planner, Michele Lipe, gave staff comments:

  • This is a request for a several text amendments related to the definition of Lot coverage ratios in residential zones.
  • This amendment proposes to do a couple things: In the definition section of the regulations, the applicant has proposed to add a definition for “Lot Coverage” as well as modify the current definition of “Building Area”.
  • Another part of this request is to amend Table 3.1.1A, Residential Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements, Lot Coverage in A-20 zones to allow for 20% coverage as well as modify Open Space Subdivisions, Table 7.14.5A to add Maximum Lot Coverage, RR, A-40, AA-30, A-30 –to add a 20% requirement. Currently the regulations do not address a lot coverage ratio. This change allows a 5% increase in lot coverage than the current regulations allow.  This change will help allowing the larger sheds and two car garages that we tend to see being proposed on existing A-20 lots.
  • Lastly, this amendment proposed to correct the MFA regulations that have lot coverage’s and impervious coverage’s listed incorrectly.
  • The current Town Plan of Conservation and Development under the Residential section encourages flexibility in meeting emerging housing needs and updates to the zoning regulations that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
  • The Capitol Region Council of Governments has reviewed the amendment as required and reports that they find no apparent conflict with regional plans and policies or the concerns of neighboring towns.
  • If this application is approved, the Planning Dept has no additional requested modifications.
Town Engineer, Jeff Doolittle, had no comments

No one from the public spoke in support or opposition to the application.

Commissioner Wagner asked if the building area definition includes roof overhang and decks. Mr. DeMallie stated it includes the entire footprint and that the overhang would count in calculations but that decks would be excluded. Commissioner Carroll then asked about the inclusion of screened porches to which the Planner Lipe and Mr. DeMallie stated they would be included.

The Public Hearing closed at 7:54 p.m.

  • Appl. 13-43P, Free Spirit Farm LLC – request for special exception to 7.12.2 and site plan approval for the use of existing barn and farm for boarding, breeding, training and instruction involving horses, under the Commercial Animal Agriculture regulation, on property located at 112 Pheasant Way and 1080 Avery Street, A-30 and RR zone
Attorney Doug Dubitsky, representing Free Spirit Farm LLC, presented the request for a special exception for a commercial equine facility on two properties, 112 Pheasant Way and 1080 Avery Road. He showed the properties on a site plan and in aerial photographs. Applicants want to have a commercial facility to board and train horses and give lessons. Horses will be boarded primarily in barns and run in sheds. The proposed hours of operation are 7 a.m. – 8 p.m. The property is in a RR zone with one small section near the driveway in the A-30 zone. Existing structures have capacity for more horses than are planned. Set backs will be adhered to with horses kept at least 125’ from the street, 40’ from any side or rear lot and 100’ from any dwelling. The facility will not be open to the general public but rather for clients, their families and guests. There will be no big shows, public address systems, stadium seating or excessive use of port-a-potties on the site. Most activities will take place around the riding ring. They will bring in hay and feed so there will be no risk for over grazing fields. Manure management will be according to best management practices from the USDA. Lighting will be for safety purposes with one flood light in ring which has been there for years and is screened by trees. Landscape will be unchanged in keeping with POCD. This proposal meets all requirements for zoning regulations and has a minimal environmental impact.

Town Planner, Michele Lipe, gave staff comments:

1.   Request for a special exception to 7.12.2, Commercial Animal Agriculture, and site plan approval for the establishment of a commercial boarding and training facility for horses on property located at 112 Pheasant Way and 1080 Avery Street, RR zone.
2.   Applications for special exceptions may be approved if the Commission determines that:
  • The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Plan of Conservation and Development.
  • The application has met the requirements of the zoning regulations.
  • The land is physically suited to the proposed use.
  • Minimal, if any, adverse environmental impacts are created.
  • No traffic or other hazards will be created.
  • The impacts on the capacity of the present and proposed utilities, street, drainage systems, sidewalks, and other elements of the infrastructure will be minimal.
  • There will be minimal or no adverse effects on existing uses in the area.
  • Surrounding property values will be conserved.
  • The character of the neighborhood will be maintained or minimally disrupted.
  • The general welfare of the community will be served.
  • There is a balance between neighborhood acceptance and community needs.
  • Historic factors are adequately protected; or due consideration to preservation of historic factors has been demonstrated.
  • The overall physical appearance of the proposed development is compatible with surrounding development and the Commission’s goals for the neighborhood/corridor.
  • The architectural design is aesthetically pleasing and blends well into the surrounding area.
  • The Commission may impose additional conditions in accordance with these regulations in order to ensure that all applicable criteria enumerated above are satisfied.
3.      The property at 112 Pheasant Way is 6.18 acres in size, and the property at 1080 Avery Street is 8.41 acres.  Approval was granted by this Commission in 2004 for horses for personal use on 122 Pheasant Way shortly after that lot was created.  The property at 1080 Avery Street has had horses for many years prior to that.
4.      The applicant is now proposing offer boarding, training, riding, breeding and instruction for horses. The applicant has verbally indicated the maximum number of horses on the site will be 20. Business hours for the farm are proposed as 7:00 am to 8:00 pm. Does the applicant have an idea of how many visitors might come on a daily basis?
5.      The horses will be boarded primarily in the existing barns and structures, which may be augmented and reconfigured as needed.  Requirements for a commercial stable include:
  • The area shall be wholly or partially fenced – the site plan shows the existing fencing, which may be reconfigured from time to time.
  • The accessory buildings used for housing/feeding animals must be a minimum distance of 125 feet from any street line and 40 feet from any side or property line, and in addition, 100 feet from any dwelling located on adjacent property.  This application meets the requirements with the exception of the barn (closest to the house at 112 Pheasant Way).  A variance was received for this barn in April 2004.
  • Off street parking requirement for this use is 1 parking space for each 5 users of the facility.  The applicant has indicated that he has parking for at least 10 vehicles; however that has not been shown on the plans.  The trailer parking areas should also be shown on the plans
6.  The plan identifies areas for manure storage, and the applicant has submitted a manure management narrative in accordance with USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, UConn Cooperative Extension System and CT Department of Agriculture guidelines.  Sherry McGann, our Health Officer, has reviewed this information and is satisfied with the proposal.
7. There is public water available to the property.  The applicant states that adequate bathroom facilities are available within the homes and stated additional temporary facilities will be used if needed.  If that is the case, the staff would want to review the specific location for any screening that may be necessary.
The use of lighting in the existing riding ring will be limited to business hours, except in emergencies. There is no signage proposed with this application. The applicant is not proposing any new landscaping or screening, only maintenance as needed.
8. There are no regulated wetlands on the property.
9. The applicant has not identified specific public activities to be held however may consider such in the future.  Staff would recommend no public events, activities, show, etc. will be held at this site unless further approval is granted by this Commission.  The Fire Marshal has indicated that he has no concerns at this time.  He has stated that if the riding rink is opened to the public, the use of the building will change. ~This change would have an impact for this department and the fire codes that would have to be addressed at that time.
If this application is approved, the planning department has no additional modifications to request.

Town Engineer, Jeff Doolittle, gave no staff comments.

Attorney Dubitsky responded to comments stating the estimated number of people using the site would be at most 50 people estimating that number from the 10 parking spaces available with 1 space for each car holding 5 people. He then showed parking on the site plan and also for trailer parking with room for overflow parking at 1080 Avery Street. The attorney stated the WPCA will be contacted. There will be no public events, only clients and invited guests and family, which should address fire marshal concerns for the general public access to the barns.

The Chairman asked for a confirmation of the number of horses which will be on site. The attorney replied 20 horses with capacity for more than 20 but at this time the applicant is not planning on more.

Secretary Commissioner Wilson read 3 letters of support into the record from Calvin and Anne Hulstein, Irma Mandeville and Heidi Siedman (Exhibit A).

Mr. Dave Shepard, 22 year resident of Partridge Lane, spoke in favor of the application stating the property is used responsibly. He does not want it to exceed its capacity but is in favor of the application.

Mr. Chris Gallo, 17 year resident of Partridge Lane, recounted a history of his neighbor’s horse farm expansion and expressed concern that the scope of their present proposal will change in the future. Their property abuts the applicant’s driveway. He stated their quality of life has diminished on their private lot and this commercial enterprise is being petitioned against by 81 neighbors even by one of the residents who signed a letter of support that was read into the record. Mr. Gallo asked whether the property has been used for boarding of horses and lessons in the past and if it is being used for private use rather than public that they disallow a public address system, lights, temporary buildings, horse trailers and port-a-potties. The permanent dirt road one foot off their property line is regularly used by a commercial tractor, pick up truck, golf cart and horses. Mr. Gallo asked if the parking proposed is on the Selig’s current driveway or the dirt driveway on the east side of the property. He then submitted the petition signed in opposition to the application by 81 neighbors.

Ms Serina Gallo, resident of Partridge Lane, spoke about their special needs son who uses their backyard which abuts the application property stating their yard is now a fish bowl with all the activity that takes place in the residential area and does not want to see their property values decreased.

Mr. Mark Bushman, 14 year resident of Partridge Lane, stated the Selig’s have done a fine job of keeping up the property but that the special exception request has raised concerns. He described the applicant’s open ended narrative with no restriction on the number of horses and asked how big the commercial enterprise could get. Regulations for residential areas allow one horse per acre and so with 15 acres, 15 horses could be allowed making them already over the limit with 20 horses and stated it is an issue of scale fitting into the residential neighborhood. The subject of lights and sanitary facilities is not clear in detail and voiced another concern whether a Special Exception could be transferred with the properties if they were to be sold

Ms Sharon Van Niel, 18 year resident of Partridge Lane, stated the applicant is a nice back yard neighbor but expressed concern with it becoming a commercial enterprise which could be sold and become something else and asked about parking.

Mr. Ralph Brancaccio, resident of Donnel Road in Vernon, expressed concerns over early hours of operation on weekends, typically times of rest, which will be disturbed with extra traffic and trailers on the back road. He asked if the application is approved to have restrictions so that no further development occur so the residents do not have to  keep coming back to the Commission. He referenced the attorney’s estimate of attendees and parking as 50 people in 10 cars asking how many people ride with 5 people in a car. He stated the Commission is being sold a project but not the specifics and traffic will increase affecting the privacy of the residents.

Mr. Ryan Soucy, 4 year resident of Partridge Lane, expressed concern that the scope is too broad and will change the neighborhood. He asked if deforestration may be part of the plan to accommodate parking and expressed concern that once ownership is transferred it could have a permanent negative impact on their residential neighborhood.

Mr. Marc Burgio, resident of Avery Street and abutter to the applicant’s dirt road, stated traffic with trailers and heavy machinery is already on the road and having more horses will increase the problem. He expressed safety concerns with the potential of horses getting out and fences damaged with increased numbers.

Ms Eugenia Wilkos, 23 year resident of Pheasant Way, expressed concern over how the increased size of the project will change their environment voicing concern over traffic, privacy and from the potential smell from 20 or more horses in the neighborhood.

Ms Virginia Gallo, resident of Partridge Lane, expressed safety concerns for her seven year old special needs brother who runs to the edge of their property, does not know boundaries and will interact with horses.

Mr. John Duffy, resident of Partridge Lane, stated this is a commercial business venture which will be growing in their back yards and cited the petition with 81 signatures in opposition.
Secretary Commissioner Wilson read the petition into the record signed by 81 neighbors (Exhibit B).

Commissioner Dexter asked the applicant to clarify the capacity of horses on the property. Attorney Dubitsky stated there are two major barns and run in sheds for additional horses. The main barn with six stalls with a shed roof with room for an additional six more, another barn with five stalls with room for an additional three horses, a gazebo run in shed which is used for two smaller horses, a run in shed which can hold five or six horses, and another run in shed that can accommodate four or five horses. One of the sheds has a birthing stall because they are interested in breeding horses. The commissioner asked how many horses are presently on the property. The commissioner asked if all horses go in at night or if they are left outside. The attorney replied if there is a place for them inside they will go in but many farming operations have the horses staying out all year which is an accepted practice. On this property there is a barn for every horse.

Commissioner Kuehnel asked who owns the trailers. The attorney replied trailers are generally owned by the horse owners and when someone boards a horse, the horse stays and the trailer goes. The commissioner asked if any trailers will be stored on the property. Attorney Dubitsky stated there may be some and the Seligs presently have one on the property. Kuehnel asked if the horses are contained in one section or are they free to roam. The attorney showed the fence lines on site plan and stated the horses stay in contained areas which are more than 150’ from the property lines and that they attempted to discuss the path near the property line of the abutting neighbor, but the Gallo’s declined to discuss it. The attorney stated there are no animals loose or contained near any property lines.

Commissioner Wilson asked if there is access from both Avery Street and Pheasant Way into the property in both directions. The attorney replied there is which reduces the traffic concerns in half with both roads being used.

Commissioner Carroll asked if access to the riding ring was primarily from Avery Street. The attorney stated that is primarily where the main parking is located. People arriving in cars to ride their horses would come primarily on Pheasant Way with trailer parking on Avery Street. Some unloading of trailers does take place on Pheasant Way. The attorney described the property which has been a used as a farm for generations. He clarified the number of stalls in each location again as the main barn next to the house on Pheasant Way having five stalls with room for three more, meaning it is designed as an 8 stall barn. Another main barn near the house on Avery Street has six stalls, one of which is used as a birthing stall. That barn also has a shed roof / run in to the south which is sized for an additional six horses with another two stall area towards the house. A shelter to the southwest serves as a run in shed for five or six horses and another to the northeast for four or five horses. The commissioner asked why the access road from the Pheasant Way driveway to the riding ring was not depicted on the map. Attorney Dubitsky stated it is more a path than a dirt road but will add it to the plan and will talk to the neighbors for possible other routes. Commissioner Carroll also requested to see parking for the ring and trailers on the map and then asked the Town Planner if the special exception carries with the property or stays with the owners. The planner stated in general a special exception does run with the land. Since two property owners are involved, if it is no longer used as a joint property for a farm in the future, property owners would have to return to the Commission to address zoning requirements. Commissioner Carroll asked for clarification on the use of port-a-potties on the property. The attorney stated the applicant does not anticipate the need for port-a-potties with five bathrooms available. If they are ever needed for clients and invited guests, the subject would be discussed with the health department and they would be located by the barn.

Commissioner Marrero questioned if the large buffer areas between residents and property shown on the aerials of the site are accurate and that the dirt road is not depicted on the plan or aerial. The attorney replied the buffer areas are accurately shown and will add the dirt road to their plan and recounted that one lot from the property had previously been sold.

Commissioner Butter agreed with the other commissioner’s comments and asked for more detail about the road and for it to be shown on the map. He asked about the proposed trailer parking near the ring in the wooded area and if trees will be taken down. The attorney stated there is no plan for deforestation of any type and showed the area on the 2012 aerial.

Commissioner Foley asked the Town Planner about a previous application for a horse farms on Main Street. The planner stated commercial animal agriculture does not use the chart for acreage but rather by the capacity of what is being proposed. The commissioner asked if this commercial application would be considered open ended. Planner Lipe stated to evaluate the scope of this special exception the Commission needs to know the number of horses planned. The applicant has indicated it will not be for more than 20 horses.

Commissioner Wagner stated he would like to see better screening of resident’s abutting properties from the impact of the dirt path. He stated if the applicant is stating they do not need port-a-potties it should not be part of the proposal. Attorney Dubitsky described typical activities at a training facility for clients, their families and guests and in the event of muddy weather or if a bathroom is down a port-a-potty could be necessary. The commissioner requested the number of show ‘recital’ events to be limited to two a year in order to limit the impact on the residents. The attorney stated the applicant is willing to work with neighbors to be sure their property rights are not negatively impacted. The commissioner asked how many trailers will be permanently stored on site and can the hours be limited when trailers come and go from the property. The attorney stated there would be no activities before 7 a.m. or after 8 p.m. except for the care of the horses.

Chairman Pacekonis asked the planner what is covered under their current approval and asked exactly how many horses are on each lot presently. Planner Lipe stated the 2004 approval was for three personal horses. Mr. Bob Selig, 112 Pheasant Way, stated there are eleven horses on the combined properties, five on his property and six on the property of his father-in-law. Mr. Selig then described the history of their property and stated the purpose of the application is to make their combined properties conform to today’s regulations and to define the scope of their business. Their 15 acre parcel of land, for as long as their family is around, will be a 15 acre horse farm used for commercial equine activity in compliance with zoning regulations. Nothing has changed on their site and they intend no changes on their site plan and will write that into any approval given. The bridle path has been in use for 50 years for walking horses. Mr. Selig stated he also drives his golf cart and John Deere tractor on it. He stated he is open to making changes to the scope, look or landscape of the path, if necessary, for their business which is to show, breed and train horses and instruct people to properly ride. They have an extensive manure management plan and stated no one in the neighborhood will see anything in the future other than what presently goes on now on their property.

After more discussion, Chairman Pacekonis stated there is a criterion for neighborhood acceptance with a special exception and would like to see the applicant and neighbors get together to agree upon what will work for all involved. Attorney Dubitsky stated with a special exception comes limitations and they will abide by any restrictions placed by the Commission on the number of horses and all other details.

Commissioner Wilson cited the vagueness of applicant’s narrative which includes ‘additional temporary sanitary facilities as needed’, ‘public address systems, not currently planned, but any system used in the future…’, ‘additional outdoor lighting will be limited as necessary’. Attorney Dubitsky clarified they will not have port-a-potties or an address system in the future and will accept those as conditions of approval.

The Town Engineer suggested the applicant speak with Fred Shaw, WPCA, before the next hearing for what is required for changing a residential property into one with commercial use.

The Town Planner stated the Public Hearing could go forward on November 12th if it is continued.

Commissioner Carroll made a motion to continue the public hearing until November 12th.
Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion
The motion passed and the vote was unanimous.  
The 10/22/13 portion of the public hearing closed at 9:54 p.m.

  • Appl. 13-41P, Redland Brick, Inc. KF Plant – request for 5-year renewal of the special exception to article 7.16.4 for an earth removal permit and site plan, Phases 6 and 7, on property located at 1440 John Fitch Boulevard, I & RR zones
Attorney Susan Hayes, 100 Pearl Street in Hartford, on behalf of Redland Brick, presented their request for the extension of the special exception permit to continue clay mining operations at 1440 John Fitch Boulevard and introduced Mr. Darin Lemire from HRP and Mr. Ed Cunningham, plant manager at Redland Brick.

Attorney Hayes stated the property has been used for clay mining for about 100 years. From 2000 – 2008, Redland Brick has come to the Commission for 2 year extensions of their special exception which was modified in 2008 for 5 year extensions. The application is essentially the same for the area of mining with one road relocation from the prior approval. Owner, Barry Miller, met with one neighbor who had expressed concern about the application. Attorney Hays stated they will agree to limit their mining operating hours to those defined as day time hours in the noise ordinance.


Chairman Pacekonis asked to extend meeting to 11 p.m.
Commissioner Foley made motion to extend the meeting to 11 p.m.
Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion
The motion passed and the vote was unanimous.  

Mr. Darin LeMire, PE from HRP, prepared the application for Redland Brick which includes its five year plan, reclamation plan and excavation plan showing where Redland is and has been mining with proposed contours in the southeast corner of future mining of 100,000 cubic yards for the next 5 years. The haul road is located at the southern end. The reclamation notes when mining ceases they will have two to one slopes with 4” of topsoil topped with a grass mix approved by town staff.

Mr. Ed Cunningham, plant manager for Redland Brick, described simple clay harvesting techniques which employ haul trucks, excavators, bulldozers and water trucks. This year hauling was limited to eight days. It is called a dry mining process.  

Town Planner, Michele Lipe, gave staff comments:
  • Request for a renewal of a five year Special Exception permit to Section 7.16 for an earth removal permit to extract clay on Redland Brick property at 1440 John Fitch Blvd, Industrial and RR zones. The applicant has had two-year permit renewals since 2000; in 2007 the PZC changed the regulations to allow for a five year permit period.
  • The site is currently accessed from Route 5 and will continue to be accessed from Route 5.  The plans show that the applicant continues to work it the same area that was permitted five years ago.  The plan reflects the existing grades as well as proposed grades over the next five years.
  • The zoning regulations allow removal of earth materials, including clay, as a Special Exception, in conformance to certain criteria, including:
  • The plan shall provide for proper drainage of the area of the operation after completion; and no bank shall exceed a slope of 1 foot of vertical rise in 2 feet of horizontal distance.
  • At the conclusion of the operation, or of any substantial portion thereof, the whole area where removal takes place shall be covered with not less than 4 inches of topsoil, and seeded with suitable cover crop.
  • Except in an industrial district, no stone crusher or other machinery not required for actual removal of the material shall be used.
  • In passing on such applications, the Commission shall consider the effect of such removal on surrounding property and the future usefulness of the premises when the operation is completed.  In the case of removal of quarry stone, and mining operations, the Commission may modify the foregoing requirements where such operations will not endanger public health and safety or be detrimental to the neighboring properties.
  • Such permits shall be issued for a period not exceeding 5 years beyond the date of Commission approval.
  • Extension of time or modification of the scope of work originally approved may be granted by the Commission.  
  • The applicant shall post a bond with the Town Treasurer in an amount approved by the Commission after consultation with the Town Engineer as sufficient to guarantee conformity with the provisions of the permit issued hereunder.
  • The applicant has provided a reclamation plan. Staff recommends a restoration bond in the amount of $30,000 shall be submitted to this Commission.  Prior to the start of the restoration, a report shall be submitted to the Environmental Planner and Town Engineer to determine the appropriate seed mix that is comparable to the hydrology on the site.
  • The town engineer, Jeff Doolittle, will address the reclamation plan and a proposed bonding amount.
  • There are regulated wetlands on the site and the applicant has an active wetlands approval. The IWA/CC approved the application on October 5, 2011.
  • If this application is approved, Planning Dept. has no further recommendations to request.
Town Engineer, Jeff Doolittle, gave staff comments with respect to the restoration of the areas they have disturbed in this application he recommends establishing a bond for $30,000 for restoration.

No one from the public spoke in favor of the application.

Attorney Marc Needleman spoke in opposition to the application representing three abutting property owners from Strong Road, Mr. Jim Poulin, Mr. Walter Busto and Dr. Ramesh Hemnani, and showed the abutting properties on the site plan. Prior to the permit being granted five and one half years ago there was an access road to the north side then application was made to relocate the access road to the south side of property which runs parallel to the abutter’s properties. At that time, Mr. Poulin voiced concerns with the activity close to his property and was assured by the owner of Redland Brick reasonable efforts would be made to minimize disruption to their homes. The attorney stated that has not taken place and reminded the Commission the regulations for special exceptions require balancing the legitimate needs of both the applicant and the neighbors. They are not asking to reject this application to mine clay but the neighbors have a right to peace in their homes. Their concerns are noise, hours of operation, vibrations, dust / pollution, an attractive nuisance has been created and dewatering the property which is in violation of State law. The location of the road to the south has created problems for the residents, a distance approximately four football fields closer to the neighbors’ properties.

The attorney stated there is no permit in place to conduct the activities presently going on. He distributed the February 2008 approval letter for special exception and site plan citing condition  # 7 that the permit is valid for 5 years and expires 2/5/13 and must be renewed prior to expiration in order to continue activity. Activity has continued through the summer, eight months without a permit. During this time the State of CT issued a cease and desist order with dewatering of the site to which the applicant has complied. The hours of operation are typically dawn to dusk often including some weekends from 6:30 a.m. to 6 or 7 p.m. with very large excavation equipment filling two very large dump trucks, too large to be used on the street, with clay which travel back & forth all day.

Neighbors describe their houses shaking and that dust is an issue in dry months when dust storms are created. Dirt bikers and atv riders are attracted to the site. The security of the site needs to be addressed if equipment has to be brought in and out every day. The neighbors have shared their concerns with Redland and Attorney Needleman stated he also shared their concerns on August 7 with Mr. Miller and his engineer who acknowledged work taking place on weekends and stated they would investigate how to resolve the issues raised but they never heard back from Mr. Miller. They requested another meeting two weeks ago with applicant to minimize the issues prior to this public hearing and were told it would not happen.
The following is a list of requests:  that Redland Brick limit their hours of operation to weekdays 8 a.m. – 6 p.m., Saturdays 9 a.m. - 6 p.m. and no work on Sundays; that the excavators and truck be left on site to limit loud traffic and that there is monitoring of dust control for a reasonable balance; the permit be limited for one year given the issues involved to be a good neighbor; and they utilize security staff to control and reduce the attractive nuisance of the site’s attraction to dirt bike riders.

Attorney Needleman then stated they could not find record of the special exception from February 2005 ever being recorded in the land records as required by State Statute and as required by the approval letter making the activity that has taken place on site for the last five years and eight months not legal or, at least, not pursuant to a valid permit. He stated the applicant, wanting to move clay and gain income, has an obligation to take steps to work with his neighbors and comply with State Statute.

Mr. Walter Busto, 17 year resident of Strong Road, stated both he and his wife who grew up in their Strong Road home, each work two jobs and long hours. The noise is disturbing and he needs rest to provide safe operation of the vehicles he drives. He spoke with concern about the structure of the house built in the 1920’s stating he understands the need to mine but wants them to be reasonable and mindful of their neighbors.

Dr. Ramesh Hemnani, resident of Strong Road since 2000, stated in the last years the size of machines has changed and vibrations have increased. He, his wife and son find the dust unbearable stating it needs to be controlled.

Mr. Jim Poulin, 17 year resident of Strong Road, stated the noise has progressively been getting worse preventing them now from opening their windows. The first 13 years were not much of a problem but now is with the relocation of the travel road and the two to three acres they have permission to excavate next to their properties. He has met with the management of KF Brick more than once and he is hopeful they can come to an agreement. Mr. Poulin stated the noise is so bad they cannot sit outside at a picnic table and have a conversation and the new location that they are now allowed to dig is 400 feet from their property line.

Commissioner Wagner referenced the hours of operation from the noise ordinance as 7 a.m. – 10 p.m. except on Sunday 9 a.m. – 10 p.m. Attorney Hayes read from the updated noise ordinance from the town’s website as 7 a.m. – 8 p.m. everyday with Sunday hours as 9 a.m. – 8 p.m. Planner Lipe stated she has not yet spoken to the Town Attorney about whether the noise ordinance applies to this operation. Attorney Hayes stated the new ordinance reads exclusions and exemptions shall be in accordance with the regulations of the State Department of Environmental Protection. Back up alarms required by OSHA and sounds by mobile sources of noise from trucks are excluded in the State regulations. The commissioner stated he still wants to hear from the Town Attorney regarding the noise ordinance exceptions. He referenced the special meeting when the commissioners visited the site and asked why it is not possible to move the road back to the south side. Mr. Cunningham replied in 2007 and 2008 there was a major earth slump which took out 1,000 feet of the road and has not to date been stabilized for use and the road cannot be moved further into the wooded wetland area. Mr. Barry Miller described the site and wetlands in the area and stated if they were to relocate the road they would be driving three times as far. Commissioner Wagner asked Mr. Miller about comments about dust. Mr. Miller stated they have a water truck for dust which is used regularly. The site is also regulated by DEEP and OSHA with regular inspections by the mine safety association and has not had a violation with dust for eight years. Mr. Miller does not agree with neighbors complaints. The commissioner wants the business to succeed but also wants to address the impact on the neighbors with the issues of vibration and dust.

Attorney Hayes addressed comments from Attorney Needleman stating the requested restraints will not allow the business to go forward and that perception is not always reality. Mr. Conner, PE with GCHU Environmental was hired by Redland Brick to do vibration monitoring on property boundaries. The attorney distributed copies of the report to the commission (Exhibit C).  The summary of the vibration levels which were measured at several locations showed measurements 6 to 25 times lower than could cause structural damage. At these distances the vibrations are imperceptible and could not cause any structural damage to adjacent properties.

Commissioner Foley asked the facility manager to clarify the statement that they only hauled clay 8 days this year and if it took place on weekends. Mr. Cunningham stated the operation started on the weekends and confirmed they did only haul 8 days. The commissioner asked if the sound testing for vibrations had anything to do with the neighbor’s houses.
Commissioner Butter asked about heavy equipment moving on site, the maintenance of roads and moving of materials and the phasing of the operation.

Commissioner Marrero asked about the concerns raised by Attorney Needleman. Attorney Hayes stated they can not leave trucks and equipment on a 189 acre site overnight. The excavator works the day and leaves. It is a security issues with common keys for vehicles. Concerning dust generated from the site, Mr. Barry stated their water truck waters the road as needed, the vegetation catches the dust and we do a good job of watering the roads. The attorney stated when they are aware of trespassers on site the police are called and the property has been posted.

Commissioner Carroll asked what the required frequency and standard used for dust control measures. Attorney Hayes stated she is not aware of a standard but if they are not controlling dust Redland can be cited. She also stated the security issues of the site are not financially or physically feasible with the size of the site. The commissioner asked the planner what about the filing of the special exception which the planner will research and asked the plant manager about Sunday operations who answered weather permitting they do work on Sundays because there is a very limited window of time when they can dig clay without rain for the dry mining process.

Attorney Needleman requested to keep pubic hearing open stating this is the first time to hear of the vibration and sound study which they would like to review. Commissioner Carroll asked to consider meeting at the site with equipment in action to do testing there and on the abutting properties. Attorney Hayes stated their operations are shut down for this year until next spring.

Commissioner Foley made a motion to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Wilson seconded the motion.
The motion passed 6-1. Commissioners Wilson, Foley, Butter, Keuhnel, Carroll and Marrero voted in favor; Chairman Pacekonis voting against.
The Public Hearing closed at 11:35 p.m. and the meeting adjourned.

The Regular Meeting was never called to order.

Respectfully Submitted,
Lauren L Zarambo
Recording Secretary