Skip Navigation
 
This table is used for column layout.
 
PZC Minutes 06-23-15
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bart Pacekonis, Viney Wilson, Elizabeth Kuehnel, Frank Bonzani, Billy Carroll (arrived at 7:37 p.m.)
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Stephanie Dexter, Courtney King
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Lipe, Director of Planning; Lauren Zarambo, Recording Secretary

APPLICATIONS OFFICIALLY RECEIVED:
  • Appl. 15-32P, Town of South Windsor Orchard Hill Elementary School – request for a special exception to Table 3.1.1.A and site plan of development for a new 75,600 sf elementary school, on property located on the easterly side of Foster Street, westerly side of Arnold Way to be known as 380 Foster Street, A-30 zone  
  • Appl. 15-33P, Ticket Network Livestock Temporary and Conditional Permit - request for renewal of a 2-year temporary and conditional permit (Section 2013.a) for an animal agriculture permit to allow 64 chickens and 2 goats, on property located at 83 Gerber Road East, I zone
PUBLIC HEARING / COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Pacekonis called the Public Hearing to order at 7:30 p.m.

Commissioner Bonzani read the legal notice as it was published in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday, June 11, 2015 and Thursday, June 18, 2015.

Chairman Pacekonis appointed Alternate Commissioner King to be seated for Commissioner Marrero and Alternate Commissioner Dexter for Commissioner Foley.

Commissioner Wilson made a motion to take the agenda out of order.
Commissioner Kuehnel seconded the motion
The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.


  • PZC sponsored amendment to add Section 7.20 Solar Energy Systems to establish bulk regulations for both ground mounted and roof mounted systems; siting criteria and zoning process for both small scale and large scale solar systems; and add to Section 10.3 Definitions
Director of Planning, Michele Lipe, gave staff comments:

  • This PZC-sponsored amendment would add Section 7.20 Solar Energy Systems.  This regulations establishes bulk regulations for both ground, pole and roof mounted systems in residential and non-residential zones; defines criteria and the zoning process for the establishment of both small scale and large scale solar systems; adds specific solar definition to Section 10.3  and adds these uses to Residential Table 3.1.1 A and Industrial and Commercial Table 4.1.1A
Purpose defined in the regulations is “to promote the use of solar collectors ….subject to reasonable conditions that will protect the environment, public health, safety and welfare.”

  • Some of the specifics included in this regulation are:
  • Setbacks for solar as an accessory structures for both  residential and commercial zones;
  • Criteria and zoning process for small scale roof and ground mounted solar;
  • Criteria and zoning process for large scale solar systems (7 acre and larger is size).  The large scale solar projects have dimensional requirements, design standards, safety and environmental standards, and abandoning and decommissioning standards.
It should be noted that any system which will generate over 1 megawatt of power falls under the jurisdiction of the siting council. The siting council does require an applicant to submit the municipalities’ regulations with   their application, so consideration is given to the town’s regulations.

  • The regulation, for the most part, has been written to encourage solar and accessory structures as permitted in all zones and small scale solar by site plan in industrial zones and special exception in Residential zones. Large scale solar project would be permitted by special exception in industrial and RR residential zones.  The use table should reflect this.
  • A Special Exception gives an extra layer of protection because, by definition, it is a use that is just not suitable for every possible location within a zone. The Special Exception criteria are the guidelines for the circumstances under which the use is acceptable, and our Special Exception criteria include infrastructure capacity factors. Having said that, if an application meets the Special Exception criteria, it needs to be approved.
  • Thus, this zoning amendment application is the time to examine the potential impacts of the proposed amendment.  The Commission has the ability to modify a proposed zoning amendment, which means the Commission can add Special Exception criteria if you choose.
  • This text amendment supports one of the goals listed in the Utilities Section of Town Plan of Conservation and Development which states:
D| Plan for Alternative Energy
Many municipalities are turning to alternative energy sources for municipal facilities and encouraging the private sector to install alternative energy sources. South Windsor has seen interest in the use of solar energy: individuals have installed solar panels on their properties and the Town has received inquiries about larger installations. The Town should ensure that it has proper provisions in the Zoning Regulations to allow appropriate alternative energy installations and to manage any potential impacts. The Route 5 corridor might offer opportunities for alternative energy projects. The Town should also explore renewable energy opportunities for municipal facilities.

  • We did send this amendment to CRCOG as required. A report has been submitted to be read into the record.
If this application is approved, the Planning Department has the following modification to request:

Clarify Section 7.20.4 Ground Mounted Small Solar Energy Systems that this use is allowed in RR and A zones by Special Exception/Site Plan approval

Councilor Steve Wagner, spoke as an individual in favor of the amendment as resident of Tumblebrook Drive, Town Council liaison to the PZC, and Energy Committee Chairman. The comprehensive draft addresses small and large solar projects. Large projects are to be encouraged but can be controlled with clear rules to follow. Mr. Wagner stated both Section 7.20.4 Paragraph A on page 2 and Section 7.22.7, Paragraph C on page 4 set a height limit of 12’ which is an appropriate starting point but solar can be combined with agriculture if the panels are mounted high enough where hay or grazing can take place beneath with due consideration to neighbors and setbacks. Amendments can be proposed as projects come in. Mr. Wagner complemented the Director, staff and Commission for its forward thinking on renewable energy systems.

No one from the public spoke in opposition to the amendment.

Commissioner King agreed with Mr. Wagner in waiting to make amendments until the need arises.

Commissioner Kuehnel asked for the Director of Planning’s opinion. Ms. Lipe answered variation to the 12’ panel height can be addressed in the future as necessary. All locations will not support a 20’ height especially near residential areas.

Commissioner Dexter asked how seven acres were determined for large scale solar installations. Ms. Lipe stated typically seven acres is the size for a one megawatt system.

Chairman Pacekonis noted corrections to the numbering of the sections.  

Commissioner Bonzani read the report from CRCOG which found no conflicts with regional plans, policies or neighboring towns.

Director of Planning Lipe encouraged approval of the regulations as drafted and to see how they work. Existing sections of the regulations will address properties which cross municipal borders and buffering requirements.
Chairman Pacekonis closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m.


  • PZC sponsored public hearing to review Section 6.5 Signs – to gather community input as to effectiveness of existing regulations
Director of Planning Lipe gave staff comments:

  • There are a couple of sign issues that recur with some frequency that we would like to bring to the PZC attention and should be addressed. This can take the form of sign regulations, revisions, or a clear message from the Commission that the Commission is satisfied with certain existing provisions and is not troubled by the enforcement of these provisions.  
  • Areas where we encounter difficulties include:
  • Temporary signage for non-profit organizations. We currently allow temporary signage for non-profit organizations up to 60 days before an event. Temporary signs of any size are allowed provided they have the property owner signatures. We have run into issues where these signs are not really for an event – rather just advertising an organization and multiple signs end up on many street corners.  We would suggest limiting these signs to 30 days – usually adequate time for announcing an upcoming event.  
  • In Section 6.5.5 Illuminated Signs Section D Lighted Outdoor Advertising Signs, the regulations prohibit outdoor advertising that are internally lit unless dark backgrounds are used – e.g. does not allow a white plastic cabinet because if the tendency to become very brightly lit boxes. However, we find that this is a popular sign type.  We would suggest allowing white boxes with the requirement of a certain percentage of opaque screening that would lessen the intensity.  Also, we have recently permitted to message boards – Dairy Queen and Nomads.  Currently there are no specific requirements related to brightness or frequency of the changing message.  These items could be regulated.
  • In Section 6.5.9 Signs in Buckland Gateway Zone – The PZC recently interpreted the Development Identification Sign to allow the inclusion of signage for Apartments and Hotel – not just a single Development as referenced in the Regulations.
  • In reviewing variance requests since the last update in 2011 and found that we have received three requests.  Two were for larger signs and denied for lack of hardship.  Third request which was approved was to allow a sign along Route 5 to be taller than the permitted 10 feet.
  • Significant changes made with last update included: Advertisement signs on bus shelters that allows (2) two 4’ X 6’. The CT Transit bus-shelter program should get underway this summer and those signs should start to appear, reduction in days temporary signs permitted to 60 days limiting and limited the total square footage permitted, allowance of 2 sf per lineal foot of frontage for signage in industrial and commercial zones.
No one from the public made comments.   

Commissioner Dexter referenced Section 6.5.4.J and asked the meaning of when identification style signs are no longer functional and whether the section regulates signs no longer identifying current tenants. Ms. Lipe clarified it pertains to maintaining the sign in working order. Signs are regulated in terms of size and location but not in terms of content.

Commissioner Kuehnel voiced support for the Director’s suggestions and asked if language had been written.

Commissioner Bonzani agreed especially concerning time limitations on message board signage.

Commissioner Wilson asked about illuminated signs on residential property. The Director stated if brightness is an issue they can be asked to turn it down.

Commissioner Carroll suggested the change on temporary signs from 60 to 30 days might start with 45 days.

Commissioner King asked when signs are refaced if a secondary permit could be required. Ms. Lipe stated presently a sign permitted once can reface without a permit and voiced support for permitting for all new signs including those to be refaced. Commissioner King asked if the regulations are affected by the recent Supreme Court ruling. Ms. Lipe replied signage for places of worship is allowed and that the regulations will be reviewed for any legal implications.

Chairman Pacekonis inquired about temporary tag sale signs. Ms. Lipe stated that they are not allowed or regulated. Typically tag sales take place over a weekend during which signs are put up and taken down. Placing signs on utility poles is illegal. The Chairman asked for the word ‘and’ removed from Section 6.5.4.P. He then began a conversation with the Director of Planning about non conforming signs.

The Director of Planning will craft a draft to send to CRCOG and return to the Commission for a work session on the changes discussed.

The Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:07 p.m.

Commissioner Wilson left the meeting at 8:09 p.m.

REGULAR MEETING / MADDEN ROOM

CALL TO ORDER: The Chairman opened the Regular Meeting at 8:10 p.m.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:

Mr. Bob Dickinson submitted information concerning Orchard Hill School which the Director of Planning received to be distributed at the public hearing on July 28th.

NEW BUSINESS: Discussion/Decision/Action regarding the following:

  • Preliminary discussion with Evergreen Walk, LLC regarding Units 3 and 8 at Evergreen Walk
Attorney Christopher Smith of Shipman & Goodwin, LLP representing Evergreen Walk, LLC began the informal discussion by introducing Mr. Alan Lamson, president of FLB Architecture and Planning.

Mr. Lamson described a potential institutional use for Unit 3 of Evergreen Walk located on eight acres immediately west of Old Navy and down the hill. He showed a hypothetical drawing of a continuum of care facility which would include independent living for older people, assisted living, and skilled nursing care. Current regulations in the Buckland Road Gateway Zone already allow institutional uses and assisted living by special exception. The independent living component, as part of the continuum, could be considered part of the institutional use. By acquiring a unit in the facility, as one would purchase a house, and then paying a monthly maintenance fee, a person could move in as a healthy older adult and not have to move as they transition to assisted living and onto skilled nursing care. The one use with three components would be a unique living facility in South Windsor and would create employment opportunities for the varied staff required.

Chairman Pacekonis stated the gateway zone was designed for economic development and asked how the facility would fit into that idea. Mr. Lamson replied besides the employment created, the independent and assisted living community would be generating commerce and foot traffic in Evergreen Walk and the area. The Chairman asked if the use could dominant the area. The Director of Planning commented it would be market driven and controlled by the market. Attorney Smith stated an economic impact study can be submitted as part of an application if requested by the Commission. Commissioners discussed the idea and gave consensus to move ahead with the idea as a permitted institutional use.

Mr. Lamson then described Unit 8 consisting of eight acres between Unit 3 and Town Square at Evergreen Walk as a potential site for 70 to 80 condominium town houses to be built. Mr. Lamson and Attorney Smith recommended using an overlay zone which would maintain the underlying gateway zone regulations and be amended for the specific area. The Commission would retain legislative control, through the public hearing process, as to whether the location is appropriate for the zone change.

Chairman Pacekonis summarized the approach as the ability to put a residential development anywhere in the gateway zone as an overlay zone. Given that the gateway zone was brought forward with economic development in mind, he questioned whether the residential described would be a big economic driver with an impact on town services, schools, and bussing.

Commissioner Dexter brought up the apartments under construction at Town Square. Ms. Lipe stated they are being built under the requirements for the 2 to 1 square footage ratio of residential construction to commercial construction of the hotel and office space. The early Commissions’ concerns were always that the gateway zone would turn in to a big residential community and is why residential was originally kept out of the gateway zone regulations.   

Commissioner Carroll expressed concern about drifting away from the original spirit and intent of the preceding commissions for Evergreen Walk and the 2:1 ratio. Commissioner King asked if the overlay zone could retain the ratio. Ms. Lipe stated it was not the intent of this proposal. Commissioner Kuehnel stated neither the regulation nor how it is done is the issue but whether it is wanted there.

Attorney Smith continued to speak about the options of an overlay zone and residential as a complementary use for economic benefit. He asked for the Commission’s guidance on their perspective.

Chairman Pacekonis urged the idea to be considered slowly in order to allow the residential and hotel components of Evergreen Walk to develop and opened the floor to the Commissioners.

Commissioner Carroll asked what type of development is envisioned for the eight acres. Mr. Lamson answered 70 to 80 unit townhouses. Commissioner Bonzani referenced the housing at Blue Back Square and foot traffic and shopping generated. Commissioner King noted more town services would then be needed. Chairman Pacekonis asked if the land was suited for a medical office building. Mr. Lamson stated the medical offices prefer to be located in the northern end.

  • PZC sponsored public hearing to review Section 6.5 Signs – to gather community input as to effectiveness of existing regulations
The Commission gave consensus to go forward to craft an amendment for the PZC’s consideration.

  • PZC sponsored amendment to add Section 7.20 Solar Energy Systems to establish bulk regulations for both ground mounted and roof mounted systems; siting criteria and zoning process for both small scale and large scale solar systems; and add to Section 10.3 Definitions
Commissioner King made a motion to approve the amendment (Exhibit A) with the conditions:

  • The Commission finds the amendment in conformance with the Town Plan of Conservation and Development.
  • Effective date of 7/5/15.
Commissioner Kuehnel seconded the motion
The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.

BONDS: Callings/Reductions/Settings

  • Appl. 11-29P, CREC Magnet School Landscaping Bond in the amount of $20,000 to be reduced by $10,000 to leave a balance of $10,000.
Commissioner Kuehnel made a motion to reduce the above mentioned bond. Commissioner Bonzani seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.

  • Appl. 11-29P, CREC Magnet School IWA/CC E&S Bond in the amount of $30,000 to be reduced by $30,000 to leave a balance of -0-.
  • Appl. 11-29P, CREC Magnet School IWA/CC stormwater Bond in the amount of $15,000 to be reduced by $15,000 to leave a balance of -0-.
Commissioner Kuehnel made a motion to reduce the above mentioned bonds. Commissioner King seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.

MINUTES: 5/26/15 adopted by consensus. 6/9/15 adopted with changes by consensus.

OLD BUSINESS:   see page 2

OTHER BUSINESS:  

CORRESPONDENCE / REPORTS:

ADJOURNMENT:

Motion to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 9:22 p.m. was made by Commissioner Dexter
Seconded by Commissioner Kuehnel
The motion carried and the vote was unanimous.

Respectfully Submitted,
Lauren L Zarambo
Recording Secretary