Planning and Zoning Commission
40 Old Farms Road Willington, CT 06279
May 21, 2013 – 7:30 PM
Meeting Minutes
Roll Call
Members Present:
Andrew Marco – Chairman
Thomas Murphy
Phil Nevers
Doug Roberts - Alternate
Members Absent:
Edward Standish, Vice Chairman- excused
Walter Parsell, Secretary - excused
John Sullivan - excused
James Poole - excused
Also Present:
Susan Yorgensen – Planner-Zoning/Wetlands Agent
Mark Branse – Land Use Attorney
Caleb Hamel, from Branse/Willis firm
Public Hearing
Chairman Marco called the Public Hearing to order at 7:30 and noted this Public Hearing was continued from May 7, 2013. D. Roberts was seated for J. Sullivan.
PZC2013-8 Application for Special Permit for a 15 acre rear lot to build a single family dwelling with barn/garage located on the north side of Tolland Turnpike/Rt 74 across from Glass Factory Road and shown on the Town Assessor’s (Map 29 Lot 7 Zone R 80 Owner/Applicant: Mark Marquis (Received March 19, 2013 Public Hearing April 16, 2013 continued to May 7, 2013 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)
Richard Mihok and Attorney Joe Capasella were present for the applicant. Atty. Capasella commented on the parcel in the back owned by the Frasers and said he does not believe they have 25 feet. The Frasers actually have no fee owned access. He said the Frasers got a permit to build a house 20 years ago and his client is looking to do the same thing on the parcel he purchased 6 months ago. Atty. Capasella said the map they are showing has 26.12 feet frontage and he believes they comply with the regulations.
Mr. Mihok said he contacted the state DOT and will meet and review the existing and proposed sightline with the DOT during the next week. He said they have over 550 feet of sightline from the existing driveway or from the separate driveway if a short section of wall within the DOT right of way was removed.
Mr. Mihok presented the profile of the existing driveway that accesses the two existing houses and said the slope of the existing driveway apron exceeds 18%. He then showed a profile he drew of a new driveway apron and said they would then be in conformance with the town driveway regulations.
Chairman Marco commented on the questions asked at the previous meeting and said Mr. Mihok had yet to comment on the engineers report as it was only received that day. Mr. Mihok said the comments do not apply to the proposal presented and they are now proposing to use the existing driveway so they don’t have to make the sharp turn and will be 90 degrees to 74; the driveway will be within the strip shown and half is owned in fee simple by his client. A discussion was held and Mr. Mihok said 25 feet of the driveway is owned by his client fee simple.
Atty. Branse asked if the drawing carried an A-2 Land Surveyor Seal and Mr. Mihok said yes. Ms. Yandow addressed the Commission and said her parents own the front lot and said her sister and brother-in-law own the lot behind her parents. She said the lot was a building lot which was conveyed before the regulations in 1969/1970 and is different than the lot that is being discussed today. Ms. Yandow presented the lots on the map and said the map originally submitted had some problems and was not the map that was deeded and believes misrepresentations were made. Ms. Yandow referenced 4.08.04.05 and 18.01.01 regarding the division of land and said you cannot convey a non-conforming piece of property. She said if the Commission allows this to happen, it sets precedent for people to make boundary lines in the back of
their property for non-conforming lots and sell them.
Ms. Yandow commented on the driveway and the regulation which was discussed at the last meeting regarding only one dwelling allowed on a rear lot and said there are currently two dwellings and already a dwelling on the rear lot. She said she also has a copy of the engineer’s report which was entered into the record at the last hearing and read point number three regarding required easements and questioned whether or not it is relevant to this application with the new map.
Further discussion was held on regulation 4.02.01 and 8.01.01, the lot and the map on file. Chairman Marco said there is conflicting information submitted and needs to be defined. Discussion was held on the minutes from 1990 and subsequent meeting minutes. Atty. Capasella asked if the Fraser lot pre-existed for a long time and Ms. Yandow said yes, the lot was conveyed to a family cousin in the 1950’s by her grandmother.
Chairman Marco asked Ms. Yandow if there was any question on the deeded driveway. Ms. Yandow said there is an easement and although she did not look at it, she assumes it is in the town records.
Ted Vonasek, of Tolland Turnpike, referenced regulations 4.18.04.05, no rear lot driveway shall service more than one dwelling, and said it seems pretty black and white. Atty. Capasella said there are some questions on whether it is a road or a driveway because, theoretically, the two homes are using the driveway that comes off 74 right now. He said he thinks when the Frasers came to the Selectman in 1990; they were looking for permission to use the road. William Fraser lives in the rear lot and said the reason they came to the Selectman wasn’t because there was a question on whether they owned the building lot; the question was how they were going to access the road. He said the town was never clear on whether or not the Old Johnson Road had been abandoned and finally after a lot of research, paying a lot of
people and going through the town records they found in 1899 it had been abandoned. At that point they came back to the Selectman and they agreed the road was abandoned and said they could use the road if they get easements for all parties involved to access the existing building lot. Atty. Capasella said they want the same rights on the other side of the abandoned road. Ms. Yandow said except that the lot is different.
Atty. Branse said the sections Ms. Yandow cited involve creating an illegal lot and his questions is, for what the applicant is filing for is there something in the rear lot regulation that is not complied with? Ms. Yandow said this would be a second rear lot and Mr. Vonasek referenced 4.18.04.05, no rear lot driveway shall service more than one dwelling. Further discussion was held on the application and drawing before the Commission. Atty. Branse added that Mr. Mihok said they are capable of doing 2 separate driveways but it is not shown on the drawing and Atty. Capasella said you could consider the driveway to start from the old abandoned road. Chairman Marco said if you had a new driveway with a new right of way from 74, we would not be having this discussion. Atty. Branse said if the applicant had a 25 foot
deeded strip and a separate driveway serving the rear lot then it would be in compliance.
Further discussion was held on the maps and the division of the lots. Discussion was held on the application denied in 1991. Atty. Branse said the plan presented tonight doesn’t comply with the current regulations but Mr. Mihok has stated he can change it so that it will and questioned whether two driveways side by side would comply with the current regulations. Ms. Yandow asked if the driveway would stay the same width with the same slope. Atty. Branse added the applicant would have to get approval from the DOT to approve two driveways side by side entering onto the state travelled way. Ms. Yandow asked if the new plan would have to go to the Town Engineer or if the engineer’s report submitted is still valid. Atty. Branse asked the applicant; if there are two separate driveways serving each rear, is
there still a violation of the current regulation in this application and Mr. Mihok said no. Ms. Yandow added the conveyance shouldn’t have happened because it had been denied. Mr. Mihok said the map would not have been on file if it did not meet the standards at that time.
Mr. Vonasak said one of the regulations stated you cannot cut in a driveway within 75 feet of an intersection and there is currently a road across from the driveway now. Mr. Mihok said, as a traffic engineer for 20 plus years he can say with conviction that applies to driveways on the same side of the road, not across the road.
Chairman Marco said the Commission would only approve, deny or modify the application as submitted and further discussion was held on the application submitted. Mr. Marquis said he owns the rear lot and asked, when the Frasers lot was approved was a permit pulled, and was it determined a rear lot? Chairman Marco said they have to look at the current regulations.
Mr. Mihok said he would like to keep the Public Hearing open to present new plans and show a separate driveway. S. Yorgensen commented that Mr. Marquis had asked her about the Fraser lot and she told him it was an interior lot. Atty. Branse asked if there was a legal difference and she said there was at the time. The Public Hearing was continued to June 4, 2013, 7:30 pm, at the Town Office Building.
PZC2013- 14 Application for a modification to Special Permit consisting of changes to drainage and relocation of access drive (preliminary & final approved site development plan) at 264 Ruby Road east side of CT RTE 320 1mile south of I-84 Exit 71(Map 42 Lot 49A Zone DI) Owner: Ruby Road Development LLC/ Applicant: Green Hill Recycling & Landscaping Products, LLC (Received April 16, 2013 Public Hearing May 21, 2013 decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)
Russell Heintz, of Tarbell Heintz and Associates, was present for the applicant. He said signs were posted; notifications were sent out and submitted for the record. Mr. Heintz said 6 plus acreage was approved for a recycling facility. Subsequently the abutting owner to the north (Ruby Road General Partnership) appealed the decision and while going to court, Green Hills continued their application with DEEP and was approved for the facility. Since that time, they settled out of court and it was agreed Green Hills would purchase 15 acres of land from Ruby Road General Partnership. Mr. Heintz said once they owned the 15 acres, it made more sense to relocate the driveway 120 feet to the north with a better sightline and access. He said the drainage will have very little change; they did take some of the
drainage and put it into two small detention basins to eliminate some of the existing drainage. He showed the landscaping on the plans and said part of the agreement is to provide an 80 foot non-construction buffer and plant with seedlings. Mr. Heintz said there is also no mining of material off the property for 10 years and in 10 years, if they come back with another plan, it will be fully wooded and landscaped.
Mr. Heintz gave a quick overview of the land and said they are now able to reconfigure the land so they do not have to cut as much fill out; there will be 1 ½ tiers rather than 3 so it will be even more secluded from view from the street. Mr. Heintz said there will be no changes to the building locations, only the driveway. Chairman asked if this is final plan to be submitted and Mr. Heintz said yes. Atty. Branse asked if there were any new landscape sales, storage or other activities proposed at this time and Mr. Heintz said no, only the driveway and drainage. He said there is some temporary equipment currently on site to get the site in order but it is not part of the plan. A discussion was held on the staging area and Mr. Heintz said it is not a staging area, it is a storage area but they will move it. S.
Yorgensen clarified that the 15 acre piece will have some landscaping per the stipulated agreement and the landscaping along the old original northern border will be gone. She also told Mr. Heintz that all equipment on the 15 acre piece must be removed immediately. Mr. Heintz said they would do that.
T. Murphy motioned to close the Public Hearing. P. Nevers seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried.
PZC2013-3 Application for Zone Change from R80 zone to Design Commercial (DC) zone at 00 Polster Road & 3 Polster Road & 00 Polster Road (Map 46 Lots 16 & 17) Owner: Joseph & Frank Malack Applicant: Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores (Received February 19, 2013 Public Hearing April 16, 2013 continued to May 7, 2013 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)
PZC2013-4 Application for Special Permit for motor vehicle fuel sales, tire repair and replacement, retail trade and two restaurants (Travel Stop) at 00 Polster Road & 3 Polster Road (Map 46 Lots 16 & 17) Owner: Joseph & Frank Malack Applicant: Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores (Received February 19, 2013 Public Hearing April 16, 2013 continued to May 7, 2013 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)
Atty. Leonard Jacobs addressed the Commission and said they are still waiting for the engineering reports. He said the one of the questions asked was on who you go to first, ZBA or PZC. Atty. Jacobs referenced Supreme Court Case, Sun Oil Company vs. the ZBA of Town of Hamden, and they said the approval of the permit comes first and after the permit is approved, you go to ZBA for a Certificate of Approval.
Atty. Jacobs referenced section 4.23 of the Zoning Regulations that were modified December 15, 2012. He said section 4.23, Riparian Corridors, is intended to protect the watercourses and states that no public buildings, parking or septic systems shall be proposed within 150 feet and to measure from the side of the watercourse; he said they do not have anything within 150 feet and are in compliance. He said he asked about this at the time and was told by the Planner that this was correct.
Atty. Jacobs said the total site is 40 acres and are developing 31% of the site with 69% undeveloped and the project will not have any impact on the rivers or any adverse impact on the natural resources.
Atty. Jacobs said Mark Vertucci has an extensive history of doing traffic reports and his resume is on file. He touched on the comments regarding errant trucks and said anyone coming down the highway, westbound, will see the site, go 400 feet to the site and then will swing around and back on the highway. Atty. Jacobs said this will improve the current situation with TA. He also said there has been a lot of discussion about Polster Road, but it is not anything they are causing. Atty. Jacobs commented on the hump on Polster Road which Willington Public Works asked them to eliminate so they will lower Polster Road and take the hump out.
Atty. Jacobs said they are in compliance with Section 13.03.03 regarding water supplies and have to go to DEEP for approval and cannot do the project if they do not get approval. He said Fuss & O’Neill has written a letter, which is in the file that states the applicant is in compliance with all of the state requirements. Atty. Jacobs said they are also in compliance with Section 13.03.01, soil testing and percolation, and will also have to go to the state for approval but cannot go to the state until they get approval on the local level.
Atty. Jacobs commented on the letters from the Trout Association and the Fly Fisherman and said they are at least 350 feet from the river with anything they are doing and are 500 feet from the river with the project. He said with those distances, they are not going to be harming the river. Atty. Jacobs said they were first denied by IWWC and had to go back before them and they would never have approved an application if they thought there was any chance the applicant would hurt the rivers. His last comment was on WRCOG who submitted a report into the file date 2013 and stated the property the applicant wants to change is a priority conservation area. He said WRCOG’s advisory opinion doesn’t carry a great deal of weight because in Nov of 2009 they identified Ruby Road interchange as a commercial road and
added his applicants proposal for Exit 71 is compatible. He said everyone is entitled to their opinion but they have satisfied all the requirements and ultimately it is up to PZC to make the decision.
Tom Galeota addressed the Commission and responded to the public’s questions from the last hearing. He said many of the comments made at the May 7th hearing were the same as the comments/questions addressed from the April 16th meeting. He addressed the comment regarding retaining walls and presented the area on the plans. Mr. Galeota said they will have to cut on the uphill side and fill on the lower side to create a developable plateau. He said in the last hearing he said there was about 38 feet of difference between the parking lot and to the face of the bottom retaining wall and the public said there was more of a difference. Mr. Galeota said if you go down the slope there is more; if you take the difference between the bottom of the slope and the detention basin and back to the parking lot,
it is 48 feet. He said the retaining walls are there to hold the disturbance of development to a minimum. T. Murphy asked where the access road will go and Mr. Galeota said it ends on the flat spot on the berm.
Mr. Galeota said the next comment was from Kathy Demers regarding environmental concerns and will be addressed by Josh Wilson, a Professional Wetland Scientist, at the next Public Hearing. He submitted for the record a Wetland Assessment Report dated October 2011 prepared by Josh Wilson and a Letter of Responses dated Feb. 2012.
Mr. Galeota said the grade within 150 feet or so of Rte. 320 is an acceptable grade and they will be widening 320 and putting in storm drainage. He showed the portion of Polster Road they are planning to excavate, lower the hump and widen. Atty. Branse asked if the things that Mr. Galeota is describing, such as drainage, are on the plans and Mr. Galeota said they will resubmit plans in a day or two. Mr. Galeota said the preliminary design of the septic system discussed with DEEP can be found in the Preliminary Subsurface Wastewater Absorption System Design Report submitted as part of the application.
Mr. Galeota presented the building elevations/designs and said the style of the building was discussed with members of the town when Love’s first came to town.
Mark Vertucci presented a turn movement chart and said the off ramp at the intersection of 320 has been designed by the DOT to provide adequate turn radii for truck maneuvers and has been designed with sufficient sight distance for a vehicle pulling out from the off ramp. He said they have taken a WB67 truck and run the turn movements for each of the intersections. Mr. Vertucci will submit the chart for the record. He said there was another comment on the stop sign on Mihaliak Road and comments on trucks from TA crossing the center road. Mr. Vertucci said the stop sign is proposed to address an existing sight distance deficiency and said it is typical of towns or DOT to not be aware of existing deficiencies. He said as far as cars and trucks crossing the center line, they are designed by CONNDOT and they have
indicated trucks are able to make the turns without encroachment on the center line and the intersections are designed to industry standards. He said the intersections are state owned and maintained ones and they (the applicant) will have to apply for an encroachment permit and DOT will look at the intersections and make comments on whether or not they feel they are inadequate.
Mr. Vertucci said they are not proposing any improvements along Rte. 320 but are proposing grading near the northwest corner of the Polster Road and Rte. 320 intersection. He also showed the area they are clearing and proposing to trim the trees and brush.
S. Yorgensen said Brian Murphy from the Fisheries Division of DEEP, was contacted by Kathy Demers of the Conservation Commission and asked to do an evaluation of the project for the PZC application. He said he would only do it if requested by PZC but they would not see any information from him until June 21’st at the earliest. A discussion was held on the timeline. The Commission took a vote and majority ruled; they would like the study conducted.
Karen Bradley said everyone may be pro-development but they do not want 24/7, 365 days a year truck stop, they want something less. She expressed her concern on errant trucks and extensive signage and Ms. Bradley referred to sections of the POCD and said they need to preserve and protect the environment.
Atty. Branse said no zoning commission is pro-development or anti-development, they are to apply the criteria of the zoning regulations. He said the property owner has the right to use their property but only in ways outlined by the law.
Chairman Marco said the Plan of Conservation and Development recommends that the corridor of Commercial development be along I-84 and one of the applications before them is for commercial property. He said this Commission is not pro or con.
Ms. Bradley referenced 4.2.2 and added the Commission is also here to reduce the impact of truck traffic.
Melissa Miller said there is a 488 acres parcel surrounding the Fed Ex facility on the eastside of Turnpike Road which is Zoned Industrial Designed; she asked if it would make more sense to make that area commercial? She said she believes this would limit errant traffic and added, on the other side of the highway, there are not any houses within 2/10 of a mile of the existing facility. Ms. Miller expressed her concerns on the natural resources and asked for the information on the Sun Oil Case mentioned earlier. She complemented Love’s on the beautiful building presented by Mr. Galeota but expressed her concerns on the animal habitat, water supply, safety, and devaluation of properties. Ms. Miller asked what guarantees the applicant will not apply for other things on the property and what would guarantee
the retaining walls will protect the site from spills.
Scott Wing expressed his concerns on fumes and took exception on Fuss & O’Neill stating there is a new diesel fuel coming out; you have to look at today. He said his property is within 500 feet of the fumes and expressed his concern on the fumes building up in the valley. Mr. Wing said a lot of truck drivers can’t read signs because they can’t read English because a lot of them are from Canada. Mr. Wing said the applicant previously submitted an application in Enfield, withdrew and questioned why. He said the super high intensity use for this parcel is wrong.
Atty. Branse said the site for the Sun Oil Case is 154 Connecticut 32.
Kim Kowalyshyn, Chairman of the Economic Development Commission, made the following statement:
I have attended both meetings since this public hearing began and I have heard all the reasons why Love’s Travel Stop shouldn’t come to Willington. Some of them are: it will be too noisy, the truckers throw trash all over the place, the truckers get lost and damage property when trying to turn around, the ramp is too short and trucks can’t stop, they will be endangering the wetlands, they will create more traffic and congestion on our roads and they will displace the wildlife that lives on the property. I understand their concerns but I look at things differently. I think the truck stop will generate some noise but the highway itself is noisy. I don’t think that the truckers should be blamed for all the trash on the sides of the roads. In April I cleaned up a two mile stretch of road
from Lindsey Lane to Sharps Mill Road, which I have done the past two years, and collected 9 garbage bags of trash and it’s not from the truckers. I think that fewer trucks will be getting lost and damaging people’s property because Love’s will be visible from the highway and when they get off the ramp. I think that the ramp being too short is a concern, a concern that the state needs to address but trucks will still be getting off the ramp even if Love’s isn’t there. I think that if Love’s was endangering the wetlands then the Inland Wetlands Commission would not have approved their application. I think that displacing wildlife should be a concern for everyone, so does that mean no one should build a new home? I think the traffic and congestion will increase some, but we all have to deal with some traffic. I lived on Schofield Road for 14 years and there were days it would take me 5 minutes to back out of my
driveway because of the traffic. I can tell you why I think it would benefit Willington if Love’s application is approved; they will boost our economy by creating jobs (about 39), they will bring in tax revenues and it is easy on and easy off the highway. Please look around Willington; have you notices how many businesses are now closed? My family and I went on a road trip to Indian and happened to stop for gas at a Love’s Travel Stop. It was very clean and there were no traffic jams. I even have pictures if you would like to see them. I support Love’s Travel Stop coming to Willington. I am also Chairman of the Economic Development Commission and based on the information provided, we support Love’s Travel Stop coming to Willington.
Janice Angrisani asked if Love’s will allow overnight parking and asked the policy on idling trucks. She also asked for Love’s storm water plan during construction and commented that a review by DEEP was needed. Chairman Marco said he believes the questions were answered earlier but the applicant will address that at a later date. A discussion was held on the storm water plan and if approval had been received.
Atty. Branse said it is a storm water discharge permit and in order to go to DEEP, they need to have a final plan; the plan is moving in this proceeding from questions/comments from the town officials and the public. He said that is normally one of the last things you do which is apply for a general permit.
Dean Palotti, of Turnpike Road, said he is not opposed to development but opposed to this project; another truck stop. He said he is concerned about the trucks not following the signage and accidents. Mr. Palotti questioned Mr. Vertucci’s statement of one accident in 3 years and said he has witnessed more than that.
Alfred Angrisani, of Lohse Road, said he is concerned about lights, noise and air pollution. He asked who is responsible for structural road maintenance should Polster Rd. not stand up to the truck traffic. Atty. Branse said if it is a town road the town maintains the road.
Brian Semprebon said he had two issues, the first being the water supply and the water supply report; he said the location and number of wells on the report were excluded. He said the water supply of special exception has not been address. The second was concerning the Riparian Corridors and the adjacent wetlands that Atty. Jacobs referenced earlier; he expressed his concern on the wetlands adjacent at the bottom of the wall and believes it is, in fact, adjacent to Roaring Brook.
Daniel Donahue, of Ashford, CT, submitted a document of his testimony for the record; the document is on file in the Zoning Office. In his testimony, he provided information on the jurisdiction of the IWWC and the role of the IWWC and PZC in regards to environmental considerations as well as information on Section 4.23, “Riparian Corridors”, Section 13.05.12.09, “Appropriateness of Use” and Section 4.5.1 of POCD which states “The identification and prioritization of the relative value of natural resources that exist in Willington is an important consideration in planning future development”.
Mr. Donahue provided detailed information on the subject properties natural resource values including the Nipmuck State Forest, Roaring Brook, and wetlands on the site. In closing he said” The dramatic changes in land use, land cover and the landscape itself that this application proposes warrant the PZC’ s highest level of review, including a thorough exploration of what the “relative value of natural resources’ means in this case. I remain convinced that the subject parcel is simply insufficient to support the proposed change in land use.”
Don Berg, of Red Oak Hill, expressed his concern on the run-off from the black top especially on a hot sunny day; it will discharge a lot of warm water. He said he is also concerned about watercourses including bogs and swampy areas, not just the running body of water.
Ralph Tulis, of Lohse Road, expressed his concern on water supply and asked the question at the last public hearing and they said they may not utilize a water company. He referenced zoning regulation 13.03.06 and said a water company can be an individual or company; anyone who is supplying water to 25 or more persons but not 25 or more residences. He said no application for special permit or exception involving such a water company shall be deemed complete without the certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. Mr. Tulis said the applicant needs to submit the certificate with this application, not after the fact.
Mr. Tulis referenced 4.23 and 16.02.06, cut and fill, should not exceed 3 to 1 slopes and said every tier on the retaining wall is at a 2 to 1 slope; he questioned how they would maintain it. He expressed his concern on vegetation growing on the slope and questioned how the applicant will mow the grass. Mr. Tulis referenced 15.06.06 in regards to lowering Polster Road and he believes they are going to hit bedrock; he asked if the applicant has done borings to see if they are going to hit bedrock.
Mr. Tulis said the applicant stated they cannot go to DEEP on the Subsurface Waste Absorbance System until they get the PZC’s approval but does not believe that is a requirement; it’s a preference. He believes the application is incomplete for storm water and potable water and he feels the site plan is inaccurate in respect to grading per the regulations. Mr. Tulis asked if DEEP saw the revised plans currently presented and questioned if DEEP saw the proximity to Roaring Brook or the connectivity between the site and the wetlands.
Mr. Tulis said he will submit a letter and video to the commission regarding his concerns on traffic. He commented TA is visible westbound on 84 once you get over the crest of the hill but when you get off the highway, most people are not attentive enough and miss the turns.
Mr. Tulis said he spoke to the Town of Willington Assessor and the tax revenue is about 40 grand per year but he does not know if the 40 grand covers the future maintenance on Polster Road. He said he does see a radical change to the terrain for very little return.
Mr. Tulis expressed his concern on the truck pavement, road geometry, and the timeline of when the entire interchange was designed. He questioned what would trigger a DOT or SDC review of this project because it is not the number of parking spaces in which 200 space are required. Mr. Tulis questioned the number of parking spaces because he believes they went up.
Atty. Branse asked Mr. Tulis to submit his questions in writing so the applicant can respond at the next meeting. He said he would send his questions/comments to S. Yorgensen to distribute to the applicant.
Kathy Demers, of the Conservation Commission, asked that when discussing the POCD, broad statements not be made but specific sections and pages be quoted. She questioned changes in the road plan, storm drainage and clearing for line of sight and asked if this needs to go back to IWWC because there are wetlands that will be impacted by changing the line of clearings.
Nancy Gauthier questioned why Love’s went to ZBA and asked for a change in the waste water discharge and change in the septic; closer to the wetlands. She said she believes if they got a change they should go back before IWWC. S. Yorgensen said they requested a variance from ZBA and what they were requesting is what IWWC did approve. She said, at that time, PZC made a change to their regulation meaning ultimately that they did not need the variance; IWWC saw what they proposing the entire time. Ms. Gautier said she would like to request a public hearing from DEEP. She also expressed her concern on air quality. S. Yorgensen said that if it got that far, Ms. Gauthier could request that DEEP hold a hearing.
Mr. Tulis referenced GI-102 pertaining to his question regarding soil testing in the brook and said he was referring to the number of wetland flags that appeared to be in the brook. He questioned the accuracy of the map in the southwest corner.
Ms. Bradley read 5.3 of the POCD, resource base future resource land use plan and questioned 37 jobs for a town of 6000 and if it is a positive impact? Ms. Bradley read several portions of the POCD and believes the application is not in line with the POCD.
Leroy Ziegler, of Fenton Road, questioned the sightlines on Mihaliak and asked if the hill would be removed. He also questioned coming up the steep hill and asked how trucks will stop and make the turn during winter conditions. Mr. Ziegler asked if the applicant is planning on removing the grade in the area in the southern most point.
The Public Hearing has been continued to June 4, 2013 at the Town Office Building. Atty. Jacobs submitted a written letter granting an extension to June 4, 2013.
Regular Meeting
Chairman Marco called the Regular Meeting to order. D. Roberts was seated for J. Sullivan.
PZC2013- 15 Application for a 1 lot subdivision at 55 Blair Road (Map 53 Lot 3 Zone R80) Owner/Applicant: Stephan G. Lackman (Received May 7, 2013 Public Hearing or decision by June 18, 2013)
Public Hearing has been set for June 18, 2013.
PZC2013-17 Application to amend approved zone change (preliminary site development plan) to build Dunkin Donut Restaurant at 333 River Road (Map 30 Lot 17 Zone DC) Owner: B&M Realty Trust/ Applicant: Dekk Group, LLC (Received May 21, 2013 Public Hearing by July 16, 2013)
Public Hearing was set for July 16, 2013.
PZC2013-18 Application for a Special Permit/Final Site Development plan for proposed 2,400 sq ft Dunkin Donut Restaurant at 333 River Road (Map 30 Lot 17 Zone DC) Owner: B&M Realty Trust Applicant: Dekk Group, LLC (Received May 21, 2013 Public Hearing by July 16, 2013)
Public Hearing was set for July 16, 2013.
PZC2013-19 Request for waiver/substitution of Special permit under Section 13.02 of the Willington Zoning Regulations 8 Tolland Turnpike (Map 30 Lot 11 Zone DC) (Received May 21, 2013) Owner/Applicant: Pamala J Faveau
Ms. Favreau was present and is seeking a Special Permit Waiver/Substitution under 13.02. She said she opened the business a year ago with a small gift shop and services upstairs; the services have since changed and Ms. Favreau would to like to put her law office and counseling services upstairs. The space had been previously issued a similar permit. A discussion was held. Attorney Branse said that as the author of the regulation, this was exactly the situation the regulation was meant for.
T. Murphy motioned to grant the request for the waiver/substitution of Special permit under Section 13.02 of the Willington Zoning Regulations 8 Tolland Turnpike (Map 30 Lot 11 Zone DC) (Received May 21, 2013) Owner/Applicant: Pamala J Faveau. P. Nevers seconded the motion. All in favor.
PZC2013-20 Application for a modification/amendment to a Special Permit/Final Site Development Plan for a House of Worship (Temple) located at 40 Cisar Road (Map 8 Lot 3A Zone R80) Owner: Lao Lane Xang Temple of Connecticut Applicant: David Lebel (Received May 21, 2013 Public Hearing Public Hearing or decision by June 18, 2013)
Public Hearing was scheduled for June 18, 2013.
Old Business:
PZC2013-8 Application for Special Permit for a 15 acre rear lot to build a single family dwelling with barn/garage located on the north side of Tolland Turnpike/Rt 74 across from Glass Factory Road and shown on the Town Assessor’s (Map 29 Lot 7 Zone R 80 Owner/Applicant: Mark Marquis (Received March 19, 2013 Public Hearing April 16, 2013 continued to May 7, 2013 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)
The Public Hearing was continued to June 4, 2013 at the Town Office Building.
PZC2013- 14 Application for a modification to Special Permit consisting of changes to drainage and relocation of access drive (preliminary & final approved site development plan) at 264 Ruby Road east side of CT RTE 320 1mile south of I-84 Exit 71(Map 42 Lot 49A Zone DI) Owner: Ruby Road Development LLC/ Applicant: Green Hill Recycling & Landscaping Products, LLC (Received April 16, 2013 Public Hearing May 21, 2013 decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)
The hearing has been closed. The Commission discussed the application and conditions. S. Yorgensen will draft a motion and Chairman Marco would like the original conditions applied to in the draft motion.
PZC2013-3 Application for Zone Change from R80 zone to Design Commercial (DC) zone at 00 Polster Road & 3 Polster Road & 00 Polster Road (Map 46 Lots 16 & 17) Owner: Joseph & Frank Malack Applicant: Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores (Received February 19, 2013 Public Hearing April 16, 2013 continued to May 7, 2013 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)
The Public Hearing was continued to June 4, 2013 at the Town Office Building.
PZC2013-4 Application for Special Permit for motor vehicle fuel sales, tire repair and replacement, retail trade and two restaurants (Travel Stop) at 00 Polster Road & 3 Polster Road (Map 46 Lots 16 & 17) Owner: Joseph & Frank Malack Applicant: Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores (Received February 19, 2013 Public Hearing April 16, 2013 continued to May 7, 2013 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)
The Public Hearing was continued to June 4, 2013 at the Town Office Building.
Minutes
P. Nevers motioned to approve the minutes of May 7, 2013 with the following amendments:
Caleb Hamel was not yet an Attorney; he just passed the bar exam and the Commission congratulated Mr. Hamel on his achievement.
The Public Hearing for PZC2013-4 was continued to May 21, 2013 and the Minutes approved at the May 7, 203 were dated 4/21/2013.
T. Murphy seconded the motion. All in favor.
Staff Report
S. Yorgensen informed the commission on the progress of the new restaurant in town. S. Yorgensen said they are looking for changes in the dumpster location and in paving area.
Tom Murphy motioned in accordance with Section 20.08.02 to authorize S. Yorgensen to approve minor modifications regarding this project. Phil Nevers seconded. All in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
Recording Clerk
| 
