Planning and Zoning Commission
40 Old Farms Road Willington, CT 06279
June 4, 2013 – 7:30 PM
Meeting Minutes
Roll Call
Members Present:
Walter Parsell, Secretary
John Sullivan
Doug Roberts – Alternate
Christina Mailhos – ex-officio
Members Absent:
Andrew Marco – Chairman - excused
Thomas Murphy – excused
Phil Nevers
Edward Standish – vice, Chairman 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
Walter Parsell called the Public Hearing to order at 7:30. D. Roberts was seated for T. Murphy. Christina Mailhos was seated for P. Nevers as Ex-Official and will not deliberate.
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 Caposella were present for the applicant. Atty. Caposella said, at the last hearing, Atty. Branse asked what plan is being submitted; the plan tonight is the one submitted for the application and they believe it complies with the regulations.
Mr. Mihok presented the plans; the proposed driveway will be within the applicants property and totally separate from the existing driveway. He said he has met with the DOT but it will take a while before they receive comments back. Atty. Caposella said, at the last hearing, one driveway for rear lot was discussed and now they have one driveway. J. Sullivan asked how many feet the apron will be widened to and Mr. Mihok said it will be widened approximately 15 feet. W. Parsell asked if both driveways will share the same apron and Mr. Mihok said the driveways will be side by side within the DOT right of way. D. Roberts asked if it complies with the grade and Mr. Mihok said yes. W. Parsell asked if it complies with DOT and Mr. Mihok said they have 525 feet of sightline and they have to relocate a wall within
the DOT right of way. A discussion was held on the plans and the stone wall.
Mr. Mihok said the driveway will be 14 feet wide but the existing driveway is only 9 feet wide and commented that he did not know how an emergency vehicle would get up the existing driveway.
Joanne Yandow was present and said her parents own the front abutting lot. She said she has not seen the new map submitted and gave a brief overview of the information she presented at the last hearing. She said there is a 26.1 frontage strip of land conveyed to the applicant which includes ½ of the abandoned road but what the map doesn’t show is the thick line of trees between the Frasers, Vonaseks and Lot A. Ms. Yandow questioned the grading on the slope and asked how the applicant will get to 10% slope without having an impact on her parents driveway? Ms. Yandow gave the measurements of the driveways and said there is very little space on either side of the driveway and said the regulations look for 100 feet between driveways. She submitted Highway Encroachment Permit Regulations for the record. J.
Sullivan questioned where Ms. Yandow was going with her testimony. Ms. Yandow said you need a certain distance between driveways.
Atty. Branse said 4.21 is driveway standards and questioned 100 foot separating distance. Ms. Yandow referenced 13.05.04, Traffic Access, and said no proposed driveway can be within 100 feet; she said the driveways abut at a point and read portions of the regulation.
Atty. Branse said, if the Commission approves the application, the applicant still has to get DOT approval; the Commission cannot enforce the DOT regulations and they do not have jurisdiction on a DOT right of way. Ms. Yandow said she wanted the Commission to be aware of the regulation. Ms. Yandow referenced 4.21.A regarding sightlines and Atty. Branse said he does not believe there is anything in the regulations stating the Commission cannot approve something that violates a state regulation and encouraged Ms. Yandow to focus on the local regulations. Atty. Branse said 13.05.04 talks about parking lots and driveways with multiple accesses, clearly describing commercial situations whereas the rear lot section of 4.18 is specifically to rear lots and says no shared driveway. He said apparently there is one regulation
for residential lots and one regulation for commercial situations. Mr. Yandow asked the Commission to consider what they look for in driveways, 100 feet, and said the state looks for at least 25 feet and referenced the application denied in 1991. Atty. Branse said this application is a different proposal and J. Sullivan said the 1991 regulations are different from what they are today.
Atty. Branse said the Commission has to apply the current regulations and he does not believe this is the same plan as 1991. He said there is a question of interpretation; is this a shared driveway because they start out separate and then join? J. Sullivan said the latest plan starts out together (shares the apron) and then splits out from that point.
Ms. Yandow referenced 4.21.12, no driveway opening can be no closer than 75 feet from a road way intersection and this driveway is across the street. J. Sullivan said the existing driveway was already there, across from Glass Factory Rd. and Ms. Yandow said, yes, the existing driveway but this is a new driveway. Ms. Yandow added, if you draw a line on a map, she is not sure if it is 2 separate driveways. A discussion was held on the plans and D. Roberts questioned the heavy line on the plans. Mr. Mihok said the heavy line is the property line and the abutting properties are 90% on the applicant’s property. Ted Vonasek said his parent’s driveway was put in in 1960 and the apron was built then and said they may have thought the stone wall was the property line at the time. A discussion was held
on the property line. D. Roberts said they are arguing about sharing the apron but the property line goes all the way across the driveway. Ms. Yandow said she did not know that and would dispute it if she had. Further discussion was held on the property line.
Atty. Branse said the Commission does not have jurisdiction over property lines and all parties have to focus on the zoning regulations. He said Ms. Yandow stated their side is 18% and questioned how the applicant could be at 10%. He asked if the applicant is in compliance with 4.21 and does not exceed a 10% grade. Mr. Mihok said they have a landing of 4% at Rte. 74 and then they go to 12% paved and will have a short low retaining wall to accommodate the difference of grades; he said it is not encroaching on the adjoining property. Ms. Yandow expressed her concerns on the safety of the retaining wall. Mr. Vonasek asked if it would disrupt his parent’s driveway and Atty. Branse said he does not know but the question is does it comply with the criteria of the zoning regulations. Atty. Branse asked if
the applicant is proposing a guard rail for safety and Mr. Mihok said they could do that. Ms. Yandow said she thinks that should be specific into the map based on what the regulations require and referenced section 13 which addresses what should be shown on a map. She said there are trees on both sides of the stone wall and expressed her concern on ice and drainage if the buffer is taken out.
Mr. Mihok said their driveway is lower than the Vonasek’s property and the abutting property and said the run-off will go into the gutter and none of it will go on the Vonasek’s or Fraser’s property. W. Parsell questioned erosion control and Mr. Mihok said they won’t’ need any once it’s paved. Further discussion was held. J. Sullivan said there wouldn’t be any difference on the flow of the waste water from today.
Mr. Mihok said he has done traffic engineering for over 20 years and addressed the intersection issue; he said it means the same side of the road not across the road. Ms. Yandow said the regulations speak clearly on the issue.
Atty. Branse asked if the applicant would consent to erosion control measures to be installed during construction under the direction of the town planner and Mr. Mihok said yes. Atty. Caposella said they will consent to a guard rail, erosion control and whatever needs to be done. Ms. Yandow said her parents would object to a guard rail on the side of their driveway. Atty. Branse asked if it would be safer to have a 2 foot drop off and Ms. Yandow said it would be safer to not have another driveway. Atty. Branse added that it is the applicant’s property and Ms. Yandow said it is their property but on a non-conforming lot. Atty. Branse explained that the applicant is before the Commission requesting a Special Permit to make it conform. Further discussion was held on the guard rail. J. Sullivan requested
the hearing be moved along and believes they have heard all comments from all parties. W. Parsell asked for any additional comments and Ms. Yandow said the lot is non-conforming and doesn’t fit the regulations.
Atty. Caposella addressed the Commission regarding section 13.05 which says no driveway can be closer than 100 feet to any other existing or proposed driveway unless the site is of such width that compliance with this requirement would preclude access in which case the separating distance between driveways shall be the maximum feasible for the site in the interest of safety. Atty. Caposella said they are trying to meet the driveway regulations and for that reason they have proposed a separate driveway. He said he believes they are now in compliance with the current regulations.
J. Sullivan motioned to close the Public Hearing. D. Roberts seconded the motion. C. Mailhos abstained. All others in favor.
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 in the process of answering questions as they go along. He said they have received correspondence including a document from Ralph Tulis that will be addressed at the next meeting.
Atty. Jacobs referenced section 4.23, Riparian Corridors, which was modified a few months ago. He said section 4.23 says that the following watercourses and their tributaries are of special concern to the town; Fenton Brook, Roaring Brook and the Willimantic River. Atty. Jacobs said, the night discussion was held on modifying the regulations, S. Yorgensen told the Commission that wetlands are not tributaries by zoning definition. He said the regulations states no building, associated parking lot, septic systems, clearing or vegetation shall be proposed within 150 feet measured horizontally within the wetland boundaries adjacent to each side of the watercourse. Atty. Jacobs said the intent of the regulations is to capture the watercourse at its widest boundaries. He said they have nothing within 350 feet and
believes they are in compliance with section 4.23.
S. Yorgensen said it would be the wetland directly adjacent to and associated with the watercourse. Atty. Branse said Atty. Jacobs is making the argument that 150 feet is measured from where the watercourse touches the wetland next to it; is that correct? S. Yorgensen said I don’t consider it an extension of the river, it is the wetland associated with the watercourse; the wetland adjacent to. It would be measured from the wetland. Atty. Branse asked if the applicant is 150 feet from the wetland area adjacent to the main stem of the watercourse.
Josh Wilson, a Profession Wetland Scientist with Fuss & O’Neill, said he believes the questions are treading between two commissions. He showed Roaring Brook on the map and the immediately adjacent is Wetland A, defined as a Riparian Wetland. He showed the outer most edge of where the flooding would occur in a high flow season. Atty. Branse asked if the disturbance is 150 feet of the easterly edge of the watercourse or 150 feet from the easterly edge of the Riparian Corridor. Answer, approximately 300 plus feet. S. Yorgensen said the measurement is from the wetland directly adjacent to the easterly and the westerly edge of the watercourse. Atty. Jacobs said they are approximately 350 feet away from the easterly edge of the Riparian Wetland. Atty. Branse said the Conservation Commission’s argument
is that the applicant should consider a wetland that is connected by water to the main stem.
Ralph Tulis referenced 4.23 and said the intent is not always conveyed in the words written and he agrees with the Conservation Commission and disagrees with Atty. Jacobs. He said he has detailed his concerns in the letter he submitted to the Commission on June 3, 2013.
Tom Galeota addressed the Commission and said, in regards to the review by Brian Murphy, he sent Mr. Murphy plans and the Wetland Assessment on May 23rd; they have spoken twice since and Mr. Murphy will conduct a site walk on June 10th.
Tom Galeota thanked Ms. Miller on her comment on the beautiful building proposed and said the retaining walls are not meant to contain spills but to contain earth; the storm drainage system has been designed to contain spills. He said she was also concerned about chemical spills and Love’s monitors the parking areas and spill kits will be onsite to deal with spills. Mr. Wing commented on diesel fumes and Mr. Galeota explained newer government regulations on the cleanliness of newer diesel engines which have been on the roads for many years. He said the regulations are tiered so they get more stringent over time.
Mr. Galeota said he has contacted the DOT regarding traffic and the average daily traffic for I-84 at Exit 71, in both directions, is 49,500 vehicles per day. Mr. Galeota said, by CT State law, trucks are not allowed to idle more than 3 consecutive minutes unless under special circumstance which would have to do with safety.
Mr. Galeota said an Industrial Storm Water Permit will likely be required and secured prior to construction as required by DEEP. W. Parsell asked if the site would require a sampling plan in regards to run-off and Mr. Galeota said yes. Mr. Galeota said the erosion and Sediment Control Plan has been prepared in accordance with the 2002 Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines and was included as part of the plan sets submitted to the town with the current application.
Mr. Galeota said the General Permit for the discharge of storm water and dewatering of waste water associated with construction activity from DEEP is required and will be secured prior to construction. In reference to the question on Polster Road maintenance, Mr. Galeota said the town will be responsible as they are for any other public road. He added that at a previous Public Hearing, the reconstruction of Polster Road was detailed.
A question was asked on the parking spaces and Mr. Galeota said there was a mistake on the coversheet of the zoning table but the correct amount will be 46 cars and 53 trucks. He said there was also a question on the well report; will the wells dry out the wetlands. He said he met with the hydro geologist at Fuss & O’Neill and he is compiling a report to be presented at the next hearing. Mr. Galeota said the Polster Road excavation project may require a trip back to the IWWC and commented that the snowplowing will continue to be done by the Town of Willington and supplemented by Loves. The question was asked on if the south portion of Polster Road will be reconstructed and Mr. Galeota said the first 225 feet north of the intersection with Rte. 320 will be widened to 38 feet and will include a 13 foot
southbound lane, a 12 foot northbound left turn lane and a 13 foot northbound through lane; the roadway will be constructed to current roadway design standards and will include catch basins to capture storm water before it can cause icing in the winter as it does today. He gave further details on the plans which are included in the application.
There were questions asked on the yearly usage in the rest areas in the vicinity of Exit 70 and Mr. Galeota said the DOT does not track the usage but Mr. Galeota said he will look into it further.
Mr. Galeota gave the details of the state’s plans to keep the rest areas open which includes a new septic system; new buildings will be designed and constructed after the septic systems are installed. He said the state is committed to keeping these rest areas open.
Mr. Galeota said “No Littering” signs will be added on Polster Road. He said additional questions will be answered at the next meeting. Mr. Galeota presented a Google Map, aerial view, and showed the distances of the homes to the site; the closest home is 1200 feet to the closest disturbance of the site. .
Mr. Semprebon questioned the map presented and believes the map is not to scale; he does not believe the Commission can use maps that are taken off a satellite. Mr. Galeota said they take the photographs and check distances that they know based on the A-2 Survey. He said he would check the accuracy but if it says 1700 feet, it’s not 1200 feet but might be 1730 feet.
Mark Wojcik, of 40 Lohse Road, expressed his concerns on the decibel level and asked if any additional noise study would be required by the Commission. Atty. Branse said the commission can consider noise generation as one factor but does not have jurisdiction over decibel level generation; they are regulated by state statute. Mr. Tulis questioned the performance requirement in the zoning regulations and Atty. Branse said it is not enforceable and referenced Berlin Batting Cages vs. Berlin PZC.
Karen Bradley said she does not have a problem with the building but with what is going to be built; trucks, noise, litter, and light and brought up her concerns that were stated at the last public hearing. .
Atty. Branse explained the definition of a Floating Zone; the applicant submits and application and asks to change a zone to do the plan submitted. When using the Floating Zone device, basically what you see if what you get, so if the Commission approves this zone change, you will also be approving, at a minimum, the preliminary site plan. He said in this case the applicant has combined two steps into one. Atty. Branse said the Commission could say we don’t want this use for this location; they have a great deal of discretion. Atty. Branse said it does not have to be the best use for the location but one they think is appropriate when considering the criteria of the regulations and the PoCD and both sides have made their argument. He said the Commission’s level of discretion in applying the PoCD and applying the
criteria is a very high level of discretion.
Albert Rowe expressed his concerns on accidents, errant traffic and described accidents he has witnessed. He also expressed his concerns on the wetlands, litter and said he does not want the proposed project in town.
Mark Vertucci addressed comments received at the last meeting; one being the westbound off-ramp. He said they used a WB67 truck, have gone back and analyzed the vehicle turning templates and the trucks can safely make the turns as the road exists today. The next question was what is triggering the DOT review and Mr. Vertucci said they have to apply to the District 1 office for an Encroachment Permit and comments will be received if the DOT feels it is not adequate. .
Mr. Vertucci said the next question is on the sightline and the sightline is about 500 feet and for a 25 mph speed limit, the required sightlines are sufficient. He then clarified previous information provided on accident history and said, at the off-ramp; there were 5 accidents per year before the DOT’s improvements. Mr. Vertucci gave further details of the accident history and said an accident is defined by the DOT as a collision that resulted in a personal injury or fatality or greater than $1000 in damage to the vehicle; so if there was a fender bender with $500 in damages, it would not have been recorded.
Josh Wilson said he has worked with the site for over 5 years and has worked with the engineer’s and traffic people to identify the best solution for the site given the desired use of the site and to identify ways to minimize impacts and avoid irreversible loss in wetlands. He said the Wetlands Assessment report and the letter to S. Yorgensen dated February 9, 2012 has been submitted for the record. He briefly went over the report and will answer any questions at the next meeting. Atty. Branse said various members of the public have made the point that the IWWC is a limited jurisdiction and because of the limited jurisdiction, there would be broader impacts that the IWWC could not consider but the PZC has a broader charge. Mr. Wilson described the functions and values wetlands and the broader areas around the
wetlands which are detailed in his report. He described the wetlands and said they have looked to be 100 or 150 feet from the wetlands for any area of disturbance. Mr. Wilson said, in terms of Roaring Brook, they are well outside of the 150 foot zone; they are 350 feet from the wetland areas. He said they have installed level spreaders to maintain water quality and ground water input to the wetland areas in addition to maintaining ground water infiltration. Mr. Wilson said the proposed activity has been long in the making and one where they recognize the value of the ecological community of the site and have minimized the amount of activity but have allowed for development and development techniques that maintain the eco-system; not only the wetlands specifically but the surrounding upland areas.
W. Parsell asked for additional comments. Kathy Demers of the Conservation Commission presented the wetland areas on the site and addressed the 4.23 Riparian Corridors. She said she wants to make sure it is very clear these are watercourses and tributaries. W. Parsell asked if Ms. Demers was presenting new information that was not presented at the previous hearing and she said no, but some of the Commission members were not present at previous hearings. S. Yorgensen said all the Commission members have listened to the recordings of all previous meetings they may have missed.
Tom Treiber, of Latham Road, has lived in town for 45 years. He said the growth and development of the town has transpired but the town retained its rural characteristics. He said he is a former member of the Conservation Commission and a current member of the Economic Development Commission. He said he respects the feelings of the people opposed to the travel center and his outlook may be different if he was in their neighborhood. He said it is very significant that the applicant has been approved by IWWC and believes the applicant and their representatives have conducted themselves in a professional manner and with a sincere desire to address the concerns. He said Love’s Travel Center has a proven track record as a respected and successful family owned business and will be a good partner in the community
if the application is approved.
Richard Shuck, Town of Stafford First Selectman, addressed the Commission. He expressed his concern on the intersection of Rockwell Road and Fenton Road to be used as a truck turn around if a problem arises. He said they will receive traffic whether the turnaround is there or not but believes it would be a poor decision not to look at modifying something between the town lines for a turnaround. Selectman Shuck said he is concerned on the effect it will have on the Town of Stafford and asked the Commission to look at another alternative for a turnaround.
Albert Rowe, of Village Hill Rd, expressed his concerns on noise and accidents. He said if you increase the amount of traffic, you increase the probability of accidents. Mr. Rowe also expressed his concerns on the safety of people fishing on the bridge.
Karen Bradley expressed her concerns on Mr. Vertucci’s definition of accidents (fender benders) and Atty. Branse said Mr. Vertucci was reporting on the Dot figures and how it was maintained; the DOT does not record “fender benders”. He said Mr. Vertucci was stating that there was very limited data as the small accidents are not recorded. Ms. Bradley apologized and said she misunderstood. Ms. Bradley expressed her concern on the trucks making the turns as she has observed trucks encroaching over the line and submitted pictures for the record.
Dan Donahue asked a question of Mr. Wilson; does he consider wetland H to be adjacent or a tributary to Roaring Brook.
Scott Bradley, of Stafford, expressed his concern on the maneuvering of the trucks, errant truck and his concerns on the truck traffic in regards to children waiting for the buses. He questioned the jobs to be offered by Loves and if they would be Willington Residents. Mr. Bradley said he was concerned on the beautiful property proposed and questioned if Willington had looked into acquiring it. Mr. Bradley submitted a letter with his concerns for the record.
The Public Hearing was continued to June 18, 2013.
Regular Meeting
Walter Parsell called the Regular Meeting to order. D. Roberts was seated for T. Murphy
Pre-Application: Ed Pelletier from Datum Engineering to discuss a modification or Resubdivision of Lechowicz Farms Estate Subdivision.
Ed Pelletier provide plans to the commission. He said they have created 8 lots under the open space subdivision as opposed to the 17 lots. Mr. Pelletier said there will be 1 rear lot and he is proposing 2 front lots to share a driveway; he said the revision was in part due to limiting traffic and noise. A discussion was held on open space. The Commission felt this was a more desirable plan that the one approved and a discussion was held.
Atty. Branse asked to the Commission to revisit the prohibition on rear driveways as the use of shared of driveways reduces the amount of impervious surface. S. Yorgensen said the open space regulations are different; you can have 5 driveways off one common driveway. She advised Mr. Pelletier to explore that option since it seemed that direction was where the Commission was pointing him. A brief discussion was held.
New Business
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.
PZC2013-20 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 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.
PZC2013-22 Application for Special Permit for temporary sale of alcohol at 150 Village Hill Road (Map 42 Lot 5 Zone DC) Owner: Ray Crossen Applicant: Project Sole (Received June 4, 2013 Public Hearing or decision by July 16, 2013)
Alyssa Omley and Atty. Tim Hollister were present. Atty. Hollister said they are seeking a one day temporary alcohol permit. Atty. Hollister explained Project Sole and said it an organization that collects shoes and sends them all over the world; last year they collected 11,000 shoes from runners. He said the event is a 5K obstacle course race
Ms. Omley said it is an adventure run with a human strategy component; they dodge and duck zombies which add to the fun of the event. She said it is a 12 hour event and all cleanup will be taken care of before and after. Ms. Omley said, in regards to parking, they have contracted out to Schofield Family Farms and have talked to the Tolland State Police who will be available for the event. Atty. Hollister said Schofield Family Farms is 6/10 of a mile from the event and attendees will be shuttled back and forth.
S. Yorgensen said the application before the commission is only for the special permit for the temporary sale of alcohol, not for the event itself. Atty. Hollister said they will be going before ZBA for approval for the outdoor event.
The applicant said they would take care of the publication and cost of the publication and the sign and mailings to all abutters.
The Public Hearing has been set 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.)
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.)
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 18, 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 18, 2013 at the Town Office Building.
Minutes
D. Roberts motioned to approve the minutes of May 21, 2013. J. Sullivan seconded the motion. C. Mailhos abstained. All others in favor.
Staff Report and Discussion
S. Yorgensen said there is a lot going on here are shorthanded in the office and need help.
Selectman Mailhos brought up a unified rate for Recording Clerks. A discussion was held. The PZC is very happy with their clerk and wish no changes. J. Sullivan suggested meeting with all the Chairmen to discuss.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michele Manas
Recording Clerk
| 
