Town of Willington, CT - PZC Meeting Minutes 06/18/2013

PZC Meeting Minutes 06/18/2013

Planning and Zoning Commission

40 Old Farms Road Willington, CT 06279

June 18, 2013 – 7:30 PM

Meeting Minutes

Roll Call

Members Present:

Andrew Marco – Chairman

Edward Standish – Vice Chairman

Walter Parsell - Secretary

Doug Roberts – Alternate

Members Absent:

Thomas Murphy –– excused

John Sullivan - excused

Phil Nevers - excused

James Poole - excused

Also Present:

Susan Yorgensen – Planner-Zoning Agent

Mark Branse – Land Use Attorney

Caleb Hamel of Branse, Willis and Knapp

Public Hearing

Chairman Marco called the Public Hearing to order at 7:30.

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 June 18, 2013, hearing to close by July 16/Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)

The application was tabled until the applicant’s engineer arrived.

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 June 18, 2013, hearing to close by July 16. /Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)

David Lebel, a friend of the Temple, was present and introduced the members of the Temple. He said they are applying for a modification of the Special Permit. Mr. Lebel said they have received approval from the Health Department and presented the plans. He said they are proposing to construct an addition of 1000 sq. feet, 25 ft. by 40 ft., which would be connected to the existing building and would also like to add a deck with storage beneath the deck. Mr. Lebel said the use of the Temple use would not be changing; they celebrate with larger groups once a month from 10 am to 2 pm and it is also used on a smaller basis during the week.

Mr. Lebel said they are proposing to add parking spaces including handicap parking and access to the building including an accessible bathroom. He presented the proposed plans and showed the existing structure; the proposed structure is a 1 story structure with a cathedral ceiling inside. W. Parsell asked the amount of parking they are proposing and Mr. Lebel presented the parking plan; there would be a new road access and the parking would be a total of 35 parking spaces. He said they are adding a storm bio-filter system and also landscaping for visual effects.

Atty. Branse asked if the applicant had plans showing the building elevation from the side and the applicant said he did not. Atty. Branse explained that the plans submitted tonight are the plans the PZC would approve and if there are modifications, the PZC would have to review the changes; the commission cannot approve what is not presented. Atty. Branse explained the light requirements in the regulations and a brief discussion was held.

Peter Henry, a Licensed Land Surveyor, addressed the Commission and said they have been involved in the plans since 1996 when the Commission approved the original Special Permit. He presented the existing concrete pad where the addition is proposed and said they have received a side yard variance. Mr. Henry explained the lighting proposed which will be 12 feet high and full shielded cut off lights. He said they have approval from the IWWC and ZBA Commissions.

Mr. Henry said the front parking area is 4 feet longer than what it originally was and presented the difference which is shown on the plans. Mr. Henry said the existing concrete slab will be removed and an existing shed will be removed; they are showing a proposed shed for the future and they understand will have to come back before the PZC.

Mr. Henry presented the proposed 12 X 30 foot deck with a concrete pad below for storage. He said the handicap spaces will be paved and they have added 2 bio-filters. Mr. Henry said the original plan had 29 spaces and the new plan has 34 spaces. Mr. Henry said they have designed Phase 1 and Phase 2 and the only thing added to Phase two will be 4 spaces and a backup area.

Mr. Henry said they are also asking the Commission for a waiver of section 18.05, in regards to surfacing and referenced a memo dated May 9^th from the Town Engineer has been submitted stating his approval. S. Yorgensen asked he reason for keeping the surfacing of a small part of the parking area in Phase 2. Mr. Henry said there are a couple of large trees they would like to keep until the last phase of construction.

W. Parsell asked the amount of attendees and Somchine Sounanthanam, a member of the Temple, addressed the Commission. She said they have attendees of 40 to 50 on a regular basis. She said the winters are hard and the addition will provide comfort and heat where the tents would not. Ms. Sounanthanam gave further details of the monthly celebration which is potluck and presented pictures of the celebration.

George Paquin of Cisar Road said they have been great neighbors but expressed his concern on the traffic. He said the road is very curvy and he is concerned on the 2 entrances; could it be condensed to one. Mr. Paquin said he is concerned on the residential area he lives in regards to home values and is also concerned on the look of the building and it not fitting in with the neighborhood. He questioned the picture proposed and asked about the design of the roof; it looks as if lightning rods are on the top of the roof.

Chairman Marco questioned the rear parking lot and if it would be a new parking lot. Mr. Henry presented the original approval which includes the rear parking but was never built. He said there were 2 entrances approved but hey have now flipped one over and presented this on the plans. Mr. Henry said they met with Joseph Dillon, the Town Engineer, and he concluded that the existing driveway and the location, with the curb, have more than an adequate sight line.

A discussion was held on increased attendance with the proposed addition and increased traffic in the area.

Bill Johnson of Pinney Hill Road expressed his concern on a fire that was on the premises a few years ago and a chain link fence that is currently on site. He said he is concerned on winter weather conditions and questioned if there are permanent residents that stayed in the facility as he as has seen more than one person staying at the residence.

Ms. Sounanthanam explained the practices of the religion and said that once a year they hold a large meditation retreat that lasts about a week. Mr. Branse said if part of the religious practice is that people overnight there, that would be within the definition of a House of Worship and something the Commission cannot regulate. He asked the public to focus on aspects on the site and usage that deals with traffic, parking, sightlines, but not how Buddhism dictates the use of the structure.

Mr. Johnson expressed his concern on the impact on the neighborhood and questioned the activities of the past week which included speakers. Ms. Sounanthanam said it was a Meditation Retreat which is once a year. Atty. Branse asked if the applicant had any outdoor amplification and Ms. Sounanthanam said there is no music, it would be chanting and all speakers are used inside the Temple.

Don Berg, of Red Oak Hill Rd, asked if the Special Permit is granted and occupancy changes, would the occupancy change be grandfathered in. A discussion was held. Atty. Branse said it would depend on what the Commission is approving and further discussion was held. Chairman Marco said the building occupancy would be monitored by the Fire Marshal.

Peter Watts, of Pinney Hill Road, expressed his concern on the tents set up on the site and questioned if the Commission had a say in the use of outside property. A. Marco no, just as they could not dictate what a homeowners does at their own house. S. Yorgensen said the use of tents is not allowed. Mr. Watts expressed his concern on the loud music

Chairman Marco questioned the elevations and if they have to presented before the close of the Public Hearing. Atty. Branse said they should be submitted by the close of the public hearing but the Commission could place a condition, if approved. Further discussion was held on the lighting. Mr. Henry said the lighting is on the plans; maximum of 12 feet high with full cut off illumination.

Discussion was held on keeping the Public Hearing open. Mr. Henry referred to the fence on file with the town and described a stockade fence that was originally there; they now have a chain link fence that has drastically improved the visibility. Mr. Henry addressed the yearly retreat in which they would like to have on file. Ms. Sounanthanam explained the retreat which is a weeklong event to find inner piece within oneself and to spread the love and kindness. She said the chanting is quiet and the tents are not permanent. Marco asked the attendance for the retreats and Ms. Sounanthanam said last year they had 10 people and the attendance doubled this year. A discussion was held on the monthly meetings and Ms. Sounanthanam said the maximum is 100 people and the annual event will not exceed 100 people.

Mr. Lebel submitted a letter from Ms. Wells and Ms. Teffley (neighbors) for the record and they are in favor of the Temple.

Tom, of Vernon, said he is in favor of the Temple and if they could have a permanent structure, it will help reduce the noise. He questioned if there were building materials that might help quiet the noise.

Don Berg asked if the applicant has looked into a geothermal heat system if they wanted to combine the driveways. Mr. Henry said they did look at the alternatives and the Land Use engineer agreed the proposed plan was the better option.

E. Standish motioned to close PZC2013-20. W. Parsell seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried.

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)

Mark Peterson of Peterson & Associates was present for the applicant. He presented the plans on the 96 acre site and said they are looking to cut and create one additional building lot defined as Lot #2; lot #1 is the existing home. Mr. Peterson presented the topographic plans and said they have been before the IWWC to obtain “no jurisdiction” Which was approved. He said the site contains one proposed house, well in the front and septic in the rear and was approved through the Eastern Highland Health Dept. Mr. Peterson said an erosion sedimentation and erosion control plan has been submitted.

Mr. Peterson said they are asking for 2 waivers to the regulations; one being for the A-@ survey and one for sightline. He said the parcel is 90 plus acres and they do not feel its necessary to provide an A-2 survey on the entire site; they have provided enough to cut out the parcel. Mr. Peterson said they have received feedback from Jacobson & Associates and they also concurred with the A-2 survey. He said they comply with the sightline standards to the north but if you look to the south of the driveway, there is the 90 degree turn but still has over 330 feet of sightline and the review from Jacobson & Associates also supported the waiver requested.

Mr. Peterson referenced the Open Space Regulations and said the applicant is conveying the parcel for no consideration to a family member which would comply with the exemption on the Open Space Regulation. S. Yorgensen asked what family member it was because the statute is specific. Mr. Peterson deferred to Mr. Lackman. Mr. Lackman said it would be given to his son.

E. Standish asked if there was ever a cut taken out of the parcel and Mr. Peterson said, in 1971, the first cut came out. A discussion was held on the cut and on open space.

Atty. Branse asked if the applicant is familiar with the open space exemptions in section 14 of the Subdivision Regulations and the repercussions if the conveyance is an interim conveyance in order to circumvent open space requirements. Mr. Lackman said he was not familiar with the regulation. Atty. Branse read the regulation and Mr. Lackman said he understands the regulation.

Alisha Corsina, of River Road, asked if there would be more than one house and the Commission said not at this time and the applicant would have to come back before if any changes.

Mr. Peterson said the application is complete and all abutter notices are on file.

E. Standish motioned to close the Public Hearing and D. Roberts 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, May 21, 2013, June 4, 2013 – extension granted /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, May 21, 2013, June 4, 2013 – extension granted /Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)

Atty. Jacobs addressed the Commission and stated he would like to make the Plan of Conservation and Development part of record for the application. He said they received comments from the PZC engineer, Jacobson & Associates, and do not have a problem complying with their comments; the letter was submitted for the record. Atty. Jacobs said they are still waiting for comments from the town engineer and are also waiting for comments from Brian Murphy of the DEEP.

Atty. Jacobs said they are getting to the end and would like to have all comments from the Public submitted at tonights meeting so they have time to respond. S. Yorgensen said the Statutory time is running out and the Public Hearing must be closed at the July 16, 2013 meeting.

Tom Galeota addressed the commission and said Mr. Murphy walked the site with them on June 10^th but had also walked the site 5 days before. On June 10^th he requested additional information which was provided electronically. Mr. Murphy said the information also has to be reviewed by the Commissioner of DEEP and will try to get it done as quickly as possible. Chairman Marco said they do realize they may not get the information prior to closing.

Mr. Galeota referenced the comments submitted, one being about potable wells and submitted a Hydrologic Analysis done by John Hankins and dated June 18, 2013. He read the following document into the record:

Hydrologic Analysis

Wetlands and Potable Wells

Vicinity of Proposed Love’s Travel Stop and Country Store

3 & 10 Polster Road

June 18, 2013

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Town of Willington with our assessment of whether the withdrawal of groundwater from two proposed water supply wells at the proposed Love’s Travel Stop and Country Store site could have an effect on the quantity of water available to either the wetlands or residential supply wells in the vicinity of the site.

Background

The proposed Love’s Travel Stop and Country Store (the “Site”) will withdraw water from two bedrock wells to be installed on the eastern portion of the property at 3 & 10 Polster Road in Willington. The proposed area of development is on the eastern portion of the Site along Polster Road. The development area, including the proposed location of the supply wells, is on a height of land at an elevation of 600 to 660 feet, with the land dropping off steeply to the west toward Roaring Brook, which is at the bottom of the valley at an elevation of approximately 520 feet. Groundwater at the Site can be presumed to flow in the direction of topographic gradient, westward toward Roaring Brook, which serves as a local groundwater discharge point for the majority of the Site. There is a series of wetlands located between the development area and Roaring Brook.

The closest active residential well to the property is the Malack Residence located at 22 Polster Road, which is approximately 1000 feet from the proposed supply wells. There are also a number of residential wells located west of the Site along Lohse Road. The closest of these wells is approximately 2000 feet west of the proposed wells on the opposite side of Roaring Brook.

Proposed Water Management Strategy

The two proposed bedrock wells are to be drilled in the southeast portion of the Site. The applicant anticipates that daily water demand will be approximately 6,000-gallons per day, which is equivalent to 4 to 5 gallons per minute pumped on a continuous basis (1440 minutes per day). An on-site storage tank will allow the applicant to handle peak flows, which will allow the operator of the system to limit instantaneous pumping rates from the supply wells.

Water that is pumped from the bedrock aquifer will be re-introduced to the subsurface within the Site boundaries through an on-site wastewater treatment and disposal system. In addition, stormwater will be channeled to local wetlands and infiltrated back into the ground at a rate that approximates the pre-development condition. The re-introduction of both wastewater and stormwater to the subsurface is designed to create hydrologic conditions that are roughly equivalent, from a mass water balance perspective, to current conditions.

Wetland Assessment

The hydrology of the wetlands located between the Site and Roaring Brook is supported by three water sources:

Direct precipitation
Overland runoff
Groundwater flow

A development such as the Love’s Travel Stop, if not properly designed, has the potential to affect both the overland runoff and groundwater flow to wetlands in the vicinity of a development. Overland runoff can be affected by the impermeable surfaces and drainage structures that are part of the development. Groundwater flow can be affected by both the pumping of groundwater as well as a reduction in the amount of water that infiltrates directly into the soil.

As indicated previously, water that is withdrawn from bedrock aquifer at the site will be recharged to groundwater via the site’s wastewater treatment system such that there will be virtually no reduction in the amount of groundwater available to the wetlands. In addition, the stormwater management system at the site has been designed to recharge wetlands via both runoff and infiltration in proportions similar to existing conditions. Therefore, we anticipate no change in the hydrology of the wetlands.

Residential Well Assessment

With regard to the residential wells in the area, we are confident there will be no impact. Groundwater that is withdrawn from the bedrock supply wells at the Site will be re-introduced to the aquifer via the Site’s wastewater treatment system, resulting in no net change in the amount of groundwater available in the area. In addition, the residential wells in the vicinity of the Site are either uphill from the proposed pumping wells (as is the case of the Malack residence), or are across Roaring Brook to the west. In either case, the watershed that recharges the bedrock aquifer for the residential wells is uphill from the wells such that pumping from the two proposed wells at the Love’s Travel Stop would have no impact on the available quantity of water available, even if this water was not being recharged.

John Hankins, LEP, CPG

Senior Vice President

Fuss & O’Neill, Inc.

E. Standish questioned the residential wells that might be above the applicant’s well and if the proposed site used too much water, would it draw from the wells located above the site. He asked for clarification and Mr. Galeota said he would try to have Mr. Hankins at the next meeting or will have a response to the question.

Mr. Galeota responded to Mr. Tulis’ questions of May 29^th which are on file with the Planning and Zoning office and available to the Public for review. Mr. Galeota read the following document:

Responses to Questions & Comments

Planning & Zoning Public Hearing

May 7, 2013

Love’s Truck Stop and Country Store

June 18, 2013

Fuss & O’Neill, Inc. is providing these responses to various questions and comments asked in a letter from Mr. Ralph H. Tulis, P.E., dated 29 May 2013, to the Willington Planning & Zoning Commission. The numbered responses correspond to the number comments.

Cover Sheet- The number of cars and trucks listed on the cover sheet of the IWWC plan set were incorrect. The correct number is what is shown on the plan set for the P&Z submittal. This was an oversight only on the cover sheet which we discovered when preparing for the P&Z application. The actual number of parking spaces physically proposed on the plans was/is 53 cars and 56 trucks for both applications.
Sheet GI-001 - Additional information is being added to the zoning table on drawing GI-001.
Sheet GI-002 - Note 6 under Regulatory Requirements on drawing GI-002 will be revised to state “….Love’s Travel Stop & Country Store will submit….” as the DEEP permit referenced in this note is not required to be submitted prior to receiving town approvals.

Sheet VO-1 - Note 7 will be removed from sheet VO-1 as all required planimetric features have been added to the drawing.

Sheet GI-102 - Drawing GI-102 has been revised to show the features required in Section 13.03.02.04 of the regulations including off-site topography and the off-site location of Roaring Brook within 500’ of the site boundary. Section 13.03.02.04 states that these features can be shown “using existing or available information, unless otherwise required by the Commission/Board”. The off-site information shown was taken from existing or available information including the topographic information taken from a State of Connecticut topographic source and the location of Roaring Brook which taken from Town of Willington mapping. The regulations do not require these off-site features to be mapped to A-2 or T-2 accuracy. It is our opinion that the accuracy of these features satisfies the intent of the regulations.

The source of the overall soils data is the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. This agency replaced the former U.S. Soil Conservation Service. The soil coding system remains the same and is a national standard. This source is typically used for land development.

The boundary survey was prepared to A-2 accuracy standards. This includes the accuracy to which the off-site property lines are shown. The property lines are shown in the locations determined by extensive records and field research.

Sheet XC-101 - We acknowledge a hydraulic connection between Roaring Brook and wetland F/G and H. We stated this at previous hearings and in the wetlands assessment. We have shown off-site features on drawing GI-102 using existing or available information as required by the regulations. Drawing XC-101 is included in the plan set for convenience and clarity to show the field located limits of on-site wetlands, including wetland flag numbers. Nothing was intentionally omitted from this or any other plan.
Sheet CP-101 - So noted.
All Sheets that Utilize Hatching - So noted.
Sheet CS-101 – To be answered in the next response to comments.
Sheet CS-102 - The pavement for the automobile parking area is shown on drawing CS-102 and is light duty asphalt pavement and consists of 2” of bituminous concrete class 2 on 2” bituminous concrete class 1 on 6” of processed aggregate base on compacted subgrade. The shading illustrating the limits of this pavement is now clearly shown on CS-102.
Sheets CR-101 & CR-102 - The profile of Polster Road is being lowered beginning at the passenger vehicle access drive and continuing northward to the truck entrance drive. This will reduce the existing centerline grade from approximately 6% to approximately 2%. The 13 foot lane width (11’ travel lane plus 2’ shoulder) is adequate given the road geometry and anticipated traffic volumes. A center median is not required in Polster Road anywhere along the site frontage. In the unlikely event that a vehicle enters the outbound-only truck drive, there would be sufficient maneuvering area within the site to safely turn around or continue to the fuel pumps or truck parking area.
Sheet CR-103 - We are not required to show existing signs on the plans that, to our knowledge, were not approved by a traffic authority.
Sheet CR-104 - Please see the response to number 13 above.
Sheet CR-105 - The plans will be revised to show the left turn movement of a WB-67 from Route 320 to northbound Polster Road.
Sheet CR-106 – We concur that the existing width of the Polster Road bridge located approximately 2500’th of the site is 25’.
Sheet CG-101 - There will be an underground roof leader collection system around the perimeter of the building connected to this one storm pipe that enters the infiltration system. These pipes will be sized during the preparation of the construction documents. The comment regarding Section 4.23, Riparian Corridors of the WZR will be addressed by Mr Josh Wilson, PWS.
Sheet CG-102 - The comment regarding Section 4.23, Riparian Corridors of the WZR will be addressed by Mr. Josh Wilson, PWS.
Sheet CG-103 -The portions of the south and west slopes in question, not stabilized by retaining walls and having a slope of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical, will be stabilized with 2’ stone, which is also known as Special Riprap. Riprap slope stabilization is an option listed in Section 16.02.06 of the regulations. This special riprap will be shown on the plans in the next set of plan revisions. The remainder of the south, west and north slopes will be stabilized by proposed retaining walls as required in Section 16.02.06 of the WZR. These slopes will also be covered with long-term erosion control blankets until they are permanently stabilized by a full stand of grass. Erosion and sediment control inspections shall be done according to the frequency required by the Connecticut DEEP.

We are researching the planting requirement around the building. We will modify the area surrounding the building in accordance with Section 13.05.13 if it does not currently meet the requirements of this section.

Sheet CG-104 - The portions of the west and north slopes in question, not stabilized by retaining walls and having a slope of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical, will be stabilized with 2’ stone, which is also known as Special Riprap. Riprap slope stabilization is an option listed in Section 16.02.06 of the regulations. This special riprap will be shown on the plans in the next set of plan revisions. The remainder of the west and north slopes are currently shown as being stabilized by proposed retaining walls as required in Section 16.02.06 of the WZR. These slopes will also be covered with long-term erosion control blankets until they are permanently stabilized. Erosion and sediment control inspections shall be done according to the frequency required by the Connecticut DEEP. The east slope has been lessened in conjunction with the reconstruction of Polster Road.

Sheets CU-101 & CG-104 -It is our opinion that the intent of WZR 12.04.03.03 where it states “All developments shall provide for underground installation of all utilities in both public ways and private extensions thereof” refers to placing proposed utilities underground from the existing service pole in the public right-of-way to be tapped to the proposed building in the proposed development. There is nothing in the regulation that specifically states that existing utilities along the site frontage shall be placed underground.
Sheets CU-103 & CG-104 - The identification numbers for the borings west of the SWAS have been corrected. The reference to Section 4.23 will be addressed by Mr. Josh Wilson. PWS.

We will respond to the remaining comments in writing and submit them to the Town Land Use Department.

Mr. Galeota concluded his presentation and turned the floor over to Josh Wilson.

Mr. Wison said the question asked of him is are Wetland F, G, and H tributaries. Mr. Wilson said he believes it is the ultimate decision of the Commission to conclude if Wetland F, G, ad H are tributaries under 4.23. Mr. Wilson read Regulation 4.23 and pointed out that upstream to a point, where there is a drainage area less than 200 acres or more, it is used to define the tributaries and watercourses. He said under the definition, the wetlands F, G and H, may be feeder streams to roaring brook, but would not be considered tributaries under 4.23. Mr. Wilson gave various examples, with the dimensions, of watersheds that are not tributaries. He said all wetlands onsite including all along Roaring Brook are approximately 1/10 of a square mile of 64 acres. Mr. Wilson said their definition of the site is that Wetlands F, G and H are not tributaries as defined in section 4.23.

Mr. Jacobs said they concluded the applicant’s presentation for the evening. Chairman Marco read a listing of all concerns voiced so far and asked if there were any additional comments or questions. Karen Bradley asked the procedure after the close of the Public Hearing. Chairman Marco said, after they close the Public Hearing, the Commission has to make a decision within 65 days. S. Yorgensen said July 16^th will be the continuation of the Public Hearing. Ms. Bradley asked if they could summarize their concerns in a short brief summary. Chairman Marco said they do want to hear what the people have to say but if they are going to restate everything said at all the Public Hearings, he does not see any value to it as it is already in the Public Record. Ms. Bradley said the value is to the consumer in the area. Atty. Branse said the Public Hearings are for public comment but repetition doesn’t achieve anything; the applicant may summarize their evidence and the public can summarize theirs.

Mr. Tulis addressed the commission and asked Mr.Galiotta to look closer at the CR 109; he said the applicant is doing it from a satellite and he is doing it from an as built. Mr. Tulis expressed his concerns on the truck volume and this area being the truck volume of the state. He asked the commission to look at the big picture and expressed his concerns on the infrastructure in which he would provide video at the next meeting. Mr. Tulis asked the Commission to look at the infrastructure and said he has submitted 3 letters stating his concerns and asked Mr. Galeota to look carefully at the CR10 drawing. R.Tulis said all intersections should be able to accommodate 2-way truck traffic and asked the Commission to consider the application carefully.

A discussion was held on the timeline of the next hearing and the information provided and Atty. Jacobs said they will aim to have all information in within two weeks of this hearing.

Ms. Horowitz questioned the infrastructure and indicated she would not like the town to be liable regarding this application.

Mr. Angrisani asked, if their well runs dry, what recourse do they have and Atty. Branse said they should contact their attorney if the condition does arise. Further discussion was held.

The Public Hearing was continued to July 16, 2013 at 7:30.

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)

Atty. Hollister and Alyssa Omley were present. He said they represent Project Sole and said the application is only for the charitable organization alcohol permit; Section 14 of the Zoning Regulations, class 5 permits. Ms. Omley gave the details of the race and all the security checks they have in place. A. Marco questioned the charitable organization and Ms. Omley said last year they donated 11,000 shoes throughout the course of the events. Atty. Branse questioned the non-profit event. Further discussion was held on the event and the percentage that would go to the charitable organization.

S. Yorgensen asked for a copy of Project Sole’s 501 (3) (c) certificate. Ms. Omley presented it.

A discussion was held on the food and beer vendors. Chairman Marco said they would like the Lease Agreement on file and Atty. Hollister said they could provide that.

Mitzi Horowitz, expressed her concerns on the number of people on site and the alcohol sales.

Danna Lichanec of Village Hill Road expressed her concerns on the property, the attendance, crowd control and alcohol control. Ms. Omley gave further details of the event; the total number of people would be 5,500 that would come in waves throughout the day.

A discussion was held on security and alcohol control. Ms. Omley said they would hire some off duty Police Officers and would have security. Discussion was held on the parking and traffic.

S. Yorgensen said the application is on the agenda for ZBA on June 27, 2013.

New Business

PZC2013-25 Review sign applications for Hilltop Restaurant 39 Adamec Road Applicant: Rogelio Ortiz (Received June 18, 2013 Decision or P.H. by July 16, 2013)

Discussion was held on the signage and the lighting.

E. Standish motioned to approve two building signs and an internally lit LED ground sign. D. Roberts seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried.

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 July 16, 2013)

Public Hearing 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 July 16, 2013)

Public Hearing set for July 16, 2013.

Old Business:

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.)

Ed Standish Motioned to approve PZC2011-14 Application for a modification to Special Permit consisting of changes to drainage and relocation of access drive (preliminary & final approved site development plan) at 262 Ruby Rd with the following conditions:

1. No further activity (i.e. storage, staging etc) other than access drive,

drainage and landscaping shall be conducted on the new parcel to be

added to the original; all other activity to be as show on approved plans.

2. Applicable Original Conditions to remain :

Final plans shall be revised to incorporate the modifications shown at the public hearing on May 17^th.
Landscaping plan developed by Roise Linden Land Design submitted on May 17^th shall be incorporated into the final set of plans and shall also include planting on the berms as shown on Landscaping Plan dated 2-14-11, sheet 4 of 8 drawn by Tarbell, Heintz & Associates. Plantings shall be installed to minimize view from the road and lot lines and shall be in accordance with Section 5.05.01.02.05. site line and are to comply with all Planning and Zoning Regulations.
Land Use Engineer to review and approve all changes prior to filing of Mylar.
Signage to conform to sign submitted and shall be non-illuminated and in addition, a sign at exit point saying no left turns (for large vehicles and tractor-trailers).
Hours of operation for large portable machinery kept on site (which, per the applicant, shall be registered and taxed in Willington) to be 7 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday and no work will be done on Federal Holidays.
A cost estimate for sedimentation and erosion control and landscaping to be submitted and reviewed by the land use department. Bonds shall be submitted for sedimentation and erosion control prior to Special Permit being issued and for landscaping prior to Certificate of Use and Occupancy being issued.
Copies of all State Permits shall be submitted to the town.
Permit shall be annually renewable.
This Special Permit takes precedence over all previously approved uses/site plans on this site, which are now invalid.

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, May 21, 2013, June 4, 2013 – extension granted/Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)

Chairman Marco said he has not yet listened to the tapes. The application was tabled to the next meeting.

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 June 18, 2013)

The Public Hearing was closed. The application was tabled to July 16, 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 June 18, 2013)

The Public Hearing was closed. The application was tabled to July 16, 2013.

The Public Hearing was The Public Hearing was continued until July 16, 2013.

E. Standish motioned to approve PZC2013-22 with the following conditions:

Approval is for one day only, July 27, 2013.
Event receive approval from Willington Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special Exception prior to State Application being signed off on.
Lease agreement between charitable organization and property owner is

submitted.

This approval shall be void should a Special Exception not be granted.

W. Parsell seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried.

Minutes

D. Roberts motioned to approve the minutes of June 4, 2013. W. Parsell seconded the motion. E. Standish abstained. All others in favor.

Respectfully Submitted,

Michele Manas

Recording Clerk