Town of Willington, CT - PZC Meeting Minutes 09/03/2013

PZC Meeting Minutes 09/03/2013

Planning and Zoning Commission

40 Old Farms Road Willington, CT 06279

September 3, 2013 – 7:30 PM

Meeting Minutes

Roll Call

Members Present

Andrew Marco

Thomas Murphy

Walter Parsell – Secretary

Phil Nevers

Edward Standish – Vice Chairman

John Sullivan

Members Absent:

James Poole - excused

Doug Roberts – excused Alternate

Also Present:

Susan Yorgensen – Planner/Zoning Agent

Mark Branse – Land Use Attorney from Branse/Willis and Knapp

Caleb Hamel – from Branse/Willis and Knapp

Chairman Marco called the meeting to order at 7:30. He said he received an email from James Poole which stated he will not be attending any remaining meetings this year and will not seek re-election.

New Business

PZC2013-27 Resubdivision Plan (one new lot) of lot #5 map entitled ~~Property of Albert J. Baron Jr. Route 32 and Fisher Hill Road Willington, Conn. ~Nov, 1980 approved June 2, 1981 to construct dwelling, well & septic on 4.8 acres lot at 224 River Road (Map 19 Lot 22 Zone R80) Owner/Applicant: Kenneth Golden (Received September 3, 2013 Public Hearing by October 15, 2013 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)

The Public Hearing has been set for October 1, 2013.

Old Business:

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 closed 7/16/2013 Decision by September 17, 2013)

E. Standish Motioned to approve 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) with the following notation and modifications:

Title Block shall be revised to include “Preliminary Site Development Plan/DC Zone”
Proposed Driveway/Access Easement on the northerly lot (Parcel B), in favor of the southerly lot (Parcel A) to be filed on the land records at the same time as the Mylars.
This approval includes no development on the northerly lot other than the access drive and associated grading shown on the “Presentation Plan” dated 1/14/2013, last revised 7/16/2013.

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

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 closed 7/16/2013 Decision by September 17, 2013)

E. Standish Motioned to grant a waiver of Section 13.03.02.04 regarding showing existing conditions within 500 feet, for 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) . T. Murphy seconded the motion.

Chairman Marco read 13.03.02.04 and the Commission had a discussion. A vote was held.

All in favor.

W. Parsell Motioned to approve 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) with the following notations and modifications:

Plans to be revised to incorporate any technical revisions required by PZC engineer or staff.
Proposed Driveway/Access Easement on the northerly lot, Parcel B, in favor of the southerly lot, Parcel A to be filed on the land records at the same time as the Mylars, text subject to review and approval of the Land Use Attorney.
Recommendations by State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation to be incorporated into the final design.
Restaurant shall be a maximum of 34 seats. Plans shall be revised accordingly.
Sedimentation and erosion control plan shall be supplemented with a more detailed plan meeting DEEP Bulletin 34, 2002 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Guidelines.
Existing well along north property line to be abandoned (per Utilities plan 1) prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
A litter control plan incorporating the site and the surrounding area and including a bonding proposal shall be submitted to the Commission for approval prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued. The form of the bond shall be subject to the approval of the Land Use Attorney. This bond shall be annually renewable and may be adjusted up or down based on experience with implementation of the litter control plan.
Title Block shall be revised to include “Special Permit/Final Site Development Plan”.
PZC and IWWC motions of approval to be added to the plans.
Complete site as-built to be submitted prior to Certificate of Occupancy and to include all improvements including septic, drainage structures and utilities.

Landscaping plans as submitted are not approved. Plans to be revised and submitted to the Commission for approval and shall incorporate plantings that meet Section 4.14, 13.06.04 and 13.05.13. A performance bond for plantings and their maintenance shall be submitted and kept in place for 2 years after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Signage not approved at this time. Signage plan to be revised and submitted to the Commission for approval and shall include locations, dimensions, square footage, lighting detail (including wattage/lumens etc), and shall meet the regulation regarding the text being illuminated vs. the background which should be opaque.
Lighting plan not approved at this time. Plan shall be revised to include locations of all lighting, site and building and shall include wattage/lumens and specification sheets for all fixtures (which shall be full cutoff).
Review of the landscaping, sign, and lighting plans required by this motion shall be considered components of this Special Permit and Site Development Plan review, and shall be governed by the applicable criteria of Sections 12 and 13 of the Zoning Regulations, and subject to the level of discretion accorded under such Sections.

P. Nevers seconded the motion.

A discussion was held on litter control and a performance bond. A discussion was held on the amount of the bond to be requested. A discussion was held on the erosion control plan and the landscaping, sign and lighting plans. A vote was held.

All in favor. The revised motion above 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 P.H. closed July 16, 2013 Decision by September 17, 2013)

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 P.H. closed July 16, 2013 Decision by September 17, 2013)

Chairman Marco said, at the last meeting, they went through the checklist and walked away feeling the application was complete. He then read the Criteria for Decision on a Change of Zone. A. Marco referenced the PoCD and said it mentions the I84 interchange; the public felt this was the area of growth. A discussion was held on section 4.8.2. W. Parsell referenced section 4.8.4, Economic Development Goals, Objectives and Recommendations and a discussion was held.

E. Standish said this area is not listed as one of the areas to preserve and was identified as an area of growth. J. Sullivan said he does not believe this area promotes diverse economic development as he believes it is repetitive. A discussion was held. S. Yorgensen said she does not believe the PoCD is saying the Commission needs to weigh each development to see if each development is diverse, she believes it is saying you want to promote diverse development in Town. J. Sullivan said he understands that. W. Parsell said the Commission needs to thoroughly read 4.8.2 and 4.8.4 as it has many references to I84 and even mentions the truck stop. Further discussion was held. A. Marco said he is hearing from the Commission that the zone change for the proposed location is in concert with the PoCD.

Chairman Marco read 12.04.01.02, The existing and future character of the neighborhood

in which the Designed Development Zone is to be located. Particular attention shall be paid to the type and density of adjacent residential development, the character and uniqueness of the natural resources of the neighborhood, the character and use of existing highway facilities, and the Plan of Development and the Comprehensive Plan.

E. Standish said they have the truck stop across the way, residential areas down the street a bit, the freeway, and Red Arts but there’s not a great population density. He said in regards to the uniqueness of the natural resources, there’s some that could be considered with Roaring Brook in the adjacent area. A. Marco said there was a lot of talk about how it should be preserved but not how that would be done.

Chairman Marco read section 12.04.01.03, the location and character of buildings in relation to one another and to existing or likely adjacent structures. Such location and character shall create a harmonious grouping and shall be compatible with surrounding structures. He said there were some residents that said they liked the look of the building.

Chairman Marco read section 12.04.01.04, Traffic circulation within the site, the amount, access, and location of parking and loading facilities, and the quantity and composition of traffic generated by the proposed uses. Development shall be located so as to provide direct access to existing major streets and highways and to discourage increased traffic loads through residential neighborhoods and minor residential streets and to prevent increased congestion or circulation problems on existing streets. The proposal shall not impose upon the Town improvements to circulation off the site along existing roads or at affected neighboring intersections. A discussion was held and A. Marco said they heard a great deal of testimony from both sides.

A discussion was held on the amount of accidents in the area. P. Nevers said, according to the state, there are not a lot of accidents in the area; the remainder may have been undocumented. J. Sullivan said he travels 320 and frequently sees wandering tractor trailers that are lost and per the evidence Mr. Tulis provided, it is obvious there are a lot of cars missing turns and turning around in driveways. W. Parsell said he also has seen lost traffic in the area of the dump. E. Standish said he believes it is also affected by TA’’s poor signage.

Chairman Marco asked how the Commission feels about traffic circulation. E. Standish said they will see increased traffic on Love’s side of the freeway and decreased traffic on the other side of the freeway but could have potential problems of people going down the wrong way. He said there are always people that cannot figure out where they are but does not see how they can control that. E. Standish said the signage plan they offered will potentially help with some of that. Further discussion was held. T. Murphy said the proposed truck stop would be more visible than TA. J. Sullivan said there is valid concern on the infrastructure in the area. W. Parsell said if you spend time at any truck stop, you will see the wide turns made even in the best laid out outlets. A. Marco said he was surprised they didn’t alter more of the curb radiuses, but if it meets the state’s criteria, they are done with it.

A discussion was held on whether or not Love’s will reduce traffic on the other side of 320. W. Parsell said you cannot scientifically say it will reduce traffic. T. Murphy said Love’s would be more visible than TA. A. Marco said it there would be direct access to fairly major streets. A. Marco said, in a perfect world without anybody getting lost, they wouldn’t be on town roads for very long. He added that there was a concern on the plowing of the roads in the area.

P. Nevers referenced the minutes of May 7^th; the DOT accident report analysis states the accidents have decreased from 5 per year to 2 per year. A. Marco said he is hearing there are concerns about traffic but the other criterion seems to be met.

Chairman Marco read 12.04.01.05, The quality of the natural resources within the proposed zone and the effect the proposal will have on such resources. The presence of wetlands and flood plains, the quality of the water in streams and ponds, and the impact the proposal might have through the disposal of septic effluent or Storm water runoff, the degree of topographic alteration, and the uniqueness of animal and plant communities shall be considered. The site shall be suitable for development in the manner proposed without causing hazards to persons or property on or off the site from flooding, erosion, slipping of soil, or other harmful or inconvenient effects. Conditions of soil, groundwater level, drainage, and topography must be appropriate for both land and pattern of use intended. A. Marco said this area of land doesn’t show up on any of the critical places in town per the PoCD. He said he has struggled a little with this as he has a great deal of respect for the Inland Wetland Watercourse Commission and referenced the comments from the public stating they do not have to listen to them. Atty. Branse said the IWWC is guided by the wetland regulations which are designed to protect wetlands and watercourses but PZC has a broader realm. He said IWWC looks at a particular site where the PZC looks at how it fits in with the puzzle of the town. Atty. Branse said they would certainly give due consideration on the vote of the IWWC but in evaluating whether a particular area should be zoned on a particular site, they have to look at the general impacts on the resources that surround the site.

T. Murphy asked if they look at the distances from the wetlands and Atty. Branse said if the application is in violation of the setback, they could not approve it but in this case the zone change includes a site development plan and shows a distance. He said the questions for the Commission is do you feel the zone change and development are appropriate to protect the resource. Atty. Branse said you cannot protect every resource everywhere as you would not have another house in town so there has to be a balance to strike between preserving and allowing development to the most reasonable, possible extent. W. Parsell said page 429 of the regulations refers to some of the concerns with the watercourses. Further discussion was held.

Chairman Marco said 12.04.01.06, The availability of water to the site and adequate disposal of sewerage effluent and 12.04.01.07, The location and type of display signs and lighting and the hours and type of operation of commercial and industrial operations he believes were addressed in the application. J. Sullivan said they are going to consume a lot of water, 40,000 gallons a day. E. Standish said in 12.04.01.07, it states Such facilities and operations shall not cause annoyance and inconvenience to the neighboring residential areas and this is one of the biggest question marks he has on this list. A. Marco said that is a tough one, how do you weigh it? S. Yorgensen asked why would there be more light on the neighborhood if they have down lighting that has to stay on their property? A. Marco said the neighboring residents has spoken and said this would be very annoying and inconvenient but that would be true for anything.

E. Standish said, if there were a lot of conditions that were not met, that would tip the scale but if they find the majority of the conditions are met, that is part of their decision process.

Chairman Marco read 12.04.01.08 and said it ties into 12.04.01.07 and then read 12.04.01.09, economic impact on the Town of Willington and said it does not appear to be much of a burden on town services. He said there was one person that talked about the added work of plowing the area but was not sure how that was an added burden. E. Standish said there is potential for issues requiring the fire department, ambulance and there may be additional draw for those facilities. T. Murphy said that holds true for added property anywhere. E. Standish said there has to be a balance between economic impact on the town and potential revenue it will bring in. He said it seems to him there would be more financial gain. P. Nevers said it also would include employment opportunities.

Chairman Marco said there are some parts of the Design Criteria that have been met and some that are questionable which include existing and future character, traffic circulation, quality of natural resources, and annoying and inconvenience to residents. A. Marco said it does seem that the area along I84 is the place they want to put the commercial development.

The Commission will continue with deliberation Wednesday, September 4, 2013.

Minutes

P. Nevers motioned to approve the minutes of July 16, 2013. T. Murphy seconded the motion. E. Standish and J. Sullivan abstained. All others in favor. Motion carried.

Correspondence

Letter from Benchmark Property Management regarding the sale of Deer Park Apartments.
Letter from WINCOG regarding limited service hotels in Storrs Center Design District.
Letter from WINCOG regarding preservation uses in Mansfield.
Letter from Patricia Vonasek regarding an application for special permit for rear lot at Tolland Turnpike including a Letter from Meehan & Goodin.

Meeting adjourned at 9:10.

Respectfully submitted,

Michele Manas

Recording Clerk