Planning and Zoning Commission
40 Old Farms Road Willington, CT 06279
August 27, 2013 – 7:30 PM
Special Meeting Workshop Minutes
Roll Call
Members Present:
Andrew Marco – Chairman
Thomas Murphy
Phil Nevers
Edward Standish – Vice Chairman
John Sullivan arrived at 6:58
Doug Roberts – Alternate – seated for J. Poole
Members Absent:
Walter Parsell - Secretary, excused
James Poole - excused
Also Present:
Susan Yorgensen – Planner/Zoning Agent
Chairman Marco called the workshop to order at 6:46. He said a decision must be made by September 17th and said tonight’s goal is to go through the checklists given to the commission members. S. Yorgensen explained the packages given to the members which includes copies of the application, copies of all public hearing minutes, letters from the applicant’s engineers, memos from state agencies and Regional Counsel of Government, submittals from the Conservation Commission and all the town agencies, submittals from Ralph Tulis, letters and photos from the public, and the Plan of Conservation and Development. Also available and on display were the boards submitted by the Conservation Commission and a full set of maps and all the reports submitted.
E. Standish, A. Marco, T. Murphy, P. Nevers, D. Roberts said they have listened to the recordings for all meetings they have missed.
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, June 18, 2013 – extension granted /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, June 18, 2013 ~– extension granted /Decision by September 17, 2013.)
The Commission went through the Designed Development Zone Checklist and concluded the following items had been submitted:
- pre-application conference
- official application
- fee submitted
- abutters names and addresses
- authorized applicant
- general statement describing the types of uses on site-specific-proposed, method by which site utilities will be provided, proposed timetable for development including phases, open space resources of the site.
A discussion was held on open space and the Commission looked at the regulations. S. Yorgensen read definition 12.04.03.11 and said the regulations state anything not developed is considered open space and there is no specific amount required. S. Yorgensen said if the zone change is approved the Commission would then decide how they are going to designate open space. A. Marco said, if they get into the application, they would then consider the Conservation Commission’s recommendations.
A brief discussion was held on the method of preservation and the Commission said they would revisit this at a later date.
The Commission continued with the checklist and concluded they had the following items:
- pattern/method of ownership and maintenance of interior roadways, public facilities, sewerage disposal systems, water supply systems, and other common elements. 100% will be owned and maintained by the applicant. The town will not be responsible for any of the maintenance.
A discussion was held on the statement outlining how proposed development conforms to the comprehensive plan and the plan of development. A. Marco said he believes Atty. Jacobs made the statement. The Commission looked through the minutes. J. Sullivan said, in his opinion, the PoCD wasn’t addressed in a document but interwoven throughout the public hearings. He said a statement was made by him at the May meeting although the minutes do not reflect that.
A. Marco said they are looking for the statement of how the proposal for the zone change will better utilize the resources of the site to the benefit of the neighborhood and the town than would be possible under the underlying zone. E. Standish said he also believes it may not be clear and concise but was brought up throughout the public hearing by the applicant.
The Commission looked at April 16th minutes which stated the following on page 6:
Atty. Jacobs referenced the Plan of Development in which he said is different from the Zoning Regulations because the Plan of Development is more of a general statement of concepts. He said after reading through the plan a couple things jumped out; only 1.3 percent of land is vacant and usable and can accommodate future development. He said the Plan of Development also says that commercial industrial development is a goal for the community to promote diverse economic development which provides services, employment and tax revenue in well located commercial areas. He said this is significant because the Plan of Development also points out that along the interstate is a good place for commercial development. Atty. Jacobs said he believes the Plan of Development supports the application because the application provides goods,
services, employment opportunities and tax revenue.
Atty. Jacobs also referenced a portion of the Plan of Development that talks about stakeholder interviews and touched on points of control growth and uncontrolled growth; he said growth along the highway is not uncontrolled growth because that’s where the Plan of Development suggested is the best place to have growth in the community. Atty. Jacobs thinks the project meets all the requirements of the Plan of Development.
Further discussion was held and S. Yorgensen said they did make the statement several times but ultimately it will be up to the Commission to decide whether or not the applicant meets the intent of the regulations. J. Sullivan said it sounds like, from what they are finding, Atty. Jacobs is interlaying the Plan of Development and resources. S. Yorgensen said the checklists are generic checklists from what is required in the regulations and are meant to cover any and all zone changes so not everything will necessarily apply. She added that the checklists are also general requirements and it is up to the commission to decide if the applicant’s statements comply with the intent of the regulations.
Chairman Marco asked if the Commission felt the applicant made a reasonable statement of how the proposal will better utilize the resources of the site. E. Standish said, at the May 7th meeting, the applicant made reference to the signage and how it would help with errant trucks. S. Yorgensen said it is better outlined in the tape; the minutes do not capture all of what was said. J. Sullivan said the statement was also addressed in Atty. Jacob’s closing remarks in which he was corrected when he called it the Plan of Development when it should have been the Plan of Conservation and Development.
The Commission agreed it was may not have been concise but interwoven throughout the hearings. E. Standish mentioned some of the points raised; the signage plan to help direct people, the splitting off of traffic so that some of the traffic that would normally go to TA would not be crossing the bridge and that the errant truck issue today will not occur with Loves. The Commission agreed the statement had been made.
Chairman Marco said he looked through the natural resource inventory and open space conservation plan and this particular parcel does not show up under the 2008 plan as an area of interest.
Chairman Marco said the Commission needs to dig into the PoCD and determine if this zone change conforms. He said there have heard testimony from both sides and it is now up to the Commission to decide.
The Commission continued with the checklist and determined they had the following:
- zone change map for recording including the boundary survey, names of all abutting property owners of record, key survey, a2 survey and certified by a ct licensed land surveyor.
- Preliminary site development and land use concept plan
E. Standish said their time would be better used by going through the PoCD and S. Yorgensen could make sure the application is complete. A. Marco disagreed and said it was the Commission who needed to be sure because they were the ones making the decision. E. Standish read the Vision Statement in the PoCD. D. Roberts suggested they get a consensus after going through all the information. J. Sullivan said he would like to take time to go through the packet and reconvene next week.
The Commission agreed to add a workshop on September 4, 2013 at 6:30.
The Commission went through the Special Permit/Exception Checklist and concluded they have a complete application, site plan and all general information. S. Yorgensen said the site features are technical items and were pointed out throughout the public hearing. D. Roberts said the items on the checklist are all administrative items. S. Yorgensen said the site features are all on the site plan.
E. Standish suggested they discuss the Criteria for Decision at the next meeting. The Commission agreed to take all the information and thoroughly digest it and reconvene next Tuesday at 7:30. J. Sullivan said it would be beneficial to have S. Yorgensen go through the plans and give her expertise at the next meeting. A. Marco said, at the next meeting, they will discuss Criteria for Decisions on Change of Zone. S. Yorgensen said all members now have the cd submitted by Ralph Tulis.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michele Manas
Recording Clerk
| 
