Planning and Zoning Commission
40 Old Farms Road Willington, CT 06279
September 17, 2013 – 6:00 PM
Special Meeting Workshop Minutes
Roll Call
Members Present
Andrew Marco, Chairman
Edward Standish- Vice-Chairman
Walter Parsell - Secretary
Thomas Murphy
Phil Nevers
Doug Roberts – Alternate
Members Absent:
J. Sullivan - excused
James Poole - excused
Also Present:
Susan Yorgensen – Planner/Zoning Agent
Mark Branse – Land Use Attorney
Caleb Hamel of Branse/Willis Firm
Workshop
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.)
E. Standish called the workshop to order at 6:15. E. Standish asked why they cannot place annually renewable as a condition and Atty. Branse explained the reason for this. He said case law is you can annually renewable for things that by their nature are temporary; for example gravel pits, various home occupations and some accessory dwellings. Atty. Branse gave an example of a school that was built and given a one year permit and the court said you can’t say that the party can build a school and then has to come back for yearly renewal; it either runs with the land or it doesn’t. He gave another example of a Dunkin Donuts; you can’t say they can build a restaurant but then after a year, if the permit is not approved, you have a vacant building. Further
discussion was held.
E. Standish asked if they could revoke the permit. Atty. Branse said no, the course of action would be to issue a Cease and Desist order and then a court action and then an injunction; that is the enforcement route. Further discussion was held.
The Commission was given a draft motion and Atty. Branse explained how the motion was drafted. S. Yorgensen came up with some conditions and Caleb Hamel and Atty. Branse went through the minutes, their notes, all letters received including letters from Mr. Tulis, and anything that looked like it might be a condition and included it in the draft motion. Atty. Branse said to think of it as a maxi list as there may be things in the draft that they do not want.
E. Standish read through the draft motion for PZC 2013-3, Applicant for Zone Change from R80 zone to Design Commercial. W. Parsell asked if #7 regarding the petition had been confirmed and S. Yorgensen said yes. E. Standish asked if the Commission saw anything they would like changed and they did not.
E. Standish read through the draft motion for PZC2013-4, Application for Special Permit for motor vehicle fuel sales, tire repair and replacement, retail trade and two restaurants, asked for comments and if all Commission members agreed with the condition.
A discussion was held on condition #4; Recommendations of the Connecticut Department of Transportation shall be incorporated into the final design. W. Parsell, asked if they have any jurisdiction over the highway exit ramp. Atty. Branse said no, and asked S. Yorgensen if she had received any information from the DOT. S. Yorgensen said nothing was received for the record; they have only sent responses to her email. She added there is nothing concrete and the DOT has not said that the applicant has to do or not do anything but had to submit an application for an encroachment permit. Atty. Branse said it is possible in their review, the DOT may want a modification to the site plan and whatever the DOT requires, they will have to follow. E. Standish said condition #4 states if the DOT makes a
recommendation, the applicant has to follow and questioned the word “recommendation”. Atty. Branse said yes, even a recommendation would have to be followed.
Atty. Branse noticed the copy of the motion the Commission is reviewing is not the most recent copy and the Commission took a recess and will reconvene after the latest revision is printed.
D. Roberts and P. Nevers arrived at 6:30.
The meeting reconvened at 6:35. S. Yorgensen said the only change on the portion the Commission has already reviewed is the statute number in #7 of draft motion PZC2013-3.
The Commission continued to review the draft motion for PZC2013-4, Application for Special Permit for motor vehicle fuel sales.
D. Robert asked if all conditions have equal weight and could be appealed individually. Atty. Branse said they all have equal weight but in terms of an appeal, an applicant could challenge only certain ones if they wish or they could challenge all of them.
Chairman Marco arrived at 6:40.
A discussion was held on condition #6 and Atty. Branse said the reason they would like the PZC and IWWC motions added to the plans is because you want to make it as easy as possible for the guy on the field to know what they are doing and not doing. He added that most towns do this and A. Marco said it becomes the working document.
A discussion was held on whether modifications should come back to the full Commission or if it should be delegated to staff. The Commission agreed to have modifications come back before the Commission.
A discussion was held on condition #11. Atty. Branse said it is all legalese and explained each sentence of the motion. He added that he puts this verbiage in all the motions that he drafts.
A discussion was held on condition # 14. Atty. Branse said it is his understanding there are elements of the application that either don’t comply with the regulations or the Commission does not feel are adequate at this time. He said the purpose of this condition is to require the applicant to return with these details and resolve them to the satisfaction of the Commission.
T. Murphy questioned the trimming of the bushes so as not to create an obstruction. Atty. Branse said he will add it to condition #23.
Atty. Branse commented on condition #15 and said the level of discretion, when the Commission reviews the design elements, is the same level of discretion they have in the main application.
A discussion was held on condition #18 and what happens if the plants die off 3 years down the road and Atty. Branse said it would be a violation of the approval; the plan has to continue to look the way the Commission approved it.
S. Yorgensen explained the “more detailed plan” and said the applicant has a sedimentation and erosion control plan now that is good but it doesn’t have everything totally spelled out and for that they would like it added to the plan. Atty. Branse added the plan would then be the one source the contractor needs.
A discussion was held on condition #22. Atty. Branse said he does not think the Commission has jurisdiction over air quality as trucks are constructed according to EPA guidelines. T. Murphy said they have a no idling policy and Atty. Branse said there is a state statute for idling which is in the motion. Further discussion was held and the Commission agreed to strike #22 from the conditions.
A discussion was held on condition #23 and Atty. Branse said the sightline should be there prior to construction so the constructions trucks will have them.
A discussion was held on condition #29 and whether to have metal or steel backed timber guard rails. After further discussion the Commission agreed that they did not have a preference.
Further discussion was held on condition #29 and sidewalks. D. Roberts said he would like sidewalks that run along the side of the road the length of the developed site. Atty. Branse asked if the Commission heard evidence that the site will increase pedestrian traffic and asked how this facility triggered the need for sidewalks. Atty. Branse said the Commission would have to show this facility is specifically causing the need for sidewalks. A. Marco said there was discussion of people moving around the parking lot and walking their dogs. S. Yorgensen said they do not want to draw people off the site, toward the road. W. Parsell agreed. Atty. Branse said interior sidewalks only are within the Commission jurisdiction.
Further discussion was held on pervious vs. concrete and Atty. Branse suggested the Commission go to the Capitol grounds which displays various types of low impact development design and explained the studies conducted. He said with the concrete sidewalks, they plow the snow, it melt, flows on to the sidewalks and freezes; on the pervious sidewalks the snow melts and soaks in. S. Yorgensen said the applicant has included pervious sidewalks in their application. S. Yorgensen said they could add to condition #7 to include the maintenance of the interior sidewalks and to keep free of snow and ice.
A discussion was held on condition #38 and keeping the air compressors inside. A discussion was held on the sound ordinance. Atty. Branse said there is a porch on the site and they could require walls on two sides which would not increase the footprint. E. Standish said, from his experience, this could make the noise louder. Further discussion was held.
J. Sullivan arrived at 7:42. The Commission briefed him on the process they have been following. J. Sullivan asked if the stone walls were added and E. Standish said yes. He added that they had to remove the noise and air conditions as they have no jurisdiction. D. Robert said they also have no jurisdiction on adding sidewalks along the side of the road.
Chairman Marco said they have finished their review of the motions. Atty. Branse will revise the motion with the changes requested by the Commission. A. Marco said the Regular Meeting will convene at 8:00.
Workshop adjourned.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michele Manas
Recording Clerk
| 
