TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
Planning and Zoning Commission
Public Hearing #1467
November 22, 2005
*****Draft Document - Subject to Commission Approval *****
The meeting was called to order at 7:07 P. M. by Chairman Guiliano in the Meeting Room of the Town Hall, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:
A quorum was established as five Regular Members (Filipone, Gowdy, Guiliano, Rodrigue and Saunders) and three Alternate Members (Kehoe, Ouellette and Tyler) were present. Chairman Guiliano noted both he and Commissioner Saunders have read the Minutes of Regular Meeting dated November 15, 2004 (Public Hearing #1466) and are comfortable acting on decisions this evening. Also present was Town Planner Whitten.
ADDED AGENDA ITEMS: None.
RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS: None.
The following Legal Notice, which appeared in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday, November 10, 2005, and Thursday, November 17, 2005, was read by Secretary Saunders:
1. Application of DMD Realty Family Partnership to amend Special Use Permit (granted on 10/22/91) to allow a rear lot at 341 Rye Street. [A-1 Zone; Map 40, Block 50, Lot 13].
2. Application of HVE, LLC (Richard Corrado and Bob Gingras) for a 1-lot resubdivision located at 35 Barber Hill Road. [Map 42, Block 72, Lot 8-2].
3. Application of South Prospect Hill Road, LLC for a Special Use Permit/Modification to General Development Plan - from approved hotel use to use by two restaurants, located at 43 Prospect Hill Road [HIFZ Zone; Map 11, Block 14, Lot 14].
CONTINUED HEARINGS: Chapman Properties, LLC - Text Amendment to the zoning regulations, Section 8A.10.2.2, involving unit mix percentages. (Deadline to close hearing 12/20/05); AND, CONTINUED HEARINGS: Chapman Properties, LLC - Special Use Permit to allow a 220-unit apartment complex--known as Mansions on the Scantic--a Special Development District, located on the east side of North Road, at the intersection of Yosky Road, owned by Sumner Chapman. [A-1/A-2 Zones; Map 9, Block 36, Lot 46]. (Deadline to close hearing 12/20/05):
Chairman Guiliano read the Hearing descriptions. It was noted presentations for both Hearings would occur simultaneously. Appearing to discuss these Applications were Attorney Joseph Capossela, representing the client, Gardner and Sumner Chapman, Jay Ussery and Tim Kuhns of J. R. Russo & Associates, and Scott Hesketh of F. A. Hesketh, Traffic Engineers.
Chairman Guiliano questioned Attorney Capossela if he was finished with his presentation, as the Minutes reflected it appeared he had not been able to respond to all the comments during the previous meeting. Attorney Capossela indicated he would like an opportunity to respond further.
Commissioner Filipone noted he had asked for additional information to be presented this evening, which include Minutes from the Board of Finance Meeting indicating their comments on the Developers Agreement regarding the North Road sewer line, comments from the Fire Marshal with regard to this project, and a traffic/accident report from the Police Department reflecting accident history for Route 140/North Road for the past year. Referencing the Police report he questioned Town Planner Whitten if the 23 accidents listed for North Road included a total of all the accidents listed for other intersections at North Road? Town Planner Whitten reported in response to her request for an accident history on North Road for the past year she received today a 43 page report from the Police Department indicating all
accidents which occurred throughout town. There were no specific property addresses associated with the incidents but she broke them down as best she could. The number of 23 accidents for North Road is exclusive of the other items subsequently listed; there are a total of 64 accidents listed. Some incidents just listed North Road so there was no telling where on North Road they occurred; she would have had to go to the Police Department and review each accident report. She understood that Mr. Hesketh had additional information to present with regard to accident history. Attorney Capossela agreed that Mr. Hesketh may be able to shed more light on the issue.
Mr. Hesketh reported that he had initially obtained information from a three year report for the period 1999 through 2001 which indicated there had been 50 accidents on Route 140 between Route 191 and Mullen Road. He has obtained additional information for the three year period 2002 through 2004 which indicated there were 62 accidents between Route 191 and Mullen Road. While that number may seem to be a lot of accidents with the amount of traffic on Route 140 it may not be a significant amount. Mr. Hesketh reported that engineers like to speak of the number of accidents in vehicle miles traveled, the lowest number of accidents on State highways was the year 2002 with 252.6 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles, and the highest was 278.4 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles for the year 1996. Based on the traffic volume counts there are approximately 12,000 cars which travel Route 140 daily, and the distance between Mullen Road and Route 191 is 2.13 miles. If you take
the number of vehicles times 365 days times three years times the 2.13 miles then 13,140,000 vehicles traveled that distance on Route 140 for the period 2002 through 2004. The vehicle miles traveled for that same period was 27,988,200 which worked out to 221.5 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles. That accident rate is lower than the State traffic rate for the lowest year. Mr. Hesketh suggested that 62 accidents in three years sounds large but is actually lower than one would anticipate. Although everyone knows one accident is too many if it happens to you but 62 accidents for that period isn’t that high. Attorney Capossela queried that Mr. Hesketh was saying that the 62 accidents was an average, or below average accident rate for a State highway? Mr. Hesketh reiterated that the number of accidents is below average.
Attorney Capossela requested to recall that there are two Applications before the Commission, the text amendment and the Special Use Permit. With regard to the text amendment they are trying to remove the restriction on the one bedroom apartments as they feel there is no reason to restrict them. If the Commission’s concern is the number of school aged children then 40%, or even 100%, furthers your objective. Eliminating the 30% rule..., an opponent said why change the rule for this guy? Someone said they didn’t want any three bedroom apartments. Eliminating the 30% rule fits into their plan but it also helps the town meet it’s objective for it’s plans as well.
With regard to the Special Use Permit/Site Plan Attorney Capossela suggested he understood the Commission had received new letters as correspondence. He had received a copy of Attorney Tyler’s letter, he questioned if it would be read into the record? Chairman Guiliano acknowledged receipt of letter dated November 22, 2005 from Tyler and Tyler addressed to the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) regarding the Chapman Properties Public Hearings. Town Planner Whitten noted they had also received two additional letters: 1) letter received November 18, 2005 from Marilyn Yosky; and 2) letter dated/received November 18, 2005 from Jerry and Karen Marquis. All three letters are against the Chapman development.
Attorney Capossela noted he received a copy of Attorney Tyler’s letter on behalf of the Kement family, they object to the development for the following reasons: 1) increased traffic would be dangerous for construction traffic from the Kement property causing them not to be able to use their property. Attorney Capossela felt that just as they have a right to use their frontage for construction the Chapman’s have a right to use the SDD area as well. He noted they are standing on the traffic study they are submitting, and he didn’t feel the other uses on
that State road have the right to restrict their use. 2) some apartment dwellers will wander onto the Kement property exposing themselves to risk. Attorney Capossela felt that single family homeowners might do the same thing, and it’s not up to the PZC to monitor that, and he didn’t think that apartment dwellers will that do that any more than anyone else. 3) no boundary line agreement has been reached between the Kements and Sumner Chapman. Attorney Capossela suggested that they met over a year ago to seek resolution and the Kements haven’t commented on that issue. He didn’t think the Zoning Commission addressed boundary issues; if it’s needed the Applicant will work it out.
Attorney Capossela indicated he had not received a copy of the letters from Marilyn Yosky and the Marquis; he requested time to review them.
Attorney Capossela requested to address issues that were raised at the last hearing. Mr. Loos commented that they were building 10 units per acre. Attorney Capossela suggested they are not doing that, they are using the developable acres - 55 - times 4 units per acre, which equals 220 units. Mr. Loos’ comment isn’t accurate. He noted Mr. Loos said people shouldn’t be going into the area of the proposed walking trail and people hunt and fish in that area. Attorney Capossela suggested that based on discussions last time, and discussions with the client and their engineers, they are prepared to not do the walking trail if it’s causing difficulties. Attorney Capossela noted that Mr. Loos felt the town should be putting the sewers in. He noted the town has
been trying to do that for years and now they have a willing developer who is willing to partner with the town, they would be wise to work with him; the town is getting as many benefits as they are giving up. Attorney Capossela also noted Mr. Loos said this is not the place to put 220 units. He reported the calculations are accurate, and he believes it’s the place to put them. Attorney Capossela noted that years ago Ellington had an area zoned for multi-family housing, and they put the apartments on the town boundaries. Attorney Capossela felt that was the wrong way to develop, clustering all the apartments together; scattering them throughout the town is better. If the site fits it, and the zone allows it, and they can meet the criteria which the Planner set out, and they feel the fit is a matter of opinion. This is the right place to put them; it’s on a State highway; is this where you want to put single
family homes next to a construction business? Apartments/multi-family units are a transitional zone and the regulations allow this under the SDD Zone; the town has rules in place to do it.
Attorney Capossela noted that Mr. Lowell asked if these are condos or apartments? He reported the Chapmans are in the apartment business, not condos. They will be owned and operated by the Chapmans who will cut the grass, etc. Chairman Guiliano noted that the issue of recreational vehicles was brought up, will they be allowed to park there; is it part of the apartment documents? Attorney Capossela indicated he didn’t know if it’s part of the apartment documents, but the owner can restrict it. Attorney Capossela noted that Mr. Lowell questioned if they would pay for garbage pick up? He suggested it will be paid for by the owner; it’s a privately run operation; private roads, not town roads. Quality apartments are a profitable venture for the town;
the taxes received exceed the cost of services. The infrastructure is paid for by the owner; it’s a win/win situation.
Attorney Capossela noted Mr. Hayes questioned if there was a Plan B with regard to the sewer. He indicated there is a Plan B, Plan A was to go to Broad Brook, which can be done; they proposed to go down North Road because they were urged to meet the town’s objective.
Attorney Capossela noted Ms. DeSousa questioned who would pay for the water line? He suggested it will be paid for by the Connecticut Water Company and passed on to the developer. He noted Ms. DeSousa questioned where it would be located? Attorney Capossela suggested that would be up to the Connecticut Water Company, but it likely would be in the road. He also noted Ms. DeSousa questioned if there would be a light, as the sun hits in the wrong direction in the morning. That would be decided by the State because Route 140 is a State highway.
Attorney Capossela suggested Mr. Sinisgallo questioned if there would be sidewalks? He noted they took those comments and have made changes to the plan to address that issue; the original answer was that there would be no sidewalks but they took another look. Mr. Ussery of J. R. Russo & Associates referenced site sketches, noting he would like to cover the issue of sidewalks and site lighting. He noted that one of the Commissioners said they didn’t have a lot of street lights. They have added sidewalks along one side of the roads, and because of that it would require additional lighting. The sidewalks have been added to connect the community building across the front to building #2; the additional sidewalks connect to the sidewalks in front of the buildings, and then pick up at
the islands and continue on to the rear. They are proposing 20’ poles for the site lighting; if the Commission prefers they can reduce the pole height to 15’ or 12’ but may need additional poles. The building mounted lighting will also light the sidewalks. Sidewalks now run from the front all the way to the rear of the project. Chairman Guiliano questioned if the sidewalks run along the islands to the maintenance building? Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively, noting the residents can now go to the community building and the back of the site via sidewalks.
Commissioner Filipone indicated that he believed the tennis and basketball courts will be built as part of Phase II; what happens to the courts if Phase II is not developed? Mr. Ussery noted it would be simple to add the courts, and one more building unit, into Phase I. Attorney Capossela noted that the clubhouse and pool are part of Phase I.
Attorney Capossela addressed the letter written by the Marquis, noting it deals with dissatisfaction with Mill Pond Village which apparently has left a bad taste in the mouth of the Town. He indicated he didn’t know what happened with regard to Mill Pond Village, but he does know that the apartments operated by the Chapmans are not Mill Pond Village. This is an Applicant with a good track record with regard to apartment management. Could it happen; anything is possible. Is it likely to happen; he doesn’t think so. Their experience is they don’t have drug traffic; Attorney Capossela feels the trick is that they check people out on the way in with regard to income requirements. The Chapmans have the staff to do this.
Attorney Capossela then READ FOR THE RECORD letter referencing the number of school aged children added to the school system in Vernon as a result of the residency at The Mansions at the Hockanum. He noted that such projects average 3 school aged children per 100 units. When the Applicant looks at the Zoning Regulations that’s the rule book; they look at the regulations and try to play by the rules. It’s not foreign to allow apartments in East Windsor; you allow apartments. You would be hard pressed to say you don’t want them; if so, then they should be taken out of the regulations. They are allowed and the Commission has the right to set stipulations. To say this is the wrong use for this area is contrary to what the regulations allow. Attorney Capossela
referenced the Minutes from the previous meeting, noting Mr. Loos felt the A-1 Zone is spot zoning, that they are picking out a place for this use. He suggested that’s what the regulations want an applicant to do, show a place where the apartments fit.
Attorney Capossela then noted Ms. LaPorta suggested there are a lot of accidents. He clarified the number based on the information from DOT as presented by Mr. Hesketh.
Attorney Capossela referenced that Mr. Sinisgallo felt people from out of the area coming into town and will then complain. He cited he hears this frequently; maybe they will like it. He felt we have a nice community, and other people want to come in.
Commissioner Filipone questioned if any response was received from the Fire Marshal? Town Planner Whitten noted she has verbal comments, but nothing in writing. His comment was that the emergency aces road needs to be paved to support emergency vehicles. Attorney Capossela noted the emergency exit meets the Town requirements with regard to specifications. Commissioner Filipone questioned if we talked about fire hydrants? Mr. Kuhns noted they are located on the plan; none of the distances are greater than 500’ from any unit. Attorney Capossela suggested if the Fire Marshal wants them somewhere else the Applicant will do so.
Attorney Capossela referenced the Minutes of the previous meeting again, noting Mr. Loos said the text amendment shouldn’t be changed for this guy; it should be a change for the whole town. Attorney Capossela suggested the text amendment would be for the while town.
Commissioner Gowdy questioned the anticipated number of school aged children from this development? Chairman Guiliano questioned Town Planner Whitten on this piece of property, if they put in single family homes, how many school aged children would we get? Town Planner Whitten indicated her calculations would be rough, as it would depend on the type of subdivision proposed. For a straight forward subdivision based on A-1 Zoning, with a tract of 106 acres, and assuming half of the parcel is A-1, which would be 53 acres, then you would have to take out 10% for Open space plus take into consideration the density factor you might get 24 to 26 houses. If it were a Planned Residential Development it would produce 40 to 53 lots. Commissioner Gowdy questioned if you had 26 lots times 2.1
children/unit you would have 52 kids. Town Planner Whitten concurred that 26 lots times 2.1 children would produce 54+ children. Commissioner Gowdy then queried Attorney Capossela that he had said such a project as proposed would produce 3 school aged children per 100 units? Attorney Capossela replied affirmatively, noting that would be an average. Commissioner Gowdy indicated he would like to see some information from the school department in Vernon regarding the number of children coming from the development there.
Attorney Capossela indicated they don’t have a letter from the school system but they have the data, which he submitted as an exhibit (Letter dated 11/22/2005 from Joseph P. Capossela re: The Mansions at Hockanum Crossing). He READ FOR THE RECORD information contained in that letter, noting that of the 379 units in The Mansions at Hockanum Crossing 165 units (or 43%) are one bedroom units, while 215 units (or 57%) are two bedroom units. He also referenced an attachment regarding income requirements, noting that a monthly rental costing $895 requires an annual income level of $38,357. Chairman Guiliano questioned if they allow children in the one bedroom units? Attorney Capossela and Gardner Chapman concurred that the one bedroom apartments allow residency by 2 people; Attorney Capossela suggested it could
be a mother and her child. Attorney Capossela then referenced information from the Vernon School Transportation Department that The Mansions at Hockanum Crossing have produced 10 school-aged children, with 9 being enrolled in the public school system and one in a local private school. Commissioner Gowdy questioned if any children walk to school? Attorney Capossela felt not; the route is along Route 83. Commissioner Gowdy questioned how far away is the nearest school? Attorney Capossela suggested it is a far distance; he wouldn’t expect anyone to be walking up Route 83. He referenced paragraph three again. Chairman Guiliano noted Attorney Capossela had been saying 3 school aged children per 100 units, this information is close. Attorney Capossela suggested the project to be known as The Mansions on the Scantic would anticipate to produce six school aged children for the project.
With regard to the lighting, they are proposing 20’ poles, but would go down to 15’ poles; whatever is the Commission’s preference. Commissioner Filipone indicated the Commission preferred 12’ poles; Chairman Guiliano agreed. Mr. Ussery noted there is lighting on the front of the building; he felt the site lighting will be similar; it’s traditional colonial luminaries. It’s not what you would see in a retail parking lot; these are lantern style. Attorney Capossela suggested the Commission stipulate that the lighting be lower. Chairman Guiliano queried if the tennis and basketball courts would be lit, and what about the pool area? Gardner Chapman suggested they will be unlit. Attorney Capossela noted that the internal sidewalks will be lit, which was a
change they made in response to comments raised at the previous meeting. He felt the neighbors are looking for screening of the pool and recreation areas. They feel they are bringing something attractive to the project; they will have a pond in the front, which will look nice. If the Commission prefers more screening they will give it to you but they requested that you think about it. Mr. Ussery suggested they hired John Alexonpolis, a landscape architect from UCONN to assist with the design; the pool, at the closest point, is 240’ from North Road. They are proposing an evergreen screen and deciduous trees and shrubs in front of the pool, and there will be a fence around the pool. Mr. Ussery indicated they have not yet decided on the type of fence, but feel that the part facing North Road and their parking lot would be a solid white fence; any visibility from North Road would be a sight of the fence. They don’t feel that adding
more landscaping is necessary to screen the pool. Mr. Ussery indicated they will also be planting deciduous trees, shrubs, daylillies and perennials along the entrance drive, which is being constructed as a boulevard. There are substantial trees along the streetscape.
Mr. Ussery noted they are asking for a waiver for the requirement for planting a buffer along the north side of the property. He likened it to a belt and suspenders approach to meet the regulations; they don’t know if it’s really needed. The regulations indicate they must provide a buffer; it’s currently heavily wooded with existing trees. Mr. Ussery suggested they didn’t feel it made sense to cut out the existing trees, only to go back in and plant new ones. They are providing additional screening along the emergency access entrance, and along the north side behind the units. Mr. Ussery reiterated that they are not sure they need the waiver, but will ask for it to meet the regulations. Attorney Capossela noted that when they met with previous Town Planner
Don Poland it was decided they should provide screening for the residents and their back yards to the north on Melrose Road; they are proposing to do that via the addition of white pines and blue spruce. Also, on the northwest side of the site are hundreds of feet of existing vegetation before they start construction of the proposed units, so they are not showing any additional plantings. Mr. Ussery questioned if they meet the regulations? They think so because it’s existing but they are asking for the waiver. On the southside along the Kement’s property line there are hundreds of feet of wooded vegetation between the property line and any development.
Attorney Capossela noted they have a site with significant wetlands and steep slopes, and are proposing development with multi-family units and buildings clustered on the useable land yet they are not disturbing any wetlands. If this site were carved up into traditional cookie cutter lots, this development makes better use of the land while preserving the wetlands. Attorney Capossela suggested he felt they are doing enough screening along the front but it’s the Commission’s call; they are not trying to skimp; they are trying to show they are using what’s there.
Attorney Capossela suggested he felt the town is fortunate to have the Chapman family, who have found this site; they do quality work. He submitted an award - the Connecticut Apartment Association Nutmeg Award of Excellence in Multi-Family Housing, Garden/Townhouse Post 1999 - for development of The Mansions at Hockanum Crossing for 2003, 2004, and 2005. Attorney Capossela also noted that Norwegian Wood, on Route 195, is a Chapman Family Development as well, but The mansions at Hockanum Crossing is closer to the proposed development.
Commissioner Gowdy questioned that the proposed Conservation Easement is 42 acres along the Scantic River? Mr. Ussery described the area of the Conservation Easement which begins with the property line at the Scantic River on the east side, then runs from the river to the southwest along the property, then along the Kement’s property line, and is 46.2 acres in size. Commissioner Gowdy questioned where the easterly boundary line was? Mr. Ussery suggested it’s the Scantic River. Attorney Capossela noted it’s the property line.
Attorney Capossela also submitted a letter from Larry Shaffer, Town Administrator for the Town of Vernon which references the tax basis for The Mansions at Hockanum Crossing. Attorney Capossela READ FOR THE RECORD excerpts from that letter. Mr. Shaffer noted that the original 83 acre parcel was assessed for $228,340; the present assessment for 335 units is $21,789,210. Based on a tax rate of 35.79 mils those units generate annual taxes of $901,103. Mr. Shaffer indicated that full build out for the project/The Mansions at Hockanum Crossing was 89 units for Mansions I at an assessment of $5,700,000 and 270 units for Mansions II at an assessment of $16,065,000 for a total assessment after build out (Mansions I and II) of just under $47,000,000. Those units represent 3.6% of the total
Town of Vernon tax base and generate an annual tax revenue of $1,680,072.
Attorney Capossela noted that the parcel on which The Mansions at Hockanum Crossing were built was originally zoned for industrial use. Every town wants IBM to move in, but there were no takers for 20 years. They went to the town to ask if they could bring in apartments operated by the Chapmans; the response was lukewarm because they were taking that land off the economic development rolls. He suggested people are seeing this as what are we doing to the town; they are doing a good thing. The town is partnering with the Chapmans to bring in sewers which the town was hoping to get done for a long time. The Chapmans are responsible developers; Attorney Capossela cited information in his statement of support for the project. He suggested the decision should be based on the regulations and the
criteria, which he believed they meet.
Attorney Capossela requested that when the Commission takes action on this Application that they separate the decisions on the text amendment and the site plan, and the two waivers.
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Gowdy moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECESSED the Meeting t 8:30 P. M. and RECONVENED at 8:40 P. M.
Chairman Guiliano opened discussion to the audience.
Bill Loos, Melrose Road: indicated he has a question about the total acreage, everything from the Scantic River goes down through the property and in back and is 46.2 acres, if you subtract that from the total 106 acres you get 63 acres. When he went to the Wetlands Hearings they were told that property was wetlands and is not developable and has deep ravines. Tell him where the 54 acres of developable land is. When he visited the Hockanum from one to another there is amesite between the apartments, people are walking in the streets, if there are 10 families times 2 cars then there are 20 cars/apartment, it seems like most of the cars are outside the garages, they are probably using the garages for storage. There is very little developable land on North Road, many
would have the ravines; he doesn’t see where he gets the 54 acres.
Regarding the win/win situation for East Windsor he suggested they would be taxed at $800/unit times 220 units would equal $176,000 per year; 20 kids cost ???????; the
$170,000 doesn’t include fire or police protection for 220 units. It will require another cop like for Mill Pond. Any time you have a concentration of people you will have more police, fire, and ambulance calls; these are not apartments for the elderly. At Hockanum the kids were in the streets; you said there could be no boats but there were a couple of boats in the parking lots. Mr. Loos didn’t think this is a good place to put apartments in town; everyone will have to use their cars. Vernon has a bus, and he saw kids walking on Route 83 going to school. There will be kids here, just like Mill Pond; we were told it was a win/win situation but it brought in a lot of kids and a lot of problems. He suggested the rental rate isn’t that much different than
Mill Pond, where units start at $900 per month.
Marek Kement, 36 Sullivan Farms Road: noted he is speaking on behalf of the Kement family, they are not against this development but have the following concerns: 1) the Conservation Easement to the north of their property, there maybe a corridor to the State property to the north, if so how will they know where the property is so people will not trespass on their property? They did talk to the engineers at the last meeting but they haven’t seen any fence line. You are talking about 220 units, he assumed they were talking about one bedroom which allow 2 people in residency, that results in 440 people on that property. Even if 1% venture onto their property they are concerned as they operate an active construction company on their property. 2) Construction
companies do make noise. When other projects were approved they made notes on the plans that active agricultural operations were going on nearby; maybe they could have a similar note with regard to the construction business for their protection. 3) Regarding the boundary line, they agree, they do want to resolve the issue and are willing to do so. He felt a deviation in that property line could cause the density factor to go up; they do need to establish the property line.
Ken Crouch, 68 Stoughton Road: questioned who controls the lighting from the house? Chairman Guiliano suggested he would guess it would be on a photo cell or a timer; Attorney Capossela agreed. Mr. Crouch questioned who paid for it? Attorney Capossela indicated it would be the owner, the Chapmans.
Mr. Crouch noted East Windsor already has Wynwood Apartments, which rent for $900 per month; there are 180 units and 65 children, of that amount 35 are school aged children under 18 and 30 don’t go to school yet. It’s different from the 3 kids per 100 units suggested for this project. Commissioner Rodrigue questioned how many one bedroom and two bedroom apartments are in the Wynwood complex? Mr. Crouch indicated he didn’t know.
Francis Revay, 263 North Road: noted he attended the informal meetings three years ago, he has heard from Russo and the attorney, and is impressed with both. Mr. Revay noted he was the Chairman of the Economic Development Commission for a time, they wanted to increase the tax base. He felt this proposed development isn’t the same as the other development discussed; these people have a track record in other towns. Mr. Revay would like to have the water and sewer brought to North Road; a lot of people on North Road don’t have a good situation with either. He has a greenhouse and has a shallow well; he would use the water and the sewers for the Christmas Shop. He felt the sewer was good for the town. Mr. Revay noted that in the past the town had a chance to have the
whole town sewered and 3 or 4 people were against it; they wanted to have it rural. Mr. Revay indicated he believes in a mix. He thanked the Chapmans for coming to town and if this goes by the regulations.... They have a business and will benefit, but he likes what they are doing. His brother-in-law owned Chester’s Market, and they had no sewers; some people have parts of buildings they can’t use because of the lack of sewers and water.
Patrick Soucy, owner of Golden Gavel Antiques/Auction: we are limited as to what/who they can rent to by the lack of sewers, we are not having problems with the septic system now because the tenants are all retail stores but he can’t rent to a hair dresser or a restaurant; it would be nice to have the sewers and the water and then he wouldn’t have to worry. Mr. Soucy indicated he gets calls at least once a week from people wanting to lease for a restaurant or hair dresser and he can’t because of the lack of sewers. He felt that all of North Road is limited as well; he doesn’t know of anyone on North road that doesn’t have a serious sewer problem. The development that this town needs is along North Road, and without it we won’t be able to go anywhere. Mr. Soucy indicated he is for this development; he has had dealings with the Chapmans in other towns; they are good people. He isn’t from East Windsor and he doesn’t know the problem with Mill Pond but he can’t see that
happening at the Chapman’s property. Mr. Soucy reported that he had a friend that he thought made a lot of money but he couldn’t get in because of his credit rating; they are very restrictive as to who they let in. If this project qualifies you should allow it.
Chairman Guiliano questioned how the Applicant got the percentage of developable property? Mr. Ussery READ FOR THE RECORD Section 8.A.2.1 - Developable Land; he noted that you deduct the slopes in excess of 15% and the area of Special Flood Hazard (the 100 year flood plain which follows the Scantic River), but the wetlands doesn’t come out of the developable land. If the wetlands doesn’t have the steep slopes they are not deducted from the calculations. Chairman Guiliano queried Town Planner Whitten if she was in agreement with that interpretation? Town Planner Whitten suggested that is her interpretation as well.
Chairman Guiliano returned to public comments:
Marie DeSousa: questioned if anyone went back to the person who wrote the regulations? Town Planner Whitten indicated she didn’t know who wrote the regulation but she analyses the regulations vs. the application before her when a proposal comes through.
Commissioner Filipone noted he agreed with the contention regarding the buffer on the boundaries as there is existing vegetation there already; it probably doesn’t require any additional plantings. He assumed it was wetlands and you couldn’t go in and clear cut it but if that’s not the case with the Conservation Easement how do we keep it from getting clear cut in the future?
Commissioner Filipone referenced the North Road Sewer Agreement, he suggested he felt it was part of the pitch for this Application but now he’s hearing you can go either way. Attorney Capossela indicated he didn’t think the Application rises or falls on the Sewer Agreement; he felt the Applicant meets the criteria if he goes to North Road or Broad Brook. He agreed it’s more beneficial to go to North Road. Commissioner Filipone suggested it wasn’t an equal benefit. Attorney Capossela felt there was enough benefit going to Broad Brook to meet the criteria. Comissioner Filipone indicated he heard Attorney Capossela but wasn’t sure he agreed with him. Attorney Capossela reiterated he didn’t feel the Application rises or falls with the
Sewer Agreement. Commissioner Filipone felt it was part of the pitch. Commissioner Gowdy queried that if this is approved the Applicant could go the other way? Attorney Capossela indicated under the Sewer Agreement with the WPCA if this is approved and the Sewer Agreement is approved they will go to North Road but if the Sewer Agreement is not approved they would go to Broad Brook. Commissioner Gowdy felt part of the underlying agreement is to go to North Road. He queried that if the Sewer Agreement is approved by the town, and assuming you are approved, you will not go into Broad Brook? Attorney Capossela indicated that’s correct, they will go to North Road. Comissioner Gowdy queried that the pending agreement now is to go to North Road? Attorney Capossela indicated that’s correct. Commissioner Saunders questioned if the Town meeting isn’t approved but the project is you have an option to go
both ways? Attorney Capossela indicated the agreement is contingent on approval from the Board of Selectmen and the Town meeting. Commissioner Rodrigue felt the approval of the project is based on the Zoning Regulations only; he’d rather go to the North Road as it benefits more people. Attorney Capossela suggested that if the Sewer Agreement is ratified we must go to the North Road. Comissioner Filipone questioned if the agreement is signed? Attorney Capossela indicated it’s been signed by Sumner Chapman and the WPCA but it is to be ratified by the Board of Selectmen and the Town meeting. Commissioner Gowdy questioned that Attorney Capossela was saying that the Town has to step up and say that it wants to go to North Road. Attorney Capossela replied affirmatively, we were urged to go to North Road; if someone throws that out we want to go the other way to Broad Brook.
Marie DeSousa: Regarding Plan B going to Broad Brook, at the last meeting someone said there was a problem with doing that; what is the problem, and if they go that way would the WPCA approve it? Attorney Capossela indicated he didn’t know if the WPCA would approve that, when they went to the WPCA the question was raised if the pipes to Broad Brook were adequate. Mr. Ussery concurred, noting that Kevin Leslie was concerned with the pipe that hangs off the bridge at Mill Pond. Town Engineer Norton and Kevin Leslie investigated; they feel there is no issue now with going to Broad Brook, the sewer could that this capacity. Attorney Capossela indicated that’s the reason they feel they have the blessing, but he doesn’t know if they have WPCA’s blessing because the
negotiation was to go to North Road. He suggested that if going to North Road is your concern make it a condition of your approval. Their site has an agreement, and they signed on that.
Commissioner Kehoe felt that with regard to the buffer after clearing for the structures you probably will see more of the project, so he would like to see more research of the buffer. He agreed they should stay away from the terrace escarpments but the area is invaded with invasive species and it could be a good time to get rid of them.
With regard to the walking trails Commissioner Kehoe noted that Town Planner Whitten had said it was an Inland/Wetlands decision. Town Planner Whitten indicated there are critical slopes so any design would have to be reviewed in great detail. Commissioner Kehoe felt the American Heritage River Commission could look into the issue; he understands the Kement’s concerns and agrees the issue with the property line must be addressed. He is interested in preservation of the area. Chairman Guiliano queried how much land is involved in the boundary dispute? Mr. Ussery indicated they had problems defining the boundary as the references aren’t very clear, there is no physical evidence of the boundary area, no pins or fences, etc. They did find a survey that was done for the
Kements which shows the boundary line as the intermittent watercourse, so they showed that as the boundary line. if the line were to move 5’ or 10’ one way or the other it would make no difference to the development. It isn’t a steep ravine, and doesn’t affect the developable area. It’s something that needs to be cleared up between the Chapmans and the Kements. It might move one way of the other but Mr. Ussery didn’t believe it would have any affect on the development.
Commissioner Ouellette questioned how the location of the emergency drive was laid out? Mr. Ussery indicated it’s an existing farm road which runs along the northern property line. The property has wetlands and topographical constraints; this emergency access would be used on an infrequent basis. Commissioner Ouellette questioned how would they get a large fire truck into that drive; it’s difficult to make that left turn onto Yosky Road in a passenger car. It’s an awkward move to get a truck in there. Mr. Ussery suggested they will have police directing traffic; he felt you wouldn’t get a fire truck going 70 miles per hour through there. Commissioner Gowdy questioned if it would be gated? Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively. Commissioner Gowdy
questioned if that would be a secondary access? Mr. Ussery replied yes. Commissioner Gowdy felt that unless there were an accident they would be coming from Broad Brook. Commissioner Ouellette indicated he understood that, it’s awkward, but in view of the wetlands he didn’t see another way of doing it. Attorney Capossela questioned Mr. Ussery if they didn’t plan for another curb cut on the first design rendering? Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively, but noted that they were urged by wetlands to remove it. Attorney Capossela suggested it’s a balancing act; if they were starting from scratch and there were no wetlands they probably would have had two entrances to start with.
Commissioner Ouellette questioned where the existing dwellings are in relation to the drive? Mr. Ussery indicated to the west. Commissioner Ouellette questioned that vehicle headlights wouldn’t be shining on the houses? Mr. Ussery replied negatively, noting the garage is in line with the drive.
Town Planner Whitten noted that two of the letters submitted this evening addressed a concern of putting a fence along the north property line, and you’re saying the farm road runs along that boundary; that’s an area not currently landscaped. Mr. Ussery indicated it’s not currently landscaped but they are proposing landscaping if it’s required. Installation of a fence would require removal of existing vegetation. Attorney Capossela suggested their thoughts were that the woods and evergreens would look better than a fence. Mr. Ussery suggested it depends on if they want the fence for screening, or trespassing. Town Planner Whitten felt it was for trespassing. Mr. Ussery suggested then they could put a fence behind the evergreen screening. Commissioner Rodrigue
recalled that they didn’t require a fence on the application near the gun club. Commissioner Filipone noted that the Commission proposed a fence at a Southern Auto Auction site and the people didn’t want it. Attorney Capossela suggested they prefer the trees but it’s the Commission’s call, based on what the neighbors want; they are trying to do the decent thing.
Bill Loos, speaking from the audience, noted it was originally a barbed wire fence down to the river, if the neighbors want one he should put one in.
Chairman Guiliano queried the audience for final comments; no one requested to speak.
Chairman Guiliano queried the Commission and Town Planner Whitten for additional comments; the Commission members were in favor of closing the Public Hearing, Town Planner Whitten had no other comments.
MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of Chapman Properties, LLC for a Special Use Permit to allow a 220-unit apartment complex--known as Mansions on the Scantic--a Special Development district, located on the east side of North Road, at the intersection of Yosky Road, owned by Sumner Chapman. [A-1/A-2 Zones; Map 9, Block 36, Lot 46].
Gowdy moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
With regard to the proposed text amendment, Commissioner Filipone questioned that the proposal was to eliminate the 3 bedroom units, the max would then be 60% on the one bedroom units and 40% floating? Town Planner Whitten questioned if it would be appropriate to reword the text amendment now, as that was not was advertised and was not what was sent to CRCOG? Attorney Capossela suggested that was not what they asked for, they asked to eliminate the 30% one bedroom and make it non-applicable. Commissioner Gowdy questioned if they planned a mix of 40/60%? Attorney Capossela replied that was correct, but the text amendment requested was to eliminate the 30% and make it non-applicable (N/A). If you want to make it 40% that’s ok with him.
Bill Loos: if you put “N/A” the guy could put 10%, he didn’t feel that’s what you want. He felt the Board should go over the whole thing. Commissioner Gowdy felt the Commission was thinking along the same lines Mr. Loos was but they are acting on what he applied for and what was sent out to CRCOG. Mr. Loos felt the Commission should reject his application; he is against it.
Town Planner Whitten felt the Commission could amend the wording slightly. Chairman Guiliano suggested he didn’t want to put “N/A”. Town Planner Whitten suggested you can slightly modify the wording but not the two sections not discussed. Commissioner Gowdy then queried that they should do only the one bedroom? Town Planner Whitten indicated they could do the 30% minimum, it still allows the applicant to do their proposal; the three bedroom change wasn’t advertised.
Marie DeSousa: recalled that Attorney Capossela had said at the last meeting that it doesn’t matter if it gets changed or not; why the change then? Is it more cost effective? Attorney Capossela suggested they aren’t proposing any 3 bedroom units in this project so they don’t care about that change. The building models they are using are based on architectural designs used through out the country; each building would contain 4 one bedroom units and 6 two bedroom units. That wouldn’t be allowed under the regulations because you have a maximum of 30% and this works out to 40%.
MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of Chapman Properties, LLC - Text Amendment to the zoning regulations, Section 8A.10.2.2, involving unit mix percentages.
Filipone moved/Gowdy seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION TO APPROVE TEXT AMENDMENT of Section 8A.10.2.2 which would eliminate the maximum percentage of one bedroom apartments permitted in an SDD zone, that is, one bedroom - a maximum of 30%, two bedroom - maximum N/A, and 3 bedroom - a maximum of 30%.
DISCUSSION: Town Planner Whitten requested clarification that the only change would be eliminating the maximum percentage of 30% for the one bedroom apartments; Commissioner Gowdy replied affirmatively.
The proposed change shall become effective once the date of notice of action is posted in the newspaper, and subsequently filed in the office of the Town Clerk..
1. A copy of the final motion and text amendment shall be filed in the Office of the Town Clerk by the applicant. Said amendment shall bear the signatures of the Chairman and Secretary of the Commission, and the approval and effective date of the amendment.
Gowdy moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous.
MOTION TO APPROVE :
1. a waiver of the 25’ landscaping buffer requirement around the perimeter of the property as stated in Section 8A.10.5.5 .Waiver is requested along the northerly, easterly and southerly boundaries of the site and along portions of the westerly boundary as existing vegetation is present in these areas, thereby creating a natural buffer.
Gowdy moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION TO APPROVE :
2. A waiver from the required 0.03 times the gross land area which calculates to 3.18
acres to be dedicated to recreational use as stated in Section 8A.10.6.2. Although the applicant is devoting a lesser amount of 1.7 acres, they are proposing an “in lieu of” dedication of 42.6 acre conservation easement along the Scantic River. IN ADDITION, Phase I will include the tennis and basketball courts, and the delineated
wetlands area would become the Conservation Easement, with the exception of the area that we have permits from the Wetlands Commission for wetlands crossings.
Gowdy moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION TO APPROVE the Application of Chapman Properties, LLC and owner Sumner Chapman for Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit (in accordance with Sec 8a of the Zoning Regulations) to allow a 220 unit apartment complex known as “Mansions by the Scantic” in a Special Development District, located at property located at the eastern intersection of North and Yosky Roads [A1 & A2 Zone; Map 9, Block 36, Lot 46.
This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Commission) and the following conditions:
[The Commission should state reasons for their vote for the record]
1/22 - Cover Sheet/Location Map – Mansions By The Scantic – North Road – Rte. 140, East Windsor CT, prepared for Chapman Properties, P.O.Box 647, Ellington, CT 06029, 860/872-1000, prepared by J.R. Russo & Associates, 1 Shoham Rd, East Windsor, CT 06088, 860/623-0569 Fax 860/623-2485, dated 8/25/05
Including Sheets dated 8/25/05:
· 1A/22 Key Map, scale 1” = 400’
· 2/22 Boundary Survey
· 3/22 Overall Site Layout
· 4-7/22 Topographic Plan
· 8-12/22 Plan & Profile
· 13-16/22 Landscape Plan
· 17/22 Erosion & Sedimentation Notes
· 18-22/22 Detail Sheets
· STC-1&2 Architectural Floor Plan, Elevation & Roadway Frontage Plan
Conditions that must be met prior to signing of mylars:
1. The applicant shall submit a paper copy of the final approved plans to the Town Planner for review and comment prior to the submission of the final mylar copies for signing by the Commission.
2. Two sets of mylar plans shall be submitted to the Commission for signature. All plans shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for preparation of the plans. (One paper set of the Floor Plans and Elevation shall be submitted for signature.)
3. The final plans shall contain the street numbers (unit numbers) assigned by the East Windsor Assessor’s Office.
4. The conditions of this approval shall be binding upon the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this approval motion shall be filed in the land records prior to the signing of the final mylars.
Conditions that must be met prior to the issuance of any permits:
5. The applicant and/or developer shall schedule and attend a pre-construction meeting with the Town Planner and Town staff prior to the issuance of any permits or the start of construction.
6. Final architectural elevations and floor plans shall be approved by the Town Planner and/or Commission.
7. One copy of the final site plan shall be filed on the land records.
8. A Zoning Permit for site work must be applied for and approved prior to the start of construction. Three sets of the final approved plans shall be submitted at this time.
9. A detailed sediment and erosion control plan for the entire development shall be submitted at the time of application for the site improvement Zoning Permit. The plan shall include the engineers estimated costs for E&S controls. The Town Engineer will review the plan and cost estimates and will set the E&S bond amount.
10. A cash (escrow) or passbook bond shall be submitted for sedimentation and erosion control maintenance and site restoration during the construction of the project. (Side bond must be in place before any permits will be issued). Any funds that may be withdrawn by the Town for such maintenance or restoration shall be replaced within five (5) days or this permit shall be rendered null and void.
11. A bond, suitable to the Town, shall be submitted for all site improvements (road & drainage). The applicant's engineer shall submit an estimated cost of the site improvements to the Town Engineer and the final amount of the bond shall be determined by the Town Engineer. (Said bond shall be in place before any permits are issued.)
12. A landscape bond, suitable to the town, shall be submitted for all street trees, landscaping and wetlands plantings. The applicant’s landscape specialist shall prepare an estimated cost to the Town Planner and the final amount shall be determined by staff. Said bond shall be in place prior to any permits being issued.
13. A Zoning Permit is required for each building.
14. Foundation as-built surveys for each building shall be submitted and approved before framing and/or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Builder should be aware that minimum separating distances (15’minimum) are from fully built units, inclusive of walls. .
15. All buildings/units must be identified by meeting the East Windsor House Numbering Ordinance requirements.
16. Additional requirements and procedures may be implemented by the Town Planner.
Conditions that must be met prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy:
17. Final approval and connection fees must be paid for WPCA connections on individual units prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
18. Site improvements must be completed up-to and around the individual unit at the time of CO.
19. Final grading, seeding, landscaping shall be in place or the E&S bond will not be released or reduced.
20. Additional bonding may be required by the Planning Department.
21. All legal documents related to age/occupancy restrictions and the Common Interest Ownership Community shall be approved by the Town Attorney and filed on the land records.
22. All inspection fees must be paid.
Conditions which that be met prior to the issuance of any certificates of compliance:
23. Iron pins must be in place at all lot corners and angle points.
24. A paper copy of the final as-built showing all structures, pins, roads, walks, driveways, drainage systems, and final floor elevations as well as grades shall be submitted and approved by the Planner.
25. A final as-built mylar of the entire project shall be submitted and signed by the Commission.
26. All public health and safety components of the project must be satisfactorily completed prior to occupancy. In cases where all public health and safety components have been completed, the Zoning Official may issue a Certificate of Zoning Compliance provided a suitable bond is retained for any remaining site work.
27. All landscaping elements included in the approved landscaping plan shall be maintained in a manner sufficient to ensure its continuing performance and survival of all plantings.
28. This special permit/site plan approval shall expire five years from date of approval. Failure to complete all required improvements within that time shall invalidate the approval. The developer may request an extension of time to complete the improvements from the Commission, in accordance the Connecticut General Statutes. The Commission shall require proper bonding be in place prior to the approval of any such extension.
29. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans that result in lesser impacts may be allowed subject to staff review and approval.
30. Any modifications to the proposed drainage or grading is subject to the approval of the town engineer.
31. Additional erosion controls are to be installed as directed by town staff if field conditions necessitate.
32. All improvements and development must be performed in accordance with the East Windsor Zoning Regulations and applicable Town policies.
33. By acceptance of this approval and conditions, the applicant, owner and/or their successors and assigns acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
34. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Fire Marshal.
35. Lighting to be handled administratively
36. If Developer Agreement for North Road sewer is ratified by all Boards, Commissions, and Town Meeting, the sewer must go to North Road.
37. Internal sidewalks must be added.
Gowdy moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Gowdy moved/Rodrigue seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commissioner RECESSED at 9:43 P. M. and RECONVENED at 9:55 P. M.
NEW HEARINGS: DMD Realty Family Partnership - to amend Special Use Permit (granted on 10/22/91) to allow a rear lot at 341 Rye Street. [A-1 Zone; Map 40, Block 50, Lot 13]. (Deadline to close hearing 12/27/05):
MOTION: To TABLE the Application of DMD Realty Family Partnership - to amend Special Use Permit (granted on 10/22/91) to allow a rear lot at 341 Rye Street. [A-1 Zone; Map 40, Block 50, Lot 13] until December 15, 2005 at 7:00 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
Saunders moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
NEW HEARINGS: HVE, LLC (Richard Corrado and Bob Gingras) - 1-lot resubdivision located at 35 Barber Hill Road. [Map 42, Block 72, Lot 8-2]. (Deadline to close hearing 12/27/05):
Chairman Guiliano read the Hearing description. Appearing to discuss this Application was David Palmberg, of William Palmberg, Land Surveyors, representing Bob Gingras and Richard Corrado.
Mr. Palmberg reported this Application involves Lot #2 of Horizon View Estates, which was approved in 2003 as a 16 lot subdivision. At that time Lot #2 was noted as not being an approved building lot due to the lack of approval from the North Central Health District (NCHD). They have now addressed the concerns raised by the NCHD; they have now approved a septic system for Lot #2, and the Applicant would now like to have it made an approved building lot. Mr. Palmberg indicated that to address the concerns of the NCHD they revised the rear lot line by going 25’ - 30’ into lot #1 which was located behind the lot under discussion, and adjusting the lot line between Lot #1 and Lot #16, making it a resubdivision for lot 1.
Mr. Palmberg also noted they are requesting a waiver of sidewalks and street lights; the Open Space requirements were met at the time of the original subdivision. He indicated that as the lot was proposed in the original subdivision it met the regulation requirements as all lots met the minimum size requirements.
Chairman Guiliano questioned if these were developed lots? Mr. Palmberg replied negatively, noting they are vacant.
Commissioner Gowdy questioned that Town Engineer Norton was satisfied with everything? Town Planner Whitten noted he had some comments and they have been addressed; he takes no further exception to the plans. She also noted the office now has the report from the NCHD as well.
Chairman Guiliano queried the audience for comments; no one requested to speak.
MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of HVE, LLC (Richard Corrado and Bob Gingras) for a 1-lot resubdivision located at 35 Barber Hill Road. [Map 42, Block 72, Lot 8-2]. (Deadline to close hearing 12/27/05).
Gowdy moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Town Planner Whitten indicated she had no additional comments; this is a lot which was there already. They were waiting for NCHD to approve it. It’s only a minor boundary line adjustment.
MOTION TO APPROVE the following waivers:
1. Section 6.3 (sidewalks) No sidewalks to be provided, as none exist in proximity of the subject parcel.
Gowdy moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION TO APPROVE the following waivers:
2. Section 6.5 (street lights) per previously approved subdivision requirements.
Gowdy moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION TO APPROVE the application of HVE, LLC for a 1-lot re-subdivision at property known as 35 Barber Hill Road Assessors’ Map 42, Block 72 Lot 8-2. This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Commission) and the following conditions:
Sheet 1 of 3 Key Map prepared for Lot 2 Horizon View Estates, East Windsor, CT, prepared by William Palmberg & Son, LLC, Land Surveyors, 178 North Maple Street, Enfield, CT 06082 scale 1” = 100’, dated 8/29/05
Sheet 2 of 3 Resubdivision Plan of Lot 2, Horizon View Estates & Lot Line Revision Plan for Lot 1,2, & 1`6 Horizon View Estates, East Windsor Ct, Applicants Richard Corrado & Robert Gingras, Map 42, Block 72 Lot 2, datred 8/22/05
Sheet 3 of 3 Grading Plan Prepared for Lot 2 Horizon View Estates
Sheet 1 of 1 Map 42, Block 72, Lot 8-2, Applicant T-Square Builders, Improvement Location Plan prepared for Lot 2 Horizon View, East Windsor CT1”=20’, dated 5/27/05, prepared by William R. Palmberg & Son LLc
Conditions that must be met prior to signing of mylars:
1. The applicant shall submit a paper copy of the final approved plans to the Town Planner for review and comment prior to the submission of the final mylars.
2. All mylars submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for preparation of the plans.
3. The final mylars shall contain the street numbers assigned by the East Windsor Assessor’s Departments and the Map, Block and Lot numbers assigned by the Assessor's Office.
4. The applicant shall provide two street trees on each lot and have them shown on the final plan.
5. The conditions of this approval shall be binding upon the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this approval motion shall be filed in the land records prior to the signing of the final mylars.
Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of any permits:
6. The lots shall comply with the requirements of the North Central District Health Department requirements for on-site septic systems and wells.
7. Two sets of final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission. One set of signed mylars, Sheets 2 of 3, shall be filed with the town clerk by the applicant, no later than 90 days after the 15-day appeal period from publication of decision has elapsed or this approval shall be considered null and void unless an extension is granted by the Commission. One set, sheets1-3 of 3, shall be filed in the Planning and Zoning Department.
8. A detailed sediment and erosion control plan shall be submitted for each lot at the time of application for Zoning Permits.
9. A cash (escrow) or passbook bond shall be submitted for sedimentation and erosion control maintenance and site restoration during the construction of the project. Any funds that may be withdrawn by the Town for such maintenance or restoration shall be replaced within five (5) days or this permit shall be rendered null and void. The applicant's engineer shall submit an estimated cost of the E & S controls to the Town Engineer and the final amount of said bond shall be determined by the Town Engineer. (This bond covers public improvements, not individual lots.)
Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:
10. Iron pins must be in place at all lot corners and angle points.
11. Final Health District approval of the drinking water supply and the installation of the septic system must be demonstrated.
12. The driveway must have a 15' paved apron or a bond for such submitted.
13. Final grading and seeding shall be in place or a bond for the unfinished work submitted.
14. Final as-built survey showing all structures, pins, driveways and final floor elevations as well as spot grades and required landscaping shall be submitted.
15. All required landscaping shall be in place, or if weather does not permit, a bond for the required plantings shall be submitted
16. All public health and safety components of the project must be satisfactorily completed prior to occupancy. In cases where all public health and safety components have been completed, the Zoning Officer may issue a Certificate of Zoning Compliance provided a suitable bond is retained for any remaining site work.
17. This subdivision approval shall expire five years from date of approval. Failure to complete all required improvements within that time shall invalidate the subdivision. The developer may request an extension of time to complete the subdivision improvements from the Commission. Such extension shall not exceed the time limits as provided for in the Connecticut General Statutes, Section 8-26c, as amended. The Commission shall require proper bonding be in place prior to the approval of any such extension.
18. A Zoning Permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any site work.
19. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans that result in lesser impacts may be allowed subject to staff review and approval.
20. Any modifications to the proposed drainage or grading for the resubdivision is subject to the approval of the town engineer.
21. Additional erosion control measures are to be installed as directed by town staff if field conditions necessitate.
22. By acceptance of this approval and conditions, the applicant, owner and/or their successors and assigns acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
23. Should the property transfer ownership before all work is completed, or before a certificate of completeness is issued, the new owner must place new bonds in their name, at which time the original bond(s) may be released.
DISCUSSION: Chairman Guiliano questioned if this resubdivision was subject to any monetary compensation? Town Planner Whitten suggested the Open Space was dedicated for the whole subdivision during the original approval. Chairman Guiliano questioned that when the subdivision was approved this lot wasn’t a lot. Town Planner Whitten felt it wasn’t an approved lot but the lot was included in calculations for Open Space. Mr. Palmberg suggested the Open Space was the old school house, and Mr. Corrado provided money to the town for the roof repairs. Chairman Guiliano requested Town Planner Whitten to investigate where the money for the roof repair is, and why the roof repair was not repaired at that time when the structure would have supported a roof; it’s
now an eyesore. Why wasn’t the roof repaired, as it was a conditional of approval.
Gowdy moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
NEW HEARINGS: South Prospect Hill Road, LLC - Special Use Permit/Modification to General Development Plan - from approved hotel use to use by two restaurants, located at 43 Prospect Hill Road. [HIFZ Zone, Map 22, Block14, Lot 14]. (Deadline to close hearing 12/27/05):
Chairman Guiliano read the Hearing description. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Thomas Fahey, Eric Spongen and Bob Orice of South Prospect Hill, LLC, Jay Ussery and Tim Kuhns of J. R. Russo & Associates.
Attorney Fahey recalled that in 2003 they created a text amendment for the Highway Interchange Floating Zone (HIFZ), and a General Plan of Development for Wendy’s was approved. The Applicants were proposing construction of a hotel behind Wendy’s, that chain ran into financial difficulties and the developers have now attracted other tenants - Taco Bell being one. They are seeking an amendment for the General Plan of Development (GPD)
Mr. Kuhns described the site, noting the location of the Wendy’s restaurant. Under the GPD approved in 2003 the parcel was subdivided for Wendy’s, with the remainder being allocated for the hotel. In the area to the back of the site they created a detention basin for the full build-out of the site. Wendy’s and the main entrance drive have been constructed. The Applicant is now proposing a Taco Bells on a lease area of 1.15 acres in back for a one story, 3000 square foot restaurant. The owners are working to acquire a triangular piece on the corner of the site; the present owners of that piece have been in arrears on the taxes for 15 years. The owners last known address is somewhere in Florida; the Applicants have been working with the Board of Selectmen (BOS) to create an
ordinance so that they will pay the delinquent taxes in full and then they will foreclose on the tax liens and acquire the land. A motion has been signed by the BOS at their last meeting; there are a couple of more documents that must be completed for the court action to occur. They hope to have title to that triangular piece in 3 to 4 months. Mr. Kuhns indicated they are coming for a modification of the GPD for the Taco Bell, and a Long John Silver restaurant. Future development would include a bank which would be located on the triangular piece but they couldn’t bring that in because they don’t own the parcel at this time. Mr. Kuhns suggested he is giving the Commission that information for background on the layout for this Application.
Mr. Kuhns referenced the proposed location of the Taco Bells, which includes a drive-through; he also referenced access to the Long John Silvers in the rear and eventually the bank. He indicated they would use the existing detention basin. Proposed impervious coverage would be 58% where 65% is allowed; proposed building coverage would be 30% where 46% is allowed. The tenants will be served by public water and sewer; Mr. Kuhns suggested letters should be in the file regarding the adequacy of sewer capacity. He reported they did the parking calculations for the two new uses and Wendy’s (based on restaurants contiguous to other restaurants and retail businesses); they are showing it meets adequate parking (including the bank) but are showing reserve parking as well.
Mr. Kuhns reported there is an existing high-rise sign for Wendy’s on the site, which was approved to support two signs in anticipation of the hotel. They are now proposing 3 additional tenants so they are proposing a second high-rise sign which will now have 2 signs. They are also proposing separate pylon signs for each building on Route 5. Mr. Kuhns reported the height and area requirements are the same as the original approval, the high-rise signs are 65’ in height, with 200 square feet for each sign, while the pylon signs are 15’ in height and support signs 32 square feet in area. There will also be building mounted signs; sketches have been submitted. They are proposing signs on 3 sides of the building for the Long John Silver restaurant, one facing the on/off ramp of I-91,
another on Route 5 coming northbound, and another on Route coming southbound; signs are being proposed on 3 sides of Taco Bell also.
Attorney Fahey suggested Scott Hesketh, of F. A. Hesketh, has submitted the traffic report. Mr. Hesketh noted the date of the report is 10/27/2005; they have taken automated traffic movement counts on Route 5 and turning counts at Wendy’s. Mr. Hesketh recalled that the Commission had requested the traffic study for the previous application include projected volume in the area for projects approved but not then constructed, including 100% occupancy for the Hamilton Standard building. Now there is less occupancy of the Hamilton Standard building. Mr. Hesketh referred the Commissioners to Table 2 to review information for the traffic volume for the 2 restaurants and the bank. They anticipate 229 trips in the A. M. and 189 trips in the P. M. for a fast food restaurant with drive-through window and
showing the second tenant as a coffee shop; the addition of the bank would add 58 trips in the A. M., 153 trips in the P. M., and 200 trips on Saturday. The turning counts at Wendy’s break down to 65% headed south on Route 5 and 35% oriented north on Route 5. Mr. Hesketh suggests there would be a negligible affect on the signalized traffic, and it would be difficult to turn left during peak hours.
MOTION: To EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:45 P. M.
Filipone moved/Rodrigue seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Mr. Hesketh reported there will be a level of service of E or F at the site driveway. He suggested that based on the use of a fast food restaurant oriented to a highway he didn’t feel this proposal would need a traffic signal but he would like to see how the property develops.
Chairman Guiliano felt the Commission approved the hotel and fast food restaurant with the traffic analysis presented because the hotel would create less traffic turning left or right than a restaurant, and now you are proposing 2 restaurants, one with a drive-through to the back. He felt this would create a traffic jam within this area of people wanting to turn left, and the traffic will back up. Mr. Hesketh felt it’s their intention to generate traffic from the highway, and he realized there will be left hand turns from local traffic and people leaving the area. Chairman Guiliano suggested 35% is a substantial amount of cars trying to make left hand turns; they envisioned a hotel with less traffic because this is an intense area. He, personally, didn’t envision 4 buildings.
Commissioner Filipone suggested he didn’t want to see that highway exit being highway exit USA with fast food restaurants all along the area. Also, they didn’t want to see what that does to the town; there is trash all over the streets from those already approved. He lives 3 miles away from the intersection and he picks up trash every week; it isn’t just his street, it’s all over town.
Commissioner Tyler suggested he also has concerns for those cars trying to make a left hand turn into the site. If you increase the number of cars trying to get into these high volume sites the turning lanes could be backed up.
Commissioner Ouellette suggested the traffic report shares the same concerns; left hand turns out of the site will be difficult. There is a single lane shown; he doesn’t know if it’s wide enough. A level of service F is the worse situation possible. The report shows 4 minutes to get out of the site; that’s a long time. Those that use the one way driveway closest to route 5 won’t get out; a quarter of the advancing traffic wants to turn left and he didn’t feel the existing lane is long enough. Commissioner Ouellette noted the State won’t review this because it’s an existing curb cut; this Commission is the bottom line.
Chairman Guiliano indicated he really envisioned, and thought the Commission felt the same, that a nice hotel would sit there with a nice view from the highway, not another sign with 2 more fast food restaurants.
Eric Spungen, of South Prospect Road, LLC, indicated they had an agreement with a hotel, which ran into financial difficulties. Then this Commission awarded a hotel to their next door neighbor, because that hotel was coming in next door the market for hotels was saturated so they looked at alternate options - the fast food restaurants. They didn’t pursue gas stations because the Commission wasn’t favorable to those; that left them with a number of users who want to take advantage of the highway proximity. He has been at Wendy’s and they keep the property immaculate. Commissioner Filipone indicated he wasn’t complaining about their property; it’s throughout the town. Mr. Spungen suggested it’s a fast food life; this is the way people eat today.
Commissioner Gowdy suggested they didn’t want gas stations because of the problems existing now, the traffic; it was also the reason they approved the hotel with a shuttle that would cut down on traffic.
Attorney Fahey suggested the towns that have HIFZs have valuable commodities, and most towns have been locating businesses near the interchanges. It seems in your Plan of Development (POD) you are not trying to encourage these uses in Broad Brook. When you approved the HIFZ you approved these business uses. The Commission has approved hotels up the street and they are compatible with a bank. Chairman Guiliano felt there was no guarantee the bank would come in; Attorney Fahey agreed.
Commissioner Filipone noted you are saying restaurants as a general category; there are restaurants and there are restaurants. Attorney Fahey suggested the benefit of the HIFZ is the on/off access; some people will take a left, most of the traffic will on onto the on/off ramp.
MOTION: To EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES.
Saunders moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Robert Orice, of South Prospect Hill, LLC Road, indicated he liked Taco Bell from a fast food perspective; they have the least impact on traffic because they don’t have a breakfast menu. He felt they were probably using McDonald’s for the traffic count. Even with the lunch trade they have less volume than McDonald’s and Burger King. He felt the numbers for traffic generation are not what are being presented because they are talking the worse case scenario. Comissioner Rodrigue felt the Applicant’s benefit is the point of entrance/exit. There have always been problems in the area; before it was Watkins Trucking. Commissioner Gowdy suggested that when people came in for fast food and a hotel the Commission thought it was perfect, now you’re talking about a couple of fast food
restaurants - what happens if Taco Bell wants out because of the traffic problem? Mr. Spungen indicated he is coming to the Commission with a lease agreement; is it 100% guaranteed - no. The hotel was under contract and signed but under the due diligence process they were purchased by someone else and then the hotel was approved next door and the market was saturated. They spent time with Town Planner Whitten who felt restaurants were what this zone was designed for. Commissioner Gowdy indicated the traffic report the Commission received admits to the fact this is a real traffic problem. Mr. Orice felt he wasn’t so sure that’s what he said. Attorney Fahey felt that could be addressed.
Chairman Guiliano suggested the Commission needs to table this Hearing as it needs to hear another item of business tonight.
MOTION: To TABLE the Hearing on the Application South Prospect Hill Road, LLC
for a Special Use Permit/Modification to General Development Plan - from approved hotel use to use by two restaurants, located at 43 Prospect Hill Road. [HIFZ Zone, Map 22, Block14, Lot 14] until December 15, 2005 at 7:00 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
Filipino moved/Rodrigue seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
NEW BUSINESS: East Windsor Inn, Inc. - Modification of Approved Site Plan, to remove concrete stairs along northerly property line, at 141 Prospect Hill Road (Comfort Inn). [B-2 Zone; Map 2, Block 4, Lot 27] (Deadline for decision 1/19/06):
Town Planner Whitten reported this is an inhouse staff approval; they want to remove steps that were required between Comfort Inn and Cracker Barrel. There is an elevation issue and this becoming an legal issue.
The Commission requested Town Planner Whitten to handle this administratively.
BUSINESS MEETING/(2) Staff Reports:
Town Planner Whitten reminded the Commission that a Moratorium Workshop Meeting is being held Monday, November 28th, at 6:30 P. M. at the high school.
Town Planner Whitten noted she has received three requests for extension of time to open/start Public Hearings on new Applications. They are as follows: White Pine, LLC requesting a 45 day extension; Quarry Meadows requesting an extension to start the Public Hearing on 12/13/2005, and Phoenix Farms requesting an extension to open the Public Hearing.
MOTION: To APPROVE the request of Town Planner Whitten to grant extensions open Public Hearings on the following Applications: 1) White Pines, LLC requesting a 43 day extension to commence Public Hearing on project known as Wagner Terrace, Phase I; 2) a request for an extension to commence review of Quarry Meadows Subdivision until December 13, 2005; and, 3) Phoenix Farm Company, LLC requesting an extension to open the Public Hearing.
Saunders moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MOTION: To APPROVE the Minutes of Public Hearing #1466 dated November 15, 2005 as drafted.
Gowdy moved/Filipone seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
SIGNING OF MYLARS/PLANS:
* Dunkin Donuts
MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 11:00 P. M.
Filipone moved/Saunders seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Planning and Zoning Recording Secretary