Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Town Resources
  • Agendas & Minutes
  • Forms, Documents & Permits
  • Pay Bill Online
  • GIS/Maps
  • Contacts Directory
  • Subscribe to News
  • Live Stream and Recorded Video
  • Charter & Ordinances
  • Employment Opportunities
  • RFPs / Legal Notices
  • 250th Anniversary
  • Casino Development Agreement
 
12/13/2005 Minutes
TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

Public Hearing #1469 - Regular Meeting December 13, 2005

***** Draft Document – Subject to Commission Approval *****


The meeting was called to order at 7:08 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 two Regular Members (Gowdy and Guiliano) and two Alternate Members (Ouellette and Tyler) were present.  Regular Members  Rodrigue and Saunders and Alternate Member Kehoe were absent; there is currently a vacancy under the Regular membership.  Chairman Guiliano noted both Alternate Commissioners will sit in on decisions this evening.  Also present was Town Planner Whitten.

ADDED AGENDA ITEMS:

Town Planner Whitten requested the Commission consider informal discussion at the end of the meeting on the following items:  1)  Herb Holden – East Road, proposed gravel operation; and 2) F & G Realty – Starbucks..

RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS:

Chairman Guiliano acknowledged the following receipt of Applications:

1.      Application of Michael Chechette for a Special Use Permit to allow 5 mechanical amusement devices (video games) at SportsAir recreation facility located at 226 Main Street, East Windsor.  [M-1 Zone; Map 4, Block 12, Lot 30].

2.      Application of Kyle Francis for Site Plan Approval to allow the construction of an announcer’s booth (as an Eagle Scout project) at East Windsor High School, 76 South Main Street.  [TZ-5 Zone; Map 28, Block 5, Lot 43].

3.      Application of Southern Auto Sales, Inc. for a Zone Change from A-1 to B-2 for property located on the south side of Phelps Road.  [Map 34, Block 21, Lot 12].

4.      Application of NNRC, LLC (James H. Nilsson, Jr.) for Site plan Approval for construction of a two-story office building and parking improvements for property located at 45 Gardner Street & 100 Bridge Street.  [B-1 Zone; Map 1, Block 3, Lots 7, 8, & 9].

LEGAL NOTICE:   None.

PERFORMANCE BONDS – ACTIONS; PERMIT EXTENSIONS:  Marti Zhigailo Request for release of bonds for Melrose Place Subdivision – Pease Road:

Town Planner Whitten referenced Town Engineer Norton’s memo which cited he no problems with the site; staff concurs with his recommendations.

MOTION: To RELEASE THE $14,160 PERFORMANCE BOND AND THE $1,000 EROSION AND SEDIMENMTATION BOND FOR MELROSE PLACE SUBDIVISION ON PEASE ROAD.

Gowdy moved/Tyler seconded/VOTE:  In Favor:   Unanimous

OTHER BUSINESS:  8-24 Referral – Site Plan Approval for announcer’s booth at East Windsor High School:

Chairman Guiliano read the description of this item of business.  Appearing to discuss this Application was Eagle Scout Kyle Francis.

Mr. Francis is proposing to build an announcer’s/manager’s booth at the high school; he submitted a sketch of his plans to the Commission.  Mr. Francis reported he has received approval from the Board of Education and the Boy Scout Council; he now needs to acquire approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Building Committee, and to raise funds for the project.  

Town Planner Whitten questioned if Mr. Francis had acquired a letter from the Board of Education with regard to this project?   Mr. Francis submitted a copy of Dr. Galucci’s signature of approval, as he was interim Superintendent at the time the project was submitted.  

Commissioner Gowdy felt the project was straight forward; he questioned if the booth would have power?  Mr.  Francis replied affirmatively, and it will have an amplification system for speakers later.  

Town Planner Whitten indicated a Building Permit will be required for the building and the electrical work.

MOTION:  To APPROVE the 8-24 Referral for the Application of Kyle Francis for an announcer’s/manager’s booth at the high school for an Eagle Scout Project.

Gowdy moved/Ouellette seconded/VOTE:  In Favor:   Unanimous


CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:  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):

Chairman Guiliano read the Hearing description.  Town Planner Whitten noted no one was here to make a presentation regarding this Application.   Basically, it’s a rear lot that was approved many years ago but has not yet been built on; it was a condition of the subdivision that the approval expired on 10/22/96.   Town Planner Whitten suggested that realistically it is a lot of record.  

Chairman Guiliano questioned why the Applicant hasn’t shown up for any of the Hearings?  Town Planner Whitten replied she didn’t know; the Commission could ask for a continuation.   Chairman Guiliano concurred; the Hearing was continued until February 14, 2006 by consensus of the Commission.   

CONTINUED HEARING:  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 11, Block 14, Lot 14]. (Deadline to close hearing 12/27/05):

Chairman Guiliano read the Hearing description.   Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Fahey, representing the Applicants – South Prospect Hill Road, LLC; Tim Koons of J. R. Russo & Associates (Project Engineers); Scott Hesketh, of F. A. Hesketh & Associates (Traffic Engineer); Eric Spungen and Rob Ores, principals of South Prospect Hill Road, LLC, and representatives of Taco Bell.

Attorney Fahey indicated that the Application is for a modification to the General Plan of Development (GPD) which was approved in 2002, at the same time a Highway Intersection Floating Zone (HIFZ) was approved for this site.  They submitted a GPD for the Wendy’s Restaurant and a hotel.   The GPD and a subsequent Site Plan for Wendy’s was approved; the GPD for the hotel was approved and then the economy changed.   The developer tried to get another hotel but no one was interested, as another hotel was approved, but has not yet been built, on the north side of Wendy’s.   The developer has been able to secure Taco Bell, Long John Silver’s Restaurant, and eventually a bank.   Attorney Fahey noted they need to return for the GPD for the bank as they need to foreclose on the property on which the bank will be built.  He indicated that the Board of Selectmen (BOS) liked the proposal for the bank, and another restaurant, and made the Ordinance to foreclose on the property which has been in arrears of taxes for some time.   They expect to clear title in 3 to 4 months on that parcel, and will then return to amend the GPD for the bank.

Attorney Fahey noted the Commission has plans before them which has taken into consideration some of the information discussed at the last meeting; the use on the back of the parcel has been changed from a restaurant to retail.   They have also added a right turning lane coming out of the back and have shifted Taco Bell slightly so you will have 3 lanes within the property, one of which will be the right turn lane, and one left turn lane

to avoid stacking.  

Attorney Fahey indicated he wanted to address how this Application is compatible with the concept for the HIFZ, so he reviewed the Minutes for the approval of the HIFZ to see how compatible the uses are.  When the Applicant’s came to the Commission the property had 2 curb cuts for the Watkins Trucking Terminal; Prospect Hill Road was zoned Industrial/Manufacturing but this area was changing to business uses.   There was a concern that people might want to keep the property manufacturing, but by doing the floating zone concept you would have the ability to do both as the underlying zone to remains the same but if an applicant wanted the floating zone to apply the could come to the Commission and make a proposal.  The point was to encourage business development at the gateway entrances keying off the highway interchanges.  Attorney Fahey then READ FOR THE RECORD the various permitted uses, information regarding the need for the Special Use Permit Requirement; he noted that the Commission had asked that gas stations not be permitted in the HIFZ.  Attorney Fahey noted the HIFZ was passed unanimously; he cited the Commission’s comments regarding attracting business to the intersections.  He suggested the Applicants have made a good faith effort to put a hotel there but they haven’t been able to attract a hotel client; they have now come to the Commission with this proposal.

Attorney Fahey submitted an amended tax analysis to the Commission.   He noted there is no question that this is a busy intersection and Route 5 is a busy road, and that’s probably a reason businesses want to locate there.

Attorney Fahey introduced Scott Hesketh of F. A. Hesketh & Associates to present information regarding traffic generation relative to this use.  Mr. Hesketh noted he submitted a Traffic Impact Report to the Commission at the previous meeting but they went past the time for this Hearing and their presentation was shorter than they would have liked it to be.  They have prepared additional information for the Commission to address some of the concerns raised at the previous meeting.

Mr. Hesketh reported they have made modifications to the plan driveway which now allows two way egress from the site, and the use of the rear building was changed from a restaurant to a retail use.  They had originally suggested that the restaurant would be a coffee shop for the morning hours and a restaurant for the afternoon hours; that use has now been changed to a retail use.  They did traffic counts on Route 5 and compared them to the previous counts for the Wendy’s Application.  The Commission had also requested the projection of other approved, but not yet built uses, including the Hamilton Standard building.  Mr. Hesketh indicated his office has done a field review of the various businesses, noting several which have now become operational.  He indicated that Hamilton Standard building is now being used by the Baran Institute; there were approximately 300 vehicles in the parking lot at the time of their review.   Mr. Hesketh suggested there is now no need for hypothetical traffic volumes; they have revised the background traffic volumes to include the current uses.   He referenced Table 2R indicates the figures for those revised volumes.  

The change in use from restaurant/coffee shop to retail facility reduces the trip generation.  Mr. Hesketh referenced Table 2R when discussing the figures, noting the anticipated trip generation is 210 trips in the peak morning hours, and 57 trips in the peak P.M. hours and 69 trips on Saturday peak hour.  Figure 5R reflects the revised trip generation numbers.  The reduction in peak traffic volumes and site generation volumes and the addition of the third lane produces a new level of service for the intersection of  I-91 and Route 5; Mr. Hesketh referenced Table 3R.   The significant modifications now provide a good level of service.  The level of service at the site driveway, with the left turn, was previously a level of service F during the peak P. M. hours.  The level of service would still be a level F, but the delay is reduced.  The level of service at the site driveway, with the right turn, would be a level of service B or C during the peak P. M. or peak Saturday hours.  The left turn would be a level of service A if the driveway were signalized.  

Mr. Hesketh reported the Commission had concerns regarding the length of the delay.  They did a gap study at the existing driveway measuring with a stop watch; they then loaded those numbers into the computer.  The study was conducted in accordance with the Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Engineering Handbook.   Referencing Table A, Mr. Hesketh indicated they found there were 135 gaps in excess of 6 seconds during a 1 hour period; 69 gaps between 6 and 9 seconds which allowed 1 vehicle to exit the site, 33 gaps between 10 and 13 seconds which allowed 2 vehicles to exit the site, 22 gaps of 14 to 19 seconds which allowed 3 to 4 vehicles to exit the site, 7 gaps of 20 to 23 seconds which allowed 5 vehicles to exit the site, and 4 gaps over 23 seconds which allowed 6 vehicles to exit the  site.   The total vehicles exiting the site during that one hour period was 271.

Chairman Guiliano questioned if the numbers took into consideration future growth in the area?  Mr. Hesketh replied affirmatively.  Chairman Guiliano sought clarification in asking that what they did this time is you reversed the study, the first numbers were projected numbers, not real numbers.   This time you gave the Commission real numbers because you saw the sites around there.    Mr. Hesketh indicated the original report considered a number of projects which were approved but no built; the observation in the field indicated those projects are now up and operating.   When they do traffic volume studies they add a growth volume and base the volumes on that.  The gap analysis is based on traffic observed on the site.  Chairman Guiliano suggested there is a gap in both directions.   Mr. Hesketh agreed, noting it will be easy and a low delay coming from the north and entering the site, the right turn out can be done with a minor delay.  Left turn movements out would be the difficult one because they would be dealing with traffic in both directions.   Mr. Hesketh suggested that when doing the traffic study the Traffic Engineering Handbook says if you have twice as many gaps as you anticipate then  traffic control is not necessary.  From observation they anticipate a total effective gap of 271 and a projected left turn volume of 76 left turns out of the facility.   Mr. Hesketh felt the traffic volumes presented are conservative.

With regard to the bank, Mr. Hesketh reported the study was based on traffic levels over

the past 10 years.   Banking has changed in that time, there is more on-line banking, etc.  They anticipate 77 customers during the peak P. M. hours.  Based on other locations operated by this bank they anticipate 110 to 150 customers daily at this location.  Mr. Hesketh suggested it is their opinion that the design is adequate to safely handle the traffic volumes.  

Chairman Guiliano questioned what were the hours of observation?  Were they 11:30 to 1:00 on a nice, bright Tuesday vs. last Friday (heavy snow storm in the area)?  Mr. Hesketh reported they did not do the study last Friday.  Chairman Guiliano questioned what were the gaps between 11:30 and 1:00?   Mr. Hesketh indicated they did the gap study during the time period of 4:45 to 5:45 P. M. which was the P. M. peak period on Route 5.  Chairman Guiliano asked what the gap counts were between 11:30 and 1:00?  Mr. Hesketh reported they didn’t do one at those hours.   Chairman Guiliano noted they have a fast food restaurant at the site now, and are proposing 2 more and a bank; he indicated he still goes to the bank site to do business, why didn’t you do a gap study during the lunch hour?  Mr. Hesketh suggested the traffic volumes on Route 5 are 10% to 20% lower at noon.   They were measuring the gaps on Route 5, not within the driveway; they would expect there to be more gaps during the 11:00 to 1:00 hour than at 5:00.   Chairman Guiliano questioned that there is less traffic at noon then at 4:30 in the afternoon?   Mr. Hesketh replied affirmatively, noting it was based on 7 consecutive days of counts.   Commissioner Gowdy indicated he thought what Mr. Hesketh was implying was that when this is up and running there will be more traffic between 11:30 and 1:00 but at the figures they have they anticipate a 20% increase?   Mr. Hesketh suggested they thought the peak volume would be at the P. M. hours; could noon time be higher – it could be.

Commissioner Tyler questioned how many of the gaps during the peak hours were generated by cars turning into the restaurant; how many for southbound?  Chairman Guiliano questioned if you know how many cars are going into that one facility, and then can you assume that as the others come on line that more cars would be turning in?  Mr. Hesketh suggested he didn’t have that information; those are not numbers they observed or calculated.   Commissioner Tyler felt it would have to be significant.  Mr. Hesketh indicated they didn’t count the numbers turning into the facility, they did the count at the driveway of the restaurant.  There were 45 left turn movements during the peak P. M. hours (4:45 to 5:45), and 5 during the morning; there were 57 left turn movements into the site on Saturday.   Commissioner Tyler questioned what were the noon time counts?  Mr. Hesketh suggested they didn’t do the noon hours; the peak hours are the P. M. hours.  Commissioner Tyler questioned that they didn’t do the traffic into the area?   Mr. Hesketh suggested it’s usually pass-by traffic.  He suggested if it would make the Commission more comfortable they would do another study.

Commissioner Ouellette noted that in the September report there were 885 ……………, 912 over 5 to 6 seconds.   It’s essentially the same information.   The average week day there are more cars southbound, and those are the conflicting turns.   What more would another gap study do?  Mr. Hesketh referenced the traffic study for the Walmart stores

indicated there were 1029 cars passing by the site during the busiest hour.  In the September report they found 1042 cars passing the site, so they thought the numbers were consistent.  Attorney Fahey questioned that at the busiest peak hour, 4 to 5, after full build out the gaps in the traffic are more than adequate to provide safe exit from the site?   Mr. Hesketh replied affirmatively.  Commissioner Ouellette indicated he couldn’t disagree with the methodology presented.  

Commissioner Tyler questioned if we would have a whole bunch of cars waiting on Route 5 to turn into the site; can you tell me that won’t happen – a whole bunch of cars not interfering with the northbound traffic, etc.?   Mr. Hesketh suggested that the northbound traffic is a level of service A with a delay of 5.1 seconds per vehicle and 13’ for the anticipated queue, which would be less than 1 vehicle waiting to make the left hand turn into the site.   He suggested that during the peak Saturday hours it would still be a level a service a with a 9.6 second delay.  The traffic signal at the intersection limits the traffic northbound on Route 5; the signal creates the anticipated gaps in the traffic flow.  Mr. Hesketh that even the level of service F, with the left turn off the site, you would see that level of service in many areas of Route 5; the area is oriented to the type of business with the customer passing by this location.   This is a good location for this type of use.

Commissioner Ouellette noted that southbound on Route 5 he has noticed there is an additional curb cut; how far does the queue back up?  Mr. Hesketh suggested the right turn out would accommodate the peak traffic.  The queue would be 133’ in the peak P. M. hours.  Commissioner Ouellette questioned that it didn’t appear that it would back up?   Mr. Hesketh suggested it didn’t appear so.  

Commissioner Gowdy questioned Commissioner Ouellette if he was satisfied with the traffic information?  Commissioner Ouellette suggested that with regard to the plan being looked at, to be honest, he didn’t know if they could do it any different.  

Chairman Guiliano suggested they could do it different by not putting anything there.   Commissioner Ouellette felt that’s a different question.  Chairman Guiliano suggested he still had a problem as they originally approved a proposal with the hotel because they didn’t want high traffic volume.   Attorney Fahey suggested when they did the original application they had under contract Wendy’s and the hotel.   They went through several meetings and discussed the proposal with (then Town Planner) Don Poland.  They were asked to provide regulations from other towns to see how they did this.  There was a lot of discussion about the type of businesses.  When other properties develop on both sides of Route 5 there will be businesses, not homes, and you should want that to happen.  It’s great to have someone on the Commission who understands this traffic information; it’s a different lingo.   Attorney Fahey felt it wasn’t right to say the hotel was the only thing to go there; you changed the zone.   Chairman Guiliano suggested they changed the zone for the hotel and the fast food.   Attorney Fahey felt the Commission has applied that zone to many other sites up and down the street.  The General Plan of Develop (GPD) was created to include a section for modifications for this type of thing, because they

anticipated things changing going forward; they are doing what this anticipated.  To look at it that only a hotel could go there isn’t in the spirit of the zone change.   They are not proposing a hazardous waste facility.  Wendy’s is well maintained and is successful; they have kept their word on the landscaping plan, etc.  Attorney Fahey suggested when they went to the Board of Selectmen (BOS) they thought that this was a wonderful improvement; they expedited to do the foreclosure.  He suggested they would love to build the hotel, but he felt it wasn’t fair to say that’s the only thing that could go there.   The process of real estate is very dynamic; things change – 20 years ago we didn’t see the HIFZ zone.   The town realized they had to be flexible to maximize on that.  This use takes away an obsolete building with 2 curb cuts, you now have multiple uses with one curb cut with inter-connected access.  Attorney Fahey suggested they would love to have the hotel; they are not being deceitful but are doing what was intended.   Even the Plan of Develop (POD) says this should be business, and these are businesses.  They have an obligation to see that this can be done safely.   A Starbucks vs. a hotel is a significant change economically, and they are willing to do that.  The property will look better developed vs. not developed.  They still have to come back for full Site Plan review.

Eric Spungen, partner in South Prospect Hill Road, LLC:   when we go down the list of what’s allowed there are only so many things allowed in this zone.   When we went to do the hotel we hired an exclusive hotel broker, we are businessmen, we met with the Commission, staff, and all your procedures.   We purchased the existing lien on the property which has no benefit to anyone but themselves, and spent $21,000 on back taxes which the Board of Selectmen supported.   They are taking this gateway and doing this, you should be thanking us.  We are coming in with a first class operation and first class tenants, we are bringing in significant taxes.  We can’t bring in a hotel, no one wants to go against the others already there, the hotel market is saturated.  They had to make another choice and went with quality tenants; Taco Bell and the bank is good business for the town.   They spent additional money to address your traffic concerns.   They are here for the long run; they don’t want to walk away from this; it’s as good a development as he has done in other towns.  What would you want us to put there if we can’t do a hotel?  The HIFZ makes sense for Taco Bell; that’s what it’s for.

Rob Oris, partner in South Prospect Hill Road, LLC:  the traffic in and out of the site will be somewhat transparent to the rest of the town, they are trying not to impact the town in a detrimental way, the people that come to the site will bring business to other businesses as well.  He hasn’t seen anyone speaking against this proposal.

Regarding the idea of not wanting a fast food haven coming into town, this is a good design for the bank and retail business in the bank and they will play off of that.   They have done all they can to answer your questions regarding the traffic.

The Commission paused in the meeting as the Recording Secretary requested a break.

MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.


Gowdy moved/Tyler seconded/ VOTE:  In Favor:   Unanimous

The Commission RECESSED at 8:30 P. M. and RECONVENED at 8:40 P. M.

Chairman Guiliano queried the public for comments; no one requested to speak.

Attorney Fahey reported they have representatives from Taco Bell present if the Commission wants to hear their plans for maintaining the site.  Chairman Guiliano replied negatively; they might not be the tenant next year.

Town Planner Whitten suggested the Applicant has done their due diligence to make the plan work.   They have been in numerous times and have gone through the permitted uses; they can’t put another hotel here, it’s too late for industrial uses and they are down to retail and restaurants.  It makes sense that those uses are more likely to succeed than hair salons, etc.   This is a pretty good plan, they have done good changes to come up with a better traffic count.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned if they would consider approaching the State to make an additional curb cut?  Attorney Fahey questioned if that would be closer to the intersection?  Commissioner Ouellette suggested any curb cut.   Attorney Fahey  replied negatively, noting they liked the plan initially and they liked eliminating the one curb cut and liked the curb cut with the inter-connecting access.

Rob Oris, partner in South Prospect Hill Road, LLC:  suggested the only location would be south of the existing one and he thought Scott Hesketh said they wouldn’t be able to get another curb cut.  They would not be adverse to it but it was their understanding that the zone eliminated the curb cuts.  

Commissioner Ouellette noted the State has only approved one curb cut; he’s not suggesting any changes but they might consider talking to the State about the additional curb cut.

Chairman Guiliano suggested he would like to delay the vote tonight as he would like the regular members to have input on the changes.  

Commissioner Gowdy questioned if Commissioner Ouellette was saying the State will allow the change in the plan?  Commissioner Tyler questioned if they gave up the second curb cut when they put in the original plan?  Commissioner Ouellette suggested it’s a given that they need approval for this change in the plan.  Town Planner Whitten suggested the State takes a look at it on a preliminary basis but they approve the plan after the PZC takes action.  Mr. Coon suggested the second curb cut is with the bank concept, it isn’t there for this presentation.   When they come back for the General Plan of Development (GPD) for the bank they curb cut would be there then and they could go to the State then.  Rob Oris reiterated that they can’t include the bank because they don’t have title yet.  

Town Planner Whitten noted there is the issue of signage which should be done at this level.   There is one high-rise sign which was approved with the 2 signs on it, with there being 4 uses they would like to put up another.   They discussed putting 4 signs on one pole but they felt that would be too much.  Commissioner Tyler questioned that they would want a high-rise sign for the bank and the retail?   Mr. Spungen indicated the bank wants the high-rise as this their first entrance into Connecticut.  Town Planner Whitten noted she passes by there at least twice a day and the only time she can see the Wendy’s, you must really look over there.   Town Planner Whitten didn’t feel the high-rise signs are that visible from the town; the purpose of the intersection zone is for the high-rise signage.  Coming from the north you can’t see the site at all.   The signs are really trying to get people off going northbound.  Attorney Fahey recalled the Commission requested a study with a crane and balloons on different elevations; the results were surprising.   Going southbound at 65’ you could hardly see the sign; coming northbound you could see it but it wasn’t in your face.   Attorney Fahey felt it was important to the bank.  Mr. Oris suggested it was important to the retail as well.  Town Planner Whitten noted that signage is part of this Application.   Commissioner Gowdy suggested he had no problem with the proposal personally.

Chairman Guiliano noted the Commission would need an extension from the Applicant to continue the Public Hearing.   He indicated he would like the other members to take a look at the proposal; the Commission may ask the Applicant to go over the plan again.

Attorney Fahey gave the following verbal extension of the Application:  on behalf of South Prospect Hill Road, LLC, consents to the continuation of the Public Hearing to January 10, 2006.

NEW BUSINESS:   Onofrio Associates, LLC – 1-lot Subdivision located at 120 Newberry Road.  [M-1 Zone; Map 15, Block 19, Lot 15A].  (Deadline for decision 1/19/06):

Chairman Guiliano read the description of this item of business.    Appearing to discuss this Application was Don Onofrio, the Applicant, and Jay Ussery, of J. R. Russo & Associates.

Mr. Ussery gave a description of the site location, which presently contains Scorpion Fasteners.  He indicated Mr. Onofrio purchased 12 acres for his business; he would now like to split/subdivide the parcel for another lot for a prospective commercial development.  They are showing it can accommodate a building but this is not what he plans to put there.   The Site Plan would follow.  Mr. Ussery noted there are wetlands on the parcel; they have received Inland/Wetlands approval.  Town Engineer Norton has looked at the proposal.  There is sewer available to the site, as well as electric, gas, and water.  They are looking at 5.1 acres for the split.   Beebe Landscaping is to the east end of the street, and across the street would be Newberry Village Active Adult Housing.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned what was the biggest sized building that the site

could accommodate?  Mr. Ussery suggested that would be up to the Wetlands Commission, as the parcel contains an existing farm pond.   They talked about enhancing that pond and making it a centerpiece and locating buildings around it, with something like that they might possibly get a 25,000 to 30,000 square foot building situated around the pond, with wetlands mitigation.  

Town Planner Whitten noted they have received position letters from Connecticut Water Company, the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA), and Town Engineer Norton.   She had deleted Condition #9 from the proposed approval motion as there is no activity proposed with this Application; there is no need for bonding.   She also noted they are proposing 3 waivers, as this is a subdivision although it’s for a commercial park.

Chairman Guiliano questioned what was being done for Open Space?   Town Planner Whitten indicated she didn’t know what the Commission had done historically for Open Space with regard to commercial subdivisions; Open Space is usually done for residential subdivisions.  Mr. Ussery noted that Insurance Automotive Auction was a commercial subdivision; although IAA purchased the total parcel it was done with more than one lot.  He didn’t recall what was done with regard to Open Space.  Chairman Guiliano questioned if Open Space wasn’t offered was a fee-in-lieu done?   Commissioner Gowdy couldn’t recall.  Town Planner Whitten suggested the Commission has the right to waive all Open Space requirements, or require something; the regulations don’t address Open Space specifically.  Mr. Ussery suggested if Mr. Onofrio retained the parcel himself there wouldn’t be an issue of Open Space.   Chairman Guiliano suggested he could lease the parcel; he suggested if Mr. Onofrio sells the land they could consider a fee, if he retains it then it wouldn’t be an issue.   Chairman Guiliano didn’t see why a commercial subdivision should be any different from a residential subdivision.  Discussion continued regarding a requirement vs. an offer of Open Space.   Town Planner Whitten READ FOR THE RECORD Section 7 of the Subdivision Regulations regarding Open Space requirements.  Chairman Guiliano felt since the wording was “all subdivisions” it should include commercial subdivisions.   He indicated the Commission is not asking that Mr. Onofrio go out and have the parcel appraised; if he sells the land then there should be a requirement for the Open Space allocation of fee-in-lieu of same.  Town Planner Whitten suggested the wording is “within 5 years”, but he could lease forever.  She felt if it were sold within 5 years then he owes $2,000.

MOTION TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING REQUEST FOR WAIVERS: The applicant requests the following waivers:

1.      Section 2.8 – Performance Bonds – which will be required at time of Site Plan Review
2.      Section 2.11.3 & 6.3 – sidewalks – no sidewalks exist along Newberry Road
3.      Section 2.11.2 & 6.5 – Street Lights – as no new streets are proposed,  and street lights already exist

Gowdy moved/Ouellette seconded/VOTE:  In Favor:   Unanimous

MOTION TO APPROVE the application of owner  Onofrio  Associates, LLC for a 1-lot subdivision on a total parcel of 12.81 acres +/- , Original Lot A to be decreased to  7.5 acres, Proposed Lot B to be 5.31 acres, located at 120 Newberry Road,  presently zoned M-1 as shown on Assessors’ Map 15, Block 19, Lot 15A.  This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Commission) and the following conditions:


Referenced Plans:

1 of 4   “Key Map/Cover Sheet - 1 Lot Subdivision Onofrio Associates, LLC, 120 Newberry Road, East Windsor, CT, Rev date 10/24/05 ,prepared by J. R. Russo & Associates, Land Surveyors & Professional Engineers, 1 Shoham Road, East Windsor, CT 06088,  860/623-0569, 860/623-2485 fax
2 of 4  Subdivision Plan, Property of Onofrio Associates, LLC, 120  Newberry Rod, Eat Windsor, CT Map 15 Blk 19, Lot 15A Zone M1, scale 1” = 40’, dated 10/24/05
3 of 4  Topographic plan
4 of 4  Erosion & Sediment Control Details

                        
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 the new  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 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.  

General Conditions:
 
9.      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.
10.     A Site Plan Approval and Zoning Permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any site work.
11.     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.
12.     Any modifications to the proposed drainage or grading for the resubdivision is subject to the approval of the town engineer.
13.     Additional erosion control measures are to be installed as directed by town staff if field conditions necessitate.
14.     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.
15.     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.

(Additional condition):

16.     If the property is sold to any other individual other than the owner or a family    member within five years of approval a $2,000 fee will be paid to the Treasurer as a fee-in-lieu-of open space.

Gowdy moved/Ouellette seconded/VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous

INFORMAL DISCUSSION/1)  Herb HoldenEast Road, proposed gravel operation:  

Appearing to discuss this issue was Herb Holden and Jay Ussery of J. R. Russo & Associates.   Mr. Ussery reported there is an 85 acre parcel on the west side of East Road which is owned by the Sargent family.   They are in a contractual agreement with Mr. Holden to mine gravel.     This will be difficult to do and will require a Special Use Permit, so they have come in to discuss the situation.  The trucks and access is the biggest issue.   They could come out onto East Road and go out to Depot Street and go to Ellington, or they could go to Broad Brook and on to I-91 but the problem is the use of East Road.   Mr. Holden is talking to the Grants about using their land again; they would have to come down East Road 300’.  


Commissioner Gowdy felt it would be a problem coming out in front of Hemlock Court.   Commissioner Ouellette noted they have a quarry in back of that subdivision; Commissioner Gowdy felt they have finished that excavation operation.  Mr. Holden indicated Mr. Myers wants one pile of stockpiled material, and he the other.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned if they could use the rail line?  Mr. Ussery concurred that’s another possibility, and they have looked at it but the problem will be the way they will go in the future.  Commissioner Tyler questioned how good the material is?  Mr. Holden indicated it’s good.   Commissioner Tyler then felt it becomes a question of what raw materials are available.  Chairman Guiliano suggested it becomes the issue of sacrificing everyone around the area for the one businessman.   Mr. Holden noted he is a taxpayer of East Windsor, too.  Commissioner Gowdy couldn’t see how they could conceive of going out East Road or Depot Street with the number of trucks that would be involved going out of the site.   Mr. Holden cited as an example the conditions put on the Rye Street site and it works.  

Mr. Ussery questioned if it would be feasible if he could get to the Grant property without going on East Road?   Commissioner Gowdy suggested the way it was before was perfect.  Chairman Guiliano questioned that someone had mentioned 400,000 yards of materials?  Commissioner Gowdy noted they would be going down East Road which is narrow, and has the dip, and a curve.  Mr. Holden suggested when they mined the Myers property they went across the Grant property and had no problems, but there were rubbish trucks, etc. that used East Road.  Commissioner Gowdy suggested there were not as many trash trucks, etc.  Commissioner Tyler suggested he didn’t have a problem using East Road, there are many other roads in town that are used; he felt it would be preferable to use the Grant’s property but it’s a public road and Mr. Holden pays taxes as well as the others.  

Mr. Holden questioned if he could make a deal with the Grants would it settle the Commission’s problems?   Chairman Guiliano questioned what they were talking about for time?   Mr. Holden suggested 3 to 4 years at 60 loads per day.  Mr. Ussery felt if they made a deal with the Grants there wouldn’t be any load limitation.  Mr. Holden noted the Grants sold their development rights; Commissioner Tyler questioned that the sale would preclude  you from using the hauling road.  Chairman Guiliano suggested he would be more inclined to look more seriously at this if there was another way to take it out.   Commissioner Gowdy suggested he had no problem with the pit, or the way Mr. Holden reconstructed the site, but he has a problem with the traffic.  Chairman Guiliano suggested he was not saying the Commission would approve or disapprove such a proposal but they would consider it.

INFORMAL DISCUSSION/2)  F & G Realty – Starbucks:  No discussion tonight.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

MOTION: To APPROVE the following minutes:  Public Hearing #1463 dated

October 11, 2005 as written, Public Hearing #1464 dated October 24, 2005 as written, Public Hearing #1467 dated November 22, 2005 as amended, and Special Meeting #14568 dated November 28, 2005 as written.

Gowdy moved/Tyler seconded/VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous

ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 9:44 P. M.

Gowdy moved/Tyler seconded/VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous

Respectfully submitted,


Peg Hoffman, Recording Secretary