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
 
March 28, 2006 Minutes
TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
Planning and Zoning Commission

Public Hearing #1480
March 28, 2006

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

The Meeting was called to order at 7:01 P. M. by Chairman Guiliano in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:

A quorum was established as five Regular Members (Gowdy, Guiliano, Ouellette, Rodrigue, and Saunders), and one Alternate Member (Matthews) was present. Alternate Members Kehoe and Tyler were absent.  Chairman Guiliano noted Alternate Member Matthews would sit in on any applications for which others members stepped down.   Also present were Town Planner Whitten, and Ex-Officio Member Selectman Filipone.

ADDED AGENDA ITEMS:     None.

RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS:        None.

LEGAL NOTICE:   None.

CONTINUED HEARING:  Southern Auto Sales, Inc. – Zone Change from A-1 to B-2 for property located on the south side of Phelps Road.  [Map 34, Block 21, Lot 12], (Deadline to close hearing 4/18/06):

Chairman Guiliano read the Hearing description.   Appearing to discuss this Application were Attorney T. Mark Barbieri, and Jay Ussery of J. R. Russo & Associates, both representing the Applicant.

Mr. Ussery noted this is a continuation of the Public Hearing on the proposed Zone Change for a parcel located on Phelps Road; he indicated that they had given a description of the property and the proposed Zone Change at the previous meeting.  Questions raised by the public at that meeting will be addressed this evening.

Attorney Barbieri noted that both the owner of Southern Auto Sales, Larry Tribble, and, Rick Nadeau, the second in command are present in the audience tonight.   He suggested that Mr. Tribble would like to speak to the Board.

Mr. Tribble thanked the Commission for the opportunity to make this Application.   He reported this is Southern Auto Sales (SAS) 59th year in business in East Windsor; he is proud of doing business in this community.  He indicated it’s an accomplishment in the business world to be in business in the same town you’ve been doing business for that amount of time.  Mr. Tribble suggested what makes SAS successful in the world of competitors is the quality of customer service, and the people from the area who provide that service.  He indicated their systems have been developed in-house, and a big feature for them is their facility.  This Application is planning for the future; it isn’t something he’s looking to do tomorrow but he is trying to plan for the future.  It would be nice to stack the vehicles up in a warehouse but that can’t be done.   With regard to people saying he’s not using the existing parking lots every day, the one on the north side of Phelps Road is for employees only; 700 to 800 people utilize that lot on auction day.  This area under discussion is more contiguous to the auction facility on the south side of Phelps Road and it’s vital for long term planning to have cars on the site.  Mr. Tribble indicated they don’t want to use the roads; he purchased this land to have it in reserve for future growth.  It’s taken a lot of time, effort, and money to develop the facility.  He noted they have received many compliments about the landscaping; it’s important to him for the facility to look good from the road.  Rick Nadeau is his Site Manager and addresses issues each day.   Mr. Tribble indicated he is proud to be part of East Windsor; he appreciated being able to address the Board.

Attorney Barbieri suggested some of the questions from the previous meeting were not appropriate for a Zone Change Application but these questions come up a lot about SAS – how much is enough and what does SAS pay in taxes?  Attorney Barbieri indicated that only SAS – not any other holdings of the owner – and the people within the organization pay $477,824 in annual taxes.  He suggested there are many other businesses in town that benefit from SAS’ trade; there are 16 owners of other businesses living in town and those businesses generate $5,970,000 in trade.  Attorney Barbieri he didn’t include anything outside of SAS in those figures; no dealerships, although he may have included some brokers.  Although there are more hotels in surrounding towns Attorney Barbieri noted there are 3 hotels in town that generate $289,470 in business from SAS directly.  The employees who trade in town and go out for lunch generate $650,000 in business.   Attorney Barbieri indicated he did not calculate what auction day does for the restaurant business in town.    SAS itself, and the people in town, generate an annual revenue of $18,945,000 that benefits East Windsor.  Attorney Barbieri suggested that figure includes taxes paid.

Attorney Barbieri noted another question which was raised was what type of revenue an inventory holding area would produce?  Mr. Ussery suggested someone had questioned what is the value of a paved parking lot/acre vs. a building.   He noted that at SAS a paved area/black top is $0.45/square foot which works out to a value of $19,000/acre.  At the assessed value of 70% that figure becomes $14,000+/-; multiply that by a mil rate of 31 and each acre generates $4,000 in annual taxes.   Mr. Ussery suggested paving has a value, just as a building has a value.  Compared to a single family home Mr. Ussery suggested the value of a paved acre is comparable to a one acre house lot, not including the house.    He indicated that if you are considering an inventory holding area that fronts on Route 5 that would have more value than something further back but the black top values are the same - $0.45/square foot no matter where it’s located.  Mr. Ussery also indicated it’s a 6 digit number to put in drainage, black top, etc. for a parking lot; he noted he felt the people in the audience were alluding that the black top had no value.  Attorney Barbieri suggested they are only providing that information because the audience asked for it.  He suggested what’s more pertinent is that the property isn’t for sale, and is farmland now.  

Regarding how much is enough, and the comment that this place will cover the whole town, Attorney Barbieri indicated they looked at other B-2 Zoned land for comparison.  Mr. Ussery advised the Commission this same comparison was done 2 to 3 years ago and compared B-2 vs. A-1 zoned land.   Based on a land use study that Don Poland put together there are 16,960 acres in East Windsor.  Under the B-2 Zone there are 1,375 acres under commercial use; that acreage is 8.1% of the total land area of East Windsor.    There are 15,585 acres, or 92% of the land, which comprise other zones.  The 33 acres under discussed is .2% of the total area of East Windsor, or 6.4% of all the commercial zoned land in town.  

With regard to the B-2 Zoned land, 260 acres, or 1.5%, are currently developed; 255 acres, or 1.5% is currently undeveloped and have coverage issues.   Mr. Ussery noted there is commercially zoned land on North Road near Bassdale’s Plaza which lacks the availability of sewers and probably will never be developed.  

Mr. Ussery suggested the 33 acres under discussion, which represents 0.2% of the total land area in town, or 5.4% of all the B-2 Zoned land in town, is a small percentage of the total B-2 Zoned land.

Mr. Ussery indicated another concern for the residents living to the east is what’s going to be behind their houses.  He noted there are wetlands on the property.  The area to the east is being included in the Zone Change proposal for coverage calculations; he indicated they wouldn’t develop that and there would be a 100’ buffer (50’ on each side) so there would not be much developable land.  They are not proposing to develop any of that area even though they are asking for a zone change on that area.  Commissioner Ouellette requested clarification that they need the land area behind the houses for coverage valuations?   Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively, noting they are allowed 65% of the area for impervious coverage; if the area behind the houses were taken out of the proposed B-2 Zone Change and left in the A-1 Zone it would reduce the percent of the area developable.  He suggested if you look at the entire site the B-2 Zone goes back some distance from Route 5 but much of that land is in a Conservation Easement, which allows them to develop to the rear.  

Commissioner Ouellette recalled that there had been some discussion about a landscaped area between the A-1 Zone and the B-2 Zone; is that to be in the 50’ buffer area?  Mr. Ussery replied it would be within the 150’ zone line from the street; they would locate the berm north of the B-2 Zone line, which would be within the 150’ line.   The A-1 Zone comes back from the street, and could be bigger or smaller when they get to the Site Plan.  Commissioner Rodrigue questioned that this would be pretty much typical as to what they have in front of SAS?   Mr. Ussery suggested they may go with something more natural with regard to plantings than they have in of the main facility.  

Commissioner Rodrigue questioned that they had no plans for access off of Phelps Road, other than for access during construction?  Mr. Ussery indicated they would ask for construction access, as he didn’t see a need for a permanent access.   He suggested they would like to be able to provide an emergency access from that area.  

Commissioner Matthews felt that the big concern for people in the audience is that it’s a sea of autos, although you’ve done a nice job with buffers.  When you drive down Phelps Road it’s a beautiful area, and people have done a nice job of creating that, then you would have these houses.  That would be his concern even with a buffer along the road.  Commissioner Matthews suggested the Applicant has done a nice job on the west side; a new person driving down Route 5 wouldn’t know you had cars there.  Couldn’t you do that on this property, buffer the entire perimeter?  Chairman Guiliano indicated the buffer would typically be discussed after the Zone Change is granted.   Commission Matthews felt the Commission had leverage at this point, to request/require the business to do what’s best for East Windsor.  He felt SAS has been terrific with East Windsor; they employ a lot of people and have been generous with organizations in town although he realizes you’ve made an effort to mask that.  Commissioner Matthews felt a lot of the objections the people have would go away if the perimeter buffer were considered.  

Mr. Ussery suggested that with regard to specifics to this site what you see across the field in the winter is the cars in the East Lot.   If this Application were done you would no longer be able to see those cars in the East Lot.  Mr. Ussery also felt SAS would be more than happy to look at the areas in which they could do a better job of screening.

Commissioner Rodrigue questioned that their intention was to leave this area more natural?  Mr. Ussery noted there is a wetlands area that must be taken into consideration; the easterly end would be prohibited from development by the wetlands.   The majority of development is what you can see from the road.  Development near the road is limited by existence of wetlands; Mr. Ussery indicated he didn’t anticipate much development in that area.  

Attorney Barbieri reiterated that the Commission’s regulations protect the people there, and give the Commission the authority as to what’s done in that area.  The Applicant is always willing to do more, if necessary, with regard to buffers.  He cited that at Stoughton Road there is a large buffer, and the land that was swapped with the Town for the Scout Hall property is a considerable buffer.  Attorney Barbieri concurred you can’t put a condition on a Zone Change but he understands the concerns.  

Commissioner Matthews questioned if there could be a covenant that the land on the east end would not be paved area?  Attorney Barbieri concurred they could talk about that when they come in with a Site Plan.    He indicated he didn’t want to say never because things change, but they don’t have a problem with a Conservation Easement, which are pretty permanent.  If the Conservation Easement carries a condition that if the character of the neighborhood changes that would be preferable, as houses could be built behind these houses, and would that be better?  Before Larry Tribble purchased the property under discussion it was scheduled for condominiums and that probably wouldn’t have been any better for these people.  Attorney Barbieri suggested the character of the neighborhood will change; it was more scenic when he was young because the houses were not there; it’s already changed.  Some of the farms are not kept up and don’t look so good but most of the area looks good.  He suggested they can work with the Commission with regard to the wording of the Conservation Easement.

Chairman Guiliano suggested they hadn’t convinced him why it would be good to change the zone.   The Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) recommends that this area should stay in the A-1 Zone; other than profit for your client convince me this is a good thing for the town.  Attorney Barbieri suggested the tax value, etc. is a good thing for the town.  Chairman Guiliano felt that taxes aren’t always the best thing to consider for the town; taking a piece of property that’s now a field, someone could come in with an application for houses tomorrow but you haven’t convinced me.   This goes against the POCD to make this a B-2 Zone.  Attorney Barbieri recalled that many times the POCD has been referred to as a guide.   They are not asking for a tremendous zone change; when they are done it will look better than it does now. If you were comparing a pristine area to a parking lot is one comparison, but to compare a tobacco field to a parking lot is different.   Farming is an intense activity.  Chairman Guiliano questioned what was wrong with that?   Would Attorney Barbieri like to take all the fields in East Windsor and develop them commercially?  Attorney Barbieri reiterated that 91% of the town is not developed commercially.  Chairman Guiliano felt the understanding was pretty clear that the Commission didn’t want to go further up Phelps Road, and that’s what the neighborhood complained about.   They didn’t want to change the view of Phelps Road.  You could head south and do the same thing.   Personally he felt that Phelps Road should stay the way it is.  Attorney Barbieri suggested he was sure you will make your decision on what the people have said and that’s your prerogative.   This is a small addition of a zone.   They haven’t been in much in the last 5 years; they are just basically finishing up their plans; there isn’t a lot more they can develop.

Mr. Ussery indicated that in terms of what SAS owns; there is nothing more they can develop.   With no disrespect to the people living on Phelps Road, there are nice homes in the area.  This area is contiguous to this/SAS’ use.  When he thinks about the rest of East Windsor, we are still on a State highway; cars go 50 to 55 miles per hour.   This won’t be a scenic farm road forever.   It’s contiguous to Route 5.  To think this will stay pristine land, this will get developed; it’s not a little country road like East Road or Chamberlain Road.  It will get developed with Active Adult Housing; Mr. Ussery suggested he thought it would be a good place for a Town Hall or school because of the access to Route 5.   In terms of looking at this and thinking it will stay farming……. There are other types of residential development; it’s on a State highway going to Route 5.  It is contiguous to this commercial use that needs to expand and has been in town for 55 years, and want to stay in town.  Attorney Barbieri suggested it’s likely to stay this use, by this owner or others.  His point is, compare apples to apples, not a pristine area to this use.   This area is already houses.   He’s just asking that you compare apples to apples.

Chairman Guiliano noted this is a Public Hearing; he queried the audience for comments:

Debra Krenshaw, Riverview Drive:  questioned the impact on Route 5 this proposal would generate?  What amount of additional tractor trailers would this use cause?  Mr. Ussery indicated if the question is will they be back here the answer is no; all cars are off loaded in front of the main building.   The car haulers don’t even get behind the security gate.  With regard to the impact on Route 5 from the rezone of this 33 acres, with the wetlands impact if they get 15 acres for a holding area they will be lucky.  The impact of that could be estimated by considering they can park 150 cars per acre and multiplying that by 15.   Commissioner Gowdy suggested that would be an additional 2250 cars; Mr. Ussery concurred.  Attorney Barbieri suggested this is why you see lots empty; there is constant movement of cars.   When you are moving 5000 to 6000 cars for the auction you need a lot of room to do that.   

In terms of impact on Route 5, Attorney Barbieri suggested it’s not a parking lot; it’s an inventory holding area.   The cars are not driven from the inside out like at a mall.  You won’t see any lot full at any given time.   With regard to how much do you need, in the front the cars fill up the entire space but they must move them around and then move them out.  Attorney Barbieri suggested a good comparison is a pile of lumber.   You see lumber but it’s not the same lumber all the time because you sell some, so what you see changes.

Mr. Ussery suggested if the concern was is this proposal going to have a major or detrimental effect on the traffic on Route 5, then in his opinion it’s not.  Route 5 is more than adequate to handle this additional traffic.  

Commissioner Gowdy suggested that if they need this lot then he must assume you will have that many more haulers to move them; with 10 cars per hauler and an estimated 2250 cars in this lot then 220 more haulers will be added to the traffic.  Mr. Ussery concurred but noted the traffic volume for Route 5 won’t be all at once, or in one day, or in one week.   With the number of cars that pass up and down Route 5 each day 220 haulers is a small percentage of what’s moving there now.   If this proposal goes further a traffic study will be part of the application, and each time there is an expansion of SAS the State Traffic Commission reviews the potential impact.  

Bill Loos, Melrose Road:  indicated he can’t see any hardship, he can’t see any reason to change the zone.   He could develop the land and put houses in there.  It should stay an A-1 Zone.   We shouldn’t change the zone unless there is a hardship for the owner.   Chairman Guiliano noted a hardship is considered through the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Al Rodrigue, 73 Rye Street:  everyone talks about keeping the rural atmosphere, but SAS has been improving Route 5 for a number of years and if they hadn’t been forward in their business expansion Route 5 would be a honky tonk road.  Because of SAS it makes other businesses have what they need to get their acts together.  Phelps Road has junk cars and trailers in front of some of the homes, and people operating businesses not allowed in the area; it’s more junk than rural.  SAS has been expanding their business, have been paying taxes and probably have never been behind in their taxes; some of the people complaining probably have been behind in their taxes.   Some of the farms are junk, they are not beautiful; they have falling down barns.   By changing the zone to B-1 is not asking to put up a skyscraper; it’s nothing different than expanding their parking.  You won’t see falling down barns and overgrown fields any longer; if people want to look at that then step up to the plate and buy it.  Mr. Rodrigue didn’t see that changing the zone will be harmful to the town; living as an A-1 Zone is no benefit.  Perhaps in 20 years business will change and maybe you will be able to build a skyscraper.  If you plan for the future and what it truly holds then SAS is planning for the future.  

Town Planner Whitten wanted to note that this property is in a sewer area based on the Sewer Service Map, and Phelps Road has been designated as a major collector road.  This proposal doesn’t specifically meet the POCD, or the Office of Policy Map.   It will encroach more into the area but it will tie into the business that is already nearby.

Town Planner Whitten also submitted to the Commission possible additional conditions for approval, should that be their decision.  When voting on this Application the Commissioners should state their reasons on the record.    

Chairman Guiliano noted that Commissioner Gowdy had expressed time to think about the proposal a little longer; for that reason he would like to take action on this proposal at the Commission’s next meeting.

MOTION: To CLOSE the Application of  Southern Auto Sales, Inc. – Zone Change from A-1 to B-2 for property located on the south side of Phelps Road.  [Map 34, Block 21, Lot 12]  until the Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting on March 28, 2006 at 7:00 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

Saunders moved/Rodrigue seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders)

MOTION: To TABLE the 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]  until the Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting on April 11, 2006 at 7:00 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

Saunders moved/Rodrigue seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders)


MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders)

The Commission RECESSED at 8:03 P. M. and RECONVEND at 8:12 P. M.

NEW BUSINESS:  Elzear Rodrigue –  White Pine, LLC – SDD, Site Plan Approval and Special Use Permit for 12 single-family condominiums at 22 Wagner Lane, owned by TJL Investment Trust, LLC (Phase I, Wagner Terrace).  [M-1 & B-1 Zone; Map 13, Block 11, Lots 2 & 3].  (Hearing closed 2/28/06; deadline for decision 5/4/06):

LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Rodrigue stepped down from service on the Board.   As Alternate Commissioner Matthews had not been present for previous discussion on this Application a positive decision tonight would require the unanimous vote of the remaining four Commissioners.   Chairman Guiliano advised the Applicant and his representatives of the need for a unanimous vote; the Applicant’s attorney advised the Commission they would prefer to wait until the Commission’s next meeting when perhaps more members of the Board might be in attendance.

MOTION: To TABLE the Application of Elzear Rodrigue –  White Pine, LLC for SDD, Site Plan Approval and Special Use Permit for 12 single-family condominiums at 22 Wagner Lane, owned by TJL Investment Trust, LLC (Phase I, Wagner Terrace).  [M-1 & B-1 Zone; Map 13, Block 11, Lots 2 & 3]   until the Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting on April 11, 2006 at 7:00 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:        Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Saunders)

LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Rodrigue returned to service on the Board.

NEW BUSINESS:  137 Prospect Hill, LLC & 137A Prospect Hill, LLCModification of Approved Site Plan – to add bank with drive-thru at 137 Prospect Hill Road.  [B-2 Zone; Map 2, Block 4, Lots 28 & 28A].  (Deadline for decision extended to 4/15/2006):

Chairman Guiliano read the description of this Item of Business.  He noted the deadline to close this Application had been extended to April 15th; he questioned where this Application has been as this is the first time it’s coming before the Commission.  No response was noted.

Appearing to discuss this Application was Jay Ussery of J. R. Russo & Associates, and Scott Hesketh, of F. A. Heskeths & Associates.

Mr. Ussery noted this property received a Site Plan Approval a year ago; the property is located on the corner of North Road and Bridge Street near the Burger King parcel and south of the Comfort Inn.   This is the former office of Somers Sanitation.   The approval was for a building containing 8,700 square feet; current potential tenants are a Starbucks, a Quiznos, and other retail space.   The owners have been in contact with banks who would like to locate an office here; the revised Site Plan would reduce the size of the building to add a bank and drive-thru on the north side of the building.  Mr. Ussery reported he filed an Application for Site Plan Modification and Town Planner Whitten had concerns about the impact on traffic of the drive-thru window.  He introduced Scott Hesketh to give comments about the traffic input.

Scott Hesketh, of F. A. Hesketh & Associates, reported they prepared a Traffic Impact Study in 9/2004 for the previously approved Site Plan.  Based on available traffic evidence you need 5 vehicles stacking for the drive-thru window.  They discussed the recent changes in the banking industry, and thought that perhaps the traffic volumes for banks had changed.   They choose several existing banks in East Windsor and did volume counts and queue studies as follows:  Saturday, March 18th and Saturday, March 25th from 9:00 A. M. to 12:00 P. M. Two of the banks studied were Webster, on Bridge Street, and Bank of America; both have 2 drive-thru windows and drive up ATM facilities.  They observed then entering and existing time of each vehicle, and calculated the length of the queue, and came up with an average length of time in line; they entered that into an Excel spreadsheet.   They did a second study on Thursday, March 23rd from 3:00 P. M. to 6:00 P. M. at New Alliance in Sofia’s Plaza, which has one drive-thru window, and Enfield Savings Bank on Main Street, which has one drive-thru lane and 2 ATMs in the drive-thru lane.  They studied Thursdays when people get paid.  They determined that the maximum queue on Saturday and Thursday was stacking 4 vehicles.
On Saturday, March 18th, at Webster Bank, one window had 77 vehicles during the 3 hour period, the other window had 28 vehicles, and the ATM had 71 vehicles.   The average wait time was 163 seconds.  The second Saturday, there were 67 vehicles at one window, 21 vehicles at the second window, and 71 vehicles at the ATM.  The average wait time was 207 seconds.  Mr. Hesketh reported Webster was the busiest bank.  The queue level never exceeded 4 vehicles.  At one bank there was 58 minutes and at a second bank there was 142 minutes when no one was at the window.  The study shows there is lots of time available.   At Enfield Savings Bank not a single vehicle went through the drive-thru; 28 vehicles used the ATM.  They have a tv monitor and a camera but you can’t see the teller; this might not be the best location for a drive-thru.  At New Alliance there were 38 customers during the 3 hours.  

Mr. Hesketh indicated that the banking industry has changed; people do more on-line banking and bill paying and are not going to the bank during the peak hours.  Use of the ATM is more prevalent, and there is no need to wait in line; the ATM is another 500’ down the road.  

Mr. Hesketh reported that they made the suggestion that the drive-thru window be placed as far from the building as possible.  There is 65’ from the drive aisle across the front of the building.  They are allowing 19’/vehicle for queue room; there is enough room for 4 vehicles without interrupting the drive aisle across the front of the building.   Chairman Guiliano questioned if the queue would be double?  Scott suggested they could be used as a window/ATM combination or 2 windows.  Stacking should be available for 4 vehicles.  

With regard to trip generation number and site generated traffic at the access drive during  peak hours and traffic at the site driveway, the determined the site driveway would operate at a Level C during the peak hours and left turns would operate at a Level A during the peak hours.

Chairman Guiliano noted he stops in to his bank on Thursday afternoons when he gets paid; there are always 15 to 20 cars waiting in line so he goes into the interior of the bank.  Discussion followed regarding new banking practices; Mr. Ussery noted there is a new bank near his office location and there is seldom anyone going in there.  He knows someone who works at that location and there was a Saturday morning they had no customers. He also noted many banks are located in supermarkets now and are open on the weekends.  Chairman Guiliano reported his bank is Bank of America on Route 5 and is always jam packed.

Town Planner Whitten requested clarification that Mr. Hesketh was saying that the peak hours at the site driveway was going to be a Level C?   Mr. Hesketh reported that a bank generates more traffic than a retail store, but during the morning the Level of Service will be B and during midday it will be a Level of Service C.  Town Planner Whitten questioned that now it was a stronger Level C?   Mr. Hesketh reported that it might have been a Level of Service B before on Saturday with a retail use, but it is a Level of Service C now with the bank.

Town Planner Whitten noted her concern is if by chance the 5th car will block all traffic going into the site, and what happens if it does?   Chairman Guiliano questioned what if it’s 5 or 6 cars, or if they are blocking the handicapped spaces?  Commissioner Rodrigue noted that Webster’s driveway goes out into the main thoroughfare and can hold &=/- cars.   He has never seen it going out into the traffic; if it backed up he could see them going into the parking lots.  Mr. Hesketh reported that out of 6 hours on a Saturday Webster had 3 hours when no one was there.  Chairman Guiliano felt Thursday and Friday will see more heavy service.  Mr. Hesketh reported they did not do a study during summer weather; their study was performed when it was 40 degrees.  

Commissioner Gowdy questioned what type of business uses would be going into this location?   Mr. Ussery reported that Starbucks and Quiznos and the bank and then there would be some available space between them for retail; that retail use would probably be food.  Commissioner Gowdy felt if they did have 5 cars stacking up it would be killing business for Starbucks and Quiznos; Mr. Ussery agreed.  Commissioner Rodrigue suggested if they used the right hand lane as a combination ATM/teller lane it would give them stacking for 8 cars.  Commissioner Ouellette felt it would be cutting it close if the drive-thru windows were not doubled up.  
Commissioner Ouellette questioned if they calculated how many left hand turns into the site would occur?  He suggested that during the morning rush hour half of the traffic wants to go left into this area; it could shut down the whole traffic line.  Mr. Hesketh suggested they would be restripeing Route 5 for a bypass lane.   Commissioner Ouellette questioned why that bypass lane wasn’t shown on this plan?  Mr. Hesketh suggested there is a large shoulder on one side of the road; they are proposing to restripe Route 5 and create a 20’ width.  Commissioner Ouellette questioned if it was approved?   Mr. Hesketh felt it was reviewed and approved but the permit was not issued so they may want to review it again.  Commissioner Ouellette suggested with the present width of Route 5 it wouldn’t work for someone wanting to go around stacked cars to head north.  Chairman Guiliano questioned if they could show that proposal on this plan if the State hasn’t approved it?   Commissioner Ouellette suggested if the State doesn’t like it it won’t happen.  

Commissioner Rodrigue questioned if this is an existing curb cut?   Mr. Hesketh suggested they are widening the area; there is a significant 10’ to 12’ shoulder.   Commissioner Ouellette suggested that’s a bike route.  

Chairman Guiliano suggested he really has a concern with the stacking if there is only going to be one drive-thru; if they have two that’s a different story.  Discussion followed regarding interior layout of the bank; Mr. Hesketh suggested one of the tellers working inside will staff the window if they are not busy.  If they had cars backing up it wouldn’t work for the people working on the window.  

Commissioner Ouellette questioned if there is any opportunity to move the building to the south?  Mr. Ussery suggested that would affect the drive-thru for Starbucks on the south side of the building.  Commissioner Ouellette questioned if Starbucks still intends to use this building?   Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively, noting they are anxious to get in.   Commissioner Ouellette questioned if they could swap tenant locations?  Mr. Ussery felt there would be more stacking on Starbucks.  Mr. Hesketh reported they couldn’t do 2 lanes for Starbucks.

Town Planner Whitten suggested if they went with the HIFZ (Highway Interchange Floating Zone) they could play with the side yards and set backs and maybe move the building back to the property line but she was concerned with fire access, and the grade at the back of the property.  Mr. Ussery reported they have only 10’ to move.  Town Planner Whitten reported they didn’t want to go with the HIFZ.

Commissioner Saunders cited the current potential tenants and possibly another restaurant; he questioned how tractor trailers would access the site to make deliveries – from the back or the front?   Mr. Ussery reported they would have to bring supplies in through the front door.  Commissioner Saunders questioned where they would go in?   Mr. Ussery reported they would walk in from the front; there is no way they could get a vehicle behind the building.  Commissioner Ouellette questioned if that service vehicle would be a single unit truck?   Mr. Hesketh suggested when someone purchases a Dunkin Donuts franchise you also purchase all of their products and trucks deliver to the site.  He indicated he didn’t know how Quiznos or Starbucks works – if they hire smaller trucks to deliver their goods, etc.  

Commissioner Guiliano requested to return to discussion of the queuing.  Commissioner Gowdy felt if they could guarantee double a queue.   Town Planner Whitten reported she’s torn on this proposal; Chairman Guiliano reported this is a tight site.  Mr. Ussery questioned if there was some type of illuminated signage and if the queue was backed up the sign would then say the drive-thru was closed?   

Town Planner Whitten felt human nature being what it is, even if someone parked and went into the bank and got out faster the other people would still wait.  Mr. Ussery concurred, noting he’s seen it at Dunkin Donuts.  Town Planner Whitten noted these are usually all single occupancy vehicles.  Commissioner Gowdy felt if they added to the Site Plan that there would be provisions for 2 lanes and 8 cars; Mr. Ussery had no problem with that suggestion.  Commissioner Gowdy felt if that appeared on the Site Plan it would have to be built that way; if people use it like that it’s another issue.   Chairman Guiliano cited he was still torn; there is no guarantee they will open the 2 windows or will have enough help.   Commissioner Ouellette noted he didn’t like the proposal.  Commissioner Rodrigue felt the provisions were there.  Town Planner Whitten cited her concern as well; she questioned if the landlord would deal with the problem even if the other tenants complained?  Commissioner Ouellette suggested this is the last place you want to have a disaster near the street; it’s a difficult spot to develop.  The individual uses are not too intense, but..........Commissioner Rodrigue felt people would be using the different facilities at different times of the day.  Chairman Guiliano felt it would also depend on what else goes into the other area.   Commissioner Rodrigue felt Commissioner Ouellette’s concerns for what will happen on Route 5 is more of a concern.  Mr. Hesketh indicated it wouldn’t be a full lane on Route 5; it would be a 20’ wide section for going north so people can go around those waiting.  Commissioner Gowdy suggested he didn’t have a problem with the queue for 8 cars and stripping the lane on Route 5.  Commissioner Saunders suggested he was ok with 2 lanes.  Town Planner Whitten noted she is still torn; it might work out really fine but.......   She questioned if the Commission would be adding the condition that there would be no combination lanes?  Chairman Guiliano and Commissioner Gowdy concurred; no combination lanes.  

Commissioner Ouellette questioned the lighting; can someone see this from Burger King?   Mr. Ussery reported there is a large grade change; Burger King is at elevation 104 while the proposed building will be at elevation 83, so there is a 20’ difference in elevation.  Commissioner Ouellette questioned what the back of the building will look like?  How will it look coming up Route 140?  Mr. Ussery reported it would be a block wall.  Chairman Guiliano felt the Commission had already approved the building; Mr. Ussery indicated there is some screening on the back.  

Town Planner Whitten clarified that the additional conditions would read as follows:
*       16.     Both drive-thru windows must be tellers, no ATMs at drive-thrus.
        17.     Additional screening/landscaping to be added to the rear of the building.

MOTION TO APPROVE the application of 137 & 137A  Prospect Hill, LLC for Site Plan Approval of a one story, 8,892 sq. ft. retail/office building with separate drive through for a coffee shop and bank, and associated parking and site improvements at 137 Prospect Hill Road, on property zoned B-2, as shown on Assessor’s Map 2, Block 4, Lots 28 & 28A.  This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Conditions)

        Referenced Plans:
Cover Sheet – “137  Prospect Hill, LLC & 137A Prospect Hill, LLC – Retail Building, 137 Prospect Hill Road, East Windsor, Connecticut, Property of  137 Prospect Hill, LLC & 137A Prospect Hill, LLC, 15 Mullen Rd., Enfield, CT 06082”  Prepared by  J.R. Russo &
        
        Associates, 1 Shoham Road, East Windsor, CT 06088. (860) 623-0569, Fax (860) 623-2485   Scale as noted, Revised 1/3/06

Set Includes:
Sheet 2 of 8, Boundary Survey/Demolition Plan, Scale 1” = 20’.
Sheet 3 of 8, Site Plan, scale 1” = 20’
Sheet 4 of 8, Landscape Plan, scale 1”=20’.
Sheet 5 of 8, Erosion & Sediment Control  Notes ,scale as shown
Sheet 6 of 8, Detail Sheet, scale as shown
Sheet 7 of 8, Detail Sheet, scale as shown
Sheet 8 of 8, Detail Sheet, scale as shown

-Conditions which must be met prior to signing of mylars:

1.      A paper copy of the final approved plans (revisions included) shall be submitted to the Town Planner for review and comment prior to the submission of final plans.

2.      All final plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for preparation of the plans.  

3.      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 plans.

Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of any permits:

4.      One set of final mylar plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission and shall be filed in the Planning and Zoning Department.

5.      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.  The amount of said bond shall be determined by the Town Engineer.

6.      A zoning permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any site work

Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:

7.      Final grading and seeding shall be in place or a bond for the unfinished work submitted.

8.      Final as-built survey showing all structures, pins, driveways and final floor elevations as well as spot grades shall be submitted.

9.      All public health and safety components of the project must be satisfactorily completed prior to occupancy. In cases where all of these 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.  

General Conditions:

10.     In accordance with Section 13.5.4 of the Zoning Regulations, any approval of a site plan application shall commence the construction of buildings within one year from the date of approval and complete all improvements within five years of the date of approval, otherwise the approval shall become null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

11.     This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the filed 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 site plan 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.     All landscaping shall be maintained.

(Additional Conditions):

16.     Both drive-thru windows must be tellers only, no ATM to be installed at drive-thru.

17.     Additional screening landscaping to rear of building.


Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE:   In Favor:       Gowdy/Rodrigue/Saunders
                        Opposed:        Guiliano/Ouellette
                        Abstained:      No one


MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

Gowdy moved/Rodrigue seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:   Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders)

The Commission RECESSED at 9:02 P. M. and RECONVENED at 9:10 P. M.

NEW BUSINESS:  East Windsor Historical Society, Inc. – Site Plan Approval for parking lot and drainage improvements at 115 Scantic Road.  [B-1 Zone; Map 30, Block 32, Lot 27].  (Deadline for decision 5/4/06):

Chairman Guiliano read the description of this Item of Business.   Appearing to discuss this Application was Jay Ussery, of J. R. Russo & Associates; Attorney T. Mark Barbieri, and Michael Hunt, President of the East Windsor Historical Society.  

Mr. Ussery noted this is an Application for site modifications to the Scantic Academy, and gave a description of the location.  They are proposing improvements to drainage, installation of a paved parking area, and new driveway access.   Mr. Ussery indicated that the driveway presently comes in on the south side of the property and there is parking to the rear before the first building.   They are trying to improve the drainage, and to provide parking and a second means of egress from the site, as the sightline is not good when pulling out of the one way exit drive to the north side of the building.   They are proposing in-bound traffic will enter on the south side, and out-bound traffic will exit on the north side.  Mr. Ussery reported they are working with neighbors to acquire the necessary easements.  

With regard to the drainage, the site presently drains from the west to the east to Beverly Tyler’s farm.   There have been problems with the drainage for years; they have now worked out a Drainage Easement and will install a catch basin, pipes, manholes, and yard drains.  The drainage will run through the easement to a farm pond on the Tyler’s property and then eventually flow into the Scantic River.  

Mr. Ussery reiterated that they will be paving the parking area as well.

Mr. Ussery noted Town Engineer Norton has reviewed the plans and has no problems with the proposal.

Chairman Guiliano questioned what would happen if they couldn’t get the easement for the second egress?   Mr. Ussery reported then the second egress wouldn’t happen; access would function as it does now.

Town Planner Whitten indicated she has no problem with this proposal.

Commissioner Saunders questioned what was meant by Town Engineer Norton’s comment that he had no problems with the plan as long as the drainage easement and driveway easement were worked out?   Mr. Ussery suggested the academy people brought up the issue, if they can’t get the easement they can’t build the driveway.  He indicated the drainage isn’t an issue; that’s been agreed on.  

Commissioner Ouellette questioned what was the sightline today?   Mr. Ussery noted they both enter and exit out of the south driveway, but there is a line of shrubbery on the abutting property to the south.   It’s difficult to see; you need to get the nose of your car into the traveled way to get a good sightline.  Commissioner Gowdy suggested there is a stop sign 200’ from the driveway location; Mr. Ussery concurred, noting it was more like 300’.  Commissioner Ouellette questioned if the shrubbery were not there would there be a need for a second driveway; wouldn’t it be cheaper to talk to the abutting neighbor?   Commissioner Ouellette noted he has no problem with the egress as proposed, but the State will ask the same question?  Attorney Barbieri suggested the abutters haven’t been particularly cooperative.  He indicated they are ok with the drainage, as they’ve worked through that issue with the Tylers; it’s been tough with these neighbors, maybe they’re more reclusive.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned how a visitor will know the traffic pattern?  Mr. Ussery suggested if it’s built as proposed there will be signage.   Commissioner Ouellette questioned if that would be handled by staff?  Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively.

MOTION TO APPROVE the Application of East Windsor Historical Society, Inc requesting a site plan approval for parking lot, access and drainage improvements to the East Windsor Historical Society complex located at 115 Scantic Rd . [B-1 Zone. Map 30,  Block 32 Lot 27]  This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Commission) and the following conditions:

Referenced Plans:

1/4     Location Map/Cover Sheet,  East Windsor Historical Society, Inc., 115 Scantic Road, East Windsor, CT prepared by J.R. Russo & Assoc., Land Surveyors & Professional Engineers, 1 Shoham Rd, East Windsor CT 06088 860/668-0569, 860/623-2485 fax

2/4 Site Plan
3/4 Site Plan
4/4 Detail Sheet and Erosion Notes
Conditions which must be met prior to signing of mylars:

1.      A paper copy of the final approved plans (revisions included) shall be submitted to the Town Planner for review and comment prior to the submission of final plans.

2.      All final plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for preparation of the plans.  

3.      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 plans.

Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of any permits:

4.      One set of final mylar plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission and shall be filed in the Planning and Zoning Department.

5.      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.  The amount of said bond shall be determined by the Town Engineer.

6.      A zoning permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any site work

Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:

7.      Final grading and seeding shall be in place or a bond for the unfinished work submitted.

8.      All public health and safety components of the project must be satisfactorily completed prior to occupancy. In cases where all of these 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.  

General Conditions:

9.      In accordance with Section 13.5.4 of the Zoning Regulations, any approval of a site plan application shall commence the construction of buildings within one year from the date of approval and complete all improvements within five years of the date of approval, otherwise the approval shall become null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

10.     This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the filed plans.  Minor modifications to the approved plans that result in lesser impacts may be allowed subject to staff review and approval.

11.     Any modifications to the proposed drainage or grading for the site plan is subject to the approval of the town engineer.

12.     Additional erosion control measures are to be installed as directed by town staff if field conditions necessitate.

13.     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

14.     All landscaping shall be maintained.

Gowdy moved/Rodrigue seconded/
VOTE:   In Favor:       Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders)


NEW BUSINESS:  William E. Syme, Crop Production Services – Site Plan Approval for two-phase project for storage and warehouse space – refurbishing one building and constructing one building; demolishing two buildings and constructing a new shop and pole building, located at 15 Chamberlain Road.  [M-1 Zone; Map 36, Block 58, Lot 12]. (Deadline for decision 5/18/06):

Chairman Guiliano read the description of this Item of Business.   Appearing to discuss this Application was William Syme, of Crop Production Services; and Rachael Dearborn, of Landmark Surveys.

Ms. Dearborn gave a description of the property, noting the buildings existing at present.

Ms. Dearborn noted the plans being reviewed by the Commission carry the revision date of 3/24/2006.   She indicated that the closest wetlands is 150’ off this site; no approval is needed from the Inland/Wetlands Commission.  She reported Crop Production Services has been in operation for 72 years; this proposal is to refurbish Building B, which is currently not in use.  Then they will build Building D, which will replace Building A, the largest building on the site.  Building A will be demolished after Building B and Building D have been completed; then they will build a pole barn and Building G.  The existing office is a new building which was built a year ago.   All the other buildings will match the new office.  The existing brick building against Chamberlain Road will remain as it is.   Drainage currently flows to a low spot; they will be cutting out a hill and making a swale.  Ms. Dearborn indicated they have met all front, rear, and side yard requirements; they have received a variance as Building G will be over the property line.   The amount of impervious coverage is currently 15.8%; after completion of this proposal that percentage will be reduced to 5.7%.  Building coverage is currently 26.2%; after completion of this proposal they will 21.2% building coverage.  Grass will replace half of the area of current Building A; the remainder of the paving will remain.

Town Planner Whitten questioned what about the railroad?   Ms. Dearborn indicated they will abandon the current rail line and bring in a new line in back of Building D at the correct grade for the new building.                  

Commissioner Ouellette questioned if there would be any new lighting on the exterior of the buildings?  Mr. Syme suggested they would want to light the lot better than what is there now.   Chairman Guiliano noted the Commission needs to know the height, wattage, and type of lighting they are proposing.  Mr. Syme reported they currently have two lights to light the yard.  Chairman Guiliano questioned if they would be down lights?  Ms. Dearborn indicated they would be spot lights if they will be the same as the existing lighting.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned if the driveway is existing?  Ms. Dearborn replied affirmatively.  Commissioner Ouellette questioned if they have problems today with circulation for the delivery trucks?   Mr. Syme replied negatively, noting the proposal provides more room than is there presently.  

Town Planner Whitten returned discussion to the lighting requirements; she questioned that an additional condition should require full cut off down lighting, and what else?  Chairman Guiliano suggested it’s likely the surrounding property will end up houses so the Commission would like to know the lighting proposal before the lights are put up.  Peter.............., speaking from the audience, questioned if the lighting was for safety.  Mr. Syme reported the area is fenced but anyone can get in from the rear line.  Town Planner Whitten suggested the Commission didn’t want the lighting to be glaring into the sky or the abutting properties.  Mr. Syme suggested they just want some light there at night as a deterrent to vandalism.

Chairman Guiliano requested the Applicant to follow the sequence of construction/demolition proposed.   Town Planner Whitten indicated that would be necessary once the Building Permit is issued.    

MOTION TO APPROVE the application for Site Plan Approval for new construction, demolition, associated site improvements and new rail stem at 15 Chamberlain Road, on property zoned M-1, as shown on Assessor’s Map 36, Block 58, Lot 12.  This approval is
granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Conditions)

        Referenced Plans:
Zoning Location Plan prepared for Crop Production Services, 15 Chamberlain Road, East Windsor, CT prepared by Landmark Surveys, LLC, 62 Lower Butcher Rd., Ellington, CT 860/875-8204, scale 1” = 100’, dated 2/22/06-

-Conditions which must be met prior to signing of mylars:

15.     A paper copy of the final approved plans (revisions included) shall be submitted to the Town Planner for review and comment prior to the submission of final plans.

2.      All final plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the        appropriate professional(s) responsible for preparation of the plans.  

16.     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 plans.

Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of any permits:

17.     One full set of final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission. Set shall be filed in the Planning and Zoning Department.

18.     A cash (escrow) or passbook bond (made out to the applicant AND the Town of East Windsor) 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.  The amount of said bond shall be determined by the Town Engineer.

19.     A zoning permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any site work

20.     Applicant must work with offices of Planning and Development and Building Department to coordinate demolition and building permits

Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:

21.     Final grading and seeding shall be in place or a bond for the unfinished work   submitted.

22.     Final as-built survey showing all structures, pins, driveways and final floor elevations as well as spot grades shall be submitted.

23.     All public health and safety components of the project must be satisfactorily completed prior to occupancy. In cases where all of these 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.  

General Conditions:

24.     In accordance with Section 13.5.4 of the Zoning Regulations, any approval of a site plan application shall commence the construction of buildings within one year from the date of approval and complete all improvements within five years of the date of approval, otherwise the approval shall become null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

25.     This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the filed plans.  Minor modifications to the approved plans that result in lesser impacts may be allowed subject to staff review and approval.

26.     Any modifications to the proposed drainage or grading for the site plan is subject to the approval of the town engineer.

27.     Additional erosion control measures are to be installed as directed by town staff if field conditions necessitate.

28.     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

29.     All landscaping shall be maintained.

(Additional Condition):

17.     Lighting Plan shall be approved by Staff prior to installation.   Lighting shall        be full cut off and down lit.

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders)

BUSINESS MEETING/(1)  Final review of draft regulations (booklets 10, 11 & 12) from Moratorium workshop; set Public Hearing:

Town Planner Whitten recalled that at the previous meeting the Commission had included Multi-Family Development and expand the possible locations to be not only the village districts but also to include the non-rural areas as well.  Apartment communities have been deleted.  Everything else remains the same as was presented in Booklets 10, 11, and 12 at the previous Workshop.

Town Planner Whitten indicated she would like to set the date for the Public Hearing; a 35 advisement notice for referral to CRCOG is necessary.   She has conferred with Mr. Chalder; Monday, May 8th, 2006 at the East Windsor High School Cafeteria is the preferred date.  The Commission concurred.

MOTION TO SET a public hearing for proposed changes to the
1.      Zoning Regulations inclusive of changes to
Add new definitions
Modify the maximum density standard
Modify Planned Residential Development standards
Establish Multi Family Development Districts
Delete 5.1.17 Active Adult Housing
Adopt new section for Active Adult Housing, renamed Age-Restricted Housing District
Adopt New Section for Sidewalks
2.      Subdivision Regulations inclusive of changes to:
Modify definitions section
Modify the general conditions section
Add planning/traffic requirements
Modify street and infrastructure standards
Modify open space requirements
Modify section 11 – Planned Residential development requirements
3.      Changes to the Plan of Conservation and Development inclusive of
Conservation – Natural Resources – promote aquifer protection
Development – Residential Development – guide residential densities & multi family housing
Infrastructure – Pedestrian Circulation – guide sidewalks and trails, and sewers.

All as proposed and referenced in
·       Booklet 10, Possible Zoning Strategies, dated march 7, 2006, and as                     amended per pages 8, 9, 12, & 14 dated 3/16/06.
·       Booklet 11, Possible Subdivision Strategies, dated March 7, 2006.
·       Booklet 12, Possible POCD Amendments, dated March 7, 2006,
As prepared by Planimetrics, 31 Ensign Drive, Avon, CT. 06001.

4.      Proposed Zoning Map with changes reflecting the new Multi Family Development Districts (MFDD) and Age Restricted Development Districts (ARDD) along with corrections to anomalies in zoning map printed March 14, 2006, prepared by Planimetrics in conjunction with NE Geo systems.

Public Hearing to be held at 7 pm on May 8, 2006 in the East Windsor School Cafeteria.

Saunders moved/Gowdy seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders)

Town Planner Whitten noted this information will be filed with the Town Clerk, on the Internet, and will be sent to CRCOG.

BUSINESS MEETING/(2)  Workshop Discussion – Accessory apartments:

Chairman Guiliano noted many people have been asking him about the 600 square foot limit for Accessory Apartments, as people feel the size is little small for an elderly husband and wife trying to live in that area.   Commissioner Gowdy suggested the Commission had reviewed regulations for many surrounding towns; wile the unit sizes were all over the place many had a maximum square footage, or percentage of the space of the main house.  He felt the Commission decided on 600 square feet because that was the unit size for many surrounding towns.   Commissioner Rodrigue also felt the Commission was concerned with the appearance of the home after construction of the accessory apartment; the intent was to not have the addition larger than an existing 2 car garage.  Review of the material proposed by Don Poland, acting as a consultant, it was noted he proposed a minimum/maximum square footage and a percentage not to exceed 900 square feet, or 30 - 35% of the main dwelling.

Town Planner Whitten questioned what was the Commission’s point in having the apartment removed if the original occupant(s) no longer needed it?  And, what was the point of the re-applying for the use every 2 years; no one comes in for renewals.  Chairman Guiliano and Commissioner Gowdy indicated the intent was to provide an accessory apartment for a parent, etc.; when that occupant dies the reason for the apartment ends.  To allow it to continue to be used would be creating another apartment unit.   Commissioner Matthews questioned if the use could be expanded to include anyone within the family, or an extended family?  Chairman Guiliano and Commissioner Gowdy reiterated the intent was for in-law apartments, not for apartments within single family homes.   Commissioner Rodrigue felt anyone could rent rooms if they wanted; Town Planner Whitten concurred.  Commissioner Saunders questioned if the occupancy could to tied to related individuals; if the property was sole to another owner then the accessory use should be looked at.   Commissioner Rodrigue felt leaving the apartment wasn’t a big deal; Town Planner Whitten didn’t feel there was a need for the review and renewal.  She felt if problems occur it will come to the Town’s attention; this opens up another housing market.   Chairman Guiliano questioned why not have 2 family houses all over town?  Commissioner Gowdy felt the regulation should be specific, and if someone has a special situation the Commission can consider modifying the regulation.  Commissioner Rodrigue felt if the regulation is too difficult people won’t come in.   Chairman Guiliano noted that all the surrounding towns have conditions on their permits.  Town Planner Whitten questioned if there have been any complaints?   Chairman Guiliano suggested all the people that applied came in knowing the regulation and still came in with an application.   Commissioner Gowdy suggested people will build a large home and include an accessory apartment, rent it out, and help with the mortgage payment.   Commissioner Rodrigue felt that happens all the time.  Chairman Guiliano felt people live in single family homes because they want to.  Commissioner Rodrigue felt there is not an abuse of this.  

Commissioner Rodrigue turned to the audience, and asked residents present at the meeting who live in Wolcott Landing if there are some people who own units at Wolcott Landing that turn around and rent them out to others?  Deborah Krenshaw suggested out of 70 units there are 2 rental units in Wolcott Landing.  Commissioner Rodrigue questioned if they are rented to groups of people, or a guy and girl living together?  Henry Krenshaw questioned if Commissioner Rodrigue meant the rental was to 2 people co-habitating?   He didn’t think so.   Deborah Krenshaw noted the condominium complex is pretty restrictive.

Commissioner Gowdy reiterated he has a problem with the accessory apartments not being limited to family members.

Bill Loos, Melrose Road:  suggested he knows of apartments in town with people living in the house and renting out rooms.   He would do away with accessory apartments.  

Chairman Guiliano suggested the Commission was looking at an elderly couple of single person who wants to move in with a son or daughter and have a legal apartment, and not have 2 kitchens.  

Bill Loos, Melrose Road:  he has 2 kitchens in his house.

Commissioner Masters suggested the new home on Treetop Lane will be a main house and an accessory apartment.   Town Planner Whitten noted they are proposing that but it doesn’t meet the current requirements so right now it’s just a big room; it exceeds the 600 square feet.  Commissioner Gowdy felt the regulation should be changed from 600 square feet.  Chairman Guiliano felt the intent of an accessory apartment was for parents living with their children, not paying rent.   The children lived with the parent for years and now the parent would be living with the children, but not paying rent.  The accessory apartment is for family members; it’s not a rental; it’s a convenience for an extended family member.   It’s not a rental; it’s not for making money; it’s not a studio apartment; it’s an accessory apartment.  Commissioner Saunders felt the Commission need to be specific with the language and be careful with what the perception is; that it’s not for everyone.  Chairman Guiliano noted that the people that came before the Commission didn’t look like they were going to be charging the parent rent.  Town Planner Whitten questioned how to prove someone is a family member?

Commissioner Gowdy felt the accessory apartment must be contiguous to the primary house.   Chairman Guiliano felt it must be attached to the main house and roof lines.  Commissioner Matthews felt it should be used by a family member but he might not be against a free standing garage.  Town Planner Whitten suggested if the Commission went with a detached building they could set requirements for set backs, etc.  Discussion continued regarding detached vs. attached.   Town Planner Whitten suggested her direction is that the Commission wants to look more closely at detached vs. attached.  Chairman Guiliano noted that the applicant should return to the Commission on a cycle for review of the accessory apartment use; he referenced regulations from other towns listing the same requirement.   Town Planner Whitten indicated her direction was then to revise the regulations to restrict to family members, look into detached vs. attached units and the policies for same, and to monitor the use realistically - perhaps at the change of ownership.  Chairman Guiliano suggested it should then be on the deed that at the change of ownership the accessory apartment disappears.
Deborah Krenshaw:   questioned if this change would prevent someone from having a live-in au pair or nanny?   Town Planner Whitten suggested with the comments recently made by the Commission it would.  Commissioner Rodrigue felt people would be giving them a room in the main home, and they would have access to the rest of the house.  

Commissioner Matthews requested that discussion return to the Moratorium Workshop and the material for the Public Hearing.   He referenced page 9, Section 8A.52; he would like to see that paragraph taken out of the regulations.   Town Planner Whitten indicated the material is set to go to Public Hearing by the Commission’s vote; we can discuss that further at the time of the Public Hearing.  Commissioner Matthews noted that East Windsor has more than met the affordable housing requirements for this town, and will have for 5 to 10 years.   Town Planner Whitten felt affordable housing should be promoted more; affordable housing is still expensive.  Commissioner Matthews reiterated that East Windsor more than meets the requirements; he is concerned with the covenants; Mill Pond has brought home the issue of covenants.  Town Planner Whitten suggested this isn’t a Section 8 issue.  Chairman Guiliano suggested Town Planner Whitten have available clarification of the regulation section referenced vs. affordable housing.  Town Planner Whitten suggested affordable housing is based on 80% of the median income; it has nothing to do with Mill Pond which is State funded.   The purpose of affordable housing was an enforcement Statute; it was to allow people working in a town being able to live in the community they are working in.  She cited as an example people working in New Haven couldn’t afford housing in town.  Commissioner Matthews suggested this is becoming a town by town issue, and it’s not an issue for East Windsor.  

BUSINESS MEETING/(2)    Workshop Discussion – Banquet & catering facilities:

Tabled until next meeting.

BUSINESS MEETING/(3)  Correspondence:   None.

BUSINESS MEETING/(4)  Staff Reports:            None.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:  March 6, 2006:

MOTION: To ACCEPT the Minutes of Special Meeting #1478 dated March 6, 2006 as written.

Gowdy moved/Saunders seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:   Unanimous  (Gowdy/Guiliano/Ouellette/Rodrigue/Saunders)

SIGNING OF MYLARS/PLANS:        

ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 10:24 P. M.

Gowdy moved/Rodrigue seconded/VOTE:  Unanimous


Respectfully submitted,

________________________________________________________
Peg Hoffman, Planning and Zoning Commission Recording Secretary