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
April 11, 2006 Minutes

Public Hearing #1481
April 11, 2006

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

Chairman Guiliano called the Meeting to order at 7:10 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.


A quorum was established as five Regular Members (Gowdy, Guiliano, Ouellette, Rodrigue and Saunders) and three Alternate Members (Kehoe [arrived at 7:05 P. M.], Matthews, and Tyler) were present.  Chairman Guiliano noted Alternate Tyler would sit in on Hearings/Items of Business he had previously participated in.  Also present was Town Planner Whitten, and Inland/Wetlands Officer/Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek.


Town Planner Whitten requested the Commission add a request for discussion on an equivalency use at the end of the meeting.


Chairman Guiliano noted receipt of the following Applications:

1)      Application of KGS Realty, Inc. for Site Plan Approval for 15,000 square foot addition to existing industrial building and construction of a new 27,404 square foot industrial building at 24 Newberry Road.  [M-1 Zone; Map 14, Block 18, Lot 6].

2)      Application of Sonia Guzie for a 1-lot subdivision for property located at 41 East Road.  [R-3 Zone; Map 10, Block 77, Lot 24].

PERFORMANCE BONDS – ACTIONS; PERMIT EXTENSIONS:  Gregory C. Weaver, Kahan, Kerensky & Capossela – LTP Realty, LLC – Special Permit/Site Plan Approval, Newberry & Winkler Roads – Request for 1-year extension of time to commence building.  (Current one-year period expires on 5/24/06):

Chairman Guiliano read the description of this Item of Business.  

Town Planner Whitten reported this Applicant is having issues with funding for this project and haven’t been able to start construction.   It’s also vernal pool season; the Inland/Wetlands Commission had restricted construction during this period.

MOTION: To APPROVE 1 YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME for Gregory C.                      Weaver, Kahan, Kerensky & CaposselaLTP Realty, LLC – Special                         Permit/Site Plan Approval, Newberry & Winkler Roads;                            EXTENSION TO RUN THROUGH 5/24/2007.

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

Town Planner Whitten reiterated FOR THE RECORD that this extension will now expire on 5/24/2007.

LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Kehoe arrived at 7:05 P. M.

OLD BUSINESS:  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; Alternate Commissioner Tyler replaced him on the Board.

Town Planner Whitten advised the Commission they can either approve or deny this proposal, but the types of approvals can vary.   She presented the following options:
approve the 12 units on 4 acres and just rezone that phase as a SDD.  However, she felt that, realistically, the project would never be built because it would not be economically feasible.  2)  approve the entire zone as SDD and allow construction of Phase I, and if the Commission did not set any conditions then when the Applicant comes back by Statute and case law the project would fall under the current regulations for any future development; anything we change would be mute.  3)  Town Planner Whitten noted the Applicant has given the Planning Office a letter indicating they would be agreeable to a condition that future development of the remainder of the site would be subject to the regulations that are in effect at the time that the moratorium is lifted.  Town Planner Whitten indicated this isn’t the usual, straight forward way of approving an application, but the suggestion is coming from the Applicant.  This way if the Commission rezones the entire parcel and when they return they would come in for future development they would fall under the new regulations as we adopt them, when we do adopt them with the moratorium.  If the Commission doesn’t rezone this area it wouldn’t fall under the new Multi-Family Housing District, so they would have to come in and change the comp plan and change the zoning to even apply. Or the Commission could deny the proposal.

Commissioner Gowdy indicated he liked the idea of approving the whole project as a SDD, with the agreement of the Applicant that they are willing to agree to follow the condition that future development will be subject to the new regulations when they go into effect.  Commissioner Gowdy suggested he felt the project fits the area; he didn’t feel there are too many things that could go there that could fit there as industrial uses.  
Chairman Guiliano noted he’s torn with regard to this Application; he hates to give up M-1 property but the Applicant is stuck between a rock and a hard place.   There appears to be no way to get sewers there that would be economically feasible to use the parcel as an M-1 Zone.  Chairman Guiliano noted he agreed with Commissioner Gowdy; if the Commission agrees to go with the offer he would like to see Phase II be built under the new regulations.   He also has a problem with the Open Space offering.  

Commissioner Gowdy questioned if the present Open Space being offered for the 12 units will cover both phases; is he correct in that assumption?  Chairman Guiliano questioned if it would cover both phases under the new regulations?   Town Planner Whitten suggested she hadn’t done a study with regard to that issue but she felt it might cover both.   She also felt the Applicant might be willing to look at it again; discussion could come at the time of the second Application.  

Chairman Guiliano felt the proposal probably fits the area, but does he want to lose M-1 land; no.  But, he felt if the Applicant could have built something to be used as M-1 he probably would be able to make more money than he is building condominiums.   Chairman Guiliano felt the Applicant has done his due diligence to get sewers in the area.

Commissioner Gowdy indicated he has concerns with access into the 12 units; he questioned that might change if they go through with the additional units?  Town Planner Whitten indicated they are talking about 70 units, but she’s not sure they can get that many with the new regulations.  Commissioner Gowdy felt the access on Wagner Lane is shaky, but he thought the Applicant had discussed widening the road.   Commissioner Ouellette suggested the Applicant had indicated that would happen under Phase II.  Town Planner/Chairman Guiliano noted it wouldn’t be cost effect in Phase I, but they would look at it under Phase II.   The Commission could look at it again under the new application.

Chairman Guiliano noted he still has the question on the Open Space; he didn’t know which regulation is more stringent.  Town Planner Whitten suggested they could set a condition that any future development could readdress the Open Space layout under the new regulations.  Commissioner Gowdy felt the Commission needs to get some clarification on this issue; what if Phase II doesn’t go through?  Town Planner Whitten suggested if Phase II doesn’t go through Phase I won’t go through either; it isn’t economically feasible.

Commissioner Ouellette didn’t feel the parcel should be developed as an M-1 Zone, as he would expect extensive truck traffic which wouldn’t be compatible with the surrounding land uses.  The proposed 12 units fit with the surrounding land uses and most people at the hearings spoke in favor of that use.

Commissioner Ouellette indicated he is in favor of the storm drainage system as proposed.

Commissioner Ouellette noted he is concerned with the width of Wagner Lane, and its ability to handle traffic.  The width of the road impacts both safety and capacity; National standards say that the minimum width of a rural road should be no less than 18’ for roads that carry 400 cars/day.  Roads that carry more than 400 cars/day should be 20’ wide, at a minimum.   He also noted the traffic study didn’t say how many additional cars per day, so he did his own arithmetic and estimated that the 12 units would add about a 130 trips/day.  You add that to the existing cars and you’re right at the 400 car threshold.   He indicated his mini van is 7 1/2 ‘ wide, with side mirrors it’s about 9’.   Nine feet isn’t wide enough for tow cars passing side by side in opposite directions.   It isn’t safe.  

Chairman Guiliano agreed.  He noted he drove over there and parked his car on the side of the road. When he looked at his car there wasn’t a lot of room left.  Commissioner Ouellette noted that the evergreen also encroach on the pavement.  Chairman Guiliano suggested if the Commission does pass this Application the road width will have to be addressed.  Commissioner Ouellette questioned that when doing a Zone Change isn’t the Commission obligated to be sure there is adequate capacity?   He suggested he’s telling the Commission this is at the threshold; these are National standards.   Chairman Guiliano felt the Commission would still be able to discuss the issue of the width of Wagner Lane if the Zone Change Application was passed, or even if the project were sold to another developer.  Commissioner Gowdy reiterated that Commissioner Ouellette is saying he has concerns with the development of the first 12 units.  Commissioner Ouellette concurred; I’m concerned with the 12 (units); 158 cars/day.  You add that to the existing traffic and it’s at the 400 cars/day level.   On a narrow road.  It’s something to think about.   Commissioner Gowdy questioned how Commissioner Ouellette derived his calculations?   Commissioner Ouellette indicated that each unit has an amount of trips/day associated with it; if you take the number of trips for 12 units (158) and add that to the background traffic (300+ cars/day) it will be over 400 cars/day.  It’s consistently been over 300 cars/day on Wagner Lane; you’re adding 150.

Chairman Guiliano suggested the Applicant isn’t going to build only the 12 units.   Commissioner Ouellette suggested the Commission just learned that today; how do you know that to be true?  Chairman Guiliano suggested it wouldn’t be economically feasible for the Applicant to put in the sewer system for 12 units.  Commissioner Tyler suggested that all during this public hearing we’ve been saying we can’t consider Phase II, so if the Zone Change to SDD is for 12 units that’s all the Commission can do today.   Looking at the 12 units Commissioner Tyler suggested he kind of agrees with Commissioner Ouellette; it’s a narrow road and there is considerable traffic.  

Commissioner Tyler reported he also agrees with Chairman Guiliano with regard to giving up that much M-1 Zone land that could be used for business.  To take that much land which is right on Route 5, with access on Route 5, and with an undetermined amount of frontage on Route 5, it bothers him.   Commissioner Tyler suggested he has a problem giving up that much industrial land.

With regard to the drainage, Commissioner Tyler suggested with today’s market you could do it, but it’s not economically feasible for 12 units.  He noted the proposed drainage system isn’t that expensive; they are using plastic pipe which isn’t that expensive.

Commissioner Tyler reiterated this was all the Commission can look at.   He questioned if the Applicant wanted to the Commission to look at the whole project why didn’t he submit that?   Commissioner Tyler suggested he would be more comfortable with changing the zone if he had the whole development in front of him.  Chairman Guiliano questioned Town Planner Whitten why the full project hadn’t been submitted?   Town Planner Whitten suggested it was the timing of getting the application in before the moratorium.

Town Planner Whitten suggested there was another alternative the Commission could consider with regard to approval or denial of this project.  The site could be rezoned without any development plan, and the Applicant could come in with a new development plan.  The Commission would then be rezoning the property, but not approving the 12 units.   Commissioner Ouellette questioned if that’s been done before?   Town Planner Whitten concurred, noting that was the process previously.  

Commissioner Tyler suggested that wouldn’t address the Wagner Lane issue.  Town Planner Whitten indicated that could be addressed during the new proposal.  Commissioner Ouellette suggested if they choose to; Town Planner Whitten agreed – if they choose to pursue it.  

Chairman Guiliano reiterated he is torn giving up the M-1 land, but the developer would still need sewers.  Commissioner Tyler noted the owner across the street would only the drainage easement on their property for the condominium development, but not industrial; he suggested he can see why.  This parcel is a really nice commercial property on Route 5.  Commissioner Ouellette suggested there was no direct access from Route 5.   Commissioner Tyler questioned that the project didn’t include the land where the golf course comes in?  Town Planner Whitten replied negatively, noting the driving range is in front and the parcel has been subdivided off.   She felt it was never part of the driving range property, although they are both under the same ownership.  Commissioner Ouellette suggested that would be the reason for the concern regarding the potential truck traffic; the only access is off South Water Street and then Wagner Lane.  Chairman Guiliano noted that Commissioner Saunders had also said there was no frontage on Route 5.  

Commissioner Gowdy suggested if the whole parcel was changed to the SDD, and they came in after the new regulations were adopted, then they could address the road issue.  Commissioner Saunders felt the Applicant had said they would widen the road.   Town Planner Whitten felt they would address it under Phase II.  Commissioner Ouellette suggested there was testimony to that effect.  

Chairman Guiliano suggested he wouldn’t be against changing the zone under the last option offered, that they would return with a new plan under the new regulations.   Town Planner Whitten suggested the Commission needs to add a condition to this effect with regard to the rezone; this isn’t the normal way of doing things but the Applicant has agreed to this proposal.  Chairman Guiliano felt the proposal for condominiums does fit with the back area.  Commissioner Saunders concurred, noting this area is mostly multi-family housing; he would be in favor of the rezone/reapplication proposal so people wouldn’t have tractor trailer traffic going through their area.  Town Planner Whitten noted that when Mr. Rodrigue first came in to discuss options for this parcel; anyone who might consider developing as M-1 didn’t want to because of the headaches related to the surrounding residential uses.  Commissioner Saunders recalled that was the reason the residents would not give a drainage easement for industrial development.  He reiterated it’s hard to give up the M-1 land but the Commission has talked about rezoning other parcels, perhaps along the Route 140 corridor, as industrial uses.  Even if the Commission gave up this M-1 parcel we have other options.  Commissioner Gowdy felt the Commission wasn’t really giving up M-1 land if that use couldn’t go in there.  

Discussion continued regarding transfer of ownership after the change of zone, how a request for a second rezone would be considered, and under what criteria sequent applications would be judged.  Discussion also included how the SDD applies to this parcel; is it, or could it be an overlay zone as is the HIFZ; and how this parcel would fit into the new locations specified for the Multi-Family Housing District when the new regulations are adopted.  

Commissioner Saunders reiterated he would entertain a zone change without approval of the current 12 units; then the Applicant could present the whole project and they and the Commission could work out solutions to the concerns for the width of Wagner Lane.  The remainder of the Commission was in consensus.


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

The Commission RECESSED at 7:35 P. M. and RECONVENED at 7:45 P. M.

MOTION TO APPROVE  the Application of White Pine, LLC requesting a rezone from Industrial zone (M1)  to Special Development District (SDD) for the entire 16.9 acre parcel.  Approval does not include development Site Plan.  Parcel located on 4.12 acres of a 16.9 acre property west of 22 Wagner Terrace, approximately 800 feet west from South Main Street on Wagner Terrace [M-1 Zone; Map 13, Block 11, Lot 2&3]

This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Commission) and the following conditions:

[The Commission should state reasons for their vote for the record]

Referenced Plans:

1/17 - Cover Sheet/Location Map – Wagner Terrace, Phase 1, prepared for White Pine, LLC, P.O. Box 615, South Glastonbury, CT  06073, prepared by  Megson & Heagle, Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors, LLC. 81 Rankin Road, Glastonbury, Conn, 06033, 860/659-0587, dated 9/15/05, last revised 1/25/06

Including Sheets dated 9/15/05:
2/17    Existing Conditions
3/17    Overall Plan
4,5/17  Boundary Map
6/17    Topographic Plan
7-11/17 Plan & Profile
12,13/17        Storm Water Pollution Control Plan
14/17   Storm Water Pollution Control Notes
15, 16/17       General Notes & Details
17/17   Conditions of Approval

Conditions that must be met prior to signing of mylars:

1.      The applicant shall submit a paper copy of the final approved plans to the Town Planner for review and comment prior to the submission of the final mylar copies for signing by the Commission.
2.      Two sets of mylar plans shall be submitted to the Commission for signature.  All plans shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for preparation of the plans. (One paper set of the Floor Plans and Elevation shall be submitted for signature.)
3.      The conditions of this approval shall be binding upon the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this approval motion shall be filed in the land records prior to the signing of the final mylars.

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

4.      Any /all drainage or other easements must be reviewed and approved by staff, signed and filed in the land records.

General Conditions:

5.      Any modifications to the proposed drainage or grading is subject to the approval of the town engineer.
6.      Future development of the remaining parcel must adhere to any amended, or newly                        adopted multi-family regulations that become effective at time the residential moratorium is lifted.

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

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

OLD BUSINESS:  Southern Auto Sales, Inc. – Zone Change from A-1 to B-1 for
property located o the south side of Phelps Road.  [Map 34, Block 21, Lot 12].  (Hearing
closed 3/28/06; deadline for decision 6/1/06):

Chairman Guiliano read the description of this Item of Business.  He noted receipt of Town Planner Whitten’s memo indicating the filing of a Notice of Intervention by G. Clifford Winn on behalf of himself and others with regard to this Application.  

Town Planner Whitten and Chairman Guiliano noted the Public Hearing has been closed on this Application, but Town Planner Whitten indicated that the filing of the Intervention is allowed under Connecticut General Statutes 22a-19.   Town Planner Whitten read an excerpt of the Statute FOR THE RECORD.   She noted there doesn’t seem to be any definitive case law regarding when the Intervention can be filed, and there is nothing about an Intervention being filed after the Public Hearing has been closed.   She discussed this issue with several Town Planners and the Town Attorney; the recommendation to the Commission is to accept the petition, and schedule an Evidentiary Hearing, at which only the Petitioner, the Applicant, and the Commissioners can discuss only the petition and any evidence to support or rebut the claim.  Town Planner Whitten suggested the meeting should be held on Tuesday, May 9th, 2006 at 7:00 P. M. in the Town Hall Meeting Room (as the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission is being cancelled - to be discussed later).  This will also give everyone time to review the material presented to date.  The meeting will be a public meeting, but no public input as the Public Hearing has been closed.  The only public invited to speak will be the Applicant, the Commissioner, and the Petitioner; Town Planner Whitten noted there is a committee with regard to this petition but the Petitioner will have to represent the group during discussion.   Chairman Guiliano requested that Town Planner Whitten acquire clarification from the Town Attorney as to who the Petitioner can bring to the meeting with him.  Town Planner Whitten suggested if the Petitioner has any expert witnesses he can bring them with him, but she would seek clarification as to who else can attend and/or speak.  

MOTION to accept the verified pleading for intervener status regarding 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], submitted by G. Clifford Winn, Jr. of 118 Phelps Road, East Windsor, Connecticut.   Discussion of this pleading will take place at an Evidentiary Hearing at a regular meeting on Tuesday, May 9, at 7:00 p. m.

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

BUSINESS MEETING/(1) Workshop Discussion/(a)  Accessory apartments:

Chairman Guiliano noted review of the provided e-mail indicates the procedures followed by various towns are split, some have a review/renewal of the permit, one has a certification by a Notary Public as to the use.  Commissioner Gowdy felt many people liked the regulations written by Tolland; they do not monitor continued use of the accessory apartment by a family member.  Town Planner Whitten felt whether a town required monitoring the use or not no one had issues with the use if they registered are not.  She referenced suggested changes to the language under sections I and J.   She suggested she didn’t see the Special Permit expiring because they run with the land but the Zoning Certificate can expire, and if someone doesn’t reapply then the use would be considered abandoned.

Inland/Wetlands Officer/Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek questioned if these apartments are intended to be for family members only?  Town Planner Whitten suggested that was still open for debate; she felt the majority of the Commissioners wanted it to be for family members.  Chairman Guiliano concurred.   Town Planner Whitten referenced section F, noting she had also added “employees of the owner” as someone had mentioned nannies at a previous meeting.  

Commissioner Matthews returned discussion to section I, noting there was nothing requiring an affidavit in the language; it felt it should be so worded to leave it open for the ZEO to follow up if something is wrong.  He suggested it’s only being allowed at one year intervals.  Town Planner Whitten suggested that would be an enforcement issue.  Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek noted that presently she can request an affidavit from the person or family member every two years.   Commissioner Matthews felt Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek should have the option to request an affidavit at any time.  Town Planner Whitten questioned if Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek had that right now?   Commissioner Matthews felt the language should be written in such a way as to allow that option; if an affidavit is requested the applicant’s signature is required.   Town Planner Whitten suggested she would revise section I to include the following language:  That the Zoning Enforcement Officer may request a renewed notarized affidavit at one year intervals.
Chairman Guiliano questioned if Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek had problems other than the illegal apartments?   Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek suggested that if people go through this process they want a family member to live in these apartments, but she noted the department does not presently have a list of applications.   Chairman Guiliano noted that one town utilizes a spreadsheet to tract accessory apartment applications.  Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek suggested this use is becoming popular; families are trying to stick together.  She suggested she hasn’t had problems, and feels this is the reason people are willing to go through this process.

Chairman Guiliano cited he is not sure about including employees as occupants of the accessory apartments.   Commissioner Gowdy noted this issue arose in Enfield and Somers as the apartments were occupied by migrant help.  Commissioner Tyler suggested he could see a need for employees for child care or elder care; it might be another way to keep people in their homes.  Commissioner Gowdy felt the Commission was trying to avoid people adding on to their homes and then renting out the additional space; with these regulations they are identified as accessory apartments and are not for rent.   Discussion continued regarding maintaining the intent of in-law apartments vs. rental units.  

Town Planner Whitten referenced section D, noting the intent for shared access.   Commissioner Gowdy felt that requirement would cut down on the possible rental.  

Commissioner Matthews felt the Commission should set a minimum square footage requirement as well as the proposed 900 square foot maximum.   If someone had a small home of 1,000 square feet and were allowed to add a unit of 35% of the primary home size them they could build a smaller unit of 350 square feet.   

Discussion then turned to allowing accessory apartments over detached garages.   Commissioner Matthews didn’t like to see stairs on the outside of a building; he felt it detracts from the neighborhood.   He also didn’t want to see accessory apartments in a basement unless there is walk-out accessibility at the same level; he didn’t want to see access being provided via a hatchway.    Town Planner Whitten suggested Building Codes prohibit bedrooms in basements.  Commissioner Tyler had no problem with stairs going down the outside of a building; he cited stairs are preferable over vertical ladders when needing to access second floor storage.  Chairman Guiliano felt that with regard to accessory apartments, for elderly or disabled family members, either group would find it difficult to navigate stairs.   Discussion continued; the consensus of the Commission was not to allow accessory apartments over detached garages.  

With regard to allowing outside stairs Commissioner Matthews felt section D was find as worded; Town Planner Whitten requested clarification that the Commission was then not addition any language about outside stairs?

Chairman Guiliano queried the audience for comments; Mr. Krenshaw, speaking from the audience, suggested he had general questions rather than anything specific to this discussion.  As the questions involved changes proposed under the new regulations Town Planner Whitten indicated that the Public Hearing had been set for the next discussion of those items; any additional discussion should really only occur at that Public Hearing.  She noted if the Krenshaw’s had other questions they could come in and discuss them with staff.

Town Planner Whitten suggested she will redraft the accessory apartment regulations as discussed.

BUSINESS MEETING/(1) Workshop Discussion/(b) Banquet & catering facilities:

Chairman Guiliano questioned why these regulations were being proposed?   Town Planner Whitten suggested they could allow for the expansion of some agricultural uses and other places in town, like Thrall Hall.   She suggested she is trying to find alternatives for properties in town that are already there.

Chairman Guiliano felt there was considerable noise associated with banquet facilities for them to be allowed in residential zones; Commissioner Tyler agreed.   Town Planner Whitten suggested she discussed this with Don Poland; perhaps this use could be allowed for seasonal recreational activities like Boy/Girl Scout campgrounds.   Commissioner Tyler questioned why this should be allowed in a residential zone?  Town Planner Whitten and Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek suggested the question comes in all the time.   Commissioner Gowdy suggested he doesn’t understand the impetus for this; he questioned why this can’t be dealt with under a Special Use Permit?   Town Planner Whitten suggested there is nothing permitted in residential zones except boys clubs.   Commissioner Tyler questioned where those are permitted?   Town Planner Whitten suggested in agricultural zones.   Commissioner Gowdy suggested he could see no use for this in a residential zone; Chairman Guiliano agreed.  Town Planner Whitten agreed to drop this proposed regulation for catering/banquet facilities.

Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek questioned if temporary seasonal uses could be considered?  Commissioner Gowdy cited a citizen came in for a request for a temporary flea market; the Commission was able to handle that request without this catering/banquet facility regulation.   Chairman Guiliano noted that request was made for a property zoned B-1; he felt that was appropriate as that was a business zone.  Commissioner Tyler also recalled that it was allowed under a Special Use Permit Application, and the applicant was given the remainder of a year to see how that use worked.   Chairman Guiliano noted the use was never initiated but was appropriate for a B-1 Zone.   Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek questioned if the new regulations would allow for auctions, or auctions of antiques, etc.?  Chairman Guiliano cited the Norton family held an equipment auction, which was a one or two day sale; there was not the continual traffic associated with that use.    Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek cited people come in with large barns and want to do a one or two day auction.   Town Planner Whitten suggested there is nothing in the regulations which allow that use.  

BUSINESS MEETING/(2)  Correspondence:

Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek referenced the letter from Attorney Capossela, the final attachment to the Planner’s memo, as the item which initiated this discussion.  She suggested the Town’s regulations are not clear with regard to this use; it was suggested the use be discussed with the Commission.  There is an interest for a park in an M-1 Zone.  Town Planner Whitten suggested an individual wants to do a dirt bike track for kids under 10; Attorney Capossela’s letter referenced beginner track for kids 10 and under, as well as an intermediate and advanced dirt bike tracks, a concession stand, and bleacher seating.   Town Planner Whitten suggested the Commission needs to decide if this proposed use is equivalent under the parks and recreation definition; Attorney Capossela has provided definitions from the Planners’ Dictionary for reference.   She cited that under Special Use Permitted uses golf courses, recreational clubs, etc. are allowed in an M-1 Zone; she questioned if the Commission feels this proposed use falls under that same category.   The Commission felt it did not.  Town Planner Whitten questioned if the Commission feels the proposed use falls under parks?  Chairman Guiliano replied negatively; Commissioner Gowdy felt it didn’t fit in the M-1 Zone.   He suggested these dirt bike tracks are extremely loud; he has been present at similar parks and they have an ambulance present all the time.  Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek suggested they build berms so she questioned if noise would be a problem?   Chairman Guiliano felt this proposed use is a permitted use in any of the current zones.  

Jay Ussery, of J. R. Russo & Associates was present in the audience; he indicated he had no comments at this time but had agreed to listen to the Commission’s comments for a perspective developer.   He suggested this would be the first step in a development parcel.

Commissioner Rodrigue questioned what the difference was between this proposed use and a soccer field?   Chairman Guiliano suggested there is a huge difference in the sound/noise level.   Commissioner Kehoe suggested this use was just done in Rocky Hill; they put it near a flood plain to keep it away from houses.    They are not doing any more such proposals.  Commissioner Rodrigue suggested it’s another recreational use.   Commissioner Kehoe suggested it’s a use that has a huge impact on the environment.  

Commissioner Ouellette questioned if the use could be enclosed?   Commissioner Tyler suggested they could manage the noise by putting mufflers on the bikes.   Chairman Guiliano felt that wasn’t the issue; the attorney is asking if the Commission considers this a recreational use under our regulations.   Chairman Guiliano felt this proposed use doesn’t fall under any of the regulations; Commissioner Gowdy agreed.  

Town Planner Whitten questioned what the Commission considered the go cart use?  Chairman Guiliano suggested the application was for an amusement arcade and miniature golf course, which is what it is.  Commissioner Gowdy noted the Commission was concerned about the noise for that application; Chairman Guiliano concurred, noting the applicant brought in decibel readings, etc.  Commissioner Gowdy suggested this proposed use is horrendously noisy.     Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek questioned what recreational use the Sports dome, which is located in an M-1 Zone, fell under?  Town Planner Whitten suggested indoor archery ranges are allowed but not in an M-1 Zone; stadiums are not permitted in an M-1 Zone.  Chairman Guiliano couldn’t recall the specifics of that application but felt if this applicant/developer wanted to come to discuss the definitions provided from the Planners’ Dictionary he can do that.   Commissioner Gowdy didn’t feel the applicant should pursue this use; Commissioner Ouellette felt it fit some of the definitions but didn’t feel the use should be pursued.  Commissioner Rodrigue felt the applicant can come in and argue but felt the applicant would have a difficult fight; Commissioner Saunders felt pursuing this use was a waste of time; Commissioner Matthews didn’t feel it was appropriate.   Commissioner Tyler felt it might depend on where the applicant were to put the use; Commissioner Rodrigue noted if it’s allowed in an M-1 Zone it’s allowed in all M-1 Zones.  Mr. Ussery, speaking from the audience, indicated he had heard all he needed to know.

BUSINESS MEETING/(1) Workshop Discussion/(c)  Request from Historic District

Town Planner Whitten noted Barbara Smiegel, Chairwoman of the Historical Commission, wants to make a presentation before the Commission.   She was not able to make this evening’s meeting due to work commitments; Town Planner Whitten suggested perhaps the Commission could discuss this issue on May 8th after the moratorium Public Hearing.  

Chairman Guiliano requested Town Planner Whitten advise Ms. Smiegel and the Historical Commission this proposal isn’t something the Commission can work on during this moratorium, as there are time limits to the moratorium and the work that can be accomplished in association with the moratorium.   Town Planner Whitten felt the Historical Commission would like to incorporate this proposal into the Subdivision Regulations.   Commissioner Gowdy noted Ms. Smiegel’s reference to a delay in responding to this submission.   Town Planner Whitten indicated she tried to reach Ms. Smiegel several times, to no avail; she scheduled her on this agenda and she has been unable to make this meeting.

BUSINESS MEETING/(1) Workshop Discussion/(d) Bylaws:

Town Planner Whitten noted she has changed the voting requirement to a majority vote of 3 out of 5 members.  Commissioner Gowdy suggested that if only 4 out of 5 members are present then a 4 member affirmative vote is required; he would like to see the working reflect that a 4 out of 5 member affirmative vote is necessary rather than use the fraction.  He suggested the Commission could vote with 3 out of 4 members, but it needs to be an affirmative vote.

Commissioner Ouellette felt he can’t vote on this; he read Section 11.1 which indicated the Commission couldn’t vote unless the material had been submitted for review at a previous meeting.  He noted the material was received in the Commission’s packet this evening.   Town Planner suggested the material had been discussed some time ago.

Commissioner Ouellette then referenced Section 4.7 regarding action on added agenda items, and that action wouldn’t be taken after 10:00 P.M.  Town Planner Whitten felt the Commission presently followed that process.  Commissioner Ouellette questioned how many times an applicant has come before the Commission with revised plans being submitted at the meeting the application was being heard.   Town Planner Whitten felt the Commission takes the application at one meeting and then hears it at a subsequent meeting.  Commissioner Gowdy noted the addition of an agenda item this evening; Town Planner Whitten suggested that wasn’t an application.  Commissioner Ouellette suggested he’s annoyed with applicants coming in with revised plans submitted at the meeting the application is being discussed; staff hasn’t had time to review them either.   An example is a traffic study that just came in hot off the press  

Chairman Guiliano suggested the Commission can deny any application if they don’t have enough time to review it; they can deny the application without prejudice.  He suggested that any time a Commissioner feels they don’t have time or are not comfortable voting on something they should make that information known.  Town Planner Whitten suggested the Commission can table an application and if the applicant is at the end of their Statutory time limit they are out of luck; the Commission can deny the application.  If any Commissioner feels pressured because so much information has been submitted at the last minute the application can be tabled.   Commissioner Ouellette indicated that especially with revised plans, he would like an opportunity to drive by the site himself.


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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES/March 14, 2006; March 28, 2006:

MOTION: To APPROVE Public Hearing #1480 Regular Meeting dated 3/28/2006 and Public Hearing #1479 Regular Meeting dated 3/14/2006 as written.

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

BUSINESS MEETING/(3) Staff Reports:

MOTION: To CANCEL the Planning and Zoning Commission regularly                          scheduled meeting dated 4/25/2006.

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


Quarry Meadows
East Windsor Historical Society
250 Main Street, Warehouse Point



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

Respectfully submitted,

Peg Hoffman, Planning and Zoning Recording Secretary