TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
Planning and Zoning Commission
Public Hearing #1487
July 11, 2006
***** Draft Document - Subject to Commission Approval *****
The meeting was called to order at 7:06 P. M. by Chairman Guiliano in the Meeting Room of the Town Hall, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:
A quorum was established as four Regular Members (Gowdy, Guiliano, Ouellette and Rodrigue) and one Alternate Member (Tyler) were present. Regular Member Saunders and Alternate Members Kehoe and Matthews were absent. Chairman Guiliano noted Alternate Commissioner Tyler will sit in on any items of business this evening. Also present was Town Planner Whitten, and Ex-Officio Member Selectman Filipone.
ADDED AGENDA ITEMS:
Town Planner Whitten reported she would have some items to bring up as informal discussion at the end of the Meeting.
RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS:
Chairman Guiliano noted receipt of the following Application:
1) Application of John Silva for Site Plan Approval for construction of a 2,148 square foot building, with drive-thru, and parking at 216 South Main Street, owned by Balch Bridge Street Corp. [B-2 Zone; Map 33, Block 5, Lot 84].
The following Legal Notice, which appeared in the Journal Inquirer on Thursday, June 29, 2005, and Thursday, July 6, 2006, was read by Commissioner Ouellette:
1) Application of Hope Petersen for a Special Use Permit to allow an accessory apartment at 56 Kreyssig Road. [A-1 Zone; Map 10, Block 76, Lot 4-6].
PERFORMANCE BONDS - ACTIONS; PERMIT EXTENSIONS: Attorney Allan W. Koerner - Request for extension of Special Use Permit for Excavation of property located on Wapping Road, owned by Anna Maslak and NORCAP, Inc.
Chairman Guiliano read the description of the Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Allan Koerner, representing NORCAP; Dennis Botticello, owner of NORCAP; and Mark Zessin, of Anchor Engineering.
Town Planner Whitten advised the Commission there has been confusion regarding which excavation the request for extension is for; she had hadn’t out conditions of approval for the 7/8/2005 extension, which she has now been advised by the attorney is incorrect. Discussion followed regarding the approval/extension history, and clarification of the parcel for which the extension is being requested.
Mr. Zessin suggested the first time they applied for an extension was in 1994; that extension request was renewed to 1996, then 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. They requested a 2 year extension on the permit expiring in 2004; the Commission gave them a one year extension to 2005, and that permit was extended to April, 2006. NORCAP purchased a portion of land (Phase III) previously owned by Anna Maslak in 1997; a berm and pipes were added to that parcel last year. Phase I and II, owned by Anna Maslak and Jean Martin, are adjacent to the parcel under discussion which is now owned by NORCAP.
Commissioner Rodrigue questioned how long they anticipate to excavate the remaining material? Attorney Koerner indicated the material is being excavated by Herb Holden; he has taken out 16,000 cubic yards of material to date and it is estimated there is 80,000 cubic yards remaining. The material is sand which is used in the winter.
Attorney Koerner suggested they would like a 2 year permit, which he felt is customary in town; a 2 year extension is what Charbonneau gets.
Commissioner Rodrigue suggested 80,000 cubic yards could represent a 4 - 5 year completion, based on the 16,000 taken out previously. Attorney Koerner suggested Holden began excavating in December (2005). John Cohen, representing Mr. Holden, suggested a 2 year extension is a reasonable amount of time, it depends on the market.
Town Planner Whitten requested clarification that they propose going 10’ deeper than the original plans. Mr. Zessin replied 6 to 10’. Commissioner Gowdy suggested if they were not proposing to go 6 to 10’ deeper then there would be little left to excavate; Mr. Zessin concurred there would be little left. He suggested the groundwater elevation increases towards the bottom of the map; it’s more than 5’ at the lowest point. Chairman Guiliano questioned what they planned to put in the hole when they were done? Mr. Cohen suggested the material is fine siltier sand which is not suitable for roadwork or construction; it’s sand and clay to maintain the floor that’s there. They are not bringing material. Mr. Zessin suggested they
have piles of topsoil elsewhere on the site that are presently covered with vegetation; they will use that for cover material. Town Planner Whitten noted that would be one of the conditions of approval; Commissioner Gowdy noted the comment has also been made by Town Engineer Norton. Mr. Zessin felt that may be true at one time but both Town Engineer Norton and Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek have been out to the excavation and the topsoil piles haven’t been moved since the 1990s; they haven’t moved them in the last 6 years.
Commissioner Ouellette questioned that this was a request for an extension as well as a modification of the Site Plan? Town Planner Whitten suggested that the original request was for an extension. Chairman Guiliano and Commissioner Gowdy suggested it would be a request for an extension if the Commission said no to any further digging of materials; then they would be done.
Commissioner Rodrigue questioned Mr. Zessin why they didn’t return for a permit extension in April? Attorney Koerner suggested that they did but Town Planner Whitten requested additional mapping and then they were delayed by the weather.
Commissioner Tyler questioned that they would be at 5’ above the groundwater at what time of the year? Mr. Zessin indicated that they had measured that many times in the last 13 years; on the first plan they did the topo in May. Commissioner Tyler questioned if the applicant would be agreeable to adding that they must stay 5’ above the groundwater level as a condition? Mr. Zessin and Attorney Koerner agreed. Chairman Guiliano questioned what were Town Engineer Norton’s comments? Town Planner Whitten noted that in regard to the maps being reviewed his only concern was erosion control measures; Commissioner Gowdy read Town Engineer Norton’s comments FOR THE RECORD.
Commissioner Gowdy returned discussion to Commission Ouellette’s questions of this application being a permit extension or a site plan modification. Attorney Koerner stated that if the Commission feels that changing the grades modestly is a modification then yes, it is a modification. The material being moved is material that’s on the site and has been dug and stockpiled; they would like to sell it. Attorney Koerner submitted a copy of the permit issued for the Charbonneau pit in 1992 as a comparison to their request. Chairman Guiliano noted the issue under consideration for the Commission is for the Maslak property, and has no reflection on the next door neighbors in any direction. Attorney Koerner stated they are not asking to discuss any one else’s permit, they are
just asking for fair treatment. Charbonneau went over the property line on Botticello’s property. This Commission, in its wisdom, granted Charbonneau permission to dig to correct those cuts with Botticello’s permission. Extensions are only for 2 years. Chairman Guiliano felt the Commission had the discretion to grant permits for less than that time. Attorney Koerner suggested he is referring to Charbonneau to show the time of the permit.
Chairman Guiliano suggested they were asking for a modification as well as an extension; that’s not what the Application says. He would like to know that the
Inland/Wetlands Commission is ok with this, and that Town Engineer Norton realizes you’re taking out additional material. Attorney Koerner noted that Town Engineer Norton had given his comments, but they could go back to him to ask if he realized they were going deeper. They have an Inland/Wetlands Permit which runs through August. Chairman Guiliano questioned if the Inland/Wetlands Commission realizes they are going deeper? Attorney Koerner suggested they are not doing any activity within the regulated area; he assumes the Inland/Wetlands Commission would say ok. However, this Application could be tabled until Inland/Wetlands comments.
Commissioner Rodrigue questioned what the extra 10’ calculated to; was it the 80,000 cubic yards? He felt if the additional excavation was above the original proposal, and they knew what that calculated to, then the Commission could decide if the extra material was a minimal amount or more? Commissioner Gowdy noted the plans indicate that the 6” equals the 80,000 cubic yards. Mr. Zessin suggested the original hill had a back elevation of 178’ ad tapered down to 130’; they have taken out from 2’ to 46’ in “this” area. Commissioner Rodrigue reiterated his question was what was the difference between this proposal and the original proposal? Town Planner Whitten reiterated the difference is if this is a modification of the original proposal,
which would require an application, not an extension request; Commissioner Rodrigue noted it would also require review by other commissions.
Commissioner Tyler suggested he wasn’t as concerned as much about the 80,000 cubic feet as getting 10’ closer to the groundwater. Mr. Zessin suggested it was too wet to get into the property with a survey crew. Commissioner Tyler questioned if they were able to get in with all this rain? Mr. Cohen, representing Holden Trucking, suggested it was as hard as rock; the plan is to return it to an agricultural use. Town Planner Whitten questioned when the groundwater tests were done? Mr. Zessin indicated every 3 months. Town Planner Whitten requested that information be submitted to the Commission.
Discussion returned to the issue of this proposal being an extension of the original permit, or a modification of the original proposal/application, which would require review by the Inland/Wetlands Commission as well. It was noted that the current Inland/Wetlands Permit expires in August; Town Planner Whitten felt the Applicant could apply to the Inland/Wetlands Commission and be heard at the August Meeting. Mr. Zessin suggested the berm that has been stabilized won’t be disturbed; it was added last year and is making it better by controlling the run off. He advised the Commission they didn’t do the 1990 plans and don’t know why they didn’t go deeper. He also didn’t see any reference to the groundwater plans on the Borowski plans.
Commissioner Rodrigue questioned that Holden Trucking had been working at the site since April? Commissioner Gowdy noted the plans indicate they have been digging out materials since December. Mr. Cohen indicated they have been hauling out of the stockpiled materials. Chairman Guiliano suggested the Applicant can continue to haul if the Commission continues this Item of Business for another 2 weeks. Attorney Koerner requested that Mr. Zessin explain the Erosion Control Plan. Mr. Zessin noted various elevations on the plans, noting the land goes down to a minimal pitch across the bottom. They are growing corn and tobacco to the west of this site. He noted pipes were put in to give run off an outlet. Commissioner Tyler noted the pipes are installed at
elevation 130’, you are now going 10’ deeper. It won’t drain well, it will pond rather than run off into the brook. Mr. Zessin indicated the pipes were put in when it was to be 2’ deep; the question had been whether they ripped the pipes out or left them in. They choose to leave them in. Commissioner Tyler suggested the pipes are now insignificant. Mr. Zessin suggested he could provide a borings log to who the Commission it’s well drained materials. Town Planner Whitten noted the most critical issue is the protection of the groundwater, which is the PZC’s purview. Commissioner Gowdy concurred, noting he would like to see how close they will be getting to the groundwater. Commissioner Tyler suggested he would like to see them stay at least 5’ from the groundwater. Chairman Guiliano noted while the Applicant waits for the Inland/Wetland review it gives them the
opportunity to come back to this Commission with additional information; the postponement of this Application doesn’t stop they from working and then need to go back to the Inland/Wetlands Commission for an extension of that permit in August. He would like to know how close to the groundwater they plan to get. Commissioner Tyler noted the Applicant had said they tested the groundwater quarterly; he would like to see test results for the past 2 years.
MOTION: To TABLE the request for extension of Special Use Permit for Excavation of property located on Wapping Road, owned by Anna Maslak and NORCAP, Inc. until the Commission’s regular scheduled Meeting on July 25, 2006 at 7:00 p. m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT. 06016.
Gowdy moved/Ouellette seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Gowdy moved/Ouellette seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECESSED at 8:00 P. M. and RECONVENED at 8:08 P. M.
NEW HEARING: Hope Petersen - Special Use Permit to allow an accessory apartment at 56 Kreyssig Road. [A-1 Zone; Map 10, Block 76, Lot 4-6]. (Deadline to close hearing 8/15/06):
Chairman Guiliano read the Hearing description. Appearing to discuss this Application was Hope Peterson, of 56 Kreyssig Road. Ms. Peterson noted she is applying for an accessory apartment on the second floor; her father has been hospitalized recently and she also has a son with cerebral palsy who could use this apartment when he becomes somewhat independent. The home is completely handicapped accessible for her son.
Discussion followed regarding the space in question as to whether it’s actually an apartment or extended living space. Town Planner Whitten noted there have been lengthy discussions among herself, Assistant Town Planner/Zoning Enforcement Officer Rudek, and Building Inspector Stanley. If one wall were built and the section under discussion closed off it would become an apartment, and therefore under consideration for an Accessory Apartment Special Permit. Ms. Peterson suggested it’s a regular Colonial home with an open staircase with wheelchair lift. Commissioner Tyler questioned if there 2 means of egress? Ms. Peterson noted she has installed egress windows which meet building codes; there is also a balcony on the second floor but no egress other than the chair lift
on the stairs. Chairman Guiliano suggested his only concern was that the proposed size is in excess of the allowable size, and Ms. Peterson is requesting a kitchen. Commissioner Rodrigue felt the regulations didn’t specify the number of allowable kitchens in a home.
Chairman Guiliano queried the audience for comments:
Bill Loos, Melrose Road: felt Ms. Peterson should be given the permit; it is upstairs living space for the son and parents.
Town Planner Whitten indicated this is really not a separate unit. Chairman Guiliano suggested he would like to see the approval include language indicating there is no permanent separation/enclosure regarding this living space. Ex-officio member Filipone suggested if the Commission takes action on this proposal as an accessory apartment it would be non-conforming to the regulations because of the size, etc. Commissioner Rodrigue felt it was not an accessory apartment application. Chairman Guiliano suggested the application be withdrawn..
MOTION: To ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL of the Application for a Special Use Permit to allow an accessory apartment at 56 Kreyssig Road. [A-1 Zone; Map 10, Block 76, Lot 4-6] because the Commission feels they have no jurisdiction in this matter. Ms. Petersen made the application on the assumption this was an accessory apartment, and the Commission feels it is not because there is no separation of space.
Gowdy moved/Ouellette seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
NEW BUSINESS: KFC US Properties, Inc., c/o Jim Santos - Site Plan Approval for a 3,200 square foot Taco Bell/KFC Restaurant, with drive thru window, at 43 Prospect Hill Road, owned by South Prospect Hill Road, LLC. [HIFZ Zone; Map 11, Block 14, Lot 14]. (Deadline for decision 8/31/06):
Chairman Guiliano read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to discuss the Application was Huseyin Sevincgil, of MHF Design Consultants, Inc.; Karla Terry, New England Real Estate Manager for Yum! Brands, Inc. (which includes Kentucky Fried Chicken and Taco Bell); and Robert Roscoe, of Roscoe Enterprises, LLC.
Mr. Sevincgil recalled that the Commission had seen the Plan of General Development for this parcel in November, 2005, at that time the owner planned to construct a Taco Bell and Long John Silver’s restaurant on this site. Long John Silver’s is not doing well in New England, the owner wants to change the General Development Plan (GDP) to include a Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) restaurant instead of the Long John Silver’s. The substitution would require minor modifications to the plans. The restaurants would utilize the existing driveway for Wendy’s, a two-way drive would come off of that to enter Taco Bell and KFC, and a drive-through lane to accommodate 11 cars would circle the restaurants.
Mr. Sevincgil noted Town Engineer Norton had reviewed the plans and given 10 comments; they have discussed those recommendations. Town Planner Whitten indicated she has spoken with Town Engineer Norton; it would be fine with him if those comments were made conditions of the approval.
Commissioner Tyler noted that on the original General Plan of Development included a third lane for cars making a left turn; under this proposal cars making a right turn would have to line up behind the cars going in the other direction. Mr. Sevincgil suggested the site is wide enough to accommodate that traffic; there will also be striping for direction. Commissioner Tyler reiterated that the Site Plan should reflect the 3 lanes rather than 2. Mr. Sevincgil agreed to revise the plans.
Commissioner Ouellette recalled that during the original approval there was a lot of debate regarding the traffic on Route 5. He noted there is an existing turn there and you’re adding more development; he doesn’t see any reconfiguration to accommodate that change. Mr. Sevincgil indicated he thought that Wendy’s did a traffic study for the full build out. Chairman Guiliano noted the original plan was for Wendy’s and a hotel, which wouldn’t generate as much traffic as two fast food uses, and maybe a third use (as construction of a bank office has been discussed previously). Town Planner Whitten clarified that the back building has been approved, but the bank has not. Commissioner Ouellette recalled that on the original GPD there was an additional
driveway for the bank; Town Planner Whitten noted that proposal hasn’t come before the Commission yet. Mr. Sevincgil suggested the existing curb cut would be closed off; Commissioner Tyler suggested it could be moved down the line.
Chairman Guiliano suggested the Commission needed to see the original traffic flow pattern going in and out of the site, and the traffic flow going north on Route 5. Commissioner Gowdy questioned Commissioner Ouellette what he saw on Route 5 going north that needs to be changed? Commissioner Ouellette suggested that the left turn today stacks 4 cars. He recalled that Scott Hesketh (who prepared the traffic study) suggested a longer number; that number should be the number being used. Also, shared egress was discussed. Commissioner Ouellette noted that ultimately a permit will be needed from the State. All that has been approved by the Commission and isn’t shown on the plans. Mr. Sevincgil indicated that that plan was done by another engineer; they represent Taco
Bell/KFC. He questioned that the General Development Plan showed that information, and that it was acceptable to the Commission? Chairman Guiliano replied affirmatively, noting the changes came out of discussion of the traffic study.
Commissioner Ouellette questioned if site lighting would be discussed? Town Planner Whitten suggested it is pretty much the same as Wendy’s. Chairman Guiliano noted the Commission gave approval to Wendy’s, who then put up 2 additional spot lights. Ex-Officio member Filipone suggested those spot lights have been taken down. Mr. Sevincgil submitted a lighting plan; Town Planner Whitten noted there are 5 posts. Commissioner Tyler questioned if Wendy’s reduced the height of their lights? Chairman Guiliano felt the height of these lights was high compared to Wendy’s; Mr. Sevincgil suggested Wendy’s are 25’ poles. Chairman Guiliano requested that the height of these poles be kept the same. Mr. Sevincgil suggested there is just accent
lighting on the building at the windows and doors; that lighting will face down. Discussion followed regarding the approval of the 25’ height for Wendy’s lighting. Mr. Sevincgil suggested that the Wendy’s elevation is 89, while their site is 85.8; the further you go into their site the lower the elevation. Their lights will be lower.
Commissioner Gowdy questioned the lighted cupola for the KFC building; he felt that was a lot of light on the building. Mr. Sevincgil suggested that’s considered signage.
Chairman Guiliano questioned when and where deliveries would be made to these restaurants? Mr. Sevincgil indicated trucks would come into the main entrance in the morning as Taco Bell opens around 10:30 or 11 to serve lunch; he felt Wendy’s isn’t open at that time. He agreed the area is tight but trucks should be able to make it out of the site. Commissioner Ouellette suggested the addition of signage indicating “do not turn”; Mr. Sevincgil suggested their current language is “exit only”. Commissioner Ouellette cited a concern during adverse weather conditions; he suggested “one way only” signs; Mr. Sevincgil concurred. Commissioner Ouellette also noted there is nothing on the internal driveway to stop; he suggested the addition of a
small “one way” sign and a stop bar.
Commissioner Ouellette questioned if small trash receptacles will be located around the site? Mr. Sevincgil suggested the operation people will locate them where necessary.
Commissioner Ouellette noted that during discussion of the General Plan of Development a request had been made for 2 huge pylon signs at the back of the site. Mr. Sevincgil concurred, they are asking for a high rise sign of 65’ in overall height and 200 square feet of display area, which would be similar to the Wendy’s sign. There would also be 2 KFC wall signs on the drive-thru and the front of the building. There would be 3 Taco Bell signs, one on the right side of the entrance and 2 expression panels on the windows. Mr. Sevincgil recalled that 156. square feet of signage for Taco Bell/Long John Silver’s was approved on the GPD, they are proposing 114.25 square feet of signage for the KFC/Taco Bell - less than originally approved. Mr. Sevincgil also noted
there will be a free-standing sign on Route 5 which will contain 32 square feet. Discussion continued as to whether the logo on the door is signage. Town Planner Whitten noted she needs to review the amount of signage approved for Wendy’s. Chairman Guiliano cited concern with the amount of signage.
Commissioner Gowdy question if this site is fenced off? Mr. Roscoe suggested there is State property behind them which might have a fence. Commissioner Ouellette indicated the answer to that question is yes.
Chairman Guiliano queried the Commission for their preference regarding plan changes; the following changes were requested to be added to the plans: 1) striping for the 3 entrance lanes; 2) left hand turn on Prospect Hill Road to be extended as shown on the General Plan of Development, 3) height of light poles must match the 25’ poles installed at the Wendy’s location, 4) add appropriate regulatory signs as needed (including stop bars), and 5) Town Engineer Norton’s comments to be added as conditions.
Discussion returned to the amount of signage. Mr. Sevincgil suggested the 25’ KFC/Taco Bell sign is really a logo on the back of the building. Commissioner Ouellette suggested usually the ID sign regulates where someone will turn, if someone is heading south this sign is too late. Mr. Sevincgil noted the building is centrally located; they can’t put their signage on the Wendy’s site. Town Planner Whitten questioned that there will be a Taco Bell and large Colonel Saunders on the front wall? Mr. Sevincgil suggested the drive-thru on the south side of the building will have a Colonel Saunders logo; there will also be a 10.6 square foot Taco Bell sign on the north side. Mr. Sevincgil suggested he doesn’t feel it overpowers the building. Town Planner
Whitten questioned if the amount of lighting could be reduced? Chairman Guiliano suggested the cupola is lit up; it’s signage. Discussion continued; Ms. Terry noted the older building in the area would have more signage than is being proposed; Mr. Roscoe recalled the proposed signage is less than approved on the GPD. Town Planner Whitten noted it was stated that signage would be an issue, and there would be more strenuous review during the final review. Commissioners Gowdy and Rodrigue didn’t have a problem with the proposed signage.
Continuation of the Application was recommended by the Commission, which gives the Applicant time to revise the plans to reflect the items previously shown on the General Plan of Development, and also gives the Applicant time to reconsider proposed signage. Town Planner Whitten requested submission of the plans prior to the meeting to give her an opportunity to review them; Mr. Sevincgil indicated he will submit the plans by the prior Friday.
MOTION: To CONTINUE the Application of KFC US Properties, Inc., c/o Jim Santos - Site Plan Approval for a 3,200 square foot Taco Bell/KFC Restaurant, with drive thru window, at 43 Prospect Hill Road, owned by South Prospect Hill Road, LLC. [HIFZ Zone; Map 11, Block 14, Lot 14] until the Commission’s regularly scheduled Meeting on July 25, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT. 06016.
Gowdy moved/Ouellette seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
BUSINESS MEETING/(1) Informal Discussion on Manchester Methane:
Town Planner Whitten noted Manchester Methane has requested their discussion be continued to the next meeting.
BUSINESS MEETING/(2) Correspondence: None.
BUSINESS MEETING/(3) Staff Reports:
* Town Planner Whitten reported she is researching regulations regarding animal kennels, doggie day care, etc.; she is also looking for input from the Commission. Commissioner Gowdy felt the zone in which these businesses are located should be revised; they should not be allowed in residential zones. Commissioner Tyler felt they should be in agricultural zones. Town Planner Whitten noted that such businesses are becoming a huge success; as businesses they should be allowed in commercial zones. She noted she currently has before her a request for doggie day care (6:00 A. M. to 7:00 P. M. Monday through Friday) and sale of supplies (6:00 A.M. to 7:00 P. M.
retail); this person feels it should be allowed as an accessory to retail uses. Commissioner Rodrigue suggested distance limitations should then be set to avoid health issues involving the proximity of businesses selling food. Town Planner Whitten noted this use is currently not allowed.
* Town Planner Whitten noted she has had a query regarding 8 Bridge Street, the location of the former Larry’s Garage, which was a non-conforming car repair business. Someone wants to abandon the car repairs and do only car sales, which would require only a Site Plan submission, but sales is an expansion of the non-conforming use. To conform it would have to be allowed in a B-2 Zone; that would be spot zoning in this area. This person is willing to put a statement on the Land Records that he is abandoning the car repairs.
Commissioner Tyler questioned what could be done to make it conform? Town Planner Whitten suggested it would have to be rezoned to B-2, which would be spot zoning. Everything near it is residential, agricultural, or B-1; nothing is B-2 near it. She noted the property is an eyesore; the person wants to fix it up, pave the parking lot and paint the building. The Commission requested the potential applicant come in for an informal discussion.
* Commissioner Gowdy raised an issue with parking for the new Dunkin Donuts on North Road. Heading east, tractor trailer trucks are parking on the side of the road across from the site; this makes eastward traffic back up as vehicles can’t get by the trucks on the side of the road. Commissioner Gowdy suggested the posting of “no parking” signs. Commissioner Ouellette noted the State only has the authority to post “no parking” signs, but the request must come from the
local police. He opposed this location for traffic reasons; it’s a nightmare. Commissioner Ouellette also noted the property owner on the left is putting obstacles in the State right-of-way and the State’s hands are tied because the Site Plan was approved. Town Planner Whitten noted she has been checking on the queuing lane; that seems to be working.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 13, 2006 (tabled from previous meeting):
MOTION: To ACCEPT the Minutes of Public Hearing #1485 dated June 13, 2006 as written.
Gowdy moved/Ouellette seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
SIGNING OF MYLARS/PLANS: None.
MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 9:40 p.m.
Gowdy moved/Ouellette seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Peg Hoffman, Recording Secretary, Planning and Zoning Commission