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
July 25, 2006 Minutes

Public Hearing #1488
July 25, 2006

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

The Meeting was called to order at 7:04 P. M. by Chairman Guiliano in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.


A quorum was established as three Regular Members (Gowdy, Guiliano, and Ouellette) and three Alternate Members (Kehoe, Matthews, and Tyler) were present.   Regular Members Rodrigue and Saunders were absent,  Chairman Guiliano noted Alternate Members Kehoe and Matthews would sit in on any new Applications/Items of Business being heard this evening.   Also present was Town Planner Whitten, and Ex-Officio Member Selectman Filipone.




PERFORMANCE BONDS – ACTIONS; PERMIT EXTENSIONS:  Atty. 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 this Item of Business.  Appearing to discuss this issue was Attorney Allan W. Koerner, representing the Applicant, and Mark Zessin of Anchor Engineering.  

Mr. Zessin submitted new maps, and groundwater elevation information taken over the last 2 years.  He indicated they will be 6’ from the groundwater at all times during excavation.  Chairman Guiliano questioned how far away from the proposed excavation is the test well where the information was taken?   Mr. Zessin replied it starts about 40’ away and continues out.  Mr. Zessin also noted he is showing a key map on the plan as had been requested by Town Planner Whitten and Town Engineer Norton; the key map orientates the excavation and berm relative to everything else.  

Chairman Guiliano queried that when they are done with the excavation would it be suitable for building?   Mr. Zessin suggested you could build on the materials that are there already, the sand is fine for construction.

Chairman Guiliano queried if this was the last section to excavate?   Attorney Koerner suggested it was the last piece under this permit.  

Commissioner Tyler questioned how much top soil was being brought back in?  Mr. Zessin suggested they will add 6” of top soil above the finished grade shown on the plan.  Discussion continued regarding the grade of the finished excavation (122’) vs. the grade at which excavation will cease (116’); Commissioner Tyler felt they would be only 5’ above the groundwater.     He felt, personally, that they should give themselves more leeway.   Chairman Guiliano agreed with Commissioner Tyler.  Attorney Koerner suggested the Applicant had no problem with that suggestion.   Town Planner Whitten suggested, for clarification, that the Applicant will dig to a maximum of 122’ and put top soil on top of that?  Mr. Zessin suggested the finished grade will be 122.5’ with 6” of top soil.  

Attorney Koerner advised the Commission there is an enclosed area of wetlands which is on the other side of the berm from where they will be working.   They will be applying for an Inland/Wetlands Application for clarification.   Town Planner Whitten suggested that realistically the Wetlands Permit should be filed and acted on before this Commission makes its decision.   Attorney Koerner suggested they have a Wetlands Permit.  Town Planner Whitten noted it’s being modified.  Attorney Koerner suggested they could hold this Application off until the Wetlands commission decides.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned the rationale, other than past practices, for the request for a 2 year permit?   Attorney Koerner suggested the material at this site has a limited market; it’s sand which is sold to municipalities during the Fall and Winter.   They have excavated 16,000 cubic yards since December or January 1st; he felt that the 2 years is a reasonable time to request, is a reasonable amount of time to get rid of this material, and is the maximum amount the Commission can give.  

Chairman Guiliano requested clarification of the amount of excavation from the original Phase II to post- Phase III?  Mr. Zessin suggested Phase I produced 80,000 cubic yards, Phase II also produced 80,000 cubic yards, Phase 3 was originally proposed to excavate 160,000 cubic yards but they are now proposing to excavate another 80,000 cubic yards for a 25% increase in proposed excavation.  Chairman Guiliano questioned the ultimate plan for this property?  Attorney Koerner suggested Mr. Botticello plans to use it for agriculture/corn; no one is planning to use it for industrial.  Commissioner Matthews suggested that being close to an industrial parcel it could be suitable for residential, but they will be ending up with a hole 10’ deeper than it would otherwise be.   Mr. Zessin suggested the landfill comes up about 100’ to the south and west and to the north the land is about even with the current grade; the berm is at about elevation 122’ - he felt it won’t be a hole per see.   There will be a large slope to the south and west but people are growing corn on an adjacent parcel and there are tobacco fields and Charbonneau nearby.   He suggested that maybe in a long time someone might put people there but with the landfill nearby he couldn’t see it as a desirable location.  

Chairman Guiliano requested clarification of the correct Map/Lot/Block number.  Mr. Zessin indicated the permit was formerly in the name of Anna Maslak and Jean Martin, part of which is now owned by NORCAP - Phase I and II were owned by Maslak, the property containing Phase III is the land purchased by NORCAP.  Town Planner Whitten questioned if Anna Maslak owns any of this project?   Mr. Zessin replied NORCAP owns Phase III.  Mr. Zessin reported the identification for this Application is Map 24, Block 25, Lot 26 and 27.

Chairman Guiliano suggested he would like to postpone a decision until after the Wetlands Commission Hearing occurs.

MOTION: To TABLE the Application of Allan W. Koerner  for a             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 next regularly scheduled Meeting on August 8, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. in Scout Hall, Abbe Road, East Windsor, CT.  

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

OLD BUSINESS:  KFC US Properties, Inc., c/o Jim SantosSite 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 this Site Plan Application was Huseyin Sevincgil, of MHF Design Consultants, Inc., and Jim Santos, representing Taco Bell.  

Mr. Sevincgil reported the following minor changes:  1)  the building was proposed to be 3,200 square feet but has been increased to 3,380 square feet to accommodate 60 to 80 more seats and to enclose the coolers as part of the building in the back.  They still meet the parking requirements.  2)  They have increased landscaping along Route 5 by 2 1/2’.   3) Mr. Sevincgil reported they reviewed the traffic study with F. A. Hesketh, the left turn lane is currently 75’ long with a taper; they are extending that 40’ and will be providing 2 additional stacking spaces for people entering the site.   4)  With regard to onsite signage they have added directional signs - “Do not enter” - at the first driveway.  5) They have reduced the height of the light poles, which had originally been proposed at 26 1/2’, to 25’.  6)  Signage for Taco Bell/Long John Silver was originally proposed at 156.5 square feet; the signage for Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC)/Taco Bell has been proposed at 124 square feet.  They went back to KFC/Taco Bell and proposed a wall sign of 64.5 square feet.   Mr. Sevincgil reported that signage has been reduced 60 square feet from the last meeting, and 92 square feet from the original plan.   7)  The red and white KFC tower is now eliminated.  8)  The free-standing signs remain the same.  Town Planner Whitten suggested you now mainly see signage only on the front wall, and they have removed signage on the back and south-facing walls.

Mr. Sevincgil indicated Town Engineer Norton has issued a memo dated July 25th; those comments have been addressed.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned what the dashed line on the Site Plan represented?  Mr. Sevincgil indicated it’s the internal lease line - what Taco Bell is leasing from the owner.  Commissioner Ouellette questioned that the property goes to the access of the highway?  Mr. Sevincgil replied affirmatively.  Commissioner Ouellette questioned that part of the parcel driveway is on the other side of the lease line?  Mr. Sevincgil noted they are constructing for future development also.

Commissioner Gowdy requested the addition of an additional condition that “any change of use, or change to a more heavily trafficked use - like McDonald’s - must be approved by the Town Planer or the Planning and Zoning Commission.”  Mr. Santos concurred, noting that would be a competitor; they would like that condition also.  

Commissioner Ouellette suggested the additional trip generation for the additional seats is minimal.  Chairman Guiliano is satisfied with the proposal.  He questioned that the plans submitted to the Commission tonight are only to refer to the change in the turning lane and nothing else?  Mr. Sevincgil replied affirmatively, noting the Title Sheet references this plan sheet as well.   Town Planner Whitten felt they have addressed everything they could.

MOTION TO APPROVE the application of KFC US Properties, Inc. c/o Jim Santos, and owner South Prospect Hill Road, LLC Site Plan Approval of a one story, 3,200   3,380 sq. ft. retail restaurant building with a drive through and associated parking and site improvements at 43 Prospect Hill Road, on property zoned HIFZ, as shown on Assessor’s Map 11, Block 14 Lots 14.  This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Conditions)

Referenced Plans:
Title Sheet – “Site Development Plans Proposed KFC/Taco Bell Restaurant, 43 Prospect Hill Road, East Windsor, CT , prepared for KFC US Properties, Inc., 290 Roberts St., Ste. 203, East Hartford, CT 06108, prepared by   MHF Design Consultants, Inc., 103 Stiles Rd Ste 1, Salem, New Hampshire 03079, 603/893-0720, dated 6/22/06

Set Includes Sheets:
ECP – Existing Conditions Plan
C1 – Site Plan
C2 – Grading, Drainage & Utilities Plan
C2A – Erosion Control Plan
C3, C4, C5 – Detail Sheets
C6 – Sign and Graphics Plan
L1 – Landscape Plan
LP – Lighting Plan
A4.0 – Building Elevations
A4.1 – Building elevations

-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 mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the
sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission.  Both sets 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 Condition):

16.    Any change of use or change to a more heavily trafficked use, as an      example –       McDonalds – must be approved by the Town Planner or     the Planning and Zoning Commission.

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


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

The Commission RECESSED at 7:45 P. M. and RECONVENED at 7:55 P. M.

BUSINESS MEETING/(1)  Informal Discussion on Manchester Methane:

Chairman Guiliano read the description of this Item of Business.   Appearing to participate in this discussion was Attorney Glassmann; Mark Zessin and

Scott Atkins, of Anchor Engineering; Al Smarden, of HMB Acoustics, and speaking from the audience was the owner, Dennis Botticello.

Mr. Atkins recalled the newest proposal is to move the proposed building from the back, as originally proposed, to the front near the location of the old transfer station in front of the scale.  There is a concern with vandalism with the building located in the rear, and CL&P feels the cost to run power lines to the rear is prohibitive.  He further recalled that at a previous meeting there was much discussion on the level of noise relative to the houses located nearby.  Mr. Atkins concurred that houses could be built across the street on land which is currently under an agricultural use.

Mr. Atkins suggested that at the original location the decible level for noise would be 43 - 36 decibels.  He anticipates that at 2 Wapping Road, at 11 o’clock at night, the noise level would be 40 decibels, which would be in the 43- 46 range.  There would be audible noise for the residents.  The average living room/bedroom sounds come in at 40 decibels; an air conditioner 20’ away comes in at 60 decibels.  

The building currently faces out, after speaking to Mr. Smarden they are considering turning the building 180 degrees, which would drop the sound level to 30 decibels.    Chairman Guiliano questioned what would happen if they had noise blocking trees between the silencers and the driveway, something like 8’ arborvitae 4’ on center?  Mr. Smarden suggested for the foliage to be effective it must be dense, there would need to be more than one row of trees; he suggested installing 3 or 4 rows with the tree locations staggered.   Mr. Smarden felt that foliage is more of a psychological issue; if you can’t see it you can’t hear it.  Mr. Zessin stated that the Applicant, Mr. Botticello, would be happy to put in 3 rows of staggered arborvitae.  

Mr. Smarden suggested as a comparison that background noise in a room is
about 50 decibles, with conversation it’s about 60 - 33 dBa is well below that level; you would really have to listen to hear it.  Commissioner Tyler suggested that at 11 o’clock at night in the country noise doesn’t have to be loud.   

Discussion continued regarding the decibel levels proposed within the landfill, at the property line, and at 62 Wapping Road which is calculated to
be 1200’ from the facility.    Commissioner Matthews noted he had problems following the numbers listed in the report given the Commission compared to the numbers being discussed currently.   Chairman Guiliano noted the noise level will be more in the winter as the site is densely vegetated and much of that will be lost in the winter.  Mr. Smarden suggested the conditions for the Albany facility were slightly different, the noise levels were taken on barren land so he felt the noise level in the winter here would be similar to the noise level in Albany.   Commissioner Matthews requested those numbers.  Mr. Smarden reiterated the difference in conditions, and noted the facility was operating at full bore and it was operating on different distances and angles; that information was then extrapolated for the NORCAP facility.   He suggested that the building, as it’s located now, operates effectively as a partial barrier; the addition of trees will help also.  If they install evergreens that vegetation will stay in winter.  Mr. Smarden suggested when you are talking about background noise it becomes your baseline; your ear can’t hear below that.  If you have a background level of 40 deciles and have 5 dBas below that it becomes more difficult to hear it.  Commissioner Matthews requested the data from the Albany facility for the Commission to review.  

Chairman Guiliano requested clarification of the original location of the building.   Mr. Atkins point same out on the map, indicating “here”.  Chairman Guiliano questioned that if they were standing at the building and a truck comes by it comes downhill and comes around the corner you said there is no sound from the trucks?   Mr. Atkins replied affirmatively.  Chairman Guiliano suggested that’s why the Commission allowed you to build the building in the back.  Mr. Smarden suggested he stopped recording when the trucks get around the corner.  Chairman Guiliano suggested they said there was no noise.  He also noted there was no mention of concern for vandalism during the original proposal.  Chairman Guiliano noted the Commission represents the people in town; if there is an additional cost to the applicant in building at the location originally proposed then shame on the applicant for not investigating that in the first place.  The Commission agreed when the applicant first came in to put the facility where it was originally located and
now you want to bring it up front because it’s cheaper?   What do the residents of town get out of that?  Mr. Atkins suggested people really won’t hear it.  Chairman Guiliano suggested they really wouldn’t hear it in the back; put the facility in the back so the residents around it will not be disturbed.  

Attorney Glassmann suggested he recollected discussion differently; they had proposed the rear location because it was near the flare.  He suggested he didn’t recall any discussion of alternative sites.   Chairman Guiliano suggested there were no alternative sites; the Commission liked it in the rear because it didn’t bother the residents.  Attorney Glassmann suggested Chairman Guiliano’s perception isn’t a correct perception.   The Commission is running the risk of this being a viable vs. a not viable project.  The project will provide a tax benefit to East Windsor.  The applicant has capped the landfill and this will provide a benefit to the community.  The data proves your perception is not right.   It sounds as if you’re doubting his credibility as an expert.   Attorney Glassmann agreed the cost differential and getting the trucks in and out during winter are real concerns.  

Chairman Guiliano questioned why they didn’t think of this during the original presentation?   Attorney Glassmann suggested they had misinformation from NE Utilities.  Chairman Guiliano suggested they knew what it would take to get back there and maintain the facility.  Attorney Glassmann suggested there was a change in policy from NE Utilities regarding tying into the grid.  

The Applicant, Dennis Botticello, speaking from the audience stated he has confidence in his experts.  NE Utilities changed their mind.  They chose to locate the facility down back because it’s the safest location, and because of the concerns of the neighbors.  They had another meeting with NE Utilities, who decided they didn’t want to meter the facility down in back.   They must run the line to get power down back.   From his standpoint they must look for another location.  He stands by his experts.   It wouldn’t bother him in his backyard.  

Commissioner Gowdy felt the Commission could hold the Applicant to standards, and if those are not met they can be shut down.   Chairman Guiliano noted the Commission has no ability to set conditions.   Town Planner Whitten indicated the Commission can only make a recommendation to the Siting Council.  Chairman Guiliano suggested that once they get up and running the Applicant can make as much noise as they want.   Town Planner Whitten suggested the Siting Council will listen to the Commission’s concerns.  Mr. Zessin felt the proposed use was a use-as-of-right; this is an Industrially zoned property.

Commissioner Matthews noted page 5 indicates this will be a metal structure; was Albany the same construction?   Mr. Smarden suggested Albany is concrete block.  Commissioner Matthews questioned if that would suppress the noise better?    Mr. Smarden suggested not necessarily; a 12” to 14” thick building would be better than a typical concrete block building.  

Commissioner Gowdy questioned if it was possible to construct this building back where it was originally proposed and satisfy NE Utilities?  Mr. Zessin suggested they have questions regarding the metering, and the maintenance of the roads.  They don’t want to put the (new) wires underground as those that serve the flare do now.   They want 2 lines.   Commissioner Gowdy questioned if it were possible to go overhead with dual lines and construct the building as originally proposed, technically?  Mr. Zessin indicated it is possible technically.  Commissioner Gowdy suggested he gets the impression there are many complications and these are cost prohibit, rather than something that can’t be overcome?  Attorney Glassman suggested if it’s not economically feasible it’s a concern; technically, with money you can anything.  

Town Planner Whitten questioned if they could make any technical revisions or mechanizations or walls that would muffle the noise further?   Mr. Zessin suggested the building will be insulated, and the internal walls will be concrete.  Commissioner Tyler questioned what can be done to make it below 40 dBas?   Mr. Smarden suggested there are various things they can look into, depending on the radiators.   Commissioner Tyler questioned if it were the radiators, or the mufflers, that generated the noise?   Mr. Smarden suggested from studying the Albany facility it was the radiators.  He noted the situation in Albany is almost identical to the situation here.   Regarding where the air enters and discharges, he can reduce the noise further but he didn’t know how much.  Commissioner Tyler questioned if different heat exchangers would help?   Mr. Atkins replied he didn’t know.  

Town Planner Whitten questioned how the topography plays into the noise - whether it’s surrounded by a berm or flat land?  Mr. Smarden suggested if you have a 10’ berm it will act as reflective agent.   Most berms work well when they are close to the source.   If it’s man-made and how many plantings are on it......... In Albany it was pretty flat; there were no hills or berms.   It looked like they cleared the land for the facility. Town Planner Whitten questioned that they have switched the orientation of the building so the mechanicals are away from the road?   Mr. Smarden suggested the building creates a new berm; the landfill is a hill behind the building.   Town Planner Whitten questioned where the building is, will the landfill reflect the noise?   Mr. Smarden suggested the reflective surface would have to be close in, 50’.   Town Planner Whitten felt the landfill is 100’.   Mr. Smarden suggested this configuration wouldn’t reflect the noise back to the residents.  

Commissioner Ouellette questioned what effect the wind might have?    Mr. Smarden suggested it must be in the vicinity of 15 to 20 knots.  

Mr. Zessin suggested the owner has said he would build an acoustic wall, if necessary, but doesn’t want to because he feels it’s not necessary, but if the model is off he will put it up.  

Commissioner Gowdy suggested he has confidence in the analysis of the noise, but he is concerned with the noise for residents.   If this gets on-line and it’s 60 decibels instead, …… if there is a way to hold the owner responsible to what’s referred to in this presentation.    Chairman Guiliano felt the Commission had no legal recourse.   Town Planner Whitten suggested the Commission can make a recommendation to the Siting Council; the recommendation could include notation that the Commission has serious concerns regarding noise, that they want 3 rows of evergreens installed, that they want an acoustical barrier installed, and that the noise level must be kept at 40 decibels or less when up and running and if not then corrective measures must be taken.  Commission Tyler requested that the 40 decibel level be a nighttime level; Town Planner Whitten concurred.  Mr. Smarden
noted that the Connecticut State noise regulations allow 60 dBas during the day time, and 50 decibels from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m; he suggested this facility will meet those standards.   Mr. Atkins suggested the concern is getting below those levels.  Chairman Guiliano queried that it would meet the noise regulations in the back?   Mr. Smarden replied affirmatively.

Ex-Officio Member Filipone questioned if the radiators are air cooled?   Mr. Atkins replied affirmatively.  Ex-Officio Member Filipone questioned if they have constant speed motors?  He questioned if they could have variable speed motors to slow down when it’s cold and if they could move the towers further away?  Mr. Smarden indicated that if you pull the radiators another 100’ from the building the building would no longer act as a barrier.  Ex-Officio Member Filipone suggested they could build a new barrier.  Mr. Smarden suggested if they moved it enough distance that would work.   Mr. Zessin suggested the radiators are variable speed belt driven now.

Commissioner Gowdy questioned how much closer is it from where it was originally located to the present/revised location?   Mr. Zessin suggested 2,000’.    Commissioner Gowdy questioned if it would be possible to move it back 200 to 300’?    Mr. Zessin suggested there would not be enough land industrially zoned that isn’t part of the landfill.    The facility is 50’ x 100’; they are trying to stay within the industrially zoned land.

Chairman Guiliano indicated they still have the choice to put it back where it was originally proposed.   Commissioner Ouellette is comfortable; there are ways to mitigate the noise if it’s above the approved levels.   Comissioner Tyler felt they must be held to the background noise level; he wants the Siting Council to make that a condition of approval that they stay below the 40 dBa background noise level, which the owner has agreed to do.  Commissioner Kehoe felt it will work but he wanted them to be held to the base decibel level.   Commissioner Matthews agreed but still wanted to see the data from the Albany facility, and for the Commission to have that information to fall back on.   He agreed that as Town Planner Whitten pointed out there will be this hill behind the facility that will make it echo back at you.  Commissioner Matthews wanted assurances that when it’s up and running it will be held to the standard of 40 decibels for a background level, and that the 40 decibels must be measured at 10’ from the road.


Gowdy moved/Ouellette seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:   Gowdy/Ouellette/Kehoe/Matthews
           Opposed:  Guiliano
         Abstained:  No one


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

The Commission RECESSED at 9:12 P. M. and RECONVENED at 9:17 P. M.

BUSINESS MEETING/(2)  Informal Discussion of Agricultural and Animal Regulations:

Town Planner Whitten initiated discussion by advising the Commission she routinely receives queries from people who would like to put in doggie daycare facilities, doggie hotels, grooming facilities, etc.   We currently don’t allow anything except in an agricultural zone.

Commissioner Tyler questioned where they should be located?  Town Planner Whitten felt either commercial or industrial would be more appropriate than locating them next to someone’s house.  Commissioner Tyler felt it was possible to have a one acre B-1 Zone next to several homes, and because of the size of the area there could be several dogs.  He suggested agricultural parcels are usually larger, noting that 3 acres are required for horses.   Town Planner Whitten cited specifications for ownership of horses.    Commissioner Tyler felt they should be required to be on parcels over an acre in size.

Chairman Guiliano agreed with Town Planner Whitten that they should be located in commercial or industrial zones rather than agricultural where
you’re in a neighborhood.  In commercial or industrial zones there are always noises going on.  He agreed to a size restriction, and noted that if a house were located next to a commercial area the Commission could deny approval.  If an existing house is in a business zone then people know any business, such as a beauty salon or car repair, could go in there.  Town Planner Whitten noted that in her query through the planners forum many are allowed in commercial zones.  

Chairman Guiliano felt the main issue was commercial kennels.  Commissioner Tyler felt it should be a requirement for commercial kennels, not general livestock.  Town Planner Whitten suggested commercial kennels are different; dogs are an accessory use when they sleep next to the bed rather than horses who are in a barn.  Chairman Guiliano suggested with personal animals people aren’t having people coming to their house to drop off animals and they aren’t taking money for it.

Commissioner Tyler questioned how close the distance restriction for being next to a residential area would be?  Chairman Guiliano felt it’s not in a business or commercial zone then the Commission needs to questions what type of business will be going next to it.  Ex-Officio Member Filipone questioned what size property would be considered?  Town Planner Whitten suggested she will put out another query for sample regulations.   She  noted that presently veterinary offices are only allowed in agricultural zones, but are not permitted in commercial or industrial zones; she questioned if the Commission wants to investigate that also?  

Town Planner Whitten questioned if the Commission wants to go anywhere with setting a maximum number of dogs?  She cited the Town Clerk would have to do a manual survey by street to determine the number of dogs but typically a household has 2-3 dogs, many have 7 or 8.   Town Planner Whitten noted one family has 25 registered dogs which are registered under a private kennel license; they are show dogs licensed through the Town Clerk.  Commissioner Tyler and Chairman Guiliano had a concern limiting the number of dogs; Commissioner Kehoe suggested 3 - 5; Commissioner Gowdy

suggested 3.  Commissioner Matthews suggested he was looking for a distance restriction; he cited an example of dogs running loose terrorizing

Town Planner Whitten questioned what the Commission wanted to do about farm animals?   Discussion followed regarding hogs vs. pigs vs. swine.  Commissioner Tyler suggested his experience is that hogs and pigs probably shouldn’t be in a residential zone, should be restricted to a number of 25 to 30, and should be confined or housed 100’ from the property line.  Town Planner Whitten questioned the Commission’s preference on chickens vs. roosters, noting some flock of poultry is allowed.    She has had some complaints about roosters.   Commissioner Tyler felt they should be allowed in agricultural zones.

BUSINESS MEETING/(3)  Correspondence:   None

BUSINESS MEETING/(4)  Staff Reports:   None.



        *       KGS Realty, 24 Newberry Road.
        *       Wal-Mart - canopy
        *       Crop Production.



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

Respectfully submitted,

Peg Hoffman, Recording Secretary, Planning and Zoning Commission