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
 
October 10, 2006 Minutes
TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

Public Hearing #1492
October 10, 2006

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


The Meeting was called to order in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, at 7:05 P. M. by Vice Chairman Gowdy.

ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:

A quorum was established as four Regular Members (Gowdy, Ouellette, Rodrigue, and Saunders) and   two Alternate Members (Kehoe and Matthews) were present.   Regular Member Guiliano and Alternate Member Tyler were absent.  Vice Chairman Gowdy noted Alternate Commissioner Matthews would sit in on Items of Business this evening.  Also present was Town Planner Whitten.

ADDED AGENDA ITEMS:             None.

RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS:        None.

LEGAL NOTICE:

The following Legal Notice, which appeared in the Journal Inquirer Thursday, September 28, 2006, and Thursday, October 5, 2006, was read for the audience by Commissioner Saunders:

1.         Application of Justin K. Barber for Special Use Permit for Accessory Apartment               at 60 Abbe Road, owned by Ethel Barber.  [A-1 Zone; Map 39, Block 23, Lot 18].

2.      Application of Christopher Corso, d/b/a Martini Grill, for Special Use Permit for       Modification to liquor permit at 110 Main Street, Broad Brook.  [B-1 Zone; Map 37, Block 37, Lot 8A].

3.      Application of South Prospect Hill Road, LLC for a Zone Change from M-1 to HIFZ for property located on Prospect Hill Road at I-91 interchange #44.  [Map 11, Block 14, Lot 15}.

4.      Application of Rockville Bank for a Special Use Permit for Modification to      General Development Plan, to include 4,500 sq. ft. commercial building for use as offices and a bank, at 39 Prospect Hill Road, owned by South Prospect Hill Road, LLC.  [Map 11, Block 14, Lots 14 & 15].

5.      Application of The Bank of Western Mass. For a Special Use Permit for Modification to General Development Plan, to eliminate hotel and add a bank at 49 Prospect Hill Road, owned by 53 Prospect Hill Road, LLC.  [HIFZ Zone; Map       12, Block 13, Lots 11, 12, & 13].

NEW HEARING:  Justin K. Barber – Special Use Permit for Accessory Apartment at 60 Abbe Road, owned by Ethel Barber.  [A-1 Zone; Map 39, Block 23, Lot 18]  (Deadline to close hearing 11/14/06):

Vice Chairman Gowdy read the Hearing description.  Appearing to discuss this Application was Justin Barber and Ethel Barber, of 60 Abbe Road.

Mr. Barber noted they are proposing to add a small accessory apartment to property owned by his mother, Ethel Barber, for a personal friend of the family.  They would use the existing finished basement, and would add a handicapped ramp.   There would be no change to the footprint of the house; the only proposed change to the exterior is the handicapped ramp at the rear and the escape windows to comply with egress code in the main bedroom.  

Vice Chairman Gowdy  referenced the two waivers, 1) the proposed accessory apartment is larger than the 600 square foot requirement at 910 square feet; 2) the requirement for in-law for blood relative.

Commissioner Saunders noted he thought the square footage for an accessory apartment had been increased.  Town Planner Whitten concurred, noting it had been done under the new regulations but those are not in effect yet.  Vice Chairman Gowdy indicated the size had been waived in the past.  

Commissioner Saunders questioned if a kitchen would be added?   Mr. Barber replied affirmatively, noting he talked to Building Inspector Stanley who said from a building standpoint there should be no problem with the proposed location.   There is already an existing bathroom in the basement level; Mr. Barber noted he’s already made an application to the Health Department regarding discharge.  

Commissioner Saunders suggested the other waiver is that the accessory apartment is more than 35%, or half, of the existing house.   Town Planner Whitten indicated she did write that comment in her memo but she subsequently did an on-site inspection;  she indicated she didn’t have the square footage of the house but felt the accessory apartment was not 50%.   If it’s two stories plus the basement then the apartment would be a third of the area, and probably would fit the requirement.   Commissioner Saunders questioned if the Commission should then vote on that waiver?  Town Planner Whitten noted all the waivers end up being in the same regulation, Section 5.3.2.   She read the proposed waiver -  to allow greater than 600 square feet for the apartment -  and noted the Commission can then omit the other waiver, the 35%.     

Vice Chairman Gowdy indicated he would like to hear from the Commissioners about the requirement that it be for a blood relative.  Commissioner Ouellette indicated he personally doesn’t have an issue with this Application.   The perception is that if the Commission makes an exception for one we’re opening ourselves up for possibly other exceptions, where the case might not be as genuine as this one appears to be.  Vice Chairman Gowdy felt what the Commission could do would be to add a condition saying that if and when the occupant of this in-law apartment were no longer there the requirement would be that it would have to be that anyone else that would occupy that would have to be a blood relative.  Town Planner Whitten suggested the Commission can require a new approval.   Commissioner Matthews questioned that then approval of this application would be for this individual?   Town Planner Whitten indicated it’s a Special Use Permit; you can set those conditions.  Commissioner Matthews questioned that in the affidavit that individual would be named?   Town Planner Whitten and Vice Chairman Gowdy both replied affirmatively.  Vice Chairman Gowdy read the proposed condition #14, noting that the intent of this occupancy was a great thing to do.   Otherwise it could be rented out; the Commission is avoiding setting that precedent by adding this condition.  Commissioners Saunders felt, in regard to Commissioner Ouellette’s concern, any other applicant would have to come through as a Special Use Permit and the Commission could review it based on each application; it would have to be a unique situation.

Commissioner Matthews questioned the second egress, where the window would be modified.   How would a handicapped person come up to the ground level; would you have steps there?  Mr. Barber indicated the plan was reviewed by the Building Department; the window is wide enough that it could be an emergency exit. Commissioner Matthews questioned how would the handicapped person get up to the ground level?   Mr. Barber suggested they would need some assistance up, but anyone else could step up.  Commissioner Saunders questioned that emergency personnel would be able to get in with a backpack on?   Mr. Barber replied affirmatively.  Commissioner Matthews questioned would you have a steel door?   Mr. Barber suggested that’s a window.  

Commissioner Ouellette questioned if Mr. Barber and the family had reviewed the contours of the land?   He questioned if water would come down and flood this area?   Mr. Barber suggested it’s a little bit high; he submitted a photo of the area.  

Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned Commissioner Matthews that his concern was that if there was a fire; Commissioner Matthews concurred, noting if there was heat on the other side of the window; is there a way to isolate that?   If that person is alone in the house and a fire starts, and they have to use that egress; they are in that well.  Vice Chairman Gowdy continued that they can’t get out until the emergency personnel get there.   Commissioner Matthews questioned suppose they don’t have the ability to call the emergency personnel; it could be 15 or 20 minutes.  Commissioner Rodrigue suggested the second floor window egress has the same situation; it meets the code.   Get out before you’re trapped.   Commissioner Matthews replied affirmatively, get away from the heat.  Vice Chairman Gowdy felt that was a building code issue rather than the Commission’s.   Town Planner Whitten suggested it’s the Commission’s concern for health and safety but the dynamics of it is a Building Code issue.  

Commissioners Matthews questioned if you had to rent this do you have enough side yard to build in the back?  Mr. Barber replied there’s about 15’ from the corner to the driveway.   Commissioner Kehoe felt they could do it but it would be hard and expensive.  Vice Chairman Gowdy felt that was a building problem.  Commissioner Matthews questioned if there was a ramp it would come back to us?   Town Planner Whitten replied, no, we let handicap expand into set backs.   Commissioner Matthews questioned  but if it impacts the side yard, etc.?  Town Planner Whitten agreed that would be a Commission concern.   Vice Chairman Gowdy felt at this point there isn’t a problem with the side yard.   

Commissioner Saunders questioned the rest of the area, if they were to go out of the bedroom area into the living area, is there a way to get out?  The only way out is that main door?  Mr. Barber replied affirmatively, noting they are making other adjustments to allow handicapped access.

Vice Chairman Gowdy queried the audience for comments; no one requested to speak.

MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of Justin K. Barber              or a Special Use Permit for Accessory Apartment at 60 Abbe Road, owned by Ethel Barber.  [A-1 Zone; Map 39, Block 23, Lot 18] .

Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/In Favor:  Unanimous

MOTION TO APPROVE WAIVERS:

Section 5.3.2, subsection 8: Waiver to allow greater than 600 square feet for the apartment.

Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/In Favor:  Unanimous

MOTION TO APPROVE the Special Use Permit application of Justin K. Barber, and owner Ethel Barber requesting a Special Permit for an In-law Apartment at 60 Abbe Road in the A-1 Zone  [Map 39, Block 23,  Lot 18] zoned A-1. This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans as approved by the Commission and the following conditions:

Floor Plan hand drawn by applicant

CONDITIONS:


Conditions that must be met prior to the issuance of any permits
1.      North Central District Health Department shall review and approve the plans for the existing septic system design and well location to insure adequate capacity for the additional occupancy.
Conditions that must be met prior to certificates of compliance
2.      All public health, safety and building code compliance components of the project must be satisfactorily completed prior to occupancy. When all public health, safety and building code compliance components have been completed, the Zoning Official may issue a Certificate of Zoning Compliance.
General Conditions

3.      This approval and related zoning permit shall expire two years from the date of approval.  If the applicant wishes to extend the approval for additional periods of time, a letter must be submitted, at least 30 days in advance of the expiration date. The request for renewal must be accompanied by a NEW "Affidavit of Occupancy for a Temporary Accessory In-Law Apartment" duly signed and notarized. As per zoning regulation §5.3.2(1), the renewal of such permit requires a new public hearing.
4.      Failure to re-apply for renewal upon the expiration of the approval and permit shall result in the revocation of all approvals and permits.
5.      Upon expiration or termination of the Special Use, the applicant shall cause the accessory apartment to be removed and the space it occupied shall be converted to additional living space for the one family dwelling unit of which this motion is the subject. Conversion to a single-family dwelling unit shall comply with §5.3.2(14).
6.      This Special Use Permit shall expire upon the death or relocation of all occupants of either unit or upon transfer of title to the property.
7.      No additional Mailbox is allowed.
8.      No additional entrances shall be allowed on any wall plane facing any street.
9.     Zoning Permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any work.
10.     A Building Permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any work.
11.     This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plan.  Minor modifications to the approved plans that result in lesser impacts may be allowed subject to staff review and approval.
12.     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.
13.     The applicant hereby acknowledges concurrence with the provision of §5.3 of the East Windsor zoning regulations in total and in doing so recognizes the authority of the Zoning Enforcement Officer to order removal and conversion of the accessory apartment as allowed by §5.3.

(Additional Condition):

14.  When occupancy of approved tenant is terminated, new approvals for new familial tenants                must be sought.             

Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/In Favor:  Unanimous

MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/In Favor:  Unanimous

NEW HEARING:  Christopher Corso, d/b/a Martini GrillSpecial Use Permit for Modification to liquor permit at 110 Main Street, Broad Brook.   [B-1 Zone; Map 37, Block 37, Lot 8A]  (Deadline to close hearing 11/14/06):

Vice Chairman Gowdy read the Hearing description.  Appearing to discuss this Application was Christopher Corso, 110 Main Street, Broad Brook, CT.

Mr. Corso advised the Commission he took over the restaurant in May and opened in June; he’d like to use the “Blue Room” which is included in his lease and the square footage he’s assigned as far as his landlord is concerned.  The problem it’s not recognized in the square footage as far as the Liquor Permit is concerned; the State of Connecticut does but the Town of East Windsor doesn’t.  He is proposing to use the room to serve liquor and use it for people who are waiting to be seated.   There is a 4 ½ ‘ opening containing 2 French Doors, has tables and chairs, could dine 25 people comfortably in there.

Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned the problem with permit.   Mr. Corso suggested it was the timing; he didn’t realize he had to give the Town the square footage as well as the State.  Town Planner Whitten indicated that when Mr. Corso took the operation over the Blue Room wasn’t included in the original Special Use Permit for the Liquor Permit, so wasn’t included in the overall square footage.   This is an expansion of square footage of the floor area, which requires a modification of the Special Use Permit.  Mr. Corso was unaware of it and is going through the process to correct it.

Commissioner Rodrigue questioned that Mr. Corso would not be changing any of the entrances?   Town Planner Whitten replied negatively, if anything it adds an exit.  It has a door to the outside, but it’s not used as an entrance; it’s only an exit.  

Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned if Mr. Corso had a full Liquor License now?   Mr. Corso indicated he’s still under a provisional permit until I get this approved.   Town Planner Whitten indicated it’s a modification of the original Liquor Permit.  Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested it appears he’s now conforming to the Town’s requirements officially; Mr. Corso concurred.   

Commissioner Ouellette questioned Town Planner Whitten why in the original Site Plan it shows tables sketched out in one area, but nothing is shown in the Blue Room?  Town Planner Whitten felt it was an oversight.  The Blue Room is more of a waiting area than a seating area; it could be used for overflow seating if necessary but it’s mostly for people who are waiting for a table.   It’s sort of a get a drink and hors d’oeurvres before dinner thing.  Commissioner Ouellette questioned that it’s clear that area can’t be used for entertaining, or anything like that?  Mr. Corso indicated that would affect his Liquor License as it would be more of a cabaret type of thing.   Commissioner Ouellette questioned would you need to come back to this Commission for that type of approval?  Town Planner Whitten noted he’s allowed to have live music; it’s sort of an accessory use to it.  Commissioner Rodrigue questioned that it could be used with the doors closed for a private party?   Mr. Corso replied absolutely, the French Doors could be closed; if you wanted to rent it to have 25 people down you could use it as a private room.  

Town Planner Whitten questioned Mr. Corso if he had any other issues he wanted to bring up?  Mr. Corso indicated he had to have a full menu if I serve liquor and he’s open until 1 o’clock during the week and 2 o’clock on the weekends.   The cost factor of keeping a full kitchen until 2 o’clock in the morning is very expensive, both in labor and gas, etc.  Mr. Corso suggested he’s proposing that a bar menu, which includes fryalator food and appetizers or sandwiches made to order but not a full menu, from 10 o’clock until 2 o’clock.   Commissioner Rodrigue felt the Commission had done that for other restaurants.   Town Planner Whitten concurred, but noted this was set as a condition of approval so since he’s here he’s trying to conform to everything and make the business successful.   Vice Chairman Gowdy requested Town Planner Whitten add an appropriate condition.   Town Planner Whitten read the current Condition #3 which referenced a full menu and full service at all times that alcohol is being served; she suggested altering that condition to read:  A full restaurant menu must be available, with wait staff, until 10 o’clock, afterwhich a bar menu would be appropriate until closing.  Matthews questioned if a closing time had been established?   Mr. Corso indicated he had to close by 1 o’clock during the week and 2 o’clock on the weekends; last call is 12 o’clock during the week and 1 o’clock on the weekend.  He wants to get everyone out.  

Commissioner Matthews questioned the parking requirements established during the original approval; would this additional seating have parking available?   Mr. Corso reported there was additional parking available in the back.  There are 80 to 100 parking spots available now in the whole facility.  

Commissioner Matthews suggested there is also the issue of bathrooms; he questioned if that comes under the review of the Commission, or the Health Department?   There is a single bathroom and sink; will it be sufficient for 100 people?   Mr. Corso suggested there are 150 people using the men’s and ladies’ room now.   Commissioner Matthews indicated he was surprised – from a customer’s point of view.   He questioned if this were to be a stand-up bar?   Mr. Corso replied negatively, but noted if a customer wanted to sit in the Blue Room and have dinner he probably would allow them to do that.  It’s a quiet room and people like to be there.   Commissioner Matthews felt if it became a stand-up bar you could pack 30-40 people in there.   Commissioner Saunders questioned if, since Mr. Corso opened the restaurant, had he been full and had to put people in the Blue Room?   Mr. Corso indicated he had had to turn people away who wanted to have drinks while they waited to be seated because they couldn’t use the Blue Room.  The purpose of Designing this room was to not turn business away from Broad Brook to other towns.  They want to have an avenue to wait for 10 to 15 minutes.

Vice Chairman Gowdy queried the audience for comments; no one requested to speak.

MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of Christopher   Corrso, d/b/a Martini Grill for a Special Use Permit for Modification to liquor permit at 110 Main Street, Broad Brook.   [B-1 Zone; Map 37, Block 37, Lot 8A].

Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/In Favor:  Unanimous

MOTION TO APPROVE the application of  G500 Restaurant Associates, Inc, DBA as Martini Grill, and owner David  Monaco requesting a Special Permit for a Revised Liquor Permit for premises located at 110 Main Street, Broad Brook , Zoned B-1, Assessors Map 37, Block 37, Lot 82 .
Said permit is subject to the following conditions:

Conditions of Approval:

1.      The Full Liquor License is permitted as accessory and incidental to the restaurant use.
2.      By granting a full liquor license the Commission is not permitting a bar and the use must remain as a  restaurant.
3.      The full restaurant menu must be available and wait staff service to tables must be available at all times alcohol is being served until 10 p.m.  A bar menu must be available between 10 p.m. and closing..
4.       The condition of this approval shall be binding upon the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
5.      A copy of the final approved motion shall be filed , by the applicant on the land records.

Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/In Favor:  Unanimous

NEW HEARING:  South Prospect Hill Road, LLCZone Change from M-1 to HIFZ for property located on Prospect Hill Road at I-91 interchange #44.  [Map 11, Block 14, Lot 15]  (Deadline to close hearing 11/14/06); AND, NEW HEARING:  Rockville BankSpecial Use Permit for modification to General Development Plan, to include 4,500 square foot commercial building for use as offices and a bank, at 39 Prospect Hill Road, owned by South Prospect Hill Road, LLC.  [Map 11, Block 14, Lots 14 & 15] (Deadline to close hearing 11/14/06; AND, NEW BUSINESS: Rockville Bank  - Site Plan Approval for construction of 4,500 square foot bank with drive-thru at 39 Prospect Hill Road, owned by South Prospect Hill Road, LLC.  [Map 11, Block 14, Lots 14 & 15]. (Deadline for decision 11/30/06) :

Vice Chairman Gowdy read the Hearing description for south Prospect Hill Road, LLC – Zone Change from M-1 to HIFZ for property located on Prospect Hill road at I-91 interchange.  {Map 11, Block 14, Lot 5].   Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Thomas Fahey, representing South Prospect Hill, LLC, and Eric Spungen, and Tim Coon, Project Engineer, of J. R. Russo & Associates.

Consensus between the Applicants, the Commission, Town Planner Whitten, and the Applicant’s representatives determined discussion will occur on the Zone Change, the Special Use Permit for modification of the General Plan of Development, and the Site Plan will occur concurrently; votes will be taken separately.   Therefore the Minutes reflect all three Items of Business above.

Attorney Fahey gave a summary of the General Plan of Development and subsequent modifications (change from a hotel to restaurants).   He also noted they had preliminarily discussed the Site Plan for the bank but then needed to hold off on submission because there was a small triangular piece of property they needed to acquire; Attorney Fahey gave a history of the acquisition.  He noted they now own that parcel free and clear, and can now add that property, after getting a Zone Change, to the General Plan of Development (GPD).   The triangular piece is zoned M-1; with the Zone Change approval that could then be added to the Highway Interchange Floating Zone (HIFZ).  The second step is to modify the GPR, which occurs under a Special Use Permit, to include the use as a bank.   Attorney Fahey noted that originally the Bank of Western Massachusetts was to go into this site but negotiations didn’t materialize, and Rockville Bank came in.   He’s noticed our Agenda carries an Application for the Bank of western Massachusetts to now be their neighbor to the north.   Attorney Fahey felt this is great for the town; this is what the Commission is trying to achieve with the HIFZ – a variety of uses along Route 5.

Attorney Fahey noted the third component of this Application is the Site Plan for the specifics of the bank.  He turned discussion over to Tim Coon, of J. R. Russo & Associates.

Mr. Coon suggested, that in regard to the Zone Change, this is a .34 acre parcel adjacent to the area which has already been developed as a HIFZ.   The justification for changing the zone is that by itself, this parcel couldn’t be dev eloped as an M-1 parcel because it’s too small.   It’s also consistent with consolidation of the remainder of the parcel.   Mr. Coon noted the bank is a permitted use.   The site is the intersection of the I-91 interchange.   The site contains Wendy’s; Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) and Taco Bell (TB) and retail to the rear haven recently been approved; they are now modifying a third lease area for the bank.    These businesses will all use the existing entrance off Prospect Hill Road.   At the time of the Site Plan for TB they did discuss the bank; the traffic report included information regarding the bank; this entrance was designed to include the bank.  Access to the bank would come around TB into a parking lot with 104 spaces.   There would be a 3 lane drive-thru off the south side of the bank building, which will contain 4,300 square feet – 2,500 square feet for the bank and 2,000 square feet for general office space.    People can exit by going out the way they came in, or using the exit lane between the bank and TB.   Mr. Coon wanted to point out that when TB came in their bypass lane into the drive-thru has a stacking lane and the bypass lane.   The bypass lane was originally designed to break out through the island and connect to the existing exit land for the bank; it will then come back and come around and go through the exit only on the east side of the building.  TB is now making a small/minor Site Plan revision; they will take their bypass land and leave it in the lease area; it will be side by side with the drive-thru so there will be no traffic breaking through out of the bank parcel.   It’s a better traffic flow and is easier with regard to the lease areas.   Mr. Coon noted he did discuss this with Town Engineer Norton, who had no issues with the change of the bypass area.

Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested he didn’t recall anything going that way when the Commission discussed the TB Application.  Mr. Coon indicated “this: was a deadend, and the drive-thru came down, and “this” section of that 50’ land was proposed to be constructed in anticipation that this was going to be used in the future for the bank, but now they have now separated “this” from the bank.

Mr. Coon indicated the parcel will be served by public water and sewer.   There are letters on file that there is adequate capacity for all development.   The parcel will be served by a drainage system which will collect the majority of the run off into the existing stormwater management basin, which was designed with the Wendy’s application for a full build-out of the property.   They still have adequate capacity for the full site, including the bank and Phase III – the retail.  They have added a water treatment unit, which will be in addition to the treatment provided by the stormwater management basin.

With regard to signage, there will be building mounted signs on the east side (facing Route 5) for Rockville Bank and the tenant space, and on the west elevation (the parking lot side) there will be smaller lettered signs for Rockville Bank and the tenant space.   Mr. Coon indicated they will be providing a table of the signage square footage on the final plans.   There will be a monument sign on Route 5; detail sheets have been provided for the Commission’s review.   Signs have previously been approved for Wendy’s and TB which will be no higher than 15’ and no larger than 32 square feet in size.   Mr. Coon indicated he didn’t recall the height but noted the monument sign will be no higher than the 15’, and it is within the 32 square feet.   The bank is proposing to use the high-rise sign previously approved for TB; all 4 tenants, including Wendy’s, will be using the high-rise sign.   Mr. Coon suggested the details for the bank haven’t been finalized yet but it will fall within the parameters approved which set a maximum of 200 square feet per side.

Vice Chairman Gowdy recalled that there would be 2,500 square feet for the bank and 2,000 square feet for general offices; he questioned that the 2,000 square feet are not for the bank offices?   Mr. Coon replied – correct.   Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned the adequacy of the bank parking?   Mr. Coon suggested the parking provided is for both the bank and the offices; there are parking calculations on the plans looking at all uses being contiguous.   The full requirement is 115 (or 150?????) spaces; they are providing 138 regular spaces and an additional 37 stacking spaces at the various drive-thrus.   Mr. Coon feels they meet the parking requirements.  

Mr. Coon suggested that site lighting will be provided via 25’ poles, which is consistent with that approved for TB and Wendy’s.

With regard to traffic Mr. Coon indicated when they came through with a GPD for TB the traffic plan that was prepared by F. A. Heskeths included full development on the site – the bank, the retail, TB, and Wendy’s.  He indicated there was much discussion; from that came the current configuration for the entrance.   They have a left turn and a right turn only now, and are also proposing an additional exit only lane for the bank drive-thru to alleviate congestion.   Mr. Coon submitted a letter which updates the F. A. Heskeths traffic report to address the issue of changing 2,000 square feet from a bank to general office space.  The letter indicates the traffic is substantially the same and the previously reported analysis and opinions remain the same.   There will be no substantial difference in traffic.

Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned how close is the driveway to the exit light?   Mr. Coon measured it to be 240’.   He noted Scott Heskeths made an informal inquiry with DOT as to how they would receive the exit only and the preliminary response from DOT was that they would receive it favorably.

Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned that depending what goes into the office square footage is it conceivable that they could be stacked up at the light 240’ – which is about 12 cars? Mr. Coon suggested if that’s the case they would continue on up to the other entrance.

Mr. Coon noted he has received a memo from Town Engineer Norton (memo dated 10/10/2006 making seven recommendations); he indicated he had not had a chance to make the modifications suggested to the plans, nor has he had time to discuss these recommendations with Town Engineer Norton personally.   Mr. Coon indicated they are looking for a condition of approval that they meet all the requirements, or have addressed his comments, with one exception.

Mr. Coon reviewed Town Engineer Norton’s recommendations:
        1)      “that the I-91 ramps be shown on the cover sheet” – Mr. Coon indicated                  they will be shown on the plans.

        2)      “with the additional proposed development, it appears there is the      potential for a fair amount of traffic conflicts near main entrance/exit to the site.  I (Town Engineer Norton) recommend that the possibility of an island be explored at the entrance to better direct entering and exiting traffic”.   Mr. Coon suggested the entrance to this site was discussed greatly with the TB approval, and they came up with the current way out – the wideness and the left and right turn exits from the site.   They also discussed that this exit only be added when they came back for the bank.   At the time it was the best layout and it was approved that way.   To put in                 an island at this time is kind of late; Mr. Coon suggested he doesn’t believe there is room with the approved site plan for TB, and he felt the island at the entrance would create issues for Wendy’s as it would cut off their ability to exit without going all the way around the building.   The   Wendy’s layout was designed back when we were talking about having a    hotel.   Mr. Coon agreed that traffic is different now with the other uses,     but this was the approved layout – it would have been the time to do it when the Wendy’s site was approved.

        3.      “the retaining wall design should be approved by the building inspector”.                       Mr. Coon suggested the wall shown on the plan is less than 2’ high, which typically doesn’t require a PE stamp or a specific review, but it will be     handled at the time of the Building Permit.

        4.      “I (Town Engineer Norton) recommend that calculations be provided for                   the outlet protection pad”.   Mr. Coon suggested they will provide those        calculations and make any adjustments necessary.

        5.      “I (Town Engineer Norton) recommend that all catch basins have a        minimum of 4’ deep sumps”.   Mr. Coon indicated they will make adjustments to the final plans.

        6.      “I (Town Engineer Norton) recommend an additional construction drive entrance or show it blocked during construction”.   Mr. Coon suggested they will add a construction pad to the area to the south of Wendy’s.

        7.      “I (Town Engineer Norton) recommend that a Maintenance schedule be                      provided for the storm drainage system components”.  Mr. Coon indicated they will do that.

Mr. Coon suggested if the Commission decides to vote this evening to add as a Condition of Approval that they are addressing Town Engineer Norton’s concerns, with the exception of #2 – the issue of the island.   Mr. Coon felt it would be difficult to put the island in at this time, and the plans were approved previously.

Attorney Fahey added that the entire layout included a building where the bank is and that would be included in the traffic flow.   He concurred there was much discussion during two meetings, and they have made some of the suggestions that the Board made.  He indicated that TB and Wendy’s leases are based on approved plans; to do what Town Engineer Norton suggested interferes with the existing lease because the leases are based on the approved site plans.   It’s a significant point to change what they signed up for.

Vice Chairman Gowdy felt that when Town Engineer Norton wrote his memo he suggested the possibility of an island, if possible; it would be nice to have but it might not be possible.   He felt Town Engineer Norton doesn’t seem to be adamant.   Mr. Coon indicated he hasn’t had time to have a discussion with Town Engineer Norton; the time to discuss this was before.  

Commissioner Ouellette indicated he has minor concerns with the internal circulation particularly between the KFC building and Rockville Bank where the bypass is, or once, was.   If someone is at the KFC waiting to pick up a meal, most people would look to the left or right for on-coming cars but there is no need to look to the left because it’s a one-way road.   If you were looking to your right perhaps you could see someone whizzing by from Rockville Bank but it’s an awkward angle where the bypass is.  What are you trying to accomplish?   The angle where they merge is problematic.   Who has the right of way there; there are no stop signs.   Mr. Coon suggested there will be stop signs there.  Commissioner Ouellette questioned where; there’s not a lot of opportunity.    The only place is on the right side of the road.   Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned that would be coming out of Rockville Bank?   Mr. Coon referenced sheet 5 of 10 of the plans; there is a do not enter sign and no left turn; no stop sign.   There is a location “here” for a stop sign, and “there” as well; we could make it a double stop for both.   Commissioner Ouellette indicated this is just his personal opinion, if someone bypasses the bank, it’s a straight-away, there’s no apparent conflict to them, no reason to stop; if they do, it’s common courtesy.    To me it’s more important to stop the KFC/bank people.   Commissioner Ouellette felt they could easily stop the bank people, but what about the KFC?   Do they have the right-of-way?   To me it’s too congested; there’s too many conflicts; it’s not really defined.   I don’t know if there’s a better way of definition by extending some islands?  

Commissioner Ouellette referenced his second comment; he doesn’t know if he’s really sold on the right turn out only drive onto Route 5.   You’re right; there was a lot of debate last time.  I did question your traffic engineer about expected back-ups from the traffic light back, and he didn’t provide an answer as to how long it is.   He told us level of service, he told us the number of cars; he never told us what the back-ups are.   I commute this way after the peak hour every day; it’s very close in this area.   In theory – it’s backed up on Route 5, there are some waiting to get out of there; they can’t go anywhere – because the width of the drive is only 15’ it chokes up the internal.   I think your bypass is going to be clogged.  I don’t think there’s enough bypass area in front of Rockville Bank.   15’ isn’t adequate for 2 cars.   You suggested if they can’t get out safely on Route 5 they’ll go zooming by to the main drive; there’s not enough width to do that.

Commissioner Ouellette addressed his last concern – if the driveway does stay it’s too wide.   At 20’ it’s designed for a small delivery truck; it’s an open invitation for someone to do the dumb thing and make a left turn thing out because they’re too lazy to come up to the main drive.  It’s not geometrically sized so they only can make a right out.  My first preference to eliminate the drive, and I think a lot of the problems go away.

Mr. Coon indicated he didn’t feel you would have a problem with eliminating the drive.   To be honest, we proposed the drive as a result of discussion last time.   Eric Spungen, speaking from the audience, indicated it was a response you wanted; we’d be happy to eliminate “this.”  Mr. Coon suggested in regard to “here” we could put stop bars, a stop sign at the edge.   Commissioner Ouellette questioned could those cars pull forward enough to actually see the conflicting cars?   Would you really know where the cars were coming from to your right?   Looking back that way; that’s way over your shoulder; that’s turning your head 180 degrees.   Mr. Coon suggested we can put a stop sign here as well; we can even make it a 3-way stop sign.   I think the traffic control will make that safe.   We can make it a 3-way stop, so everybody stops.

Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned how would someone turn into that 20’ exit only sign if they’re going north?   Commissioner Rodrigue felt Commissioner Ouellette was talking about them coming out and going north on Route 5, leaving that area and going left.   Commissioner Ouellette noted it’s a very wide driveway.  Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested to make it a sharper radius and narrow it to 15 they wouldn’t be able to make it.   Commissioner Ouellette suggested the type of lane they’re talking about is for small delivery trucks to use that driveway.  Vice Chairman Gowdy thought maybe a better suggestion would be to make it 15’ and a sharper radius.   Commissioner Ouellette suggested to eliminate it altogether; Commissioner Rodrigue concurred.   Commissioner Rodrigue felt the Commission’s original intent was to make a community going in and out one area; you’re going into a plaza and staying within that plaza.   Town Planner Whitten recalled the reason this came up was that they were concerned with having all the traffic coming in and out that one entrance, and trying to alleviate some of that congestion; that’s where this right hand turn came in.   Commissioner Saunders suggested that in the case of an emergency that extra exit would be beneficial.   Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested the Commission needs to keep in mind there is going to be something else – a strip mall or whatever – going in behind this, which will create more traffic, so we’re tying to dump all that traffic as well out of this one exit?   Vice Chairman Gowdy felt to eliminate “this” then you would be dumping everybody out of “here” and maybe aggravate some of the franchises “here” because their people can’t get out.   He suggested he liked “this” idea but make it 15’ and increase the radius so no one could be tempted.  

Commissioner Ouellette suggested his other concern is there is a long line of people waiting at the traffic light and you want to use that driveway to make a right, and you can’t.   There’s no place to move.   Now you have two cars sitting there, now you choke off that whole entire driveway because there’s not enough width.   Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned you’d be backed up where?   Commissioner Ouellette indicated the back up would be into the 3 tellers.   I’m suggesting adding just a little bit of blacktop; I’m not suggesting adding 20’ but something to give you an alternate to get by.  For those opportunities when you have to wait to make a right, because it’s much closer to the light.   Mr. Coon agreed it was an internal problem; if there was some backing up internally, is that a significant issue?   Commissioner Ouellette suggested getting back to his first point, that situation could be avoided if you get rid of the driveway.   Mr. Coon agreed.   Vice Chairman Gowdy noted he had a feeling, his limited shopping experience makes him feel if there is a retail in the back “this” would be a nice alternative – narrow it, could you make it 20’ in front of the bank so if they do get stacked up someone could get by?   Mr. Coon felt there was the possibility to make it wider there for a bypass.   But when they did do their traffic study it did demonstrate that this intersection was an issue; the gap study.   Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested Commissioner Ouellette was the expert and if he suggested eliminating that exit…….    Commissioner Ouellette indicated he was just pointing out the conflict points and that there is a way to mitigate them it has merit.

Vice Chairman Gowdy queried the Commission for additional questions.    Commissioner Matthews felt Commissioner Ouellette had brought up valid points.   Commissioner Rodrigue felt that one exit was only for the drive-thru so the traffic there is just going to be drive-thru traffic; the rest of the traffic is going to go out there anyway.   Commissioner Ouellette suggested it would be just drive-thru there if you want to go south.   Commissioner Rodrigue suggested that it would be 50% of the drive-thru traffic or whatever, and one is an ATM and two are tellers.   Vice Chairman Gowdy felt they’ve convinced him; do away with it.

Commissioner Ouellette questioned where would the additional retail on the site be placed?   Town Planner Whitten clarified that they have approved retail under the General Development Plan; it hasn’t been approved by Site Plan.  Mr. Coon indicated it’s up in the back, so they could come out “there” or there is the potential that they could come out at this spot.   Commissioner Ouellette questioned that it’s very likely that they would gravitate to this drive anyway?   Mr. Coon replied negatively, noting they’d have to go through the drive-thru to get there.   Town Planner Whitten suggested they don’t have to go through the drive-thru, they just have to go through the lane between the bank and….; Mr. Coon suggested they wouldn’t be able to get back to “this”.   On review Town Planner Whitten concurred.

Town Planner Whitten suggested she would rather see that lane kept there; if they could add the bypass and just widen it.   She felt there were enough gaps in that traffic where they will be able to go up; she felt it may back up a car or two internally for a little bit but she felt at the next gap they’ll be able to get through.   Commissioner Saunders questioned what happens if these people leave and someone else comes in with all office space?  It was noted a new Site Plan would be presented.   Attorney Fahey suggested it’s an interesting dilemma, he’s sure the bank would like to have that entrance for their drive-thru people to go out that way;  he doesn’t know if there is a way to save it and still satisfy the excellent points that were raised about the interior issues.   Commissioner Rodrigue noted a similarity to the entrances/exits for Walmart and Big Y; there is one there at that light that gets basically all your flow for that whole facility.    The other one goes out the other side and does take care of the cinema.   And we’re only using one area, and that doesn’t back up.   There is a light there, but the size isn’t that much greater.   I just don’t see it needed.   Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned if it were only going to be used by the people going through the drive-thru?

Commissioner Ouellette questioned what’s the overall objective of this drive?  Is it for the convenience of the development?   Is it to relieve pressure?   He felt the negatives far outweigh the positives; he sees bad things happening there.   Vice Chairman Gowdy felt Commissioner Ouellette was probably right; it’s a convenience for the bank people only.   Commissioner Ouellette noted they’ve heard testimony that the main site drive has adequate capacity to handle it.    Attorney Fahey noted the reasoning discussed at the last meeting was that there was concern that to get people going south out of the site it might help overall congestion; that was how we got the gap study.   At the first meeting there were concerns that DOT would ever allow another curb cut, so the idea of this was to minimize curb cuts and to be as far away from the intersection as possible, and what we came back with was they seemed receptive to a right turn only; absolutely not two ways.   Attorney Fahey questioned Mr. Coon if he were saying they could change the geometry of the right turn out and also the bypass lane itself?   Mr. Coon replied probably yes, we could make “this” isle wider by making “this” isle narrower and reducing the radius on this side so it’s more parallel with this one – it’s a sharper turn, that would help reduce the potential for the person going north by making “this” wider we would also allow for a car back up at the light and these people aren’t able to get out that there would be room for anyone to pass.    Attorney Fahey suggested it would allow people that are jammed up to not use the right turn only, to go out.   Commissioner Matthews questioned if you made that wider could you extend “this” island down so these cars are not able to turn into Taco Bell?   Mr. Coon believed they could do that as well.   Commissioner Ouellette noted people could see the conflicting cars there.   Mr. Coon suggested then they’d be coming from one row instead of two.    Attorney Fahey noted then you could eliminate a stop sign.   Commissioner Matthews noted plus they have to make a left turn.  

Vice Chairman Gowdy queried Commissioner Kehoe for his thoughts.   Commissioner Kehoe felt they were all good points; he agreed they should have an exit “here” and work on the geometry – Town Planner Whitten requested a clarification of “exit here”.   Commissioner Kehoe suggested the right turn for the bank.   Vice Chairman Gowdy questioned Commissioner Kehoe if he was in favor of making it wider in front of the bank and the office?    Commissioner Kehoe replied affirmatively, noting it was for the bypass for the cars if it stacks up there.   Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested making it 15’ with a little sharper radius to discourage those people who want to go north?   Commissioner Kehoe clarified it’s to direct traffic to the south, so they can’t go north.  

Vice Chairman Gowdy queried Commissioner Rodrigue what he thought?  Commissioner Rodrigue felt it should be eliminated.

Vice Chairman Gowdy queried Commissioner Saunders?  Commissioner Saunders felt they should try to save it.   Commissioner Matthews suggested they should make it narrow but make it more pronounced so cars clearly know they have to go south – but he would add one more sign.  You have a sign just before you enter the bypass that says “Exit to Route 5 South Only”, he would put one on the opposite corner so people will see it again.   Anybody turning in there who wants to make a left turn will be upset about it.   Then they have to go south and figure out how they’re going to make a u-turn. Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested it seemed to him if we could straighten “this” out so it’s perpendicular to the road in front of the bank that would take care of a lot of the sight problem Commissioner Ouellette had concerns about but it seems to him the right turn only is for the bank; no one else is going to use that except the people going to the bank.  Vice Chairman Gowdy noted, as Commissioner Ouellette pointed out, it’s creating other potential problems.   As much as he’d like to see it stay he thought he wanted it to go.   He thought you wouldn’t have to worry about expanding that area, you wouldn’t have to worry about it being stacked up because they’re backed up from the light, and you’re really not inconveniencing the people from the bank, they just have to go up a little bit further and go out.    Commissioner Kehoe suggested he was thinking about this place at lunch time, these two places are humming, there’s a lot of activity going on at the bank on a Thursday, everybody going away for Columbus Day weekend and they need to get in there – you’re going to have those opportunities where it’s going to be like that and it would be worthwhile to have that.   He’s thinking of the Berlin Turnpike, which is different than this, but they each have a way in and a way out and funnel them in two places to come in and out.   Here, we’ve only got one entrance in and out and it will just clog up in “this” area at certain times so to have “this” right turn exit only would be beneficial to the flow.    Attorney Fahey felt it was Commissioner Guiliano’s comment that he did lunch time banking and was concerned with interfering with the lunch time flow, which was one of the reasons he was for it.   Commissioner Saunders felt the Commission asked for this extra exit and discussed it at length and feels this is just following through with that now.  

Eric Spungen, of South Prospect Hill, LLC.:  wanted it to be clear that right hand return was a direct response to all the comments the Commissioners made to them and their concern was how to alleviate the traffic all in one spot.   Even though it’s more challenging for them and they have to seek more approvals they have to accomplish this.   He really believes that overall it does eliminate some of the traffic all in one spot, be it lunch time or dinner time or whenever it happens.   He thinks it’s a positive thing their experts put it in in response to your comments about having only one option to enter in and leave the site.

Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested, in reality, he felt the concern was to getting people in and out of there, but this in only for the people using the bank.   Attorney Fahey disagreed, noting not really because if they weren’t going out here they’d have to go out the main area where you’ve got the Wendy’s so to the extent that it causes more congestion it’s a convenience for everyone to the extent that you can move people off the site safely.   Mr. Spungen felt there’s nothing negative about making it more convenient for the bank; it does help the overall pattern.   Vice Chairman Gowdy clarified that it’s not that he’s against making it more convenient, but some of the problems, as Commissioner Ouellette pointed out, that it creates.   Mr. Spungen felt that if a person wants to take a left turn and do something stupid there’s not enough turns and signs and things in this world.   You go to the rental car place and they put up those spikes; it gets crazy.   If people want to do stupid things there are a million things.   Attorney Fahey suggested they can try to make it as inconvenient as possible.   Mr. Spungen suggested they can try to make the geometry, make it as difficult but I think in the long run it’s an overall positive thing for everyone and a safer and better situation.    Commissioner Saunders felt with the suggested changes of extending as Commissioner Matthews mentioned, bring the island down further and making it perpendicular and making it, widening it to 20’.  Mr. Spungen felt those are the kind of things we can accommodate you; those can be done.   Commissioner Saunders felt then as a town, we’d still have an extra access out of this site.   Mr. Spungen suggested that can be done.

Commissioner Ouellette indicated he’d be willing to live with a modified right out only driveway but the thing I don’t understand is if the intent is to relive pressure off the main drive then why not make it more convenient for many more customers to use that driveway?  Why does the bank have to have 3 drive-thru lanes?   Can you make it a general bypass lane for anybody?   Commissioner Saunders suggested especially for the ones that are working in the office.  Town Planner Whitten questioned if they could flip the whole plan?   Commissioner Ouellette suggested go to 2 lanes for the bank instead of 3.   Mr. Coon clarified he can’t flip the plan because of where the driver is (at the bank lanes).   Town Planner Whitten questioned if there was a separating distance between the entrances, right?  (Unidentified speaker) What we’re saying is have just one drive-thru window and then the other ATM.   Attorney Fahey suggested if you look at most of the banks going in now is they always have that; the reason is a lot of people do bank through a drive-thru only.   The ATM lane is for a different use.   Commissioner Ouellette questioned what about a little bit of width on the west side of the drive?   Not to create another lane but an opportunity to get around those cars stacked at the window.   Mr. Coon suggested there were environmental issues and the proximity of the State property line.   Attorney Fahey suggested they may be able to go up to the property line; Town Planner Whitten concurred they have that latitude with the HIFZ Zone.   Mr. Coon felt they may have grading issues with the State.   He suggested they only had about 8’, not enough for a bypass lane.   Commissioner Ouellette questioned the width of the outside lane was 10’?  He suggested 18’ would allow 2 cars to squeak by side by side.

Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested they have a consensus to keep the right only, make it 15’, make it a sharper angle so they’d be tempted not to go north going out, and maybe going to 20’ in front of the bank, extend the island down, take off that a little.   Commissioner Ouellette suggested maybe the dimensions don’t have to be so tight, just narrowing of the drive, widening of the bypass, etc.   Mr. Coon questioned that the changes were to be reviewed again; Vice Chairman Gowdy concurred.   

Commissioner Matthews questioned where you had suggested widening, if you look to the right of that, how would you transition that back to the 15’?   Mr. Coon referenced his plans, noting by probably widening it “here”; discussion followed on specifics.   Vice Chairman Gowdy noted to make it perpendicular as Commissioner Matthews had suggested.  

Town Planner Whitten suggested, if the Commission concurs, would be to take action on the (Re)Zone Change and the General Plan of Development, and table action on the Site Plan Approval pending the modifications.

Vice Chairman Gowdy queried the audience for comments on the Hearings:

Bill Loos, Melrose Road:  feels the road you’re talking about needs to come out there.   He felt if one of the bank lanes was being used people could still go round back here and still come out of the site; you’re not really stopping the bank from going out that way.   He’s seen people going through ATM lanes if no one is there; you’re not restricting it just to the ATM; it has more use.   I think it’s a good idea.

MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of South Prospect                        Hill Road, LLC for a  Zone Change from M-1 to HIFZ for property         located on Prospect Hill Road at I-91 interchange #44.  [Map 11, Block 14, Lot 15].  

Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/In Favor:  Unanimous

MOTION TO APPROVE  the Application of South Prospect Hill Road, LLC for a Zone change from M-1 to HIFZ for property located on Prospect Hill Road at I-91 interchange #44 (Map 11, Block 15, Lot15).

Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/In Favor:  Unanimous

MOTION TO APPROVE the application of Rockville Bank, and owner South Prospect Hill Road, LLC for a Special Permit for a modification to a previously approved General Development Plan for premises located at 39-43 Prospect Hill Road, Zoned HIFZ
        (Assessors Map 11, Block 14, Lot  14 & 15 )
                
These approvals are granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be                         modified by the Commission) and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans
Cover Sheet –  Sheet 1 of 10 - Location Map – prepared for Rockville Bank, 1165 Ellington Road, South Windsor, CT 06074, 860/291-3619 prepared by  J.R. Russo & Associates, 1 Shoham Road, East Windsor, CT 06088... Dated 9/22/06

Including sheets:

Sheet 2/10      Zone Change  
Sheet 3/10      Key Map
Sheet 4/10      General Development Plan
Sheet 5/10      Layout Plan
Sheet 6/10      Grading and Utility Plan
Sheet 7/10      Landscape Plan
Sheet 8/10      Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Notes
Sheet 9/10      Detail Sheet
Sheet 10/10     Detail Sheet
Sheet A-1       Floor Plan and Elevations
Conditions of Approval

A.      Conditions that must be met prior to signing of mylars
1.      The applicant shall submit a paper copy of the final approved plans to the Town Planner for review and comment prior to the submission of the final mylars.
2.      All mylars submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for preparation of the plans.
3.      The final mylars shall contain the street numbers assigned by the East Windsor Assessor’s Departments and the Map, Block and Lot numbers assigned by the Assessor's Office.
4.      The 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.
B.      General conditions of approval
5.      Two sets of final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission.  One set of signed mylars, shall be filed with the town clerk by the applicant, no later than 90 days from publication of decision or this approval shall be considered null and void unless an extension is granted by the Commission.  One set, sheet 2 of 2 shall be filed in the Planning and Zoning Department.
6.      The approval of this special permit and General Development Plan shall not be interpreted as an approval for site development and/or construction. An approved site plan, by the Commission, shall be required before either site may be developed. The approved General Development Plan is a concept plan and shall not be binding on the Commission for a future site plan application.
7.      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.

Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/In Favor:  Unanimous

With regard to the Site Plan for Rockville Bank Commissioner Rodrigue questioned if his notation of only one fire hydrant to service the whole location was correct?   Mr. Coon
suggested now there are fire hydrants across the street, one to the south and one to the north of the site, and at the time the site is fully developed in we’ll be putting a hydrant back “there”.  Commissioner Ouellette questioned the 2:1 slope on the west property edge, that’s bark/mulch; it’s obviously too steep to maintain vegetation.   Mr. Coon replied negatively, noting they are proposing a ground cover in that location which will stabilize that area.  Commissioner Ouellette noted he was all set; he was concerned with visibility.

MOTION: To TABLE the Application of Rockville Bank – Site Plan Approval for construction of 4,500 square foot bank with drive-thru at 39 Prospect Hill Road, owned by South Prospect Hill Road, LLC.  [Map      11, Block 14, Lots 14 & 15] until the Commission’s regularly scheduled Meeting on October 24, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/In Favor:  Unanimous

MOTION: TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/In Favor:  Unanimous

NEW HEARING:  The Bank of Western Mass.  – Special Use Permit for Modification to General Development Plan, to eliminate hotel and add a bank at 49 Prospect Hill Road, owned by 53 Prospect Hill Road, LLC [HIFZ Zone; Map 12, Block 13, Lots 11, 12, & 13]  (Deadline to close hearing 11/14/06): AND, NEW BUSINESS:  The Bank of Western Mass. – Site Plan Approval for construction of a 4,500 square foot bank with drive-thru at 49 Prospect Hill Road, owned by 53 Prospect Hill Road, LLC.  [HIFZ Zone; Map 12, Block 13, Lot 13]  (Deadline for decision 11/30/06):

Vice Chairman Gowdy read the Hearing description.   Appearing to discuss this Application was Tim Coon, of J. R. Russo & Associates, representing the Bank of Western Massachusetts; Dan Russell, of Russell and Dawson, Architects; Tim Crimson, with the Bank of Western Massachusetts; and Joseph and Joel ____________________, the owners of 53 Prospect Hill Road, LLC.  

Mr. Coon noted this Application is in two parts, a Public Hearing for a revision of the General Plan of Development (GPD), and a Site Plan Approval; he would like to make his presentation in the same way by presenting information for the two Applications together.  Vice Chairman Gowdy concurred on the Commission’s behalf.   As in the previous Applications, the Minutes reflect both Applications above.

Mr. Coon noted the location of the site at 49 and 53 Prospect Hill Road, the current location of La Renaissance on the west side of Route 5 just north of Wendy’s; there is also a flower shop up “here” on Route 5.   Mr. Coon noted this was previously rezoned as HIFZ a couple of years ago when they came in with a proposal for the first General Development Plan for a Wingate Inn in “this” location; that deal has since fell through.   Mr. Coon noted he appeared at the previous meeting to discuss possible future potential hotels.   The owners negotiated with the Bank of Western Massachusetts to utilize “this” space; there is the future hotel “here” which will come in at a future date under a separate application.  Therefore, the revision to the GDP is to wipe the slate clean and go back to the existing plan, and add the bank.  The Wingate is gone; we have the bank now; in the future we’ll get the other hotel.  

Mr. Coon indicated the bank proposal includes a 4,500 square foot building with drive-thru; it will utilize the existing curb cut to the north and on the high side of the site.  We are proposing 30 parking spaces which is adequate for the parking requirements; in addition it will have 12 stacking spaces which will be shown on the final plans.  There will be a screened dumpster at the rear of the parcel.   We have an issue with the slope on the south side; it’s a 3:1 on the upper corner at the back.   We will put in a guard rail and make it a 2:1 slope and stabilize with shrubs.   The site will be serviced by public water and sewer.   Mr. Coon noted prior receipt of letters from the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) and the Connecticut Water Company stating there was adequate service for the hotel.   Mr. Coon suggested if there was service for the hotel there is adequate capacity to service the bank.

Mr. Coon reported the on-site drainage from the site will be collected and discharged via easements into the existing detention basin down behind Wendy’s.   That basin was designed for full build-out of this parcel owned by Prospect Hill Road, LLC; therefore the basin has adequate capacity for this.  They will be adding a stormwater treatment unit to assist in treatment of discharge.  

Mr. Coon indicated they are proposing 15’ high poles for site lighting with full cut-off lights to prevent trespass of light off the property; details have been provided.   

With regard to signs, they are proposing 3 fixture mounted signs: 1) a sign on the east elevation side facing Route 5 with their symbol on west and rear,  2) a smaller sign with smaller lettering and symbol on the north elevation facing up Route 5, and 3) a pylon sign along Route 5 (details to be finalized but the sign will be a maximum of 15’ high and 32’ square foot maximum area which is consistent with the approvals down the street).  Mr. Coon indicated there was mention of a highrise in Town Planner Whitten’s memo but no highrise sign is proposed at this time.  

Mr. Coon suggested they did an analysis of the sight distance from the site entrance; there will be minor grading required in the right of way coming up the hill.  

Mr. Coon noted receipt of Town Engineer Norton’s memo’s this afternoon; his comments include:
        1)      “……that the detention basin calculations be run with the actual site development plan as was done with Rockville Bank Submission.”  Mr. Coon suggested the original detention basin was designed was based on not a site design but a 65% full build-out of this parcel.   They assumed there would be 65% impervious area going into the detention basin when it was designed.  He felt Len was asking them to look at it again based on       what’s actually being proposed, not the full 65% but the actual impervious      coverage which is 47%.   Since the 47% is less than the 65% they don’t perceive any problems with capacity of the detention basin.                                                                                                                        

2)      “The site is tucked between the La Renaissance and Wendy’s.  Snow removal may be a problem.  I recommend a snow removal plan be presented that will not impact the adjoining properties with snow melt and icing problems.”  Mr. Coon suggested this site will have islands along the west and north with 10’ to the property line; that area will be used for snow storage.   “This” one does pitch down toward the adjacent property, but there is a curb in the parking lot and there are catch basins; Mr. Coon doesn’t anticipate that snow melt will create any icing problems.   Other areas that can be used for storage are on the southwest corner of the site, and the east corner of the property; anything else will flow down an existing swale between the curb and the property to prevent any snow melt from running into the abutting Wendy’s parking lot.   Mr. Coon also suggested if the snow load gets so much they couldn’t deal with it on site they would have to bring in a loader to remove it.  

        3)      “….. that the design for the outlet protection be submitted.”  Mr. Coon                         reported they will submit same.

        4)      “…….that a detail be added for the core and boot connection to the existing sanitary manhole.”  Mr. Coon indicated that detail will be added to the final plans.

        5)      “A Connecticut D.O.T. Permit is needed for the road cut and curb cut                    modification.”   Mr. Coon indicated that application will be submitted prior to construction.

        6)      “…..that all catch basins have a 4’ deep sump.”  Mr. Coon indicated that                        modification will be made to the plans.

        7)      “…..that a maintenance schedule be provided for the storm drainage                      system components.”  Mr. Coon suggested that maintenance schedule will be added to the plans as well.

Speaking from the audience, Bill Loos queried if this was a Public Hearing as he had comments.   Vice Chairman Gowdy acknowledged Mr. Loos, of Melrose Road, before querying the Commission for comments about the presentation.   Mr. Loos noted the property had been a large slope and whenever the site experienced heavy rains it ran into the adjacent property, and the drains never took that run off; will you put anything on that slope to stop that?  Is “that” this property or Wendy’s?   Mr. Coon suggested the slope is actually on this property and the swale at the bottom was designed to take any run off from this area to the detention basin to the back.   Mr. Coon indicated he didn’t know what period Mr. Loos was talking about; if this slope is stabilized with vegetation – and Mr. Coon admitted that when they first did this the vegetation is sparse.   Mr. Loos suggested that even now, in a heavy rain, it’s running down that bank.   Mr. Coon suggested the water will run down the bank.   Mr. Loos concurred, but suggested then it ran into the parking lot.   Mr. Coon suggested that by developing “up here” and putting in a curb it would intercept the majority of the run off  that used to run down that slope; it will proactively run out to the back.   

Vice Chairman Gowdy requested clarification that the slope was being changed from a 3:1 to 2:1 slope?   Mr. Coon suggested what’s being proposed is – they didn’t change that.  They are proposing, in order to do the grading off the end of “this” there is a small area “here” where they are proposing a 2:1 slope.  Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested then it will be like a terrace.   Mr. Coon concurred, noting it will be a little steep and then go back and blend in to the 3:1 slope and be stabilized with bark mulch and short vegetation.  Matthews – so it will be 2:1 and then something in excess of 3:1?  Coon – 2:1 is actually steep; it will be steeper at 2:1 and then flatten back out.  Commissioner Saunders suggested the current vegetation is unsightly – almost like weeds; is there anyway it could be sod or something to look nice.  It really is an eyesore.   Mr. Coon suggested that with regard to maintenance of that slope he would have to refer that question to Mr. Crimson.   Commissioner Saunders suggested that especially for the bank, the reputation of the bank, and the site; you ought to do something with that slope so it would look a little better.   Mr. Coon suggested the question is, how to remain neat.   He questioned if the Commissioner were familiar with the slope now, it’s overgrown brush.   Commissioner Kehoe suggested spreading yews.   Mr. Coon suggested “up here” there will be some landscaped shrubs but on the slopes we haven’t proposed any particular planting in that area.  Conflicting discussions occurred; Vice Chairman Gowdy requested Mr. Coon answer questions specifically, and separately,  Mr. Coon suggested the answer to the question is it is their intent to maintain that as a landscaped area, whether as lawn or vegetation.    Commissioner Saunders noted they were showing some shrubs; Mr. Coon concurred, noting that was at the top.   Commissioner Saunders indicated he was referring to the slope as unsightly.   Mr. Coon concurred, noting he felt it was their intent; they want that to look nice.  Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested the Commission will add as a condition of approval that the slope will be maintained.  

Town Planner Whitten suggested the approval motions contains that condition already – “all landscaping shall be maintained.”  Vice Chairman Gowdy suggested when he reads that condition to him it applies to landscaping around the building; he would like to have it specifically stated that the whole east/west slope be maintained adequately.   Town Planner Whitten suggested adding the following verbiage to the condition -  “inclusive of east/slope between bank and Wendy’s property”.  Vice Chairman Gowdy concurred.  

Commissioner Kehoe questioned if the grading within the right-of-way included cutting?   Mr. Coon concurred.   Commissioner Kehoe questioned if it included the area to the north, and how much would it be cut?   Mr. Coon indicated it would be cut 2’; the first 2 trees will be removed and replaced with 2 new trees.   Commissioner Kehoe questioned if that were town, or State property?   Mr. Coon indicated it was State property.   Commissioner Ouellette suggested the State wouldn’t allow a tree greater than 3” caliper full grown in the clear zone; this road measures 20’ to the end of road.  

Commissioner Ouellette suggested he had a few minor comments.   Sheet 4 of 11, stripping on the driveway, it makes reference to a “white lane line”, normally when you separate vehicles in two separate directions it should be a double yellow line.  Mr. Coon concurred.  Commissioner Ouellette clarified that they propose to use the existing driveway?   Mr. Coon concurred.   Commissioner Ouellette suggested the catch basin on that radius goes to that corner, he suggested it’s kind of right out in the middle of the road.  Is there any intention of extending it and pushing it back out to the radius?   Mr. Coon felt that would be the State’s call.   Commissioner Ouellette suggested that’s an area where you have a lot of people accelerating, etc; you have a potential for a lot for sliding on grates.   

Commissioner Ouellette suggested the introduction of a curb cut is a much more involved process for the State; it’s not just a encroachment permit, it’s an STC Permit.   This was one parcel of land, you’re breaking it out, the existing piece is over 200 parking spaces.  You went through the STC process for the hotel, but this piece alone is going to trigger the STC process again.   In order for you to get your Building Permit you need to get your STC Permit.   Mr. Coon suggested “this” is a piece by itself; it’s not part of the other pieces.   Commissioner Ouellette suggested it didn’t make any difference, it was part of the piece that was originally certified by the State Traffic Commission.   Commissioner Ouellette questioned if “this” was the original property line?  (Tape didn’t pick up answers).

Vice Chairman Gowdy queried the Commissioners for additional comments; none were presented.   

Vice Chairman Gowdy then queried the audience for comments; no one requested to speak.

MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of The Bank of Western Mass.  – Special Use Permit for Modification to General Development Plan, to eliminate hotel and add a bank at 49 Prospect Hill Road, owned by 53 Prospect Hill Road, LLC [HIFZ Zone; Map 12, Block 13, Lots 11, 12, & 13].

Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/In Favor:  Unanimous

MOTION TO APPROVE Application of The Bank of Western Massachusetts, and owner 53 Prospect Hill Road, LLC requesting a  Special Permit for Modification to the General Development Plan for property located at 49 & 53 Prospect Hill Road,  East Windsor, CT. Assessor Map 12, Block 13, Lot 11,12 & 13.  
                This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as                   may be modified by the Commission) and the following conditions:

Referenced Plans
Cover Sheet – “Location Map – The Bank of Western Massachusetts, 49 Prospect Hill Road, East Windsor CT, prepared for the Bank of Western Massachusetts, P.O. Box 4950, Springfield, MA 01101-4950 , 413/735-6700, prepared by J.R. Russo & Associates, 1 Shoham Road, East Windsor, CT 06088. Scale 1” = 800’. Dated 9/22/06
Including Sheets:
2/11            Key Map, 1” = 100’
3/11            Reconfiguration Plan, 1” = 40’
4/11            General Development Plan
5/11            Layout Plan
6/11            Grading and Utility Plan
7/11            Landscape Plan
8/11            Sightline Plan & Profile
9/11            Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Notes
10/11   Details
11/11   Details
A-1             Floor Plan & Elevations
Conditions of Approval

A.      Conditions that must be met prior to signing of mylars
1.      The applicant shall submit a paper copy of the final approved plans to the Town Planner for review and comment prior to the submission of the final mylars.
2.       All mylars submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for preparation of the plans.
3.      The final mylars shall contain the street numbers assigned by the East Windsor Assessor’s Departments and the Map, Block and Lot numbers assigned by the Assessor's Office.
4.      The 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.

B.      General conditions of approval
5.      Two sets of final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission.  One set of signed mylars, shall be filed with the town clerk by the applicant, no later than 90 days from publication of decision or this approval shall be considered null and void unless an extension is granted by the Commission.  One set, sheet 2 of 2 shall be filed in the Planning and Zoning Department.
6.      The approval of this special permit and General Development Plan shall not be interpreted as an approval for site development and/or construction. An approved site plan, by the Commission, shall be required before either site may be developed. The approved General Development Plan is a concept plan and shall not be binding on the Commission for a future site plan application.
7.      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.

Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/In Favor:  Unanimous


NEW BUSINESS:  The Bank of Western Mass. – Site Plan Approval for construction of a 4,500 square foot bank with drive-thru at 49 Prospect Hill Road, owned by 53 Prospect Hill Road, LLC.  [HIFZ Zone; Map 12, Block 13, Lot 13]  (Deadline for decision 11/30/06):

MOTION TO APPROVE Application of The Bank of Western Massachusetts and owner 53 Prospect Hill Road, LLC requesting a site plan approval for a the construction of a 4500 sq. ft. bank with a drive through,  and associated improvements at property located at 49 Prospect Hill Road, Assessor Map 12, Block 13, Lot 13.  This approval is granted subject to
        conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Conditions)
Referenced Plans
Cover Sheet – “Location Map – The Bank of Western Massachusetts, 49 Prospect Hill Road, East Windsor CT, prepared for the Bank of Western Massachusetts, P.O. Box 4950, Springfield, MA 01101-4950 , 413/735-6700, prepared by J.R. Russo & Associates, 1 Shoham Road, East Windsor, CT 06088. Scale 1” = 800’. Dated 9/22/06
Including Sheets:
2/11    Key Map, 1” = 100’
3/11    Reconfiguration Plan, 1” = 40’
4/11    General Development Plan
5/11    Layout Plan
6/11    Grading and Utility Plan
7/11    Landscape Plan
8/11    Sightline Plan & Profile
9/11    Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Notes
10/11   Details
11/11   Details
A-1             Floor Plan & Elevations

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

8.      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.

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

10.     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:

11.     One set of final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the Commission.  
12.     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.

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

Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:

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

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

16.     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:

17.     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.

18.     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.

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

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

21.     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.

(Condition modification):

15.    All landscaping shall be maintained, inclusive of east/west slope between bank and Wendy’s property.

Saunders moved/Ouellette seconded/In Favor:  Unanimous

BUSINESS MEETING/(1)  Correspondence:

Vice Chairman Gowdy noted receipt of invitation to personal guided tour of Southern Auto Auction on October 18th, which is an auction day, on 11 a.m.  Town Planner Whitten noted they realize that many of the Commissioners work during the day, but that’s when you really need to see the operation.  Due to conflict of Commissioner’s scheduled Town Planner Whitten was requested to review options for dates with SAA.

BUSINESS MEETING/(2)  Staff Reports:    None.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:  September 26, 2006:

MOTION: To APPROVE the Minutes of Public Hearing #1491 dated September 26, 2006 as written.

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

SIGNING OF MYLARS/PLANS:

ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 9:40 p. m.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Peg Hoffman, Recording Secretary, Planning and Zoning Commission