TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Public Hearing #1502
March 13, 2007
****** Draft Document – Subject to Commission Approval *****
The Meeting was called to order in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT. at 7:04 P. M. by Chairman Ouellette.
ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:
A quorum was established as three Regular Members (Guiliano, Menard, and Ouellette) and one Alternate Member (Matthews) were present. Regular Members Gowdy and Saunders and Alternate Members Farmer and Tyler were absent. Chairman 0ullette noted Alternate Member Matthews would sit in on all Items of Business this evening. Also present was Town Planner Whitten, and Ex-Officio Member/First Selectman Filipone.
ADDED AGENDA ITEMS: None.
RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS:
Chairman Ouellette acknowledged receipt of the following Application:
1. Application of Southern Auto Sales, Inc. for a Special Use Permit/Excavation – to import approximately 10,700 cubic yards with material to construct a 1,270’ landscaped berm, 7’ high on property located on the south side of Phelps Road. [A-1 Zone; Map 34, Block 21, Lot 12].
The following Legal Notice, which appeared in the Journal Inquirer on Friday, March 2, 2007, and Friday, March 9, 2007, was read by Commissioner Menard:
1) Application of Four Fathers, Inc. for a Text Amendment to Section 9 Industrial Districts, to allow Day Care Facilities by Special Use Permit in M-1 and M-2 Zones.
2) Application of F & G, LLC for a Text Amendment to Section 9A. 5 Minimum Standards for Volume Reduction Facilities and Section 4.1.71, Volume Reduction Facility (definition).
3) Application of David Monaco for a Special Use Permit to allow construction of 11 residential units below the first story of retail commercial building located at 112 Main Street, Broad Brook. [B-1 Zone; Map 28, Block 5, Lot 4].
NEW HEARING – Four Fathers, Inc. – Text Amendment to Section 9 Industrial Districts, to allow Day Care Facilities by Special Use Permit in M-1 and M-2 Zones. (Deadline to close hearing 4/17/07):
Chairman Ouellette read the Hearing description. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Thomas Fahey, of 487 Spring Street, Windsor Locks, representing the Applicants – Four Fathers; Mick Chechette and Mike Fioretti, two of the applicants, were present also.
Discussion occurred initially regarding the number of members necessary to vote with regard to a text amendment. Chairman Ouellette noted there were only four Commissioner members present this evening, which would require unanimous approval. Town Planner Whitten felt the recent change was made with regard to the new regulations, which have not been adopted yet.
Attorney Fahey noted the proposed text amendment would be global in that it would allow day care facilities in all industrial zones by Special Use Permit. The appropriateness of such facilities could be reviewed by the Commission on a case by case basis.
Attorney Fahey suggested that for the Applicants the day care facility would be operating during the day, when no other activities, such as soccer games, etc., would be going on . The day care facility would run until approximately 4:00 p.m., and would be licensed by the State. It would be another source of revenue for the Applicants. Attorney Fahey noted there has been some concerns raised with regard to parking problems, but that wouldn’t be a concern during the day. The Commission would review the health, safety, and welfare issues when the Applicants return with the Special Use Permit Application.
Commissioner Guiliano noted the Applicants had come before the Commission in the past with a text amendment for the use of alcohol on the premises; he questioned the status of that proposal relative to this Application? Mr. Fioretti indicated the sale of alcohol had been abandoned.
Discussion followed regarding the significance of this proposal as a permitted use for all industrial zones. Town Planner Whitten noted the use would be allowed by Special Permit only and would be reviewed on a case by case basis. The Commission would have to look at the locations of proposals to consider the safety for children with regard to traffic nearby. She noted that times have changed; now many companies with a significant number of employees offer on-site day care facilities. Mr. Fioretti suggested the day care facility would run exclusively from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 or 4:30 p.m.; the remainder of the facility would be shut down There would be no soccer games etc. running during the same time . He noted that during the Summer they also run a
Summer Camp; anyone enrolled in the day care facility would be automatically enrolled in the Summer Camp at no extra cost. Discussion continued regarding the criteria required under Special Use Permits, the Commission’s ability to control factors of the use, and the State’s requirements relative to this use.
Chairman Ouellette opened discussion to the audience:
Bill Loos, Melrose Road: objected to the proposed text amendment; he didn’t feel a day care facility should be allowed in any industrial zone as you have people coming into those zones all day long. The regulations should stay as they are. It’s too hazardous with the trucks coming in and out and people dropping off their kids. He didn’t think they go together.
Chairman Ouellette cited the Commission’s review of criteria at the Special Use Application level.
Cathy Pippin: agreed with Mr. Loos; she’s worried about the kids in an industrial park. There are so many things going on these days.
Commissioner Guiliano suggested that in general, as Town Planner Whitten suggested, many towns allow day care facilities in industrial zones. He referenced Day Hill Road in Windsor which is a 4 lane highway as a location of several companies with day care facilities. Commissioner Menard concurred, noting there are 2 day care facilities in Cigna and perhaps several in Bloomfield.
Attorney Fahey clarified that the proposal is for an accessory use; an applicant couldn’t come in for a building operating as a day care facility only in an industrial zone. Chairman Ouellette cited the ability to operate day care facilities in TZ-5 zones as well as other commercial zones which have as much vehicle traffic and might be considered as dangerous. Commissioner Guiliano concurred an applicant could operate a day care facility on Route 5, which he felt was more dangerous than Newberry Road. Town Planner Whitten felt that in appropriate locations this proposal is a good use, and it is proposed as an accessory use under a Special Use Permit.
Chairman Ouellette queried the audience for further comments; no one requested to speak further.
MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of Four Fathers, Inc. for a Text Amendment to Section 9 Industrial Districts, to allow Day Care Facilities by Special Use Permit in M-1 and M-2 Zones.
Menard moved/Matthews seconded/In Favor: Unanimous
MOTION: To APPROVE the Application of Four Fathers, Inc. for a Text Amendment to Section 9 Industrial Districts, to allow Day Care Facilities by Special Use Permit in M-1 and M-2 Zones.
Menard moved/Matthews seconded/In Favor: Unanimous
(Reasons for vote are stated on the Record)
NEW HEARING: F & G, LLC – Text Amendment to Section 9A.5 Minimum Standards for Volume Reduction Facilities and Section 4.1.71, Volume Reduction Facility (definition). (Deadline to close hearing 4/17/07):
Chairman Ouellette read the Hearing description. Appearing to discuss this proposal was Attorney T. Mark Barbieri. Attorney Barbieri suggested that based on the discussion with regard to the voting requirements he would like to request to continue this hearing until the March 27th Meeting.
MOTION: To CONTINUE the Public Hearing on the Application of F & G, LLC for a Text Amendment to Section 9A.5 Minimum Standards for Volume Reduction Facilities and Section 4.1.71, Volume Reduction Facility (definition) until the Commission’s next regularly scheduled Meeting on March 27, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
Guiliano moved/Menard seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
NEW HEARING: David Monaco – Special Use Permit to allow construction of 11 residential units below the first story of retail commercial building located at 112 Main Street, Broad Brook. [B-1 Zone; Map 28, Block 5, Lot 4]. (Deadline to close hearing 4/17/07):
Chairman Ouellette read the Hearing description. Appearing to discuss this Application was Attorney Thomas Fahey representing the Applicant; the Applicant, David Monaco; Scott Poryandi, of Connecticut Consulting Engineering, Meriden, CT.
Attorney Fahey noted the Applicant had previously obtained a text amendment to allow residential dwellings below retail facilities with appropriate site topography in certain commercial zones. He further noted the street façade for these properties would not be changed. Attorney Fahey indicated they are proposing this use for 112 Main Street, Broad Brook, which is a relatively densely populated area.
Mr. Poryandi described the property as containing 2 existing buildings, a smaller one which is the location of a doctor’s office containing 3,800 square feet, and the larger building containing 16,600 square feet within 2 stories for which they are proposing the 11 residential units. The units will be serviced by city water and sewer which serve the building already. The only change on the outside would be a heavily landscaped area in front of the units, and a barbecue area to the side.
Mr. Poryandi referenced the following: 1) a rendering of the apartment façades showing parking in front of each unit; 2) an architectural plan showing the unit layout, which includes a living/bedroom, kitchen, walk-in closet, and bathroom within 750 square feet. Commissioner Matthews questioned the depth of the living area? Mr. Monaco noted each unit will be approximately 50’ x 17 ½ ‘. He indicated there will be an on-site superintendent, whose apartment would also contain a mechanical room for access to the sprinkler system, etc. The typical tenant for these types of units are single or married people who are on the go, yet the rent is affordable. Chairman Ouellette questioned if all the units would be the same size? Mr. Monaco replied
affirmatively, all would be the 750 square feet, with the exception of the superintendent’s apartment, which may be 620 square feet without counting the area of the mechanical room.
Commissioners Matthews suggested apartments should have two means of egress. Mr. Monaco replied that he is proposing studio apartments with egress in front. The building is fully sprinklered with 4 different zones; there are suspended ceilings between the floors. Mr. Monaco suggested the units as proposed meets with the requirements of the Fire Marshal. Commissioner Matthews questioned if a tenant would be allowed to put in partitions? Mr. Monaco replied negatively, noting the units are designed for couples and are something along the lines of those at the Marriott.
Chairman Ouellette questioned if the only access to the mechanical room would be through the area of the superintendent’s apartment? Mr. Monaco replied affirmatively, although he noted there is another set of stairs into the deli which he could leave open if the Commission preferred. Mr. Monaco described the ceilings as being acoustical tile with a minimum of 4” of insulation on top and 5/8” of sheetrock for sound insulation. The sprinklers are built into the truss system. Discussion followed regarding the reduction in square footage due to the location of the mechanical room in the superintendent’s apartment as it relates to minimum regulation requirements.
Chairman Ouellette questioned where the parking would be for the proposed units? Mr. Poryandi noted they are proposing 19 parallel spaces in the rear; they will install “Do not Enter” signs at the side accessway as the spaces are for residents only. The side access is wide enough for two way access so the dumpster and be accessed. Commissioner Matthews questioned the number of parking spaces required? Town Planner Whitten suggested 2 spaces per unit. Commissioner Matthews questioned if the handicapped parking space requirement is handled by the Building Department? Mr. Poryandi noted they have handicapped spaces in front of the building; Mr. Monaco suggested they could also designate one handicapped parking space in the rear. Town Planner Whitten
indicated that for 1 – 25 parking spaces one must be available as a handicapped space.
Chairman Ouellette questioned the amount of landscaping being proposed? Town Planner Whitten suggested they are proposing some in front of each unit, but the landscaping could be enhanced in the rear.
Commissioner Guiliano questioned if Mr. Monaco had had any interest in apartments? Mr. Monaco replied affirmatively, noting the cost of the units will be affordable to allow a wide variety of people. Each unit will have individual heating and cooling systems. Attorney Fahey noted a developer did a similar project in Windsor Locks during another economic downturn; he has never had a vacancy and he doesn’t advertise the units – they fill by word of mouth. The tenants are mostly singles or seniors. Chairman Ouellette questioned if under a Special Use Permit the Applicant no longer wanted apartments, would he have the ability to re-establish the units as commercial space? Attorney Fahey felt that a change of use would require a return to this Commission for
permission. Town Planner Whitten suggested the commercial use is a permitted use; she felt there would be more concern if they wanted to make some units commercial again, or combine units. Mr. Monaco suggested he wants to make the area like a little hamlet. He indicated he is very good at what he does; he will use top notch materials.
Commissioner Matthews suggested they are looking at 12 units on 12.93 acres; why didn’t this Application come in under Section 8.A -1 – Multi-Family Housing? Town Planner Whitten suggested that section is specifically for new housing units, this is geared towards infill/mixed use. They would have to return for a modification in the number of units. Commissioner Guiliano suggested this proposal is basically the same set up as Pasco Commons – people live over the commercial units in that complex. That development isn’t considered multi-family; it’s under a business district.
Commissioner Matthews suggested there is no space between units/tenants, you come out the door beside someone you may or may not like. Chairman Ouellette/Commissioner Guiliano suggested people choose to live at a location; Commissioner Guiliano suggested not everyone can own their own home. Commissioner Matthews suggested he didn’t want to see an increased demand on the Police Department.
Commissioner Matthews then suggested the subject location is next to a contaminated superfund site previously owned by United Technologies. He suggested he understands the soils are contaminated and not capped; he felt the particles of soil could be picked up on a windy day and travel to this site. Commissioner Guiliano queried that it would be ok for commercial units but not for residential? Commissioner Matthews felt there would be exposure over time; he is concerned for the risk to the Town allowing this residential use adjacent to a superfund site which will have caused an ailment. Commissioner Matthews suggested he knows they have been drilling in the parking lot and he doesn’t know the results; he felt the EPA should be contacted. Chairman Ouellette queried if there
were an imaginary 20’ berm or wall adjacent to the property would Commissioner Matthews have the same concerns? Commissioner Matthews suggested he didn’t know. Attorney Fahey suggested it was interesting to him, if the standard was going to be airborne particulars on a windy day the wind doesn’t blow the same way all the time; if that were the concern it would be for all the people on Main Street. He cited this site has public water and sewer and there is not a question of contaminants getting into those services. Attorney Fahey suggested it sounded like a speculative reason to stymie development; he suggested a bank wouldn’t lend money to the Applicant if people will die coming to this site. Mr. Poryandi felt it didn’t pertain to this site which already contains a building and significant pavement. It’s an encapsulated site which is loamed and seeded and is stabilized; there are no exposed dirt
piles on the adjacent site. Attorney Fahey suggested undeveloped farmland is exempted and many farms have dusty and dirty roads. Commissioner Matthews felt with a superfund site the levels of pollution may be higher. Mr. Monaco indicated he has met with people from Hamilton Standard and United Technologies; they have assured him the contamination is under ground; it isn’t at ground level. The site is monitored on a monthly basis for State standards and is getting better and better.
Chairman Ouellette queried the audience for comments:
Bill Loos, Melrose Road: felt the back of the subject site is the same as the superfund site; there isn’t a line separating them. Hamilton Standard said the mill property couldn’t be used for residences but the Town Hall could have been located there. He felt the soils should be tested
Also, with regard to the mechanical building, there should be a door on the outside of the property. If a fire was in the front of the building fire department personnel would have to go through the fire to get to it. Chairman Ouellette suggested the Commission agrees but that’s a Building issue.
Cathy Pippin: agreed with Mr. Loos, and cited concern for fire fighters.
Steve Dearborn: suggested he has lived in town and as a kid he fished and swam in the brook and he hasn’t heard of anyone dying from the pollution on that property. They didn’t want people living on the superfund site but Mr. Monaco’s property isn’t the superfund site. He knows they did test holes at the property line. As far as dust blowing across the property, that’s far fetched.
Jim Richards, Executive Director, East Windsor Chamber of Commerce: cited the Chamber looks favorably on any development in Broad Brook center, he cited many businesses are getting growth spurts – the Opera House and Elaine’s Pizza. Mr. Richards indicated he understands the environmental concerns; when that property was looked at for a Town Hall there was much information about the site.
Mr. Richards cited Pasco Commons does not make any more demands on the Police services than any other property. He doesn’t feel this is a bad idea.
Pete DeCello: has done other projects for Mr. Monaco, when Mr. Monaco does something he puts his heart into it. Broad Brook could use this project in the center, he cited the Martini Grill which was done first class; he will do this project the same.
Commissioner Guiliano cited concerns raised by the Board and the audience regarding what liability might exist for the Town and the owner regarding residential units adjacent to the Mill site; he requested if Town Planner Whitten could contact DEP for more information. Chairman Ouellette agreed, noting he supports the concept presented for this Application. Commissioner Menard agreed as well, noting she also would like to see this use in this area. Commissioner Matthews suggested he wanted to feel there was no risk; he noted the commercial property has been there for a long time and has been operating somewhat successfully.
Attorney Fahey noted he found a note in the Application file that Specialty Pool left the property because there was not suitable drinking water; he submitted the following 2 letters from Specialty Printing: 1) indicating they had no problems with the building or David Monaco and only vacated the property because they needed more space for a warehouse; and 2) indicating they had no problems with the incoming water. A third letter was submitted as well; it was from Chris Corso, owner of Martini Grill, indicating he had no problems with the site or Mr. Monaco. Chairman Ouellette questioned if the DPUC indicated there was sufficient capacity for this proposal? Mr. Monaco noted he has spoken with Kevin Leslie prior to acquiring Building Permits and he is in favor of the project.
Bill Loos, Melrose Road: indicated he liked the building and is glad someone wants to do something with the town but these apartments are no different than Kement's (n/k/a Broad Brook Apartments). It’s similar square footage and are also studio apartments with no walls between the front and back but there are kids living there. He sees nothing wrong with the building but he doesn’t want to see the Town get any liability. Attorney Fahey suggested the way to handle the number of occupants is through the lease.
MOTION: To CONTINUE the Public Hearing on the Application of David Monaco for a Special Use Permit to allow construction of 11 residential units below the first story of retail commercial building located at 112 Main Street, Broad Brook. [B-1 Zone; Map 28, Block 5, Lot 4] until the Commission’s next regularly scheduled Meeting on March 27, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.
Menard moved/Guiliano seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Attorney Fahey noted the address is actually 110 – 112 Main Street, Broad Brook, CT.
MOTION: To TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
Guiliano moved/Menard seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
The Commission RECESSED at 8:24 p.m. and RECONVENED at 8:32 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS: Steve Dearborn – Site Plan Approval for additional non-paved parking area for equipment for contractor’s storage yard at 68 Newberry Road, owned by Newberry Road Enterprises. [M-1 Zone; Map 15, Block 19, Lot6]. (Deadline for decision 3/29/07):
Chairman Ouellette read the description of this Item of Business. Appearing to discuss this Application was Steve Dearborn, owner.
Mr. Dearborn reported he plans to move his garage off Rye Street to Newberry Road. The Town Wetlands Map indicates there are wetlands on this property. He hired Mr. Logan to review the area; he has agreed there really is nothing there as the property has been used for hayfields. The Inland/Wetlands Commission said it was ok to use the property. They also advised Mr. Dearborn to come back with an amendment because they know he’ll expand the boundaries out and an amendment would allow him to do that.
Commissioner Guiliano questioned if Mr. Dearborn was saying the parcel to the right in blue was wetlands? Mr. Dearborn referenced “this” area on the plan, noting it is wetlands by soil type but there are no wetlands there, no pond; it’s a hayfield and is wetlands only by soil type. Town Planner Whitten clarified that the area would be considered degraded wetlands which are not in their native state; it is not pure wetlands soils any longer. The Inland/Wetlands Commission has approved this map but wants it modified because Mr. Dearborn has exceeded the area to the right. Mr. Dearborn advised the Commission he will be going another 200’ all the way around; Wetlands said it wasn’t good wetlands and suggested the modification. The blue line is from the Town
Commissioner Matthews questioned if it was a regulated or wetlands area? Town Planner Whitten referenced the map, noting “this” is the regulated area and the 150’ is the uplands review area, and is out of the jurisdiction of this Commission.
Commissioner Guiliano questioned that Mr. Dearborn had already encroached into the wetlands area and is now coming to this Commission for an ok? Mr. Dearborn indicated he has done some, enough to get in and park. When he cleared the land he needed a place to put the stuff to get it off the property. He was getting yelled at because of the mud on the road. Commissioner Guiliano queried that Mr. Dearborn did all that without a permit? Mr. Dearborn suggested he guessed that’s what he did; he did enough to get around the property and he proceeded so he wouldn’t get dirt on the road.
Chairman Ouellette noted the location of the existing driveway and questioned how the sight line was in that area? Is it clear? Mr. Dearborn suggested it was 1000’ across the whole area and a 500’ clear view in either direction. He suggested you could see all the way down to Craftsman Road. The property is on the highest part of the road, and can look both ways downhill. He felt the sightlines are excellent.
Chairman Ouellette questioned if there was any need for illumination? Mr. Dearborn replied negatively, noting there are lights on the metal building now.
Commissioner Guiliano questioned what Mr. Dearborn planned to do with the wood chips and wood? Mr. Dearborn indicated he planned to mulch it. Commissioner Menard questioned what kind of contractor’s yard he planned? Mr. Dearborn indicated it would be for his trucks. Commissioner Menard questioned that it was a farm? Mr. Dearborn indicated “this” part for commercial use, the rest is for corn. It isn’t for construction; it’s for Stoneworks; they have no retail. Commissioner Menard questioned that it would be to park his trucks here to go to Stoneworks? Mr. Dearborn indicated he will screen topsoil like he does on Rye Street. Town Planner Whitten questioned if he would be bringing mulch material onto this site? Mr. Dearborn replied affirmatively, noting he will be mixing it and grinding it and then moving it to Stoneworks. Town Planner Whitten questioned if he would have a grinder at this site? Mr. Dearborn replied affirmatively. Chairman Ouellette questioned if the
grinder would be noisy? Town Planner Whitten suggested they can be. Chairman Ouellette questioned if there were noise level requirements for a commercial zone? Mr. Dearborn suggested he will be processing a product. Commissioner Guiliano suggested that in the process of processing the product he could be annoying the neighbors. Mr. Dearborn felt the trucks nearby make more noise.
Town Planner Whitten suggested approval of the grinder can be done after this proposal.
Chairman Ouellette questioned if there were any utilities – electric, septic, or sewer – at the location now? Mr. Dearborn indicated they are using a Sanican now; there was a water line from the house to the barn but the barn has been torn down and he must now dig a ditch from “there” to the metal building. Then he will hook up the water and use the bathroom.
Town Planner Whitten noted the materials to be processed – if you use a grinder then it becomes a volume reduction facility which needs a Special Use Permit. A contractor’s yard is permitted by right. Mr. Dearborn stated the stumps (on the property now) are from the clearing process for the farm; he will be grinding those after the ice melts and can do that as of right by farming. He will return for the additional grinding.
Town Planner Whitten indicated that one of the buildings came down prematurely.
Chairman Ouellette referenced Town Planner Whitten’s comment that a landscape screen to the front of the storage area would be beneficial? Town Planner Whitten questioned if Mr. Dearborn would be storing stone at this location? Mr. Dearborn indicated he wouldn’t be storing stone on this property. Town Planner Whitten suggested landscaping towards the front of the property would be beneficial for a buffer.
Chairman Ouellette questioned if Mr. Dearborn needs to denote on the plans what materials would be stored on the property? Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively. Chairman Ouellette clarified that Mr. Dearborn has spoken of a stump pile, a wood chip pile, and a topsoil pile.
Mr. Dearborn indicated he didn’t want anything in front of the building as it would be a good hiding place for burglars/muggers. He doesn’t want any trees there. He will leave the front of the property where the house is grass with his farm sign from 25 years ago on a 12’ x 12’ post.
Chairman Ouellette questioned if it was Mr. Dearborn’s intent to move his existing contractor’s storage yard from Rye Street? Mr. Dearborn replied affirmatively, noting it is good to get off Rye Street. Then only J & M’s vehicles would remain at Rye Street.
Commissioner Guiliano indicated he is looking at the proposal as a contractor’s storage facility – no storing of mulch, wood chips, etc. because that isn’t shown on the plans. The piles he is showing now on the plans he will be getting rid of. Town Planner Whitten noted he will be bringing wood chips in and process them and then it becomes a volume reduction facility. Mr. Dearborn indicated they will be for his own use. Chairman Ouellette questioned that the best sequence for this operation would be to approve this Site Plan and then come back with the other elements as a Special Use Permit request? Town Planner Whitten suggested the Commission could take action on the contractor’s storage facility only as shown – no dirt, topsoil, or grinding – then Mr. Dearborn needs to come in with a modification for a Special Use Permit with an overall plan showing all storage areas for a volume reduction facility. Mr. Dearborn suggested he felt the dirt, etc. was an accessory use.
Town Planner Whitten clarified it was not an accessory use; it’s a volume reduction facility.
Town Planner Whitten noted Mr. Dearborn received approval from the Inland/Wetlands Commission last Wednesday, March 7th, on “this” plan. Commissioner Menard questioned that they approved a plan with the wood chips in the middle of the wetlands area when he has all the other area that isn’t wetlands? Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively, noting that was the plan that was approved but that was how the modification came to light. Commissioner Guiliano questioned if Mr. Dearborn was under a Cease & Desist Order? Town Planner Whitten replied negatively, he is not under a Cease & Desist Order but she understood there were some Building Code issues. He did get approval for that plan and he is under an “agricultural exemption”
for wetlands which is very broad; you can do pretty much anything.
Commissioner Matthews questioned that Mr. Dearborn’s 25 acres are zoned M-1? Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively. Commissioner Matthews questioned the other properties? Town Planner Whitten replied pretty much everything is industrial; there are residential uses on the road which are legally non-conforming. Commissioner Matthews questioned if this location was near any residences; would he need a buffer? Town Planner Whitten replied negatively, the residential uses are legally non-conforming and didn’t require a buffer. Commissioner Matthews cited his concern is what you will look at driving down Newberry Road; the Town is trying to attract business to that area. If it were himself he would probably put in a buffer for the building. Mr. Dearborn suggested to put in staggered trees is ridiculous; he will be plowing up to the pavement. Commissioner Guiliano questioned what about near the road? Commissioner Matthews questioned what about near the swamp. Mr.
Dearborn suggested that would be crop.
Chairman Ouellette noted that the Town Engineer has signed off on this proposal.
Ex-Officio Member/First Selectman Filipone requested to speak. He suggested his concern is the same as Commissioner Guiliano – that what you have done is properly permitted and that you don’t exceed the permit and as you go along the proper permits are taken out. He noticed this plan says the existing barn is to be demolished but that’s done already. It’s like the cart is before the horse. Town Planner Whitten noted that was one of the Building Permit issues; apparently Mr. Dearborn didn’t wait for his Demolition Permit before he took the barn down. She advised Mr. Dearborn he needs to do things in the proper sequence. Ex-Officio Member/First Selectman Filipone suggested that was the point; we go through this with all the different
developers and contractors and we have procedures, and he wants to see them followed.
Mr. Dearborn questioned if he needs to do the material reduction on the same Site Plan? Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively, noting he should not be grinding for now except for the stumps for the farm operation. Discussion followed regarding additional conditions relative to allowable operations consistent with this Site Plan. Mr. Dearborn suggested he wants to bring in materials. Commissioner Guiliano indicated that if it’s not shown on the plans it’s not permitted. Discussion continued as to revising the submitted plan and return at the next Commission meeting vs. considering the Site Plan as presented to the Commission tonight – without additional stockpiles for additional material storage or grinding. Mr. Dearborn indicated he will be using the septic
system from the house eventually. The plan down the road is to maybe construct a 12’ x 20’ addition to the building for an office. Town Planner Whitten advised Mr. Dearborn he will need to revise/modify the plan further for that.
Discussion indicated there is presently a 10’ crushed stone apron from the road to the driveway. Town Planner Whitten noted the proposed condition regarding the 30’ paved apron is still necessary.
MOTION TO APPROVE the application of Steve Dearborn requesting a site plan approval for a contractors storage yard at 68 Newberry Road, M1 zone (Map 15, Block 19, Lot 6)
This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans (as may be modified by the Conditions) and the following conditions:
Compilation Survey prepared for property at 68 Newberry Road, East Windsor, CT prepared by Landmark Surveys, LLC, 62 Lower Butcher Rd, 860/875-8204, Ellington, CT scale 1” = 60’, dated 1/18/07, last revised 2/1/07
Conditions which must be met prior to signing of mylars:
1. All final plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for preparation of the plans.
2. 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:
3. One set of final plans, 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.
4. 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.
Conditions which must be met prior to certificates of compliance:
5. Final grading and seeding shall be in place or a bond for the unfinished work submitted.
6. Final as-built survey showing all structures, pins, driveways and final floor elevations as well as spot grades shall be submitted.
7. All public health and safety components of the project must be satisfactorily completed prior to occupancy. In cases where all public health and safety components have been completed, the Zoning Officer may issue a Certificate of Zoning Compliance provided a suitable bond is retained for any remaining site work.
8. 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.
9. A Zoning Permit shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any site work.
10. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the filed plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans that result in lesser impacts may be allowed subject to staff review and approval.
11. Any modifications to the proposed drainage or grading for the site plan is subject to the approval of the town engineer.
12. Additional erosion control measures are to be installed as directed by town staff if field conditions necessitate.
13. By acceptance of this approval and conditions, the applicant, owner and/or their successors and assigns acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval
14. All required landscaping shall be adequately maintained.
15. No outdoor storage of materials will be permitted without modifications of this approval.
16. A paved apron should be placed where the driveway meets the roadway.
Menard moved/Matthews seconded/
VOTE: In Favor: Matthews/Menard/Ouellette
Abstained: No one
BUSINESS MEETING/(1) Zoning Regulations – Proposed Draft: 8.13 Earth Removal Filling; 8.10 Hotels & Motels; 8.50 Volume Reduction Facilities:
Section 8.13 Earth Removal Filling:
Town Planner Whitten noted everything that has been added to this section came from comments/concerns during the previous applications. Chairman Ouellette noted a few minor language revisions, but requested that the 1 mile distance requirement between pit accesses be reviewed with the Town Engineer.
Commissioner Guiliano cited concern that this section gives an applicant the ability to come in and excavate significantly, leaving the property a big hole rather than reclaimed land consistent with adjacent topographic areas. He cited he isn’t trying to stop people from making money on a natural resource but the problem is what’s left after excavation – undevelopable land. Commissioner Guiliano noted Ellington operates many pits; he requested Town Planner Whitten research/review their regulations.
Commissioner Guiliano indicated he is also concerned with the amount of truck traffic and the maintenance cost of roads as the result of use by heavy vehicles. He suggested the 1 mile distance between pit accesses was an attempt to limit truck traffic for that reason.
Town Planner Whitten to review Ellington’s regulations and present a rewrite of this section at the Commission’s next meeting.
Section 8.10 Hotels & Motels:
Discussion followed regarding the definition of extended stay hotels. The Commission felt this section was fine as presented.
Section 8.50 Volume Reduction Facilities:
Discussion tabled until next meeting.
BUSINESS MEETING/(2) Correspondence:
Ø Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies 59th Annual Conference on March 22, 2007 at the Aqua Turf Country Club, Southington, CT. The topic is “Affordable Housing, Alternatives to 8-30g.” Chairman Ouellette and Commissioners Gowdy, Saunders, and Guiliano would like to go; Commissioner Tyler still mulling.
Ø Connecticut Bar Association Education & Training Session for Planning and Zoning on March 17, 2007 at Wesleyan. Chairman Ouellette and Commissioner Saunders would like to attend.
Ø Municipal Management Bulletin noting website available to assist with land use decisions.
BUSINESS MEETING/(3) Staff Reports: Nothing Additional
APPROVAL OF MINUTES/February 27, 2007:
MOTION: To APPROVE the Minutes of Public Hearing #1501 dated February 27, 2007 as written.
Guiliano moved/Menard seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
SIGNING OF MYLARS/PLANS, MOTIONS:
· Mardi Gras
· KGS Realty resubdivision
· Southern Auto Sales Site Plan Approval
MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 9:42 p. m.
Guiliano moved/Menard seconded/VOTE: In Favor: Unanimous
Peg Hoffman, Recording Secretary, East Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission