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
August 11, 2009 Minutes

Public Hearing #1553
August 11, 2009

The Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT. by Chairman Ouellette.


A quorum was established as five Regular Members (Devanney, Farmer [arrived at 7:09 p.m.], Gowdy, Ouellette and Thurz), and two Alternate Members ( Mulkern and O’Brien) were present.    Alternate Member Matthews was absent.  Continuing with the Commission’s rotation schedule for service of Alternate Members Chairman Ouellette noted Alternate Member O’Brien would sit in on all Items of Business this evening.   Also present was Town Planner Whitten.


Town Planner Whitten requested the Commission consider discussion of the USA Hauling Application for Shoham Road under the Business Meeting.   No motion was necessary; discussion will occur under Staff Reports.


1)      Application of Leslie J. Hickey for a Temporary Liquor Permit for wine tasting event to be held on October 10, 2009 from 4:00 to 10:00 P.M. at 140 North Road, owned by Patrick Soucy.


The following Legal Notice, which appeared in the Hartford Courant on Friday, July 31, 2009, and Friday, August 7, 2009, was read by Chairman Ouellette:

1)      Application of Shoham Road Transfer, LLC for a renewal of Special Use Permit for the    operation of a volume reduction facility at 9 & 11 Shoham Road, owned by 9-13 Shoham Road, LLC.   [M-1 Zone; Map 3, Block 17, Lots S6 & S7].

2)      Application of Herb Holden Trucking, Inc. for a renewal of Special Use Permit/Excavation to allow earth products removal on property located on the west side of Wapping Road, owned by Northern Capital Region Disposal Facility.  [A-1 & M.1 Zones; Map 41, Block 65, Lot 31].

PERFORMANCE BONDS - ACTIONS; PERMIT EXTENSIONS; ROAD ACCEPTANCE:  Coleman Farms - Request from Leonard Jacobs for a 2-year extension of the Special Use Permit for Coleman Farms, Tromley Road.   (Extended to 8/12/09):

Chairman Ouellette read the description of this Item of Business.  Appearing to discuss this Permit Extension Request was Attorney Len Jacobs, representing the developers, Sebby Testa and Rashid Hamid; Attorney Hal Cummings, representing the Coleman Farms Homeowners Association; and Mel Ressler, President of the Coleman Farms Homeowners Association.

Attorney Jacobs advised the Commission the developers and the homeowners association have reached an agreement to extend the Permit to August 31, 2010; he submitted a copy of that agreement for the Commission’s review.  Attorney Jacobs also submitted a list of accomplishments which is fully acceptable to the homeowners association and the developers.  The attorneys reported Town Planner Whitten and Wetlands Agent Newton met with all parties to assist with reaching this agreement.

Chairman Ouellette suggested he is disappointed that the agreement was submitted at the meeting, rather than earlier to give the Commission an opportunity to review the issues.  Attorney Cummings reported the condo association and the developer have been meeting regularly since last June on a number of issues.  They have also attended a site walk with Town Planner Whitten and Wetlands Agent Newton.  Attorney Cummings reported he submitted a draft agreement to Town Planner Whitten last week but asked her not to give it to the Commission.   Agreement was actually reached at 3 o’clock this afternoon, which was too late to give it to the Commission.   The Board of Directors and the people from the homeowners association have agreed to extend the permit for one year.  They have come up with a practical way to make sure the money received from the sale of the units goes back into the development.  Attorney Jacobs indicated the developer has no problem with the money going back into the project; their problem is the economy is so bad they haven’t been able to sell any units.  The money from the unit sales will go into escrow.  

LET THE RECORD SHOW Commissioner Farmer arrived at 7:09 p.m.

Attorney Jacobs reviewed the following points included in the agreement (items are presented in the order they were discussed):

        1.      Identified the ten units remaining to be sold.
        2A.     Owner may obtain Building Permits at any time.
2B.     Owner may obtain Certificates of Occupancy (COs) for any two of the units with the understanding that within sixty days of completion of the closing and sale of the second of the two units, that all work on the clubhouse will be completed so CO may be issued.
        2C.     A list of items remaining to be done (k/a Schedule A) compiled by the                   homeowners is attached to agreement.
3.      Owner may get COs at any time, but as future units are sold the proceeds will be        put in escrow after taking out the bank fees, money owed to contractors, etc.  Money will only come out of escrow by agreement of the association, or to complete items listed under Schedule A.        

Commissioner Thurz questioned what agreement has been made with regard to completion of the road?   Attorney Jacobs indicated it has been agreed that the road will be done at the end of the project because it would be damaged by heavy equipment if it were completed earlier (See item 4 of the agreement).  He further indicated that the developer and the association have agreed that the bond - in the amount of $175,000 -  does in fact cover all site work, including the completion of the road.   Attorney Jacobs noted the Commission has questioned during previous meetings if the bond does cover all site work, including the completion of the road.  The developer and the association have agreed that it does; they would feel better if the Commission would agree to that statement as well.

Continuing with his review of the agreement, Attorney Jacobs noted the following:

5.      Should a dispute occur which can’t be resolved between the parties then the dispute shall be taken to arbitration.
6.      The developer has agreed to notify the president of the homeowners association when getting COs, and the president can request an accounting of funds going into escrow.
        7.      Permit extension date; see discussion below.    
8.      Recognizes that the condo association would prefer not to have the walking trail as originally proposed.  The cost is being reviewed.  The developer will return to the Commission to request a modification to the plan.

Attorney Cummings, speaking on behalf of the (homeowners) association, indicated they are asking the Commission to:

*       Renew the permit for one year to August 31, 2010 rather than the two years requested.  This time period allows the association the ability to see how the agreement is working out.
*       To include in the conditions of approval a stipulation that it is the understanding of the Commission that the Site Bond includes the road overlay.
*       Regarding paragraph 6 of the agreement, they have set a benchmark for the developer regarding report of unit sales and distribution of proceeds of sale.        Failure to comply may cause the association to object to the issuance of future COs.  The association is asking that the PZC amend its conditions of approval that issuance of COs may be withheld at the request of the association.

Commissioner Gowdy felt the Commission could not legally comply with that request.  
Attorney Cummings suggested the Commission couldn’t legally impose that requirement but they can condition it; the Commission can’t require that in the regulations, but if the developer agrees to it the Commission can condition it.   Attorney Jacobs concurred that even it the request wasn’t legally enforceable - and there is a question with that regard - it’s helpful to them to come back to discuss something if they need to.

Chairman Ouellette questioned if Town Engineer Norton has agreed that the bond amount is correct?  Town Planner Whitten suggested the bond document from 2003 covers so many things that have been completed, such as erosion controls, anti-tracking pads, fill for the roadway.  Discussion followed regarding continuing the extension decision until the September Meeting for further review by Town Engineer Norton; Town Planner Whitten noted many of the items listed in Schedule A are minor, except for the bond amount.  Attorney Jacobs reported they are satisfied that the bond amount is enough to the complete the roadway, but they want the Commission to say that the scope of the bond includes the roadway.   They don’t want someone - like a bond company - to say that the PZC didn’t say the bond included the roadway in the site work.  Town Planner Whitten indicated that she could vouch the roadway was included; she referenced line item #20 regarding bituminous roadway, noting that the amount was $66,000 in 2003 and part of that work is already completed.  

Commissioner Gowdy questioned how they have come to the conclusion that the bond will cover the cost of the completion of the roadway?  Attorney Jacobs indicated they have a written proposal of $90,000 for work to complete the roadway, while the association has an estimate of $120,000 to $130,000.  He suggested that either way the $175,000 currently being held by the Town would complete the road.  Attorney Cummings suggested as the agreement states after completion of the next two (2) units, which includes completion of the clubhouse, all money goes into escrow and can’t be disbursed by Attorney Jacobs without the agreement of the association.   At some point any money generated by this project will go back into the project.  Commissioner Gowdy wanted that figure to be included in the agreement; Commissioner O’Brien questioned the adequacy of that number if the project continued for a numbers of years.  

Chairman Ouellette questioned Town Planner Whitten that in her judgment did she feel the Performance Bond was always intended to cover the roadway?   Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively, noting a site bond estimate - referenced as a document entitled #AIA-G703 and  dated 9/16/2003 - was prepared by Hesketh and Associates.   Town Planner Whitten noted that often the bonding documents go directly to the Town Engineer and the Planning Office receives only notification of the bond amount.

Attorney Cummings noted that 2 years ago the association and the developer negotiated a similar agreement; in writing it referenced that the roadway was covered by the bond.  Then the question was recently raised if the roadway was really covered.  They are asking the Commission to say the roadwork was, and always has been, included.   Chairman Ouellette suggested everyone has just heard that from staff.  Attorney Cummings concurred, but noted inclusion of the roadway was subsequently questioned by staff.   The previous approval included only a Site Improvement Bond; they are trying to get it on the record that the roadway is included.

Town Planner Whitten noted a reference in the previous approval to a 6’ chain link fence in the back between Coleman Farms and Flaherty Field Trials; she suggested that item needs to be reviewed.

Commissioner Devanney referenced items #4 and #8 in the agreement being discussed this evening; she questioned how that conclusion was reached?   Did everyone in the association get to vote on removing the walking trail?  Attorney Cummings indicated they held a meeting last Thursday; he understood that 45 out of 46 unit owners requested the walking trail be removed.  He noted that issue isn’t on the Agenda for this evening’s meeting; they will return for a plan amendment regarding the removal of the walking trail.  

Commissioner Devanney questioned the issue of the road overlay.  Attorney Cummings referenced paragraph 2D, which he READ FOR THE RECORD.  He reiterated that the heavy equipment coming in can break up the road.  They still have ten units to build; the final overlay should go on at the end.  He suggested it wouldn’t be in the association’s best interest to have the final overlay go on and have heavy equipment come in and destroy it.   They are protected by the bond and the escrow; it’s another reason to seek the one year extension.   Commissioner Devanney noted the manholes are getting up over the road.   Attorney Cummings suggested they need to be “shimmed”, and properly graded.

Commissioner Farmer questioned how the association will know the correct amount?  Attorney Cummings suggested the contractor’s fees are pretty cut and dried, then they will have the bank charges.  Attorney Jacob’s office will handle the closings, and the association has the ability to come back to the Commission (see paragraph #5 regarding arbitration).  He suggested this type of issue is what’s taken them three months to reach agreement.  He suggested that by Mr. Hamid agreeing to this, he is tying up the project; all of this gives the association a big hand.  Attorney Jacobs noted the money will always come into his office, and the president of the association has a right to demand an accounting.   Attorney Cummings referenced paragraph 6, which he READ FOR THE RECORD.  

Chairman Ouellette questioned if the bond includes the walking trail?  Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively.

Chairman Ouellette suggested that if the Commission did grant the extension to August 2010, it concurs with the expiration of the Inland/Wetlands Permit; he questioned if concurrence of the date would work procedurally?  Town Planner Whitten indicated the applicant must receive an Inland/Wetlands extension prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission, but Inland/Wetlands meets prior to this Commission.  August 4, 2010 would be the last Inland/Wetlands Meeting the applicant can get that extension; then this Commission meets the following week.  Attorney Cummings indicated he felt the Inland/Wetlands extension actually comes up in April.  He was told that as long as they don’t ask to go beyond 8/2010 they will be fine.

Attorney Jacobs reiterated the extension conditions should say that this agreement supersedes the old agreement.

The specifics of paragraph #6 were discussed again in detail.  

Chairman Ouellette noted this request is not subject to a Public Hearing, but he questioned if someone from the association would like to speak?   Mr. Mel Ressler, president of the homeowners association, indicated that the whole association and all groups support the project and feel the agreement reached is to their benefit.   They are hardily in agreement with the proposal.

Commissioner Farmer questioned if the Town knows the bond will cover the road?  Chairman Ouellette suggested everyone has heard the numbers, and has heard from both sides that they are comfortable with the numbers.  He suggested if the condo association contested the number they would speak up, and the Commission hasn’t heard opposition.   Commissioner Farmer felt the Town has said they felt the money wasn’t enough.  Town Planner Whitten reported bonding for private roads has not been required previously.  Money has been put in for the road on this project, and they have six years of improvements already made to the site, which reduces the amount needed against the bond.  To increase the bond seems unnecessary.

Chairman Ouellette questioned if the Commission preferred a one year extension vs. a two year extension?   The consensus of the Commission was a preference for a one year extension.

Chairman Ouellette questioned how the Commission felt in regard to making a statement that the bond includes the road work?   A break was requested while the conditions were being revised.


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

The Commission RECESSED at 7:55 p.m. and RECONVENED at 8:05 p.m.

Town Planner Whitten read the revised conditions for the Commission, the Applicant, and the members of the homeowners present.  The conditions include:  1)  extending the permit for one year to August 31, 2010;  2)  road overlay is included in the site work bond; 3) all aspects of the project must be completed and inspected, and a Certificate of Occupancy must be acquired prior to the request for release of the bond; as-builts, including those pertaining to roadway, catch basins, landscaping and all structures, must be submitted prior to request for release of bond; 4)  all items in agreement as presented by developer and homeowners association are part of these conditions signed on August 11, 2009; and 5)  Planning staff will work with homeowners association in issuing Certificates of occupancy if failure of agreement arises.

Commissioner Gowdy requested clarification that the site work also includes completion of all the ponds and trees, etc.?   Town Planner Whitten concurred, noting it also includes all landscaping, erosion controls, etc.

Attorney Cummings reported the proposed motion sets forth their position as outlined in this agreement dated August 11, 2009, which supersedes any prior agreement.  Attorney Jacobs indicated he had nothing to add.

Commissioner Farmer returned again to paragraph 2D, questioning if the wording suggested the bond could be used to complete the roadwork?  He READ PARAGRAPH 2D FOR THE RECORD.  Commissioner Farmer questioned if the bond will be used for the completion of the road?  Attorney Cummings reported the agreement is an agreement between the developer and the association, with the Planning and Zoning Commission as a third party; it’s an enforceable contract between the developer and the association in which they wanted to make clear that Coleman Farms and the developer are clear that the roadwork was included in the bond if they are in court three years from now.  As far as the developer and Coleman Farms is concerned they agree the bond covers the roadwork.   Attorney Jacobs interjected that they have always agreed with that contention.  Commissioner Farmer felt the sentence could be interpreted that the bond could be used to complete the roadwork.  Attorney Cummings indicated that the agreement is that between the Coleman Farms (homeowners) association and the developer the bond is available to cover the completion of the roadwork.   Commissioner Gowdy interjected that it includes all other site work as well.  Attorney Cummings concurred, but noted that the question of the inclusion of the roadwork was the issue being addressed.

Attorney Jacobs questioned if the roadwork is finished would the bond money be released?  The current language says all work needs to be completed?   Town Planner Whitten suggested that discussion should occur at some other time.

Chairman Ouellette called for a motion on this Item of Business.

MOTION to APPROVE the extension of the Application of Coleman Farms East Windsor, LLC. for a Special Use Permit to allow up to 65 units of active adult housing development and associated improvements on a 14.5 acre parcel located on the north side of Tromley Road, East Windsor, Connecticut, on property owned by Coleman Tromley, LLC., presently zoned Age Restricted Housing District (ARHD) as shown on Assessor’s map 28, Block 19, Lot 67 & 86.  The current approval expiring on August 12, 2009 is subject to the following conditions of approval:

1.      Permit extension is to August 31, 2010.

2.      Road overlay for project is included in sitework Performance Bond.

3.      All aspects of this project must be completed and inspected, and a Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained for the clubhouse and all structures prior to request for any bond release.   Final as built of road and project are required before any bond release.  As-built shall include, but is not limited to roadway, catch basins, all   landscaping, and all structures.  

4.      All items in Agreement as presented by developer and homeowners association are part of these conditions signed on August 11, 2009.

5.      Planning staff will work with homeowners association in issuing Certificates of  Occupancy if failure of agreement arises.

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

NEW HEARING - Shoham Road Transfer, LLC - Renewal of Special Use Permit for the operation of a volume reduction facility at 9 & 11 Shoham Road, owned by 9-13 Shoham Road, LLC.  [M-1 Zone; Map 3, Block 17, Lots S6 & S7]  (Deadline to close hearing 9/15/09) (continued to 9/8/09):

Chairman Ouellette advised members of the audience that this Hearing had been continued to the Commission’s September 8, 2009 Meeting; no discussion will occur on this Hearing this evening.

NEW HEARING:  Herb Holden Trucking, Inc. - Renewal of Special Use Permit/Excavation to allow earth products removal on property located on the west side of Wapping Road, owned by Northern Capital Region Disposal Facility.  [A-1 & M-1 Zones; Map 41, Block 54, Lot 31]  (Deadline to close hearing 9/15/09):

Chairman Ouellette read the Hearing description.   Appearing to discuss this Application was Herb Holden, Sr.  

Mr. Holden presented the Commission with a set of “As-built” Plans which shows the status of the work on the property to date.  He indicated they are working in the back of the property; customer demand is down due to the recession.  Top soil has been stockpiled as requested. Mr. Holden indicated there is a bond in place for this work.

Commissioner Devanney suggested there hasn’t been that much activity on Phase I.  Mr. Holden indicated they do something within the site every day, but the economy is delaying the sale of the materials.  Mr. Holden anticipated the work will continue for another 1 1/2 or 2 years, as removal depends on customer demand.

Chairman Ouellette queried if Mr. Holden had seen a copy of Town Engineer Norton’s recent memo dated August 6, 2009 which references four comments?  Mr. Holden suggested he had not yet seen the memo, but, when provided a copy, indicated that they had put the road on the edge of Phase II for safety reasons.   He had thought Town Engineer Norton was ok with that minor revision.

Commissioner Devanney referenced Town Engineer Norton’s comment #4, which indicated the top soil was being stockpiled in a wind row rather than in a single pile.  Mr. Holden concurred, noting the stockpile has become more of a long single pile as there was more material than anticipated.  

As this Application is being heard as a Public Hearing Chairman Ouellette queried the audience for comments.  No one requested to speak.

MOTION: To CLOSE the Public Hearing on the Application of Herb Holden Trucking, Inc. for renewal of Special Use Permit/Excavation to allow earth products removal on property located on the west side of Wapping Road, owned by Northern Capital Region Disposal Facility.  [A-1 & M-1 Zones; Map 41, Block 54, Lot 31] .

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

MOTION TO APPROVE the Application of Herb Holden Trucking, Inc. for a Special Use/Excavation Permit to allow earth products removal, and screening and crushing of products, on property located on the west side of Wapping road, owned by  Northern Capital Region Disposal Facility, Inc. (NORCAP) .   A-1 & M-1 Zones. [Map 41, Block 65, Lot #31]   This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:

Referenced Plans:

Cover Sheet - Proposed Gravel Excavation, Wapping Road, East Windsor, CT, Applicant Herb Holden Trucking, Inc.; Owner Northern Capital Region Disposal Facility, Inc. prepared by Anchor Engineering Services, Inc., 41 Sequin Drive, Glastonbury, CT 06033 860/633-8770, 860/633-5971 fax, dated 5/9/2008.  Last revised 6/25/07

Sheet 1/6       Existing Conditions Map
Sheet 2/6       Overall Site Plan
Sheet 3&4/6     Layout and Grading Plan,
Sheet 5/6       Erosion Control Notes
Sheet 6/6       Details

Conditions that must be met prior to signing of mylars:

1.      The name and phone number of an individual for 24 hour emergency contact for erosion control problems must be noted on the plans.  Any changes in the individual responsible for emergency contact must be reported immediately to the Planning and Zoning Department.

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 mylars.

Conditions that must be met prior to issuance of permits:

3.      A performance bond, with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney shall be provided by the applicant prior to the signing of the mylars.

4.      One set of final plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature of the commission.  The signed plans shall be filed in the Planning & Zoning Office by the applicant prior to issuance of any permits.

5.      In order to ensure the site is graded in accordance with the approved plan, vertical and horizontal control points shall be setup around the entire perimeter of the parcel.  Such control points shall be located as per approved plans.

6.      In addition, the applicant shall be required to provide the Zoning Enforcement Officer with as-built drawings six months after the issuance of the permit to demonstrate compliance with the approved grading plan, Any deviation from the approved plan shall be a violation and cause for revocation of the permit

7.      No phase may begin until the previous phase has been substantially completed except for the phase containing the reclamation plan as indicated on the referenced plans.

8.      Prior to the start of any new phase, the applicant shall submit evidence of conformance to the approved plans for the previous phases including a certified as-built survey showing finished grades.

9.      Re-approval must be requested annually, at such time an as-built will be required.

General Conditions:

10.     A zoning permit shall be obtained prior to the start of any work or new phase.  No zoning permit shall be issued until a cash or passbook bond for site restoration, erosion and sedimentation control has been submitted.  Such bond shall be good for the life of the
permit/project.  Any funds that may be withdrawn by the Town for such maintenance shall be replaced within 5 days or this permit shall be rendered null and void.

11.     Operation of the gravel pit may include:

·       screening of excavated material pursuant to provisions of Section 9 and                 9A.5.
·       crushing of rock and gravel mined on-site only with portable crushing apparatus and pursuant to provisions of Section 9 and 9A.5.

12.     Excavation shall not ever exceed the approved finished grade elevations.  Subsoil must remain native.
13.     The final grading shall conform to the proposed final grading as indicated on the referenced plans; but in no case shall any final slope be steeper than a rise to run ratio of 1:3, also known as a 33% slope.

14.     In the event that the operation ceases before all phases are completed, the remaining land shall be graded to leave no slope exceeding 33%.

15.     As each area or phase is graded to final contours, the ground shall be back covered with topsoil or loam to render it usable for growing agricultural products.  All areas will require a minimum of 6 inches of topsoil in accordance with the regulations.

16.     No trees, brush or stumps shall be buried on site.

17.     The driveway to the pit shall be maintained in a hard surfaced, paved condition from Wapping Road inward for a minimum distance of two hundred feet.  The driveway shall be cleaned regularly to minimize the dust nuisance created by exiting traffic.

18.     An oversized 300 foot gravel anti-tracking pad leading to the driveway shall be installed and maintained to further minimize dust nuisance.

19.     The gate across the driveway into the pit shall be maintained in good condition and kept closed and locked during all times when the pit is not in operation.  “Private Property – No Trespassing” sign shall be maintained at the entrance to the pit facing outward toward Wapping  Road.

20.     The total number of loaded, or partially loaded, outgoing trucks from the pit shall not exceed an average of sixty (60) trucks per day or a maximum of three-hundred (300) trucks in any one week period, counting Monday through Friday.

21.     The pit shall not be opened or operated before 7:30 a.m. and shall not be opened or operated later than 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, Monday through Friday.

22.     The pit shall not be open or operated on weekends OR HOLIDAYS.

23.     Measures to minimize the dust nuisance from the site shall be provided by the applicant for review and approval of Town staff.  Additional measures are to be undertaken if required by staff if field conditions necessitate.

24.     The “Best Management Practices” outlined by the Hartford County Natural Resource Conservation Service shall be adhered to.

25.     The applicant shall adhere to all conditions of their Inland Wetlands Permit.

26.     The vegetation (trees) to be removed shall be accomplished in one step and the topsoil shall be stripped off and stockpiled immediately or a temporary vegetative cover implemented. Stockpiled soil shall remain on site for future reclamation of site.
27.     Finished grades may not be closer than 8’ 20’ to the water table, and must adhere to approved plans.

28.     There shall be no on-site maintenance of equipment unless it is a clear emergency.  Town staff shall be notified if such emergency exists.

29.     There shall be no bulky waste or debris disposal allowed on the site.  The operator of the pit shall provide adequate security measures to prevent unauthorized waste disposal.  Any unauthorized disposal shall be cleaned up and disposed of off site by the operator of the pit.

30.     The project shall be carried out in phases as shown on the plans.

31.     All trucks and equipment shall be parked off-street.

32.     Upon completion of the excavation, the land shall be cleared of all debris and a minimum of six (6) inches of topsoil shall be spread over any disturbed areas.

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

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

35.     This project shall be executed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans and conditions.  Minor modifications to the approved plans which result in lesser impacts may be allowed subject to staff review and approval.

36.     By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner 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.

37.     This approval shall expire one year plus 30 days - September 6, 2010 - (to allow for signing and filing of mylars) from the date of approval, or upon completion of the project, whichever occurs first.






DISCUSSION:  Commissioner Gowdy questioned if Conditions #38 through #42 were new conditions as they appeared in a different typeface?   Town Planner Whitten indicated all conditions of this approval have been carried over from the first approval; a different typeface was chosen when preparing the motion.

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

NEW BUSINESS:  DSE Properties, LLC.  - 5-lot subdivision of property located at 16 Windsorville Road.  [R-1 Zone; Map 25, Block 47, Lot 17]  (Deadline for decision 9/17/09):

Chairman Ouellette read the description of this Item of Business.   Appearing to discuss this Application was Rachel Dearborn, of Landmark Surveyors, representing the Applicant, DSE Properties, LLC.   Also present in the audience was Scott Mangold and Ed Mangold, partners in DES Properties, LLC.

Ms. Dearborn indicated she had received Town Engineer Norton’s memo dated August 11, 2009; she has tried to address his concerns in the plans before the Commission.  Ms. Dearborn indicated approval has been received from the North Central Health District (NCHD) for well locations with conditions.  NCHD is recommending that if the proposed residences become multi-family rented dwellings as shown on the submitted plan then the lots should be hooked up to public water.  Both Town Engineer Norton’s memo, and the Plan Approval for well location only (with conditions) have been received, and are part of the Planning Department file.

Ms. Dearborn indicated the property is located at the intersection of Windsorville and Old Ellington Road.  The property presently contains one single family house and garage and fenced in pool with existing trees on Windsorville Road; the remainder of the parcel is a hay lot.  They are proposing four new lots in addition to the existing dwelling lot.  As indicated by the NCHD memo they have approval for wells on the proposed lots.  

Ms. Dearborn indicated they have a density factor of 2, which allows them 5 lots in total.  They meet all zoning requirements, and have incorporated all of Town Engineer Norton’s latest comments in the plan before the Commission this evening.

Commissioner Devanney questioned if NCHD is ok with the well locations as proposed?   Ms. Dearborn indicated they are proposing single family homes for Lots 1, 2, and 3, while lots 4 and 5 may be multi-family.  The NCHD has recommended that the Applicant tie into public water for the multi-family dwellings, however, the nearest Connecticut Water line is in excess of 200’ away from these proposed lots at the intersection of Rye Street and Old Ellington Road.  Ms. Dearborn indicated the cost to connect to city water is estimated (by the Connecticut Water Company) to be $72,000.  Ms. Dearborn clarified that they are not proposing apartments at this time, but have shown footprints for two multi-dwellings in order to calculate accurate impervious coverage.   The present proposal is to create 5 single family lots, but they have the ability to return with a request to construct multi-family dwellings under a Special Use Permit.  Ms. Dearborn indicated the plan reflects a maintenance garage to the rear to service the rental units; the inground pool will be removed.  

Chairman Ouellette questioned the depth of the proposed detention basin?   Ms. Dearborn suggested 2 1/2 fee at the deepest point; it’s a very shallow detention area.  It has not been designed as a pond, but should be moist at best.  It will hold water during a rain event but it isn’t designed to hold water.   Commissioner Thurz cited the proximity to the Broad Brook Elementary School in the next block.  Town Planner Whitten questioned if Chairman Ouellette was considering requiring a fence around the detention basin?   Chairman Ouellette replied negatively, noting once he heard the proposed depth he didn’t go any further with a fencing requirement.

Chairman Ouellette noted sheets 2 and 3 of the plans before the Commission are showing 2 and 3 family homes, yet that isn’t what the Applicant is proposing tonight.  Ms. Dearborn suggested they can’t be here for that this evening; a multi-family Application would require a Special Use Permit Application.  Although that is the Applicant’s intent - to construct multi-family dwellings - tonight they are looking to create 5 lots out of the one entire parcel.  The plan before the Commission shows the maximum lot coverage, and the size of the units, etc.  Town Planner Whitten suggested the proposal was done this way to design the detention pond, and prepare the appropriate calculations for multi-family dwellings.   When the Subdivision Plan is filed it would be filed as 5 single family lots, with no structures shown on it.   The Commission could make that a condition of approval if they so chose.  Chairman Ouellette cited concern that if these drawings were referenced any other Commission might interpret the multi-family dwellings was what this Commission approved, while that is not what this approval will actually be for.   Comissioner Devanney concurred, noting the approval motion usually references specific plans.  Ms. Dearborn indicated she has no problem taking out the wording for multi-family dwellings.  Town Planner Whitten suggested perhaps removing the wording for 2 and 3 family dwellings, and on the motion to say the drainage calculations have been done for 2 and 3 family dwellings, which is their future intent.   She reiterated the only thing that gets filed for this Application is the Subdivision Plan, not the Site Plan.  Commissioner Gowdy suggested preparing a plan for single family dwellings, which would support the lot division requested this evening.   Ms. Dearborn suggested that would be decreasing what they are proposing to do, and the drainage would be way over designed.  She could add a note to the plans.   Commissioner Gowdy questioned that the multi-family structures were not being requested this evening?   Ms. Dearborn replied negatively, noting they were just applying for the 5 lot subdivision.  The single family dwellings would be permitted as-of-right; the Applicant could then apply for a Zoning Permit.  

Chairman Ouellette noted a subdivision plan for 5 lots should include a landscaping plan.   Ms. Dearborn indicated they haven’t prepared a landscaping plan, but could add trees to the existing roads, as they are not adding any internal roads.  Chairman Ouellette concurred, noting he is seeking consistency with other applications.  

Commissioner Farmer noted the Applicant is seeking a waiver for sidewalks.  He felt this proposal is one area which should include sidewalks; there is a church, school, and park all in the vicinity of this proposal.   Commissioners Gowdy and O’Brien concurred.

Commissioner O’Brien questioned if the proposed multi-family dwellings were intended to be for sale or rental units?   The proposed maintenance garage would lead him to believe the intent was for rentals.   Ms. Dearborn indicated the intent is for rental units.

Chairman Ouellette returned the discussion to the Commission’s intent regarding sidewalks.  He questioned if the Commission was looking for sidewalks on Windsorville and Old Ellington Road?  Ms. Dearborn noted sidewalks on Old Ellington Road would go to the railroad, and then wouldn’t continue.  The consensus of the Commission was for sidewalks in both directions.

Commissioner O’Brien also suggested the addition of at least one street light.  Commissioner Devanney suggested the addition of a light on Old Ellington Road, but not on Windsorville.  Commissioner O’Brien felt at least one street light should be installed on Old Ellington Road west of Helena Drive to light the driveway for lot #3, and light the railroad as well.

Chairman Ouellette questioned the Applicant’s intent regarding Open Space?  Ms. Dearborn suggested they are not proposing any open space allocation, but would offer a fee-in-lieu-of open space instead.  

Requesting to speak from the audience was Scott Mangold, who identified himself as one of the developers.  With regard to sidewalks he indicated he had been working on the existing house, and the electrician lived on Reservoir Road/Avenue.    He questioned the need for sidewalks down both roads.   Commissioner Farmer indicated the Commission is trying to get pedestrians off the streets, especially in the Winter and in the evening.  The school is also nearby.  Mr. Mangold suggested the existing house has never had sidewalks; the tri-plex unit would be on Old Ellington Road.  Commissioner Mulkern indicated he had been reading Minutes of previous meetings, and noted there had been lengthy discussion of a sidewalk proposal for a subdivision on Middle Road.  As someone who walks these roads he felt sidewalks would be well received by the community; the area is within downtown Broad Brook and the Commission should support the downtown center concept.   Commissioner Farmer concurred, noting sidewalks would be in the best interest of the town, and are required in the Subdivision Regulations.  He agreed this was an area where the Commission should support sidewalks.  

Mr. Mangold suggested many of the people walk down the railroad.   Chairman Ouelette noted that is illegal.  Mr. Mangold questioned if people would use the sidewalks?  Chairman Ouellette indicated he favored the sidewalks along Old Ellington Road, noting there is a nice playscape and  a ballfield at the school.  Commissioner Farmer noted the park is located down Reservoir Avenue; while there are no sidewalks there yet it would be in the Town’s best interest to install sidewalks along Reservoir Avenue.

Lengthy discussion occurred regarding alternative sidewalk locations, with the Commission vacillating back and forth regarding installation on one or both of Old Ellington Road and Windsorville Road.  Commissioner Devanney now felt sidewalks on Windsorville Road would be overkill; Commissioner Gowdy favored Old Ellington Road but not Windsorville Road.  Commissioner O’Brien felt if the sidewalks were installed most people would use them to get off the roads.  He noted the Commission has talked about connecting the downtown areas; he felt if that was the Commission’s goal they must start somewhere.  If we don’t require sidewalks how does the Commission promote this connectivity?  Chairman Ouellette reiterated that every subdivision is required to have sidewalks for the safety of the people living there, and to promote connectivity.  He polled the Commissioners for their preference:  Commissioners Devanney and Gowdy now preferred sidewalks only on Old Ellington Road, while Commissioners Farmer, O’Brien, and Mulkern preferred installation of sidewalks on both Old Ellington Road and Windsorville Road.  Commissioner Gowdy then suggested he was in favor of sidewalks on Old Ellington Road as the Commission is only approving the 5 lots; if the Applicant returns for the multi-family dwellings then he would favor sidewalks on both Old Ellington Road and Windsorville Road.  Commissioner Farmer questioned that with the present Application the Commission could require sidewalks on both streets?   Town Planner Whitten concurred, noting that if they returned with the multi-family proposal then the Commission could only ask for sidewalks along one road.   Ms. Dearborn indicated lot 5 is the only lot that could hold the tri-plex units.  If the Applicant returned for the multi-family units they would come back under a Special Use Permit for each lot so the commission wouldn’t have the jurisdiction for the entire parcel.   Commissioner Devanney questioned if the concern was for lot #2 (along Windsorville Road) could the Commission limit that lot to a single family dwelling only?   Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively.  She suggested she felt sidewalks on Old Ellington Road made sense, but she was torn with regard to Windsorville Road.  She concurred the intent was to try to make Broad Brook a village concept, and the Commission was trying to get a nexus of sidewalks to the center but she felt people would have to walk in the road at some point.  

Chairman Ouellette questioned if there would be a grading issue on Windsorville Road?  Ms. Dearborn felt it would be challenging on lot #5, and at the beginning of lot #2.  She would also be concerned with drainage issues.   Scott Mangold felt the sidewalks would be fragmented by the existing house.  Commissioner Farmer suggested if the Commission requested sidewalks on Windsorville Road they could require installation of a sidewalk in front of the existing house.   Town Planner Whitten concurred, noting it’s part of the proposed subdivision.  She noted Windsorville Road is a minor collector street, with a 60’ - rather than 50’ - right-of-way.  Town Planner Whitten indicated there is 25’ from the pavement to the property line along Windsorville Road; there is enough room to install a sidewalk.  She suggested anything can be constructed; the question is it cost-effective and realistic?  Once the sidewalk is in there is also the maintenance issue.  
Commissioner Gowdy suggested he has changed his mind; he now wants sidewalks on both roads.  He has to think there will be a proposal for multi-unit dwellings.  Scott Mangold indicated he would drop the multi-family dwelling on Windsorville Road.   There is the grade issue, which would require filling.   The sidewalk would change the flow of the drainage.  Commissioner Gowdy suggested the Applicant needs to prepare a new plan.   Commissioner O’Brien questioned if the Applicant was saying the lots where the tri-plex is proposed takes water from Windsorville and Old Ellington Roads?   Scott Mangold suggested the water flows down towards the tracks, which is the reason for the detention basin.  Ms. Dearborn indicated the water comes down the road and goes into a swale; they are proposing to keep the swale.   Scott Mangold indicated it would add a huge cost to the driveway.  

Chairman Ouellette requested Ms. Dearborn to show a plan with sidewalks n Old Ellington Road and Windsorville Road, and the ramifications associated with that proposal.   He requested they prove the installation of sidewalks will be more of a problem than the betterment that the Commission feels sidewalks would be to the community.

Ed Mangold, requesting to speak from the audience, indicated he is Scott Mangold’s partner in this proposal.  He indicated it that’s what the Commission desires they can do that.  They would like to sell the existing house and they need to subdivide the property to do that.   Town Planner Whitten indicated the next Commission Meeting is September 8th.  Commissioner Gowdy requested clarification that Scott Mangold would take the multi-family dwelling off Windsorville Road if the sidewalk was not required on Windsorville Road?   Scott Mangold replied affirmatively, noting they have someone interested in the single family house. Ms. Dearborn questioned the Commission’s ability to limit a lot to a single family dwelling under a subdivision application.  

Chairman Ouellette polled Commissioners if a proposal for single family dwellings vs. multi-family dwellings made any difference regarding their decision related to sidewalk locations?  Commissioner Farmer suggested that consideration doesn’t affect his decision.  Commissioner Thurz replied negatively, noting his decision would be made on the need for sidewalks and the cost of installation.  Commissioner O’Brien indicated he liked a proposal which would include sidewalks, and would like to know how their installation affected the project.  With regard to single family vs. multi-family, he would like to see it either way.  Commissioner Mulkern indicated the choice of single family vs. multi-family had no bearing on his decision regarding sidewalks.  Chairman Ouellette requested Ms. Dearborn prepare both plans for the Commissioner’s review.   Town Planner Whitten suggested the Commissioners walk the property.  

MOTION: To CONTINUE the Application of DSE Properties, LLC.  for a 5-lot subdivision of property located at 16 Windsorville Road.  [R-1 Zone; Map 25, Block 47, Lot 17]  until the Commission’s regularly scheduled Meeting on September 8, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT. 06016.

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


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

The Commission RECESSED at 9:16 p.m. and RECONVENED at 9:22 p.m.

NEW BUSINESS: Leslie J. Hickey - request for a temporary Liquor Permit for wine tasting event to be held on October 10, 2009 from 4:00 to 10:00 P.M. at 149 North Road, owned by Patrick Soucy:

Mr. Hickey reported this another fundraiser similar to the event for the dog park committee which ran last month.  There will be music and outdoor entertainment; they usually end by 9 but say 10:00 to cover everything.  Chairman Ouellette questioned if the Planning Office received any complaints regarding the dog park event?   Town Planner Whitten replied negatively, noting there were no traffic issues, and no problems.  Mr. Hickey reported this event is a fundraiser for the Hal Kreske Foundation.   Last October they raised $5,000 which helped 16 families.  They hire an off-duty police officer for these events.  Town Planner Whitten noted they will be acquiring a Zoning Permit, which requires a police presence.

MOTION: To APPROVE the Application of Leslie J. Hickey - request for a temporary Liquor Permit for wine tasting event to be held on October 10, 2009 from 4:00 to 10:00 P.M. at 149 North Road, owned by Patrick Soucy.

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

BUSINESS MEETING/1)  Farm Regulations:  consideration of limiting quantity of animals in residential zones:

Town Planner Whitten presented the Commission with a working draft of proposed farm regulations.   The issue under discussion this evening is the allowable number of “farm” animals in a residential zone.  Town Planner Whitten reported the complaints received in the Planning Office  are usually due to the mismanagement, or total lack of management, of manure associated with the keeping of farm animals.  The number of animals doesn’t usually enter into the complaints.

Present regulations allow a “small number of horses or cows” to be kept on 4 acres if the property is located within a residential zone.  Town Planner Whitten indicated there are no guidelines regarding the number of acres needed for one horse or one cow.  She referenced regulations for the Town of Granby, which creates “animal units”, then defines various types of animals based on mature weight, and defines allowable number of animals within specified acreage.  Town Planner Whitten indicated she is seeking direction from the Commissioners as to how to proceed.

Commissioner O’Brien liked Granby’s approach to breaking down ownership by animal type and allowable number.  Commissioner Farmer concurred; he, too, liked setting specific numbers.    The Commission discussed various existing farm properties within East Windsor, and the number and types of animals owned.  

Chairman Ouellette questioned if there was a need to develop this type of regulation?  Town Planner Whitten reiterated her comment that the Planning Office has had a few isolated complaints.   The complaints were not about the number of animals owned, but rather about how manure was composted, or not composted.  Town Planner Whitten indicated “a small number of animals” creates many problems.  She discussed this issue with Dr. Sherman of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, who has indicated they have no guidelines - and never will be.   It depends on many variables, including soil types, slopes, the type of animal, and manure management.  Town Planner Whitten indicated she is working on “farm friendly” regulations which would encourage farming within the community.  People still need specific acreage to keep animals; that could be further defined as “useable acreage”, which takes out steep slopes, the area of the house, and septic area.  She noted under Section 305.2, paragraph 3 of her proposed regulations, she has tried to work in proper manure management.  Lack of proper management which creates an odor and flies could become a health issue.  Manure stored near, or running into a stream could become a wetlands issue also.  

Chairman Ouellette suggested bringing in some farmers to discuss these proposals.   Town Planner Whitten noted these regulations would go to Public Hearing, but it would be good to hold a public meeting to take input prior to the Public Hearing.  She will try to have the revised draft ready for review at a September Commission Meeting; the new regulations need to be adopted by the end of the year or the Town will lose the grant under which these regulations are being developed.   Chairman Ouellette queried the Commission regarding deleting the number of animals from Section 305; the consensus of the Commission was to get away from a specific number.

BUSINESS MEETING/2)  Correspondence:

*       U.S.A. Hauling, 10 Shoham Road:

Town Planner Whitten reported representatives for U.S.A. Hauling came in for a pre-construction meeting regarding proposed drainage and road improvements.  To assist in accomplishing those improvements they would like to temporarily (2+/- months)  relocate some empty containers to other locations on Shoham Road.   Relocation would occur during this construction season; they are working on getting their bonds together and will then start construction.

Chairman Ouellette questioned if the storage locations would create an eyesore for neighbors?  Would they be seen from the street?  Town Planner Whitten felt that would not be the case.   The containers are roll-off models.  The Zoning Permit will indicate necessary screening.  Town Planner Whitten anticipates the Planning Office will receive complaints, as it will require 3 or 4 days to move the containers, and the process will create noise.   The office will restrict the hours when the containers can be moved.  

        The Commission agreed to the temporary move.

*       Chairman Ouellette reported receipt of the following:

        1)      Connecticut Towns and Cities, June 2009 issue

        2)      Town Hall University, being held at the Connecticut Convention Center

BUSINESS MEETING/3)  Staff Reports:     None.


MOTION: To APPROVE the Minutes of Public Hearing #1552 Regular Meeting dated July 28, 2009 with the following amendments:

PAGE 1/LEGAL NOTICE:  “The following Legal Notice, which appeared in the Hartford Courant, Thursday, July 16, 2009, and Thursday, July 23, 2009, was read by Chairman Ouellette  Secretary Devanney:.........”
PAGE 2/NEW HEARING:  Shoham Road Transfer, LLC: - Special Use Permit for the opration   operation.................
PAGE 2/NEW HEARING:  Shoham Road Transfer, LLC: Paragraph 2: “.......and Jonathan Murray, Operations  Operations Manager......”

Gowdy moved/Devanney seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:   Devanney/Farmer/Gowdy/Thurz/Mulkern/O’Brien
          Opposed:  No one
          Abstained: Ouellette


*       Zone change/map amendment - Farmer, motion

*       Elzear Rodrigue, Resubdivision approval


MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 10:05 p.m.

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

Respectfully submitted,
Peg Hoffman, Recording Secretary, East Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission