Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Town Resources
  • Agendas & Minutes
  • Forms, Documents & Permits
  • Pay Bill Online
  • GIS/Maps
  • Contacts Directory
  • Subscribe to News
  • Live Stream and Recorded Video
  • Charter & Ordinances
  • Employment Opportunities
  • RFPs / Legal Notices
  • 250th Anniversary
  • Casino Development Agreement
October 27, 2009 Minutes

Public Hearing #1558
October 27, 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, Gowdy, Ouellette, and Thurz), and two Alternate Members (Mulkern and O’Brien) were present.    Alternate Members Matthews was absent.  Chairman Ouellette noted all Regular members would sit in on all Items of Business this evening.  

Also present was Town Planner Whitten.

Guests: Selectman Mark Simmons; James Richards, Executive Director of the Chamber Commerce.

FARM REGULATIONS WORKSHOP:      See Discussion under NEW BUSINESS/(1)  Farm Regulations - Discussion/(a) Right to Farm ordinance/(b) Agriculture Buffers.


Chairman Ouellette acknowledged receipt of the following Application:

1.      Application of Rejean Realty for Modification of Approved Site Plan for modification of approved lighting plan for the Norton Glen Condominiums, North (should be Norton Road) and Reggie Way, owned by the Norton Glen Condo Assoc., Inc. (MFDD Zone; Map 20, Block 32, Lot 8B).

PERFORMANCE BONDS - ACTIONS; EXTENSIONS; ROAD ACCEPTANCE:  Metro North -  Request from Mark W. Friend of Megson & Heagle (on behalf of White Diamond) for final release of the erosion control bond for the parking lot expansion at Metro North, One Corporate Road, Enfield (2.2 acres in East Windsor).  (Tabled from previous meeting):

Town Planner Whitten noted she has not received any new information with regard to the status of this parcel.  The item continues to be tabled.

PERFORMANCE BONDS - ACTIONS; EXTENSIONS; ROAD ACCEPTANCE:  The Settlement at Mason’s Brook - Request from Gary S. Merrigan for reduction of the landscaping bond.
Chairman Ouellette acknowledged receipt of letter dated October 15, 2009 from Gary Merrigan requesting a reduction in the current landscaping bond from $36,500 to $18,250.  Town Planner Whitten reported Assistant Town Planner Newton reviewed the site and found the landscaping to be satisfactory.  Under her memo dated October 21, 2009 Assistant Town Planner Newton has recommended reducing the landscaping bond by 50%.

MOTION: To REDUCE the Landscaping Bond for The Settlement at Mason’s Brook from $36,500 to $18,250.

Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Devanney/Farmer/Gowdy/Ouellette/Thurz

NEW BUSINESS:  USA  Hauling & Recycling, Inc. - Site Plan Approval for a Change of Use, expansion of gravel storage area and drainage improvements at 3 & 5 Shoham Road, owned by Laird Building, LLC.  Proposed Use at 3 Shoham Road is the manufacture, maintenance and storage of empty containers.  [M-1 Zone; Map 3, Block 17, Lot S3].  (Deadline for decision 12/17/09) TEMPORARILY ON HOLD; AND, NEW BUSINESS:  USA Hauling & Recycling, Inc. - Site Plan Approval for a Change of Use, expansion of gravel storage area and drainage improvements at 3 & 5 Shoham Road, owned by Laird Building, LLC.  Proposed Use at 5 Shoham Road is a dispatch center, truck repair and parking and empty container storage.  [M-1 Zone; Map 3, Block 17, Lot S4]  (Deadline for decision 12/17/09)  TEMPORARILY ON HOLD:

Town Planner Whitten reported the Applicant would now like to go for a motor vehicle license, and will appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval of the license.  

Chairman Ouellette questioned how this delay fits in with this Commission’s decision period?  If the Commission found a problem with the Site Plan would an extension still be available?   Town Planner Whitten reported the request still falls within the 65 day time period for a decision, and it would still allow the Applicant to grant an additional 65 days for an extension.

Commissioner Devanney questioned how a motor vehicle license would fit with the Applications presently before the Commission; would the Applicant be mixing and matching motor vehicle repairs and container repair?  Town Planner Whitten indicated it would depend on how the uses were proposed.  Discussion followed regarding the appropriate manner for dealing with this Application - withdrawal, tabling, or denying without prejudice.  

MOTION: To TABLE until the Commission’s regularly scheduled Meeting on December 8, 2009 the Applications of  USA  Hauling & Recycling, Inc. - Site Plan Approval for a Change of Use, expansion of gravel storage area and drainage improvements at 3 & 5 Shoham Road, owned by Laird Building, LLC.  Proposed Use at 3 Shoham Road is the manufacture, maintenance and storage of empty containers.  [M-1 Zone; Map 3, Block 17, Lot S3]; AND, NEW BUSINESS:  USA Hauling & Recycling, Inc. - Site Plan Approval for a Change of Use, expansion of gravel storage area and drainage improvements at 3 & 5 Shoham Road, owned by Laird Building, LLC.  Proposed Use at 5 Shoham Road is a dispatch center, truck repair and parking and empty container storage.  [M-1 Zone; Map 3, Block 17, Lot S4] .  The Meeting is held at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.

Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Devanney/Farmer/Gowdy/Ouellette/Thurz

BUSINESS MEETING/(1)  Farm Regulations - Discussion/(a) Right to Farm ordinance/(b) Agriculture Buffers:

Chairman Ouellette reported the Commission received two pieces of correspondence after the previous Meeting; they were a hand-written note from Rachel Durand of Applewood Farm, and an e-mail from Jim Von Oppen of Harrington Road.

Town Planner Whitten reported discussion at the previous Meeting indicated there was confusion as to how the proposed regulations affected the smaller farms in residential neighborhoods (“limited/residential farms”) vs. the larger farm operations (“farms”).  She has reformatted the regulations to separate the two types of farms, and the regulations pertinent to each.

Commissioner Farmer opened discussion by noting one of the first questions from the previous meeting was why the Commission was doing these regulations.   The reason given was that the Town received a grant to inventory farms for possible purchase; as a condition of receiving the grant the State asked us to write farm-friendly regulations.   Commissioner Farmer suggested his impression from the previous discussion was that the farmers didn’t want to be regulated.  He also felt the regulations should include a grandfathering clause.  Town Planner Whitten reported the grandfathering occurs under State Statutes, and would not be included in the regulations.   Commissioner Farmer felt the Statute should be referenced in the regulations.   He didn’t see this proposal as being farm-friendly.

Town Planner Whitten clarified that much of the language proposed in this draft is already in the Commission’s regulations; the new draft allows a farmer to do much more legally than they can do now.  The permitted uses are pretty much the same.  Conditions regarding manure storage are new, but Town Planner Whitten suggested the residential homeowner needs to be protected as well as the farmer.  She felt the previous presentation was confusing; she felt the larger farmers felt the restrictions applied to them rather than the limited/residential farms but they have nearly carte blanche if they are a full fledged farm.  Town Planner Whitten suggested it’s a misconception that to regulate is bad; that isn’t the case with this proposal.

The Commission reviewed the proposed regulations, and made the following revisions:

Definitions:  Town Planner Whitten noted if the proposed definitions exist in present regulations - and should these regulations be adopted - then she will be revising the existing references to the new language.   

“Agriculture; Agricultural Buildings or Structures; Barn” - no changes.

 “Farm” - the language “Farms located within the Agricultural Zone (A-1) must contain 3 or more acres” is in the present regulations.  The reference to “farms located in non-agricultural zones (R1, R2, R3, M1, and TZ5) must contain 10 acres or more” was taken as a suggestion made by the farmers during discussions.  “Farm” - no change to the proposed definition.  Town Planner Whitten suggested that in a residential zone the use is a “limited/residential farm” while if you have 10 acres in a residential zone you can be a “farm”.  She reiterated the limited farm located in a residential zone is a little more limited as to its uses because of where they are located; the regulations must protect the homeowner as well as the limited/residential farmer.

“Farm Stand, Seasonal; Farm Store; Greenhouse” - no changes, although discussion noted that the farm store is permanent vs. the farm stand, which is seasonal and dependent on the duration of the season of the crop.  

“Limited/Residential Farm” - removing last sentence - “This is typically accessory to a residential use.”  

“Livestock” - The Commission discussed the last sentence of the definition with regard to the need to define animals which might occupy a household.  The last sentence - in parenthesis - was revised to :(Does not include household pets dogs, cats, & pot bellied pigs [average weight 200 lbs.] ).   

“Nursery; Paddock” - no changes.  

“Usable Acreage” - Considerable discussion occurred regarding the following:  1)  what constitutes “useable acreage”.  Town Planner Whitten clarified that the useable acreage must be relatively flat and well drained, and does not include the septic area, steep slopes greater than 15%, or non-agricultural buildings, such as a residence.  She noted that wetlands has been dropped from the excluded area.  2)  Commissioner Gowdy opposed the reference to a “builders acre containing 40,000 square feet of area” rather than the common definition of 43,650 square feet of actual area within an acre.  He felt specifying the “builders area” in this farm regulation contradicts the Commission’s intention for consistency in the overall regulations as the common definition of an acre is understood to be the definition carried in other areas of other sections of regulations.  Three other Commissioners also opposed the specification to the 40,000 square foot definition; Chairman Ouellette felt the common definition of 43,640 should be continued to achieve uniformity.  3)  Commissioner Gowdy referenced the proposed language “.....a farm must have a minimum of 4 contiguous areas, 1 contiguous acre of which must be usable.......”  He felt using “contiguous” as an adjective to describe the “useable acre” was incorrect; he felt for something to be contiguous it must be attached to something else.  Town Planner Whitten clarified that her intent was to define an acre which was contained as a whole piece rather than 4 individual areas separated be any distance.   Commissioner
Mulkern zealously maintained that something contiguous could be attached to itself.  Commissioner Gowdy felt the “useable acre” should consist of 43,650 square feet contained within a single boundary.  Speaking from the audience Jim Richards felt the reference to a boundary was helpful as long as the area contained 1 acre.  Selectman Simmons offered the analogy of New England representing the 4 acres, while Connecticut represented the contiguous area.  He noted the common reference is to the 49 contiguous states.  Commissioner Gowdy concurred but noted in this definition the “useable acreage” is not spoken of as part of any other acreage.  The proposed language for “Usable Acreage” was revised as follows:  “In non-agricultural zones (R1, R2, Re, M1 and TZ-5) a farm must have a minimum of 4 contiguous acres, 1 contiguous acre of which must be usable.  Usable acreage must contain a minimum of one acre with a common boundary which should be relatively flat and well drained, and does not include wetlands, septic area, steep slopes (greater than 15%) or non-agricultural building structures (i.e. residential house).  For these purposes a builders acre of 40,000 square feet equals an acre..”

Section 305.1  Limited/Residential Farms - Permitted Uses”:  “Permitted Uses” dropped from section title.
“Subsection 1” - no changes.
“Subsection 2(a)” - discussion of the interpretation of  “or similar large animals”, could that be inferred to be pigs, and is it the Commission’s intent to allow pigs in a residential zone?  The Commission felt keeping pigs in a residential zone could be problematic due to odor caused by lack of proper animal husbandry; they felt the waiver provision contained in the proposed regulation gives a homeowner the ability to seek a variance of this section. The intent is to balance the rights of the homeowner and the limited residential farmer.  The language of this section has been revised to “.....2 horses, cows or similar large animals, excluding pigs, whose mature weight is greater than 500 lbs;.....”
“Subsection 2(c)” - specification of “hens” first changed to “fowl”, then changed to “poultry”.  Proposed language revised to “10 hens poultry, rabbits, or similar animals whose mature weight is less than 30 lbs.”
“Subsection 2(d)” - no change; language is in current regulations.
“Subsection 3” - Chairman Ouellette recalled comments made at the previous Meeting that from a practicality standpoint it was difficult to get equipment inside a manure storage area to maintain the manure if the area is required to be screened.   The Commission felt that by adding the 150’ separation distance from an abutting house or watercourse what would be visually seen would be a mound of material.  Commissioner Gowdy also questioned the reference to composting manure as he felt to do so (constantly turning it over) would cause a smell.   He requested Town Planner Whitten to provide him with the USDA guidelines regarding this practice.  Proposed language revised to “Manure storage must be a minimum of 150 feet from any abutting house structure, or watercourse, [must be visually screened], and properly composted per health code or USDA guidelines........”
“Subsection 4” - the Commission felt 2 feet was too close for a residential zone; the separation distance was changed to “5 feet”.
“Subsection 5” - Town Planner Whitten clarified the intent of this section is to provide shelter for the animals, especially during New England’s winter season.  She noted this section is in the current regulations; nothing new is being introduced except the reference to “land containing less than 5 acres.”  Commissioner Farmer cited large farms often move animals around between winter and summer pastures; Town Planner Whitten clarified this section refers to limited/residential farms that contain limited acreage which would prohibit the farmer from moving the animals around.  Proposed language was revised to “A barn or similar appropriate shelter, in winter months, shall be provided for all livestock, which are kept on a parcel of land containing less than 5 10 acres.”


Gowdy moved/Devanney seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Devanney/Farmer/Gowdy/Ouellette/Thurz

The Commission RECESSED at 8:25 p.m. and RECONVENED at 8:30 p.m.

Chairman Ouellette noted there were two members of the audience who were present for discussion of the Temporary Sign Regulations.   He suggested the Commission consider suspending discussion of the Farm Regulations and go out of the Agenda order to take up discussion of the Temporary Sign Regulations.

MOTION: TO GO OUT OF ORDER and hear discussion for the Temporary Sign Regulations next.

Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Devanney/Farmer/Gowdy/Ouellette/Thurz

BUSINESS MEETING/(2)  Temporary Sign Regulations - Discussion:

Town Planner Whitten reported that after the previous Meeting staff discussed the possibility of readdressing these proposed regulations, as it would be advantageous for the businessowner to at least go forward with a Public Hearing.  She reviewed the following additional revisions from the previous draft:  

        4)      Now includes a reference that the temporary banner sign must be located on the building wall located on the tenant space.
        10)     Town Planner Whitten noted this condition generated concerns during previous discussions; the condition remains in the draft for further consideration.
        11)     New condition allowing a business to place a small banner on the tenant space wall 2 weeks before a legal holiday without a permit.

Commissioner Gowdy opened discussion by noting that the Commission took a vote at the previous Meeting  to drop these regulations, but the item is on the Agenda tonight as if the Commission’s vote meant nothing.  Commissioner Gowdy suggested he is sympathetic to the businessowners plight, and is willing to listen to other types of regulations but he is upset about the procedure which brought these regulations back to the table.  Commissioner Gowdy felt this is sort of like if you don’t like the vote let’s do it again.  To address this again as if the last vote meant nothing is upsetting to him.

Chairman Ouellette indicated he didn’t support the regulations at the last meeting because of the caveat created by condition #10; he suggested he couldn’t continue to support the regulations with the caveat as it stands.   He felt it’s like a blank check and forces staff to make decisions that they shouldn’t have to make.  He understands there were Commission members who were disappointed with the vote made at the previous Meeting.  This Item of Business got put back on the Agenda because of his discussion with Town Planner Whitten as to where to go with the proposal.  He agreed he had many reservations but did like the sunset clause.  Chairman Ouellette suggested he doesn’t know if these regulations will make a difference, but he agrees with giving the community an opportunity to try to work with them.  The item is on the Agenda for discussion; that doesn’t mean the Commission will vote on it again.  

Commissioner Mulkern felt the proposal shouldn’t just be discarded; discussion should continue.  Commissioner Gowdy continued to oppose bringing the regulation back for discussion based on the previous vote.   Commissioner Devanney noted a straw vote taken at the previous Meeting which resulted in 4 of the Commissioners present desiring to go forward with the regulation; Commissioner Gowdy noted the actual vote of 5 voting members denied sending the regulations to a Public Hearing.  Town Planner Whitten reported she understands the concerns about the process but she has pushed to get this back on the Agenda for discussion.   The Commission has spent a lot of time on these regulations; the business community is behind it; staff has worked diligently on the proposed regulation.   By sending the regulation to Public Hearing it will give the business community a chance to express their opinions.   She felt that in these economic times staff and the businessowners would appreciate the opportunity to consider the regulation.  

Commissioner Gowdy noted that staff currently spends 70% of her time processing violations; he felt that time will only increase if this regulation is adopted.

Speaking from the audience Jim Richards suggested he didn’t feel the Commission understands what’s occurring out on the street.  There are small businesses in East Windsor that are closing down.  He noted that 42% of taxes paid in East Windsor are generated by businessowners.   Mr. Richards reported he serves on the Tourist Board; the key is to keep this community half residential and half business.  He agreed that the regulation was written by staff but he felt they understood what was needed and would address those needs appropriately.   Mr. Richards took offense at the suggestion of back-door dealing.  

Discussion continued, with Commissioners expressing various opinions.  Commissioner Gowdy was not convinced that the A-frame signs would increase business; Commissioner Farmer felt they did attract his attention.

Town Planner Whitten suggested the Commission could consider this as a discussion item and vote on it again tonight, or the business community could make an application for a text amendment which would incur an application fee and delay the process for another month or more.  She proposed discussion this evening as it accomplishes the same thing.  Commissioner Gowdy felt the previous vote was to take the proposal off the table.  Town Planner Whitten suggested she is asking the Commission, on behalf of the Economic Development  Commission and the business community, to take up this consideration again.

Town Planner Whitten made the following suggestions:  
        1)  Drop condition #10.  
        2)  Condition #11 is designed to address temporary signage for legal holidays as defined in the dictionary; such holidays are usually something of a religious nature.  Halloween or Valentine’s Day is not considered a legal holiday.  
         3)  The consensus of the Commission was to propose 12/31/2010 as the potential repeal date should the proposed regulations not work out as planned.  
        4)  Remove the “white background” from condition #2.  
        5)  Chairman Ouellette noted safety is paramount in his view; Town Planner Whitten noted set back distances are referenced in condition #7.  

Town Planner Whitten suggested if the Commission sends this draft to a Public Hearing they still will have an opportunity to make further revisions; Chairman Ouellette concurred, noting it also gives the business community an opportunity to offer input.


Farmer moved/Devanney seconded/

DISCUSSION:     Commissioner Gowdy indicated he would not vote to go to a Public Hearing because he didn’t think the process was followed correctly.  Commissioner Farmer questioned if Commissioner Mulkern would be voting on this motion?   Chairman Ouellette clarified that Commissioner  Mulkern would not be voting on this motion; as an Alternate he is encouraged to participate in any discussion which occurs on a subject but when the vote is made  on this motion he can not participate in this decision as five regular members are present/sitting to participate in votes this evening.
VOTE:   In Favor:       Devanney/Farmer/Ouellette
                Opposed:        Gowdy/Thurz
                Abstained:      No one

BUSINESS MEETING/(1)  Farm Regulations - Discussion/(a) Right to Farm ordinance/(b) Agriculture Buffers:

Chairman Ouellette reopened discussion of the proposed Farm Regulations.

“Section 305.2  Farms - Permitted Uses”:  “Permitted Uses” dropped from section title.
“Subsection 305.2(1)” - add “activities” to language.  Proposed language changed to “Keeping of livestock and other agricultural activities are permitted by right.
“Subsection 305.2(2)” - no changes.
“Subsection 305.2(3)” - revise typographical error as follows: “Pigs may be permitted in A-1 zone or on farms 10 acres or larger........”
“Subsection 305.2(4)” - Town Planner Whitten noted housing for field workers was allowed by Special Permit previously; the farmers objected, preferring that it just be allowed.   Chairman Ouellette concurred, noting this is less restrictive and more farm-friendly.   No changes proposed.
“Subsection 305.2(5)” - Town Planner Whitten noted this section was also allowed under a Special Use Permit previously.  No changes were proposed.

“Section 305.3  General Requirements - For all Farms and Limited/Residential Farms”:
“Subsection 305.3(1) and Subsection 305.3(2)” - no changes proposed.
“Subsection 305.3(3)” - Town Planner Whitten noted numerous complaints of animals wandering into the roadway if they are not contained in proper enclosures.  Chairman Ouellette concurred that this is a safety issue; Commissioner Thurz noted the situation is more of a hazard if the vehicle involved is a motorcycle.  Proposed language revised to “Animals shall be contained on the property and kept in a manner as to minimize noise, odor and dust generation, and to avoid air and water pollution.”
“Subsection 305.3(4) and Subsection 305.3(5)”- no changes proposed.

“Section 305.4   Farm Stores” and “Section 305.5  Farm Stands”:  Town Planner Whitten noted that the proposed language allows Farm Stores (a permanent structure) in a residential zone for properties containing between 4 and 10 acres under the Special Use Permit process.  Farm Stands would not be permitted in a residential zone, but a limited/residential farmer could come in to apply for a farm stand under the Special Use Permit process.  No changes were proposed for either section.

“Section 305.6  Other Related Uses”:  
“Subsection 305.6(a)” - proposed wording revised to “Such Accessory uses include events such as .........”
“Subsection 305.6(b)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (6)” - no changes proposed.
“Subsection 305.6(b)(4)” -  removed the number of occupants, proposed language changed to “Bed and Breakfast (limit 10 occupants).

“Section 305.7  Signage”:  Town Planner Whitten noted the intent is to limit the number of signs allowable in a residential zone.
“Subsection 305.7(a) Permanent Signs”  - no changes proposed.
“Subsection 305.7(b) Temporary/Seasonal Signs” - The Commission discussed the intent to restrict this type of signage to the specific farm property.  Proposed language revised to “Temporary free-standing or attached signs on a farm, limited farm, associated with a farm stand, seasonal farm stand, or agriculturally related use, whose content may change per available goods, services or activities, may be permitted on the farm parcel with the following conditions:........”
“Subsection 305.7(c) Off Site Directional Signage - Seasonal”:  From the perspective of clarification Chairman Ouellette questioned that presently businesses are not allowed to put signs on public property, but this regulation proposes to allow that use to farmers?  Town Planner Whitten replied affirmatively.  Chairman Ouellette questioned if this regulation favors one type of business others?  Town Planner Whitten suggested the State has requested that farms be a priority with regard to preservation; towns must support farms and the farmer.  
“Subsection 305.7(c)(1)”  - Proposed language revised to “may only be located at turning points; one sign per farm per location.”
“Subsection 305.7(c)(2)” -  Proposed language revised to “must be professionally prepared legible, and of weather resistant material.”
Subsection 305.7(c)(1), (3), (4), and (5)”  - no changes proposed.
“Subsection 305.7(c)(6)”:  grammatical change of “shall” for “should”.
“Subsection 305.7(c)(7)”:  new subsection; proposed language to include “sign shall be removed when farm stand closes or seasonal harvest ends.”

“Section 305.8  Waiver Provision”:  No changes proposed.  

Town Planner Whitten indicated she proposes to do another workshop for the Commission’s November 8th Meeting; mailings will be sent out to farmers as was done for the previous workshop.  

Right to Farm Ordinance:

Town Planner Whitten suggested this proposal is somewhat of a proclamation to acknowledge the Town is behind them.   She clarified that this is not an enforcement ordinance.  Should this Commission adopt this ordinance it would then be referred to the Board of Selectmen and then go to Town Meeting for a vote.  Chairman Ouellette suggested the concept had a lot of merit; the consensus of the Commission was favorable to send this proposal to the Board of Selectmen.

Agricultural Buffer Strips:

Town Planner Whitten suggested this regulation would apply if a residential subdivision were proposed on land next to an farm.  The intent is to move the subdivision away from the farm.  

Commissioner Gowdy cited concern for the reference to “dust or chemical spray drift” in paragraph 2; he felt the language subjected the Town to lawsuits.  The majority of the Commissioners didn’t share Commissioner Gowdy’s concern.

The Commission felt the size of the buffer should vary depending on the size of the parcels under consideration at the time of an application.

The Commission agreed to go forward with adding this regulation to the Subdivision Regulations.


Gowdy moved/Farmer seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Devanney/Farmer/Gowdy/Ouellette/Thurz

BUSINESS MEETING/(3)  Election of Officers/Review of Bylaws:


Farmer moved/Thurz seconded/VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous

The Commission postponed discussion of the bylaws due to the late hour of the Meeting.

BUSINESS MEETING/(4)  Meeting Schedule for 2010:

MOTION: To APPROVE the 2010 Meeting Schedule for the Planning and Zoning Commission as written.

Gowdy moved/Devanney seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Devanney/Farmer/Gowdy/Ouellette/Thurz

BUSINESS MEETING/(5)  Correspondence:

Chairman Ouellette cited receipt of notice from the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) regarding a decision concerning sewer service.  Town Planner Whitten that a developer isn’t allowed to bring sewers into non-sewer service areas.  The Mitchell family petitioned the Office of Policy and Management to have a parcel on Griffin Road changed from the non-sewer service area.  This is the same situation as the petition for inclusion of Hemlock Court, off of East Road, which OPM opposed.  As a result of this change the Commission can expect to see an application come before them for a 3 lot single home subdivision consisting of  2 new lots and one renovation of an historic home on 3 1/2 acres.  

BUSINESS MEETING/(6)  Staff Reports:         No Additional Reports presented.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES/October 13, 2009:

MOTION:  To APPROVE the Minutes of Public Hearing #1557 dated October 13, 2009 as written

Gowdy moved/Devanney seconded/
VOTE:   In Favor:  Devanney/Farmer/Gowdy/Ouellette/Thurz


MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 10:42 p.m.

Gowdy moved/Devanney seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Devanney/Farmer/Gowdy/Ouellette/Thurz

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