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
 
December 8, 2009 Minutes
TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

Public Hearing #1561
December 8, 2009


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

ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM:

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 included Selectman Mark Simmons (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), and Kathy Pippin, of the Board of Finance (arrived at 7:15 p.m.).  Both parties left the Meeting recess at 8:55 p.m. after conclusion of discussion of the Temporary Sign Regulations, and review of Items of Business through the Applications of USA Hauling.

ADDED AGENDA ITEMS:     None.

RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS:      None.

LEGAL NOTICE:

Chairman Ouellette read the following Legal Notice, which appeared in the Hartford Courant on Friday, November 27, 2009, and Friday, December 4, 2009:

*       Proposed Text Amendment to the Zoning Regulations - “Temporary Business Sign Regulations to Advertise Special Business Events”.

PERFORMANCE BONDS - ACTIONS; EXTENSION; ROAD ACCEPTANCE - Dunkin Donuts:  Request from John Silva for final release of the erosion control bond for the Dunkin Donuts located at 216 South Main Street:

Chairman Ouellette noted receipt of the following correspondence:  1)  letter from John Silva, Business Director - GM of EWD, Inc. requesting release of the Erosion Bond for the captioned location (no amount specified); and 2) memo from Town Engineer Norton noting all areas have been stabilized and recommending release of the Erosion and Sedimentation Bond.

Town Planner Whitten noted the Commission has already released a portion of this bond; only $1,000 remains in the possession of the Town at this point.

MOTION: To APPROVE the final release of the Erosion Control Bond for Dunkin Donuts at 216 South Main Street.

Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Devanney/Farmer/Gowdy/Ouellette/Thurz)
  No opposition, no abstentions

PERFORMANCE BONDS - ACTIONS; PERMIT 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):

No new information received regarding this request; Item of Business continues to be tabled.

NEW HEARING:  Proposed Text Amendment to the Zoning Regulations - “Temporary Business Sign Regulations to Advertise Special Business Events”:

Town Planner Whitten noted this Application is proposed by the Town; the proposed regulation contains the following six conditions:

1)      references existing regulation Section 602.12g which shall be deleted in lieu of this proposal.
        2)      addresses a $70 Town fee plus the State fee
3)      fees are being waived until January 1, 2010, but temporary sign can be installed for ONE two week period prior to January 1, 2010 WITH A PERMIT to get everyone on board with the new regulation.
4)      text amendment is effective one day after notice is published in the newspaper - the first day the publication can be posted is Monday, December 14, 2009.
5)      regulation will be automatically repealed on December 31, 2010 unless the PZC agrees to extend this section of the regulations.  Chairman Ouellette clarified that if no one from this Board remains on the Commission and is therefore not here to put this regulation back on the agenda then it does NOT automatically continue?   Town Planner Whitten replied Affirmatively.       
6)      copy of final motion and text amendment shall be filed in the Town Clerk’s Office on the effective date by the applicant.  The amendment will include the signatures of the Chairman and Secretary of the PZC, and the approval and effective date of the amendment.

Town Planner Whitten noted the referral to CRCOG (Capitol Region Council of Governments) has been made; they had no comments regarding the proposed text amendment.

Town Planner Whitten noted receipt of the following e-mails in support of the Temporary Sign Ordinance:

        1)      Cathy Kendall, Branch Manager, CT. Market, Staffmark
        2)      Bob Lyke, Broad Brook Opera House, Board of Directors
        3)      Christopher Shaw, marketing Manager, Connecticut Trolley Museum
4)      Margaret Smith Hale, Executive Director, ITNNorthCentralConnecticut, Dignified Transportation for Seniors
        5)      Peter Alberici, ACI Auto Group, LLC
        6)      Bonnie Emmons, Owner, Good Mornings
        7)      Frank Giordano, Hartfield Executive Park

Chairman Ouellette questioned if the regulation needed to be tweaked in some way how would that be handled since the proposal has been referred on to CRCOG?  Town Planner Whitten noted that CRCOG had no comments regarding the current proposal.   She felt if the intent of the regulation was not altered in a major way any minor tweaks could be handled by the Commission, or at the administrative level if the Commission preferred.  If the wording were changed in a major way after adoption of this regulation then the Commission would have to repeat this process, with another public hearing and referral to CRCOG, to alter the regulation significantly.  If it’s found this regulation isn’t working as intended the process can be repeated.  Commissioners Farmer, Devanney, Gowdy, O’Brien, and Mulkern concurred they were happy with the amendment as presented.

Chairman Ouellette queried the audience for comments:

Rich Bealieau, Action Glass, South Main Street:  reported at his property he has a fence about 60       off the road that separates the property.   He would like to install a banner he currently has, which is about 60’ long, on the fence; he noted that wouldn’t work with this proposal.  Also, he questioned if he could put a sign or banner on the building?  Mr. Bealieau indicated he only got the Commission’s proposal tonight, and only heard about it 2 days ago.  

Chairman Ouellette felt item #4 under the proposed regulation would address the sign on the building, but nothing is allowed to be hung on the fence now under the current regulations.  Town Planner Whitten also noted a 60’ banner wouldn’t be allowed anywhere, but Mr. Bealieau could install a free standing sign if it   meets the size requirements.  Chairman Ouellette suggested Mr. Bealieau stop by the Planning Office for more specific direction.

Jim Nilsson, Geisslers Supermarkets:  would urge the Commission to vote in favor of this proposal to give       the businesses the opportunity to do different promotions throughout the year.  He noted they have put out A-frame signs in the past and were cited for same, and therefore took it in.  This proposal would support the local businesses.

Eric Moffett, Chairman of the East Windsor Economic Development Commission:  noted this proposal has been discussed at the EDC.  He felt the Town wants to promote businesses, and educate people that these businesses do exist, and want to get people into Town.  The Town and the PZC needs to support businesses as the businesses are here to support our community.  Mr. Moffitt felt this ordinance would do that; it would say that the PZC and EDC - each commission and as a group - are in favor of businesses and  are here to help the business community.

Jim Richards, Chairman of the East Windsor Chamber of Commerce:  suggested the education of the businesses as to how to manage this regulation has already started.  He noted some A-frame signs showed up at a plaza last weekend and the plaza owner asked his tenants to remove them.   Mr. Richards indicated the businesses in general are in favor of this proposal.  He suggested you will always get the 20% that won’t comply but in general the businesses are in agreement to work with this regulation.

Commissioner Thurz and Chairman Ouellette noted they are in favor of giving this proposal a chance as well.

MOTION: To CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING on the Application for a Proposed Text Amendment    to the Zoning Regulations - “Temporary Business Sign Regulations to Advertise Special Business Events”.

Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Devanney/Farmer/Gowdy/Ouellette/Thurz)
  No opposition, no abstentions

Chairman Ouellette suggested he supports the proposed text amendment and also supports the businesses in Town.  He felt this proposal will support the business in Town during these challenging times.  Commissioner Devanney agreed, noting this proposal shows the Commission supports the businesses.  Commissioners Farmer, Gowdy, Thurz, Mulkern, and O’Brien concurred with the comments made by their fellow Commissioners.

MOTION to APPROVE the text amendment to allow for temporary business signs to be referenced as Chapter 602.8.d in the Zoning Regulations.   Said amendment will have the following conditions:
1.      Chapter 602.12g of the Zoning Regulations which states “Freestanding portable signs, such as sandwich or A-frame signs, shall be prohibited” shall be deleted from the regulations.
2.      A fee schedule of $70.00 plus the state fee will be required for the years allotment of temporary signs.
3.      The fees for temporary signs will be waived until January 1, 2010.  However, Temporary signs may be installed for one two week period prior to such date WITH A PERMIT, otherwise the sign will be subject to enforcement action.
4.      This text amendment will be come effective one day after notice is published in the newspaper.  (Notice will be posted on Friday December, 11, thus effective date will be Monday, December 14, 2009).
5.      This regulation will be automatically repealed on December 31, 2010, unless the Planning and Zoning Commission agrees to extend this section of the regulations.
6.      A copy of the final motion and text amendment shall be filed in the Office of the Town Clerk on the effective date by the applicant.  Said amendment shall bear the signatures of the Chairman and Secretary of the Commission, and the approval and effective date of the amendment.

Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Devanney/Farmer/Gowdy/Ouellette/Thurz)
  No opposition, no abstentions

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

Chairman Ouellette read the descriptions of both of these Items of Business.   Appearing to discuss these Applications was Jay Ussery, of J. R. Russo & Associates.  Chairman Ouellette suggested the Commission may need to request the Applicant to grant an extension on these proposals.   Town Planner Whitten suggested Mr. Ussery clarify what will occur on each site for the Commission.

Mr. Ussery indicated that staff had suggested that it would be beneficial to have a key map which specified what properties are owned by USA Hauling, and to also clarify what occurs at each site.  That keep map is now available for the Commission and Planning Office use.  Mr. Ussery indicated that the corner parcel is occupied by Olender’s, the next parcel up the street - #3 - was previously occupied by MWI Manufacturing which has now moved to New York.  The next parcel up the street is #5, which was previously occupied by Laird Plastics.  USA Hauling purchased #5 about 2 years ago and has made some improvements to the site already; #3 was recently purchased.   They are proposing the following uses for the sites:

#5 Shoham Road is presently the dispatch center for USA Hauling; the site presently contains a small area for employee parking (6-7 people in the dispatch office, 6-7 people working at #3 that park on this site), some truck storage and repair occurs at the site and some container storage occurs on a gravel area in the rear.  USA Hauling has made some drainage and paving improvements to this site.

#3 Shoham Road is located behind Olenders; the proposal is to use this location for truck sales, some truck repairs,  some container storage, and some container repair and manufacturing.  This parcel is a good location but the building and the site need a lot of work.   This location was approved for used truck sales at the Zoning Board of Appeals Commission last evening.  

Commissioner Gowdy questioned how used truck sales relates to USA’s current business?   Mr. Ussery indicated that USA has a large fleet of vehicles which they often traded in, they would like to be able to offer these vehicles as a used truck dealer.  

Regarding #5, Mr. Ussery indicated that some drainage and paving improvements have already been done at this location.   USA Hauling would like to rework the drainage in the rear.  In it’s current state #5 exceeds the impervious coverage allocation, so they are reconfiguring a small area in the rear of #3 to become part of #5 to be able to meet the impervious coverage requirements.  

Mr. Ussery indicated that #3 basically has no formal drainage system at this point; some of the drainage is sheet flow to Shoham Road, some drainage from the rear goes to the Trolley Museum, and some drainage may work it’s way into Olender’s detention basin.  USA Hauling is proposing paving to take care of the run off, and will construct a water quality basin to the rear of the site, with a catch basin on the north side of the site.  Some of the sheet flow off the back of the property - which currently flows onto the Trolley Museum and flows into a swale along the property line to the south into wetlands on property south of the Trolley Museum - will now go into a plunge pool on #5.  Mr. Ussery indicated there is a small paved parking lot in front of the building which will be removed and replaced with a grass island for truck display.  The driveway on the side of this parcel has been moved in 10’ from the property line; that driveway will be reconstructed, regraded, and paved.  A swale has been added at the side of the driveway to pick up the water from the driveway.  

Mr. Ussery reported that both buildings - #3 and #5 - are on septic systems as there is no sewer available in Shoham Road.  He indicated that they did look at the possibility of bringing a sewer main through the grass area up to the site.  It has been determined such action would be feasible; Kevin Leslie felt the WPCA (Water Pollution Control Authority) would approve that request.  

Commissioner Gowdy questioned if there would be contamination of the well on the site?   Mr. Ussery indicated there are no floor drains in the building, noting not all service facilities have floor drains.   Commissioner Gowdy felt the building should have floor drains, especially if you plan to service trucks with hydraulic lines, etc.  Mr. Ussery indicated that floor drains are not a requirement for an auto dealership license.  Commissioner Thurz questioned if they wash the trucks at this location?   Mr. Ussery felt that activity is done further up Shoham Road.  If trucks were to be washed at this location they would have to blow out the concrete floor and install floor drains.  Commissioner Gowdy suggested he would like to see floor drains and an oil/water separator, and would also like to see water brought in from the street.   Mr. Ussery indicated the oil/water separator is simple, but the floor is flat; you would need to rip out the floor.   The run off can’t go into the septic system, but there is no sewer available.   A holding tank would have to be installed, which would be pumped out periodically.  Commissioner Devanney questioned if the North Central Health District (NCHD) has been involved with regard to the well?   Mr. Ussery replied not at this point.  Commissioner Gowdy felt the NCHD should be consulted.  Chairman Ouellette suggested the Commission must ask if there is an intensity to the change of use proposed?   Mr. Ussery felt there is not when compared to what was done at that location before this proposal.  He suggested the septic system were designed as a commercial application which contains some galleys; the septic systems are capable of being driven over.  Commissioner O’Brien questioned what the squiggley lines on the plans represented?   Mr. Ussery suggested that’s an existing vegetation line; there is currently a storage area on top of the septic system.  Commissioner O’Brien questioned if they bring that area up will it change the septic system?   Mr. Ussery replied negatively.  

Mr. Ussery suggested bringing in water to the site isn’t that big of a problem, but they need to bring sewer a distance of 400’ to 500’, and then need to blow out the floor of the existing building,  Commissioner Gowdy suggested they could put in floor drains and a holding tank rather than connect to the sewer.  Chairman Ouellette questioned if reconstructing the concrete floor is less trouble than bringing in the sewer?   Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively, noting if the city water is brought in the well would be abandoned.  Commissioner Gowdy reiterated he would like to see the oil/water separator which flows into a holding tank which is disposed of as it fills up.  Commissioner O’Brien questioned if the old Tri-State building contains an oil/water separator?   Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively, noting that building was built as a repair facility.  Commissioner O’Brien suggested sometimes if you have a floor drain it becomes easier to push everything into that drain.

Chairman Ouellette questioned if the same activities will be going on at #5?  Mr. Ussery suggested that’s basically a dispatch facility, and inside are new and clean tippers which are clean and warm and ready to go out in the morning.  Commissioner Gowdy suggested that doesn’t bother him as much as the truck repair facility.  Town Planner Whitten suggested there will be truck repairs going on at #5 Shoham Road as well, it will just be work being done on their own trucks.  Chairman Ouellette questioned Commissioner Gowdy if he had the same concerns for #5 Shoham Road, as the same potential exists for both sites.   Commissioner Gowdy indicated he was ok with #5 Shoham Road.  Mr. Ussery indicated that the motor vehicle department does an inspection before they give the license, and if you have a floor drain it must be connected to a sewer, but, if you don’t have a floor drain Mr. Ussery indicated he didn’t believe there was any requirement that a floor drain be installed.  Mr. Ussery suggested older buildings didn’t have floor drains; you would be putting in floor drains in new buildings.  Commissioner Gowdy reiterated he felt the well would be a problem.

Chairman Ouellette questioned if the volume reduction facility contains floor drains?   Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively, noting that when the industrial park was built and the volume reduction facility may have been the first building on the street - it was then occupied by Weller Potatoes - the sewer that was built to service the Prospect Hill Subdivision was never put in Shoham Road.  Mr. Ussery suggested he believed that when the volume reduction facility was originally approved it was on a septic system, but the sewer was brought up through the back and tied into the Penske location and access was brought in from across the street to the volume reduction facility for the bathrooms.    Mr. Ussery suggested that in the back the “juice” went into a holding tank.   Commissioner Gowdy questioned if Mr. Ussery were saying that he couldn’t put in an oil/water separator without putting the flow into a sewer?  Mr. Ussery indicated the flow must go either into a holding tank, or directly into the sewer.    Town Planner Whitten questioned if they could pick up the sewer as it exists today without the proposed North Road sewer extension?   Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively.  Commissioner Devanney questioned the length of time to make that connection?   Mr. Ussery replied 6 to 8 months.   Chairman Ouellette suggested the PZC’s concern is the contaminants on the floor and where they go.   Commissioner Devanney suggested that was a good idea if these were normal circumstances.  Mr. Ussery advised the Commission that located on Route 198 in downtown Eastford there is a Ford dealership that has been there for 40 or 60 years.  There are no sanitary sewers and no floor drains, and they have been doing ok for all that time.  He suggested he agreed with Commissioner O’Brien that in some circumstances floor drains do become a basket, even when cleaning the floor; everything goes into the floor drain until it backs up.

Chairman Ouellette questioned if Mr. Ussery went to the NCHD what would they tell him?  Mr. Ussery suggested that if they abandoned the well and tied into the city water the NCHD would tell him they have no jurisdiction over that situation.  He surmised that they might recommend floor drains but he didn’t feel that’s their jurisdiction.  Chairman Ouellette queried if the Commission felt that public water was a good idea?   Mr. Ussery agreed with that recommendation.  Commissioner Farmer felt that a business owner would try to minimize spills on the floor because of the liability issues; antifreeze is slippery.  Commissioner Gowdy questioned why new construction has floor drains; Chairman Ouellette questioned why that’s become a requirement?   Mr. Ussery suggested it’s easier to keep the shop and the floors clean; it’s easier to sweep into a trench drain than to pick up debris with a shovel.  

Commissioner Mulkern felt the same concerns exist for #3 and #5.   Commissioner Gowdy felt that they will be taking care of their own vehicles at #5; as minor spills happen it’s conceivable that they will clean them up, but if this becomes a large scale facility...........

Commissioner O’Brien questioned how many trucks would be handled in the 2400 square feet within the building at #3?   Mr. Ussery suggested there will be 2 to 3 side bay doors.  Commissioner O’Brien suggested it would be 1 1/2 times the size of the Town Hall Meeting room to put 3 trucks in the 3 bays.  He questioned what about #5?   Mr. Ussery suggested the building at #5 is bigger; the plans show 8 doors.  Commissioner Gowdy suggested the plans show an area for 5 trucks to be displayed for sale, which implies to him that this will be a bigger operation than it appears.  Mr. Ussery replied there is that display area in front, and room for storage for more in the back.  Commissioner O’Brien questioned what will actually go inside the building?  If you only have room for 3 trucks in 3 service bays that’s the maximum they will have for room to work on trucks.   Mr. Ussery indicated there is also office space in the front.  Town Planner Whitten also noted they will be manufacturing containers in the building, which will take up some of the space.  Mr. Ussery suggested he felt the majority of mechanical repairs are done in the Tri-State building, which was built as a repair facility.  

Chairman Ouellette queried Commissioner Gowdy that his concern was for the owner cleaning up after themselves?   Town Planner Whitten suggested DEP would become involved regarding spills.  Chairman Ouellette

suggested a storage tank outside could leak as well.  Commissioner Gowdy suggested much of the area is parking lot; it will sheet flow into the detention basin.  Mr. Ussery noted some of the things the applicant has done in the past is to put discharges at the catch basins of the drainage system; a hooded discharge draws the stormwater from below the surface because gas or oil will flow to the top.   If there was a major flood gas or oil would run on top.   Also, there is vegetation in the detention basin to take out contaminants and pollutants.  This proposal is a better drainage system than is in place presently.  Mr. Ussery suggested they could also install level spreaders along the back of the parking lot; the level spreader is essentially rip rap; pollutants stick to the riprap.  A maintenance schedule would then also be added to the plans.   Chairman Ouellette questioned if that would affect the volume; should Town Engineer Norton review the changes?  Mr. Ussery didn’t think this revision would affect the volume but would he would be agreeable to reviewing the changes with Town Engineer Norton.  

Commissioner Gowdy felt the Commission should make recommendations in the form of conditions to the applicant.  Chairman Ouellette suggested the conditions go with the land; this applicant could sell the property tomorrow.   He questioned if Commissioner Gowdy wanted a feasibility study done?   Commissioner Gowdy replied negatively.  Town Planner Whitten suggested she would be more comfortable with installation of the hooded dischargers and level spreader rather than the oil/water separator because she felt the hooded dischargers and level spreader work better, but she would like to see them installed on both sites.   She felt the concern was just as valid on #5 as on #3.  Mr. Ussery agreed they could do level spreaders on the back of #5.  Commissioner O’Brien questioned putting curbing along the bay doors to contain the spills inside the building, like they do for fuel terminals?  Commissioner Gowdy felt that approach would be creating a bowl from which the spill would need to be sucked up.   Mr. Ussery felt that installing level spreaders at the east end of the #5 site would be an option to keep pollutants from getting into the groundwater.  

Discussion followed regarding the need to run the recommendations by the applicant, and the need for additional engineering review.   Town Planner Whitten questioned if the applicant would request an extension of the application?  Commissioner Mulkern questioned if there was a way to approve the revisions as discussed so the applicant wouldn’t have to return for another meeting?   Town Planner Whitten recalled the reason the Commission is running out of time to review the application is because the applicant changed their intent mid-stream in the review process; the applications have been continued a couple of times at the applicant’s request.  Commissioner Mulkern felt the Commission should be able to approve this without making the applicant return.  Commissioner Gowdy felt the Commission should be approving something that’s apparent on the plan; these changes are still under discussion and are not reflected on the plans.    Mr. Ussery indicated he had no problem giving an extension on behalf of the applicant.  Mr. Ussery clarified that the recommendations are: to tie into Connecticut Water, install floor drains and an oil/water separator with holding tank that would be pumped out as needed, or, to tie into the sanitary system for Shoham Road.  In lieu of that they would propose hooded dischargers and level spreaders.  

Chairman Ouellette noted that in front of building #3 there is a display area on an angle, is it the applicant’s intention for one-way or two-way traffic?  Mr. Ussery suggested the 24’ width shown on the plan would imply two-way traffic, although it would probably only be for employees.   Chairman Ouellette suggested the visual will be trucks parked on an angle, and only part of the building will be visible.   He questioned if there will be lawn area?   Mr. Ussery replied affirmatively.  Chairman Ouellette questioned that no landscaping is proposed for building #5?   Mr. Ussery replied negatively.  Chairman Ouellette suggested he is looking for some way to beautify the site.

Commissioner Thurz questioned if there would be lighting installed at either site?   Mr. Ussery suggested they already have wall packs on building #5, and probably will install the same lighting on building #3.  They are not proposing any pole lights.

Chairman Ouellette suggested there is a dense vegetative buffer near the Trolley Museum, he questioned if they propose to cut down any trees?  What would the view look like from the Trolley Museum?   Mr. Ussery suggested it will look more open from the Trolley Museum, although he didn’t feel there was much of a visual to the building as there is a slope to the rear.  Chairman Ouellette questioned if there will be more noise from the proposed activities?  Mr. Ussery questioned if Chairman Ouellette was suggesting screening?   Chairman Ouellette suggested planting a row of pines along the property line for #3, which would still allow the applicant to do their maintenance.  Commissioner Devanney questioned if the applicant needs a right-to-drain from the Trolley Museum?  Mr. Ussery suggested it drains there now; they aren’t changing anything.   Mr. Ussery felt there is a prescriptive right; he felt they will be improving the drainage.

Mr. Ussery agreed to give the Commission an extension until January 12, 2010.

MOTION: To TABLE the Application of  USA Hauling & Recycling, Inc. for Site Plan Approval for a Change of Use, expansion of gravel storage area and drainage improvements at 3 Shoham Road, owned by Laird Building, LLC.  Proposed Use at 3 Shoham Road is the manufacture, maintenance and storage of empty containers and automobile dealership.  [M-1 Zone; Map 3, Block 17, Lot S3] until the next regularly scheduled Meeting, January 12, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.  

Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Devanney/Farmer/Gowdy/Ouellette/Thurz)
              No opposition, no abstentions

MOTION:         To TABLE the Application of USA Hauling & Recycling, Inc. for Site Plan Approval for a Change of Use, expansion of gravel storage area and drainage improvements at 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] until the next regularly scheduled Meeting, January 12, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room, 11 Rye Street, Broad Brook, CT.  

Devanney moved/Gowdy seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Devanney/Farmer/Gowdy/Ouellette/Thurz)
              No opposition, no abstentions

MOTION: TO TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK.

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

The Commission RECESSED at 8:55 p.m. and RECONVENED at 9:03 p.m.

BUSINESS MEETING/(1)  Farm Regulations - Discussion:

Town Planner Whitten advised the Commission that after the last workshop a few of the farmers that are members of the Farm Bureau met on their own.   They have submitted their findings to the Commission for consideration.  They are pretty happy with the signage proposal, but would like to be allowed to have farms on any acreage in Town, and maybe just regulate the number of animals.   Town Planner Whitten indicated she met with them yesterday, but she needs to investigate their suggestions and the ramifications associated with them.  She will also talk to the Department of Agriculture (DOA) as the group suggested, but the Town needs to know that the DOA will respond, how they will do that, and if they will respond in a timely manner.  Town Planner Whitten suggested the farmers don’t like the term “limited farm”, which is a term that came directly from the book offering regulation guidelines.  She noted she has also contacted the authors of the Planning for Agriculture guide.  She requested the Commission review the farmers findings, and submit comments for the January 12, 2010 meeting if possible.  

Chairman Ouellette recalled that at the previous meeting the Commission decided they want to address the signage issue first.   Regulations from the Town of Glastonbury have also been requested as a model for their signage.

BUSINESS MEETING/(2)  Review of Bylaws:

The Commission made slight additional revisions to the current bylaws.

MOTION: To APPROVE THE TOWN OF EAST WINDSOR’S BYLAWS FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AS AMENDED.

Gowdy moved/Devanney seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Devanney/Farmer/Gowdy/Ouellette/Thurz)
              No opposition, no abstentions

BUSINESS MEETING/(3)  Correspondence:   None.

BUSINESS MEETING/(4)  Staff Reports:

*       Town Planner Whitten advised the Commission the owner of 34 Newberry Road (across from the Thompson Road intersection) is proposing to install a 34’ x 20’ roof over the pavement.   The Commission concurred with an administrative approval of the installation; building and zoning permits are also needed.  

*       Town Planner Whitten reported the installation of the sound barrier at the volume reduction facility on Shoham Road has been delayed due to questions raised by the Building Inspector, who now has 30 days to review the situation.   Installation was to have occurred by December 31, 2009; they are moving forward and installing the support structure.  The Commission indicated they have no problem with the delay as it’s no fault of the applicant.

*       Commissioner Gowdy raised questions regarding the auto salvage facility on Newberry Road.  Chairman Ouellette noted there is signage on site advertising a drive-through claim facility; he questioned if that was part of the original approval?  Commissioner Thurz felt the approval was granted for off-loading of auto salvage.  Town Planner Whitten to review the application file.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES/November 24, 2009:

MOTION:         To APPROVE the Minutes of Public Hearing #1560 dated November                   24, 2009 as presented.

Gowdy moved/Devanney seconded/
VOTE: In Favor:  Unanimous (Devanney/Farmer/Ouellette/Thurz)
  No opposition, no abstentions

SIGNING OF MYLARS/PLANS, MOTIONS:

*       Text Amendment for temporary business signs to be referenced as Chapter 602.8.d in the Zoning   Regulations.   

ADJOURNMENT:

MOTION: To ADJOURN this Meeting at 9:35 p.m.

Gowdy moved/Devanney seconded/
VOTE:  In Favor:  Unanimous (Devanney/Farmer/Ouellette/Thurz)
              No opposition, no abstentions

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