HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONE CHANGE REQUEST TO MF-AA i
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR i
PLANNING AND ZONING COMISSION i
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCEPTED BY
APPLICATION # THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT j
RECEIVED DATE: THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON THE
APPROVAL DATE: FOURTH TUESDAY OF THE MONTH. IT SHALL
REJECTED DATE: BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING AND
RECEIPT # ZONING COMMISSION OFFICE ONE (1) WEEK
PRIOR TO THE FOURTH TUESDAY.
APPLICANT: 'Sand Hill Associates ,
ADDRESS: 111209 Sullivan Avenue, South Windsor CT0607TjLEPH0NE # 644-2561
John J. Mitchell, William F. Mitchell,
OWNER OF RECORD ON S.V. LAND RECORDS Daniel C. Guachione, et al
r
ADDRESS: 11Q Brookfield Street, S. W. and 30 Timrod Road, Manchester
COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF LOCATION OF PROPERTY The property consists of a parcel '
fronting oln Sand Hill Rd. approximately 1200 feet west of Ellington Road and
on Ellington Road. lapproximately 2200 feet south of Sand
Hill Road., See Attached maps. ZONE RR
NAME, ADDRESt & TELEPHONE # OF PERSON TO WHOM CORRESPONDENCE AND INQUIRIES SHOULD BE
DIRECTED: William Grace, Esq. , 25 Oakland Road, South Windsor,
CT 06074 TELEPHONE # 644-1528
THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (CHECK ONE OF THE FOLLOWING)
XX 1. Zone Change to MF—AA Zone (public hearing) and General Plan of
Development
2. Filing for Subdivision
3. Filing for Open Space Subdivision (public hearing)
4. Filing for Resubdivision (public hearing)
5. Special Exception to Article of the Zoning Regulations (public hearing)
6.' Site Devo-lopment Plan
7. Removal of Sand, Gravel, Clay or Quarry Stone & Ore (public hearing)
8. Other (e"lain in detail) -
THIS APPLICATION MUST SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND
SUBMITTED ALONG WI THREE SETS OF PLANS BEFORE IT BE ACCEP 'ED BY THE PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
APPLIdAr r OWNER
(over)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: I Peter R. DeMallie, Director of Planning
DATE: July 10, 1980
RE: Policy Analysis - Wapping
I. Introduction
l The purpose of this report is to initiate the planning process in
order ',to establish a growth policy for the Wapping area. Previous planning
efforts have simply become antiquated over time, in particular the twelve
year old Town Pan of Development.
As for background, the catalyst for this study was the submission
of a lone change proposal which, if granted, would lead to the development
of 120 residential condominiums at the southwest corner of Sand Hill and
Ellin ton Roads. Prior to rendering a decision on this application, the
sted this report concerning the parcel in question and the
Commission requ�
Wappi g area in general.
The reporjt is organized into three sections: 1)existing conditions
and limitations,, including land use, zoning, development constraints,
traffic volumes and accidents, and utility infrastructure. Maps portraying
thisnformatior4 are included; 2) prior planning efforts including how
the 1;68 Town Plan relates to the area,and the Plum Gulley Park plan;
3) the report concludes with a concept land use plan.
Again, the purpose of this report is to initiate the process of
developing a neia growth policy for the Town's center. The concept plan's
function is to sjtart a dialogue concerning the best use of this land and to
identify desirable and necessary improvements.
I expect Ithat this dialogue will continue into the fall.
ti
I .
II. Existing Conditions/Limitations
a). Existing I.a.nd Use (see attached map)
Presently the Wapping area is characterized by: Commercial uses
along Route 30 and Buckland Road; religious institutions at the S corners
and on Sand Hill Road near Sullivan; vast acreage in crops and hayfields;
scattered single-family along existing road frontages as well as fully
developed subdivisions; and the Town's Ayer Road Community Center, outdoor
sports fields/tennis courts, the high school, and the Town Hall complex.
The bottom line, however, is that the bulk of the land is vacant.
b), Zoning (see attached map)
Zoning in the study area includes: RC on the southerly side of
Route 30 and on the northerly side of Route 30 to the west of Community
Road; RO for a small area at the corner of Sand Hill and Sullivan; A-20
in the vicinity of the high school; A-30 on the westerly side of Ellington
Road north of Sand Hill Road; AA-30 on the easterly side of Route 74 beyond
the initial row of, lots; with the vast majority of land designated RR.
c). Ownership
As portrayed on the attached Land Ownership and Property Line Base
maps, the Town of South Windsor possesses the largest land acreage within
the study area. This land includes the Town Hall complex, a vacant five
acre tract near the intersection of Sand Hill and Nevers Roads, a largely
undeveloped eighty acre tract on the easterly side of Nevers Road, and the
educational/town/recreational complex off Ayers Road.
Mach of the remaining acreage is in large privately owned tracts
including several owned by CL&P for electrical transmission lines.
Given the relatively undivided nature of the acreage, now is the time
to influence its development pattern.
d). Developmental Constraints
Steep slopes within the interior of the triangular area formed by
Sand Hill, Ellington, and Sullivan poses one limitation to development,
particularly for single family subdivisions. Regulated wetlands areas are
linear in form, following Plum Gulley Brook and a small watercourse to its
east. The 100 year flood limits follow Plum Gulley Brook but do not effect
the separate watercourse to its east.
The CL&P transmission line corridor is in part owned fee simple by
the utility. It is unlikely that this land would be made available for any
use. The balance over which CL&P has only an easement might be utliized for
gardens or some recreational uses, however, building development would be
precluded. fA
Public water service is available to virtually the entire study area,
although lines have not been installed along Ellington Road south of Sand
Hill Road. Public sewers have not been installed along Sullivan Avenue,
d). LIIevelopmeatal Constraints cont'd
Nevers Road, nor Sand Hill. Given topographical featuresand facility
proximity, gr ity flow sewering of the entire area is within the realm
ofpossibility'_
e). Transportation
�. Traffic Volumes
Traffics counts in the stud area are available 1e from two sources.
First is the Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT), which
cond cted its jcounts in 1977. Second is Fuss & O'Neill Consulting En-
ginelers of Manchester. Fuss & O'Neill took counts in 1979 on behalf of
their' clients,' Urso and Mitchell.
Conn T's moni oring of Sullivan Avenue recorded 10,100 two-way trips
in f ont of th Town Hall complex, and 12,400 trips just north of the
Strong Road in ersection. These volumes indicate Sullivan Avenue func-
tions as a ma.j r arterial. Indeed, the roadway handles the second high-
est traffic volume of the town's at-grade highways permitting direct
access to abutting parcels. Route 5 is the volume leader with 21,200
trips recordedinear the junction with Chapel Road.
With the advent of J.C. Penney's, Buckland Commons, and the Man-
chester Industrial Park, all of which could be generating traffic by 1985
or 1986, if no before, Sullivan Avenue's counts can be expected to in-
crea a appreci bly. This underscores the necessity for minimizing the
numb r of new curb cuts added to this. stretch of road.
On the ether side of the Town Hall, Ellington Road had a volume o� f
3,800 trips in11977. This figure was updated by Fuss & O'Neill to 4,100
trip for 1979. Thus at this location Ellington Road, a State highway,
carries only 3$% of the volume traveling Sullivan Avenue. To the north
of t e Sand Hill Road junction, however, Ellington Road adds another 3,300
vehi les, primarily traffic from or destined for Sand Hill Road. At this
time ,the road could be termed a collector, or "through street".
i
Its function can be expected to"alter to more of an inter-town
arterial when it begins to serve as a connector between the communities of
South,,' Windsor, Ellington, Vernon, and Somers, and the three aforementioned
projects in Buclkland sometime during the +mid-1980's.
Fuss & O'Nei11's 1979 counts recorded 4,400 trips on Sand Hill Road.
When these figu es are compared to those counts on Sullivan A iv n venue and
Ellington Road north and south of the Sand Hill junction, it is quite evi-
dent that Sand ill serves as a direct connection between Sullivan and
Ellington for t ousands of trips each day.
No curre t traffic counts are available for Communit Road nor y Nevers
Road. Valley V ew has approximately 1,600 trips each day. Abbe Road
Extension is impassible.
2). Traf f is Accidents*
The intersection of Sand Hill and Ellington Roads was one of the few
intersections in South Windsor with no reported traffic accidents for ca-
lendar year 1979. Other intersections within the study area with traffic
safety problems, as evidenced by accidents, were: Nevers and Sand Hill (2
property damage, 2 personal injury) ; and the five corners (7 property, 3
personal injury). This latter intersection has one of the highest accident
counts in town, exclusive of multiple intersections on Route 5.
*See map entitled "Traffic Accidents/Volumes".
3 Road & Intersection Conditions
Sullivan Avenue is of adequate width in most sections, however,
paved shoulders are absent or in need of repair. This is critical in
view of the peak hour traffic loads. The road's traveled way is in need
of selected resurfacing. Sullivan Avenue's most outstanding problem is
the alignment of the S curve beginning at Sand Hill. The accident rate
at this location is unacceptably high, demonstrating the need for realign-
ment, and, where feasible, geometrical improvements for intersecting streets.
Ellington Road, like Sullivan Avenue a state road, has multiple prob-
lems. It too needs selected resurfacing and shoulder improvements. The
curve midway between Sand Hill and Oakland Roads has vertical and horizontal
line-of-sight problems and thus should be reconstructed and realigned.
Sand Hill Road has a reconstructed bituminous concrete pavement
structure recently overlayed by oil. It is of adequate width. The inter-
section with Ellington Road needs limited improvements, although the absence
of traffic accidents might indicate that more important improvements may
be found in other areas. The road's intersection with Sullivan Avenue
should be improved along with the eventual realignment of the Sullivan
Avenue S curve.
Abbe Road Extension exists only as a paper street. It appears to
have a fifty foot right-of-way.
4 Plans
Two basic planning documents influence roadway improvements in the
project area - CRCOG's Transportation Improvement Program and the 1968 Town
Plan of Development.
The only projects dealt with in the TIP concern the reconstruction
of Buckland Road from the 5 corners down to Plum Gulley Brook, and the re-
alignment of the Sullivan Avenue S curve from .1 mile south of Sand Hill r�
to .1 mile north of Pierce Road. The former project has been designed and
should go out to bid shortly.
The latter was dropped from the TIP for FY81 along with similar
projects in Vernon and Manchester in order not to jeopardize higher priority
urban systems projects.
The 1968 Town Plan of Development recommended the following improve-
ments* in the upping area:
Improve Route 74 (Ellington Road)
- Construct a new Wapping bypass road between Ellington Road just
south of Sand Hill and Ellington Road just west of Clark Street.
Improve Buckland Road
Improve Sullivan Avenue S curve
- Build ,Abbe Road Extension from Sand Hill to Lake Street
Indications are that the State will be improving the intersection
of Sand Hill a4d Ellington Roads in the near term.
No plans for improving transit services are known at this time.
*Onl those improvements which have not been constructed are listed
III Prior PlaMing Efforts
a). 1968 TownlPlan of Development
The 196 Town Plan of Development conveyed a number of development
poli ies for t e Wapping area. It recommended that the eighty acre town-owned
tract: on Never Road become the site of a new high school/park. It sug-
gested that th high school might contain certain on-site community facilities
such as an ind or/outdoor swimming pool (they didn't use the term natatorium!).
The Plan also recommended transportation improvements, as overviewed in the-
trap portation 'section of this report. And finally, it recommended a trail
alon the utility corridor, and streambelt protection along a small portion
of P um GulleyjBrook to the north of the Town Hall. No specific reference
was nade to expanding sewer service into the study area.
i
b). Plum Gulley Park Plan
I
A number of years ago the South Windsor Parks and Recreation Commission
propo sed.a plan for the study area known as the Plum Gulley Park Plan. Insofar
as funding wasjdefeated by referendum, the plan was aborted. Evidently the
Planning & Zoning Commission had not taken an official position on the pro-
posal.
As portrayed on the large map entitled "Plum Gulley Park", drawn by
G.L. Montana & lAssoc., the plan has a number of ideas which may very well
be applicable today. The attached "Schematic Town Center" map showns many
of thle plan's concepts.
Regarding the eighty acre town-owned tract along Nevers and Sand Dill
Roads, the P1umj, Gulley Plan recommended a recreation complex situated in
the center of the tract composed of such facilities as a pavillion, swimming
pool, and hockey rink, as well as four ballfields along Sand Hill Road. The
smalljer schematic town center map also portrayed a future school site (con-
sistent with the 1968 Town Plan), another ballfield in the northwest: corner.,
and nature trams through the site's wooded northeast corner. to
South of� Sand Hill Road it proposed a library opposite Nevers Road,
and a derly housing along the Ellington Road frontage. The schematic map
also uggested 4 fire station northeast of the Town Hall, a police station
northwest of the Town Hall, church and office uses along Sullivan Avenue
on the north side of the CL&P easement, and a linear park with pedestrian
trails between the library and Town Hall complexes.
II 1
POLICY ANALYSIS
WAPPING
LAND USE
• 4 BALLFIELO
AY -
• R D.
FOOT-
, 7•ENNIS BALL ,
• b b
ffq�� ram, JCROPS
• W V W
1� v 16
• • • • &w
SOCCER H
• • z CROPS
• CROPS. CROPS
0
OPEN cl
CROPS FIELD
CROPS Q t
b
�v
OPEN FIELD OPEN WOODS
• (r F)!Lb 00
• •
OPEN U #lEOGFRow „p
FIELD 2 OPEN
y HAY- °
FIELD
•
FIELD
S ND HILL
n a CHURCH CROPS Q- •
•
04
Q •
NO �'► • •
• 6 UP •
• CROP OPEN v_ `wv • • • •
FIELD- 'y CL&P �.j.� • • • •••
CROPS OQ CROPS • •
C L O P o OPEN fn t1 O �O• •
v •
g ASEME"T —o a �`� •
FIELD JpG
G HAYFIELD
TOW
• • ALL �� •
•
P.O. B V'
• LIBRAR
SINGLE FAMILY
i COMMERCIAL/BUSINESa
• t CEMETERY
` - 0 BASEBALL FIELD
3 •• CARTPATH
WOODS * C •
C
(VACANT) WOODS
•
VACANT)
e =•
0 •
1000 o 1000
POLICY1 ANALYSIS WAPPINE; -,
LAND • OWNERSHIP
TOWN of
� S UTN.-
j SLUZKAN139
AYE R wINDSOR
R D.
HEOWINA s
TOWN OF
SOUTH wILL1AM
WINDSOR
TOWN Of .
LEICHTN[R,
MARTIN,
F. COLLINS, L. O
co SOUTH
cc cL s r
COLLINS, P. Eli (a
D wINDSOR
S N HILL
CONE. MISSI TOWN OF
WATER ONARY D_
CO, SOCIETY SOUTH
OF THE INDSOR SOCIETY
DIOCESE GUACNIONE,
{ OF CONN. D. CL 6 P FOR
RSISTER, F.
PRIEST,N. SAVINGS
CLa P
QO. KUPCHUNOS
RUSSO
f HILLS,T. DEVEL.
PRIEST,N. CORP.
G BROTHERS
TOWN OF 0�
SOUTH
P.06
WINDSOR = dTV INC.
B fNRg4c y .
CHRISTENSEN,
T. 3
JARVIS*
C
ENTERPRISES r- G
INC. o
1000 0 1000
OPEN
F;;,!ITH yfiNjIlS(l::? ?I :-NIN, (1FPA;4kTKlr- IT .If1I Y IC)RO PF
POLICY AN
ZONING .
A--30
AYER
R D.
A-20 ,
RR
c
m A 30
S AND HILL
D.
0
RR
L -
C� �
AA--30
T. 3
c
RC RC
o
TA
AA-30
loor, o l000
f,nb,-ri. I...,,r♦r.r,. ......— .�.-.. .... .+ •... .. ■n nr. ..r•
N •
POLICY ANALYSIS
PROPERTY LINE .
BASE MAP
14.0 ACRES
R D.
$6.5 ACRES
46.7 ACRES -
5.26
18.0 ACRES
ACRES
25.5 ACRES .
CQ 79.7T ACREScc 15 3
ACRES
� m
22.70 ACRES Z
S N HtLL
I
10.1 5.31 D.
ACRES
ACRES 10,8
e.l
ACRES
h 9.6 ACRES ACRES 19.25
ACRES
ACRES
19.5 ACRES
{ 72.6
10.0
ACRES
G 39.8 -
ACRES ACRES
13.93
ACRES
13.0
9.5 ACRES
ACRES 19.49
i
6.5 ACRES
AC.
T. 3
6.7 c
9.2
ACRES
ACRES L
1000 10 1000
it
�I)IITW /1mr1 orin of AA[%lt�tr nrr.wr�m.,�..•r �... I Q Q Q �
POLICY ANALYSIS WAPPING
UTILITIES
Ay", e
R d.
co
4- �.
So
n d� Fill
mac'`• � Vie,,y
Ar.
�p 0—1110---0� EXISTING SANITARY SEWERS
ARROWS IMDICATE THE
CO1I'1f1 u-t ` DIRECTION OF FLOW
Rd. `-'' WATER LINES
M.D.C. HYDRANTS
- o CONN. WATER HYDRANTS
1000 0 1000
r
+"• • L• �.... „„ n-. 1_� n • •r :r- _n.»Y ►:�►-r I.1( V I4�r;
APPING
POLICY
ANALYSIS
TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS/
VOLUMES.
AY
O
ase ,
o �12,400
> m
Lu
4400 7400
S N Hft,L
D.
5-
� 3- �
i
4100
IWO
TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
TOTALS OTC'
37-•- PROPERTY DAMAGE i ONLY
17 �I PERsoNA INJURY 102100 TRAFFIC VOLUMES- ADT
31300
1 - PEDESTRIAN INVOLVEMENT 4-0 s-- CONNDOT TRAFFIC
3_01 COUNTS- 1977
55 0- FUSS & O!NEILL- 197E
8400
T. .3
400 7600
is
1000 0 1 1000
S ALE SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT DULY, 1980 RES.
w �� 1 •
Is 4-
go
FOP—
{'�I� L f t•.e�,� a �' ••�'lyy..�r.W v,��j}�,�'I���j SIP
/r..POP
^
Ati,�I iP�y'jr/ '� \ • �!),'•r♦��r"X} .y/1.i
'a�;�;���. +� � •,*��x,i,�1►{���'�SJ��!�'w ,1?,{��'��"�''• '"'.x:,i�}'�,�fLO� �.. ,, plii��i�' �j'�i'�Y4•+�•.:t•
,�/�)w t � w �� > .�lif i��d'•f��'���r��� y /�1i�."� tf�tl �� � ';' � •�
{fo.l}`�v\,..•;-Sit.�{�..tieK >J� .1� ,•'r!�~:� `.r••y f(��'1%�1 v.�:�,' �+'!":L;'11y t ry '�•• S!,{'!} ti'h•. �..
' :1 i�• ���:i�rMl�W`l�.%•�" :}^ b Iil ` a'"-,f•• j�r1�"i �„ •�. J •
• -� � � � �� -w,.f %•• ,` tic\� ���� r'r��-��.
,r"w
41
'�:i1 ' // ,, ;� �,�. l�.� ,4' 'e .�'+'�/••Ii�f/ st.("'�I• �II�1 i1r•,�'�r. �
• � \t • ' � ` �' 1�Ar�r 1�•�1�=�t,ttv"s r�5a;;y�� ;t�rl�;�'�yjft�j':}'v� .
• ••• • , ��'e �.aJ .T ��r',rf��h ts',+'i(J��'�/�il;•'J��/.ii�..y:iJT•��',
f, ���1,.�• 'fi+jJ�l •11a��fjr,\.��► �y.l�i�+���t..�
� � � ' -• ���'�`:'!"r'"} •�•+c.r,.a�rr,a"� �•ter �tr 3' •••�• _
� �!•• +.r•`•al±.�`+8 is i•'+.\"�'. �.
•�({.fit r •SiJ'".r\�.tis i+.f/t•: IsoI .
••-� �,:rum+•� •-•��.
-in ' � , � , •,+� � �,'�.�-:.1:'fir%ice� •:i i�l�r)�t
1
I
IV Proposed Concept Plan (see attached map)
After digesting the information discussed above concerning, transpor-
tation, existing land use, zoning, land ownership, infrastructural possibilities
and constraints, natural features, likely future development, and previous
planning efforts, the following concept land use plan for the Wapping study
area was formulated:
a). Transportation Improvements
The following transportation improvements are recommended:
- As a (first priority, the realignment of the Sullivan Avenue S curve.
- As a second priority, make line-of-sight improvements to the curve
on Ellington Road to the north of the Town Hall entrance.
- Installation of paved shoulders on Sullivan Avenue and Ellington
Road.
- Realign the intersection of Sand Hill and Ellington Roads.
Install sidewalks along all through streets concurrent with de-
velopmnents.
- Const+ruct pedestrian and bicyclist paths adjacent to Plum Gulley
Brook and the other unnamed watercourse to its east, such to inter-
link the residential, commercial, and institutional uses.
Instiltute transit services as supporting population densities and.
transportation nodes materialize.
- Minim�ze the number of new curb cuts on all streets, especially
Sulli�an Avenue and Ellington Road.
b). Commercial
Establish commercial uses on the vacant 9.2 acre parcel fronting on
Routa 30, as well as a small neighborhood commercial (e.g., small grocery/
cony nience store) area along the easterly side of Sullivan Avenue in order
to s rve the future adjoining residential population. It is important that
this latter use be sited within pedestrian proximity of the proposed housing,
especially housing for the elderly.
c). Residential
I
Single-family residential uses are proposed for the large privately
owne parcels: 1) to the north of Sand Hill Road, 2) to the east of Route 74
(Ell ngton Road), and 3) to the west of Sullivan Avenue. The second site
in p rticular is best suited for single-family residential uses insofar as
it is abutted can three sides by similar uses and any other use might be in-
compatible with these existing developments. Cost limitations might arise
for the provision of public sewerage for the first and third sites insofar
as s wer lines have not been installed in Nevers or Sand Hill Roads, nor
Sull van Avenue.
Multi-family housing exclusively for the elderly is proposed for the
two sites on either side of Plum Gulley Brook to the north of the Town Ilall.
This would provide locations near plenty of activity, abutting parks for
dail walks, within easy pedestrian access of the library, town hall fa-
cili ies, post office, at least one church, and the proposed neighborhood
commercial.
c) Residential cont'd
Other multi-family residential uses are proposed 1) along the
easterly side of Sullivan Avenue to the north of the CLU easement, 2)
on the corner site south of Sand Hill and west of Ellington, and 3) per-
haps on the south side of Sand Hill opposite the large town-owned parcel.
The provision of sewer services to the first and third locations might be
cost prohibitive until some future date when lines are brought closer by
a third party. Due to limitations posed by parcel configuration, slope, and
the CL&P electrical lines, none of the proposed multi-family sites appear
to lend themselves to single-family residential uses.
d) CL&P Corridor
Those parcels occupying the electrical transmission lines' corridor
and owned in fee simple by CL&P probably cannot be utilized for any use
other than for transportation routes, i.e., a road or pedestrian way. Those
privately-owned parcels over which the CL&P right-of-way traverses, however,
might be available for gardens to serve residents of abutting multi-family
development. No structures may be built within the corridor.
e) Town-Owned Land/Recreational Uses
The eighty acre town-owned parcel on the north side of Sand Hill
Road currently has one new ball field. Its terrain, proximity to the high
school and community center, and central location within the Town point to
its continuing development as a major recreational and municipal center.
The addition of such indoor recreational uses as an indoor swimming pool
and hockey rink could be long term development objectives. Additional
sports fields, tennis courts, and other outdoor facilities would be well
suited as well. The existing wooded area should be preserved where possible,
and provided with hiking trails.
The five-acre parcel opposite the end of Nevers Road could be
incorporated into a linear park extending the length of Plum Gulley Brook
from the high school grounds to the Town Hall site. This linear park would
serve to: protect the wetlands, flood plain, forested, and some steep slope
areas from development; facilitate the provision of a pedestrian and bicyclist
corridor between the municipal facilities on Ayers and Nevers Roads and at
the Town Hall, and the commercial and residential uses within the study area;
provide for a. passive recreation use; and preserve in part some of the current
vistas. =�
The balance of the previously mentioned five acre tract, which is
relatively unsuitable for the nature park could be used for, say, a resource
recovery station and/or a commuter parking lot.
f) Industrial
Industrial uses have been ruled out altogether due to topographical
limitations and the incompatibility of this use with other existing or pro-
posed uses.
g) Utilities
Eventually, public water and sanitary services should be extended to
serve the entire study area.
N
PO[..ICY
ANALYSIS
WAPPING
. - CONCEPT PLAN
R D. OK
BR0
� v
SINGLE
MAJOR FAMILY SINGLE _ •
ROAD � -
REALIGNMENT FAMILY
co MINOR
a TOWN a` ROAD
IL o
SINGLE > FAautlas/ 3w REALIGNMENT
FAMILY
Z PARK
s
• RESOURCE
RECOVERY
STATION
S AND
UTE HILL
CONlI D.
ARKING
t
-01
MF— w J4*
(NEIGHBORHOOD FAMILY
COMMENC1A W
- TOG
ca
GARDENS
MF-
L ELDERLY v�
SINGLE FAMILY04
o gam?
CURVE IMPROVEMENT
c o
m
COMMERCIAL
OFFICES/
RETAIL 0
lo00 0 1000
�O-AL
SC,,'4 PIT .;!IL1'. 1980 F
+ e + + + + + tee■ �11 \/ General Offices • Selden Street, Berlin,C nn cticut
1►NI DNNI C11CU1 116N1 AND"FP COMPANY P.O.BOX 270
114 P100RDEL(C1R1'IIGN1CeMPANY HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 06101
WI S IRN MASSACNUS[115IIICIPI(,COMPANY
HMI Oki VWIRKJ*FRCOMPANV (203)6664911
PKQ 041 AST U1 µ II R S SI RVICI COMPANY
wrr W AS 1 M ICI I AP 1 NI RGY CCWPANY
March 9, -1982
Willi D. O'Neill, P.&
Fuss & 'Neill Consulting Engineers
210 Main Street
Manches ter, Connecticut 06040
Dear Sir:
RE: ( Barbour Hill-Clark Street Jct. R/W, South Windsor
(Active File #4) Request for Road Crossing,
by John Mitchell, et al
This letter is in response to your letter to Anthony P. Coburn dated
February 22, 1982', with a map attached.
We have reviewed the proposal for your client to obtain a 50 f wise
access cross The Connecticut Light and Power Carlpany's land, located
south of Sand Hill Road.
We are willing to grant the roadway, subject to the following conditions
and our ability to secure approvals from other Company management levels,
the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control and this Company's
lenders These conditions will include the following:
1. You,will provide a map suitable for filing, showing the precise
location of the roadway with adequate ties and monuments. This
map will require our advance review and approval.
2. Your client will agree to grade, loam, and seed all disturbed
earth to our satisfaction. This will apply to grading outside
the', limits of the proposed roadway as well as within the roadway.
3. In dvance of our commencing the necessary paperwork, your client
wil Provide the Con pany with a check in the amount of $1,200.00 *
to ;over our administrative costs. Make the check payable to:
The l Connecticut Light and Power Ccrnpany, P.O. Box 270, Hartford,
CT 06101.
Upon Y
n receipt of our clients check, the Cmpany will begin its paperwork
and investigation for subsequent negotiation of the price to be paid for
the land. If we reach an agreement on price, our attorney will prepare
a deed conveying the land to you and retaining sufficient easement rights
to protOct
the Company's facilities. The description will be in accordance
or nap.P
with .
William D. O'Neill, P.E.
Fuss & O'Neill Consulting Engineers
March 9, 1982 r
Page 2
This document will also contain provisions to exempt this Cotpany from
any assessments for utilities which may include water or sewer. It will
also excerpt the Ccnpany from any assessment for public or private
improvements or maintenance of such improvements within the proposed
road. This will extend to exempting the Coupany from any responsibility
for snow removal.
Since the topography of the land will require excavation for slopes beyond
the limits of the proposed roadway, I will suggest that our attorney provide
temporary rights for grading on our adjoining land, with the stipulation
your client hold this Company and its affiliates harmless from any property
damage or bodily injury arising out of your use, associated with the
construction of the proposed roadway.
This permit is forwarded in'duplicate. If your client is in agreement
with the above conditions, please have him signify by signing his name in
the space provided below and return the copy marked "NUSCO".
Very truly yours,
w
H. H. Slicer
oeoSenior Real Estate Agent
HHS/pb
Attachment
c: J. Russo
ACCEPTED AMID AGREED TO
this clay of , 1982
By:
Its:
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
FOR
SAND HILL ROAD CONDOMINIUMS
SAND HILL ROAD - ELLINGTON ROAD
SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT
DUNE, 1984
AI$
0I CDJ 2*#-i
S R. /0•aa
�~ 'OAP Cv♦ G s
No. 11461
1 ;0
moo; f,
'•.,' i s T Ell" o; ++
►�
Vk
FUSS & O'NEILL, INC.
210 MAIN STREET
MANCHESTER, CONNECTICUT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II . EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENT 2
-' III. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES 5
IV. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC 6
V. ROADWAY CAPACITY WITH AND WITHOUT
DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC 8
V I. STATE REQUIREMENTS 10
VII . CONCLUSIONS 11
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. FOLLOWING PAGE
1 SITE LOCATION MAP 1
FUSS&O'NEILL
I . INTRODUCTION
_. This report will identify the net effects upon the roadway
system if the subject site located on Ellington Road and Sand
— Hill Road were developed to the density proposed by the
applicant (see Figure 1) . An analysis of both existing and
projected traffic volumes are presented.
The traffic impact is assessed using a density of 102 con-
dominium units, all fully occupied. The assessment at this
level of development results in the identification of any
limitations to this development caused by traffic.
— -1-
FUSS&O'NBLL
AYER S o
Q
— �0A p 20•
0
R0 �u
2
SqN p
La
PO
aQPR 5°J6
z
_ PROPOSED
CONDOMINIUMS
m v
�v
— Q
0
Q o
siyc 9yo �
A� FUSS&O'NEILL
? MANCHESTER, CONNECTICUT
SCALE: 1��=1000, FIGURE No. I
II . EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
The site under consideration is located between Sand Hill Road
and Ellington Road (Route 74) and is currently undeveloped.
Vehicle access from Sand Hill Road is to be supplied by an
access roadway approximately 300 feet west of Abbey Road.
Similarly, vehicle access to Ellington Road is provided by an
access roadway approximately 1,400 feet north of Route 30 (see
Figure 1 attached) .
Sand Hill Road in the vicinity of the access point to the
property is a two lane Town roadway having fair pavement
condition. Pavement width is 32 feet with bituminous curbs on
both sides of the roadway. The distance from the edge of
pavement to lateral obstructions is two to three feet to
utility poles then clear. No sidewalks are present, but a
level grassed strip on both sides of the roadway act as
unimproved sidewalks. To the west of the site, a concrete
walk is provided on the north side of the road. The
predominant land use is residential, consisting largely of
condominium residences with some single family detached
residences . The roadway is lighted at various locations via
utility pole mounted luminaires .
Sight distances facing traffic at the Sand Hill Road access to
the site are over 600 feet to the east and to the west. The
minimum stopping sight distance required by a vehicle
— -2-
FUSS&O'NEILL
travelling at 60 miles per hour is 475 feet.* Comparing this
figure to the sight distances provided, it may be seen that
the stopping sight distance needed by a vehicle travelling at
60 miles per hour or less is provided at this location. The
posted speed at this location is 35 miles per hour with the
observed running speed of vehicles using this roadway at
— approximately 40 miles per hour.
Ellington Road (Route 74) in the vicinity of the southerly
access point to the property is a two lane State roadway
having a good pavement condition. Having just recently been
— resurfaced, the pavement width varies from 24-26 feet. The
distance from the edge of pavement to lateral obstructions is
two to four feet with improved sidewalks evident along
Parkview South.
Sight distances facing traffic at the Ellington Road_access to
the site are approximately 600 feet to the north and approx-
imately 175 feet to the south. It is obvious that roadway`
modifications would have to occur to provide adequat�__ai.ght
distance prior to development.
*A Policy on Design of Urban Highways and Arterial Streets -
1973 American Association of State Highway and Transportation
-- Officials, Page 29, Table A-6.
-3-
FUSS&O'NOLL
The posted speed at this location is 30 miles per hour with
the observed running speed of vehicles using this roadway at
40 miles per hour. These speeds would suggest providing a
minimum stopping sight distance of 470 feet according to
CONNDOT standards for 40 mph. CONNDOT standards would apply
since Ellington Road is a State roadway.
-4-
FUSS&O'NOLL
III . EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
— Several automatic traffic counts were attempted by Fuss &
O'Neill personnel; however, due to vandalism, these counts
could not be completed. Instead, a manual count of the Sand
Hill Road - Ellington Road intersection was performed and was
reviewed and subsequently verified using traffic counts for
— the same roadways conducted by CONNDOT in 1983.
For Ellington Road south of Sand Hill Road, it was found that
the evening (p.m. ) peak period produces an average of
approximately 625 vehicles per hour, 510 northbound and 115
southbound. The morning (a.m. ) peak period was found to
produce an average of approximately 450 vehicles per hour and
— the projected average annual daily traffic was 5,000 vehicles
per day.
— Likewise, Sand Hill Road was found to produce an average
evening (p.m. ) peak period of 550 vehicles per hour, 190
westbound and 360 eastbound. The morning (a.m. ) peak period
was not found nor was the average daily traffic due to the
previously mentioned vandalism.
-5-
FUSS&O'NEILL
IV. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC
_ Upon evaluation of the existing physical and traffic stream
characteristics of the site, an estimate of the traffic that
may be expected from the development was conducted. To
reiterate, this development consists of 102 condominium units,
fully occupied.
For computational purposes, 6.1 trips per day per unit was
used as representative of the trip making behavior of each
residence .*
Assuming all 102 units are occupied, it is calculated that
there will be 622 trips generated per day from the develop-
ment. Using Institute of Transportation Engineering
procedures, both the morning (a.m. ) and evening (p.m. ) peak
hour expected by the site was computed. The result of the
calculation were as follows:
— Morning (a.m. ) Afternoon (p.m. )
Peak Peak
-- Enter Complex 10 vph* 48 vph
Exit Complex 41 vph 23 vph
Total Site Traffic 51 vph 71 vph
*vph - vehicles per hour
_ *Institute of Transportation Engineers "Trip Generation
Manual" , 1982, apartment generation rate.
-6-
FUSS&o'NEILL
It was assumed that the distribution of traffic between the
two access points would follow the distribution of residences,
56 (55%) on the Sand Hill Road portion of the site and 46
(45%) on the Ellington Road Portion of the site.
The previous table is then further broken down as follows:
Sand Hill Road Access: Morning (a.m. ) Afternoon (p.m. )
Peak Peak
Enter Complex 6 vph* 26 vph
Exit Complex 22 vph 13 vph
Total Site Traffic 28 vph 39 vph
Ellington Road Access: Morning (a.m. ) Afternoon (p.m. )
Peak Peak
Enter Complex 4 vph* 22 vph
Exit Complex 19 vph 10 vph
Total Site Traffic 23 vph 32 vph
With respect to directional distribution, it has been assumed
for analysis purposes that all traffic associated with the
Sand Hill Road portion of the project would arrive from or
depart to Sullivan Avenue while all traffic associated with
the Ellington Road portion of the parcel would arrive from or
depart to Route 30. It should not be construed that this will
actually occur, but rather that this "worse" possible con-
— dition has been analyzed.
_7_
FUSS&O'IYOLL
V. ROADWAY CAPACITY WITH AND WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC
The following table shows the volume of traffic presently on
both Ellington Road and Sand Hill Road, the expected volume
for the same roadways after the complex is complete (assuming
"worse case" loadings) , and the maximum capacity of the
existing roadways. Maximum capacity of the roadway represents
the practical maximum the roadway can carry. Worthy of note
is that at this volume, flow is unstable with many stoppages
and often results in a "traffic jam" . Normal design volumes
used in the design of a roadway are approximately one-half
this amount.
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
P.M. Peak Maximum
Existing w/Development Capacity
Ellington Road
north of site 625 vph* 625 vph 1,411 vph
south of site 625 vph 657 vph 1,411 vph
Sand Hill Road
east of site 550 vph 550 vph 1, 660 vph
west of site 550 vph 589 vph 1,660 vph
*vph - vehicles per hour
As may be seen, the operating characteristics of both roadways
will not cause the flow to substantially change from the level
of service presently existing on each. Ellington Road
currently operates at 44 percent of its capacity and would
rise to 47 percent of its capacity, while Sand Hill Road
operates at 33 percent of its capacity and would rise to 35
percent of its capacity.
-8-
FUSS&O'NEILL
With respect to the traffic that would be added to the
Sullivan Avenue - Sand Hill Road intersection, CONNDOT Project
132-83 calls for the reconstruction of the "S" curve of
Sullivan Avenue and signalization of the Sand Hill Road
intersection in Spring of 1985 . Review of the plans for this
project revealed that the "worse" case loading of 39
additional vehicles during the peak hour can easily be
accommodated.
With respect to the Route 30 - Sullivan Avenue - Buckland -
Ellington Road intersection referred to as "5 corners", the
applicant was made aware of efforts by the Town to secure a
bypass road between Ellington Road and Sullivan Avenue across
a portion of the subject parcel to allow the elimination of
the Ellington Road leg of the 5 corners intersection. A
review of this plan indicates that a very real gain in safety
to the travelling public could be realized by its implementa-
tion. While the actual routing of such a bypass roadway,
whether on Town property or the applicant' s property, is yet
to be resolved and the present application does not neces-
sitate its construction, it is recommended that the Town
actively pursue the bypass road and make "5 corners" into "4
corners" .
._ _9_
FUSS&O'NEILL
VI . STATE REQUIREMENTS
— Since the development will have more than 200 parking spaces,
it can be expected that a State Traffic Commission major
generator permit will be required. It is expected that this
permit will require modification to Ellington Road to provide
proper sight distances at the access drive. It should be
— noted that as of October 1, 1983 no building permit can be
issued to an applicant unless an STC major generator permit
has been received or a determination has been made that no
permit is required.
Similarly, since a new curb cut will be required on a State
highway (Route 74 - Ellington Road) an encroachment permit
will be required from the District 1 offices of CONNDOT.
-10-
FUSS&O'NEILL
VII . CONCLUSIONS
Due to the size of the development proposed, the distribution
of traffic between two widely separated access drives and the
level of existing traffic, it is expected that the affected
roadways will continue to operate well within their
capacities.
The construction of State Project 132-83 will provide needed
improvement to traffic flow conditions at the Sullivan Avenue
Sand Hill Road intersection and will accommodate the traffic
generated by this site.
Active pursuit of the bypass road from Ellington Road to
Sullivan Avenue by the Town should result in a significant
safety improvement at the "5 corners" intersection.
The sight distance limitations at the Ellington Road access
will require modification of the existing roadway. The State
Traffic Commission permit needed before a building permit can
be issued will insure that this sight distance is provided.
The encroachment or curb cut permit will provide a second
State review of this situation.
It may be concluded based on the aforementioned that the
traffic generated by this site can be accommodated by the
roadway system.
— -11-
FUSS&O'NEILL
APPENDIX
SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES
Land Use/Building Type Apartment ITE Land Use Code 220
Independent Variable—Trips per Dwelling UnJ t
Average Number Average Size of
Trip Maximum Minimum Correlation of Independent
Rate Rate Rgle Coefficient Studies Variable/Study
-' Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends 6 7
Peak A.M. Enter
Hour Between Exit
of 7 and 9 Total
Adjacent P.M. Enter
Street Between Exit
Traffic 4 and 6 Total
Peak A.M. Enter 0. 1 0. 1 0. 0 260
Hour Exit
of Total
Generator P.M. Enter
Exit
Total
Saturday Vehicle Trip Ends
Peak Enter
Hour of Exit 0 - 1
Generator Total
Sunday Vehicle Trip Ends
Peak Enter
Hour of Exit
Generator Total
Source Numbers 2, 4, 5r6 9,-1 CLT-11,-�.2T-1r3,-.-].-4 , -16-,—1 g, p T2-4, 3..U..,,_U,
ITE Technical Committee 6A-6—Trip Generation Rates
-" Date: June 4_, J97 5, Rev. 1 98 2 _
�z�lq g
a
2�
- -- - - -- - - --- ---- ---- --- -
I � 35
A
z
erg ' G IR SWOLD & FUS Z INC. r�
L Ji MANCHEBTERe CONNECTICUT
LOCATION ' Hr"l' ED 1 9 I ��
I
STRE NAME 1, L
MUNICIPALITY _f 12
COUNTY 8
DATE _ MANUAL COUNT DATA SHEET a10000 .
►� � WTFS
TIME-FROM.LLLTO.L _(I ICATE DAY)
WEATHER Ito-♦COUNT BY 2
W II
STOPPED _
r_ w
THROUGH v~i
BUTYPE S STOP L 5 � NEAR- FAR � S �. NEAR-FAR L !J � NEAR-FAR � S � NEAR-FAR
TIME 1 2 3 BUS TOTAL 4 5 6 BUS TOTAL T 8 9 BUS TOTAL 10 II 12 BUS TOTAL
AM- PM TRUCK 1 2 3 ITRUCK 4 5 6 TRUCK 7 8 9 TRUCK 10 I 112
3:lam
is I �3 �� 2�1 iti q q h 3cTo
`� H �-
3 . 30
• y ' 2 �i S 3 132 �3 Z l'� �1'00
15 `i3 2 � 0 v� Zb {Z ���. Z �V (o7I Cn7
18'5 I 3
I 63q
1� 91 Ito) 11
-
y . su .57 0 9 1383 ��
15 yl/ c, 3�. �� 5`/� �_ 7 2 �( 83 4 .
r-i Is � 3 t 6� 83$ �7 ZP wi-
t 22f 3
760 32 /��� 3� 1 Zl� 2 53 0 _
.27 40 ILI 5-Y 70. 32 Z7
pow M sE,4
Y Tin O-P SlotdA
• �� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074
SOR•CO�a� AREA CODE 203/644-2511
July 11 , 1984
Sand Hill Associates
John J. & William F. Mitchell and Daniel C. Guachione, Owners
c/o William E. Grace, Esquire
25 Oakland Road
South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 CERTIFIED MAIL
Dear Sirs:
At the July 9, 1984 meeting, the South Windsor Inland Wetlands
Agency approved with conditions Application NO. 286 for landscap-
ing within a wetlands area associated with an unnamed brook tobe
performed in conjunction with a residential multi-family develop-
ment on property located at Sand Hill Road and Ellington Road,
South Windsor, Connecticut.
The permit is based on the plans entitled "Proposed Condominiums
-General Plan of Development, Sand Hill Road, South Windsor, Ct. ,
June 12, 1984. 11 drawn by Fuss & O'Neill, Sheets 1 - 13 of 13,
dated 6/12/84; and "Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Sand Hill
Condominiums, Ellington Road and Sand Hill Road, South Windsor, Ct. , "
Sheets 1 - 2 of 2, dated 6/12/84; revised 6/13/84 drawn by
Fuss & O'Neill.
The following conditions must be adhered to for this permit
to be valid:
1. Legal documentation to allow construction on property
owned by the Town of South Windsor and Park View South
shall be submitted to the Inland Wetlands Agency prior
to any construction.
2. A Conservation Plan and Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Plan shall be approved by the Conservation Commission,
3. These plans shall be submitted in phases, as determined
Sand Hill Associates/John J. & William F. Mitchell and Daniel C. GuachionE
c/o William E. Grace, Esquire
25 Oakland Road
South Windsor, Connecticut 06074
Letter of Permit - Application NO. 286
July 11 , 1984
Page 2.
by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
4. Zero increase in runoff shall be accomplished for
a 50 year storm for the entire parcel.
5. The proposal i s ' subject to the approval of the
Town Engineer.
6. The applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the
Town of South Windsor against any liability which
might result from the proposed operation or use.
7. The permit is valid for one year and shall expire
if not initiated and completed within one year
from the date of approval.
Very truly yours,
ell
tLio�nstance Eri4c/sson, Chairman
INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
CE:chm
cc : William O'Neill , Fuss & O' Neill
A. B. Davies, Deputy Town Engineer
Marilyn Berger, Assistant Town Clerk
Richard J. Sartor , Town Manager
Richard Ryan, Deputy Mayor
Robert F. Gilligan, Chairman, PZC
T mas D' Auria, Building Official
eter De Mallie, Director of Planning
Kenneth Brill , Chairman, EDC
K`
t wM a��t
V
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 0607�
�'�°soR•co�� AREA CODE 203/644-25U
r
July 16, 1984
CERTIFIED MAIL
William E. Grace, Esq.
25 Oakland Road
South Windsor, CT 06074 '
s
Dear Attorney Grace:
The application of Sand Hill Associates to the Zoning Board of Appeals
requesting a 15-foot variance to reduce the buffer requirement from
25 feet to 10 feet on property located at Sand Hill Road and Ellington
Road, South Windsor (RR Zone), has been granted conditional upon
Site Plan approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
` The Board voted to grant this application because the abutting
property, although zoned residential, is a Connecticut Light
and Power Company right-of-way and will not be built upon. Therefore,
the intent of the buffer requirement for a residential area is not ,
applicable in this case. It was noted that trees will still be planted
in this buffer area as required by the regulations.
This action is effective July 27, 1984, and upon submitting a legal
description of the property to our secretary, Mrs. Sydnie Cote, so
she can execute the form in accordance with Public Act #75-317. This
form must then be filed by you in the Town Clerk's Office.
Very truly yours,
Robert Warren, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
RW/src
W UTILMES G neral Offices a Selden Str t,B rlin,Connecticut
THE Cw"Cmn uoWff" CarA"T P.O.BOX 270
WEVER"MASMCWSE"SELEVRiCCOW"r HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 06141-0270
HOLYOKE WATER POWER COMPAW
"ORT"EAU unu'r*3 9EMICE COMPAW (203)666-6911
"ORT"EMT MJCLEAR 00ROY OOM►MY
July 26, 1984
Attorney John Casey
25 Oakland Road
South Windsor, Connecticut 06074
Dear .Mr. Casey:
RE: Sale to Mitchell , South Windsor
(Active File #4)
I recently received a revised appraisal report from Peter R. Marsele.
His report on the appraised value of the 50 foot strip states the amount
at $23,600.
I will make the necessary changes to the Purchase Agreement form re-
quired for this transaction and have it reviewed by our attorney, Fred
Horton, before mailing to you. Attorney Horton informed me that he had
sent ,you a preliminary rough draft of Purchase Agreement for your review.
I recently received a copy of a letter for execution by The Connecticut
Light and Power Company, which purpose is to "confirm the status of the
proposed" purchase.
I have been advised by our management to explain that we need a
.signed "Purchase Agreement" before consenting to confirming our position
in this matter.
Very truly yours,
r
S icer
Senior Real Estate Agent
HHS/11
cc: Attorney Fred Horton
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT between THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER
COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation having a principal place of
business at 107 Selden Street, Town of Berlin, County of
Hartford, State of Connecticut ("Owner") , and JOHN MITCHELL of
South Windsor, Connecticut ("Buyer") ,
WITNESSETH
. IN CONSIDERATION of the promises exchanged herein, the
parties agree:
1. The Owner shall convey a parcel of land located
of in
the Town of , more particularly
described in Schedule A attached hereto and made a part
hereof ("Property") , reserving unto the Owner certain
utility rights more particularly described in Schedule
B attached hereto and made a part hereof, over an
easement area of approximately 50 feet by 300 feet as
shown on the map designated Schedule C attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
9*2. The Buyer shall purchase the Property and shall pay to
the Owner:
A. $1,200. 00 as a non-refundable administrative fee
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and
B. $ as a refundable down-payment, receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, and
C. $ in cash or certified funds upon transfer
of title to and possession of the Property at the
time of closing set forth below.
3. The Buyer shall bear all costs for title insurance,
abstract of title, survey or other inspections of the
Property or title which the Buyer may desire.
4. The Buyer shall be responsible for payment of any
special assessments imposed upon the property as of the
date of execution of this Agreement. All other taxes,
water charges, or other governmental charges shall be
apportioned between the parties as of the date of
closing.
5. The Owner shall convey the Property by means of a deed
without covenants, subject to all encumbrances or
exceptions to title, if any, but free from the liens of
mortgage of the Buyer.
2 -
6. The Owner' s obligation to convey the Property is
contingent upon the approval of its Board of Directors
and the receipt by the Owner, free from appeal, of all
approvals, waivers or releases from any governmental
bodies or agencies having jurisdiction over this
transaction (including but not limited to the require-
ments of Section 16-50c through a of the Connecticut
General Statutes) . If any approval, waiver or release
is denied or cannot be obtained, the Owner may termi-
nate this Agreement upon written notice to the Buyer.
Upon termination pursuant to this paragraph, the Owner
shall promptly return to the Buyer the down payment
provided for in Section 2 (B) of this Agreement.
7. If the Buyer defaults in its obligation to purchase the
Property in compliance with the terms of this Agree-
ment, the Owner' s sole remedy shall be the retention of
the administrative fee and down payment provided for in
paragraph 2.
8. If the Owner defaults in its obligation to convey the
Property in compliance with the terms of this Agree-
ment, the Buyer' s sole remedy shall be the return of
the down payment required in paragraph 2 (B) , together
with the reasonable- costs and title examination actual-
„ ly incurred by the Buyer up to ten (10%) percent of the
purchase price or One Thousand ($1,000) Dollars which-
ever is less.
9. The Buyer acknowledges that it has examined the Proper-
ty and its improvements, if any, and accepts them in
"AS IS" condition.
10. The Buyer represents that it is not an officer, direc-
tor of the Owner or its affiliates within the Northeast
Utilities holding company system, nor a member of the
immediate family of such person.
11. The Buyer represents that no real estate agent or
broker has been involved in this transaction, and
agrees to indemnify and save the Owner harmless from
any and all liability, loss, cost or expense, including
reasonable attorney' s fees, arising from any claim,
action or proceeding for commission or other compen-
sation by a broker or agent claiming to have represent-
ed the Buyer in this transaction.
12. The closing shall take place in the Owner' s offices at
within sixty (60) days following the Seller' s receipt
of all applicable approvals, waivers and releases
described in Paragraph 6, or at such other time or
location as may be mutually agreed to by the parties.
3 -
13. The covenants and agreements herein shall bind and
inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, execu-
tors, administrators, successors and assigns of the
parties hereto, but the Buyer shall not assign its
rights to the Property created herein without the prior
written approval of the Owner.
14. This instrument constitutes the entire agreement
between the Buyer and the Owner with respect to the
Property and no oral statements, promises, or any
understanding not embodied in this instrument shall be
valid unless reduced to writing and signed by both
parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
as of the day of , 19 .
OWNER: THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY
By
Northeast Utilities Service
Company, its Agent
w
BUYER: JOHN MITCHELL
By
John Mitchell
SCHEDULE B
EASEMENT RIGHTS RESERVED
1. The right to erect, install, construct, repair, maintain,
replace, relocate, inspect, operate and remove upon, over,
under, through and across the easement area electrical, gas
and/or communication facilities including without limita-
tion: poles; towers; cross arms; guides; foundations;
anchors; braces; ducts; manholes; other structures , wires,
cables, conductors, pipes, fixtures and appurtenances useful
'in conducting electricity and/or gas, and for providing and
maintaining such electric, gas and/or communication service
by means of such facilities; and monuments and signs appro-
priate to locate the boundaries of the easement area, and
2. The right to conduct electricity and/or gas, and to provide
electric, gas and/or communication service by means of such
facilities, and
3. The right to trim and keep trimmed, cut, clear and remove by
mechanical means or otherwise, trees, limbs, branches,
underbrush and other growth (other than crops) any parts of
which are within the limits of the easement area or on
adjoining land of the Grantee, and which, in the sole
opinion of the Grantor, may interfere with or create a
hazard to the facilities described above, and
4. The right to control the growth of trees, limbs, branches,
underbrush and other growth by the use of chemicals or other
means, provided such chemicals shall not be applied in areas
used for growing crops, or for grassland, and
5. The right to burn or otherwise dispose of all wood or brush
cut, and
6. The right to remove any structures above or below grade
within or projecting into the easement area, and
7. The right to enter upon, travel and transport personnel,
materials and equipment over and across the adjoining lands
of the Grantee to the extent reasonably necessary for access
to the easement area, and
8. The right to grade, excavate, fill or otherwise improve the
easement area.
9. By acceptance of this conveyance, the Grantee hereby agrees,
as a covenant running with the land that, except upon
written consent from the Grantor:
2 -
A. No buildings or structures shall be constructed or
materials or vehicles permanently or temporarily stored
within the easement area, and
B. No grading, excavating, filling or flooding shall be
conducted within the easement area.
C. No trees or other plantings which might adversely
affect underground facilities shall be placed within
the easement area.
j
t-
208 Sumider Hill Drive
South Windsor, Ct.
August 6 , 1984
Planning and Zoning Commission
South Windsor, Connecticut AUG 13 19��
S W Inds° A ti
oath Co�m�Ssio �:
Dear Ladies alid Gentlemen: ��apping
& DAM%
IV
am writing, to express my oppositi"on to the condominium
project t'r.��t is bein6 proposed to you off of Sand Fill Rd. and
prop
Ellington hd.. 1 urge you not to accept the proposed zone change for .,
the .Following reasons. r'
.eirst, I believe you will agree that the present zoning con-
s
ti.tutes the r_ighest and,-best use} of that property. The Comprehensive
Plan of Development correctly designated that area medium density
because it is not large enough to aesthetically accommodate more units.
Secondly, the proposal , if a zone change were granted, does not
greet the zoning requirements which you have established, - in that the
land they propose to build on is not 15 contiguous acres. Two
separate parcels artifically connected by a walk-way under CL,%P y
power lines are not 15 contiguous acres. J
On
e wonders why the proposal ever got this far? A good guess
would be that the development of nark View ;youth was so success-
ful that developers want more profit. I submit that this would not
be in the best interests of the people or the town of South Windsor.
Park View South did come out very nicely: but if 100 more units
are build abutting t::at condominium you will create an urban
environment with all its undesireable problems and not the scenic ,
suburban atmosphere that we all love. After living 15 years in
my home in South Windsor, I bought at Park View South three years
ago. One can still hear the crickets on a summer evening, spy
a Cardin
flying down to the brook that runs along the back, and watch a hack
Y g
The develo mentp if accepted as proposed, ..
rabbit coming to drink. p
would not only spoil the peaceful harmony of nature but the ecology
as well.
I am also very concerned about the problems that would occur
2,
r
with such a high density of people in such a small area. Alreadv
there are about __dO children from birth age through high school at
Farx view South, Tnis condominium belies the myth that ,condo' s
' do no;, bring in children. In today' s economy young parents, single
parents, and established families do buy or rent in condominiums.
I have always been in favor of fair zoning, not exclusionary
zoning; my point is that there is plenty of land in South Windsor
to spread out high density housing in accordance with a balanced plan
of development, rather than to let developers create high density
city conditions.
The traffic has become an increased problem in the last three
years, both at rive Corners and the junction of Sullivan Ave-
Sand Hill Road. The company that did the traffic study for the
proposal is being paid by the developers and I would not expect them
to admit that the area can not absorb increased traffic. They do
say in their report however that they couldn' t get an accurate
traffic count "due to vandalism.71 I know first hand that the
town of East =dindsor is very sorry that they allowed so many high den-
sity units at bill .Fond 'Village. There has been a high- cost to that
town due to vandalism, increased social services, and an increased
Special Education budget. Unfortunately that town has not had the
enlightened planning through an elected Planning and Zoning Com-
mission that our town has had, and I am very hopeful that you will
not allow this proposal as proposed for high density to go through.
I thank you for all the dedicated, hard work you have done for ;
the town and for your consideration of my heartfelt concerns.
Sincerely,
Jilline K. Clinton
SOUTH WINDSOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS
1737 MAIN STREET
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT O 74
203-528-9711
DR.ROBERT W.GOLDMAN WILLIAM L.PERRY DONALD C.MERCURE
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS ASST.SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS BUSINES MANAGER
August 10, 1984
Attorney John M. Casey
Patterson, Casey, Halpern, Grace and Dombrowski, P.C. '�' . •a'=:
Attorneys at Law }Iry
25 Oakland Road pja S� I.q�Q 4
South Windsor, Connecticut 06074
Dear Attorney Casey:
m
I have reviewed the impact that condominiums have had on enrollment in t 017'
South Windsor Public Schools.
This review was based upon the Parkview South complex specifically, and on .
the impact of other condominiums in the community generally.
Parkview South has 106 units. The total number of students in the schools
is 16 from that project: 6 students at Orchard Hill School , 4 students at
Timothy Edwards Middle School , and 6 students at the high school . Broken
down into percentage, only .15 children per unit come from those units as
compared to one or more children from each single family house sold.
P.
Therefore, it has been 'the school system's view that for planning purposes,
we do not expect large or significant numbers of children to come from con-
dominium developments.
I reviewed the site plan in regard to the Sand Hill Condominium Project, and
it is our considered opinion that students should walk from the condominiums
to two exits for bus pick up. One such pickup will be on Sand Hill Road
and the other pick up will be on Ellington Road. It has been our experience
that the internal traffic as well as the size of the buses makes it very
difficult for buses to enter developments with cul de sacs. The Board of
Education bus policy specifically states that buses will not under most cir-
cumstances enter cul de sacs.
I would assume, therefore, that the condominium project will provide sidewalks
to these exits. While it is not a requirement of the public schools, it cer-
tainly would be helpful if students were provided shelters to wait for the bus
at each of these exits.
Sincerely yours,
-111� d W. lxa_ze_�
Robert W. Goldman, Ph.D.
Superintendent of Schools
RWG-ws
EDUCATE ALL CH I LDREN TO TH El R
FULLEST POTENTIAL
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT between THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER
COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation having a principal place of
business at 107 Selden Street, Town of Berlin, County .of
Hartford, State of Connecticut ("Owner") , and JOHN MITCHELL ET
AL of South Windsor, Connecticut (!Buyer") .
WITNESSETH
�s
IN CONSIDERATION of the promises exchanged herein, the
parties agree:
1. The Owner shall convey a parcel of land located South -
of Sand Hill Road in the Town of South Windsor,
Connecticut, more particularly shown in Schedule A
attached hereto and made a part hereof ("Property") ,
reserving unto the Owner certain utility rights more
particularly described in Schedule B attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
2. The Buyer shall purchase the Property and shall pay to
the Owner: =
A. $1,200.00 as a non-refundable administrative fee,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and
B. $28000.00 as a refundable down-payment, to be paid
to owner on or before August 24 , 1984.
C. $21,600 .00 in cash or certified funds upon
transfer of title to and possession of the A .
Property at the time of closing set forth below. ' y
-r
3. The Buyer shall bear all costs for title insurance, -
abstract of title, survey or other inspections of the
Property or title which the Buyer may desire. ='
A. The Buyer will provide prior to closing and final
approval by the owner and at its own cost, a Class
A-2 map to be approved by this Company and used for
deed description showing the exact location of the
parcel, which location must meet this Company' s "
approval . The owner's approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
4. The Buyer shall be responsible for payment of any
special assessments imposed upon the property as of the
date of execution of this Agreement. All other taxes,
water charges, or other governmental charges shall be
apportioned between the parties as of the date of +�
•-a
closing.
v
4
e
5. The Owner shall convey the Property by means of a deed
: without covenants, subject to all encumbrances or i
exceptions to title, if any, but free from the liens of
mortgage of the Buyer.
6. The deed shall contain covenants running with the land
. by which the Buyer agrees:A. Prior to construction of any roadway on the :
Property, the Buyer shall, at its sole cost,
provide to the Owner for its approval a map
suitable for recording, indicating by ties and :
monuments, the proposed location of the roadway.
The Owner' s approval shall not be unreasonably j
withheld. `
B. The Buyer shall, following any excavation or other
construction activity on the Property, loam, grade
and seed the Property in a manner consistent with
the Owner' s adjacent lands and to assure that the
Owner' s adjacent lands are not adversely affected
by the Buyer' s activities.
7. The Owner' s obligation to convey the Property is f �4
bontingent upon the approval of its Board of Directors
and the receipt by the Owner, free from appeal, of all
approvals, waivers or releases from any governmental
bodies or agencies having jurisdiction over this v �
transaction (including but not limited to the require-
ments of Section 16-50c through a of the Connecticut
General Statutes) . If any approval, waiver or release '
is denied or cannot be obtained, the Owner may termi-
nate this Agreement upon written notice to the Buyer. =:;1
Upon termination pursuant to this paragraph, the Owner
shall promptly return to the Buyer the down- payment
provided for in Section 2 (B) of this Agreement.
8. If the Buyer defaults in its obligation to purchase the
Property in compliance with the terms of this Agree-
ment, the Owner' s sole remedy shall be the retention of a=
the administrative fee and down payment provided for in
paragraph 2.
9. If- the Owner defaults in its obligation to convey the
Property in compliance with the terms of this Agree-
ment, the Buyer' s sole remedy shall be the return of
the down payment required in paragraph 2 (B) , together
with the reasonable costs and title examination actual-
ly incurred by the Buyer up to One Thousand ($1,000)
Dollars. _
• I
i
10.E The Buyer acknowledges that it has examined the Proper-
- �3 ty and its improvements, if any, and accepts them in
"AS IS" condition.
11. The Buyer represents that it is not an officer, direc-
tor of the Owner or its affiliates within the Northeast ti
• Utilities holding company system, nor a member of the
immediate family of such person.
r
12. The Buyer represents that no real estate agent or T
broker has been involved in this transaction, and
agrees to indemnify and save the Owner harmless from
any and all liability, loss, cost or expense, including
reasonable attorney' s fees, arising from any claim,
action or proceeding for commission or other compen-
sation by a broker or agent claiming to have represent-
ed the Buyer in this transaction.
13. The closing shall take place in the Owner' s offices at
within sixty (60) days foll wing the Seller' s receipt
of all applicable approvals, waivers and releases
described in Paragraph 6, or at such other time or
. location as may be mutually agreed to by the parties.
14: The covenants and agreements herein shall bind and
inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, execu-
tors, administrators, successors and assigns of the
parties hereto, but the Buyer shall not assign its
rights to the Property created herein without the prior
written approval of the Owner.
15. This instrument constitutes the entire agreement
between the Buyer and the Owner with respect to the
Property and no oral statements, promises, or any
understanding not embodied in this instrument shall be
valid unless reduced to writing and signed by both .-
parties.
a
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, t e parties have executed this Agreement a
as of the f y
z� day of ,,, '"� , 19 ry .
�-
OWNER: THE CONNECTIC T LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY
B -".hy wt
east ti ities Serv_
Company, its Agent
BUYER: JOHN MI LL
By
John Ili he
w "
Y ,
t
t
r
. +-
"NO MtLL
�
' r
,Val ,.
,
- —_ A OF N
; � !''� •. ROM
• L T R7 c0
\11 IMP
•, '
lo
VLLOP M -
M - -
_ FUSS&OT4ELL 2/111
MANCMEfTER. Comuff IT
SCHEDULE B
EASEMENT RIGHTS RESERVED `
1. The right to erect, install., construct,erate and repair,move u maintain,
onp overt
under, through and across
replace, relocate, inspheareattpeasement area electrical, gas
arid/or communication facilities including without limita-
tion: poles; towers; cross arms; guides; foundations;
anchors; braces; ducts; manholes; other structures, wires,
cables, conductors, pipes, fixtures and appurtenances useful
in conducting electricity and/or gas, and for providing and
maintaining such electric, gas and/or communication service
by means of such facilities; and monuments and signs appro-
priate to locate the boundaries of the easement area, and
2. The right to conduct electricity and/or gas, and to provide
electric, gas and/or communication service by means of such
facilities, and
3. The right to trim and keep trimmed, cut, clear and remove by
mechanical means or otherwise, ethanlcro,sbrany parts of
underbrush and other growth (otherP
which are within the limits of the easement area or on
adjoining land of the Grantee, and which, in the
sole
createa
opinion of the Grantor, may interfere
hazard to the facilities described above, and
1 limbs, branches,
4. The right to control the
use ofchemicals or other
underbrush and other g Y
means, provided such chemicals shall not be applied in areas
used for growing crops, or for grassland, and
5. The right to burn or otherwise dispose of all wood or brush
cut, and
6. The right to remove any structures above or below grade
within or projecting into the easement area, and
7.
The right to enter upon, travel and transport personnel,lands
materials and equipment over and across the adjoining
join ng access
of the Grantee to the extent reasonably Y
to the easement area, and
g. The right to grade, excavate, fill or otherwise improve the
easement area.
9. By acceptance of this conveyance, the Grantee hereby agrees,
as a covenant running with the land that, except upon
written consent from the Grantor:
No buildings or structures shall be constructed or stored
t3 materials or vehicles permanently or temporarily ,stor
• within the easement area, and
B. No grading, excavating, filling or flooding shall be
conducted within the easement area.
C. No trees or other plantings which might adversely
affect underground facilities shall be placed within
the easement area.
i
PATTERSON. CASEY. HALPERN. GRACE & DOMBROWSKI. P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
25 OAKLAND ROAD
SOUTH WINOSOR.CONNECTICUT OB074
12031 B44-1528
RICHARD G.PATTERSON 165 SILAS DEANS HIGHWAY
JOHN M.CASEY WETHERSFIELD,CT 06109
KENNETH S.HALPERN (2031 5B3-2B34
WILLIAM E.GRACE
JOHN W.DOMBROWSKI.JR. August 16, 1984
NANCE KRISCENSKI CASTILLO
A
D
Ms. Ginny Graney
Town of South Windsor
14
Planning and Zoning Commission
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor CT 06074 A/a SO 81984 /
oi)7 �4�h ✓�I
RE: Sand Hill Associates Io��� �dwor
Proposed Condominiums 110
g
Ellington Road and Sand Hill Road �'14441
on ,
Dear Ms. Graney:
t
Enclosed please find a copy of the executed contract between Conn- k
ecticut Light and Power Company for the purchase of land. Also enclosed
is a copy of a letter from Dr. Goldman after his review of the plan 1
of the proposed condominiums.
Very truly yours,
wc,�I<C17
William E. Grace
i
WEG:mg s
Enclosures
PUBLIC HEARING
1 . . Application of 6and Hill Associates, for a Zone Change from RR to
MF-AA, and approval of a generaT P an of Development
The secretary read the legal notice as it appeared in the newspaper ,
a copy of which is attached hereto . Mrs. Montana had disqualified
herself from sitting on this application , and the Chairman appointed
Alternate Hallowell to sit in her place .
Attorney William Grace was present on behalf of the applicant , Sand
Hill Associates , which is owned by William F. Mitchell, John J . Mitchell
and Daniel C. Guachione . They are asking for approval of an MF-AA zone
and General Plan of Development. Mr . Grace introduced William O 'Neill
of Fuss & O 'Neill , the engineers for this project , and Gregory Montana,
the arcbitect .
Mr . O 'Neill pointed out the site on the map and said they are proposing
102 units on 20 acres . They have secured approval from Inland Wetlands
regarding the storm water management. There will be a green corridor
between the two pieces of land. Sanitary sewers will be by gravity flow,
and water will be available . There will be a pedestrian right-of-way
between the two parcels . They are proposing a Wapping Road by-pass ,
and by the time they are ready to proceed with the fourth phase the
by-pass will be finalized.
=•= Planning & Zoning Commission -2- 9/11/84
Mr. Tom Currin of Fuss & O 'Neill stated his qualifications as a traffic
expert and referred to his report which contained an analysis of both
existing and projected traffic volumes . The traffic impact was assessed
using a density of 102 condominium units, all fully occupied. Since the
development will have more than 200 parking spaces , a State Traffic
Commission major generator permit will be required . This must be
obtained prior to issuance of a building permit by a Town.
Sight distances at the Sand Hill Road access are over 600 feet in both
directions and the pavement width is 32 feet with curbs on both sides.
Ellington Road is a two lane State roadway with a pavement width varying
from 24 to 26 feet . Sight distance is 600 feet to the north and about
175 feet to the south. Roadway. modifications would have to occur to
provide adequate sight distance- prior to development . Ellington Road
is currently operating at 44 percent of its capacity and would rise to
47 percent , and Sand Hill Road is operating at 33 percent and would
rise to 35 percent of its capacity with this development . The "S"
cu.rve on Sullivan Avenue at Sand Hill Road will be reconstructed by
�=- the State. The intersection of Valley View Drive and Sand Hill Road
== does work.
77 Referring to the Wapping by-pass road between Ellington and Sullivan
=== across a portion of the subject parcel which would allow the elimination
of the Ellington Road leg of the five corners intersection, Mr . Currin
said this is 'definitely an improvement and he would encourage the
Commission to pursue that .
A copy of page 11 , citing the conclusions of Mr . Currin ' s report , is
attached hereto, marked Exhibit A.
Gregory Montana, Architect and Planner for this project , proceeded as
follows : Both properties were originally mined off for the gravel ,
and the property on Sand Hill has a large, deep excavation which would
have to be filled . The Ellington Road piece has a high , existing ,
_... well-treed buffer above' the existing contours. The tree line between
Parkview South and this project have some very fine trees . They have
been concerned with the relationship of the proposed buildings as they
..._ relate to Parkview South, and houses along Sand Hill and Ellington Roads .
... Marketing studies have shown that a low-density, well-designed project
is a very feasible use of this property . This is more or less a continu-
ation of Parkview South. Sales of Parkview South revealed many inquiries
of why certain things hadn ' t been done , and they have taken all this
into consideration in designing the proposed project . All these units
will have individual garages with direct access to the kitchens (or units) .
They are proposing 46 units on the Ellington portion, and 56 on the Sand
Hill portion. The design philosophy has been to save as many trees
as possible . There has been discussion about relocating the swimming pool
with the tennis court , thereby causing less noise to Parkview South .
"~ They will be about 80 ' from Parkview South at the closest point .
There will be two-story townhouses with optional lofts and one story
ranches . There are no second story ranches . A two-bedroom ranch has
1270 s . f . with 1� bath, full cellar , and with a cluster type arrange-
ment they will get a lot more light into the units . All units will have
attached garages . A 1650 s . f . ranch will have an upper story master
bedroom and loft suite The townhouses will be 1450 s . f . , with two
=�� upstairs bedrooms and cathedral ceilings, and two different kitchen
P lanning & Zoning Commission -3- 9/11/84
arrangments will be available. About 20 percent will be ranches with
the optional upstairs unit , and about 20 percent of the townhouses will
have lofts.
Density is 4 . 6 units per acre, which is the lowest density in Town.
This design has more green area than any other project in Town, and they
have been sympathetic to the existing woodlands and also the facility
next to it . The landscaping plan shows development of a berm along the
new police complex.
a"'
Ceil Decker, a local real estate then reported concerning the need for
this type of housing in Town, in view of the increasing numbers of
single people and retirees . A.-condo can be sold for $70 - $80, 000,
while a new single family home is at least $110, 000 with an existing
single family home selling in the low $90 ' s. The location in South
Windsor is very desirable because of its close proximity to Hartford and
its school system. She noted the garages and basements will be a
good selling point , as well as the fact that there are no second floor
ranches .Also of importance to prospective buyers is the low density
in a rural setting.
Attorney Grace said that he received a letter from Dr . Goldman which
stated that a survey of Parkview South indicated that in the 106
units there is a total of 16 children. Six are at Orchard Hill ,
four at Timothy Edwards, • and six at the high school . The Board of
Education projects about 15 children in this development . They would
like an internal walkway , and a bus shelter , which have been provided.
The Fire Marshal did not object to the roadway . They have made
a request to the Town Manager for permission to drain into the detention
basin by the police complex. The size of it may have to change , and
this will be addressed when the site plan is brought in . The ZBA
granted a variance of 15 feet , so there is a buffer of 35 ' rather than
50 ' . Inland Wetlands has approved the whole development . They
purchased a 50 ' strip from the power company , and there may be limitations
about what they can do and possibly the power company won ' t permit
trees . Mr . Grace said they felt this land was not suitable for single
family dwellings , and the applicants are making a commitment to stay
with this project until it ' s completed just as they did with Parkview
South . The last unit was just sold in Parkview South , and they believe
ev-1 completion
this project should also d eop in four stages , wi
date of about 4 years - the same as Parkview South.
Town Planners Peter DeMallie , then gave the following report :
In his "Policy Analysis - Wapping" report , dated July 10, 1980 , copies
of which he distributed, Mr . DeMallie said he wanted to start a
dialogue •for establishing a growth policy for the Wapping area , and
the proposal tonight is located in that area. The final pages of this
report contained a concept plan for land use, recreation and transporta-
tion improvements . The minor road improvement at Sand Hill/Route 74
intersection has been completed. The Sullivan Avenue S curve project
has been salvaged and will go to construction in the Spring, or even
sooner . Horizontal and vertical realignment on Ellington Road above the
Town Hall in the vicinity of the southerly entrance of Sand Hill condominiums
will be required to safely accommodate traffic generated by this development .
Planning & Zoning Commission -4- 9/11/84
It is unlikely the State will do this . This area is well suited for
multi-family development, particularly for the eldlerly. The northerly
half of the site (Sand Hill Road part) should be developed first since
traffic improvements are necessary for the Ellington Road side.
Sheet #10 of the plans indicate the un-named brook will be placed in
a culvert for about 390 ' , and Mr . DeMallie said he believes the
integrity of the brook as a natural watercourse should be , preserved.
He said he is not adverse to relocating it to the path shown on the plan,
.. and he noted that the Wetlands Commission approved placing it in a pipe.
There will be substantial filling in the southwestern portion of the
Sand Hill Road site, as much as 14 feet , and slope rights will be
.. required from property of Norman Priest .
The detention basin for the northerly site is Town owned, and applicant
must demonstrate the right to use this property. They plan to go
through the Town Manager and Town Council to secure these rights.
Unit types should be indicated on the plans . Sidewalks should be
installed on Sand HillRoad to the new Abbe Road Extension, in lieu of
concrete sidewalks on the south side of Sand Hill along this parcel ' s
frontage . The stonedust path connecting this site should be taken
into consideration since some other material might be better, and
consideration should be given to a crosswalk across Sand Hill Road to
the new Nevers Road Park. Detailed landscaping plans are not required
at this stage , but will have to address foundation plantings , buffers
on the westerly boundary complementing plantings of the police
complex, and buffers to screen the residential use from the police sta:ion.
Variances were granted along the CL & P line , and Mr . DeMallie said he
has no problem with that . He does not envision any development in the
CL & P right-of-way.
Mr . DeMallie said he basically does not oppose the zone change and
general plan for the northerly (Sand Hill) portion of the site .
Regarding the southerly (Ellington Road) part of the site, Mr . DeMallie
said the sanitary sewer line on Sheet #8 encroaches on land of Parkvie.
South and rights to do this will be required. If they take the alternate
route on Ellington Road, rights will be required . They will be encroac:--Ling
on property of Hills and CL & P, and rights will be required. Most
of the existing trees are in areas of new grades for buildings , and will
probably be removed. Mr . Montana interjected that the trees in the bu_=er
=-. along Parkview South can be saved. Mr . DeMallie said this subject will-
have to be addressed in more detail with the site plan phase. Sheet �J
should have the detention basin outlined on it as well as phase lines.
Rights must be obtained to connect the stonedust sidewalk with the
existing sidewalk along Parkview South . An easement will be required
. from where Parkview terminates its sidewalk to the Town property to the
south .
Regarding traffic and particularly the Wapping bypass road and Five Comers,
' Mr . DeMallie referred to a xerox copy of a plan showing a bypass road
' between Route 30 and Route 74 , north and west of the Town Hall . The
original road was proposed in the 1968 Town Plan, but going to the no::h
through what is now Parkview South Condominium. In 1982 Town Staff
met with DOT, and Mr. DeMallie referred to a map and two letters fro=
DOT . Consideration was given to make Route 74 one way northbound fro=
five corners , but DOT suggested consideration be given to closing it .
• Planning & Zoning Commission -5- 9/11/84
It was recommended that Sullivan Avenue have an additional northbound
lane on the easterly side . CONNDOT did not seem to have problems with
the proposed bypass road but recommended it be signalized on Sullivan
Avenue , and possibly make a wider sweep through what is now proposed
to be Sand Hill Condominiums.
Mr . DeMallie said he recommends as follows : The Town should continue
pursuing resolution of the five corners traffic problem Provision
for the bypass road through the subject ' s parcel north of the Town Hall ,
: and secondly , closure of the Route 74 leg of the five corners intersection
should be pursued, and Route 74 should be cul-de-sacced south of the
Town Hall entrance . Third, a northbound lane on Sullivan from five corners to the
new bypass road should be pursued. The State should also determine
whether Route 74 will follow the bypass road, or as an alternate, Sand
Hill Road, terminating at a traffic signal on Sullivan Avenue. That
-. Sand Hill/Sullivan intersection will be redesigned and Sand Hill Road .
may be redesignated as a State highway. If the Wapping bypass road
_. becomes Route 74, a larger arc might be required by the State .than if
it becomes a Town road. If Route 74 at five corners is not closed ,
the bypass road should be pursued as a Town road.
Mr . DeMallie noted that the absence of a resolution to five corners
is a Town -problem, and this development does contribute to it , but only
a small percentage.' In the area of units 1 through 10 , and 31 through
36 , they could be granted approvals subject to further modifications
to accomodate the Wapping bypass road. He said the general plan
should be modified to portray a concept of a bypass road from Route 194
to 74 , centered in a 50 ' right-of-way with a 30 ' wide pavement , and
the entrance drive teed off of it . Units 1 through 4 and 31 probably
should be removed from the plans , and the bypass road either constructed
: through the westerly property line of this application, or at least
graded to the westerly property line . The 50 ' right-of-way should
be deeded to the Town once this problem is resolved .
Mr . DeMallie said he doesn ' t know how they can progress to a site plan
until some of these things are pursued. He noted that it is possible
to approve and file a general plan with the understanding that that
particular area will be modified . The phasing should be modified
:.. on the plans to reflect what was said this evening .
.. Mr . DeMallie concluded that he is not opposed to a change of zone for
,.. either parcel , although his preference would be for elderly housing .
These are very large units , with low density , and Mr . DeMallie said
the applicants did a good job .
Town Engineer Rick Martel then proceeded to give the following report :
If the zone change is approved Sheet #2 should have Class D certifications.
Sheet #5 should show sanitary sewer right-of-way through the parcel , and
Sheet #6 should show the 50 ' easement around the stonedust path. The
dimension from the cul-de-sac to building #30 should be given, and the
regulations require a minimum of 651 . Sheet #7 should show the same 65 '
distance for building #73 . Sheet #8 shows a detention basin, and there ' s
Planning & Zoning Commission -6- 9/11/84
about a 10' drop fromthe street , and anyone running off the road
would have quite a drop and perhaps berming would beithe solution.
' The outfall on the storm sewer at the cul-de-sac on Sheet #8 should be
addressed, as well as grading onto CL & P property will require rights.
Sheet #9 should show the location of the CL & P poles and guide wires
== in relation to the walkway when the site plan is prepared . Another
right-of-way for the relocation of the sanitary sewer is required on
= Sheet #9 from CL & P . Sheet #10 should correct the direction of the
storm sewers in the northeast corner of the property, as well as the
direction of the sanitary sewers . Some of the arrows are pointed in the
wrong direction.
Mr . Martel said one of his major Concerns is that basically this property
has been a large borrow pit and -there ' s going to be a significant amount
of fill required. This must be addressed, as to what kind of fill, where
it is coming from and how it will be placed, and this should be done on the
site plan. Which existing tree stand will be preserved must also be
.... addressed.
F=--
:. Referring to the Wapping bypass road , Mr . Martel said if the Towri takes
title , further consideration of slope rights on the north side of the
road must be considered, possibly 10-15 ' .
Speaking a b o u t the application was Judy Begley representing 1905
Ellington Road, and she said they have three major concerns . The driveway
on the plans appear to be very close to their home and they are concerned
about the possibility of lights from cars shining into their living room.
' She requested the driveway be moved north. She expressed concern that
' the brook flowing through Kupchunos ' site onto the- Newberry property be
preserved during construction and afterwards . Ms . Begley said traffic
==== on Ellington Road travels at 45 m. p .h. -or faster , and it currently takes
= about 5 or 6 minutes to get out of their driveway in the morning. She
== also noted that if the bypass road is built , they would be concerned again
with lights shining into their windows .
== Mr. Vito Covensky of Summer Hill Road at Parkview South Condominiums
= stated he is in favor of this application.
== Andre Charbonneau of 604 Avery Street stated he owns a condo at Parkview
==: South and spoke of the need for affordable housing for younger people .
-_: He said he is in favor of this application.
Walter Kupchunos of 392 Ellington Road said his father owns the house
opposite Parkview South. He stated that he is not quite sure of where
the drainage is going but there is a tremendous amount of run-off . He
also said if the grade of Ellington Road is changed he is wondering how
.:: this will affect the drainage.
Steve Mewhinney of Parkview South Condominium spoke in favor and said
projects such as this will provide the opportunity for people to stay in
Town.
Chairman Gilligan then read letters from Norman Hills , who expressed
concern about an adequate buffer between his property and the applicant ' s
Planning & Zoning Commission -7- 9/11/84
property , and concern for drainage as well as a re-quest that a chain
link fence be erected ; from Sarah B . Hills who owns the abutting property
and requested there be a buffer and also questioning the drainage; and
from Jill Clinton, which stated she is opposed to this application
because the present zoning is the best use of this property, because it
does not meet the zoning regulations in that it is not 15 contiguous
acres, and because of increased traffic .
Also opposed to the application was Dave Collins from Sand Hill Road who
• said traffic on Sand Hill is just as bad as Ellington Road.
Commissioner Smith asked for . clarif ication of what a major traffic
generator is , and Mr. Currin 'ex-plained the procedure for obtaining ;
the permit.
Mrs . Sorosiak asked if the land would drain into Plum Gulley Brook,
and Mr . O 'Neill said the 10 acres on Sand Hill Road would, but will
pass through a detention basin so there will be no increase .
Mr. Conde asked who would pay for the realignment of Ellington Road if
it is done , and Mr. Currin said the developer would have to come up
with money for improvements . He also clarified that the only variance
W they obtained was for the buffer . Mr . Conde also noted that
land for t'he Wapping bypass road should be set aside since it is in
the Plan of Development .
Mrs . Klenke clarified that sidewalks on Ellington Road would continue
to the Town Hall driveway , and will go over the brook. She asked
if they would proceed to get permission to regrade Ellington Road
now, and Mr . Grace said they would start now and hope that by the time
they are ready for Phase IV they would have approval .
Commissioner Sorenson said he has a lot of trouble with a stonedust
sidewalk connecting the two parcels , and that concrete may be better,
and Mr . Grace said they have to go back to CL & P to see what will be
permitted, and they are not adverse to cement or whatever .
Mrs . Rossi clarified that the "right-of-way" between these two parcels
.. is actually owned by the applicant .
Mr . Hallowell said he would like the work in Parkview South completed ,
and Mr . Grace said there are two different entities developing Parkview
South and Sand Hill , but work will be completed at Parkview South this
Fall .
Chairman Gilligan asked if they had preliminary calculations on filling ,
= and Mr . O ' Neill said they have not done computation yet , but fill will
have to be brought into the Sand Hill site , and the Ellington side will
= balance better . He noted there is a possibility CL & P would allow them
to use some of the material under the CL & P lines .
Mr . Gilligan asked about drainage into the no-name brook, and Mr . O 'Neill
said the no-name brook will take drainage from each of the parcels , but
Planning & Zoning Commission -8- 9/11/84
the net effect will be that they will provide adequate detention and
storage area - so there will be no impact flow downstream, and discharge
will be at non-erodable velocities . Mr. O 'Neill said they will
protect the no-name brook' s character and there will be no erosion.
Mr . Gilligan summarized that the applicant plans to pursue Phase 3/4
on Ellington Road, recognizing that it will require extensive regrading ,
at the developer' s expense, of Ellington Road, and also mindful and
hopeful that the proposed Wapping bypass road may come in in place of
that . Applicant- is asking for approval of this application having
evidence that access to Phase 3/4 is possible, but it ' s only a matter of
how. Mr . Grace said that sums. up their position.
== There being no further comments, Mrs. Klenke moved the public hearing
be adjourned and the Executive Session be reconvened. Mr. Conde seconded
== the motion, and it was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered .
=:. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The executive session reconvened at 10: 05 P . M.
Mr . Hallowell moved the executive session be adjourned at 10 : 25 P. M. ,
seconded by Mrs. Smith and unanimously voted in favor and so ordered .
Respectfully submitted ,
Virginia S . -Graney , Recording/secretary
""" APPROVED:
1
September 20, 1984
102 Summer Hill Drive
South Windsor, CT 00074
TO: MAYOR MITCHELL
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
TOWN COUNCIL I
,/UAL
SUBJECT: SPACE FOR CHILDREN TO PLAY IN
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING COMPLEXES
Being a resident of Parkview South Condominiums I would like to relay to
you specific problems we have at Parkview and my concerns with multi-family
housing projects in South Windsor.
THE PROBLEM: Lack of play areas for children (of all ages)
As multi-family housing is relatively new to this area, it is under-
standable that not everything has been thought of in planning these developments.
A major flaw is lack of areas for children to play where they will be safe and
also not be a nuisance to other residents. I understand that the general
feeling of builders and townspeople in general is that people with children
don't buy condos - well here at Parkview at least 20% of our units have school
age or younger children. By living in a condo (or other multi-family housing)
vs. single family housing, we don't have our own yards for our children to
play. Putting up a play area for children has been proposed here at Parkview
several times and met with much resistance, one reason being that it "wasn't
in the original plans". I'm not sure if we ever will be able to solve the
problem at Parkview, but you have the opportunity to see that this same
problem doesn't reoccur in other developments in South Windsor.
Kids need an area to play during the day, after school, weekends, wher
they can be near supervision but not have to play "on the porch". You cannot
realistically send a 4-12 year old child "to the high school" or "across the
street to the 'park"' (Nevers Rd. Park) as I have heard from a number of
people, builders, architects at Parkview and in town. Kids need space near
their home to play.
I Swings, slides, playscapes, sandboxes, basketball hoops, climbing areas,
are all suggestions. Pools and tennis courts are great (especially for
adults) but our weather does not permit their use for most of the year.
I would like you to consider taking into consideration that people living
in multi-family housing complexes need space to "live" outside, as well as
inside.
Th k you for your consideration.
Francine Blouin
i
i
I
i
OWR Sjt4jsf,��
c �
s " 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE ° SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074
soR•co' AREA CODE 203/644-2511
November 20, 1984
;Pak T,
Mr . Robert F . Gilligan, Chairman
planning and Zoning Commission NOV 28 1984
Town Hall
Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, Conn. 06074 GUL1� : jndso;
planning Zcni 19 Ccm-Mission
Dear Mr . Gilligan:
I met with Greg Montana to review the layout of Sand Hill
Condominium. The only changes that I requested was that the
cul-de-sacs be increased to ninety (90) feet . I find no other
problems with this layout . I would like to review the f inal
plans to pick the locations for the f ire hydrant installation.
Very truly yours ,
William R. Lanning
Fire Marshal
cc: Attorney William Grace
- -- _ ) i
W
• � ._W
Ile
--- �
/ <i
SA N D GP Z
From: "DRAFT HIGHWAY PLAN LL
-
FUTURE STREETS" R D.
Revised: 8/84
Ir
7
5COTT q)
� A `\�--- BR-EEZY N1�C
R D.
j
n DE RF
C,VMMUNITY � 4
Lj
EL 1 TON IT
Q�
0 -