HomeMy WebLinkAboutGENERAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT F1J►K
11ING AND Z,ONIM Cp�11SS10N
ACCEPTED BY
SI ON ACTION THIS wPP�C cT� SNA
ZONI C OMISSION AT
P1ArINI NG AND ZDNl NG COMAS THE tu�TiN HEEnNG ON THE
APPLICATION •
THE REGULARLY SCHED IT SHALL
D DATE: FOURTH TigSUAY OF ' MON1NG AND
NECEIV£ SUBMITTED TO Tl�
APPROVAL DATE:: ZOI�TIpG CO1�D�[ISSION 0 ICE OIL (1) �,TEEK
REJECTED SATE: F�pA TO
TtiE FOuRTKTUE:SJAY*
R ain #
; Demin Hill Associates Inc. # 644-8448
/►PPI.T �.
ADDRESS: 17 50 Ellington
Road, South Windsor CT 0607 �Z,,EPk10
RICO
Calvary
Church of the Assemblies
of Co
OMR OF jxcORD ON S.W• u0 Connecticut 060 4
South Windsor,
400 Buckland Road, Sout Windsor , CT
ADDRESS: Deming Street,
COMPLETE
DESCRIPTI ON OF Loan ON OF nOPEATY i
(See copy of map) ZONE AA30
. S PpNDENCE AND INQUIRIES SHOULD BE
���� # OF PERSON ?0 WHOM CARR£ South indsor _
�T,,�� ADDRESS A Sou
Grace, Esq. . 25 Oakland Road, 644-1528
DIRECTED� William E•
Connecticut 06074
OR: COCK CrtE OF THEgOyLpiWIZlG)
TRTS APpLICATI� IS F
Zone (Public heating)
1. Zone Change to
Z• Filing
for Subdivision
Tiling for Open Space Subdivi,ior (public. heating)
3. FiI g
(public, bearing) ment foj-
for Resubdivieio'n oVe a General Plan :of Development f bearir.
4. Fil 6 pp
A r
toyw"wXXXXXSTy+ 4. .11 of the Zoning
Special ExCePtion With Section
X S•
ousing in accordance
.r---- dul � o n s.
eve�'loparent Planblic testing6. Irtr
or Quarry Stone A Ore CP
'- cave 1, CLy
7. Removal of S and,
g. Other (explain in
detail'
T O�1ldER Ta pROPBp'TY AND AI+ID
IGI�ED BY T1 A?PLTCANT AIZD ACCg D fY T1M PSI
Till S APPLT ATION KIT S tF� 07 pL UPORB IT WI
TTED AIMG WITH ZS RCH OF THE A SEMBLIES OF G
SUBMZ SSI0�1 CALVARY CHU e
LOId G �L S AT S , INC. By
D pINER
By APPL
wr)
7
F. A
HESKETH & ASSOCIATES9 INC.
101 MILLBROOK COMMON•BLOOMFIELD,CT 06002.(203)242-7755
December 19 , 1983
Mr . Page
Page Engineering
1750 Ellington Road
South Windsor, Conn. 06074
RE: Proposed Housing Development
Felt Road near Oakland Road
South Windsor
83373
e:
Mr. Page:g
I have developed a traffic study in Conn ction
At your request
fic generation and hourly traffic patterns at resi-
dential
with traffic
communities including residential communities wh re
all
of the residents are above 55 years of age. I have
performed
rmed the studies so as to provide you and your client as
well as the appropriate South Windsor officials with a ocument
t
uide in determining the total traffic eneration
to utilize as a g
from a land us
e which provides for approximately 77 units of
housing whe
re the ma3ority of the residents are in the lderly
�i
age group. It is understood that the proposed housing s
located on the
south side of Oakland Road west of Felt Road with
a proposed rec
onstruction of Felt Road to Oakland Road providing
means of connecting
the new community with the regional highway
stem. Emergency access for fire vehicles, ambulance
police
sy
and similar situations is provided to Deming Street.
Oakland Roa
d (Connecticut Route 30 ) between its inters action
with Buc
kland Road at the Route 74/194 intersection and the
Manchester
town line a distance of one and one half miles, is
traffic studies traffic engineering
t r a f fic planning
-2-
hwa varying between 22 ' and 32 ' in width.
a two lane bituminous hig y
The road is generally tangent
and level with few grades or hills
and few curves. There are onlyfive curves along this se�tion of
the road which are greater tha
n 2° . Two of these are looted
within three tenths of a mile of the Buckland Road intersection.
One is dust ea
st of the small shopping center a tenth of la
mile east
of Felt Road and the remaining two are one tenth of a
mile east and one
tenth of a mile west of the Foster Road inter-
section.ion. The computed safe speed for each of these cury s is 55
miles per hour or greater. There are three areas along this
of hi hway with a grade which exceeds 4 These include
sectiong
a 6 1/2% grade II
three tenths of a mile east of Buckland Rbad and
two
areas with a grade between 4% and 5% occurring between Felt
Road and Foster
Street. The study section is posted fo� speeds
of 30 miles per hour. Nightti
me illumination is provided with
or lamps mounted on util ty
vapor modern 20 , 000 lumen mercury p
ckland Road and the Foster Street inter ection.
pole
s between Bu
Land use
alongthe roadway is mostly medium density residential
with some agricultural properties in the section of highway
west
of Felt Road. On the south side of Route 30 just east of
Felt Ro
ad is an automotive service station and a small shopping
center which includes
a bank, (presently vacant) , an automotive
parts store, a delicatessen. a sports shop, a video store,
milk st
ores, hardware store, hair salon and similar commercial
establishments . East of the small shopping center to he
Manchester town line the land use along both sides of �he
i
-3-
roadway is medium density residential . A Mobile gas sta ion
occupies the southwest corner of the Route 30, Felt Road inter-
section.
I
Felt Road to the north of Route 30, is a two lane, subur an
highway serving medium density residential development p sted
for 25 miles per hour throughout its one mile length between
Route 30 and Palmer Drive. Felt Road, south of Route 3 is an
unimproved road serving agricultural land and two homes
The Felt Road, Route 30 intersection is ranked 17th in he
accident cluster rating published by the South Windsor lanning
Department in the August 1983 Town Plan Update. The rating
results from the occurrence of 13 accidents, 6 of which) involved
I
presonal injury in a three year reporting period.
The Planning Department' s June 1982 Transportation Stu y lists
the intersection as among 15 major problem intersectio s. The
study defines problem intersections as those that " . . were
in need of special attention, but not necessarily meaning
they were unsafe. " Our study of the intersection reve is
that traffic volumes within the intersection range fr m light
to medium and that stop sign control is adequate for he volumes
entering the intersection. Sight distance exceeds 70 feet on
three corners of the intersection. Sight distance is limited
in the northeast corner by an earthen embankment and stand of
evergreen trees on the north side of Oakland Road eas of the
intersection.
i
-4-
Deming Street is a two lane bituminous roadway in fair co dition
providing 20 ' to 22 ' of pavement from Buckland Road to th
Calvary Church driveway . East of the church the road wid h is
22 ' to 25 ' serving a low to medium density residential ar a.
The road has a posted speed of 30 miles per hour and follows
a rolling, curvilinear alignment from Buckland Road to O kland
Road near the Manchester town line.
An extensive counting program is conducted by the Connes icut
Department of Transpertation - Traffic Statistics Sectio ,
for the prupose of maintaining records of average daily raffic
and hourly variations on all state maintained highways . Thus,
hourly traffic count data is available for Route 30 in this
area as well as Felt Road north of Route 30 . An analysis of the
State counts enables a determination of average daily raffic
( 1981 ) on roads in the study area as shown below:
LOCATION AVERAGE DAILY PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC TRA FIC
Route 30 east of
Buckland Road 8500 800
Route 30 west of Felt Rd. 8750 20
Route 30 east of Felt Rd. 8625 10
Route 30 west of Foster St. 9650 50
Route 30 east of Foster St. 8500 00
Route 30 at Manchester
Town Line 8200 I780
Felt Road north of Route 30 900 110
Highways in the study area experience the peak traffi load
1
-5-
during the afternoon commuter period between 4 : 30 and 5 : 0 p.m.
Figure 1 depicts the hourly variations found at Route 30 at
locations both east and west of Felt Road. It is obviou from
this data that the morning commuter peak is somewhat les than
the evening commuter peak. This pattern is quite comrron in
suburban areas where the morning peak period traffic is
comprised primarily of commuters, whereas the afternoon peak
period is a combination of commuters returning to their home
and other activity relating to social events and shoppi g
activities .
Our observations revealed extremely limited pedestrian
activity in the area. School bus activity is quite co on along
Route 30 with as many as eight to twelve school buses during an
hour in the early afternoon.
i? YEAR 19A1 - 'r 4.- STA NO 132 10
._ •--- •
_ STA NO 132 _ _ __ _ STATE �Q CONNECTICUT -
YEA•Rri9o1 �- - IOEoARTNENT OF TRANSPORTATTON
_ STATE -OF CONNECTICUT
-''- w • DE�ARTMEwT OF TRANSPORTATION - _ - BUREAU OF HIGHYArS
• OupEAU OF HIGHWAYS
Rv SECTION ENGINEERING DATA s INVENTOOT SECTION
• 'ENGINEERING DATA i INVENT -
'TRAFFIC RECORDER DATA
... ._ _.__. Tw AFFIC •RECORDER OATH
TOWN OF SO. LiI NOS^R oOUTE 30 DIRECTION a TOWN OF Sn. uI�DSno ROUTE 3o O IREcTi Ow R
LOC EAST OF ROUTE 7�
LAC AT MANCHESTEK TOWN LINE SAT DAr SUN NAN TOES uFO THUD FDI SAT
UFO T►IUO FPI 0 126 127 V A `�
DAY SUN M ON TOES ^ 0 0 DATE
cm TE0 1 2A 127 0
HOUR Irv/ ��� : REG 0
� 0
HEG PTO 0 O 60 V n n n
u ^ o ° 0 0 36 0 n m
r10 0 0 63 u n O O 1A u is u q 0 O I
0 0 •A A 0 ° 2A 0 2? U 0 °
?A 0 ° 19 U 0 0 �A O 0 37 U i+ 0 0
O p 10 O 0 0 4A 70 U O n t1
3A 0 u 3R U n 0 C SA 0 O 4uh0 n 0 f1
SA O O A2 O n 0 0 6A ° 0 6 P.9 0 n O 0 '.
0 0 33 0 R f 7A 0 n O
7A 0 0 9A U n 0 A + AA 0 •9 3��► 0 O a 0
0 U K12 ^ 0 0 9A O 3 V n U O
9A p 0 320 u n 0 0 1 oA 0 323
0 u A 0 n
0 0 7 RI 0 n i 1A 0 336 0
1CA 0 O ' .
i IA U 319 311 0 U 0 n
n 0 O i 20 O 403 U ^ 0 0
A 3 sg O 0 0 1 ip O 3 92 ° n 0 O
1 2P O 3 A9 0 u n 0 0 2p 0 491 0 u n 0 A
lP O •7P O u n 0 0 3p O S 76 0 U n 0. 0
2p ,
0 U O ap 0 6 98 U O 0. n
o A A9 O O 6 70 0 U
H 3P 0 /.7'S ° 0 n 0 0 So 0 n Q• O
G� lip0 0 6p O 3 r ft U 0 O 0
0 U 0 7o U P 0 0
hp 0 9lu 0
O u ° >Ap O 212 0 ° O
7p 0 n 0 0 u
AP 0 2 C7 O n 0 A 9p 0 •166 SO 0 0 ^ •,f 0 0
9P U 1!9 ° u n0 0 1°P 0 O 1 9? O u 0 O• 0
lOP U ) AR 0 u O 0 0 lip
lip O i OA 0 I 0 SS A6 ?UVA 0 i 1 n 0 0
o •6 9u 77?i u
O p o �' TOT
TOT � I� ?a Hp 779A oACNiNE Np
74 Ma 71 On
MACHINE No 9g� -
-7-
It is understood that all units at the proposed community will
be occupied by persons aged 55 and older. The information
presented here was developed and presented so that the traffic
generation of such a land use can be compared with the traffic
generation which might be expected at other typical residential
land uses .
Two definitions are useful in understanding the data presented
here:
A TRIP is a single or one direction vehicle movement
with either the origin or destination (exit or entering)
inside the study site. The AVERAGE TRIP RATE is the
weighted average of the number of trips per unit of
related independent variable such as trips per
dwelling unit. These are developed by averaging
rates published in various studies by summing all
trips and dividing the trips sum by the sum of the
independent variable to obtain a weighted average.
The independent variable utilized in the study of
residential units has most commonly been the number
of dwelling units .
Over 300 different studies of subdivisions containing single
family homes have been made and published by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers . The average size subdivision
contained 387 dwelling units for a total of more than 120, 000
dwelling units studied. Subdivisions were located primarily
in suburban areas throughout the United States . The
-8-
average trip rate was 10, the maximum 21 . 9 and the minimum 4 . 3 .
Most traffic engineers currently use a trip generation r to of
10 to 12 for single family dwellings.
Townhouses and garden apartments generally show lower trip
generation rates per unit than that recorded at single f mily
housing. The Institute of Transportation Engineers in their
third edition ( 1982 ) Trip Generation Manual published d to from
115 different studies of apartments having an average size of
267 units . In that study an apartment was defined as a rental
unit located in the same building as at least one other dwelling
unit. Examples of this category are duplexes , fourplex s, and
all types of apartment buildings . The average trip per dwelling
unit was 6. 1 with a maximum of 12 . 3 and a minimum of 0 . 5 . The
Connecticut Department of Transportation conducted a trip
generation study of over 9500 units throughout Connecticut which
showed a generation rate of 7 . 9 trips per unit. The T anspor-
tation Engineer' s data at residential condominium unit which
have been defined as single family ownership units tha had at
least one other single family owned unit within the sa e building
structure at 41 different sites resulted in an average trip
rate of 5 . 2 with a range cf 0 . 6 to 11 . 8 . Our office has conducted
a count of all movements into and out of both the Cin amon Springs
and Pleasant Valley Apartment complexes in South Wind or. The
results of those counts indicate that both Cinnamon S rings and
Pleasant Valley are generating traffic at a slightly ower rate
than would be expected from application of the data d veloped
i
-9-
in the Institute of Transportation Engineers study. Pea hour
movements at Pleasant Valley Apartments were recorded at 69
and 65 total movements during the a.m, and p.m. peak hou s
respectively. At Cinnamon Springs the total a.m. movements
were 51 and the total two-way traffic during the p.m. p ak was
recorded as 44 . Since there are a total of 142 apartme is at
Pleasant Valley, the observed peak hour traffic is at t e low
end of the expected range. Similarly with 102 units at
Cinnamon Springs we would expect peak hour movement in the
order of 50 to 100 vehicles .
Figures 2 through 5 present the results of the countin programs
at Pleasant Valley and Cinnamon Spring apartments .
Studies at retirement communities identified as facili ies
restricted to adult or senior citizens resulted in ave age
daily trip rates of 3 . 3 and a range of 2 . 8 to 4 . 9 . Ou office
recently obtained a p.m. peak period count at Welles C untry
Village on Wells Road near Oakland Road in Vernon. Du ing
the two hour period of 3: 30 to 5 : 30 p.m. on Friday, December 16 ,
1983 a total of 31 vehicles entered the property and 6 vehicles
exited. The heaviest hourly flow occurred between 3 : 5 and 4 : 45
p.m. with a total of 45 vehicles utilized the drivewa to the
site, made up of 21 entering vehicles and 24 exiting ehicles .
Since that facility has 150 units , the peak hour tra fic flow
is at a rate of 0 . 3 vehicles per unit.
Because the current proposal is for a community whic has an
entry age of 55, it is obvious that some of the resi ents at
R
-10-
at the new community will be in the labor force and a t ip
rate somewhat above the 3 . 3 (average generation rate) f and
at a typical retirement community seems appropriate. I also
seems appropriate to apply a trip rate lower than that ound
at a typical townhouse or garden apartment where a larg
number of the residents will be in the labor force. As uming
a rate of 5 trips per dwelling unit per day would indic to
almost 400 vehicle trips per day, made up of 200 vehicles
entering the site and a similar number departing the site in
a typical day. The following table is a summary of th rate
tables of different types of dwelling units indicated ' n the
Institute of Transportation Engineers study:
Summary of Rate Tables of the Different Types of Dwelling U nits.
Type of Dwelling Unit Average Weekday Vehicl
Trip Ends per Unit
Average Maximum Min mum
210 Single-Family Detached Housing 10.0 21.9 .3
220 Apartment, General 6.1 12.3 .5
221 Low-Rise Apartment 6.6 9.2 .1
222 High-Rise Apartment 4.0 6.4 .2
230 Condominium 5.2 11.8 .6
240 Mobile Home 4.8 7.6 .3
250 Retirement Community 3.3 4.9 .8
270 Planned Unit Development 7.8 14.4 5.8
Source: "Trip Generation (Third Edition) An Informational _
Report" Institute of Transportation Engineers
525 School Street, N.W. Suite 410, Washington, D.C.
20024 Copyright 1983
-11 -
It is obvious that the proposed development then will pro ide
daily traffic at a rate approximately half of that expect d at
a typical single family subdivision of the same size. Ho ever,
an important factor in the consideration of traffic movem nts
resulting from housing where most of the residents are el erly
is that the study data indicates that the peak hour traffic
movements occur at very variable times but rarely during the
typical commuter peak period. Heaviest movements from e derly
housing generally occur during the late morning and earl
afternoon periods. Studies indicate that approximately 2/3 of
the total daily traffic occurs during the midday period etween
9 : 00a.m. and 4 : 00 p.m. with only 3% to 100 of the daily raffic
occurring during the typical commuter peak periods . A s arp
contrast to the typical single family home development w ere
the peak commuter hour typically carries up to 15% of th daily
traffic. The evidence very strongly favors the hypothesis that
elderly and retired people are able to plan their activities
such that the driving occurs at an off peak period with respect
to typical and shopper patterns. Thus, the impact of s ch
residential dwelling units is very light. The followin table
presents a synthesized hourly distribution based upon 4 0
daily trips.
-12-
SYNTHESIZED TRAFFIC FLOW
PROPOSED HOUSING
FELT ROAD AT ROUTE 30
SOUTH WINDSOR
TIME OF DAY DRIVEWAY VOLUME
6: 00 - 7 : 00 A.M. 3
7 : 0 0 - 8: 00 12
8 : 00 - 9 : 0 0 18
9 : 9 9 -10 : 00 32
10 : 00 -11 : 00 28
11 : 00 -12 : 00 30
12: 00 - 1 : 00 P.M. 41
1: 00 - 2: 00 30
3 : 00 29
4 : 00 28
5 : 00 32
5: 00 - 6: 00 20
6 : 00 - 7 : 0 0
17
7 : 00 - 8 : 00 17
8 : 00 - 9 : 0 0 15
-13-
During the conduct of our study we compared existing traffic
within the Felt Road/Route 30 intersection with the warrants
for signalization as established by the State Traffic
Commission. The volumes indicate that the intersection traffic
is substantially below the point where traffic signals would be
warranted under the warrants established by the State Traffic
Commission for the minimum volume warrant. The volumes re-
quire that the major street have approach warrants of 500
vehicles per hour (total of both approaches) for each o 8 hours
of an average day, and that during the same 8 hours, the minor
street (higher volume of two minor streets when more than one)
have hourly traffic approaching the intersection in exc ss of
150 vehicles per hour. volumes on Route 30 satisfy the warrant
only during 4 or 5 hours per day while traffic on Felt Road is
generally only 15% to 25% of the required warrant.
A review of the projected traffic volumes for 8 hours of an
average day following the completion of the new community
reveals that signalization warrants established by the State
Traffic Commission are still not met for the Route 30/ elt Road
intersection.
During the preparation of this traffic report on the proposed
elderly housing proposal our office conducted a thorough
analysis of traffic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed
development on Route 30 near Felt Road as well as an examination
of site plans prepared by Page Engineering. We also discussed
the proposed facility with the applicants architect arid legal
counsel . From these discussions we have become thoroughly
-14-
familiar with the highway system in the area and the tr ffic
thereon as well as the proposed land use as it effects raffic
within the area.
From a review cf all these factors several points becom
immediately obvious:
1 . The existing traffic volumes on Route 30 in this area
range between 8000 and 9600 vehicles in a 24 hour day
with peak hour traffic ranging between 780 and 8 0
vehicles . Hourly traffic volumes in other than eak
hours range between 300 and 500 vehicles. The c pacity
of Route 30 in this area is estimated to range b tween
1100 and 1200 vehicles per hour with an acceptab e
level of service.
2 . If it is anticipated that the new community woul
result in daily traffic consisting of approximat ly
200 entering movements and 200 exiting movements with
hourly movements ranging between 10 and 25 in each
direction.
3 . Accident records maintained by the South Windsor
Planning Department reveal 13 accidents in a th ee
year period during which time ten million vehic es
passed through the intersection.
4 . Adequate sight distance is presently available
at the Felt Road intersection for traffic utili ing
a reconstructed Felt Road on the south side of oute
30 . The existing sight line restrictions on th
R
-15-
north side of Route 30 should be eliminated whether or
not the new development is constructed.
5 . Traffic volumes in the intersection do not warrant
signalization and cannot be expected to increase to
the extent that warrants are met within the fore eable
future.
It is our opinion based on our knowledge of this area, a
examination of existing roadway and traffic conditions and a
projection of traffic volumes that approval of a special
exception for -construction of an elderly housing development
as described on this site will not result in traffic hazards
nor traffic congestion and that the highways in the vicinity
of the proposed land use are adequate to accept the projected
traffic with safety.
We appreciate the opportunity to present our analysis an
shall be available as may be requested to present our fi dings
to appropriate South Windsor officials.
Very truly yours,
F. A. )iESKETH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
4rederick A." Hesketh, P.E.
R
TRAFFIC COUNT
GRAPHIC SUMMARY SHEET
LOCATION: Pleasant Valley Road @ Cinnamon Springs & Pleasant Valley Apts .
April 10, 1981 TIME -00-8000 AM
DATE: --- ------ -- -
M �
a
NORTH
O
M Ol
U
M O %D
9
242 199 -- -- 10
34
336 348
25
94 87 38
26
Pleasant Valley Rd.
o Ln
CD
a)
ri
c�
rn
,Qo -P
r
r�
b
N
*Shows combined w
movements f rom both
driveways from Cinnamon Springs
on Pleasant Valley Road.
Figure 2
F A Hesketh & Associates -----
TRAFFIC COUNT
GRAPHIC SUMMARY SHEET
- Cinnamon Springs @ Clark Street
April 8 , 1981 TIM 7 : 00-8 : 00 AM
DATE: p
(3
NORTH
Clark Street
1 47 48
4 81
=EC3
2 31 33
2
_:
i— ——
a�
N � "�4
Q
N
tT
.r{
co 0+
O
P4
U
Figure 3
F A Hesketh & Associates
TRAFFIC COUNT
GRAPHIC SUMMARY SHEET
LOCATION: Pleasant Valley Road @ Cinnamon Spring & Pleasant Velley A is
DATE: April 11, 1981 _ TIME : 30-5 : 30 PM
M �1
to �4
M
H
NORTH t04
c
FLn
N �
00 0 o U
N
2
99 91 35
6
265 283
3
166 134 48
11
Pleasant Valley Road ` d, o d, /
N N
U)
z
00 -P
14
a
a�
L
U)
ro
*Shows combined movements rq
c
f rom both driveways f rom w
Cinnamon Springs on
Pleasant Valley- Road.
F A Hesketh & Associates _ Figure 4
TRAFFIC COUNT
GRAPHIC SUMMARY SHEET
Cinnamon Springs at Clark Street
DATE: April 11, 1981 TIME : 4 : 30-5 : 30 PM
NORTH
Clark Street_
26 23 27
3
81
82
55 53 55
2
N d'
L A
-r-I
Q:
O
chi
U
Figure 5
F A Hesketh & Associates
4.1Memo r0m
T_au� Ps �.
TOWN HALL
SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
TO Planning & Zoning Commission DATE 1/ /84
Town Hall
Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor , Conn. 06074
L
SUBJECT: Demming Hill Planned Adult Community
FOLD-
I have reviewed the general plan dated November 22 , 1983 fo the
above mentioned project and find that t layoare ut is totallyrrow un-
acceptable. The driveways to each cluster
dead-
ended. Absolutely no provision has been made for the negotiating
and turning of fire apparatus which would have to back up the entire
length of one of these driveways and they will find it diffi ult to
get turned around to exit this development.
Consideration must be given to access of emergency vehicles larger
than the size of an automobile.
If you have any questions , please feel free to call me.
By
William R. anning
Fire Marsha
I
SOW N S fq<
a
� ' 0-le s W)I:
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 0 074
AREA CODE 203 644-2511 SOR•COS /
January 3, 1984
I hereby disqualify myself from sitting on the applications
of Deming Hill Associates , Inc. for an amendment to th
Zoning Regulations, and approval of a General Plan of
Development for adult housing, due to a possible conflict
of interest.
arshall Montana 7
y N $
`/-o lot?-
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 0 074
/A OR•CD"r AREA CODE 203/644-2511
January 20 , 1984
William E. Grace, Esq.
25 Oakland Road
South Windsor, Ct. 06074
Dear Bill :
Re: App. #969 - Deming Hill Associates Amendment
App. #970 - Deming Hill Associates, General
Plan of Development
Please be advised that the public hearings in the above matters
has been scheduled for Tuesday, February 7th, at 8 : 00 P . M.
in the Council Chambers of the South Windsor Town Hall.
Signs advertising the hearing must be posted on the pro erty
for 10 consecutive days prior to the hearing (by 1/27) .
Please have one posted on Deming Street, and another on
Felt Road, near the proposed driveway.
The signs may be purchased in the Town Hall at a cost of
$5 each.
Yours very truly,
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
01OVal%R
vg BY
ePo�b er�tG GT 11igan, air rtfan
CC: Page Engineering, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: William R. Lanning, Fire Marshal
DATE: January 26 , 1984
SUBJECT': Deming Hill Planned Adukt Community
I have reviewed the revised layout for the Deming
Hill Adult Community dated 1/18/84 and find this
new layout. acceptable. There is adequate room to
move fire apparatus throughout the entire project
without backing and turning and also gives us, good
access to all buildings.
�ss� ��
y r ��n- O-P S-OUIA ?dZ;7
� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074
soR-co AREA CODE 203/644-2511
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL INQUIRER THURSDAY, JAN ARY 26 , 1984
TH_URSDAY, FEB UARY 2, 1984
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing of
the Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, February 7, 1984 ,
at 8 : 00 P. M. in the Council Chambers of the South Windsor
Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan Avenue, South Windsor, to consider the
following:
1. Application of The Balf Company, for an open space subdivision
in an RR zone, known as Savin Woods, consisting of 12 lots
in Section 2 and 14 - lots in Section 3, located between Nevers
and Abbe Roads, north of Wood Ponds, and south of South
Ridge Estates.
2. Application of Deming Hill Associates, Inc. , to amend the
Zoning Regulations as follows:
Section 1.
Add to Definitions
"Adult Housing: Housing for people 55 years of age or older,
which housing shall be limited by Section 4. 1. 11 oE these
regulations . "
Section 4 .
Amend Section 4 . 1. 11 - Housing for Elderly to add the words
"and Adult Housing. " On line 2 and 4 add "and Adult" after elderly.
Amend Section 4 . 1. 11. 1 Procedure, to read as follows
1. Procedure: Application for this use may be filed by the Public
Housing Authority of the Town of South Windsor or a nonprofit
organization.
a. The Commission shall be guided by the requirements of
this section where reporting on the mandatory referral
for acquisition of the housing sites under the General
Statutes of Connecticut.
b. The applicant shall submit a General Plan of Development
Page 2.
Legal notice to be published 1/26 and 2/2 in Journal Inquirer.
in accordance with Section 4 . 6 . 4 . 9 .
C. Upon approval of the General Plan of Development,
the applicant shall submit a site plan in accordance with
Section 4 . 13 of these regulations . Such site plan shall
be in substantial compliance with the General Plan
and the site plan must be approved prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
Amend Section 4 . 1. 11. 2. a to read as follows :
a. Location. The site shall be on land owned by the Town
of South Windsor and/or a nonprofit organization and
located within reasonable walking distance of convenient
shopping facilities and preferably within walking
distance of churches and personal service facilities.
3. Application of Deming Hill Associates, Inc. , for a Special
Exception to Section 4 . 1. 11, for approval of a General Plan
of Development for Adult Housing , located on 15. 5 acres
on the north side of Deming Street, east of Buckland Road and
south of Oakland Road, AA-30 zone.
Copies of these applications and maps more clearly defining the
properties are on file in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of
South Windsor. At this hearing, interested persons may appear
and be heard and written recommendations will be received.
PLANNING AND ZONIT'G COMMISSION
Robert F. Gilligan, Chairman
David Sorenson, Secretary
i
D
A F*F
e
Chairman Gilligan: Deming Hill Associates. Application of Gene al Plan of
Development. Is there anyone to speak in behalf of the application?
Grace- Yes. Attorney Bill Grace representing Deming Hills. Th y covered
everything . . . . .is it on?
Secretary: Take it off the stand if you like.
Grace: amine? We would now like to present to the
Commission the specific development known as Deming Hill, a planned dult
community. We'd like to start off with Greg Montana and we supplied to the
Commission his credentials and so forth, and Greg will go thourgh th site,
the units, and the architectural renderings and why he put the buildings and
so forth, where they are. Greg?
Montana: This property as you probably all know is a very uni e piece of
property. Can you hear me? This is the Deming Street side of the - roperty
and from Deming Street we go approximately 230 feet to a hundred an fifty foot
drop. The existing property has some plateaus within it. There is a hedgerow
of existing trees along this property line and the strawberry field. as you know
over here, and Oakland Road is at this point. In developing this p ece of
property, as I stated, we made an extensive study of other successf 1 projects
of adult housing in the general area. Our first concern was, as y u know, the
existing view that does exist here is a magnificent one and we want d to take
advantage of it as much as possible. Second is we had to consider he potential
furvtwtv four lots here of housing, and the adjacent properites acr ss the
street on Deming Street and we had to design is project with a low profile
so that we would not be obstructing these views for these people. Specifically
we went to � smaller groups in clusters. This eliminates the fact of a long
wall of nine units in a building, for instance. We also have gone to a plateau
system similar to what we did at Parkview South, and we also have one to a
much lower ensity so that we have got anj awful lot of open space nbetween so
that each unit, whether you drive up. . . .whether you physically face in that
r �
direction,� has the advantage of these views. In developing the road system ,
in working with security, both police, ambulance and fire in mind, w have
developed a road system coming off of Oakland Road extending onto Fe t Road,
and complet enclosing itself and returning. Each unit is cluster d off of
this with easy vehicle access and fire apparatus or police apparatus or
ambulances into each group. We have gone to 8 unit buildings, 6 uni buildings,
5 unit buildings and 7 unit buildings, and we have gone to not just linear
application, but we have turned these to right angles so that we don't. . .we
break up the general wall effect. The lower units, as I said, will all be
stepped down so that visually from the top of Deming Hill you'll be looking
over the top of roof-tops in most instances. The existing hedgerow e are
as=a
trying to maintain 0� natural buffer. This will be cleaned up an the
existing trees would remain. In all instances we have gone to a mi imum of
50 setback on all property lines and in better than ninety percent we're over
or seventy feet, so we wanted to keep a natural green and sound arrier
i etween. As we stated before, some of the most successful projec s that
we have looked atxpmmx as pertain to adult housing have gone to the traditional
We,
type design) colonial, and this is basically what we are proposing here. In
the first phase, are proposing a breakdown of units of appro mate y two-thirds
one-bedroom, and one-third two®bedrooms. We're not positive whethe this
would be more in demand or not, but the flexibility is designed in o the unit
that some of the end units can be converted to two-bedroom units a a later
date in phase two. We have gone into an extensive design as far a the units.
I'd li to get into those next, unless there's any questions on t e site first.
No? qc-e_�,
� ia_.cj We are proposing basically three completely different one-bedr om units. Self-
contained, all on one floor. In some instances because of the gra e differentials
we will have the capability of a downstairs basement with light on the down side
of the hill. We giso have the option of^library or a loft above, ut again this
I
gets into a stair situation. Our research has told us that primari the
open type plan where a person can walk in and see the entire area is. . .has
become the most successful. So, we're proposing two different plans as far
as one bedroom units are concerned. We are also proposing two entirely
different two-bedroom units. Rx One with. . .both with bath and half or its
optional storage area. You also, in all instances, we're talking ab ut optional
closed-in., screened--in porches, or totally closed in porches and dec s.
Other options would be garages, fireplaces and completed basements. The site
plan presently shows 80 per cent garages, and this again is optional bec use
we're not positive whether the garages are going to be an added expe so these
people will or will not want, so .1xkkthkxx it's, I think, a situation lahat has
to be adjusted in phase one, and in phase two.
In clustering of the buildings, we took into consideration the total
overall length. The largest number of units we have in any one building is
8 units and again this is only 150 feet long, and by turning on a p rpendicular
situation we're able to limit the length and basically get ftid of t me of the
wall effects that some other projects have. We only have one bui ding
that's 8 units. The other ones are either all smaller than that.
Architecturally, as we stated, we are looking towards a colonia , more
traditional type of treatment of the units. We have a little steep r roofs.
We're talking about primarily building rkerials of wood. , Wood shut ers. Not
l�
sliding doors, but more than likely garden type doors French doors As I
said the units are all one story buildingsV/0/0 on the back. the
to
front we do have grade differentials that allow us/from the front o -grade
access. Allows us light in the back at no extra cost. We re looki g for
significant designed entranceways to each one of these units and these will
become focal points rather than just have an open door into each u it. Garages,
again, we have made provisions for 851o, I think, garages, but this is adjustable.
The basic Inailding materials would be wood construction, excellent sound trans-
mission, and excellent penetration between party walls and we woul certainly
look at sound construction as far as exceeding the minimal state bui ding
codes. That's all, I guess.
Grace: We would like to just continue on an�lhave Mr. Page do e gineering
and drainage and road layout and so forth, and just continue the pre entation.
PA;
We d like to �� hand to the Commission, Mr. Page's credentials. . . .
' Tv\ , Page: Nay name is Jules Page. I'm president and founder of Page Engineering
Inc. , 1750 Ellington Road, South Windsor, Connecticut. A registered professional
engineer. I'd like to be brief, and I think the Commission has a eming Hill
1 ,,"'t'Adult community general plan,and I have another copy if you need it and we've
hung a copy, on the back wall for the public to examine. Now, what '11 briefly
ce� v— JI
try t-0 do is run through page by page with the Commission.
Page one is the key map, and it shows the site in relation to D ming, Felt
and 4kxtx Oakland.
Page two* is an A-2 eurvey of the property with contours taken rom an MDC
map, and it shows there's approximately,45 foot drop in elevation f om south
to north. The slopes average around five percent and there is an a ea in the
northeast corner where some of the slopes approach fifteen percent nd they
comprise about three percent of the site.
Page three shows the abutting property owner and in the center f the page
is the Reming Hill planned development community site and youcan see just to
the south is the four lots that were approved from the Church prop ty
approximately two or three years ago, and to the west the Calvary hurch
property. To the north the famous strawberry fields and the Mobil station
and so forth, and to the east Felt Road, and the Burrill property nd the
little shopping center there.
Page four is the Deming Hill planned adult community overall 1 yout and
phasing, and you can see that the principal street emanates from elt Road
-4-
V_
We've positionedAin such a way that it generally goes up the slopes into
a loop and then the units are positioned around the loops with parking
in and out. Each parking area has a way to get in and a way to get out and
we had some. . . .quite a discussion on this with the Fire Marshal and the
Town Staff) xxdx that led to a very improved drawing in my opinion. So, at
least some good is coming out of this general plan concept where you have a
chance to sit down with the staff, go over some of the problems and incorporate
a
ideas. We show the phasing line where phase Vwould comprise four buildings
and :kx 27 units and a community building. Phase two would comprise hree
rI !
buildings and t units, and phase three would comprise four buildings
and 24 units for a total of 72 units. You can see they're surrounded by
a 50 foot buffer all around.
Page five shows the Felt Road access plan. Felt Road is a Town road
and from Oakland to our principal street`Felt Road would be improved to
Town specifications with sewer, water, curbs, drainage and some kin of
sidewalk to provide access to the shopping center from the site. Also, you
can see that we have tried to show we would provide Felt Road with kome kind
of a landscaping treatment, probably good quality street trees and so forth.
Page six is a typical landscape plan and zoning data. We have �hown on
the left hand side of the page a typical landscape plan which would include
landscaping around the unit, landscaping in the buffer area and in the event
that the Planning and Zonin Commission approves the general plan and so forth,
we would then go into much more extensive landscape plan on the site plan.
However,in th&s general plan concept we've tried to show you what we would
try and do if we go further. And, in the zoning data on the right-hand
side of the page it outlines the typical information as required ir the gene(al
plan' :kkKkxkAffXx0Nffx 4hat the zone is double 4-30- that would not be changed
fhe number of units is 72 +[e density is 4.64 units per aare1. IT e percent
I
-5-
age
impervious cover/is 21 percent' hundred year flood plain zone - there is
I
none'. hopes greater than 15 per cent - about 3 percent of the land' 6r ount
of wetlands - none, however, we plan to go to Wtlands t4 discuss drainnge
system because, as you know, we will be draining into a water course. Sanitary
sewer will be provided. It will be hooked ±xxJdw into the Town of outh Windsor
sanitary sewer system. Public water will be provided by Connecticu Water
Company. The streets will be constructed to Town specifications. e sidewalks
will be concrete. Recreation will be provided as outlined in the e derly and
adult regulations in the form of gazebos, and picnic tables and pas ive type
recreation. There will be a buffer area and there will be a commun ty building,
and the general requirements at the bottom of the zoning informati n lists
the. . .some more gKmw.1x general information of your interest.
Page 7 is the detailed utilities and grading plan and what we'v tried to
7
do there isi°to show the engineering 6partment, and the Manning Qepa tment our
f
concept in terms of what we would try and do in setting final grade These
are preliminary grades and in general the drainage system would be
captured in the streets in normal catch basins the Town is familiar with;
captured in pipes and directed to detention basins at the bottom o the hill
and there would also e a swale constructed across what we call th northern
boundary or the bottom of the property where any water that is not captured
in the pipes and catch basins, but is draining off the roofs and s me of the
parking lots, would be captured in the swale and would be directed to the
detention basin. We also propose a series of dry wells in the swa e itself
and in the detention basins such that in small storms of less tha one year
most of the water would be returned to the ground. In heavy storm some of
the water would be returned to the ground and naturally some of th water would
by-pass the dry-wells into the system and be held in detention1out etted through
the normal type/ Town spec control structures. This drainage syst m and
detention basin is only preliminary at this time. We have tried o sSrze them
in approximate dimensions that would be required, however, in a deta'led site
plan much more intensive calculations would be made. Also, the town sanitary
sewer system is provided going up Felt Road and a manhole at the int rsection
of Felt Road and our principal street would be a town sewer.from tha point into
the site jsewers would be constructed to town specs but wou d be
maintained by the association.
In the last page is the storm drainage outlet concept. You can ee the
church building that was approved approximately three years ago with the parking
tot and on the far west of the property which is to the left of the age is
Buckland Road andto the bottom of the page to the south is Deming S reet�and
we would construct some detent basins and a swale and pipe system t ultimately
discharge the storm water across church property and into th ditch that is
near Buckland Road,, and that�2ompletes my presentation.
Chairman Gilligan: Do you have anything more Attorney Grace?
Attorney Grace: Sorry?
Chairman Gilligan: Do you have more?
Attorney Grace: Yes. I'd like to introduce Mr. Hesketh who wo ld like to make
a general traffic report. His survey of Oakland and Felt and the g neral areas.
I'd like to give you a couple copies of his qualifications
Mr. Hesketh: Nay name is Frederick Hesketh. My office is in Bl omfield.
I am a professional engineer in Connecticut and in several other st tes. I
specialize in traffic engineering and highway engineering. I am t e author of
the report that'$ dated July 9th. . . .excuse me, December 19, 1983, hich I believe
is available to the Commission. Multiple copies of that document ere made
available to the Planning staff in December and I'll highlight the findings
therein and indicate my conclusions and �e available for any detai ed questioning
the Commission may have.
-7-
Nay study was one of reviewing all available traffic data and roa way
geometry on the roadways that are expected to be impacted by th&s de elopment,
specifically Felt Road and the reconstructed section of Fe t Road,
and Oakland Road. In the course of my studies we. .I gathered all th data which
was available on the traffic volumes from the State Department of Tr nsportation
and from your Planning Department and reviewed the accident history hi.ch
exists along Oakland Road in this area, specifically that which exis s at the
intersection of Oakland and Felt Road, and made spveral observation Mtm4ju traffic
movement in and about this area including observations on pedestri n activity,
school buses and that type of thing. I also reviewed potential tr ffic
generation from this type of land use and did that by reviewing the results of
studies that had been published by the Institute of Erans7portation ngineers
and other agencies on the expected traffic at various land uses inc uding land
uses where most of the residents are elderly. I also reviewed spec fic counts
taken in South Windsor at Cinnamon Springs and at Pleasant Valley, and
specifically for this study I had people in my office take counts a Wells
Country Village in Vernon, We so that we could understand the amou t of traffic
which results from that type of land use. From a review of all of hese
factors, several points became obvious which I think summarize our findings.
The existing traffic volumes on Route 30 near Felt Road range betwe n 8,000
and 9,600 vehicles in a 24 hour day. Peak hour traffic on that roa way ranges
between 780 and 850 vehicles per hour g In time periods other than he peak
hours, the hourly volumes range between 300 and 500 vehicles. I es imate the
capacity of Route 30 in the area near Felt Road ranges between 11 0 and 1200
vehicles which would still provide an acceptable level of traffic service.
From our study of the traffic genration characteristics kkKkxKRx a residential
communmties where most of the residents are elderly, I project tha the proposal
before you,if *t's constructed
ill result in about 400 vehicle trips per day.
That' s made up of about 200 movements into the site each day and a like number
-8
departing the site. The hourly volumes would range between 10 and 5 in each
direction. The accident records maintained by the South Windsor P1 nning
De Artment reveal that the intersection of Route 30 and Felt Road h ve
experienced 13 accidents in the latest two year study period. I al o point
out that wring that three year period about 10 million vehicles pa sed
through the intersection. The intersection of Felt Road and Route 0
presently Fpovides excellent aikax sight distance on three of the our
points where people would want to have sight distance within the in ersection.
That is, traffic within Felt Road, or the reconstructed sectiogof F It Road
as presented on this plan, has excellent vision both to the. . .in bo h directions
along Route 30.._\ Traffic in the north leg of Felt Road, when they c me to the
intersection\ has excellent sight distance to the right, but they d experience
a sight distance limitation to the left, which is caused by a mound and a stand
of trees) which are located at the northeast corner of the intersection. So
there are three corners with good vision and one with limited visio and I
would feel that that limitation should be 1± eliminated whether or of this
development is ever constructed. I also compared the existing vol es at
the intersection and the projected volumes would be warrants whic have been
established by the State Traffic Commission for signalization. findings
are that the present volumes do not warrant signalization and that the
volumes cannot be expected to increase to the extent that signals re
warrantedAle-the foreseeable future. Based upon my studies of the traffic
volumes, and the geometry and the projections for traffic which wo ld result
at Deming Hill, it's my professional opinion that the approval of special
exception for the construction of this housing development as desc ibed by
Mr. Page, Mr. Montana, will not result in traffic hazard, nor tr ffic
congestion, and that the highways in the vicinity (end of tape). is also
-9-
my opinion from a review of the site plan and the internal traffic movements
within the site plan that the internal network, including the rGCwa s and the
turning ability and the parking, meets accepted traffic enginee ing
standards and will not present any hazards should you approve it an it be
constructed as shown on the site plan. I have no other comments.
Chairman Gilligan: Thank you.
Attorney Grace: I would like to introduce Richard Kelley, who¢ is one
of the applicants. Of course>the other applicant is the Calvary Church., but
Richard being involved in the planning all the way along would also like to
make some comments as to his ideas and purpose of this application
Mr. Kelley: Bill just left me a note to be brief so I left my notes
back at the chair. lxkxi Try to tell you in five minutes two years of work,
and it basically started two years ago when I was involved with the Lutheran
Church to build their present parsonage off Graham Road, and basically
started when some of 4us standing in that room, sitting in the roo , chaired
the task force for the Town Council several years ago, two or three years
ago, when we took a wing of Wapping School and created a community center
from it. One section of that being for seni:tCcitizens. This idea started
back then. We have put a team togethmr, a team that to my left and rear, plus
an advisory group -v 6 represents various factions of the Town, and we came out
with the idea that if South Windsor had a population of about 18,000 people who
wants affordable housing, one of the segments of kkax affordable housing would
L
be the people that some of us reaching, of people kkx 55 and over, that
don't have the kids at home any more, that want to get rid of the big ho#e,
' x t et c
and we can talk about that all night and you can believe us or not .,+ghat
depends on our perspective, but that is our idea. We want to cater to this
clientele. As you well know, I have been involved in several prof cts. I have
-10-
been involved in a condominium project. In answer to the gxmm gent emen behind
me that pepresented Cinnamon Springs, we have 106 units at Parkview South.
About 93 or 94 of those are occupied. Of those 93 or 94 homes that are
occupied, we have some people there that would be candidates. . .that will be
candidates. . .that will be occupants of Deming Hill if the Planning ommission
so desires, for one simple reason - they moved out of their homes, hey moved
into a condominium, but some people don't like condominiums Ray, be ause there is
no control of who's going to live there. There's a cross section a ywheres from
a new-born baby to a gentleman 87 years old living Lon second floo unit. We
want to offer that control, What are they going to sell for, or wh t are they
going to lease for. A two-bedroom unit is going to sell in the vic nity of the
mid-sixties. 'That's approximately 1,050 sq. feet. Right, Greg? A one-bedroom
would be less. We are going to provide a service. We'll have some ne on board
that if my mother-in-law that now. ;tmd father-in-law. . .that now liv s on
Graham Road, instead of me running over there an Sunday morning to o something,
I'm going to have someone on board, or we're going to have someone n board,
i
that would hang a mirror, check that furnace, why it comes on and o f, or to do
things that they are now doing at Wapping Mews. We're going to hav someone
on board that will take care of the outside facilities so that when one person
mows a lawn, everyone mows a lawn. I visualize on docume tation
reading whenHal Cummings gets through with it, and this is one of his respnnsibilitiese,
this project, is that I, if I live there, I would own my unit and I would own th e—� -
postage stamp around it. It's called a -planned unit development. It is not a
condominium. It's a planned development, and if we have the opport nity with
you people 8kay, if we have the opportunity to come back
I/we will g t into that
in more detail. My experience in Town, and we've livid here appro imately 23
years, is for the last 10 or 12 years and we've been here several imes before,
we've worked hard for credibility. With the exception of maybe si people
-11-
in this room, I know some of the people to,*teft, or my right, I had in school.
I hope to be here another 23 years. I know Greg's going to be here Buck Page
is going to be here Hall and Bill Grace because we make our livi g here, 4nd/
I promise you that in the near future we're e5ming back to the wall again as
And if we tell you toni ht 'ae're going to do something
we say in our business. , Y g � g g
and we don't do it, you're going to have a way to get evenwith us. But, I
think you have found from our experiences with you, that when we tell you
something we try to do it. Never, never have we spent two years designing
a project. Never have we met with the number of people that we haVE in o n,
outside of fown, had the input that we've had in this project. We've talked
c�
in two hours what's taken us two years to do. Jje're not even on first base,
but in our business time is crucial. Time is very, very crucial. There are
a couple of banks ate right now that are looking for projects such as this,
but times are good and money is decent. But if the time six months three
months, a year from now came about, we're going to be back in the same boat
we were when we started Parkview South. We had a lot of promises, but we had
no deliveries. So our time is crucial. We are investing approximately
$3.5 million in this project. Our non-profit group, which will have 4-i ght
control will retain ownership of some of these units, because not all units
��•-a_ncY 4-t c ' because
will...�b sold./ wreveryone is going to buy. because if we maintain ownership
we're going to have more control if we stay involved and if we don't stay
involved, if we ever# did turn over the responsibility to someone else, they
could not do one thing that Bill Grace has outlined tonight, different and
if they came back to a similar planning and Zoning as this. So, I think you
do have your controls. We're asking you to be a part of it. Peter talked
about this three or four years ago, or something similar. I hear Peter, the
Town Planner,talk about affordable housing. This is one,of them. This is, only
y4u(0-�
one of them. The land, that land, the land next to me, next to you is�to be
-12-
developed, and I'd much rather be a part of that development and have some
control than I would . . .some other alternatives that we might want to consider.
But I do think we do have a team, that we can deliver to you, and we would
hope that if you gave us permission to go to step two and come back to you,
that one of these days when you drive by that Deming Hill project.,, YIDU could
say I'm proud to be a part of it. That's how sincere we are. Thank you.
Attorney Grace: Just very briefly. We understand that if the r gulation�
changes that we asked for in Phase of the hearing would be granted,, if you
approved the general plan that we've outlined for you, - we must ome back,
and I've outlined the things that we must bring back when we do come back.
Besides the site t)lan, the regulations, the by-laws, and other proofs that you
would require. We're asking, we know that this land, we have an option on it.
We don't think it's going to stay there forever. We think we can do a good
but
job on that piece, We don't own it. The church owns it, so we're asking for
some consideraton as to time, and I know you hear this all the time. If you're
saying that the regulations need some other changes, maybe this site plan can
be built with what we presented to you, and maybe the future concerns, you revamp
the whole regulation. I'm not sure. I'm just kind of asking that y u don't
go through a year of study on the regulation and hold us off, and I know that's
some real
a plea you hear often, but we're asking for/consideration and time. We hope
we've given you a good view of what we're trying to do. The people involved. Webe
for
all here/ T*xkkKxaxKxeF any questions that the staff, the Commission or the
residents here k xgik tonight. SoAAwe hank you for your consideration and
your intense listening to what we've had to present tonight. I thank you on
behalf of all of us.
Chairman Gilligan: Okay. Is there a *report from the town planner.
Mr. DeMallie: Yes. Regarding traffic, in the future we do anti ipate and w
discussed this last Saturday, that Oakland Road. . .Saturday a week ago? NkEKar
xkx -13-
whenever. . . .in the future we do anticipate that Okkland Road will go into the
heavy classification for traffic volumes. It's relative close right now as
Mr. Hesketh indicated. However, the real problem at the inersectio where
they're proposing to have egress here, Felt Road and Oakland Street, is the
other side of the street coming from the Birch Hill Area Xwn and onto Route 30.
The problem does not appear coming out of this particular development and I
consider that problem coming out of Birch Hill safely onto Route 30 to be a
clearly separate problem from this application. If, over the long turm,, Felt
Road were to go through up to Deming Street, and that's not a known thing at
this point, we did ask Mr. Page to design initial section of Felt R ad from
Oakland Road to minimize the overall street grade if the street wer to
you know,
continue up which is some/hypothetical, in the future and he's been very
cooperative in this and, indeed, ktxkk even reduced their grade on their
interior street. I would like a confirmation that the right-of-way for Felt
Road extension is 50 feet. I believe we've had it indicated. I do 't see
it anywhere on the plans . It would be helpful to know that to ens e that it's
050 feet. I believe it is.
Mr. Page: Yes, there's a letter from the Planning and ZoningCommission. . .
an approval letteron the. . .going back. . . .on the lots that were built on
Deming causing a 50 feot right-of-way and I think Mr. Cummings can probably
shed some light on it.
Mr. DeMallie: Okay. . .just before. . .if it gets to the second st ge, which is
J
a site plan,,.I think kt should be addressed. Felt Road. . . .Felt Road access appears
superior to the Deming Street access even-Lough at face value it might look like
Deming Street is better, but if you look at its Felt Road does offer a lot of
The
advantages. Line of sight is good. You' don't have a problem with Deming
Street. The street's in relatively poor condition. Also, there does afford
pedestrian access down to some of the commercial areas that would serve this
population. There will be other applications that will be required one of which
-14-
J�
is a 'subdivision, approval to create the 14 acre as I understand, c rrect? 1k
They did receive a four lot approval along Deming Street for those ouble A-30
lots previously. They'll also require site plan approval. They will not
require further special exception approval. That's being requested tonight.
Okay, I think, although there is indication that it will be subject to real
property taxes1I think it should be confirmed through the office of the Town
Assessor prior to submission of the second application. Mr. Page a d Mr. Montana
did go through a number of designs and what you see before you is p obably
about the tenth round and it is substantially different from the fi st plans
U L
and they have incorporated many of desilrAchanges that we requested
and I think it's a veryfine pla�The concept was generally endorsed by the
Housing Authority, the concept of adult housing and the need for it If the
project is approved
I'd like to see the community association docum nts hhey've
been describing. Mr. Kelley referenced a planned dmx unit developm nt type of
concept whereby people would purchase a unit and they could also pe haps have
the land underneath it - a backyard, frontyard, what have you - I t ink that
should be quite clear for the second application. I'm sure they'd o that.
The one thing that the criteria in the zoning regulations is that t ere should
be good pedesntrian proximity to shopping, church, personal service, things of
that nature. There is a church close by. There is also personal services,
barber shop,,of that nature, and there's also, the most important hing I
consider,l"timberland Farms. It has a variety of things that meet the individual
needs of residents and it is within pedestrian distance. They hav a sidewalk
i
that would end up going down toward that area. The fire marshal, ill Lanning,
has reviewed the plan and he finds them acceptable in their curren form. He
did require substantial changes o you should be aware of that, to ensure tk=
xaxiAx that there would be emergency vehicle access throughout the development
project. He did submit a memo to that effectVThe Town Plan of Development
indicates this area should be in the form of a one-family for ever three-quarters
-15-
of an acre. The Town Plan does not address elderly housing specific lly.
Nothing I could find. We only have. . .townwide we only have 30 elderly
dwelling units in South Windsor. That's a total for a population of
18,210 I believe as of last duly. That's exclusively at Wapping Mews.
And, there's no. . .I don't think there's any question there's areed for
elderly housing. Mr. Grace referenced the waiting list at Wapping Mews
and there's no question if you find ouzl there's quite a long time before
you can get into a unit, you're not going to sign up. I don't think there's
any question. So wherever you draw the line, at age 62, 60 or 55, I think
the need still remains. So the question you have to resolve tonight on the
amendment that they proposed earlier is whether or not you want to lower
that to age 55, but I think there is a need for some -upper age brac et housing
and they've done a pretty good job in
Chairman Gilligan: Ymcx Thank you. Town Engineer?
Mr. Martel: Okay. For future site plans that might be required that first
they show the existing Felt Road to be improved to current town standards and
for this to include drainage. Also, that the sanitary sewer laterals to the
existing residences on Felt Road be upgraded and that they be connected to the
proposed sanitary sewer f'�6f�hat any future site plan show existing field conditions
as taken out in the field by a survey crew and that all improvement be based
on these existing conditions. Also that the. . . .any future site plar show the
sanitary sewer right-of-way that now exists EDmming Street. That horizontal
coordinates and a bench mark be included on the site plan and also on the site
plan that corner and property points be indicated as to be set or for existing
points. And, also we would ask that a plan and profile of the proposed design
on Felt Road and the d principal street be included within site plan design.
-16-
�Vchairman Gilligan: Is there anyone from th ublic to speak on behalf of the
application? Is there anyone with questions, or wishing to speak against the
application? Mr. Bornstein?
Mr. Bornstein: My name is Leonard Bornstein. I represent Cinnamon
Springs Condominium. Now that we know a little bit about money, although the
hour is getting late and I don't want to go into details, but brief , I just
want to know the reason for the two bedrooms in elderly housing whe traditionally
it's a one bedroom affair. Could somebody answer that question?
Mhairman Gilligan: I didn't hear the question.
Mr. Bornstein: Traditionally elderly housing has one bedroom a it seems
;hat they're going to alot one-third of their development to two-bedroom units.
Did I Hear rig ' ? I want to know the reason for two bedrooms xmd in the
elderly housing development.
Attorney Grace: What if the child comes home from college? Or you have
guests? Where would you put them?
Chairman Gilligan: Even our current regulations for elderly housing. . . . .
Mr. Bornstein: I say traditionally. I'm trying to establish�� if this is
a true elderly development or is it merely by-passing. . . .are they re lly by-passing
the Commission to accomplish something else. . . .it might be jix t a di guise. . .although
I'm sure the intention is good and they want to Edo something xigkk 'cep wit we
still have to be correct aboutxik.this. It doesn't look like housin for the
elderly foom what they're presenting. Cinnamon Springs sounds just like they do.
I'm over 55. A lot of my co-residents are over 55. , We have young mix. It sounds
k44-Aki , o LV-7 �!j x 1
something very similar to what theyA want. That's what T say. We have community
projects. We mow the lawn. We have spring clean-ups. We do the same things.
I don't. . .Mr. Kelley mentioned score kind of difference. It doesn't look like
much of a difference from what they're describing to any condominium. Now, I also. ..
the other question. . . . .well, I'd still like an answer why the second bedroom because
that doesn't sound like a reasonable answer for somebody coming home for a day or
-17-
two or a week or so. To have somebody pay a lot of money. But, the other
thing is, in far as course of lease, how much do tgey plan the lease to be?
Chairman Gilligan: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Bornstein: A gigure was mentioned of a cost of Ebout $60,000 for
each unit for the two-bedroom unit and a little less for the one-bedroom unit,
but they also said somebody is going to hold on to some units and lease
them. Whe will the cost of leased units be?
Attorney Grace: You're questions are I little bit advanced, but I think
a normal answer would be that the leased cost w:aoujld be the cost of the
non-profit our organization to hold the unit. If somebody needed a lease,
and we gave examples why, I think that wfould be the cost. pie fact r of the
cost of the unit. I think that's clear.
As far as the two-bedroom units, I think that's being beat to death, but
many people are not married. They could live and have two bedroom units.
One member of the two elderly could be infirm or there could be anot er reason
for a different type of bedroom. There are several reasons why it s ould be
two bedrooms. That's history and experience. I think that's clear.
Lil- Bornstein: Well, traditionally, elderly housing has one bedroom. Uh. . .
my experience. . .1xsa: x I've seldom seen two-bedrooms.
Attorney Grace: (unintelligible - several words)
Chairman: Please. . .Mr. Bornstein is speaking and he's going to direct
his questions to the chair. . .
Mr. Bornstein: Okay. . .right. . . .
Chairman Gilligan: The hour is late and we're not going to have a debate.
Mr. Bornstein: Okay - I can say trdditionally elderly housing has one=
bedroom. . They're small units. They have one bedroom and I don't recall in my
experience in social work ever going to an elderly housing where there were
two bedrooms. Okay. . . .it's just talking from experience. . well, okay, the
hour is late. I've made my point.
Chairman Gilligan: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to
speak? Yes, Ma'am? Could you identify yourself?
Unidentified voice: Before my husband died. . . .
Chairman Gilligan: Could you identify yourself? Just for the reccr d?
Unidentified voice: Before my husband died. .
Chairman Gilligan: &1d you give your name and address?
Mrs. Cummings: Oh. Joan Cummings. 716 Deming Street. We had to have
two bedrooms. He was hooked up to oxygen before he died. I could not sleep
in that room. He had to have a room to himself. Where would I have been
if I hadn't had two bedrooms?
Chairman Gilligan: I understand, ma'am. Is there anyone else who would
like to speak in this application? Okay, would you please identify yourself.
Mr. Cattarino: Joe dattarino; 312 Deming Street. I live up on the hill
so I know the severity of the weather and I'm sure everybody else does. If you
have elderly people, for example, going from these outdoor garages in the winter,
or any bad weather, just toy heir home or . . .it's very hazardous, very hazardous.
I would like to see some provision or something made so they had it enclosed or
r
some way if they were going to have a garage to have dome provision for
protection. For the elderly. . .if it's truly elderly homes now you're building.
04aay? That's all I have.
Chairman Gilligan: Is there anyone else who'would like to speak.
Mr. Burrell: My name is Bob Burrill from 170 Valley View Drive and I'm
representing a couple of people on Felt Road. My mother is at 82 Felt Road.
Elizabeth Burrill. My sister and her husband, Dennis and Joan Sullivan who live
at 56 Felt Road. My brother who resides at 74 Felt Road. We're the little
boxes there, right by the entrance to this whole development and we have some
concerns. The preliminary plans and indications were that this development would
-19-
exit onto Deming Street. The concerns for the development obviously were
heightened when we found out that thexwKxx main access road, in fact the only
access road, comes right out in front of my mother's house. You're alking
ptf moving from two or three cars a day,�� maybe ten on a good day, t 400 cars
a day. That's a concern to us. We think that, in fact, the density that's
proposed here, even though it sounds modest, is in fact, triple or adruple
double A-30 zoning. We doggy not have a problem with the concept. We dndorse
the concept. We don't. . .I guess the problem as far as your zoning regulations,
you're going to have to deal with that. That, to me, is a much more far
reaching question and is probably more profound that the second application.
The signalization of Felt and Okkland, I think, is something that is an
absolute necessity, quiz if, in fact, this does go forward, and I think,
in fact, that the Town shold require some sort of upgrading of that particular
intersection if, in fact, they're going to allow an additional 400 c rs into
thataintersection. I think that other concerns such as water run-off., you
know, are very important to us. Now, they're going to obviously be exiting all
of the water off this parcel to the west, which obviously would not be a concern
to us, because we're on the east side, however, we would want to make yure, you
know, have pretty decent assurances that, in fact, there is no water that will,
after the construction is completed, be exiting onto land to the east of Felt Road.
I think that the question of ingress and egress is an important one and we would
support either dual ingress and egress, and that would mean some kind of outlet
onto Deming, or onto Buckland Road. It may not be feasible in the eyes for
l A. J
reasons of economy, etcetera, but, we don't believe A�he entire burden of access
should, in fact, be borne by Felt Road. Thank you.
Chairman Gilligan: Okay. Thank you. You'll have a chance to rebut when th
thing is all over here. Are there any other. . .any other members of the public
that would like to speak on behalf a2x. . .or about thisapplicati on. For or egainst?
-20-
Questions?
Nancy Brannder: Nancy Braender. 83 Elizabeth Street. When Peter was
discussing some of the requirements for elderly housing they seemed rather
minimal. One of them that concerned me was the parking. We have c rtainly
found up at the Mews that there is a need for more parking spaces than was
originally designed in that project and if you're going to start at 55 there's
a lot of those people that are going to come in with two cars to begin with
and you've got toallow for that and for the visitors. Thank you.
Chairman Gilligan: Okay, thank you. Anyone else from the public want to
speak regarding this application? Is thea rebuttal from the applicant?
Attorney Grace: No, I just had one comment. I can understand he
concerns about Felt Road and the concern, also, of ours was that if Felt Road
is developed all the way through that also is a xerious concern of he
Commission and we thought that if Felt Road goes to Deming that Idon't
think anybody living there would like that because that then givest at
direct from the top of Felt Road and the total Birch Hill arch dire tly up
Felt and to Deming, to Buckland or from Deming into Manchester, s we thought
this entrance to Felt was anexcellent compromise. We're not sure that
that road should go all the way because if it does then I think the traffic
generated by this would be substantially different that if it was s lowed to
go all thn way through. We're not convinced that it shoudl. It should end there.
So, maybe that should be something to think about.
Chairman Gilligan: Are there questions from the Commission? Starting down
this end. Dave? Florence?
Mrs. Sorosiak: I just have a question about the traffic and I Euess it's
been discussed somewhat. Peter didn't seem to think we should be too ooncerned
with this; with 400 vehicle trips. . .additional vehicle trips per da , and with
the line of sight problem that we have, and considering that this i going
to be elderly peoplecoming (end of tape)
Mr. DeMallie: . . . .it's just that the professional traffic engineer
indicated that it didn't qualify as a State highway; didn't qualify for a
light, number one. Number two, he also indicated that the line of sight
for these people coming in and out of Felt Road Extension, the new part.,
would be perfectly adequate for them. Because people coming down F It
Road the other side that have the problem, I believe, looking to the east.
Mrs. Sorosiak: And it will compounded because they're going to have
not only to deal with the traffic that's coming from their left, but
V1
traffic coming towards/and these being elderly people, and I just think
that there's a problem there. And, I was questioning, I guess according to
this site plan it does show Felt Road all the way being connected with
Deming, but now you've said that you're considering not. . . .
Attorney Grace: That's only on paper. It was an old paper road owned
by the Town, but the plan does not indicate that it goes any furt-aey t'1an
Deming Hill d!vel.»_nent.
Mrs. Sorosiak: Okay, so these 400 additional trips, vehicle trips per
day, are generated just from this development.
Attorney Grace: That's correct. There's no plan to have it go all the
if
way to Deming. In fact, one of our concerns is/that ever happens.
Chairman Gilligan: Ralph? �.
f
Commissioner Mosher: Yes, we've heard that there's a waiting list at
Wapping Mews and I wonder how you determine that you should have 72 dwellings
on this site, when our regulations would. . .you could put many more on it, I
guess, the way I interpret our regulations here.
Attorney Grace: A conservative developer,
Mr. Mosser: Pardon?
Attorney Grace: A conservative developer, that wanted, very ho estly, the
it's
original plans were more but ft pared down to what the man building it wants
to build, and I think we're trying to get a bilance of what we can have and
22
what the neighbors and everybody has been told and promised. I think that's
where we are.
Chairman Gilligan: Questions. D vid. . .
Mr. Sorenson: Irm intersted in the reference to the community bi lilding.
Where's that on the site? Is it Phase II that referred to it? So many units
and a community building?
Chiarman Gilligan: Could you point to it on the map that's up a ove so
everybody could see it?
Mr. Page: Yes, okay.
Attorney Grace: Phase one, 'Buck .
comprises
Mr. Page: We have Phase one ixxidr this area , 24 units, and there is
room in the basement of these units fo� a community building. And we plan
to have eommunity building in,4 hese units here.
Chairman Gilligan: So, therefore. . .
Mr. Sorenson: . . .center units therei In the center of the circ e?
Mr. Page- Yes, that's part of phase one, because there's quite a difference
in elevation between the first floor (unintelligible) and the ground behind it.
There's plenty of room for a nice walk-out (unintelligible - severa words).
Mr. Sorenson: Okay.
Mr. Gilligan: Thank you. Anyone else?
Mr. Conde: Yes, I have one question. How long is the road?
Mr. P-ge• The road. . .you mean from. . .
Mr. Conde: The cul-de-sac.
Mr. Page: There's no cul-de-sac. There's a loop street and it i . . .I forget
the diggx distance, but I can find it. . .yes, it's about 2500 feet.
Mr. Conde: 2500? And this has the approval of the FireMarsha ?
Mr. Page: Yes. it's not a cul-de-wac. It's a loop street.
l -2 3-
Mr. Conde: But it only has one outlet? ,
Mr. Page: In our first proposal kt had a cul-de-sac. In fact, our first,
second and third. Finally, after a few meetings with the fire Marsh 1
1, we
looped it around.
Mr. Conde- And that loop street does satisfy him?
Mr. Page: Yes. In fact, we asked about emergency access to Deming.
jW Onless it was a bona-fide, paved street bo Deming, he didn't want any
kind of emergency access. This meets his requirements and he indicated
that in his letter. We have a letter that this plan meets in all de artments.
Mr. Conde: Okay, I have one other question. In the. . .in the re ulations
that you would have with this unit development, do you have to chang the
name from elderly to adult to accomplish the same thing that you wan to
accomplish?
Attorney Grace: Could you do that again, please?
Mr. Conde: Okay, take both hearings and bring them into one.
Attorney Grace Okay.
Mr. Conde: Do youhave to have adult in the regulations to acco lish
what you want to accomplish with your unit development by-laws, or w atever
you want to call them?
Attorney Grace: Not if you clearly say that elderly housing can be 55 years
of age or over. We're concerned with that connotation that elderly only starts
at 62 because of all the State. . .
Mr. Conde: State and Federal.
Attorney Grace: . .and Federal requirements always use that, and they use
that for funding. But, as I mentioned, East Hartford has no mention of age at all,
and over 600 units of housingf)thaithey call elderly and it starts at 55.
Mr. Conde: Fifty-five.
Attorney Grace: No, it does not have to be, as long as 55 is allowable.
24
Mr. Conde: Yes, okay.
Chairman Gilligan: Any other questions? Ken? Ray?
Mr. Hallowell: Just torespond to Dick Kelley. Dick, I really d n't
personally object to your xx development as an adult community on Deming
ill. All people don't want to live in a condo, but we never called them
condos. In Planning & Zoning we've always called them multi-family.
As a marketing tool you call them condos. As a marketing tool you call this
an adult community. I think that's fine as a marketing tool. Howev r, I
think to try to bring this to existOW on this hill and using the adult
or the adult housing regulations as a vehicle to get this on that hill.,
I personally don't think that you've demonstrated here tonight that you
couldn't put that same project on that hill, as an adult community, under
an MF-A zone. Maybe, I'm wrong, but you really haven't demonstrated that
you can't do it ander an MF-A regulation. You can restrict on your condo
or your adult community deeds or whatever else you have that somebody has to
be 55, and they can't have more than three in their units, and you can
enforce this legally. But, the Town cannot enforce all of these things that
you're promising these people. You have to do that yourself and I think you
have the integrity and you will do it, but I think the vehicle you're trying
to get there through is really wrong.
Mr. Klley: Ray, we will do it before Planning and Zoning if we have
because
an opportunity to come back/ '3 cannot regulate on the Zoning Commission
who' s going to live there. But we can (unintelligible - severalwords).
It is true Ray that we're probably talking about semantics, but there is a
different connotation to the word condominium today than there was several
years ago. Under the new regulations as of January 1 they can only be
r�e`ferredto as co dom'niums ey will meet new state guidelines
And I just want to make one sincere comment. That if the Town had e lot more
25
concerned people like you we wouldn't have a lot of problems with ( nintelligibleO
and I mean that in all sincerely.
Chairman Gilligan: Are there any other questions? For the record., I want to
recognize that we did submit, I forget which of these two, it probably was the
change to our regulations to the Capital Region Council of Governments who
responded that they hav6v_ .there's no apparent conflict and they have no
concerns. So. . .in a written communifation.
A question of the applicant: You plan to improve Felt Road to Oakland Road.
I presume you plan to do that at your own expense?
Attnrny Grace: That's correct.
.9hairman Gilligan- And, you would improve it to Town specifications and
you would improve the entire right-of-way with sidewalks and plantings and so
on is what your proposal is?
Attorney Grace: Including, I believe, the sewer. The possibility that
we can better existence now. Yes.
Mr. Gilligan: Okay. Now, there's been some question raised ab ut the, I
think it's the northeastern corner of Felt and Oakland. Anyway, it's diagnally
across from where this is, and the dangerous xik xx sight-line from that spot.
Is there. . .if this Commission were to ask that that be included in the redesign
of Felt, would that be a problem for the . . . .
Mr. Kelley: Number one, Bob, is that we've got a problem because we don't
own the land on the other side.
Mr. Gilligan: I don't know what the Town's problems are, Okay.
Mr. Kelley: Number two, I guess we would improve Felt Road Extension
or Felt Road, or whatever you want to call it, from Oakland Road ul to our
property line. I mean that's the price of doing business. It's nt ur desire
to do it, but that's the price of doing business, so I guess we wi 1. But on
the other side of Felt Road coming from Birch Hill, in all honesty that really
is not our problem. We will not contribute to that problem amdx aE our traffic
'jtf
i
engineer indicates, because we do have a good line of sight coming fr m our
driveway on Deming Hill.
Mr.Gilligan: Well, Dick, some people may disagree with your. . .wi h your
concludion. I personally do, but that's my own opinion.
Mr. Kelley: We would like to have room to negotiate.
Mr. Gilligan: I understand that. My question is if. . . .
Attorney Grace: We're not. . .we're not foreclosing.
Mr. Gilligan: UOV.. .if there is a need to improve that other intersection,
and this Commission has required developers to deposit funds to assist the Town
in improving intersections, things of that type, is there some proble with that?
Mr. Kelley: We just indicated that no, that. . .
Attorney Grace: We're realistic. We'll work it out. We're not going to
say no to anything at this point.
Mr. Kelley: Our traffic engineer indicated, Bob, that if the ea ement was
granted it would not cost us that much to help improve the line of sight coming
from the Birch Hill area. If you gR ride that area, you're talki g about a
bank, you're talking about several trees. . .
Attorney Grace: . .the telephone pole. .
(several voices speaking at once)
Attorney Grace: telephone pkaumx pole right in the middle of it
Mr. Kelley: . . .you're talking about getting rid of that(unintel igib le) tree c- ,
Yes, we would help.
Mr. Gilligan: Okay. I notice that yout plan for drainage has a debtntion
basin that's off =site. Now, I presume, that you plan to make appropriate
arrangements to do that?
Mr. Grace: Yes. In fact one of the applicants is the owner of he land and
part of the purchase of the land would be that that also. . .that righ ould be. . .
with easements to the Town and so forth. That is not a problem. We've already
discussed it with the Church. They and their staff have approved th t drainage,
so that also has changed several times. So that would also be part f the approval.
27
Chairman Gilligan: Okay. A3Wx Are there any other questions from the
Commissio*�� Then the public hearing is closed. The Commission will notify
you. nE
Attorney Grace: We thank you very much.
Public Hearing held February 7 , 1984 by the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the Town of South Windsor .
MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION PRESENT : Chairman Robert F . Gilligan ,
David Sorenson , Florence Sorosiak, Robert Conde , Ralph Mosher ,
Dorothea Smith .
ALTERNATES TO THE COMMISSION PRESENT : Raymond F. Hallowell , Jr .
(sitting for Commissioner Marshall Montana, who disqu4lified herself
nne h
from sitting on this application) , BarbaraKlenke and ,Kenneth
t
Goodwin .
TOWN STAFF PRESENT : Peter R. DeMallie , Director of Planning and
Richard Martel , Town Engineer
i
Chairman Gilligan: Deming Hill Associates. Application Of a
general plan of development. Is there anyone to speak in behalf of the
applicant?
Attorney Grace: Yes. Attorney Bill Grace representing Doming
Hills. The covered everything. . .is it on?
Y
Secretary: Take it off the stand if you like.
Attorney Crace: We would now like to present to the Commission
the specific development known as Deming Hill, a planned adult comm�nity.
We'd like to start off with Greg Montana and we supplied to the Commission
his credential and so forth, and Greg will go through the site, the units,
and the architectural renderings and why he put the buildings, and so forth,
where they are. Greg?
Mr. Montana: This property, as you probably all know, is a very
unique piece of property. Can you hear me? This is the Deming Strieet side
of the property and from Deming Street we go approximately 230 feet to a
hundred and fifty foot drop. The existing property has some plateaus within
it. There is a hedgerow of existing trees along this property line and the
strawberry field, as you know, over her, and Oakland Road is at this point.
i
In developing this piece of property, as I stated, we made an extensive study
of other successful projects of adult housing in the general area. 1 Our first
concern was, as you know, the existing view that does exist here is a magni-
ficent one and we wanted to take advantage of it as much as possible. Second,
is we had to consider the potential four lots here of housing, and the adja-
cent properties across the street on Deming Street, and we had to design
-1-
i
i
i
this project with a low profile so that we would not be obstructing �hese
views for these people. Specifically we went to smaller groups in clusters.
This eliminates the fact of a long wall of nine units in a building, for
instance. We also have gone to a plateau system similar to what we id at
Parkview South, and we also have gone to a much lower density, so that we
I
have got an awful lot of open space in-between so that each unit, whether
you drive up, whether you physically face in that direction, has the advantage
of these views. In developing the road system, in working with security,
both police, ambulance and fire in mind, we have developed a road system
coming off of Oakland Road extending onto Felt Road, and completely 'enclos-
ing itself and returning. Each unit is clustered off of this with easy
vehicle access , and fire apparatus or police apparatus or ambulances into each
group. We have gone to 8 unit buildings, 6 unit buildings, 5 unit buildings
and 7 unit buildings, and we have gone to not just a linear application,
but we have turned these to right angles so that we don't breat up the
g g I
general wall effect. The lower units , as I said, will all be stepped down so
that visually from the top of Deming Hill you'll be looking over th top
of roof-tops in most instances. The existing hedgerows we are trying to
maintain as a natural buffer. This will be cleaned up and the existing trees
would remain. In all instances we have gone to a minimum of 50 foot seback
on all property lines and in better than ninety percent we're over
sixty-five feet or seventy feetq so we wanted to keep a natural gr 0
en and sound
barrier in-between. As we stated before, some of the most successful projects
that we have looked at as pertain to adult housing have gone to the
traditi4n&-type design; colonial, and this is basically what we are proposing
here. We, in the first phase, are proposing a breakdown of units of approxi-
-2-
it
mately 2/3 one-bedroom, and 1/3 two-bedrooms. We're not positive whether this
would be more in demand or not, but the flexibility is designed into the unit
that some of the end units can be converted to two-bedroom units at later
date in phase two. We have gone into an extensive design as far as i he
units. I'd like to get into those next, unless there's any questions on the
site first. No?
We are proposing basically three completely different one-�edroom
units. Self-contained, all on one floor. In some instances, becaus0 of the
grade differentials, we will have the capabilities of a downstairs b sement with
light on the down side of the hill. We also have the option of a library or a
loft above, but again this gets into a stair situation. Our reasearch has told
us that primarily the open type plan where a person can walk in and see the entire
are is. . .has become the most successful. So, we're proposing two different plans
as far as one bedroom units are concerned. We are also proposing two entirely
different two-bedroom units. One with. . . .both with bath and a half or
its optional storage area. You also, in all irs tances, we're talki g about
optional closed-in, screened-in porches, or totally closed-in proches and decks.
Other options would be garages, fireplaces and completed basements The site
plan presently shows 80 percent garages, and this again is optional because
we're not positive whether the garages are going to be an added expense that
these people will or will not want, so it' s, I think, a situation that has to
be adjusted in phase one, and in phase two.
In clustering of the buildings , we took into consideration the total
overall length. The largest number of units we have in any one building is
nd'c 1 r
8 units and again this is only 1 0 feet long,, and by turning on a erpe i u a
g y 5 g� g �
situation we're able to limit the length and basically get rid of some of the
wall effects that some other projects have. We only have one building that's
8 units. The other ones are either all smaller than that.
=3-
i
i
i
Architecturally, as we stated, we are looking towards a co�onial,
more traditional type of treatment of the units. We have a little s eeper roofs.
We're talking about primarily building materials of wood. Wood shutters. Not
sliding doors , but more than likely garden type doors; French doors. As I
said, the units are all one story buildings on the back. On the fr nt we
do have grade differentials that allow us to,from the front, on-grade access.
Allows us light in the back at no extra cost. We're looking for si nificant
designed entranceways to each one of these units and these will become
focal points rather than just have an open door into each unit. Galages,
again, we have made provisions for 85 percent, I think, garages, bu� this is
adjustable. The basic building materials would be wood construction, excellent
sound transmission, and excellent penetration between party walls a d we would
certainly look at sound construction as far as exceeding the minimal State
building codes. That's all, I guess.
Attorney Grace: We would just like to continue on and ha�re Mr. Page
do engineering and drainage and road layout and so forth, and just continue the
presentation. We would like to hand to the Commission, Mr. Page's credentials. . .
Mr. Page: Mr. name is Jules Page. I'm president and founder of
Page Engineering, 1 0 Ellington Road South Windsor Connecticut. A
g Inc. , 75 g
registered professional engineer. I'd like to be brief, and I think the
Commission has a Deming Hill planned adult community general plan, and I have
another copy if you need it, and we've hung a copy on the back wall for the public
to examine. Now, what I 11 briefly try and do is run through page by page with
the Commission. Page one is the key map, and it shows the site in relation to
Deming, Felt and Oakland.
Page two is an A-2 survey of the property with contours taken from
g Y p p Y
-4-
i
I
an NDC ma and it shows there's approximately a 4 foot drop in elevation
map, Pp Y 5 P
from south to north. The slopes average around five percent and the e is an
area in the northeast corner where some of the slopes approach fifteen percent
and the comprise about three percent of the site.
Y P
Page three shows the abutting property owner and in the center of the
page is the Deming Hill planned development community site and you can see
just to the south is the four lots that were approved from the Church property
approximately two or three years ago, and to the west the Calvary Chjurch
I
property. To the north the famous strawberry fields, and the Mobil station
and so forth, and to the east Felt Road and the Burrill property and the
little shopping center there.
Page four is the Deming Hill planned adult community over�11 layout
and phasing, and you can see that the principal street emanates from Felt
Road. We've positioned it in such a way that it generally goes up he slopes
into a loop and then the units are positioned around the loops withlparking in
and out. Each parking area has a way to get in and a way to get out and
we had some. . . .quite a discussion on this with the Fire Marshal and the
Town staff. . .and that led to a very improved drawing in my opinion. , So, at
least some good is coming out of this general plan concept where yoi have a
chance to sit down with the staff, go over some of the problems andlincorporate
ideas. We show the phasing line where phase one would comprise four buildings
and 24 units for a total of 72 units. You can see they're surrounded by a
50 foot buffer all around.
Page five shows the Felt Road access plan. Felt Road is Town road
and from Oakland to our principal street, Felt Road would be improved to Town
specifications with sewer, water, curbs, drainage and some kind of isidewalk
-5-
to provide access to the shopping center from the site. Also, you c�n see
that we have tried to show we would provide Felt Road with some kind of a
landscaping treatment, probably good quality street trees and so forth.
Page six is a typical landscape plan and zoning data. We have shown
on the left hand side of the page a typical landscape plan and zoning data.
We have shown on the left hand side of the page a typical landscape flan which
would include landscaping around the unit, landscaping in the buffer area,
and in the event that the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the general
plan and so forth, we would then go into much more extensive landscape plan on
the site plan. However, in this general plan concept we've tried to show you
what we would try and do if we go further. And, in the zoning data on the
right-hand side of the page it outlines the typical information as required
in the general plan; that the zone is double A-30; that would not b changed;
the number of units is 72; the density is 4.64 units per acre; the percent
impervious coverage is 21 percent; the hundred year flood pla
in zone - there is
none; slopes greater than 15 percent - about three percent of the 1�nd;
amount of wetlands - none, however, we plan to go to Wetlands to di cuss our
drainage system because, as you know, we will be draining into a wa�er course.
Sanitary sewer will be provided. It will be hooked into the Town o South
Windsor sanitary sewer system. Public water will be provided by Connecticut Water
Company. The streets will be constructed to Town specifications. The sidewalks
will be concrete. Recreation will be provided as outlined in the elderly and
adult regulations in the form of gazebos , and picnic tables, and passive type
recreation. There will be a buffer area and there will be a community building,
and the general requirements at the bottom of the zoning information lists the. . . .
some more general information of your interest.
Page 7 is the detailed utilities and grading plan and what we've
-6-
i
tried to do there is to show the Engineering Department and the Planning
Department our concept in termsof what we would try and do in setting final
grades. These are preliminary grades and in general the drainage sy�tem
would be captured in the streets in normal catch basins the Town is Familiar
with; captured in pipes and directed to detention basins at the bottom of the
hill and there would also be a swale constructed across what we call the northern
boundary or the bottom of the property where any water that is not c ptured in
the pipes and catch basins , but is draining off the roofs and some o
the parking lots would be captured in the swale and would be directed to the
i
detention basin. We also propose a series of dry wells in the swab itself
and in the detention basins, such that in small storms of less than one year
most of the water would be returned to the ground. In heavy storms some of the
water would be returned to the ground and naturally some of the water would
by-pass the dry-wells into the system and be held in detention and utletted
I
through the normal type Town spec control structures. This drainage system
i
and detention basin is only preliminary at this time. We have trie to size
them in approximate dimensions that would be required, however, in
detailed site plan much more intensive calculations would be made. Also, the
town sanitary sewer system is provided going up Felt Road and a manhole at the
intersection of Felt Road and our principal street would be a town (sewer.
From that point into the site, sewers would be constructed to Town specs , but
would be maintained by the association.
In the last page is the storm drainage outlet concept. Tou can
see the church building that was approved approximately three years ago with
the parking lot, andon the far west of the property which is to the left of the
page is Buckland Road, and to the bottom of the page to the south Is Deming
Street, and we would construct some detent basins and a swale and ipe system
to ultimately discharge the storm water across church property and into the
I
-7-
it
ditch that is near Buckland Road, and that kind of completes my presentation.
Chairman Gilligan: Do you have anything more, Attorney G�ace?
Attorney trace: Sorry?
Chairman Gilligan? Do you have more?
Attorney Grace: Yes. I d like to introduce Mr. Hesketh Oho
would like to make a genral traffic report. His survey of Oakland 4nd Felt and
the general areas. I'd like to give you a couple copies of his qualifications.
N1r. Hesketh: My name is Frederick Hesketh. MY office is in Bloom-
field. I am a professional engineer in Connecticut and in several other
states. I specialize in traffic engineering and highway engineering. I
am the author of the report that's dated July 9th. . . .excuse me, December 19,
1983, which I believe is available to the Commission. Multiple copes
of that document were made available to the Planning staff in December,
and I'll highlight the findings therein and indicate my conclusions and then
be available for any detailed questioning the Commission may have.
My study was one of reviewing all available traffic data and
roadway geometry on the roadways that are expected to be impacted by this
development, specifically Felt Road and the reconstructed section �f Felt
Road, and Oakland Road. In the course of my studies we. . .I gathered all
the data which was available on the traffic volumes from the State Department
of Transportation and from your Planning Department and reviewed t�e accident
history which exists along Oakland Road in this area, specifically that which
exists at the intersection of Oakland and Felt Road, and made several observa-
tions of traffic movement in and about this area, including observations on
pedestrian traffic generation from this type of land use, and did that by
reviewing the results of studies that had been published by the In of
-8-
it
Transportation Engineers and other agencies on the expected traffic t various
land uses , including land uses where most of the residents are elderly.
I also reviewed specific counts taken in South Windsor at Cinnamon Springs
and at Pleasant Valley, and specifically for this study I had people in
my office take counts at Wells Country Village in Vernon, so that we could
understand the amount of traffic which results from that type of land use.
From a review of all of these factors, several points became obviou , which
I think summarize our findings. The existing traffic volumes on Roue 30
near Felt Road range between 00 and 00 vehicles. I estimate the capacity
e g 3 5 � p y
of Route 30 in the area near Felt Road ranges between 1100 and 1200 'ivehicles ,
which would still provide an acceptable level of traffic service. From our
study of the traffic generation characteristics at residential communities
where most of the residents are elderly, I project that the proposal before
you, if it's constructed, will result in about 400 vehicle trips per day.
That's made up of about 200 movements into the site each day and a like
number departing the site. The hourly volumes would range between 0 and
25 in each direction. The accident records maintained by the South Windsor
Planning Department reveal that the intersection of Route 30 and Felt Road have
experienced 13 accidents in the latest two year study period. I also point
out that during that three year period about 10 million vehicles passed through
the intersection. The intersection of Felt Road and Route 30 pres ntly
provides excellent sight-distance on three of the four points whey people
would want to have sight-distance within the intersection. That is, traffic
within Felt Road, or the reconstructed section of Felt Road as presented on
this plan, has excellent vision both to the. . .in both directions along Route 30.
Traffic in the north leg of Felt Road, when they come to the interjection,
-9-
has excellent sight-distance to the right, but they do experience a
sight-distance limitation to the left, which is caused by a mound ar)d a stand
of trees , which are located at the northeast corner of the intersection. So
there are three corners with good vision and one with limited vision and
g �
I would feel that that limitation should be eliminated whether or not this
development is ever constructed. I also compared the existing volu es at
p p g
the intersection and the projected volumes would be warrants which have been
established by the State Traffic Commission for signalization. My Findings
are that the present volumes do not warrant signalization and that 'he volumes
cannot be expected to increase to the extent that signals are warranted within
the foreseeable future. Based upon studies of the traffic volum s and
p �Y � �
the geometry and the projections fro traffic which would result at �eming
Hill, it's my professional opinion that the approval of a special e ception
for the construction of this housing development as described by Mr. Page,
Mr. Montana, will not result in traffic hazard, nor traffic congestion, and
that the highways in the vicinity (end of tape). It's also my opinion from a
review of the site plan and the internal traffic movements within t e site
plan, that the internal network, including the roadways and the turning
I
ability and the parking, also meets accepted traffic engineering standards
and will not resent an hazards should you approve it and it be constructed as
P Y Y Pp
shown on the site plan. I have no other comments.
Chairman Gilligan: Thank you.
Attorney Grace: I would like to introduce Richard Kelley, who is one
of the applicants. Of course, the other applicant is the Calvary Church,
but Richard, being involved in the planning all the way along, would also
like to make some comments as to his ideas and purposes of this application.
i
-10-
i
Mr. Kelley: Bill just left me a note to be brief, so I left my
notes back at the chair. Try to tell you in five minutes , two years of work,
and it basically started two years ago when I was involved with the Lutheran
Church to build their present parsonage off Graham Road, and basically
started when some of us standing in that room, sitting in the room, chaired
the task force for the Town Council several years ago, two or three ,,years ago,
when we took a wing of Wapping School and created a community center from it.
One section of that being for senior citiznes. This idea started back then.
We have put a team together, a team that to my left and rear, plus an
t various factions of the Town and we came
advisory group that represents ,
out with the idea that if South Windsor had a population of about 1�,000
people who wants affordable housing, one of the segments of affordable
housing would be the people that some of us are reaching, of people 55 and
over, that don't have the kids at home any more, that want to get r,d of the
big home, and we can talk about that all night and you can believe �s or not,
becuase that depends on our perspective, but that is our idea. We ant to
cater to this clientele. As you well know, I have been involved i several
projects. I have been involved in a condominium project. In answer to the
gentleman behind me that represented Cinnamon Springs , we have 106junits at
Parkview South. About 93 or 94 of those are occupied. Of those 9� or 94
homes that are occupied, we have some people there that would be candidates. . . .
that will be candidates. . .that will be occupants of Deming Hill if the
Planning Commission so desires , for one simple reason: They moved out of their
homes, they moved into a condominium but some people don't like coidominiums
Ray, because there is no control of who's going to live there. Th�re's a
cross-section anywheres from a new born baby to a gentleman 87 years old living
-ll-
I
I
in a second floor unit. We want to offer that control.
What are they going to sell for, or what are they going to lease
for? A two-bedroom unit is going to sell in the vicinity of the mid sixties.
That's approximately 1,050 square feet. Right, Greg? A one-bedroom would
be less. We are going to provide a service. We'll have someone on board that if
my mother-in-law that now. . .or father-in-law. . .that now lives on Graham Road,
instead of me running over there on Sunday morning to do something, 'm going
to have someone on board, or we're going to have someone on board tha� would
hang a mirror, check that furnace, why it comes on and off, or to do some of
the things that they are now doing at Wapping Mews. We're going to have someone
on board that will take care of the outside facilities so that when one person
mows a lawn everyone mows a lawn. I visualize on documentation reading, when
Hal Cummings gets through with it, and this is one of his responsibilities of
this project, is that I. if I live there, I would own my unit and I would own
the postage stamp around it. It's called a planned unit development. It is
not a condominium. It's a planned development, and if we have the opportunity
with you people's okay, if we have the opportunity to come back, wewill get
into that in more detail. My experience in Town, and we've lived here approxi-
mately 23 years, is for the last 10 or 12 years and we've been here several
times before, we've worked hard for credibility. With the exception of maybe six
people in this room, I know some of the people to my left, or my right, I had
in school. I hope to be here another 23 years. I know Greg's going to be here;
Buck Page is going to be here; Hal; and Bill Grace; because we make our living
here. And, I promise you that in thenear future we're coming back o the wall
again as we say in our business. And, if we tell you tonight that we're
going to do something and we don't do it, you're going to have a wa to get
even with us. But, I think you have found from our experiences wit you,
that when we tell you something we try to do it. Never, never have we spent
-12-
two years designing a project. Never have we met with the number of people that
we have in Town, outside of Town, had the input that we've had in this project.
We've talked in two hours what's taken us two years to do and we're not even
on first base, but in our business time is crucial. Time is very, very crucial.
There are a couple of banks right now that are looking for projects such as
p g
this, but times are good and money is decent. But if the time six months, three
months, a year from now came about, we're going to be back in the same boat
we were when we started Parkview South. We had a lot of promises, but we had
no deliveries. So our time is crucial. We are investing approximately
$3.5 million in this project. Our non-profit group, which will have tight
control will retain ownership of some of these units, because not all units
will want to be sold because not everyone is going to buy, because if we
maintain ownership we're going to have more control if we stay invol� ed and if
we don't stay involved, if we ever did turn over the responsbility to someone
y else, the could not do one thing that Bill Grace has outlined tonight different,
and if they came back to a similar Planning and Zoning as this. So, I
think you do have your controls. We're asking you to be a part of it. Peter
talked about this three or four years ago, or something similar. I ear Peter,
the Town Planner, talk about affordable housing. This is one of the This is
only one of them. The land, that land, the land next to me, the lard. next to
you, is going to be developed, and I'd much rather be a part of that development
and have some control than I would. . .some other alternatives that wel might
want to consider. But, I do think we do have a team, that we can do liver to
you, and we would hope that if you gave us permission to go to step two and come
back to you, that one of these days when you drive by that Deming Hill project
-13-
you could say I'm proud to be a part of it. That' s how sincere we a e.
Thank you.
Attorney Grace: Just very briefly. We understand that i the
regulation changes that we asked for in phase one of the hearing wo ld be
granted, if you approved the general plan that we've outlined for you, then
we must come back, and I've outlined the things that we must bring 'ba
ck when
we do come back. Besides the site plan, the regulations , the by-laws, and other
proofs that you would require. We;re asking, we know that this land, we have
an option on it. We don't think it's going to stay there forever. We think
we can do a good job on that piece, but we don't own it. The church owns it,
so we're asking for some consideration as to time, and I know you h ar this
all the time. If you're saying that the regulations need some other changes,
maybe this site plan can be built with what we presented to you, and maybe
the future concerns , you revamp the whole regulation. I'm not sure' I'm
just kind of asking that you don't go through a year of study on the regula-
tion and hold us off., and I know that's a plea you hear often, but we're
asking for some real consideration and time. We hope we've given ypu a
good view of what we're trying to do. The people involved. We're �11 here
for any questions that the staff, the Commission or the residents h'ore tonight.
list�ening
So again, we think you for your consideration and your intense to
what we've had to present tonight. I think you on behalf of all o us.
Chairman Gilligan: Okay. Is there a report from the Town Planner?
Mr. DeMallie: Yes. Regarding traffic , in the future we Ao anti-
cipate ate and we discussed this last Saturday, that Oakland Road. . .Sa urday a
week ago. . .whenever. . .in the future we do anticipate that Oakland road
will go into the heavy classification for traffic volumes. It's relatively
close right now as Mr. Hesketh indicated. However, the real probl m at the
-14-
i
+ Felt Road nd
Intersection where they're proposing to have egress here,
Oakland Street, is the other side of the street coming from the Virch Hill area
going down and onto Route 30. The problem does not appear coming out of
this particular development and I consider that problem coming out o Birch
3
H111 safely onto Route 0 to be a clearly separate problem from this,
application. If, over the long term, Felt Road were to go through p to
Deming Street� and that's not a known thing at this point, we did ask Mr. Page to
design the initial section of Felt Road from Oakland Road to minimilie
the overall street grade if the street were to continue up, which is somewhat,
you know, hypothetical, in the future, and he's been very cooperate e in this,
and, indeed, even reduced their grade on their interior street. I would like
a confirmation that the right-of-way for Felt Road extension is 50 Feet. I
believe we've had it indicated. I don't see it anywhere on the plans. It
would be helpful to know that to ensure that it's 50 feet. I believe it is.
Mr. Page: Yes, there's a letter from the Planning and Zo ing
going hat were
Commission. . .an approval letter on the. . . oln back. . .on the lots tl
built on Deming causing a 50 foot right-of-way, and I think Mr. Cunmings can
probably shed some light on it.
Mr. DeMallie: Okay. . . .just before. . -if it gets to the second stage,
which is a site plan, I think that should be addressed. Felt Road� . .Felt Road
access appears super
ior to the Deming Street access even though at face value
it might look like Deming Street is better, but if you look at it, Felt
Road does offer a lot of advantages. The line of sight is good. �ou don't
have a problem with Deming Street. The street's in relatively poor condition.
there does afford pedestrian access down to some of the commercial areas
Also,
that would serve this population. There will be other applications that will
a 5 acres
be required, one of which is a resubdivlsion approval to create th 1
as I understand. Correct? They did receive a four lot approval along Deming
-15-
Street for those double A-30 lots previously. They'll also require ite plan
approval. They will not require further special exception approval. That's
being requested tonight.
Okay, I think, although there is indication that it will e subject
to real property taxes, I think it should be confirmed through the ffice of
the Town Assessor prior to submission of the second application. . Page
and Mr. Montana did go through a number of designs and what you see before you
is probably about the tenth round and it is substantially different from the
first plans and they have incorporated many of our design changes t at
we requested and I think it's a very fine plan.
The concept was generally endorsed by the Housing Authori y, the
concept of adult housing and the need for it. If the project is ap roved, I'd
like to see the community association documents they've been descri ing.
Mr. Kelley referenced a planned unit development type of concept w reby
people would purchase a unit and they could also perhaps have the and
underneath it - a backyard, frontyard, what have you. I think tha should
be quite clear for the second application. I'm sure they'd do tha .
The one thing that the criteria in the zoning regulation is that
there should be good pedestrian proximity to shopping, church, per onal services,
things of that nature. There is a church close by. There is also personal
services, barber shop, things of that nature, and there's also, th most
important thing I consider, is a Cumberland Farms. It has a varie y of
things that meet the individual needs of residents and it is withi pedestrian
distance. They have a sidewalk that would end up going down towar that area.
The Fire Marshal, Bill Lanning, has reviewed the plan an he finds them
acceptable in their current form. He did require substantial cha ges. You
-16-
should be aware of that,to ensure that there would be emergency vehi le
access throughout the development project. He did submit a memo to hat
effect.
The Town Plan of Development indicates this area should be in the form
of a one-family for every three-quarters of an acre. The Town Plan oes not
address elderly housing specifically. Nothing I could find. We on have. . . .
townwide we only have 30 elderly dwelling units in South Windsor. hat's a
total for a population of 18,210, I believe, as of last July. That's
exclusively at Wapping Mews. And, there's no. . . .I don't think ther 's any
question there's a need for elderly housing. Mr. Grace referenced he
waiting list at Wapping Mews and there's no question if you find ou there's
quite a long time before you can get into a unit, you're not going o sign
up. I don't think there's any question. So wherever you draw the ine, at
age 62, 60 or 55, I think the need still remains.
So the question you have to resolve tonight on the amendm nt
that they proposed earlier is whether or not you want to lower that to
age 55, but I think there is a need for some upper age bracket housing and
they've done a pretty good job in designing it.
Chairman Gilligan: Thank you. Town Engineer?
Mr. Martel: Okay. For future site plans that might be r quired,
that first they show the existing Felt Road to be improved to curre t town
standards and for this to include drainage. Also, that the sanitar sewer
laterals to the existing residences on Felt Road be upgraded and t t they be
connected to the proposed sanitary sewer system. That any future site plan
show existing field conditions as taken out in the field by a sury y crew,
and that all improvements be based on these existing conditions. lso, that
the. . .any future site plan show the sanitary sewer right-of-way th t now exists
-17-
on Deming Street. That horizontal coordinates and a bench mark be included
on the site plan and also on the site plan that corner and property oints be
indicated as to be set or for existing points. And, also we would ask that a
plan and profile of the proposed design on Felt Road and the principal street
be included within site plan design.
Chairman Gilligan: Is there anyone from the public to spe k on
behalf of the application? Is there anyone with questions, or wishi g to
speak against the application? Mr. Bornstein?
Mr. Bornstein: My name is Leonard Bornstein. I represent
Cinnamon Springs Condominium. Now that we know a little bit about money,,
although the hours is getting late and I don't want to go into details, but
briefly, I just want to know the reason for the two bedrooms in eld rly housing
when traditionally it's a one bedroom affair. Could somebody answe that
question?
Chairman Gilligan: I didn't hear the question.
Mr. Bornstein: Traditionally elderly housing has one bedroom and
it seems that they're going to alot one-third of their development to two bedroom
units. Is that right? Did I hear right? I want to know the reason for
two bedrooms in the elderly housing development.
Attorney Grace: What if the child comes home from college? Or
you have guests? Where would you put them?
Chairman Gilligan: Even our current regulations for elderly housing. . .
Mr. Bornstein: I say traditionally. I'm trying to establish if this
is a true elderly housing development or is it merely by-passing. . .7 re they
really by-passing the Commission to accomplish something else. . . .it might be
just a disguise. . .although I'm sure the intention is good and they want to
-18-
do something nice, but we still have to be correct about this. Itdoesn't look
like housing for the elderly from what they're presenting. Cinnamon Springs
soulds just like they do. I'm over 55. A lot of my co-residents are over
55. We have a young mix. It sounds something very similar to what they
have, what they want. That' s what I say. We have community projects.
We mow the lawn. We have spring clean-ups. We do the same things. I don't. . . .
Mr. Kelley mentioned some kind of difference. It doesn't look like much of
a difference from what they're describing to any condominium. Now, I also. . .the
other questions.. .well, I'd still like an answer why the second bedroom because
that doesn't sound like a reasonable answer for somebody coming home for a day
or two or a week or so. To have somebody pay a lot of money. But, the other
thing is, in far as course of lease, how much do they plan the leas to be?
Chairman Gilligan: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Bornstein: A figure was mentioned of a cost of about $60,000
for each unit for the two-bedroom unit and a little less for the one-bedroom
unit, but theyalso said somebody is going to hold on to some units and lease
them. What will the cost of leased units be?
Attorney Crace: You're questions are a little bit advanced, but
I think a normal answer would be that the leased cost would be the cost of
the non-profit organization to hold the unit. If somebody needed a lease,
and we gave examples why, I think that would be the cost. That would be the
factor of the cost of the unit. I think that's clear.
As far as the two-bedroom units, I think that's being beat to death,
but many people are not married. They could live and have two bedroom units.
One member of the two elderly could be infirm or there could be another reason
for a different type of bedroom. There are several reasons why it should be
two bedrooms. That's history and experience. I think that's clear.
-19-
Mr. Bornstein: Okay. . .right. .
Chairman Gilligan: The hour is la to and we're not going to have a
debate.
Mr.Bornstein: Okay. I can say traditionally elderly hous ng has
one bedroom. 'They're small units. They have one bedroom and I don' recall
in my experience in social work ever going to an elderly housing where there
were two bedrooms. Okay. . .it's just talking from experience. Well, Okay, the
hour is late. I've made my point.
Chairman Gilligan: Thank you. Is there anyone else who w uld like
to speak? Yes, ma'am? Could you identify yourself?
Unidentified voice: Before my husband died. . .
Chairman Gilligan: Could you identify yourself? Just for the
record?
Unidentified voice: Before my husband died. ..
Chairman Gilligan- Could you give us your name and address.
Mrs. Cummings : Oh. Joan Cummings. 716 Deming Street. e had to
have two bedrooms. He was hooked up to oxygen before he died. I could not
sleep in that room. He had to have a room to himself. Where would I have
been if I hadn't had two bedrooms?
Chairman Gilligan: I understand, ma'am. Is there anyone else who
would like to speak in this application? Okay, would you identify ourself?
Mr. Cattarino: Joe Cattarino, 312 Deming Street. I live up on the
hill so I know the severity of the weather and I'm sure everybody else does.
If you have elderly people, for example, going from these outdoor g rages in
the winter, or any bad weather, just to walk to their home or. . .it' very
hazardous, very hazardous. I would like to see some provision or s mething made
so they had it enclosed or some way if they were going to have a ga age to have
-20-
}
some provision for protection. For the elderly. . .if it's truly elderly homes now
you're building. Okay? That's all I have.
Chairman Gilligan: Is there anyone else who would like to speak.
Mr. Burrill: My name is Bob Burrill from 170 Valley View Drive
and I'm representing a couple of people on Felt Road. My mother is at 82
Felt Road. Elizabeth Burrill. My sister and her husband, Dennis a d Joan
Sullivan, who live at 56 Felt Road. My brother who resides at 74 F It
Road. We're the little boxes there, right by the entrance to this hole
development and we have some concerns. The preliminary plans and
indications were that this development would exit onto Deming Street. The
concerns for the development obviously were heightened when we founi out that
the main access road, in fact the only access road, comes right out in
front of my mother's house. You're talking about moving from two or three cars
a day, maybe ten on a good day, to 400 cars a day. That's a concern to us.
We think that, in fact, the density that's proposed here, even though it
sounds modest, in fact, triples or mayble quadruple double A-30 zoning.
We do not have a problem with the concept. We endorse the concept.
We don't. . .I gues the problem as far as your zoning regulations, y ur're
going to have to deal with that. That, to me, is a much more far reaching
question and is probably more profound than the second application. The
signalization of Felt and Oakland, I think, is something that is art abso-
lute necessity,, if, in fact, this does go forward, and I think, in fact
that the Town should require some sort of upgrading of that particular inter-
section if, in fact, they're going to allow an additional 400 cars into
that particular intersection. I think that other concerns such as water
run-off, you know, are very important to us. Now, they're going to obviously
-21-
be exiting all of the water off this parcel to the west, which obvi usly
would not be a concern to us, because we're on the east side, howev , we
would want to make sure, you know, have pretty decent assurances, t at, in
fact, there is no water that will, after the construction is comple ed, be
exiting onto land to the east of Felt Road. I think that the question of
ingress and egress is an important one and we would support either dual ingress
and egress, and that would mean some kind of outlet onto Deming Street, or
onto Buckland Road. It may not be feasible in the eys for reasons of
economy, etcetera, but, we don't believe that the entire burden of access
should, in fact, be borne by Felt Road. Thank you.
Chairman Gilligan: Okay. Thank you. You'll have a chan e to rebut
when the thing is all over here. Are there any other. . .any other m mbers of
the public that would like to speak on behalf. . . .or about this application.
For or against? Questions?
Nancy Braender: Nancy Braender. 83 Elizabeth Street. When
Peter was discussing some of the requirements for elderly housing they seemed
rather minimal. One of them that concerned me was the parking. We have certainly
found up at the Mews that there is a need for more parking spaces t an was
originally designed in thatproject and if you're going to start at 5 there's
a lot of those people that are going to come in with two cars to begin with
and you've got to allow for that and for the visitors. Thank you.
Chairman Gilligan: Okay, thank you. Anyone else from the public
want to speak regarding this application? Is there a rebuttal from the
applicant?
Attorney Grace: No, I just had one comment. I can understand the
concerns about Felt Road the concern, also, of ours was that if Felt. Road
-22-
is developed all the way through that also is a serious concern of the
Commission and we thought that if Felt Road goes to Deming that I don't
think anybody living there would like that because that then gives hat
direct from the top of Felt Road and the total Birch Hill area directly
up Felt and to Deming, to Buckland or from Deming into Manchester, so we
thought this entrance to Felt was an excellent compromise. We're not
sure that that road should go all the way, because if it does than I think the
traffic generated by this would be substantially different than if Lt was
allowed to go all the way through. We're not convinced that it sho ld.
It should end there. So, maybe that should be something to think about.
Chairman Gilligan: Are there questions from the Commission?
Starting down this end. Dave? Florence?
Mrs. Sorosiak: I just have a question about the traffic nd
I guess it's been discussed somewhat. Peter didn't seem to think w should be
too concerned with this; with 400 vehicle trips, additional vehicle trips per
day, and with the line of sight problem that we have, and considering that
this is going to be elderly people coming (end of tape).
Mr. DeMallie: . . .it's just that theprofessional traffic engineer
indicated that it didn't qualify as a State highway, didn't qualify for a
light, number one. Number two, he also indicated that the line of sight for
these people coming in and out of Felt Road Extension, the new part, would be
perfectly adequate for them. Because people coming down Felt hoad the other
side that have the problem, I believe, looking to the east.
Mrs. Sorosiak: And it will be compounded because they're going to
have not only to deal with the traffic that's coming from their le t, but
traffic coming towards them and these being elderly people, and I ust
-23-
think that there's a problem there. And, I was questioning, I guess according
to this site plan it does show Felt Road all the way being connected with
Deming, but now you've said that you're considering not. . .
Attorney Grace: That's only on paper. It was an old paper
road owned by the Town,but the plan does not indicate that it goes any further
than Deming Hill development.
Mrs. Sorosiak: Okay, so these 400 additional trips, vehicle trips
per day, are gene ated just from this development.
Attorney Grace: That's correct. There's no plan to have it go all
the way to Deming. In fact, one of our concerns is if that ever happens.
Chairman Gilligan: Ralph?
Commissioner Mosher: Yes, we've heard that there's a shortage, a
waiting list at Wapping Mews, and I wonder how you determine that you should
have 72 dwellings on this site, when our regulations would. . .you could put
many more on it, I guess, the way I interpret our regulations here.
Attorney Grace: A conservative developer, I think.
Mr. Mosher: Pardon?
Attorney Grace: A conservative developer, that wanted, very honestly,
the original plans were more but it's pared down to what the man building
it wants to build, and I think we're trying to get a balance of what we can have
and what the neighbors and everybody has been told and promised. I think
that's where we are.
Chairman Gilligan: Questions. David. . .
Mr. Sorenson: I'm interested in the reference to the co unity
building. Where's that on the site? Is it Phase II that referred to it? So
many units and a community building?
Chairman Gilligan: Could you point to it on the map that's up above
-24-
so everybody could see it?
Mr. Page: Yes, okay.
Attorney Grace: Phase one, Buck.
Mr. Page: We have Phase one - comprises this area - 24 units - and
there is room in the basement of these units for a community building. And
we plan to have community building in one of these units here.
Chairman Gilligan: So, therefore. . . .
Mr. Sorenson: . . . .center units there. In the center of the circle?
Mr. Page: Yes, that's part of phase one, because there's quite a
difference in elevation between the first floor (unintelligible) and the
ground behind it. There's plenty of room for a nice walk-out (unintelligible -
several words).
Mr. Sorenson: Okay.
Mr. Gilligan: Thank you. Anyone else?
Mr. Conde: Yes, I have one question. How long is the road?
Mr. Page: The road. . .you mean from.. . .
Mr. Conde: The cul-de-sac.
Mr. Page: There's no cul-de-sac. There's a loop street and it is. ..
I forget the distance, but I can find it. . .yes, it's about 2500 feet.
Mr. Conde: 2500? And this has the approval of the FireMarshal?
Mr. Page: Yes. It's not a cul-de-sac. It's a loop street.
Mr. Conde: But it only has one outlet?
Mr. Page: In our first proposal we had a cul-de-sac. In fact,
our first, second and third. Finally, after a few meetings with the Fire
Marshal, we looped it around.
Mr. Conde: And that loop street does satisfy him?
-25-
Mr. Page: Yes, in fact, we asked about emergency access to Deming.
Unless it was a bona-fide, paved street to Deming, he didn't want an
kind of emergency access. This meets his requirements and he indicated that
in his letter. We have a letter that this plan meets in all departments.
Mr. Conde: Okay. I have one other question. In the. . . .in the
regulations that you would have with this unit development, do you have to change
the name from elderly to adult to accomplish the same thing that you want to
accomplish?
Attorney Grace: Could you do that again, please?
Mr. Conde: Okay, take both hearings and bring them into one.
Attorney Grace: Okay.
Mr. Conde: Do you have to have adult in the regulations t
accomplish what you want to accomplish with your unit development by laws, or
what you want to call them.
Attorney Grace: Not if you clearly say that elderly housi g
can be 55 years of age or over. We're concerned with that connotati n that
elderly only starts at 62 because of all the State. . .
Mr. Conde: State and Federal.
Attorney Grace: . . .and Federal requirements always use th t, and they
use that for funding. But, as I mentioned, East Hartford has no men ion of
age at all, and over 600 units of housing for what they call elderly and it
starts at 55.
Mr. Conde: Fifty-five.
Attorney Grace: No, it does not have to be, as long as 55 is allowable.
Mr. Conde: Yes, okay.
-26-
Chairman Gilligan: Any other questions? Ken? Ray?
Mr. Hallowell: Just to respond to Dick Kelley. Dick, I really
don't personally object to your development as an adult community on
Deming Hill. All people don't want to live in a condo, but we never called
them condos. In Planning and Zoning we've always called them multi-family.
As a marketing tool you call them condos. As a marketing tool you call this
an adult community. I think that's fine as amarketing tool. However, I
think to try to bring this to exist on this hill and using the adult or
the adult housing regulations as a vehicle to get this on that hill, I per-
sonally don't think you've demonstrated here tongith that you couldn't
put that same project on that hill, as an adult community, under an
MF-A zone. Maybe, I'm wrong, but you really haven't demonstrated that you
can't do it under an MF-A regulation. You can restrict on your condD or
your adult community deeds or whatever else you have that somebody has to be
55, and they can't have more than three in their units, and you can nforce
this legally. But, the Town cannot enforce all of these things that
you're promising these people. You have to do that yourself and I think
you have the integrity and you will do it, but I think the vehicle y u're
trying to get there through is really wrong.
Mr. Kelley: Ray, we will do it before Planning and Zoning if we
have an opportunity to come back because you cannot regulate on the Zoning
Commission who's going to live there. But we can (unintelligible - several
words). It is true, Ray, that we're probably talking about semantics, but
there is a different connotation to the word condominium today than there was
several years ago. Under the new regulations as of January 1 they can only be
referred to as condominiums. They will meet new State guidelines as they did
-27-
when we built Parkview South. And, I just want to make one sincere omment.
That if the Town had a lot more concerned people like you we wouldn' t have
a lot of problems with (unintelligible) and I mean that in all sincerity.
Chairman Gilligan: Are there any other questions? For the
record, I want to recognize that we id submit, I forget which of the e two, it
probably was the change to our regulations to the Capital Regional C uncil of
Governments who responded that they have no. . .there's no apparent conflict and
they have no concerns. So. . .in a written communication.
A question to the applicant: You plan to improve Felt Road to
Oakland Road. I presume you plan to do that at your own expense?
Attorney Grace: That's correct.
Chairman Gilligan: And, you would improve it to Town specifications
and you would improve the entire right-of-way with sidewalks and plantings and
so on is what your proposal is?
Attorney Grace: Including, I believe, the sewer. The possibility
that we can better what's in existence now. Yes.
Mr. Gilligan: Okay. Now, there's been some question raised about
the, I think it's the northeastern corner of Felt and Oakland. Anyway, it's
diagnally across from where this is, and the dangerous sight-line from
that spot. Is there. . .if this Commission were to ask that that be included in
the redesign of Felt, would that be a problem for the. . . .
Mr. Kelley: Number one, Bob, is that we've got a problem because
we don't own the land on the other side.
Mr. Gilligan: I don't know what the Town's problems are, kay?
Mr. Kelley: Number two, I guess we would improve Felt Roa Extension
or Felt Road, or whatever you want to call it, from Oakland Road up to
our property line. I mean that' s the price of doing business. It's not our
-28-
desire to do it, but that's the price of doing business, so I guess we will.
But, on the other side of Felt Road coming from Birch Hill, in all
honesty, that really is not our problem. We will not contribute to that
probeem as our traffic engineer indicates, because we do have a good line of
sight coming from our driveway on Deming Hill.
Mr. Gilligan: Well, Dick, some people may disagree with your. . .
with your conclusion. I personally do, but that's my own opinion.
Mr. Kelley: We would like to have room to negotiate.
Chairman Gilligan: I understand that. My question is if. , .
Attorney Grace: We're not. . .we're not foreclosing.
Chairman Gilligan: Okay, if there is a need to improve that other
intersection, and this Commission has required developers to deposit funds to
assist the Town in improving intersections, things of that type, is there some
problem with that?
Mr. Kelley: We just indicated that no, that. . . .
Attorney Grace: We're realistic. We'll work it out. We're not going
to say no to anything at this point.
Mr. Kelley: Our traffic engineer indicated, Bob, that if the
easement was granted it would not cost us that much to help improve the
line of sight coming from the Birch Hill area. If you ride that area., you're
talking about a bank, you're talking about several trees. . . .
Attorney Grace: . . . .the telephone pole. . .
(several voices speaking at once)
Attorney Grace: . . .telephone pole right in the middle of it.
Mr. Kelley: .. . .you're talking about getting rid of that (unintelligible)
trees. Yes, we would help.
-29-
Chairman Gilligan: Okay. I notice that your plan for dr inage
has a detention basin that's off site. Now, I presume, that you pl n to make
appropriate arrangements to do that?
Mr. Grace. Yes, in fact one of the applicants is the onw r of
the land and part of the purchase of the land would be that. . .that lso. . .
that. . .right would be. . .with easements to the Town and so forth. at is not
a problem. We've already discussed it with the Church. They and t eir .staff
approved that drainage, so that also has changed several times. So that
would also be part of the approval.
Chairman Gilligan: Okay. Are there any other questions om
the Commissioners? Then the public hearing is closed. The Commission will
notify you.
Attorney Grace: We thank you all very much.
110 w S f,
c-
o W I-2_ 0_j4? Sat M C�Cl Cf2 CL���L
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
SO R•COC
AREA CODE 203/644-2511
February 17, 1984
Mr. Richard S. Kelley
Deming Hill Associates, Inc.
1750 Ellington Road
South Windsor , Connecticut 06074 CERTIFIED MAIL
Dear Sir:
At the February 15, 1984 meeting, the South Windsor Inland-
Wetlands Agency approved with conditions Application NO 269 by
Deming Hill Associates, Inc. /Calvary Church of the Assemblies of
God for an adult housing complex with related drainage for pro-
perty located on Deming Street and Felt Road, South Win sor,
Connecticut.
The permit is based on the set of plans entitled, ' General
Plan-Deming Hill Adult Community-Felt Road Access Plan,' dated
11/30/84, revised 1/19/84, Sheet 5 of 8; "Detailed Utilities
and Grading Plan , " dated 11/22/839 revised 1/18/84, Sheet 7 of 8;
" Storm Drainage Outlet Concept , " no date , revised 1/19/ 4 , Sheet
8 of 8, all plans drawn by Jules Page, Page :Engineering Inc.
The following conditions must be adhered to for this permit
to be valid:
1. A zero increase in runoff shall be achieved when the
parcel is fully developed.
2 . A Conservation Plan including sequence of operations
and erosion and sedimentation control measures shall
be submitted to and approved by the Conservation
Commission. This Conservation Plan shall be included
in the final plans filed in the Town Clerk' s Office.
3. There shall be no construction or earth movement prior
to these plans being approved.
4. This proposal is subject to the approval of the Town
Engineer.
Mr. Richard S. Kelley
Deming Hill Associates, Inc .
1750 Ellington Road
South Windsor , Connecticut 06074
Letter of Permit - Application NO. 269
February 17, 1984
Page 2.
5. The applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless
the Town of South Windsor against any liability
which might result from the proposed operation
or use.
6. The permit is valid for one year and shall ex-
pire if initiated and completed within one year
from the date of approval.
Ver truly yours,
-
Cvn'stance Erikson, Chairman
INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
CE:chm
cc : William E. Grace , Esquire
Jules Page , Page Engineering, Inc .
A. B. Davies, Deputy Town Engineer
Charles Enes, Town Clerk
Richard J. Sartor,, Town Manager
Richard Ryan, Deputy Mayor , T. C. Liaison
/Robert Gilligan, Chairman, PZC
Thomas D' Auria, Building Official
Peter De Mallie, Director of Planning
Kenneth Brill, Chairman, EDC
M E M O R A N D U M March 10 , 1984
TO: Peter DeMallie, Director of Planning
RE: DEMING HILL ADULT COMMUNITY - GENERAL PLAN
The General Plan of "Deming Hill Planned Adult Community, " revised
1-19-84 as prepared by Page Engineering, Inc. , meets all, technical
requirements.
When further plans are made, the following items should be considered:
1. The main street leading off of Felt Road not to exceed
a grade of 8 0.
2. Existing Felt Road be brought to Town standards with
the inclusion of appropriate storm sewers.
3. Provisions be made to reconnect the existing dwellings on
Felt Road into the proposed sanitary sewer.
'Richard P. Martel
Town Engineer
RPM:bw
cc: R. Arsenault Director of Public Works
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 20 , 1984
SPECIAL MEETING SOUTH WINDSOR OWN HALL
Members present: Gilligan, Montana, Sorosiak, Sorens n , Conde,
Mosher and Smith
Alternates present : Hallowell , Goodwin and Klenke (a rived 30 minutes
late)
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
None
NEW BUSINESS
1. Comprehensive Plan of Development
Mr. DeMallie and Ms. Sloan distributed copies of the ransportation
Element and informed the Commissioners that this woul replace
the pages currently in their books .
Mr . DeMallie then reviewed at length the material cov red at
the last meeting on the update of the Plan, all of which is contained
in his Minutes of the January 28 , 1984 Special Meetin of this
Commission.
The Commissioners discussed briefly how they wished t go about
reviewing Plans from other Towns , and presenting Sout Windsor ' s
updated plan at the public hearing, and Mr . Gilligan uggested
that individual Commissioners should review the plan from
other Towns and report back to this Commission on' April loth.
When public hearings are held he suggested that individual
Commissioners could present different elements of the Plan to
the public.
Mr. DeMallie then outlined the Transportation Element of the Plan
which had been distributed earlier in the evening , which includes a
draft of a Highway Plan; Current Traffic Volumes and Volume
Levels ; Future Traffic Volumes ; Existing and Future Road Classi-
fications; Traffic Accidents ; Interstate Trade-In Projects ;
Future Highway Plan; Sidewalk Plan and Future Sidewal Plan; and ,
Mass Transit Plan.
He pointed to maps which had been prepared portraying the following:
Highway Plan, Future Streets ; Existing Volume Levels , Future Volume
Levels ; Highway Plan , Major Reconstruction; Existing and Use ;
Traffic Accidents in 1982 ; Sidewalk Plan, and Existing Sidewalks .
The Commissioners noted that the path of I-291 , on this conceptual
plan, moves the road further north and in effect cuts off the
portion of the Town to the south. Mr. Gilligan noted that the
State is ruling out development of hundreds of acres of land, and
the Town should get the message to the State that it is not pleased
about this. He asked Mr. DeMallie how this could be done , and
M.r. DeMallie suggested that perhaps a representative from DOT could
be invited to attend a PZC meeting to discuss the Commission ' s
concerns.
Planning and Zoning Commission -2- 3/20/84
Mrs . Montana said the Town should try to get an exit from
I-291 somewhere in the middle of the path of it through South
Windsor, and Mr. DeMallie said he feels the chances of that are
zero . There was further discussion and the secretary was
instructed to write to Conndot and advise them that the
Comprehensive Plan is being updated and the Commission is concerned
with the new location of I-291 and how it will impact industrial
development inthe southern part of Town, and invite them to
attend the meeting on April loth.
Referring to the Open Space/Recreational Element of the Plan,
Mr. DeMallie said the Planning Department has prepared charts.
Referring to the Land Use Element , he reported that he has two
interns working on this, and a third intern is working on the
Environmental Element .
The next meeting for discussion of the Comprehensive Plan is
scheduled for April loth .
2 . Report under Section 8-24 concerning property at intersection
of Graham, Ayers & Sullivan
The Commissioners discussed this matter and Mr . Hallowell said it
was the Public Facilities Task Force which originally recommended
the sale of this parcel . Mr . Gilligan noted that it can not
stand alone, and must be attached to another parcel in order to
be developed . The Commissioners reviewed the Minutes of the
Council ' s meeting on February 6 , 1984 , and also the Resolution
adopted by the Council on February 21 , 1984 referring this matter
to PZC.
Mrs. Montana then made a motion that the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommend that the Town Council sell the property
owned by the Town bounded by Ayers Road, Sullivan Avenue and
Graham Road, and that it abandon Ayers Road (old location) , as
outlined in Resolutions of the Town Council dated February 6 ,
1984 and February 21 , 1984. The Council should take into
consideration the fact that in order to develop this parcel
under the Zoning Regulations , it must be attached to other lands.
Mrs . Smith seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted in
favor and so ordered .
3 . App . #969 - Deming Hill Associates - Amendment to Regulations
concerning elderly/adult housing
Chairman Gilligan said that Mr . Hallowell had raised a question
about the legality of this proposal and the Town Attorney , in
. his letter dated March 16, 1984 , last paragraph, stated :
"Based upon all of the foregoing, it is my opinion that the
proposed amendments establishing an age limit for ar use in a
zone do not violate the equal protection clause of the U . S .
Constitution, do not violate applicable state statutes or case
Planning and Zoning Commission -3- 3/2 /84
law and in fact may be legally adopted under the authority
of state statutes . Accordingly, based upon the information
provided to me and my review, I see no legal impediment to
their adoption. "
Mr . DeMallie noted that elderly housing is currently a special
exception use and the proposed amendment would define the age at
55 and over . He said -that his concerns ,which were expressed at
the public hearing , were regarding parking which sho ld be
increased to 1 . 5 spaces per unit ; density should be decreased
from 21 units per acre to about 8 units per acre ; thE square footage
of 350 s . f . is too low and should be increased ; and some sort of
buffer should be required .
Mr . Gilligan noted that the current requirements are minimum
requirements, and Mr . Conde said he thinks anything coming in
under adult housing should conform to the MF-A regulations because
that ' s how it will be used. He noted that if it is elderly housing,
let it be elderly.
Mr . Hallowell asked Mr. DeMallie if the modifications to the regula-
tions in its present form is acceptable , and if he would recommend
it. Mr . DeMallie said his recommendation is to increase the
square footage and parking requirements . Mr . Hallowell replied
that he asked if the proposed amendments are acceptable in their
present form, and Mr . DeMallie answered that the applicant
did not address parking or square footage .
Mr . Gilligan said that this would be a special exception, and
these are minimum sizes. Mr . DeMallie said he thinks parking
should be increased, density decreased , unit size increased and buffers,
such as in the MF zone, should be required .
Mr. Conde said he thinks the 2 acre requirement is too small
and there ' s a lot of land in town, and even though this applicant ' s
proposal is for a larger lot , the next one may not be. He suggested
possibly requiring 10 acres .
Mr. Sorenson noted that what this Commission is really doing is
rewriting the regulations for adult housing and doing it under the
'guise of modifying the elderly housing regulations .
Mr. Hallowell said he is concerned with how the age limit could be
enforced, and Mr. Gilligan said that it was brought out at the
public hearing that the Association would make provisions in its
by-laws . Mr. DeMallie said that perhaps the definition in the
Zoning Regulations could be revised to read that "one occupant
shall be 55 or older" .
Mr. Gilligan said he ' s not sure what the Commission ' s concern is .
He noted that they have heard a proposal for adult housing and
there is a need for various types of housing in Town. When condos
first came in , South Windsor was not familiar with that type of
housing . He noted that this proposal may be new to South Windsor
but it exists in other parts of the Country .
Planning and Zoning Commission -4- 3/20/84
Commissioner Mosher added that it exists in adjacent towns
such as Vernon and East Hartford.
Mr . Sorenson said he thinks 55 is just a smoke screen and asked what
the real advantage of doing this is, and he noted that the Town
will have to worry about how to control this and the need for
this type of housing can be satisfied under the current regulations .
Mr. Gilligan said he suspects this Commission would not be
willing to permit MF-A on this site, and Mr . Mosher said he
doesn' t think the Commission would be setting a precedent by
approving these amendments . He noted -that a lot of people
55 and over would prefer to live in a development without a lot
of young children.
Mr. Gilligan said the question is whether the Commission wants
to set up the regulations to address this question. He said
it can be called skirting the issue, but does the Commission want
to address adult housing ? He noted that there is a need for
adult housing. Mr . Sorenson said his concern is to separate
this from elderly housing.
Mr . Gilligan noted that this Commission has created special
exceptions for all sorts of things, even to permit the sale of
boats at a location on Route 5 , and he doesn ' t think the Town
is worse off for it . A special exception is used to accomplish
things that otherwise could not be in Town.
Mr. Conde said he would like to see a lot of the ideas brought
up tonight written down and discussed again . Mr . Gilligan
noted that the neighbors in this area would never buy an MF-A
proposal , and Mr . Conde said he ' d like to see some of the
MF requirements put into this special exception. He said he ' d
like another section called Adult Housing, as opposed to MF-A or
Elderly, as a special exception.
Mr. Gilligan noted that this Commission has been casting about for
ways to provide affordable housing, and Mr . Sorenson said the
only advantage to this proposal is to limit the number of younger
people, and not make it more affordable . Messrs . Mosher and Gilligan
replied that people over 55 have a different need, and this type
of housing is needed.
Chairman Gilligan said that Mr . DeMallie could redraft the regulations ,
but if this Commission does not want adult housing it is wasting
his time. He asked if the Commissioners feel there is a need ,
and Mrs . Sorosiak said she ' s concerned about the best way to
accomplish, this need. Mr . Gilligan replied that these regulations
address all the arguments which have been brought up to control
lower cost housing for elderly people. Mr . Sorenson noted that
the condominium regulations can satisfy this need . Mr . Mosher
said that condos don ' t have to be located near churches and stores
and be within walking distance , and he further noted that as the
Town grows older and becomes more developed , land near shopping
areas will become more scarce.
Planning and Zoning Commission -5- 3/20/84
Mr . Hallowell said he would like to see at least a p rtion
of these units for people on fixed incomes.
Mr . Mosher noted that adopting these regulations wil serve an
element in Town which is not now being served , and h pefully
another developer could come in to serve the group M . Hallowell
is talking about . He noted that if a person sells his home
for $120, 000, and buys one of these units for $70 ,00 , he
can put the remainder in the bank and supplement h•is retirement
income . Mr . Conde said that the Town has a Housing Authority
that should be addressing these needs .
Mr . DeMallie asked what the Commission wanted in the regulations
he is supposed to draft , and was told to address the concerns
he raised at the public hearing. Mr . Hallowell said the .
MF-A section could be referenced, and Mr . Gilligan re lied that
there ' s too much in those regulations that shouldn ' t pply
to elderly regulations since this is a special exception. Mr .
DeMallie noted that the MF regs are 18 pages long .
A question was raised aboutthe necessity of a public earing
and it was agreed this would be checked out with the own
Attorney.
Mr. Conde moved the meeting be adjourned at 10: 30 P . . , seconded
by Mrs . Smith and unanimously voted in favor .
Resp 'ctfully submit to ,
f
• : �
7jx/�-
Virginfa S . G�anney , R cording S cretary
APPROVED:
w
�wM tE
y di
O-PSou� ?d&U&10t
O �
4 �v 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. D6074
soe.co AREA CODE 203/644-2511
March 30, 1984
Planning and Zoning Commission
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, Connecticut
Dear Commissioners:
Re : Adult Housing Amendment
As requested at your March 20, 1984 meeting, I have
drafted amendments to the Rural Residential zone allowing
for "adult housing" developments which modify the Deming
Hill proposal , per your instructions, as follows:
- Adult housing regulations are contained in a new
Section 4 . 1 . 12, separate and distinct from Section 4 .1 .11 ,
Housing for the Elderly.
- Numerous provisions of the MF zone now apply, usually by
reference . This includes : procedures ; allowed uses;
requirements for area and density, dimensions, design,
dwelling size, improvements, recreation, landscaping/
buffers, signs, and community association documentation.
- Minimum site size is 10 acres, rather than 2 .
- Required parking of 1 . 5 spaces/unit, rather than . 25 .
- Maximum density of 8 units/acre, rather than 21 . 7
- Unit sizes and storage requirements identical to that
in the MF-A zone .
- Buffers as in the MF zone .
s
- "Adult housing" definition with clarification that one
occupant of each unit must be at least age 55 .
1 look forward to reviewing the attached draft with you at
your earliest convenience, relative to its application in
any single-family residential zone throughout '.South Windsor .
Peter R. DeMallie
Director of Planning
cc: William Grace, Esq.
Rick Martel , Town Engineer
Virginia Graney, Planning and Zoning Clerk
RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) ZONE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT - ADULT HOUSING
Add a new Section 4 .1 . 12 , as follows:
"4 . 1 . 12 Adult Housing : The purpose of this special exception use
is to provide housing particularly suited to the needs o persons
55 years of age , or older; said use to be located in rea onable
proximity to such shopping and services as are required by persons
of said age ; said use to be designed to provide a pleasant environ-
ment for habitation; and said use to be in conformity with the general
framework and intent of the Comprehensive Plan of Development for
South Windsor.
Permitted Uses
Within the adult housing development , the following uses of buildings
and land shall be permitted only by special exception, subject to the
requirements of these regulations :
1 . One- , two- , or multiple family-dwelling units , regardless of the
form of ownership of the land and buildings .
2 . Uses allowed under Section 4 . 6 . 2 .A. 2 & 3 .
The form of ownership shall be identified, in writing , at time of
initial application.
1 . Procedure : Application for this use may be filed only by the
Public Housing Authority of the Town of South Windsor, or a
non-profit organization .
a . The Commission shall be guided by the requirements of this
section where reporting on the mandatory referral for acquisition
of housing sites under the Connecticut General Statutes, where
applicable .
b. The applicant shall first submit to the Commission an appli-
cation for a General Plan of Development, in accordance with
Sections 4 . 6. 3 . 1 (references to zone changes do not apply) ,
and 4 . 6 . 4 . 9 of these regulations . Said application shall be
`,pccompanied by an application for a Special Exception.
C . Upon approval of the General Plan of Development ind Special
E.ception, the applicant shall submit a Site Developm nt Plan
application, in accordance with Section 4 . 6 . 3 . 2 (refe ences to
"MF Zone" and "Special Exception" are to be construed as refe-
rences to "residential zone " and "Site Development P1 n
respectively, as herein applied) .
PRD 3 29/84
2 . General Requirements :
a. Location: The site shall : be on land owned by t e Town of
South Windsor and/or a non-profit organization; be 1 cated within
reasonable pedestrian distance of convenient shoppin facilities,
and preferably within walking distance of personal s rvice faci-
lities and houses of worship .
b. Area and Density Requirements:
1 . Minimum site size shall be ten (10) contiguo s acres
not divided by a public street.
2 . Density shall be as set forth in Section 4. 6 4 . 1D of
these regulations .
C. Dimensional Requirements :
All requirements of Section 4. 6 . 4 . 2 shall apply , except:
minimum lot width shall be one hundred (100) fee ; the
minimum front yard shall be fifty (50) feet; and the
Commission may waive required minimum setbacks, here
consistent with good design practice .
d. Design Standards :
All requirements of Section 4 .6 . 4 . 3 of these reg lations
shall apply, except where waived by the Commissi n, con-
sistent with good design practice .
e . Dwelling Size and Type/Storage :
` The provisions of Section 4 . 6 . 4 . 4A relative to t e MF-A
zone , shall apply .
f . Improvements :
The provisions of Section 4 . 6 . 4 . 5 shall apply, except
where waived by the Commission, consistent with good
design practice , and in consideration of the development' s
form of ownership. Off-street parking, per Section 4 .6 . 4 . 5F,
shall be at a minimum rate of 1 . 5 parking spaces per dwelling
unit; however, the Commission reserves the right to require
up to 2 . 0 spaces per dwelling unit .
g . Open Space/Recreation; Landscaping
The provisions of Section 4 .6 . 4 . 6 shall apply, except where
waived by the Commission, consistent with good design practice .
h . Buffers/Signs:
The provisions of Section 4 . 6. 4 . 7 and 4 . 6 . 4 . 8 of these
regulations shall apply .
-2- PRD 3 29/64
i. The applicant, or his assigns , shall establish the adult
housing development ' s community association with documents
conforming to the Connecticut Common Interest Ownership Act,
where said development constitutes a "multiple-owner develop-
ment, " as defined by these regulations . "
Section I - Definitions , add:
"Adult Housing: Housing for persons 55 years of age , or older ,
which housing shall be limited by Section 4. 1 . 12 of these regulations .
At least one occupant (resident) of each dwelling unit shall be
55 years of age , or older. "
Section 4 . 2 . 7 - Amend to read:
"Housing for the Elderly, and Adult Housing, subject to the require-
ments of Section 4 . 1 .11 and 4 . 1 . 12 above . "
Section 6 . 3b - Amend to read:
"Multi-family, elderly, and adult housing : See requirements
enumerated in the applicable zoning district regulations . "
Section 8 . 4 Add:
"Adult Housing - 1 . 5 per dwelling unit. "
Table of Contents - add:
"Adult Housing . . . . Section 4 . 1. 12 . . . .Page 29
Elderly Housing . . . . Section 4 . 1 . 11 . . . .Page 27"
-3- PRD 3/ 9/84
1�
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 10, 1984
SPECIAL MEETING SOUTH WINDSOR TOWN HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gilligan, Smith, Sorenson and Conde
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Hallowell (sitting for Montana); Klenke (sitti g for Mos r)
�j0
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
1. Deming Hill Associates, Inc.
Mr. Davin of Farmstead Drive was present, and stated he is building a house
adjacent to the proposed adult housing complex on Deming Street. He raised
a number of questions concerning the application of Deming Hill Ass ciates
for a general plan/special exception, and whether another public he ring was
going to be held. He also asked what the time frame was for filing an appeal.
The secretary informed him the appeal period is within 15 days after the legal
notice is published, and they are usually published on Saturdays. .'hairman
Gilligan suggested to Mr. Davin that he secure legal advise from his own
attorneys, and that this Commission is not required to hold another public
hearing on the site plan, and it would be up to the entire Commissi n to
decide if they wished to have another public hearing. Mr. Davin said he has
no alternative but to appeal this matter to the Courts if he is not happy with
the plan, because the Commission is saying they may not have a public hearing.
MINUTES
Mrs. Klenke moved approval of the Minutes of February 28th, March 6 20, and
27, 1984. Mrs. Smith seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted in favor
and so ordered.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Deming Hill Associates Inc. Special Exception and General Plan of Development
for 15.5 acres on the north side of Deming Street
Chairman Gilligan noted that the legal notice had been published concerning the
amended regulations, and they were now in effect. Mr. Gilligan asked Mr. DeMallie
to review the status of this application.
Mr. DeMallie reported that this general plan exceeds the requirements of the
adult housing regulations which were just adopted. They are providing 1.63
parking spaces per unit rather than 1 space per 4 units; density is 4.64 units
per acre rather than 22 units per acre, and multi-family regulations permit
8 units per acre. They are showing 50 foot buffers, which is compa able to what
the Commission has been requiring elsewhere. Unit sizes are considerably larger
than those in both the adult housing or multi-family regulati :ns. ey have
adhered to the concept of a principal street with no contiguous parking. Mr.
DeMallie noted that he has not reviewed this application insofar as multi-family
regulations apply since it was submitted under the regulations just adopted.
He noted, however, that it's his guess that it would not require too much to
change this plan to meet the requirements of the regulations for adult/elderly
housing that he is proposing. - Landscaping information will be also required.
Mr. Hallowell asked Mr. DeMallie if he was saying that the landscaping, open
space, recreation needs, storage needs, should be addressed in the next appli-
cation for a site plan, and Mr. DeMallie replied yes. Mr. Hallowell then asked
if the question of this parcel's suitability for this type of housing could be
addressed. Mr. DeMallie replied that it is in close proximity to stores. He
Planning and Zoning Commission --2- 4/10/84
noted that the Town staff was a bit concerned with the grade, and he believes
the grade is now 8%. The Town Engineer, Rick Martel, replied that the grades
are up to 10% in some areas, and he will recommend a grade of no more than 8%
on.,-the site plan. Mr. DeMallie continued, and stated that there is no proximity a
to mass traW it=`,but that South Windsor has very little mass transit in Town.
Mr. GilligaZiza id there is a bus that goes by Oakland Road twice a day.
Mrs.. Kle asked if the plan was looked at in connection with the Comprehensive
Plart-of Development, and Mr. DeMallie replied that in discussions concerning
the update of the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission designated the east side
Hof Buckland Road for condominium development, but they were looking more at the
corridor of Buckland Road.
a
Mrs. Klenke asked if there was a right-of-way to Deming Street, and Mr. DeMallie
answered that there is no right-of-way, but they have frontage on Deming Street.
There is a right-of-way to Felt Road.
Mr. Hallowell said that Felt Road near Oakland does not appear to be up to
Town standards, and Town Engineer Martel said it is not, and one of his
recommendations is that it be brought up to Town standards.
Mr. Conde asked about drainage on this site, and Mr. Martel said that the
engineer for this project, Mr. Page, has submitted drainage calculations.
Mr. Hallowell noted that at the public hearing Mrs. Sorosiak, who is not present
this evening, had mentioned traffic and the fact that Oakland and Felt Roads
was a dangerous intersection. The secretary informed the Commissioners that
Mrs. Sorosiak had called her and asked that the Commissioners be informed that
she is opposed to this project unless this intersection can be improved. She '
is concerned with the speed of traffic on Oakland. Mr. DeMallie said traffic
is something to be considered and the sightline to the east coming into the
intersection from Felt is not good, and he noted that he's not sure if that is
in the State's right-of-way. Mr. Gilligan said he assumes that if it is the
State right-of-way they would have no objection to it being improved as long as
the cost is borne by the developer. Mr. Hallowell said the developer and the
Town should work this out. Mr. Sorenson said he's concerned that the intersection
won't be fixed up before the site is developed. Mr. Gilligan said he goes
through that intersection every day and if the hill were cut back about 10'
there would not be a problem, and Mrs. Klenke agreed.
Mr. DeMallie said another factor to consider is feasibility of this land's use
with abutting properties. On the north is vacant land, and on the west is
vacant land the church. On the south are 4 house lots, and two houses have been
constructed. Across the street is single family. There are two commercial
areas on Oakland Road; one is a small shopping area, and the other a gas station.
He noted that this may not conform to the current Comprehensive Plan, but noted
that the Commission has approved more condominiums already than the Plan calls
for.
Mr. Conde said he thinks the only disadvantage is the intersection with Oakland,
but that could be worked out. He noted that this is probably good use of this
land. There is access to the stores, and eventually Felt Road may be continued.
Mr. DeMallie said if this is approved he would like to see them adhere to the
regulations he is proposing, which the Commission will be discussing. Mr. Gilligan
noted that they already adhere to some of them.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION -3- 4/10/84
Mrs. Smith read from the traffic report submitted at the public hea ing,
which stated that the existing sightline problems should be correct d
whether or not this project is approved. She noted that the report also
indicated that a traffic light is not warranted at this intersection.
Mr. Gilligan said he thinks the problem will be compounded with the
development on the other side of the street, but it's something the Town
should take care of. Mr. Hallowell noted that site plan approval without
improvement to that intersection would be dangerous.
Mrs. Smith then moved approval of the application of Deming Hill As ociates ,
Inc. for a Special Exception to Section 4.1. 11 and the General Pla of
Development for Adult Housing located on 15.5 acres on the north si e
of Deming Street, east of Buckland Road and south of Oakland Road, 'n an
AA-30 zone, as shown on plans prepared by Page Engineering, Inc. , d ted
11-22-83, revised to 1-19-84, Project 83-003, and Gregory Louis Mon ana &
Associates, dated Dec. 14, 1983, subject to the following modifications:
1. A plan for the improvement of the intersection of Oakland Road nd
Felt Road must be shown on the site plan, or an acceptable alte native
access to the site must be shown.
2. An effort should be made to conform to the multi-family regulations where
appropriate, as outlined in the proposal of the Town's Director of Planning,
dated March 30, 1984 .
3. If the access to this site is from Felt Road, then Felt Road m t be
brought up to Town standards.
4. Satisfactory pedestrian access shall be provided to the nearby ommercial
area on Oakland Road.
5. Buildings Nos. 7, 10 and 11, and the buffering, shall take into
consideration the view of the neighbors along Deming Street, an the
buffering shall be designed by a Landscape Architect.
Within 90 days of the date of approval (by July 9th) , black and whi e trans-
parent mylars of Sheets 1, 4 and 5, with the approval letters of th s Commission
and the Inland Wetlands Agency reproduced thereon, must be submitte to this
Commission to be stamped and signed, and will then be filed in the own
Clerk's Office.
Mrs. Klenke seconded the motion. Voting in favor were Commissioner Smith, Klenke,
Gilligan and Conde. Commissioners Hallowell and Sorenson were opposed. The
motion was approved and so ordered.
Mr. Hallowell said he would like the record to show that he is oppo ed to this
application because he personallly believes that the application w s an
improper application when it was accepted because the applicant wa not a
non-profit corporation. Accepting this application along with the application
for the change in regulations had a dramatic effect and the Commis ion may not
have considered the whole Town when considering the application fo the change
in regulations. Mr. Hallowell pointed out that Item #13 on the Ag nda for
tonight's meeting indicates that the Commission is concerned about these
regulations (item #13 reads: "Discussion concerning Adult Housing Regulations") .
If this application was not pending, the Commission would not have accepted the
changes proposed by the applicant, but would have waited until it had a hearing
Planning and Zoning Commission -4- 4/10/84
on the regulations proposed by the Town Planner.
Chairman Gilligan noted that if the Commission had gone to public hearing just
to change the regulations without a particular site in mind, there would have
been zero in-put from the public, because they are only concerned when it
affects their neighborhood.
2. App. #987 - Danny Lapierre
Jim Sommers of Kasper Associates was present with Mr. Lapierre.
He noted they are proposing construction of a residential dwelling
in an I zone . The lot was surveyed in 1976 by Boud & Associates and
the lot configurations on the site plan the Commission is reviewing
was taken from that survey . The home will contain an office , and
will tie into existing utilities including sewer and water , and the
garage to the rear of the property is for the purpose of storing
his vehicles. Mr . Lapierre is a mason contractor . They have conformed
to the Town ' s requirements and the lowest spot onthe site is at the
southwest corner and they will bring in about 4 ' of fill to bring it
from elevation 69 to elevation 73 . Some of the fill will come from
the site and the rest will be trucked in, and they estimate about 4 or
5 10-12 yard trucks . All the trees will be preserved .
Mr . DeMallie referred to Section 4 . 7. 2 . 1 permitting single family
homes in an I zone, and Mr. Martel noted the plan needs an A-2
certification.
Mr . Hallowell made a motion to approve this application for a site
plan of development for property on the north side of Pleasant Valley
Road in an I zone , as shown on a plan prepared by Kasper Associates ,
Inc . , dated March, 1984 , Proj . No . V0600-C , subject to the following
modif ications: .
1 . The plan must bear an A-2 certification.
2 . This approval is granted in accordance with Section 4 . 7 . 2 . 1 of
the regulations , which reads as follows:
"Residential use is permitted when a single family dwelling
or apartment is occupied by a person , together with his family ,
who is the owner or the manager , caretaker or janitor residing
on the same lot occupied by the premises or plant of a permitted
industrial' use .
3 . No building permits will be issued until the mylar has been filed
in the Town Clerk' s Office .
Within 90 days of the date of approval, (by July 9 , 1984) , a black
and white transparent mylar , together with 3 blueprints , with this
Commission' s approval letter reproduced thereon , must be submitted
to this Commission to be stamped and signed , and filed in the
Town Clerk' s Office.
Mr . , Conde seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted in favor
and so ordered.
Planning and Zoning Commission -5- 4/ 0/84
3 . South Ridge Estates, Section V
Attorney William Grace was present on behalf of the applicant and
said that when this subdivision was approved the Commiss on required
sidewalks along Graham Road, in lieu of sidewalks on both sides of
the interior streets . Unfortunately, they have discovered that
in order to install sidewalks on Graham will require extending a
culvert over thePodunk River which is going to be costly. He noted
that since the houses in the last section are selling for around
$115 , 000, Mr . Vielleux will probably put sidewalks on the interior
streets even if the Commission doesn ' t require it .
A general discussion ensued with the Town Engineer as to what would
be required . Mr . Gilligan noted that this might be a go d project
on which to use the Commission ' s drainage assessment fun s , and
Mr . Conde agreed . The Town Engineer said he roughly estimated it
would cost about $5 , 000 for materials , plus labor and en ineering work.
The Chairman informed Mr . Grace that the Commission would be discussing
the drainage account later this evening, and would keep this project
in mind. Several of the Commissioners commented that sidewalks along
Graham were very desirable in view of the close proximity of Eli
Terry School .
4 . App . #971 - Petro Recovery Systems, Inc .
Mr . Martel said he could recommend a reduction in the bond for
landscaping from $2 , 500 to $1 , 500. The applicant is also requesting
an extension of time to file the final plans .
Mr . Sorenson made a motion that the applicant be granted a 30 day
extension of time in which to file the final plans. The extension
is from April 23rd to May 23rd . Mr . Conde seconded the motion and
it was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered .
Mr . Conde made a motion to reduce the bond for landscaping to $1 500 ,
which was seconded by Mrs . Smith and unanimously voted in favor and
so ordered .
5 . Suburban Printers (Prince Associates) , Strong Road
The Commission reviewed a sketch of the parking area whici showed
an increase of 4 spaces from what was approved on the sita plan.
Mr . Hallowell made a motion to approve the addition of th four
parking spaces to the site on Strong Road. The site plan must be
modified to show the additional spaces , and a mylar , together with
three paper prints should be submitted to the Commission ' 3 office
to be signed and filed in the Town Clerk ' s Office . Mr . Sorenson
seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted in favor and so
ordered .
Planning and Zoning Commission -6- 4/10/84
6 . T & M Country View Estates - Open Space off Avery Street on
CL & P Easement
The secretary informed the Commission that Mr . John Wilson of Avery
Street had stopped by the office and would like to rent the open
space area to the south of Country View Estates in order to farm
either Christmas Trees or corn. CL & P has no objection as long
as the Town gives permission, and T & M doesn ' t care if he leases
it , again as long as the Town gives permission. The Commission is
holding the Open Space Deed for this parcel in escrow.
Mrs. Smith said she is opposed to permitting one individual to use
the Town' s open space land and Mr . Sorenson agreed . Mr . Sorenson
made a motion to deny this request since it would limit the use of the
open space for all the citizens of South Windsor . Mrs . Smith
seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted infavor and so
ordered .
7 . T & M Country View Estates , Lot #15 - Mr . & Mrs. Ellis
The Chairman referred to a letter from T & M requesting that the
30 ' utility easement on Lot #15 be removed since the water was brought
to this site from another direction. The Commissioners reviewed the
subdivision plan, and Mrs . Klenke made a motion to remove the 30 '
utility easement from Lot #15 , known as 130 Countryview Drive . A
new mylar of the sheet on file in the Town Clerk' s office reflecting
this modification must be filed in the Town Clerk' s office .
Mrs . Smith seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted in favor
and so ordered .
8 . Attorney Rittenband ' s Letter of February 13th regarding Certificates
of Title
A general discussion ensued with the Commissioners agreeing that it
would be advisable for developers to present the Town with a certificate
of title when giving the Town deeds for easements , roads and open
space , as outlined in Mr . Rittenband ' s letter .
Mrs . Klenke made a motion to adopt the Town Attorney ' s recommendations
with regard to Certificates of Title . Mr . Hallowell seconded the motion
and it was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered . This procedure
will take effect immediately , and the secretary was instructed to
also secure a Title Certificate for deeds already being held in escrow
at the time they are referred to the Town Council for action.
Regarding Item #3 in Mr . Rittenband ' s letter , Mr. Hallowell said he ' d
like an updated copy of the Procedure the Commission set up for accepting
Letters of Credit a year or two ago . He recalled that some modifications
had been made . It was suggested that the secretary update the procedure
in accordance with the Commission ' s discussions in the past , and refer
it to the Town Attorney for his input before placing it on the agenda for
discussion.
Planning & Zoning Commission -7- 4/10/84
9 . Review of Drainage Projects
Mr . Martel informed the Commission that Item #1 on the list he
had submitted , for drainage improvements to the rear of Lots 2 and 22
on Sunset Terrace, would cost $3 , 000 to materials and $1 , 00 for
engineering and labor . Item #2, west and rear of lots on Scott Drive
would cost $4 , 200 for materials for each lot , plus $1 , 500 for engineering
and labor for each lot . Item #3 , g
Hillsdale Road would cost about
$4 ,000 for materials and another $1 , 500 for engineering and labor .
Public Works will do the work, and the Town ' s Engineering Department
will prepare the plans .
The Commissioners discussed which projects they would like to have
done , and it,,./vas agreed that the culvert on Graham Road should be
extended so that sidewalks can be installed.
It was agreed that
the South Ridge Estates should arrange for the labor and engineering,
and the Commission will provide money for the materials .
Mr. Hallowell made a motion touse the following funds from its Drainage
Assessment account (1431-40 430) for the following project
1 . A sum not to exceed $5 , 000 for materials necessary to extend
the box culvert on Graham Road
Estates) in order to accommodate asidewalks .
South Ridge
2 . A sum not to exceed $4 , 000 for materials necessary to install
drainage on Hillsdale Road , at Mt . View Road.
Mrs . Smith seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted in favor
and so ordered .
Mrs . Klenke made a motion that the meeting continue past 10: 30 p . m.
seconded �y Mrs . Smith and unanimously voted in favor and so ordered .
10 . Fee Schedule
The Commissioners reviewed the fee schedule which had been prepared
by the Planning Director , and after a discussion, Mrs . Klen e made
a motion that the Fee Schedule attached hereto and marked Exhibit A,
be adopted as part of the Commission ' s By-Laws , effective May 8 , 1984 .
Mrs . Smith seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted in favor and
so ordered .
11 . Zoning Map
Mr . Conde made a motion to authorize payment of approximately
to Suburban Printers to reprint the Town ' s Zoning Map . Mrs Smith
seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered .
12 . Wentworth Estates - Open Space Land - 15 . 473 acres and 6 . 45 acres
Mr . Conde made a motion to recommend to the Town Council that it accept
the open space contained in Wentworth Estates consisting of two parcels
containing 15 . 473 acres and 6 . 45 acres respectively . Mr . Sorenson
seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted in favor and so ordered .
i
Planning & Zoning Commission -8- 4/10/84
12 . Adult Housing Regulations
Discussion on this matter was tabled in view of the late hour .
13 . Pleasant Hill Condominiums - Site Plan
Chairman Gilligan explained to Attorney Raymond LeFoll that in view
of the late hour this matter was going to be tabled, but would be
rescheduled for discussion on May 1st after the public hearings .
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10 : 50 P . M.
Respectfully submitt d,
V ' ginia S . Graney , Recording S c"retary
APPROVED:
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
Fee Schedule and Policy
1 . An application processing fee of $25 per lot ($50 minimum)
for : Subdivisions , resubdivisions , and open space subdivisions.equired
2 . An application processing fee of $50 is required for : Change of Zone ,
Zoning Amendment , Special Exception, and Earth Removal or Land Filling
Operations .
3 . An application processing fee of $25 is required for Site Development
Plans , except : where new buildings/additions/renovation of 2 , 000 s . f .
or more are proposed, said fee shall be $50; said fee sh ll be $500
for Site Development Plans in the Designed Commercial Zone ; $50 plus
$5 per dwelling unit for Adult Housing ($500 minimum) .
4 . An application processing fee of $10 per acre ($300 minimum) is required
for a Change of Zone/General Plan of Development in the Designed
Commercial Zone .
5 . An application processing fee of $100 is required for a Change of Zone/
General Plan of Development in the Multi-Family Residential Zone ; or
for a Special Exception/General Plan of Development for Adult Housing .
6 . An application processing fee of $50 plus $5 per dwelling unit is
required for a Special Exception/Site Plan of Development in the Multi-
Family Residential Zone ($500 minimum) .
7 . Application processing fees are non-refundable after the application
has been officially received by the Commission . Application processing
fees may be returned prior to the application ' s official reception
provided a letter of withdrawal , signed by the applicant , has been
submitted to the Commission prior to the meeting at which said applica-
tion is scheduled to be officially received .
8 . Applications unaccompanied by the required application processing fee
are incomplete , and as such may be returned to the applicant and
removed from the Commission ' s agenda .
9 . Complete applications and required fees shall be submitted at least
fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the Commission ' s regular monthly
meeting .
10 . Fees for a previously denied application shall not apply to any
subsequent application. However , when a subdivision, res bdivision,
or open space subdivision application has been denied wit in the
preceding 12 months or approved for fewer lots than requested , and a
new application for the subject tract is submitted by the same appli-
cant , then the fee for the new application shall be a minimum of $50
plus $25 for each lot above and beyond the number of lots contained in
the earlier application.
11 . A fee of $5 per sign is required for signs to be posted by the
applicant on the subject property.
12 . Other Fees : Subdivision Regulations - $3 . 00; Zoning Regulations - $4 . 00 •
Zoning Map 0 $1 . 00 ; fees for other documents is as determined by the
Commission.
13 . All checks shall be made payable to "Town of South Windsor . "
Adopted by Planning and Zoning Commission on April 10 , 1984 .
EFFECTIVE DATE : MAY 8 , 1984 .
S� `� + �I ,
tow N a�,
y 074Cs
o
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
4 �
e•co AREA CODE 203/644.2511
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL INQUIRER SATURDAY, APR IL 14 , 1984
APR
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
•
At the April 10, 1984 meeting , the Planning and Zoning Commission
voted to take the following action:
1 . Approve the application of Deming Hill Associates , Inc . for
a Special Exception to Section 4 . 1. 11 , and approve , with
modifications , the General Plan of Development for Adult
Housing located on 15 . 5 acres on the north side of Deming
Street , east of Buckland Road and south of Oakland Road ,
AA-30 zone .
2 . Approve the application of Danny Lapierre for a site development
plan for property located on the north side of Pleasant Valley
Road, I zone , as shown on a plan prepared by Kasper Associates ,
Inc . , dated Mar. 1984 , Proj . No. V0600C.
3 . Approve an amended site plan for Suburban Printers , Strong
Road, I zone.
Dated at South Windsor , Connecticut , this llth day of April, 1984 .
PLANNING AND ZONING C MMISSION
Robert F. Gilligan, C airman
David Sorenson, Secretary
Items No . 2 and 3 were approved by the Commission by
unanimous vote.
Item No . 1 was approved by the Commission by the following
vote:
In favor Opposed
Dorothea Smith Raymond Hallowell
Barbara Klenke David Sorenson
Robert Conde
Fobert Gilligan
Virgin a S . G an ey
CITATION
TO ANY PROPER OFFICER:
By authority of the State of Connecticut, you are hereby
commanded to summon the South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission of
the Town of South Windsor , County of Hartford and State o
m
Connecticut , and Deming Hill Associates , Inc. , of the Town of South
a
NWindsor, County .of Hartford and State of Connecticut, to appear
+N before the Superior Court within and for the Judicial District of
z •
Hartford/New Britain at Hartford on May 22, 1984, then and there to
zU answer unto the foregoing complaint of Elizabeth C. Burri 1, 82 Felt
au
UZ Road, South Windsor, CT, et al. by leaving with or at the usual place
iU
o of abode of the chairman or clerk of said commission or the Town
01
K cc
_� Clerk of South Windsor and Richard F. Kelley of y
Ox
C . - , South Windsor, Connecticut , a true and attested copy of the
WW
�N complaint and of this citation at least twelve days befor the return
oQ
WW date.
J d
r Hereof, fail not, but of this writ with your doings thereon
make service and return.
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut, this 1st day of May,, 1984.
Y—olan#a Sef ci
Comm' sioner of the Superior Court
ATTEc
OEPJTy
�.......
RETURN DATE: MAY 22, 1984
ELIZABETH C. BURRILL, ET AL. SUPERIOR COURT
VS. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARTFORD/
NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD
SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION, ET AL. MAY 1, 1984
A P P E A L
m
To the Superior Court , to be held at Hartford in and for the
Q N
N County of Hartford, State of Connecticut on the fourth Tuesday of
z •
May, 1984, comes Elizabeth C. Burrill of 82 Felt Road, South Windsor ,
s�
Z0 Connecticut, et al. , appealing from a decision of the South Windsor
U2 Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of South Windsor , County
tU
@ao of Hartford, State of Connecticut, approving the application of
zo
aQ Deming Hill Associates, Inc. for a special exception and approving a
Z
a� general plan of development and complains and says that:
W W
a: 1. On or about January 3, 1984 Deming Hill Associates,
UN
O.�
3Q Inc. ( 'Deming' ) submitted an application for a special exception and
�a
approval of a general plan of development for property on the north
side of Deming Street, South Windsor, Connecticut.
2. On or about February 7, 1984, the defendant South
Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission ( 'Commission' ) held a public
hearing concerning Deming 's application.
r,
X
3. on or about April 10, 1984, the Commission approved
Deming's application for a special exception and approved its general
plan of development .
4. on or about April 17 , 1984, the Commission caused to be
published a notice of its decision approving said application. (See
Exhibit A)
5 . All plaintiffs, as residents of the Town of South
W
J m
_� Windsor, are aggrieved; in addition, plaintiffs Robert L.
and Lucille
O
OKM_ ' M. Davin are aggrieved because their property abuts the site approved
�o
�D for the special exception.
ZU
dW 6. In approving said application, the Commission acted
UZ
Z
�° arbitrarily, capricously, illegally and abused the discretion vested
NO
ZO in it in that:
zU.
�-
Cr
M .
a. The defendant Deming Hill Associates, nc. is not
.F
UjQ a legal entity and the Commission has no authority to approve the
U�
o� application of a non-existing legal entity.
3a
_a
b. The Commission has no authority to designate and
restrict occupancy of any land in the Town of South Windsor to
persons 55 years of age and older because it violates equal
protection and due process under the Connecticut and United States
Constitutions .
C. When the public hearing was held concerning said
application of Deming on February 7, 1984, the zoning regulations of
the Town of South Windsor contained no regulations authorizing adult
multi-family housing.
_2- y9
CIA•
• t`1q.��e q� ��^'Y7
k�
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs appeal from the approval of the
application of Deming Hill Associates, Inc. and pray that the court
sustains their appeal, overrules the action of the defendant
Commission and orders such other relief as is proper .
ELIZABETH BURRILL, ET AL.
B
y
co
Yola da Sef c ik
W
.d aoC'
The ' Attorney
F
LE
=O
_ •
t�
O
s�
ZU
J~
dU
�W
VZ
Z ~
<O
U
ZO
O=
Q
W W
U¢
3a
J d
r
_3_ _
DEPUTY S' '' -
ROE - _ '-
k��T
RETURN DATE: MAY 22, 1984
ELIZABETH C. BURRILL, ET AL.
SUPERIOR COURT
VS. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD/
NEW BRITAIN AT HART FORD
SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION, ET AL. MAY 1, 1984
BOND
W
J
=o KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
< ' That, Elizabeth C. Burrill, Denis Sullivan and Joan Sullivan
of South Windsor, Connecticut, as principals and Lenore Karo of New
2U
<W Britain, Connecticut, as surety, are holden and firmly bound jointly
uZ
<0 and severally unto South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission of
icc
.LL the Town of South Windsor and Deming Hill Associates, Inc. in the
z�-
cr
Qi penal sum of $250 .00 to which payment we do bind ourselves, our
ciQ successors, heirs, executors, administrators, firmly by these
Z�-
LLN
3Q presents .
LU
The condition of this obligation is such that, whereas, the
plaintiffs have appealed to the Superior Court in and for the County
of Hartford, from the action of the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission in approving a special exception and general plan of
development as more particularly set forth in the writ, summons and
complaint to which this bond is annexed.
r
PF
r
NOW, THEREFORE, if the principals shall prosecu a this
appeal to affect and shall pay all costs in case they fa 1 to sustain
such appeal , then this bond shall be void, otherwise to emain in
full force.
Dated at South Windsor , Connecticut this 1st da of May,
m
1984.
Fm
Q N
By
�N Eli7ð Burrill, P incipal
z •
<M
20_
q
J .
i 0 By �� Q.�
o n Sullivan, Principal
t W
V Z a
<O
U
If -
z o By
oQ Denis Sull an, Pri cipal
o=
Q ,
WW
U2
U.Cn
~
o¢ 6L ore Kai
W S r ety
�a
Taken and acknowledged before me at South Windsor, Conn cticut this
is t day of May, 1984.
Commissioner of the S perior Cou
(.-,p V TY S''� f/ c /l 71�a7
ROE
-2-
--
SU SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL (except family actions) MAY 2 �984
JD-CV-1 REV. 1-80
GEN.STAT.52-89,PR.8K.49 INSTRUCTIONS
1. Prepare on typewriter; sign original summons (top sheet)and conform copies of the summons(sheets 4 and ). `
2. If there is more than one defendant, prepare or photocopy conformed summons for each additional defendant.
3. Attach the original summons, with computer sheets attached(pages 2 and 3), to the or,girral lalnt, and attach
a copy of the summons to each copy of the complaint. Also,if there are more than 2 plaintiffs o 4 i�ndants repar'll
form JD-CV-2 and attach it to the original and all copies of the complaint.
4. After service has been.made by officer, file original papers and officer's return with the cler of
5. The party recognized to pay costs must appear personally before the authority taking the re vgnizance.
6. Do not use this form for actions in which an attachment, garnishment or replevy is being sought. See Practice Book
Section 49 for other exceptions.
TO: Any proper officer
BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, you are hereby commanded to make due and legal service of t is Summ ns and
attached Complaint. -
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OR G A NO AT,Town in which writ is returnable)(Gen Star 51-346 51-3491 RETURN DATE(Mo,day.yr)
1[a+rtf*,r4/3eW Britaiili, Hartford *0 22, 3.984
ADDRESS OF CLERK OF COURT
WHERE
�WRIT
�AND OTHER PAPERS SHALL
BE FILED tGen Starr�51-3447 51--350 _ ,a CASE TYPE(From,ludiciai Dept code list)
- 95 wi gtOm .Street* $artfOrde -C 06106 •. Major A Minor 00
PARTIES NOTE.Individual's Names NAME AND ADDRESS OF EACH PARTY I ( Form JD-CV-2
Last.First,Middle Initial u attached
FIRST NAMEDBUSMI =ZPBMr 82 ft1t lb&le South Minft=t Cr 0074
PLAINTIFF .�
Adaitional
FIRST NAMED 74
CErENDANT f
arditional
:e;e^wart I i E laws t r CT 0607
r
i —
Adciticnal }
oetendant
Aaditional I
detendant
-- NOT;Cc ;o each DE==:VCANT ------ ----- --------You ane being sued. 6. T'le 'Appearance' form may �oe cbt Inec at :;e accve C:,urt
2. This paper is a Summons in a la,rrs::lt address.
3. The Complaint attached to these pacers states the claims that
each r'aIntiff Is making against you ^ '~.s lawsuit. 7 If,,cu _! �e ."ut you have nsurancc tha. Y er`he c:aim
4. To r spond to this summons. or to ce ;nformed of further '.hat ,s being made against you in his !a•Nsu!t. %,,ou should
proce Cings, you or your attorney ,r;,s, file a form caiied an Immeciateiy 'axe the Summons an r.cr- �.:,t :O your ;r-
"Appe ranee"with the Clerk of the atcve named Court at the surance representative.
above urt address on or before the second day after the
above Re rn Date. 8. If you have questions about the Summons and Complaint},you
5. If you or your attorney do not file a'Nr:tten "Appearance"Appearance" form should consult an attorney promptly. The Clerk of Court is
on time,a judgment may be entered a :inst you by,default. not permitted to give advice on legal questions.
t
DATE I SIGs D `- a x' per b s p TYPE IN NAME OF PERSON SIGNING AT LEFT ;
Hav 1 29$� If Commissioner of Superior Court Se�L
❑ Assistant Clerk
FOR THE PLAINTIFF(S) NAME =A i ORNEY OR LA FIRM/Name of piainott d pro so) TELEPHONE NO JURIS NO (f attornev cr iaw hrm)
Please enter the appearance of: l�'CBVl.atl� i�1rt�8 27$r'7� 7�3
v
Ah1LJ E AND ADDRESS OF P�QN REC 3NIZED IMIZI)OWT�F`==y�C�MV M A�1C_UtyT OF$2=qm
CT � � SIGNATURE OF Pl?lNT1FF F PRO SE
NO.PLFS NO.DEFS NO CINTS SIGNED(t�lhciai r ing cos-.�-W -X'PfOl o*1 For Court Use
17 2 �fi f Commissioner of Superior Court RECEIPT N
O.
-,r • +t t a ❑ Assistant Clerk No
r' El Fee
IF THIS SUMMONS IS SIGNED,by a CLERK: FILE DATE
a. The signing has been done so that the Plain- advice in connection with any lawsuit.
tiff(s)will not be denied access to the courts.
d. The Clerk signing this Summons at the re- '
b, It is the responsibility of the Plaintiff(s) to quest of the Plaintiff(s) is not responsible >;R � RUZ : - I-
see that service is made in the manner pro- in any way for any errors or omissions in
vided by law. the Summons, any allegations contained in
the Complaint,or the service thereof. iE UTY �oy`
c. The Clerk is not permitted to give any legal
HARTFvrn • - 4- � i_.
hereby certify I have read SIGNED.Pro se p a-r- DATE SIGNED DOCKET NO.
and understand the above:I '
SUMMONS, Civil
COPY
MMONS
UATION OF PARTIES
NEW 9-76
wA�+Ec 1'1AeiTMF
BURRILL, ELIZABETH
T NAMEO OEFENOANT deal,f.rp.M,ddb iw 6w)
SOUTH WINISOR PLANNING & ZONING COTMISSION
NOTE: Individual's names:Lost,First,Middle initial Additional PLAINTIFFS
(Nome and address of each)
SULLIVAN, JOAN 56 Felt Road, South Windsor, CT 06074
CICERO, MARIO 358 Deming Street, South Windsor, Cr 06074
CICERO, ERIKA 358 Deming Street, South Windsor, CT 06074
DAVIN, FCBERT L. 29 Farmstead Drive, South Windsor, CT 06074
LIAVIN, LUCILLE M. 29 Farmstead Drive, South Windsor, Cr 06074
RAYMDND 534 Deming Street, South Windsor, Cr 06074
HAT,TfxnTFLL, pNN 534 Deming Street, South Windsor, Cr 06074
GREANEY, EDMUND 315 Deming Street, South Windsor, CT 06074
GREAT EY, DORO1HY 315 Deming Street, South Windsor, CT 06074
CATARINO, JOSEPH J. 312 Deming Street, South Windsor, CT 06074
CAVEDON, ALFRED W. 99 Ridge Road, South Windsor, Cr 06074
DAVIS, WILLIAM 9 Ridge Road, South Windsor, CT 06074
DAVIS, ANNAMAE 9 Ridge Road, South Windsor, CT 06074
PETERSEN, IRIS H. 440 Deming Street, South Windsor, CT 06074
EVEI=, SUE 145 Pine Tree Lane, South Windsor, CT 06074
Additional DEFENDANTS
NOTE: Individual's names:Lost,First,Middle initial (Nome and address of each)
_ for Court Use
• FIIE VAT
.. ... .-1r';`Z . J.. �.�^..��Y!.L«'Si'��:ZrfS1M+...n.a. �:il�ltt"�"Se.:4�+.�+. ...•�..1,• w•.. .
C3YIL SUMMONS, Continuati
PATTERSON, CASEY, HALPERN & GRACE, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
25 OAKLAND ROAD
SOUTH WINOSOR,CONNECTICUT 06074
[203]644-152B
RICHARD G.PATTERSON 1 B5 SILAS DEANE HIGHWAY
JOHN M.CASEY WETHEF4SFIELD,CT 06109
KENNETH S.HALPERN [2 3]563-2B34
WILLIAM E.GRACE
JOHN W.DOMBROWSKI,JR.
NANCE KRISCENSKI CASTILLO
May 22 , 1984
Planning and Zoning Commission
Town of South Windsor
South Windsor Town Hall
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Deming Hill
Dear Commissioners :
As you know, the approval re the above-captioned project
has been appealed, and we ask for a ninety (90) day extension
in which to file the plans.
Very Truly yours,
4&40�7 A<9
William E. Grace
WEG: srg
q0*1 SF,
c � f'L � 70b1r-zdAi0t
O �
V
e �v 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 0 074
soR•co"`' AREA CODE 203/644-2511
June 6, 1984
William E. Grace , Esq .
25 Oakland Road
South Windsor , Ct. 06074
Dear Bill :
Re : Deming Hill Associates , Special Exception
and General Plan of Development
Please be advised that the Planning & Zoning Commission 170ted
last night to grant a 90 day extension of time in which to file
the final plans in the above matter . The extension is from
July 9 , 1984 to October 7, 1984 .
Yours very truly ,
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
v g B y Ca,�L�
Robert F. `Gilligan Ch it an
j
June 22, 1984
I, Virginia S. Graney, hereby certify that the following is a true an
accurate verbatim transcript of the public hearing which was held by
the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of South Windsor on
February 7, 1984, in connection with the application of Deming Hill
Associates, Inc. for a special exception to Section 4.1.11 of the
Zoning Regulations , and approval of a general plan of development.
k
Virginia El. Graney ecording Secr tar
Planning and Zoning Commission of
Town of South Windsor
1
t a
" se
�- O-P s ?&V�
. w(d 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE - SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 6074
�rsoR•CO AREA CODE 203/644-2511
Z
;j July 19 , 1984
Richard M. Rittenband, Esq.
1734 Ellington Road
South Windsor, Ct . 06074
Dear Dick:
Re : App . #970 - Deming Hill Associates, Inc .
Special Exception to Section 4 . 1 . 11 and
General Plan of Development
As requested, I am enclosing five copies of the following items
in connection with the above application:
1 . Application of Deming Hill Associates, Inc .
2 . Legal Notice advertising the public hearing, which was
published on January 26th and February 2nd;
3 . Letter signed by Mrs. Montana disqualifying herself from
sitting on the application;
4 . Memorandum dated March 20, 1984 , from Town Engineer Richard P .
Martel ;
5. Memorandum dated January 3 , 1984 from the Fire Marshal ,
William R. Lanning;
6 . Memorandum dated January 26 , 1984 , from the Fire Marshal ,
William R. Lanning;
7 . Traffic Report from F. A. Hesketh & Associates , Inc . , dated
December 19 , 1983 ;
8 . Approval letter from the Inland Wetlands Agency dated
February 17, 1984 ;
9 . Minutes of the special meeting on April 10 , 1984 , at which
time this application was approved;
10 . Copy of Legal Notice published on April 14 , 1984 ;
11 . Approval letter of this Commission dated April 12 , 1984 ;
12 . Transcript of the public hearing which was held on
February 7, 1984 .
Yours very truly,
t
X'irginia NONING
Graney, Secretary to
PLANNING COMMISSION
vg
encs .
PATTERSON, CASEY, HALPERN, GRACE & OOMBROWSKI, R.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
25 OAKLAND ROAD
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT 06074
[203)644-1526
RICHARD G.PATTERSON 1 e5 SILA DEANE HIGHWAY
JOHN M.CASEY WETHE SFIELD,CT 06109
KENNETH S.HALPERN [2 3]563-2834
WILLIAM E. GRACE
JOHN W.DOMBROWSKI,JR.
NANCE KRISCENSKI CASTILLO
September
�r
Planning and Zoning Commission
Town of South Windsor SEP �984
South Windsor Town Hall
1540 Sullivan Avenue South %tind,3 C
South Windsor, CT 06074 Coy ,mission
Planning & Zo+►ing
Re: Deming Hill
Dear Commissioners:
We herein request an additional ninety Y 90� ) day exten ion re
the above-captioned project. As you know, the approval ha been
appealed, and we ask that the extension be granted in orde that
the matter may be settled and further work can be done tow rd
completing the development.
Very truly yours,
William E. Grace
WEG:srg
pow" $f+
Tio-wtl olle S-o-a& ?dzlv�
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN 06074
l�LSoe CO AREA CODE 203/644-2511
September 19, 1984
William E. Grace, Esq.
25 Oakland Road
South Windsor, Ct . 06074
Dear Bill:
Re: Deming Hill Associates
General Plan of Development
Please be advised that the Planning and Zoning Commi sion
voted to grant a 90 day extension of time in which to file
the final plan in the above matter . The extension is from
October 7, 1984 to January 5 , 1985 .
Yours very truly ,
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
vg By: _
Robert F. Gill gan, Ch irman
Aov+N sE,
..a u
�(d 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 0 074
SOR•co AREA CODE 203/644-2511
February 12, 1985
Mr. Richard S. Kelley
RSK Contractors, Inc.
1750 Ellington Road
South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 RE: Application No. 26
Deming St. and FelL Rd.
South Windsor, Ct. 06074
Dear Sir:
At the February 11, 1985 meeting, the South Windsor Inland
Wetlands Agency approved a one-year extension for your application
No. 269 for property located on Deming Street and Felt Road. The
extension becomes effective February 15, 1985 (the expiration date
of the original permit) through February 15, 1986.
Very truly yours,
John Moran, Jr. , Chairman
INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
JM/se
cc: William E. Grace, Esquire
Jules Page, Page Engineering
A. B. Davies,Deputy Town Engineer
Robert F. Gilligan, Chairman PZC
Thomas D'Auria, Building Official
Peter DeMallie, Director of Planning
Jacqueline J. Smith, Town Clerk
4.-/ emo from
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
TOWN HALL
SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
TO Richard M. Rittenband, Esq.
1734 Ellington Road DATE 4/1 85
South Windsor, Ct. 06074
L
SUBJECT: App. #969 - Adult Housing Regulations
FOLD- App. #970 - Deming Hill Assoc. , Special Exceptio and
General Plan of Development
Attached is a copy of the Minutes of the February 13th PZClmeeting,
during which the Adult Housing Regulations were deleted fr m the
zoning regu&ttions. I'm also enclosing a copy of the lega notice
which was published on February 18.
Bob Gilligan wasn' t sure if this would affect the above lawsuits, but
he asked me to notify you that there are no longer Adult Housing
Regulations.
encs.
By Virginia S. G aney, Sec.
PLANNING & ZO I2,?G COMMISSIOT:
a
RECEIVED
UN 111985
Page 6 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL May 14, 1985 Rr�-61, D M.R��� �
218 MAY, 1985 196 Conn 218
J" McCallum v. Inland Wetlands Commission
i
i
I
i
ROBERT T. MCCALLUM V. INLAND WETLANDS
COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF AVON i
(12451)
PETERS, C. J., HEALEY, SHEA, DANNEHY and SANTANIELLO, Js.
In an appeal from a decision involving a land use dispute, the applicable i
regulations are those in effect at the time-of appellate review.
The plaintiff appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court
sustaining the decision of the defendant Avon inland wetlands com-
mission denying his application for a permit to place fill for a driveway
in a wetland on certain real property he owned.The reasons given by
the commission for its denial of the application were that the proposed
location of a house which the plaintiff planned to construct on the prop-
erty immediately adjacent to but not within the boundaries of the wet-
land would have a significant impact on the wetland and that there were
available viable alternatives to that location.The plaintiff claimed that
the commission, in considering the proposed location of the house,
exceeded its authority by"regulating activities"outside the boundaries
of the wetland.Since,because the commission,subsequent to its denial
of the application, amended its regulations to adopt setback require-
ments for buildings to be constructed within the vicinity of any wet-
land or watercourse, no practical relief could follow even were the
plaintiff to prevail on his claim.Accordingly,his appeal had to be dis-
missed as moot.
Argued March 7—decision released May 14, 1985
May 14, 1985 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page
196 Conn 218 MAY, 1985 219
McCallum v. Inland Wetlands Commission
Appeal from a decision of the defendant commission
denying the plaintiff's application to fill a portion of
a wetland located on his property,brought to the Supe-
rior Court in the judicial district of Hartford-New Brit-
ain at Hartford and tried to the court, Purtill, J.;
judgment sustaining the commission's decision, from
which the plaintiff appealed to this court.Appeal dis-
missed as moot.
Philip J. Carignan, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Austin Carey, Jr., for the appellee (defendant).
DANNEHY, J. This is an appeal from the judgment
of the trial court sustaining the action of the defend-
ant Avon inland wetlands commission(commission)in
its denial of the plaintiff's application to place "fill"
for a driveway in the wetland on his property.
The record discloses that the plaintiff is the owner
of property known as the Terrace Drive and Rexinger
Lane subdivision in Avon. On or about March 4, 1982,
he applied to the Commission for a permit' which
included a request to place thirty cubic yards of fill in
the wetland on his property for a driveway crossing
lot No. 10 of the subdivision. The commission granted
the application but rejected the plaintiff's request to
place fill in the wetland for a driveway.
On or about July 8, 1982, the plaintiff made a sec-
ond application to the commission within the one year
waiting period required by ordinance before the filing
of another application.2The second application merely
1 In his application,the plaintiff requested approval to conduct four regu-
lated activities:(1)to place 3500 cubic yards of fiU in the wetland for a road
crossing and associated utilities;(2)to place thirty cubic yards of fill in the
wetland for a driveway crossing;(3)to place a sanitary sewer in the water-
course and wetland and(4)to discharge storm water.
2"[Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Regulations of the Town of Avon]
"Section 9.4-When denying a permit,the Commission may permit the
( applicant to modify,amend or correct the proposal.In the event of the denial
Page 8 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL May 14, 1985
220 MAY, 1985 196 Conn 218
McCallum v. Inland Wetlands Commission
reduced the quantity of fill to be placed in the wetland
to 16.5 cubic yards. The commission refused to accept
the application, holding that it was the same activity
as that denied in the March 4, 1982 application and,
as such, that the commission was not required to pass
on the application. At the same time, the commission
indicated to the plaintiff that he should consider alter-
native locations for the building to be constructed on
the lot because the commission was contemplating an
amendment to its regulations to encompass any build-
ing located within forty feet of a wetland area. '
On August 18, 1982, the plaintiff filed a new appli-
cation requesting a permit identical to that requested
in the previously refused application.On September 7,
1982, the commission voted to accept the application '
for a ruling. Also on September 7, 1982, a public hear-
ing was held on a proposed amendment to the commis- j
sion's regulations which would change the definition
of the term "regulated activity" so as to include the
location of a building or structure within forty feet of
a wetland or eighty feet of a watercourse.
A public hearing on the plaintiff's third application
was held on November 1, 1982. Included in the evidence
submitted by the plaintiff was an amended site plan
which showed a different house and a new location for
the driveway. The commission refused to consider this
amended site plan on the advice of the town attorney
that a separate application was required for the
amended site plan.
Several days later, the commission voted to deny the
plaintiff's application for the following two reasons;
first, because there would be a significant impact on
the wetland due to the proximity of the house to the
of a permit without permission to modify,amend or correct,and in the event
of the revocation of a permit,the Commission will not be required to accept
an application for the same activity for one(1)year after the date of its
denial or revocation."
May 14, 1985 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 9
196 Conn 218 MAY, 1985 221
McCallum v. Inland Wetlands Commission
wetland, and, second, because there were viable alter-
natives to the proposed location of the house.That eve-
ning, the commission voted to adopt the amendment
which added the setback requirements to its regula-
tions. The validity of the amended regulations has not
been challenged.
The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court from the
commission's decision to deny his application, claim-
ing that the commission acted illegally, arbitrarily, and
in abuse of its discretion and that, as a result of such
actions, the plaintiff was denied the reasonable use and
development of his land. The trial court, Purtill, J.,
sustained the decision of the commission and the plain-
tiff appealed.
This action arises under the Inland Wetlands and
Watercourses Act(act) which is contained in General
Statutes§§ 22a-36 through 22a-45, inclusive. Pursuant
to § 22a-42 of the act, municipalities are encouraged
to create agencies to regulate activities affecting wet-
lands and watercourses within their territorial limits.3 _
The commission was created in accordance with this
provision. Under the act, no regulated activity may
be conducted on a wetland without a permit. General
Statutes § 22a-42a (c). Municipal agencies are autho-
rized to grant, deny, or limit any permit for a regu-
lated activity. General Statutes § 22a-42a(d). A
"regulated activity" is defined as "any operation within
or use of a wetland or watercourse involving removal
or deposition of material, or any obstruction, construc-
tion, alteration or pollution, of such wetlands or water-
3 Prior to the enactment of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act;
General Statutes§§22a-36 through 22a-45;local zoning was the only method
used to protect and regulate wetlands and watercourses.See,e.g.,Bartlett
v.Zoning Commission, 161 Conn.24,282 A.2d 907(1971);Dooley v.Toum
Plan&Zoning Commission, 151 Conn. 304, 197 A.2d 770(1964).
Page 10 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL May 14, 1985
222 MAY, 1985 196 Conn 218
McCallum v. Inland Wetlands Commission
courses" except as to certain permissible activities
specified in General Statutes § 22a-40. General Stat-
utes § 22a-38 (13).
The main thrust of the plaintiff's argument on appeal
is that the commission, in considering the proposed
location of the house under the regulations then in
effect, when his application was solely for a permit to
place fill in the wetland, exceeded the scope of its statu-
tory' authority by "regulating activities" outside the
boundaries of the wetland. It is stipulated that the loca-
tion of the proposed house was immediately adjacent
to the wetland and not within the boundaries of the wet-
land area itself.
At the time the plaintiff's application was considered
by the commission, section 2 of the Avon inland wet-
lands and watercourses regulations defined"activity"
as "any operation or use within or affecting a wetland
or water course." "Regulated activity" was defined as
"any activity involving removal or deposition of mate-
rial, or any obstruction, construction, alteration or pol-
lution, of a wetland or water course . . ." and
"regulated area" was defined as "all wetlands and
water courses. . . . " Section 4 of the regulations,
entitled"Regulation of Activities Affecting Regulated
Areas," required a permit for regulated activities
affecting inland wetlands and watercourses, but only
those activities which affect a regulated area by
"removal of material; depositing of material; construc-
tion, obstruction, alteration; or pollution." Section 5.1
of the regulations required an application from any per-
son wishing to conduct a regulated activity or an activ-
ity which may involve a regulated activity.The plaintiff
claims that under both the statute and the then exist-
ing regulations, the only activity the commission was
entitled to consider was a regulated activity for which
a permit was required, specifically, the placement of
fill in the wetland.
May 14, 1985 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 11
r 196 Conn 218 MAY, 1985 223
McCallum v. Inland Wetlands Commission
Under the regulations as amended, the location of
a structure within forty feet of a wetland is a regulated
activity. The plaintiff does not dispute that the loca-
tion of the proposed house now falls squarely within
the area of the forty foot setback regulation and as such
is subject to commission approval. Nor does he dispute
the validity of the new regulations. He argues, how-
ever, that because his application was made, and the
decision rendered thereon, prior to the adoption of the
amended regulations, such regulations should not be
considered in this appeal.
The determinative question for this court is whether
the amendment of the regulations renders this appeal
moot. The plaintiff's claims relate exclusively to the
regulations in effect at the time the commission acted
upon the plaintiff's application. Since the original regu-
lations are no longer of any force, our determination
of their effect and validity would be futile because no
actual relief could follow. We hold, therefore, that this
dispute is moot.
The majority rule, and the rule followed in Conn .-
icut, is that the zoning law or reffulatim in effect at
t e ime of the decision o a court is controlling as
opposed to that in effect when the proceedings were
instituted or when the administrative agency entere
its decision upon a app Ica ion.r 3We o hnson v. on-
4 We noted an exception to the general rule in Alarmah,Inc. v.Green-
wich, 176 Conn. 116, 405 A.2d 63(1978). There, we rejected the town's
argument that the plaintiffs appeal to the trial court had become moot
because subsequent to the denial of the plaintiffs application for site plan
approval the zoning regulations had been amended to prohibit the proposed
use. We held, on the basis of the trial court's reasonable conclusion that
the zoning amendment had been enacted primarily for the purpose of
preventing the plaintiff from going forward with its proposed project,that
it would have been inequitable to allow the amended regulations to bar
review of the plaintiffs claim. Id., 123. No claim of improper or punitive
motive on the part of the commission in amending its regulations has been
suggested by the plaintiff in this case.
Page 12 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL May 14, 1985
224 MAY, 1985 196 Conn 218
McCallum v. Inland Wetlands Commission
ing Board of Appeals, 2 Conn App. 24, 475 A.2d 339
(1984);Burgarella v.Planning&Zoning Commission,
27 Conn. Sup. 400, 240 A.2d 211(1967); see also York-
dale Corporation v.Powell, 237 Md. 121, 205 A.2d 269
(1964); Winker Realty,Inc. v.Zoning Board of Appeals,
362 Mass. 869,285 N.E.2d 452(1972);Lunden v.Petito,
30 App. Div. 2d 820, 292 N.Y.S.2d 757 (1968); 4
Anderson, American Law of Zoning (2d Ed. 1977)
§ 25.31.
In land disputes, "applying the law as it exists at the
time an app es its determ 1'11 n, is'sim-
ply a practical, common sense means of doing substan-
tial justice and of avoiding the neSe ity of protracted
retrials which inevitably will result in the same deci-
sion. The ultimate eclsi t w ch a party is enti etc
should n_ot Be d_ elayed by vain-ormalities. .' Mat-
_ _
ter of Thomas v. Board of Standards & Appeals, 263
App. Div. 352, 358 [33 N.Y.S.2d 219] (N.Y. [1942]);
Paliotto v. Dickerson, 22 App. Div. 2d 929 [256
N.Y.S.2d 55] (N.Y. [1964])." Burgarella v. Planning
& Zoning Commission, supra, 402-403.
If these principles are applied to the case before us,
it is clear that the appeal must be dismissed as moot.
Under the present regulations, the commission has the
authority to consider the effect of the proposed house
on the wetland inasmuch as it will be built within the
ambit of the commission's jurisdiction over a "regu-
lated activity." Even if this court were to find, as the
plaintiff urges, that the commission acted illegally,
arbitrarily, and in abuse of its discretion in denying the
plaintiff's application under the former regulations,
there is no practical relief which could follow. The plain-
tiff would have to appear again before the same com-
mission under the same circumstances except that the
commission unquestionably could and must take into
May 14, 1985 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 1
196 Conn 225 MAY, 1985 225
State v. Taylor
account the environmental impact of the now regulated
activity, the location of the proposed house, on the
wetland.
" `It is a well-settled general rule that the existence
of an actual controversy is an essential requisite to
appellate jurisdiction; it is not the province of appel-
late courts to decide moot questions, disconnected from
the granting of actual relief or from the determination
of which no practical relief can follow.' " Arnold
Bernhard&Co. v.Planning&Zoning Commission, 194
Conn. 152, 158, 479 A.2d 801 (1984); Accurate Forg-
ing Corporation v. UAW Local No. 1017, 189 Conn. 24,
26, 453 A.2d 769 (1983); State Farm Life & Accident
Assurance Co. v.Jackson, 188 Conn. 152, 156, 448 A.2d
832 (1982); CEUI v. CSEA, 183 Conn. 235, 246, 439
A.2d 321(1981). Because the relief sought by the plain-
tiff would be unavailing by reason of the subsequent
amendment of the commission's regulations, the issues
presented in this appeal are moot. See Rosnick v.Zon-
ing Commission, 172 Conn. 306, 308-3107 374 A.2d 245
(1977), and cases cited therein.
The appeal is dismissed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. LAWRENCE A. TAYLOR
(11142)
PARSKEY, SHEA, SANTANIELLO, BRENNAN and SPADA, Js.
For a larceny conviction, the victim's actual ownership, in the technical
sense,of the property taken need not be proved.All that must be shown
is "a right of possession superior to that of[the] taker . . . ."
The defendant was convicted of the crimes of burglary in the first degree
and of larceny in the first degree as a result of his entering the home
of,inter alios,J and taking certain personal property from J.On appeal
to this court, held:
1. Notwithstanding the defendant's claim that the state introduced only
a modicum of evidence as to the total value of the property taken and
Page 14 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL May 14, 1985
226 MAY, 1985 196 Conn 225
State v. Taylor
failed to distinguish between the property owned by J and the prop-
erty which belonged to other family members,the trial court did not
err in denying the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict since the
jury could reasonably have concluded that the value of the property
owned by J and of that as to which J had a possessory right greater
than that of the defendant exceeded $2000.
2. Although the trial court did not instruct the jury on the constituent ele-
ments of the term value,there was evidence from which the jury could
easily have determined that the value of the property taken exceeded
$2000.
3. The trial court properly refused to instruct the jurors that,in determining
the value of the property taken,they could consider only property owned
by J.
4. This court could not conclude that the trial court's comments on the evi-
dence were erroneous.
Argued February 13—decision released May 14, 1985
Substitute information charging the defendant with
the crimes of burglary in the first degree and larceny
in the first degree, brought to the Superior Court in `
the judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport and tried
to the jury before Callahan, J.; verdict and judgment
of guilty on both counts from which the defendant
appealed to this court. No error.
Peter B.Hance, legal intern, with whom were Michael
R. Sheldon and Todd D. Fernow, for the appellant
(defendant).
Donald A. Browne, state's attorney, for the appellee
(state).
SANTANIELLO, J. The defendant, Lawrence A.
Taylor, was charged by substitute information with
one count each of burglary in the first degree, General
Statutes §§ 53a-101 (a) (1) and 53a-8,1 and larceny in
the first degree, General Statutes §§ 53a-119 and
1 General Statutes§53a-101 provides in part:"BURGLARY IN THE FIRST
DEGREE: CLASS B FELONY.(a)A person is guilty of burglary in the first
degree when he enters or remains unlawfully in a huilding with intent to