HomeMy WebLinkAboutResub/Spec Ex/Site Plan of Development TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR �V/
PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION E='
APPLICATION FORM
Application No: `
Official Receipt Date:
Receipt No:
APPLICANT: Linda V. Cloutier
ADDRESS: 103 Palmer Drive, South Windsor, CT 06074 s ���� � � �' p� ' Pt.
OWNER OF RECORD ON LAND RECORDS: same
ADDRESS:
COMPLETE LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 103 Palmer Drive
ASSESSOR'S MAP #__Z7 _ PARCEL# 25 ZONE AA-30
NAME, ADDRESS, TEL & FAX # OF PERSON TO WHOM INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED:
Peter R. DeMallie, Principal, Desigh Professionals, Inc. , 165 S. Satellite Road,
South Windsor, CT 06074 Tel. 291-8755 Fax 291-8757
THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (Check all that apply):
❑ Zone Change to (Public Hearing required and Certified letter to abutters required)
❑ Subdivision/Resubdivision ❑ Open Space Subdivision (Public Hearing Required)
❑ Subdivision ❑ Minor
❑ Major
® Resubdivision (Public Hearing Required) ® Minor ❑ Major
❑ Conditional Approval
® Special Exception to Article 4_c416.l (public Hearing, Certified letter to abutters required)
Site Plan of Development
❑ General Plan of Development
❑ Earth Filling (Sec. 15) and/or Earth Removal (Sec. 14 - Public Hearing required)
❑ Regulation Amendment: ❑ Zoning ❑ Subdivision (Attach proposed amendment)
❑ Temporary and Conditional Permit for
❑ Major Home Occupation for
❑ Other (explain in detail)
An Application Pending sign is required to be posted on the property for all applications ten (10) days
prior to being heard by the Commission.
ig ature of Applicant i ature of Property Owner
(See reverse side for additional information)
1
Volume 240 Page N� 311
Qncivicual) 136SF
STATUTORY FORM QUIT CLAIM DEED
ROBERT J. SHERIDAN
of the Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford and State of
Connecticut,
for consideration paid, grant to CAROL A. SHERIDAN, of the Town of South
Windsor, County of Hartford and State
Of Connecticut with QUIT-CLAIM COVENANTS
(Description and Encumbrances.if any and any additional provisions) ¢.
A certain piece or parcel of land, with the buildings thereon, located A in the Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford and State of
Connecticut Palmer Drive as it
"Property ofkWilliam Jo3Manning South Windsor, Conn.on a mScale ap t1"led100'
Apr. 21, 1956 Revised May 22, 1956 Lots added Cecil W.Brooks, Land
Surveyor", which map is on file in the South Windsor Town Clerk's
Office and being more particularly bounded and described as follows,
to wit:
NORTHERLY: By Lots 1 through 14 as shown on said ma
by
each in all one thousand three hundred fifty-fix yand
eighty-seven one-hundredths (1,356.37) feet;
EASTERLY: By Lot 15, as shown on said map, sixt
seven one-hundredths (66.67) feet; Y six and sixty-
SOUTHEASTERLY: By Felt Road; and
1 ,
WESTERLY: By land now or formerly of Edith House, eight hundred
thirty-eight and two one-hundredths (838.02) feet;
containing 12.5 acres, more or less.
Being the same premises conveyed to the Grantor by Warranty Deed of.Carl R. Cote,. dated March 29, 1978 and recorded on March 29, 1978 in Volume 239 at�Page 306 of the South Windsor Land Records.
Said premises are subject to mortgages as of record appear.
Nc Conveyance Tax collected
Signed this 21st day of April
1978.
Wi esse
erfree
1..: ' .�• VGtt �v�
c] v WOODC CK III
c ROBERT
v ............ .....0 n1
a^ OF CONNECTICUT,
o°+ Y OF HARTFORD South Windsor April 21, 1978
zrsonal) AaNY ppeared ROBERT J. SHERIDAN
.a..Ws) of the foregoing Instrument, and acknowledged the same to be his
and deed, before me.
a 6 Grantees' Mailin� Address �01
103 Palmer Dr ve, - ifcvt. .,.... ................ perior court..
South Windsor, Connecticut OHN J. WOODCOCK III
.........................................................................
P p N
Mr. Eriksson asked for further explanation of the number of cars on.
the property for possible resale. Vr. Lassman said they only want i to display five cars at a time. Any others would be parked behind d ::
,. the fence and brought out as others were sold.
APPLICk2IOIi NO. 1079-75 - Reed D. Cote, c/o E. A. Lassman , Eso. 111
Pearl Street Hartford requests a variance to Section 31 Article
3.14.1 to allow construction of a dwelling without the required lot,l_
•.... frontage on an approved street on premises known as Felt Road, South
Windsor, Zone AA-30. . ,
";, ;� Attorney Lassman represented Mr. Cote who has plans to purchase t
he
property in question. d
P y He showed the Board a topographical map and 1`
pointed out the exact location on a proposed extension of Felt Road,
This extension is an old, unapproved Town road, thus making the parcel
; landlocked, with the exception of a right-of-way off Palmer Drive,
Mr. Lassman went on to say the owners and the appellant are requestib
a variance to Town ordinance which -requires proper frontage on an 'g
approved road. Mr. Cote plans to construct a single-family dwelling`
on 12 acres of land, approximately 7 -0 feet to the rear of houses
facing Palmer Drive and 100 feet from the westerly line of Felt Road.
He will reach his house by :jeans of a private drive built on the
r� right-of-way. Others who own paree s along the proposed Felt Road
will continue to have use cf tee ri=a-of-way but do not have the
right to build a house because of t1n_e zoning regulations. The area
is zoned AA- 0 the same as the abut�ing property.. i., 3 p y. Mr. Lassman showed
! the Board plans of the proposed house and where it would be located '
on the 12 acres.
Some conce-n has been expressed by -�4.7hbors, Mr. Lassman said be-
cause they did not want a farm to started in their backyard. He.
said this might be a restriction the ZBA would impose if the variance
was granted.
1 o one spoke in favor of the ac5eal.
1,1r. Charles Lyons, 09 Palmer Drive, paid he did not particularly ob-
ject to the proposal but was ccnce=;d primarily about the interprets-
tion of the zoning regulations. It -es his understandinT two or more
acres constituted a rural zone -nd. '--is permitted the keeping of
livestock.
Mr. Joel, Cohan , 65 Palmer Drive, st&7ed he felt the same as Mr. Lyons-
Mr. John Young, 97 Palmer h1rive, sa__ he lived adjacent to Felt Road,
and the driveway would pass nex-; to --is house. One of his concerns
was who owned the right-of-way, whic'- he now understands belongs to
the Town. He requested the driveway :,e placed as shown on the map
which is in the center of t-e and any drainage or coca-
tours be maintained.
:11b c:
Mr. Terry Sprenkle, Tom Mznag a:wed a stipulation be put in any
approval that the applicant wog: -_4 be -responsible for the maintenance
and plowing so the Town would to ^ecuired to maintain the driveWel'
I
• Eriksson asked if any portii.ot. ci
- darned it was all dry land. He also asked who' owned the remainder
`d ; the land surrounding the old road. 1"Ir. Lassman said two men named
gnat owned the largest parcel and another small piece was connected
� a lot on Palmer Drive.
111 f5. Murray wanted to know if there were any other such streets in
of and Mr. Lassman said there were many.
uth t, Eriksson said by granting the variance the Board would be creating
.building lot and the appellant could build anywhere on the lot.
1e T. Lassman replied that was correct and suggested stipulating the
,elling be erected as shown on the plan.
ire �FLICATION NO. 1080—'75 - Podunk, Inc . , 1209 John Fitch Boulevard,
el nth Windsor, requests a temporary and conditional permit to allow
zasing of a temporary sign to be placed on commercial and industrial
'ti,ag Hodson es on premises known as 1209 L cnn Fitch Boulevard, South
I.
Herman Maskel, Iroquois Road, 'lest Hartford, owner of Podunk, Inc.
ad. gas present. He told the Board he wished to lease portable adver-
ising signs to use throughout the Town to convey whatever message
:he lessee wished. Because there are no regulations covering portable
signs, the Building Inspector felt they should be covered by the
a ;ermanent sign regulations. Mr. Maskel said the use would probably
owed )e limited to commercial and industria? areas.
i
Toone spoke in favor or in oppositicz zo the appeal.
',hairman Eriksson asked further about .he size of the sign . Mr.
.e 3askel replied there was a generator _c7 the base to provide electri-
ice :al power and the whole sign was approximately 8 feet by 8 feet, with
in arrow sticking out beyond the 8 fco-r, width.
r. Archer noted the application askew for permission to use the sign
3t l209 John Fitch Boulevard and jues:ioned Mr. Maskel about this.
fir. Maskel said this was not his intention and wanted permission
ta- to use it throughout Town.
ire
Mr. Eriksson asked -if the sign was tT,;c-faced and lighted. Mr. Maskel
'Leplied yes and the light could be ad;usted to a plain light or a
mashing light. Mr. Eriksson further asked what hours the sign would
r,s. -,e used. Mr. Maskel said he expecte it to be used during normal
business hours and turned off at the end of the business day.
d,
.:rs. Murray questioned Mr. Maskel anc learned Podunk, Inc. presently
das two signs available for lease ar, they do not anticipate acquiring
any additional ones.
"r. Steben asked for a specific e-ram~_e of placement and usage of
,the sign. Mr. Maskel said Pole Bail :ng Supply used it to advertise
special sale of fireplace fixt_;res. The Building Inspector stopped
e °hem from using it:
way•
chairman Eriksson expressed concern .-ter the length of ti�be any one
business would use the si;:r,n and c Font.•,-1 over the placement of the
it f,3us2d
ication No. 1078-75 - South Windsor Auto Parts Inc.
y,.
Archer moved Application No.
PP 1078-75, South Windsor Auto Farts
, c/o E. A. Lassman , Esq. , 111 Pearl Street, Hartford, requesting
ate Hearing under 14-54 of the General Statutes to allow the sale
motor vehicles on premises known as Schenk Road, South Wind-
le ,n, Zone RR, be approved because it would create no problem -to the
_g ,ning regulations. The property is unseen from any major thorough-
re, and they have been there many years with no complaints. Ap-
eas = :oval will allow them to comply with State Statute 14-54. The Board
reed no more than 5 cars can be stored on the indicated paved area
ki1-O #: front of the fence outside the junkyard proper.
rs, Murray seconded; unanimously carried.
1rs Effective Date: NJ
lovember lq , 1975
lication No. 10 9-75 - Reed D. Cote
Nave B rd. }ae oa expressed concern with the use of the remainder of the
to Iroperty. They felt the hardship was 1,000 feet of frontage on an
-cal: adeveloped road but also felt Mr. Cote was buying the property with
,all knowledge of what he was getting. There was some discussion
-zap pout who Mr. Lassman was representing, the owners or Mr. Cote. Al-
it it was not stated at the Public nearing, the Board was aware
!r. Lassman is one of the present owners of the property.
it 'r• ''.warren moved Application No. 1079-75, Reed D. Cote, c/o E. A.
assman , Esq. , 111 Pearl Street, Hartford, requesting a variance to
;action 3, Article 3.14. 1 to allow construction of a dwelling with-
;ut the reauired lot frontage on an approved street on premises known
?rt- ;s Felt Road, South Windsor, Zone AA-30, be approved. The current
wners , as represented by Mr. Lassman , showed at the meeting they
:eve no frontage on an approved road and have a total of 12 acres of
:andlocked property until the Town approves the right-of-way, which
,urrently exists on !own .:raps as an unapproved street. PIr. Cote' s
)r :ntended use of this property for a sin.7le-family dwelling seems to
:e in character with the neighborhood. This variance is nc;t being
Zterpreted to extend to any uses not permitted in an Ate-30 zone or
;uth 'Xtended to allow the keeping of livestock. The house is to be lo-
n_ :ated as described on the map submitted with the application. The
:wner, not the Town of South Windsor, shall be responsible for all
:aintenance, including snowplowing.
i 'r• Archer seconded; unanimously carried.
'sere Effective Date: November 19 , 1975
lication No. 1080-75 - Podunk, Inc.
the Board agreed there could be a good business in renting; signs and
felt the first thing needed was permission for the size of the sign.
he members reviewed Section 4.4.7 regarding commercial signs. All
Felt limitations would have to be placed on what zones it ould be
- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 1, 1979
TOWrj 7: 30 P. M.
SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT
MEMBERS PRESENT: Warren, Eriksson, Steben and Murrin
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Earley (sitting for Cowles )
4= -79, Robert J. Sheridan, 103 Palmer Drive,
nppLICATION No. 1296
¢' xeque'sts a variance of Article 5. 2, Section 59 to allow a building
lot without the required frontage on a paved street on premises
known as Felt Road, Zone AA-30.
Attorney Frank Ah&arn appeared and stated he had offices at 5 Oakland
Road in South Windsor,. and was appearing on behalf of Robert J. Sheri-
dan who lived at 103 Palmer Drive, and wanted a variance of Article
5.2,Section 5, to allow construction of a house. He produced a survey
of the property prepared by Emil Lucek Associates which showed the
entire 12.5 acre parcel, broken into two parcels designated Parcel
#1, upon which Robert Sheridan's house had been built, and Parcel #2,
upon which Mr. Sheridan's brother wished to build a house. Parcel
#2 is over 2.5 acres, and has 455 feet frontage on Felt Road, and
=" the map showed how he wished to have egress through a private road
to Foster Street. Mr. Ahearn mentioned that this portion of Felt
Road was an un-improved road, however, he produced a survey of
Valley View Farms (dated 1111150) , a survey entitled "Green Acres"
prepared in September, 1945, The Metropolitan District Geodetic and
Topographical Survey dated April, 1970, a survey showing the
sanitary sewer construction in the Birch Hill Area prepared by
James S. Minges & Associates, Inc. , dated 9/3/74, and a copy of
the Plan of Development of South Windsor, all of which indicated
Felt Road (formerly Pent Road) as continuing to Foster Street.
Mr. Ahearn also submitted a survey which had been, prepared for
Mr. Hebert when obtaining his mortgage, which also showed Felt Road
extending through to Foster Street.
Mr. Ahearn noted that his client had 12. 5 acres, and that Mr. Sheridan's
brother, Richard, wanted to purchase 2.5 acres and construct a house.
He said he is aware of the fact there is concern about the possibility
Of this being an open door to a subdivision, and stated this is not -
in the offing. He spoke briefly about sub-divisions, and stated that
this proposed lot is over 4 times what zoning regulations require,
and that if permission were granted the house would conform to all
regulations, and that he would stipulate that the Town would not
be responsible for snow-plowing.
Mr. Ahearn stated that the hardship in this case is the fact that the
Town chooses not to improve the road, and that Nir. Sheridan is holding
land and paying .taxes on it since the :own does not see fit to bring
the road up to proper standards.
r"fir• Francis Kucza of 726 Foster Road, appeared, and stated he lived
across the street from the proposed driveway, 'and that he would prefer
to see a driveway there rather than a town road.
��='• Rennie Klenke of 127 Palmer Drive appeared, and stated he owns
-2 y
i0 property across the road from Sheridan and is in favor of the
proposed variance.
The Chairman read a letter from Joel C. Cohan, 65 Palmer Drive, dated ; r:
February 19, 1979, which stated he was an abutting property owner, a
and objected to the variance being granted. He stated that there r
already was one variance on this property, that the_ „rp is no hardship S:
other than the self-imposed type since the property was purchased a_
recently with the present variance and its conditiorz in evidence h
at the time of purchase ; that the ZBA shouldn't be used as a shortcut b:
to appropriate zoning procedures , but reserved only for true hardship
situations ; and that he felt there would be a traffic hazard. it
r.
Mr. Wilfred E. Hebert of 2355 Ellington Road spoke at length in opposil
to the requested variance. He produced a copy of a deed recorded . in
Vol. 142, page 296., and read the legal description of his property in fc
which the right-of-way is described as part- of his property. He also h:
produced a survey which showed the right-of-way as simply a right-of- d;
way on his land and not as an extension of Felt Road. He was concerne;
with safety if the variance was granted since there would be five it
roads intersecting at that point, and especially since the fire station re
is located across the street. He noted that his garage was only t!:
10 ft. from the right-of-way, and that he had spent a large sum of ar.
money constructing the garage, remodel ling his house and installing d:
play equipment for his children, and he felt that having a driveway
that close to his back yard was extremely hazardous. He said if the Mr
variance is granted, one-third of his property would be eliminated. hoj
Fe also mentioned sewage and drainage problems, and said that if
I�r. Sheridan wanted to build a house he could do it and have the drive- Th
way go onto Palmer Drive without any difficulty. He again stated Nr
that it is his land, and not the Town's . be
Pr
�.:rs . Edna Hornat, of East Hartford, appeared and stated she wasn't an
sure whether she objected or not, but that she owned land on the ho
other side of Felt Road and wanted to know how the variance would affef
her. Mr. Warren asked her to step forward and identify her property trr
on one of the surveys. After a conference it was established that she le
owned the land across the right-of-way from Sheridan' s land, and nort is
of the Klenke property. There was no access to her property other pr
than on Felt Road. Mr. Warren informed her that she was in no better if
a position than the Sheridans , and that she could not build on her ba
land without doing what the Sheridans are attempting to do now. th-
wa.
The following persons then spoke in opposition to the request because su:
they were either concerned with traffic and/or possible drainage or wa.
pollution to their wells :
su:
Richard Dubay, 3415 Ellington Road; u.r
Claire Cote' , 725 roster Street;
Michael Zabreski, 609 Foster Street; sry;
Pat Hatala, 720 Foster Street; N`r'
Gregory Erickson, 2329 Ellington Road; Aj
Kyle Zimmer, 2354 Ellington Road;
Arthur Iy'ac Nary, 2289 Ellington Road; th`
pl`
Dave Shea, 2281 Ellington Road;
Bruce Cutler, 2321 Ellington Road; ha`
bu=
Gregory Jarvis , 2315 Ellington Road; and
0 —3— .
s
date ''r. Ahearn reiterated that he trusted the Board would i
.ve, rhetoric about what ignore all the
owner, people spent fixing up their property, and
there possible water problems, and stated that they were simply asking for
hardshi Permission to build one house on 2.5 acres of land, upon which land
Sheridan is paying taxes. He noted the Sheridans would conform to
:teased all building regulations. He commented that many
y people, including
. shortc '` himself, would love to have the open land around them remain undevelope(
hardsh*- but that you couldn't expect someone just to hold property forever
1D and pay taxes on it. Mr. Ahearn noted that if one followed the rationa--
in Mr. Cohan's letter, one would simply hold onto to land for a
in oppo$ hundred years and never make changes.
orded ir' Yr. Ahearn further stated that this has been an extremely bad winter
•operty in for water problems, and that he dieckedwith Emil Lucek who had informed
He also him that the Town Engineer would make certain there was -adequate
right-of drainage.
s concer'
five Insofar as Mr. Hebert's comments, Mr. Ahearn stated that he had
ire stat' represented the sellers when Mr. Hebert
purchased
only that Hebert was well aware of the fact thatthere was arrightyof-ert , -wway
sum of and road that went through the
Calling developed. b Property, which could someday be
riveway
1 if the. ;,;r. Ahearn again stated that they are askin
inated. house, and not a sub-division. g Permission for one
t if
the dri The Chairman then armed the Board if they had an
y qestons.
fated fr_r. Eriksson asked that the exact location of the prooperty
in
be clarified, and Mr. Steben wanted to know exactly where the question
proposed house would be built. Mr. Ahearn pointed out the location
,v4- . and stated the house would be built at least 200 feet from any other
the house in the area.
,vould aff
-iroperty ii:r. Eriksson asked Yr. Ahearn to address the issue raised in Mr. Cohan's
d that sh letter regarding self-created hardship. per.
Ahearn
and nor is not created by Mr. Sheridan, other than when he purchased thedship
other property he knew there was 12- 5 acres. Mr. that
.o better if permission was granted for this house, they lcould keepkssondcoming
on her back for two acre lots. Questions were asked by the Board concerning
o�'�• the exact location of I�'r. Hebert's house, whether or not the right-of-
Way was actually on Hebert's land, and Mr. Ahearn stated that the
t because surveys he had presented to the Board indicated that the right-of-way
cage or Was a continuation of Felt Road. brit.. Hebert then produced several
Other surveys which showed it as a right-of-way, and one of the
Surveys showed a barn and fence in the middle of the right-of-way.
'`r• Ahearn retorted that Mr. Hebert's own mortgage survey clearly
Showed a right-of-way, and that he didn't know where the survey
1`r• Hebert produced came from.
A ii"r. Dick Kelley of 49 Rosemary -Lane, spoke, and informed the Board
that he was a- builder and that this %as probably one of the nicest
Dleces of land in town, and that if he lived on Ellington Road he 'd
Pave no objection to the land being developed. He noted that a
builder could easily correct any water problems.
1rrs• Hornat spoke up and said that people were unreasonable to
-4-
expect the Sheridans to just keep the land forever and pay taxes :
on it and not be allowed to build.
A
Mrs. Wilfred Hebert spoke and said she felt that there was no real
why the house couldn't be built and just have the driveway exit On
Palmer Drive with some sort of cul-de-sac, and there would be no ,
hardship to the people at the other end.
Mr. Young then spoke in opposition to the request, citing Mr. Coh'
letter.
APPLICATION NO. 1300-79 - Charles Elinskas, 760 Sullivan Avenue, re
a variance of Article 5. 2, Section 5, to allow the use of an exist'
non-conforming building on premises known as 740 Sullivan Avenue, -:_
Zone G. C.
Mr. Elinskas appeared before the Board and stated that he wanted to
use these premises as a real estate office, that none of the neighb
objected, that the building had been used as a retail store in the
past, and that parking would be limited to three or four cars.
Mr. Albert Prancus spoke in favor of this appeal and said it was ,
used for businesses for many years.
No one spoke in opposition.
i
Upon questioning by the Board it was determined the building has be
J empty for about three years , there would be no more than one or two
sales people, and that Mr. Elinskas planned to do some exterior
remodelling and put in another doorway so that the parking area wo
face the door. There was a brief discussion about what type of } _
sign would be permitted.
APPLICATION NO. .1301-79 - Unfinished Furniture House, Inc. , 73 John
Fitch Boulevard, requests a variance of Article 4.4.7, Section 4.5.` '4 '
to allow a second sign and a sign larger than permitted on premises.
known as 73 John Fitch Blvd. , Zone G. C.
Mr. Jon Pierpont of Massachusetts appeared and stated he was district
manager for .Unfinished Furniture, and they needed a large sign in
I front of their business since the Brave Bull and Ten Pin Bowling
blocked the building from view, and they were losing business .
He said the; would like to use the old Kinny Shoe Sign posts which ; "'
are there, and that they would paint and clean up the frame and inse
a sign with their logo. He produced a diagram of the proposed sign
and stated they would go along with whatever the Board desired.
APPLIC=.-IO`: . 0. 1302-79 - Clara G. Slater, 285 Main Street, requests
a variance of Article 5. 2, Section 5, to allow construction of an
addition on a non-conforming building on premises known as 285 Main;
Street, Zone A-40.
Mr. James Slater of 421 Abby Road Road appeared and said he re resen
his mother, Clara G. Slater, who was 73 years old and unable to maln,.
her house on Main Street any more . He stated the house is too close
to 1 ai.n 'Strt?et and that' s why he ' s before this Board. ,
-5
ks. Robert Laliberti of 277 Main Street stated that she didn' t object
to the variance being granted, but was concerned that they would add the
addition to
'ea' the house and then rent it out.
o- t • that there are six efficiency apartments in
Was then brought out
io building at the moment, and that Slater planned on using his mother's
S:x room apartment, and one of the one-roon efficiency apartments plus
k .Ile addition as a large nine room apartment so that he and his wife
;oh`" and children and mother could live together. He stated that he had no
intention of renting out the apartment, that he had been raised in
that house and felt it was a good place to raise his children. He stated
at the moment there are four other tenants in the building besides his
' r Bother, three of whom are individuals and one is a couple with a small
ist milde
e,
d t ipM SESSION
lgh �.r. Warren informed the Board that the Town Council had appointed
the_ alternate Edward Steben to fill the unexpired term of regular member
A.*Ithony Vitiello which expires November 30, 1979. Wayne Gerlt was
appointed as an alternate to fill Steben's term as an alternate which
Is F expires November 30, 1979•
Yr. Warren informed the Board he received a letter from the Town
Attorney stating the Court upheld the Zoning Board's decision in
the Donald Cyr matter (App. 1258-78) .
,V
twel: Application No. 129�•-79 - Robert J. Sheridana
wot Yx. Eriksson stated that he feels the situation regarding the right-of-
,
tf way in this matter is a mess, and he is not a legal person who can inter-
maps and deeds and tell who owns what. He said that by approving
this variance we are agreeing with Attorney Ahearn's interpretation
"ohn that the right-of-way is established. He noted that in the past when the
•5 variance was granted at the other end the right-of-way had been clearly
seep established. Mr. Eriksson also stated that when . the original variance
j; was granted, Cote, asked for one house on the 12.5 acres which was
then land-locked and not usable. He said that Sheridan knew when he
trig purchased from Cote that the ZBA had given permission .for one house
n using the right-of-way to Palmer Drive, and if this Board establishes a
Precedent by allowing a second house, what's to prevent them from putting
ch
.=
"Done house at a time until there was a sub-division?
ins!. Warren commented that the Planning & Zoning Commission should be
igr dealing with sub-divisions and not the Zoning Board, and noted that
the Deed did state Hebert owns the land in cuestion and said if this
•�,atter is approved the Board in effect would be imposing it's decision
;ts on Hebert.
n
members of the Board looked over the deed, and also studied the sur-
'eys • Mr. Steben noted that Hebert bought the property knowing that,
there was a right-of-way. Mr. Earley noted that Sheridan also bought
'-sen• his property knowing he couldn't build another house on it.
p a In
i ose ``r• Warren said there was lots of concern about what would 'happen to
land when the original variance was granted, and if this variance
is granted, the Board would be establishing a precedent for future
OOr,•190tinj roads. Kr. Eriksson said that if .we create the cut he felt
y
tiney arew Ine Comprehensive Plan. ^
Mr. Steben commented that this is a private situation with one brother owning property and wanting to sell a piece of it to s
arc '
brother to build a house, and that there are many houses , espec
in West Hartford where he used to live, that have private driveµ
with the houses set back that are very beautiful. He noted that
the Board is talking about two houses on 12 acres, and that if t
house were built properly drainage could be controlled.
The Board agreed that drainage was not really an issue here, and
the only member of the public who spoke that had a legitimate co
was Hebert.
Mr. Earley questioned why the driveway couldn' t be put in next t:
brother's driveway, and exit onto Palmer Drive.
The Board briefly discussed the property owned by Hornat and Kle:
and reviewed the surveys again. Mr. Murrin noted that the right-
way is clearly mentioned on Hebert's deed.
Mr. Eriksson reiterated that he still feels that the Board is ask
for trouble if it establishes the driveway as a cut, and that the
deed shows Hebert owns the land and its not the Board's place to :
there is a right-of-way. He said he feels a Court of law should
decide if there 's a right-of-way, and not the Zoning Board.
Mr. Eriksson mentioned that the Board had refused permission for,,-
second house on some Abby Road property,
r which
situation, and in this case thesittuationis compoundedmdueatoeth:
questionable right-of-way, and the traffic situation.
Mr. Steben mentioned that we had one person with a
I I problem, r.
a -roomful of people showed up with water problems that and ti-
v to do with this case. The other members of the Boardsaidthi the realized that Hebert was the only one with a gripe. Mr. Earley
noted that both Sheridan and Hebert knew what the situation was wh they bought their respective properties.
Mr. Eriksson stated that he does not feel the Board should
ia way out of the parcel of land. establi
Ir. Eriksson then moved that application No. 1296-79, Robert J.
Sheridan, 103 Palmer Drive, requesting a variance of Article 5.2,
Section 5, to allow a building lot without the required frontage a:
a paved street on premises known as Felt Road, Zone AA-30, be dent
because he believ6s the Comprehensive Plan of the Planning & Zoning
Commission would be violated by allowing a driveway to come out thr,
the right-of-way on the Hebert property, rather than establishing
access to the entire parcel through the 50 foot right-of-way to the
east of Cote 's property, or the established cut on Felt Road Extern
on the Palmer Drive end. Further, it was the intent of this Boars
in granting the initial variance on the 12.5 acre parcel in Novembe
1975, to create one building tot of 12.5 acres with one house on.if
for the appellant. At that time there was a hardship which was
eliminated by granting the= variance, thus making the 12.5 acres a,.piece of land. g
Mr. Earley seconded the motion; Eriksson, Earle
voted in favor; Steben voted against. The motion was rcarried.•urrir
t-
Volume 624 Page N° 261
FO
RM ORM - WARRANTY DEED
3. Ono 123
THE SAVINGS BANK OF MANCHESTER of the Town of Manchester,
County of Hartford and State of Connecticut for consideration
paid, grant to LINDA V. CLOUTIER of the Town of South Windsor,
County of Hartford and State of Connecticut, with WARRANTY
COVENANTS a certain piece or parcel of land located in the Town
of South Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut
known as 103 Palmer Drive as shown on a map entitled, "Property
of William J. Manning South Windsor, Conn. Scale 1' = 100' Apr.
21, 1956 Revised May 22, 1956 Lots added Cecil W. Brooks, Land
Surveyor", which.-map is on file in the South Windsor Town
Clerk's office, and being more particularly bounded and
described as follows, to wit:
NORTHERLY: By lots 1 through 14 as shown on said map,
partly by each in all one thousand three hundred
3 fifty-six and eighty-seven one hundredths
(1,356.87) feet;
u gg EASTERLY: By Lot 15, as shown on said map, sixty-six and
P
sixty-seven one hundredths (66.67) feet;
;EE SOUTHEASTERLY: By Felt Road;' and
r WESTERLY: By . land now or formerly of Edith House, eight
hundred thirty-eight and two one hundredths
(838.02) feet;
a containing 12.5 acres, more or less.
Said premises are subject to any and all provisions of public or
S private law and to any easements, restrictions or rights
appearing on the Land Records for the Town of South Windsor and
are subject to any and all provisions of public or private law.
Said premises are subject to 'taxes to the Town of South Windsor .
j on theList of October 1, 1991, not yet due and payable, which
taxes the grantees herein assume and agree to pay as part
consideration for this deed.
(laid premises are also subject to any and all easements, '
epstrictions or rights as of record appear and to any and all
a, 'provisions of public or private law and building, building line
o s O ind zoning regulations of the Town of South Windsor.
��,' [being the same premises conveyed to the grantor herein by
( ' committee's Deed dated October 7, 1991 and recorded in Volume
{i $18 at.Page 361 of the South Windsor Land Records. - _ -
t J U
0 tigned this 7th day of January, 1992.
0 9' 0
Witnessed by: :TH;ESA GS BA K OF 7::ESTER
,C
Carol A. Seaton Roger Somerville
Its S nior Vice President
rlene B. L Roy
'7
t
i
Volume 731 Pag o N.
e 186
SCl1ED=A
-A certaJn piece vr. pa r..l of lnmi
wttnitzor. lncated In the of Senith
.1 . 4'nunty n( Itarf.fa»d amt staF.e or Connecti.eltt, k
=)s
10-) i•alwnr brlvw .n.r rahrwn nn a wap etatitaeai, «tq• „mot. "�'wn a>:
i l •►. tlann)ttg ,,^.rntth M)ndaor, Conn. scale « "l 1p of wllllaw
}
11"Jveat May 7.7' 1956' t.rata Added 1 �• 100' Apr, zl. 1956 ig� wh{ch wap iR on file in the Cecil M. Dr-ooks, 1-m"I Su «
arNl laeit►y
Srnll-h Alnrlsor Town Cl.prk'a office.
were I+arf:iaatlarly brnu►alod w t.. alescrihed nR f-ollows, to
i
ItUirniFRi.y: by IoIR .i t.h)na►yh .14 as atrowrl btl Wald wap,
i iaarLly Lay enrla, in a)t olt. (hottQiltwl three
hnnd -m (lfty Six nnrl eI gilt y-seven one-
111rINf1'eril-ttf (1,356.87) feet;
1
r.A.^.TF.R1.r: fly Lr,t: 15, nR rdim"I r,n
arNl R{xl:y_ReVen arN.-.IIIrrRalM.itita(66`Ixriy 8)x
teet7
r(Mr"WA•;TFfl1.v: fly Felt Road: atNl
wrsy'FRI.y: -fly Inewl txaw ar rvt'mw.r1Y
InnNtrnrl Lhlrty eightatlal two vne—
OalhJLh �xlredthaht
(alm.07) feet:
Jl3. •.oni:a inirp 17..5
k �
r
RECEIVED FOR RECOM Q.-
DA �� 21 IM t11dF9:3S u,
��,► rMN CLE RI���a�& t
TOWN_- -SOUTN 0.SOK CT
•
a
Is
i
W
¢
o
_W
¢
¢
O
W
W
u
1 ¢ G
r (
- t
I
tT to•NN Sf+<�
r Town a"Oe Sou& VztU&101t
y ` 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
Qr�osoR•CO 4; AREA CODE 860/644-2511
December 1, 2000
Marianne Lassman Fisher, Mayor
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Closure of a portion of Felt Road
Dear Mayor Lassman Fisher:
At its November 28, 2000 Regular Meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission
endorsed the partial proposed closure of Felt Road. The Commission notes the following
concerns:
♦ It was represented at the meeting that there are current drainage issues on this portion
of the site.
♦ This favorable recommendation does not imply future subdivision for interior lots,
nor does it imply any approval for access in any particular location.
♦ This action precludes the use of this right- of way by the Town in the future for any
non-vehicular(e.g. pedestrian) access if the Town were to deem it desirable to have
a pedestrian access between Foster Street and Palmer Drive
If you have any questions,please contact the Planning Department at 644-2511, ext. 253.
Sincerely,
Walter Mealy, Chair
Planning and Zoning Commission
MRL/dlw
cc: Jerry Iazzetta, Town Engineer
a u
�trw�n. o�Str .t�i i NOV 9 z000
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074-2786
soe.co�' AREA CODE 860/644-2511
FAX 860/644-3781 SINTH VMUSUR RAIT NG 01M.
OFFICE
OF THE
TOWN COUNCIL November 8, 2000
Mr. Walter Mealy, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, Ct. 06074
Dear Mr. Mealy:
At its Regular Meeting of November 6, 2000, the South Windsor Town Council
approved the following Resolution:
WHEREAS, Felt Road is an unimproved "paper" road where it is
located between Palmer Drive and Foster Street in South Windsor,
Connecticut; and
WHEREAS, Linda V. Cloutier is the owner of 103 Palmer Drive,
South Windsor, Connecticut, which property abuts the
unimproved portion of Felt Road; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Cloutier has filed a written request with the Town
Council and the Board of Selectmen that the portion of Felt Road
which runs from a point approximately three hundred seventy two
feet (3721 northerly of the intersection of Palmer Drive with Felt
Road, and extending northerly to the intersection of Felt Road with
Foster Street, be discontinued by the Town, leaving as a public
road that portion which runs from the intersection of Felt Road
with Palmer Drive to a point approximately three hundred seventy
two feet (3721 north of that intersection. (Said portion of Felt Road
to be abandoned is depicted on a map entitled "Felt Road
Abandonment Map Compilation Plan Prepared for Town of South
Windsor Felt Road, South Windsor, Connecticut Design
Professionals, Inc. Date: 8-24-00 Job No: 99-1245 Sheet 1 of 1",
which map is attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and was provided as
an exhibit with the original request for the discontinuance.); and
(Resolution Continued on Next Page)
Mr. Walter Mealy, Chairman
Planning 8s Zoning Commission
Page 2
November 8, 2000
WHEREAS, any plan to discontinue a portion of a public road
must first be submitted to the South Windsor Planning 8s Zoning
Commission for a report, pursuant to Section 8-24 of the
Connecticut General Statutes;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plan to discontinue
that portion of Felt Road that leads from a point approximately
three hundred seventy two feet (3721 northerly of the intersection
of Palmer Drive with Felt Road, and extends northerly to the
intersection of Felt Road with Foster Street, as depicted on a map
prepared by Design Professionals, Inc. entitled "Felt Road
Abandonment Map Compilation Plan Prepared for Town of South
Windsor Felt Road, South Windsor, Connecticut Design
Professionals, Inc. Date: 8-24-00 Job No: 99-1245 Sheet 1 of 1,"
be submitted to the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission for a report, pursuant to Section 8-24 of the
Connecticut General Statutes.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia R. Brown
Clerk of the Council
cc: Matthew B. Galligan, Town Manager
Marcia Banach, Town Planner
Atty. Harold Cummings, 1510 Ellington Road, So. Windsor
4o*K aE44
O
y 4
�'N�SOR-Co 6
t
pow N aa�
O '
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074-2786
oil coN AREA CODE 860/644-2511
FAX 860/644-3781
OFFICE
OF THE
TOWN COUNCIL
January 3, 2001
Barry Guliano, Esquire
Town Attorney
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, Ct. 06074
Dear Atty. Guliano:
At its Regular Meeting of January 2, 2001, the South Windsor Town Council approved
the following Resolution:
WHEREAS, Felt Road is an unimproved "paper" road where it is located
between Palmer Drive and Foster Street in South Windsor, Connecticut;
and
WHEREAS, Linda V. Cloutier is the owner of 103 Palmer Drive, South
Windsor, Connecticut, which property abuts the unimproved portion of
Felt Road; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Cloutier has filed a written request with the Town Council
and the Board of Selectmen that the portion of Felt Road which runs from
a point approximately three hundred seventy two feet (372'), northerly, of
the intersection of Palmer Drive with Felt Road, and extending northerly to
the intersection of Felt Road with Foster Street, be discontinued by the
Town, leaving as a public road that portion which runs from the
intersection of Felt Road with Palmer Drive to a point approximately three
hundred seventy-two feet (372') north of that intersection; and
(Resolution Continued on Next Page)
t
Town Attorney Barry Guliano
Re: Discontinuance of a Portion of Felt Road
Page 2
January 3, 2001
WHEREAS, the South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission has issued a
report, pursuant to Section 8-24 of the Connecticut General Statutes
endorsing the partial proposed closure subject to several stated concerns
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plan to discontinue that
portion of Felt road commencing at a point approximately 372 feet
northerly of the intersection of Palmer Drive with Felt Road, and ending
approximately 1,015 feet from that point to a point at the southeasterly
corner of the property N/F Wilfred E. Hebert, Jr., is adopted and hereby
approved, as shown on a map prepared by Design Professionals, Inc.,
which map will be provided to Council prior to Regular Meeting of January
2, 2001.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia R. Brown
Clerk of the Council
Cc: Matthew B. Galligan, Town Manager
Atty. Harold Cummings
Walter Mealy, Chairman, Planning and Zoning
Marcia Banach, Director of Planning
ZOW SE1
O
Z
1�.SOR.lO..-
Stormwater Management Plan
CLOUTIER SUBDIVISION
103 Palmer Drive
South Windsor, Connecticut
FED 1� 2bb,
Prepared by
Design Professionals,Inc.
165'South Satellite Road
South Windsor, CT 06074
DPI Project No. 99-1280
0 ON
apdaN breaar,,,,a,..e
February 9,2001 o.
k ;
0
�JffNDtlYfldR �
Table of Contents: Page#
Introduction I
Proposed Development I
Peak Runoff control I
Nonstructural Drainage System I
Erosion/Sedimentation Control Systems I
Stormwater Runoff Quality I
Conveyance System 2
Maintenance and Operation 2
Topographic Contour Maps 2
Floodplain Boundaries 2
Drainage Design 2
On-Site Storm Sewer Calculations 2
Conclusions 2
Appendices
Site Location Map/Existing Watershed A
TR-55 Existing Conditions B
TR-55 Post Development Conditions-Through Proposed System C
TR-55 Post Development Conditions-Remaining Watershed D
Storm Sewer Calculations E
Introduction: The site is located on the north side of Palmer Drive in South Windsor,
Connecticut, and east of properties located along Ellington Road (Rt. 74) and consists of
one parcel totaling 11.67 acres. There is presently a single family home and shed on the
site. The site in the vicinity of Ellington Road drains to the west through a system of
catch basins to wetlands off site. The wetlands drain to Plum Gulley Brook. A map
depicting the subject site and existing watershed is contained in Appendix A.
Proposed Development: The proposed development involves a subdivision to create 2
additional single family residential building lots. As part of the development, the existing
paved driveway will be widened and additional driveways,both paved and gravel will be
constructed. The site will be serviced by public sanitary sewer and private wells. The
sanitary sewer service will be connected through an easement to the existing system
within Ellington Road. The large majority of the site is not anticipated to be disturbed
and will remain in its natural wooded condition. The area of the proposed development
will continue to drain to the west.
The Storm drainage system proposed for the development includes the installation of a
yard drain, storm manhole,vegetated drainage swales and a piped storm drainage system.
The site has been designed to provide swales along the western edge of the property,
along an existing footpath and also along the proposed common driveway. The intent of
the design is to encourage infiltration of surface flows for the smaller storms in particular.
Flows from larger storms will exit the site via the piped storm drainage system.
Peak Runoff Control: With the insignificant amount of development associated with
the addition of two single family residences, there are no impacts off site anticipated due
to this proposed development.
Nonstructural Drainage Systems: The site will make use of a number of nonstructural
measures to help infiltrate runoff into the soil, and to maintain the natural drainage
patterns. The drainage system on the site contains a number of swales to encourage
infiltration of storm runoff on the site.
Erosion/Sedimentation Control Systems: An erosion/sedimentation control plan has
been developed as part of the subdivision design. These measures include the following:
1. Installation of silt fence down-slope of disturbed areas.
2. Installation of silt fence around stockpiled materials.
3. Installation of silt fence around drainage structures.
4. Seeding and mulching disturbed areas as soon as practical during construction.
5. Limiting the areas of disturbance during construction.
6. Installation of construction entrance pads, and sweeping of roadways as needed.
7. Maintenance of the above measures.
Stormwater Runoff Quality: Drainage swales have been integrated into the site design
to provide for water quality treatment of the stormwater runoff from the site.
Conveyance System: The on-site conveyance system consists of a piped stormwater
system discharging to an existing piped stormwater system in Ellington Road. The piped
drainage system has been designed to accommodate the runoff from a 10 Yr design
storm.
Maintenance and Operation: The following maintenance operations will be required to
ensure the proper and efficient operation of the Storm Water System, and Water Quality
Basins. The following maintenance schedule is intended to be a minimum guide, and
additional inspections and maintenance measures may be required following large storm
events that could cause the deposition of excess debris in the system.
Yard Drain: The yard drain shall be inspected annually. The sump shall be
cleaned when the depth of material within the sump reaches 1'.
Topographic Contour Maps: Topographic contour maps have been provided showing
the drainage areas for the site at a scale of 1"=100'. The maps showing the existing and
developed conditions are included following the appendices of this report.
Floodplain Boundaries: There are no floodplain boundaries on the site.
Drainage Design: The drainage design of the site has been completed utilizing a number
of computer programs and generally accepted design methods. The runoff from the site
under existing and developed conditions was developed utilizing the TR 55 computer
program. The drainage piping on site was designed using the SCS formula.
Under existing and developed conditions, the site drains to the west into a State
stormwater drainage system in Ellington Road. The TR-55 calculations for the existing
runoff from the upland area to the State system are contained in appendix B. The TR-55
analysis for the developed discharge to the proposed on-site drainage system is contained
in appendix C. The TR 55 analysis for the remainder of the existing watershed discharge
to the existing State drainage system is contained in appendix D.
On-Site Storm Sewer Calculations: The storm sewer calculations for the storm piping
within the proposed private roadway are included in appendix E. The storm sewer has
been designed for a 10-year design storm utilizing the SCS formula.
Conclusions: The on-site stormwater system will mitigate any potential water quality
and quantity impacts from the development of the site.
APPENDIX A
�x
f-��: '� �•.K,•V�tX/+b � "� *' T 'M. 'M;' -yes��, ,�, �wll
`�;� �. .k.�M *�.. #;�•� .,,,:;iary�n'r ."'"'hopP� '•. '«�x, y ��� ; .�ry �rri,>� ,� I�Q�QQq
Ala
ev M f',
��p {y4, � �,�'a FaV'�'1�y ��� `wy, � ��p +1✓� J'�" x.�,�r.�
' t� ,'� � A' M�.' ,^k' ".d'y► r .� ,�,. .'iC��.wt,e`w�.f�„!�. 'q
wr
r"
APPENDIX B
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2 . 00
Project : CLOUTIER SUBDIVISION User: KMI Date: 01/26/01
County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date:
Subtitle: EXISTING DRAINAGE TO CB IN ELLINGTON ROAD
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D
Acres (CN)
------------------------------------------------------------------
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. )
Residential districts Avg o _impery
(by average lot size)
1/2 acre 25 - 15.3 (70) - -
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Woods fair - 5. 9 (60) - -
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 21.2
------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 21 .2 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 67*
-----------------------------------------------------7-------------
Generated for use by GRAPHIC method .
TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2.00
Project : CLOUTIER SUBDIVISION User: KMI Date: 01/26/01
County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date:
Subtitle: EXISTING DRAINAGE TO CB IN ELLINGTON ROAD
------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheet 3.2 300 .066 I 0.931
Shallow Concent'd 1050 . 070 U 0. 068 .
Shallow Concent'd 120 .013 P 0. 014
Time of Concentration = 1 .01*
--- Sheet Flow Surface Codes ---
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense ---Shallow Concentrated---
B Fallow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes ---
:�-`Cultivated < 20 o Res. H Woods, Light P Paved
{,,D Cultivated > 20 % Res . I Woods, Dense U .Unpaved
-E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
Page 1
- Generated for use by GRAPHIC method
GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00
Project : CLOUTIER SUBDIVISION User: KMI Date: 01/26/01
County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date:
Subtitle: EXISTING DRAINAGE TO CB IN ELLINGTON ROAD
Data: Drainage Area 21 .2 * Acres
Runoff Curve Number- . : 67 *
Time of Concentration: 1 .01 * Hours
Rainfall Type III
Pond and Swamp Area NONE
--------------------
I Storm Number 1 1 ( 2 1 3 I 4 1 5
i ---------------------- ( ------ ( ------ ( ------ ( ------ ( ------ (
( Frequency (yrs) ( 2 1 10 . 1 25 I 50 I 100 . 1
124-Hr Rainfall (in) I 3.2 ( 4 .7 1 5.5 1 6.2 1 6: 9
1 I I I 1 1
I Ia/P Ratio 10.31 ( 0.21 ( 0. 18 ( 0.16 ( _ 0. 14
1 I I I {
Runoff (in) ► 0. 69 ( _ 1 . 60 ( 2.16 12. 68 ( 3.23 I
I Unit Peak Discharge 10.382 10..421- 10.432 10. 440 10.446 I
I (cfs/acre/in) I I I I I I
1 I i I I i
( Pond and Swamp Factorl 1. 00 ( 1. 00 ( 1 . 00 11.00 11.00
( 0. 0% Ponds Used I I I I I
1 ---------------------- 1 ------ ( ------ (------ 1 ------ ( ------i
I Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 6 ( 14 ( 20 1 25 ( 31
* - Value (s) provided from TR-55 system routines
Page 2
APPENDIX C
- 1j-.C-
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2 . 00❑Projec
t : CLOUTIER SUBDIVISION - 1245 User: KMI Date: 01/26/01
County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date:
Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITIONS - THROUGH PROP. DRAIN.SYS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrologic Soil Group
COVER DESCRIPTION A B C D
Acres (CN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. )
Residential districts Avg o impery
(by average lot size)
1/2 acre 25 - 6.72 (70) - -
2 acre 12 - 4 .80 (65) - -
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 11 .5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 11 .52 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 68*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
❑❑* - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method
❑ TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version 2. 00❑
Project : CLOUTIER SUBDIVISION - 1245 User: KMI Date: 01/26/01
County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date:
Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITIONS - THROUGH PROP. DRAIN.SYS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity Time
rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft) (ft/sec) (hr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheet 3.2 300 .045 I 1 . 085
Shallow Concent'd 1000 . 040 U 0.086
Shallow Concent'd 100 . 005 U 0.024
Time of Concentration = 1 .20*
--- Sheet Flow Surface Codes ---
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrated---
B Fallow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda -- Surface Codes ---
C Cultivated < 20 o Res. H Woods, Light P Paved
D Cultivated > 20 o Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved
Page 1
-'r_Yur
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
❑❑* - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method
❑ GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2 .000
Project : CLOUTIER SUBDIVISION - 1245 User: KMI Date: 01/26/01
County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date:
Subtitle: PROPOSED CONDITIONS - THROUGH PROP. DRAIN.SYS.
Data: Drainage Area 11 . 52 * Acres
Runoff Curve Number 68 *
Time of Concentration: 1 .20 * Hours
Rainfall Type III
Pond and Swamp Area NONE
I Storm Number i l i 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 l
1 ---------------------- i ------ 1 ------ i ------ 1 ------ 1 ------ 1
Frequency (yrs) l 2 l 10 ( 25 ( 50 l 100 i
I I I I I I I
1 24-Hr Rainfall (in) 1 3.2 i 4 .7 1 5.5 ( 6.2 l 6.9 l
1 I I I I
1 Ia/P Ratio 1 0.29 i 0.20 1 0.17 1 0. 15 i 0. 14 i
I I I I I I i
l Runoff (in) l 0.73 ( 1 . 67 i 2.24 1 2 .78 i 3.33 1
I I I
Unit Peak Discharge 10.356 10.388 10.397 10. 404 10.409 1
I (cfs/acre/in) I 1 I 1 I I
1 I I I I
I Pond and Swamp Factorl 1 . 00 l 1. 00 i 1 . 00 i 1 . 00 l 1. 00 i
I 0. 0% Ponds Used I I I I I I
{ ---------------------- 1 ------ 1 ------ i ------ I ------ 1 ------ 1
Peak Discharge (cfs) i 3 1 7 l 10 i 13 1 16 1
* - Value (s) provided from TR-55 system routines
Page 2
APPENDIX D
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER COMPUTATION Version 2 . 000P
roject CLOUTIER SUBDIVISION User: RMI Date: 01/2
6/01
County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date:
Subtitle: PROP.COND. :BY-PASSING YD-DIRECTLY TO CB:ELLINGTON RD
------------------------------------------------------------------
up Hydrologic Soil Gro
COVER DESCRIPTION A B C
D
Acres (CN)
------------------------------------------------------
FULLY DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS (Veg Estab. )
Residential districts Avg % impery
(by average lot size)
1/2 acre 25 - 8 . 66 (.70) -
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Woods fair - 1.46 (60) -
Total Area (by Hydrologic Soil Group) 10. 1
----------------------------------------------
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA: 10. 12 Acres WEIGHTED CURVE NUMBER: 69
*
--------------------------------------------------
❑❑* - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method
❑ TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND TRAVEL TIME Version
2 . 00❑Project : CLOUTIER SUBDIVISI User: KMI Dat
e: 01/26/01
County HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date:
Subtitle: PROP.COND. :BY-PASSING YD-DIRECTLY TO CB:ELLINGTON RD
Page 1
------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow Type 2 year Length Slope Surface n Area Wp Velocity
Time
rain (ft) (ft/ft) code (sq/ft) (ft (ft/sec
(hr)
--------------------------------------------------------------=---
Sheet 3 .2 100 . 050 F
0.165
Sheet 200 . 05 I
0.752
Shallow Concent'd 425 . 020 U
0.052
Shallow Concent'd 450 . 01 P
0.061
Time of Concentration =
1 . 03*
--- Sheet Flow Surface Codes ---
A Smooth Surface F Grass, Dense --- Shallow Concentrat
ed ---
B Fallow (No Res. ) G Grass, Burmuda --- Surface Codes
C Cultivated < 20 o Res. H Woods, Light P Paved
D Cultivated > 20 % Res. I Woods, Dense U Unpaved
E Grass-Range, Short J Range, Natural
❑❑* - Generated for use by GRAPHIC method
❑ GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version
2 . 00❑Project : CLOUTIER SUBDIVISION User: KMI Dat
e: 01/26/01
County : HARTFORD State: CT Checked: Date:
Subtitle: PROP.COND. :BY-PASSING YD-DIRECTLY TO CB:ELLINGTON RD
Data: Drainage Area 10. 12 * Acres
Runoff Curve Number 69
Time of Concentration: 1 .03 * Hours
Rainfall Type III
Pond and Swamp Area NONE
I Storm Number I 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1
---------------------- I ------ I ------ I ------ I ------ ------
Frequency (yrs) I 2 1 10 I 25 I 50 I 100
Page 2
J i I I I I I
124-Hr Rainfall (in) s 3.2 s 4.7 i 5. 5 1 6.2 1 6. 9
I I I I I i I
I Ia/P Ratio 1 0.28 J 0. 19 J 0. 16 J 0. 14 10. 13 J
i Runoff (in) 1 0.78 11 .74 J 2.33 1 2. 87 J 3.43 1
i I I I I I I
I Unit Peak Discharge 10.390 10.424 10.434 10.441 10.446 J
I (cfs/acre/in) I 1 I I I I
I Pond and Swamp Factors 1 .00 i 1 .00 J 1 .00 i 1. 00 1 1 . 00 1
I 0. 0% Ponds Used I I I ( I I
1 ---------------------- 1 ------ J ------ 1 ------ 1 ------ 1 ------ J
i Peak Discharge (cfs) 1 3 J 7 J 10 1 13 I 15 J
* - Value (s) provided from TR-55 system routines
Page 3
APPENDIX E
IYUIWUIaNIi %--Vu1«1nary MWIJIV z Paget
Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Volume Return Inflow Maximum Maxium Hydrograph
No. type - flow Interval Peak period h d s elevation storage
(origin) (cfs) (non) (min Y ( 1 age description
1 (�R) (Yrn) (tt) (cuff)
1 SCS Runoff 7.9 1 772 1.58 10 — — DVLP-YARD DRAI
Proj-. file: 1245.GPW OF file: HARTFORDADF Run date: 02-08-2001
Hydrograph Report
Page 1
Hyd. No. 1
DVLP-YARD DRAIN
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 7.89 cfs
Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time interval = 1 min
Drainage area = 11.52 ac Curve number = 68
Basin Slope = 0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = USER Time of conc. (Tc) = 72 min
Total precip. = 4.70 in Distribution = Type III
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
Total Volume=68,918 cult,1.582 acft
-Hydrograph Discharge Table
Time -- Outflow Time --Outflow Time --Outflow Time --Outflow
(hrs cfs) (hrs cfs) (hrs cfs) (hrs- cfs)
10.70 0.01 11.27 0.12 11.83 0.58 12.40 4.64
10.72 0.01 11.28 0.12 11.85 0.61 12.42 4.82
10.73 0.01 11.30 0.13 11.87 0.65 12.43 4.99
10.75 0.01 11.32 0.14 11.88 0.69 12.45 5.17
10.77 0.02 11.33 0.14 11.90 0.73 12.47 5.34
10.78 0.02 11.35 0.15 11.92 0.78 12.48 5.52
10.80 0.02 11.37 0.16 11.93 0.83 12.50 5.69
10.82 0.02 11.38 0.16 11.95 0.88 12.52 5.86
10.83 0.02 11.40 0.17 11.97 0.95 12.53 6.03
10.85 0.02 11.42 0.18 11.98 1.02 12.55 6.19
10.87 0.03 11.43 0.19 12.00 1.10 12.57 6.36
10.88 0.03 11.45 0.20 12.02 1.19 12.58 6.52
10.90 0.03 11.47 0.20 12.03 1.29 12.60 6.67
10.92 0.03 11.48 0.21 12.05 1.40 12.62 6.82
10.93 0.04 11.50 0.22 12.07 1.51 12.63 6.97
10.95 0.04 11.52 0.23 12.08 1.64 12.65 7.11
10.97 0.04 11.53 0.24 12.10 1.76 12.67 7.24
10.98 0.04 11.55 0.25 12.12 1.90 12.68 7.37
11.00 0.05 11.57 0.26 12.13 2.03 12.70 7.48
11.02 0.05 11.58 0.27 12.15 2.17 12.72 7.57
11.03 0.05 11.60 0.29 12.17 2.32 12.73 7.65
11.05 0.06 11.62 0.30 12.18 2.46 12.75 7.71
11.07 0.06 11.63 0.31 12.20 2.61 12.77 7.77
11.08 0.07 11.65 0.33 12.22 2.77 12.78 7.81
11.10 0.07 11.67 0.34 12.23 2.93 12.80 7.84
11.12 0.07 11.68 0.36 12.25 3.09 12.82 7.86
11.13 0.08 11.70 0.38 12.27 3.25 12.83 7.88
11.15 0.08 11.72 0.40 12.28 3.42 12.85 7.89
11.17 0.09 11.73 0.42 12.30 3.59 12.87 7.89«
11.18 0.09 11.75 0.44 12.32 3.76 12.88 7.89
11.20 0.10 11.77 0.46 12.33 - 3.93 12.90 7.88
11.22 0.10 11.78 0.49 12.35 4.11 12.92 7.86
11.23 0.11 11.80 0.52 12.37 4.29 12.93 7.84
11.25 0.11 11.82 0.54 12.38 4.46 12.95 7.82
Confines on next page...
DVLP-YARD DRAIN Page 2
Hydrograph Discharge Table
Time --Outflow Time --Outflow Time --Outflow Time --Outflow
(hrs cfs) (hrs cfs) (hrs cfs) (hrs cfs)
12.97 7.79 13.80 3.56 14.63 1.85 15.47 1.45
12.98 7.75 13.82 3.46 14.65 1.83 15.48 1.44
13.00 7.71 13.83 3.37 14.67 1.82 15.50 1.44
13.02 7.67 13.85 3.28 14.68 1.81 15.52 1.43
13.03 7.62 13.87 3.20 14.70 1.80 15.53 1.42
13.05 7.56 13.88 3.12 14.72 1.79 15.55 1.42
13.07 7.50 13.90 3.04 14.73 1.78 15.57 1.41
13.08 7.44 13.92 2.97 14.75 1.77 15.58 1.40
13.10 7.38 13.93 2.90 14.77 1.76 15.60 1.40
13.12 7.31 13.95 2.84 14.78 1.76 15.62 1.39
13.13 7.24 13.97 2.78 14.80 1.75 15.63 1.39
13.15 7.17 13.98 2.73 14.82 1.74 15.65 1.38
13.17 7.09 14.00 2.68 14.83 1.73 15.67 1.37
13.18 7.01 14.02 2.63 14.85 1.72 15.68 1.37
13.20 6.94 14.03 2.59 14.87 1.71 15.70 1.36
13.22 6.85 14:05 2.54 14.88 1.70 15.72 1.35
13.23 6.77 14.07 2.50 14.90 1.69 15.73 1.35
13.25 6.69 14.08 2.46 14.92 1.69 15.75 1.34
13.27 6.61 14.10 2.43 14.93 1.68 15.77 1.34
13.28 6.52 14.12 2.39 14.95 1.67 15.78 1.33
13.30 6.43 14.13 2.36 14.97 1.66 15.80 1.32
13.32 6.35 14.15 2.33 14.98 1.65 15.82 1.32
13.33 6.26 14.17 2.30 15.00 1.65 15.83 1.31
13.35 6.17 14.18 2.27 15.02 1.64 15.85 1.31
13.37 6.08 14.20 2.25 15.03 1.63 15.87 1.30
13.38 5.99 14.22 2.22 15.05 1.62 15.88 1.29
13.40 5.89 14.23 2.20 15.07 1.61 15.90 1.29
13:42 5.80 14.25 2.18 15.08 1.61 15.92 1.28
13.43 5.71 14.27 2.16 15.10 1.60 15.93 1.28
13.45 5.61 14.28 2.14 15.12 1.59 15.95 1.27
13.47 5.51 14.30 2.12 15.13 1.58 15.97 1.26
13.48 5.42 14.32 2.10 15.15 1.58 15.98 1.26
13.50 5.32 14.33 2.08 15.17 1.57 16.00 1.25
13.52 5.22 14.35 2.07 15.18 1.56 16.02 1.25
13.53 5.12 14.37 2.05 15.20 1.56 16.03 1.24
13.55 5.02 14.38 2.04 15.22 1.55 16.05 1.23
13.57 4.92 14.40 2.02 15.23 1.54 16.07 1.23
13.58 4.83 14.42 2.01 15.25 1.53 16.08 1.22
13.60 4.73 14.43 1.99 15.27 1.53 16.10 1.21
13.62 4.63 14.45 1.98 ' 15.28 1.52 16.12 1.21
13.63 4.53 14.47 1.97 15.30 1.51 16.13 1.20
13.65 4.43 14.48 1.95 15.32 1.51 16.15 1.20
13.67 4.33 14.50 1.94 15.33 1.50 16.17 1.19
13.68 4.23 14.52 1.93 15.35 1.49 16.18 1.18
13.70 4.13 14.53 1.92 15.37 1.49 16.20 1.18
13.72 4.03 14.55 1.90 15.38 1.48 16.22 1.17
13.73 3.94 14.57 1.89 15.40 1.47 16.23 1.17
13.75 3.84 14.58 1.88 15.42 1.47 16.25 1.16
13.77 3.74 14.60 1.87 15.43 1.46 16.27 1.15
13.78 3.65 14.62 1.86 15.45 1.45 16.28 1.15
Confinues on next page...
DVLP YARD DRAIN Page 3
Hydrograph Discharge Table
Time --Outflow Time --Outflow . Time --Outflow Time --Outflow
(hrs cfs) (hrs cfs) (hrs cfs) (hrs cfs)
16.30 1.14 17.13 0.89 17.97 0.74 18.80 0.61
16.32 1.14 17.15 0.89 17.98 0.74 18.82 0.61
16.33 1.13 17.17 0.89 18.00 0.73 18.83 0.61
16.35 1.12 17.18 0.88 18.02 0.73 18.85 0.60
16.37 1.12 17.20 0.88 18.03 0.73 18.87 0.60
16.38 1.11 17.22 0.88 18.05 0.72 18.88 0.60
16.40 1.11 17.23 0.87 18.07 0.72 18.90 0.60
16.42 1.10 17.25 0.87 18.08 0.72 18.92 0.60
16.43 1.09 17.27 0.87 18.10 0.72 18.93 0.60
16.45 1.09 17.28 0.86 18.12 0.71 18.95 0.59
16.47 1.08 17.30 0.86 18.13 0.71 18.97 0.59
16.48 1.08 17.32 0.86 18.15 0.71 18.98 0.59
16.50 1.07 17.33 0.85 18.17 0.70 19.00 0.59
16.52 1.07 17.35 0.85 18.18 0.70 19.02 0.59
16.53 1.06 17.37 0.85 18.20 0.70 19.03 0.59
16.55 1.05 17.38 0.84 18.22 0.70 19.05 0.58
16.57 1.05 17.40 0.84 18.23 0.69 19.07 0.58
16.58 1.04 17.42 0.84 18.25 0.69 19.08 0.58
16.60 1.04 17.43 0.83 18.27 0.69 19.10 0.58
16.62 1.03 17.45 0.83 18.28 0.69 19.12 0.58
16.63 1.03 17.47 0.83 18.30 0.68 19.13 0.58
16.65 1.02 17.48 0.82 18.32 0.68 19.15 0.58
16.67 1.02 17.50 0.82 18.33 0.68 19.17 0.57
16.68 1.01 17.52 0.82 18.35 0.67 19.18 0.57
16.70 1.01 17.53 0.81 18.37 0.67 19.20 0.57
16.72 1.00 17.55 0.81 18.38 0.67 19.22 0.57
16.73 1.00 17.57 0.81 18.40 0.67 19.23 0.57
16.75 0.99 17.58 0.80 18.42 0.66 19.25 0.57
16.77 0.99 17.60 0.80 18.43 0.66 19.27 0.57
16.78 0.98 17.62 0.80 18.45 0.66 19.28 0.57
16.80 0.98 17.63 0.80 18.47 0.66 19.30 0.56
16.82 0.97 17.65 0.79 18.48 0.65 19.32 0.56
16.83 0.97 17.67 0.79 18.50 0.65 19.33 0.56
16.85 0.96 17.68 0.79 18.52 0.65 19.35 0.56
16.87 0.96 17.70 0.78 18.53 0.65 1937 0.56
16.88 0.95 17.72 0.78 18.55 0.64 19.38 0.56
16.90 0.95 17.73 0.78 18.57 0.64 19.40 0.56
16.92 0.95 17.75 0.78 18.58 0.64 19.42 0.56
16.93 0.94 17.77 0.77 18.60 0.64 19.43 0.56
16.95 0.94 17.78 0.77 - 18.62 0.63 19.45 0.56
16.97 0.93 17.80 0.77 18.63 0.63 19.47 0.55
16.98 0.93 17.82 0.76 18.65 0.63 19.48 0.55
17.00 0.92 17.83 0.76 18.67 0.63 19.50 0.55
17.02 0.92 17.85 0.76 18.68 0.62 19.52 0.55
17.03 0.92 17.87 0.76 18.70 0.62 19.53 0.55
17.05 0.91 17.88 0.75 18.72 0.62 19.55 0.55
17.07 0.91 17.90 0.75 18.73 0.62 19.57 0.55
17.08 0.91 17.92 0.75 18.75 0.62 19.58 0.55
17.10 0.90 17.93 0.74 18.77 0.61 19.60 0.55
17.12 0.90 17.95 0.74 18.78 0.61 19.62 0.55
Confinues on next page...
DVLP-YARD DRAIN Page 4
Hydrograph Discharge Table
Time --Outflow Time --Outflow Time --Outflow Time --Outflow
(hrs cfs) (hrs cfs) (hrs cfs) (hrs cfs)
19.63 0.54 20.47 0.50 21.30 0.46 22.13 0.42
19.65 0.54 20.48 0.50 21.32 0.46 22.15 0.42
19.67 0.54 20.50 0.50 21.33 0.46 22.17 0.42
19.68 0.54 20.52 0.50 21.35 0.46 22.18 0.42
19.70 0.54 20.53 0.50 21.37 0.45 22.20 0.42
19.72 0.54 20.55 0.50 21.38 0.45 22.22 0.42
19.73 0.54 20.57 0.50 21.40 0.45 22.23 0.42
19.75 0.54 20.58 0.50 21.42 0.45 22.25 0.42
19.77 0.54 20.60 0.49 21.43 0.45 22.27 0.42
19.78 0.54 20.62 0.49 21.45 0.45 22.28 0.42
19.80 0.54 20.63 0.49 21.47 0.45 22.30 0.42
19.82 0.53 20.65 0.49 21.48 0.45 22.32 0.42
19.83 0.53 20.67 0.49 21.50 0.45 22.33 0.42
19.85 0.53 20.68 0.49 21.52 0.45 22.35 0.42
19.87 0.53 20.70 0.49 21.53 0.45 22.37 0.42
19.88 0.53 20.72 0.49 21.55 0.45 22.38 0.42
19.90 0.53 20.73 0.49 21.57 0.44 22.40 - 0.42
19.92 0.53 20.75 0.49 21.58 0.44 22.42 0.42
19.93 0.53 20.77 0.49 21.60 0.44 22.43 0.42
19.95 0.53 20.78 0.49 21.62 0.44 22.45 0.42
19.97 0.53 20.80 0.48 21.63 0.44 22.47 0.42
19.98 0.53 20.82 0.48 21.65 0.44 22.48 0.42
20.00 0.53 20.83 0.48 21.67 0.44 22.50 0.42
20.02 0.52 20.85 0.48 21.68 0.44 22.52 0.42
20.03 0.52 20.87 0.48 21.70 0.44 22.53 0.42
20.05 0.52 20.88 0.48 21.72 0.44 22.55 0.42
20.07 0.52 20.90 0.48 21.73 0.44 22.57 0.42
20.08 0.52 20.92 0.48 21.75 0.43 22.58 0.42
20.10 0.52 20.93 0.48 21.77 0.43 22.60 0.42
20.12 0.52 20.95 0.48 21.78 0.43 22.62 0.42
20.13 0.52 20.97 0.48 21.80 0.43 22.63 0.42
20.15 0.52 20.98 0.47 21.82 0.43 22.65 0.42
20.17 0.52 21.00 0.47 21.83 0.43 22.67 0.42
20.18 0.52 21.02 0.47 21.85 0.43 22.68 0.42
20.20 0.52 21.03 0.47 21.87 0.43 22.70 0.42
20.22 0.51 21.05 0.47 21.88 0.43 22.72 0.42
20.23 0.51 21.07 0.47 21.90 0.43 22.73 0.42
20.25 0.51 21.08 0.47 21.92 0.43 22.75 0.42
20.27 0.51 21.10 0.47 21.93 0.42 22.77 0.42
20.28 0.51 21.12 0.47 , 21.95 0.42 22.78 0.42
20.30 0.51 21.13 0.47 21.97 0.42 22.80 0.42
20.32 0.51 21.15 0.47 21.98 0.42 22.82 0.42
20.33 0.51 21.17 0.47 22.00 0.42 22.83 0.42
20.35 0.51 21.18 0.46 22.02 0.42 22.85 0.42
20.37 0.51 21.20 0.46 22.03 0.42 22.87 0.42
20.38 0.51 21.22 0.46 22.05 0.42 22.88 0.42
20.40 0.51 21.23 0.46 22.07 0.42 22.90 0.42
20.42 0.50 21.25 0.46 22.08 0.42 22.92 0.42
20.43 0.50 21.27 0.46 22.10 0.42 22.93 0.41
20.45 0.50 21.28 0.46 22.12 0.42 22.95 0.41
Continues on next page...
DVLP-YARD DRAIN Page 5
Hydrograph Discharge Table
Time-- Outflow Time-- Outflow
(hrs cfs) (hrs cfs)
22.97 0.41 23.80 0.37
22.98 0.41 23.82 0.3T
23.00 0.41 23.83 0.37
23.02 0.41 23.85 0.36
23.03 0.41 23.87 0.36
23.05 0.41 23.88 0.36
23.07 0.41 23.90 0.36
23.08 0.41 23.92 0.36
23.10 0.41 23.93 0.36
23.12 0.41 23.95 0.36
23.13 0.40 23.97 0.36
23.15 0.40 23.98 0.36
23.17 0.40
23.18 0.40
23.20 0.40 ...End
23.22 0.40
23.23 0.40
23.25 0.40
2327 0.40
23.28 0.40
23.30 0.40
23.32 0.40
23.33 0.39
23.35 0.39
23.37 0.39
23.38 0.39
23.40 0.39
23.42 0.39
23.43 0.39
23.45 0.39
23.47 0.39
23.48 0.39
23.50 0.39
23.52 0.38
23.53 0.38
23.55 0.38
23.57 0.38
23.58 0.38
23.60 0.38
23.62 0.38
23.63 0.38
23.65 0.38
23.67 0.38
23.68 0.38
23.70 0.37
23.72 0.37
23.73 0.37
23.75 0.37
23.77 0.37
23.78 0.37
III III IIIIIIIIII III
DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC.
civil engineers * planners + surveyors * gis
LETTER OF TRANSMITTALA,
t ' d
TO: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning DATE: February 13, 2001
Town of South Windsor Fah �Ct11
1540 Sullivan Ave.
South Windsor, CT 06074 P
Svc i�� �`��a�J��u� P�.�ti�EP�� ��"�•
RE: Cloutier DPI PROJ NO: 1245
Resubdivision/Special Exception
Felt Road &Palmer Drive
South Windsor, Connecticut
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
❑ for your use ❑ at your request
® for approval by PZC ❑for your files
® for review and comment ❑ other
THE FOLLOWING: Eight(8) blueprint sets of plans, one copy of the legal description,the completed
special exception/site plan/resubdivision application form; one copy of the certified abutter notification letter; abutters
list;two copies of the stormwater management plan;two copies of the site plan &subdivision check lists; and the
application fee ($130 client check). Please advise us of the hearing date.Thank you.
DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC.
By:
--- - -- --- -- ------- -
-------------
Kare ood
Project Engineer
CC: Linda&Ben Cloutier
Galen B. Semprebon, P.E.
Peter R. DeMalaie
Harold R. Cummings
Matthew Montana
165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074
Tel: (860) 291-8755 .Fax: (860) 291-8757
DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC.
civil engineers .planners . surveyors . gis
Transmitted via certified mail
Dear Current Abutting Property Owner February 14, 2001
Re: Cloutier Subdivision DPI Project No. 99-1245
Palmer Drive
South Windsor, Connecticut
In accordance with regulations of the Inland Wetlands Agency and Planning&
Zoning Commission, we are required to notify you that applications have been filed on the
property abutting yours and is subject to a hearing by the Planning&Zoning Commission
and Inland Wetlands Agency. The application and plans are on file with the South
Windsor Planning Department in the Town Hall.
As an abutting property owner you are invited to the hearing(s)to ask questions
and/or give comments, however, you are not required to attend. You may also submit
written comments regarding the application(s)prior to the hearing if you so desire. For
further information regarding the specific date this application(s)will be heard,please
contact Debbie Wark,Recording Secretary or Michele Lipe, Deputy Planning Director or
Jeff Folger, Wetlands Officer at the South Windsor Planning Department at 644-2511, ext.
253 or 252, or 229, respectively. Thank you.
Sincere y,
D7 PROFESSIONALS, INC.
By:
-Peter R. DeMallie
Principal
cc: Linda&Ben Cloutier
Karen Isherwood'
Cummings&Lanza
Jeffrey Folger
Marcia Banach
Galen B. Semprebon, P.E.
Matthew Montana
165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074
Tel: (860) 291-8755 •Fax: (860)291-8757
MEMORANDUM
To: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning
From: Jerry C. Iazzetta, P.E., Town Engineer
Date: February 27, 2001
Re: Cloutier Resubdivision and Site Plan of Development 01-07P
We have reviewed the drawings dated February 2, 2001 for the proposed Cloutier
Resubdivision and Site Plan of Development and have the following comments:
Key Map — Sheet 2
1. Only one-half of the abandoned Felt Road is shown.
Plot Plan — Sheet 3
1. Driveway width for lot #2 is not shown. Also, width of driveway area in front of garages
for lots 2 & 3 is not shown.
2. The proposed sanitary easement should be located with a dimension from either the
northwest or southwest corner of lot #2.
3. Town Council approval will be required for the shared driveway within the Felt Road right-
of-way.
Topographic Plan — Sheet 4
1. The proposed future sanitary sewer lateral to lot #1 should be shown as future (i.e. show
dashed).
2. The area around the proposed yard drain should be graded to provide a positive catchment
of stormwater into the yard drain.
3. The storm and sanitary sewer pipe should be dimensioned to show location within the
proposed easements.
4. The storm pipe connection to the existing catch basin in Ellington Road should enter the
back of the basin and not into the corner.
5. WPCA approval will be required.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan — Sheet 5
1. A proposed anti-tracking pad is shown within the"abandoned Felt Road."
Details — Sheet 6
1. Detail for paved driveway does not indicate the thickness of the gravel base.
S:ENGINEER\Prcj.—P&Z&Wetland Apps\Cloutier\Feb 27 comments
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
IN-HOUSE REFERRAL FORM
TO: Matt Galligan, Fred Shaw�Michael Gantick, Thomas Field, Bill Lanning, Kris Lindstrom,
Ray Favreau, Karl Reichle, Mel Stead, John Collins, Bob Deptula, Jerry Iazzetta
FROM: Marcia A. Banach, AICP, Director of Planning
The Planning & Engineering Departments have received plans for the following project:
Location:
Site Plan f Subdivision No. Acres /a.5 f Zone A tD
O Industrial O Commercial J Residential No. Lots/Units - �q
Water: q�ublic O Private Well Sewerage: L Mblic 0 Septic system(s)
Project Description:
Future Town-owned property involved? O YesX-No
O new street(s) O new detention area
O new open space/recreation area O active O passive
Planning Department notes:
Please comment by a/ .� 0 1 and return to the Planning Department.
V�
QwN SE,4
Town 0-Ps-out. V
y ` 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
SOR-co AREA CODE 860 / 644-2511
March 8, 2001
Certified #P462498153
Design Professionals
Attn: Peter DeMallie
165 South Satellite Road
South Windsor, CT 06074
RE: Appl. #01-07 , Cloutier, ortherly of Palmer Drive and easterly of Ellington
Road, AA-30 esiden ' 1 zone.
Dear Mr. DeMallie:
At the March 7, 2001 regular meeting, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation
Commission approved application #01-07P — Cloutier, Palmer Drive, Conservation
application for a 3-lot re-subdivision located northerly of Palmer Drive and easterly
of Ellington Road (Assessor's Map #91, Parcel #65) AA-30 Residential zone. This
approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. One blueprint copy of the entire set of plans and this letter reproduced thereon,
must be submitted to this Commission. This must be completed within 65
days of approval prior to any construction activity on the site. Plans submitted
to Planning & Zoning Commission shall be considered having met this
requirement.
2. The application shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town of South Windsor
against any liability, which might result from the proposed operation or use.
3. The permit is valid for five years and shall expire on March 7, 2006. It is the
landowner(s)/applicant(s) responsibility to track expiration dates and notify the
Commission of a renewal request at least 65 days prior to expiration.
4. All approvals required must be obtained and submitted prior to any activity on
the site.
Cloutier
March 8, 2001
Page 2
4. A contact person shall be identified on the plans.
5. We recommend a bond in the amount of$3,000 be submitted to the
Planning & Zoning Commission to ensure compliance with the Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Measures.
6. The proposed drainage swale details and planting details to be included on
the plans.
7. The construction sequence should include the construction of the drainage
swale. The construction of the swale and associated establishment of
vegetation must be completed prior to lot clearing and construction of the
house.
8. Additional check dams to be placed in the field at intervals along the swale
and down slope of the proposed foundation of lot #2. All proposed
improvements to be placed on the plans.
Very truly yours,
INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Elizabeth Warren, Chairperson
EW:dr
cc: Chief Building Official
Town Engineer
Mr. 8s Mrs. Cloutier
BAR �
.001
<Ow w S"q
cp
e � -0 4C Sotdj-7,
Z �
�;ti°. • �w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
�sOR.Co TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511
March 22,2001
RECEIVED
Design Professionals
165 South Satellite Road MAR 2 8 2001
South Windsor,CT 06074
Attn: Galen Semprebon SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT.
RE: Cloutier Sewer Extension
Dear Mr.Semprebon:
The South Windsor Water Pollution Control Authority,at its regular meeting of March 13,2001,gave
approval for the connection of a residential subdivision,including Lot 2 and 3 to the Town's sewerage
system located on Felt Rd.,as more specifically shown on Drawing No.2 entitled"Cloutier Subdivision
Key Map",Drawing No. 6 entitled"Detail Map",prepared by Design Professionals,Inc.,South Windsor,
CT.,Project No. 00-1245,Dated 2-2-01,with no revisions and subject to the following conditions:
1. Any changes made to the map that affect the sewer line will require the applicant to return to the
WPCA for further approval.
2. Subject to the approval of the Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission.
3. Review and approval by the Town Attorney of all previous and new easements.
4. Subject to the technical approval of the Town of South Windsor Engineering Department.
5. Final Authority approval and acceptance of the sanitary sewerage connection will be given once the
sewer line has been installed and inspected by the Town staff,and based upon the written verification
of the Town staff that said sanitary sewer line was installed in substantial conformance with the design
plans previously approved by the Authority,and meeting all Town regulations and appropriate
technical specifications relating to sanitary sewer construction.
This approval letter must be superimposed on the final approval plans.
Very ly yours,
Th s H' dson,Chairman
Water Pollution Control Authority
TH:dd
CC:Matthew Galligan,Town Manager
Michael J.Gantick,Director of Public Works
Jerry Iazzetta,Town Engineer
Marcia Banach,Director of Planning
John Collins,Chief Building Inspector
Linda V.Cloutier
DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC.
civil engineers . planners . surveyors . gis RECEIVED
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL APR 0 2 2001
TO: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning DATE:Ap 10R U NINGOVT
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Ave.
South Windsor, CT 06074
RE: Cloutier DPI PROD NO: 1245
Resubdivision/Site Plan of Development 01-07P
Felt Road&Palmer Drive
South Windsor, Connecticut
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
❑ for your use ❑ at your request
® for approval by PZC ❑ for your files
® for review and comment ❑ other
THE FOLLOWING: Three(3) blueprint sets of revised plans. Revisions address written comments from
Town Engineer,Jerry lazetta, dated February 27, 2001.All comments have been addressed as follows:
Sheet 2:The subdivided lots are claiming one-half of the abandoned Felt Road.The other half remains
unclaimed by those lots eligible on Jonathan Lane.
Sheet 3: 1) Driveway widths labeled.
2) Sanitary easement located with dimension from NW comer of PL between lots 2 &3.
3) We acknowledge that Town Council approval is required for shared driveway within R.O.W.
Sheet 4: 1) Future sanitary sewer depicted and labeled.
2) Spot grade provided downgradient of CB to establish positive catchment.
3) Storm &sanitary pipes dimensioned within easement area.
4) Pipe connection centered within structure; Note added regarding pavement removal/permanent
patch requirement.
5)We acknowledge that WPCA approval is required.
*Revised yard drain structure to provide a curbless catch basin top.
Sheet 5:Anti-track pad moved to relocated driveway entrances.
Sheet 6: 1) Detail for paved driveway indicates depth of gravel base.
• Removed yard drain detail and added curbless catch basin top detail.
• Added construction notes which reflect approval conditions imposed by IWACC.
Please advise us of the hearing date. Thank you.
DESIGN P OFESSIONALS, INC.
aO-----
Karen I ood
Project Engineer
165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074
Tel: (860)291-8755 9 Fax: (860)291-8757
C-
PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL
DATE:
TO: a
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
O PZC initial plans O Drainage computations
ZR PZC revised plans O Bond estimate request
O PZC Final plans for review O Bond reduction request
O PZC Final plans for filing O Correspondence
O IWA/CC plans
O Other
NO.OF COPIES APPLICATION NUMBER PROJECT/APPLICANT
THESE ITEMS ARE TRANSMITTED: \�
PCEIV�Q
For review and comment - O For your files APR
O For your use O As requested .k.
SOUTH WINDSOR
❑ Other ` ,ia DEPT.
r ��r
PLEASE RETURN/COMMEND'BY:
co7j�.-
0 X- o
Copy to: From: uk-�44
OA 6
Planning Department artment- 10/98
DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC.
civil engineers • planners • surveyors • gis
RECEIVED
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL APR U 2 2001
TO: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning DATE:Ap0ft+ 1ORPlANNINGQR Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Ave.
South Windsor, CT 06074
RE: Cloutier DPI PROJ NO: 1245
Resubdivision/Site Plan of Development 01-07P
Felt Road &Palmer Drive
South Windsor, Connecticut
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
❑ for your use ❑at your request
® for approval by PZC ❑for your files
® for review and comment ❑ other
THE FOLLOWING: Three (3) blueprint sets of revised plans. Revisions address written comments from
Town Engineer, Jerry lazetta,dated February 27, 2001.All comments have been addressed as follows:
Sheet 2: The subdivided lots are claiming one-half of the abandoned Felt Road. The other half remains
unclaimed by those lots eligible on Jonathan Lane.
Sheet 3: 1) Driveway widths labeled.
2) Sanitary easement located with dimension from NW comer of PL between lots 2&3.
3)We acknowledge that Town Council approval is required for shared driveway within R.O.W.
Sheet 4: 1) Future sanitary sewer depicted and labeled.
2) Spot grade provided downgradient of CB to establish positive catchment.
3) Storm &sanitary pipes dimensioned within easement area.
4) Pipe connection centered within structure; Note added regarding pavement removal/permanent
patch requirement.
5) We acknowledge that WPCA approval is required.
*Revised yard drain structure to provide a curbless catch basin top.
Sheet 5:Anti-track pad moved to relocated driveway entrances.
Sheet 6: 1) Detail for paved driveway indicates depth of gravel base.
• Removed yard drain detail and added curbless catch basin top detail.
• Added construction notes which reflect approval conditions imposed by IWACC.
Please advise us of the hearing date. Thank you.
DESIGN P OFESSIONALS, INC.
y: -
Karen I od
Project Engineer
165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074
Tel: (860)291-8755 9 Fax: (860)291-8757
Michele Lipe-Re: Cloutier property Page 1
From: Tom Field
To: Michele Lipe
Date: 4/3/01 3:19PM
Subject: Re: Cloutier property
Is the driveway and driveway or a road way?
If they widen the driveway wont drivers north bound on Felt Road think that they can go straight?
would like a larger stop sign in the new reflective 3M material @ Felt/Palmer.
Tom
RECEIVED
LAW OFFICES
APR 2 3 401
CUMMINGS,LANZA AND PURNHAGEN,L.L.C.
1610 ELLINGTON ROAD SOUTH ENDSOR PLANNING DEPT.
POST OFFICE BOX 667
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONN.06074-0667
(860)644-3473
FAX(860)644-3347
HAROLD R.CUMMINGS EDWARD R.KUEHN
MICHAEL J.LANZA OF COUNSEL
VINCENT J.PURNHAGEN
April 20, 2001
Via Facsimile and First Class Mail
Fax#644-7280
Marcia Banach
Director of Planning
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
In Re: Resubdivision Application—Linda V Cloutier
103 Palmer Drive, South Windsor, CT
Dear Marcia:
In accordance with our telephone conversation earlier today, this is to request, on behalf of my client,
Linda Cloutier, a 65 day extension of the time period for the Planning and Zoning Commission to
act on my client's application for a resubdivision.
Please give me a call if you have any questions with rega ds to the above.
Since ely ours.
ar umriings.
HRC/ss
cc: Linda Cloutier
Peter DeMallie
mp.'z
RECEIVED
"44 MAY 2 3 2001
7,awsn aie S<)�t� V&zd��mVWNDSOR PLANNING DEPT.
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074-2786
�n.co�'` AREA CODE 860/644.2511
FAX 860/644-3781
OFFICE
OF THE
TOWN COUNCIL May 22, 2001
Mr. Walter Mealy, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, Ct. 06074
Dear Mr. Mealy:
At its Regular Meeting of May 21, 2001, the South Windsor Town Council
tabled the following Resolution:
WHEREAS, Linda Cloutier is the owner of premises known as
103 Palmer Drive in South Windsor, Connecticut; and
WHEREAS, access to said property is provided over an
unapproved portion of Felt Road pursuant to an Agreement
dated July 19, 1976 between the Town of South Windsor and
Mrs. Cloutier's predecessor in title, Karl Cote (Exhibit C.
attached hereto); and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Cloutier has applied to the South Windsor
Planning & Zoning Commission as well as other Town
Agencies for approval of a resubdivision of the Cloutier
premises into three (3) single family residential building lots;
and
WHEREAS, if the resubdivision application of Mrs. Cloutier is
approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and other
necessary agencies of the Town, the July 19, 1976
Agreement, referenced above, will need to be modified; and
(Resolution Continued on Next Page)
Mr. Walter Mealy, Chairman
Planning &Zoning Commission
Re: Resolution Tabled by Town Council re. Roadway Easement
For Linda V. Cloutier
Page 2
May 22, 2001
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a Public Hearing in
accordance with the Town Charter to review the conveyance
of the temporary easement encompassed in this Resolution
on May 21, 2001
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Town Manager
Matthew B. Galligan is authorized to execute the agreement
between Linda V. Cloutier and the Town, appended hereto
as Exhibit D, whereby the parties agree to execute a Right-
of-Way Easement and maintenance Agreement substantially
in the form attached hereto as Exhibit E, upon the final
approval of the resubdivision application of Mrs. Cloutier by
the Planning and Zoning Commission and all other Town
Agencies necessary to create three (3) single family
residential building lots on the premises of Mrs. Cloutier; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Mrs. Cloutier acknowledges
that unless and until such time as the Town has executed
the right-of-way easement and maintenance agreement,
attached hereto as Exhibit E., the terms and conditions of
the original agreement between the Town of South Windsor
and Karl Cote, dated July 19, 1996 (Exhibit C), remain in full
force and legal effect.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia R. Brown
Clerk of the Council
Attmts. (Exhibits C., D., and E.)
Cc: Town Attorney Barry Guliano
s�
s
Town Planner Marcia Banach
�OSOR•C 0�
I of 3
A G R E E v E N T
This Agreement made this /9 +A day of July, 1976, by
and between
territoriaiFl SOUTH
imits withinRthe County municipal
af Hartfordlon
having its and State of Connecticut, (hereinafter "TOT-N") and CARL R. COTE,
of the Town of South finedsor, County of Hartford and State of
Connecticut, (herein )
W I T N E S S E T H
WNEEFAS COTE is the owner of premises located in said
Town of South Windsor, which premises are bounded on the south-
easterly side by Felt Road, so called, and;
• WHEREAS Felt Road, in the area of COTE' s property is no
more than an umimproved right-of-way, and;
Tr1HEREAS said unimprovel right-cf-way provides the only
reasonable means of access to the COTE property mud COTE there-
fore desires to make use of said right-cf-way for the purpose
of access to his property;
W01.1 THEREFORE iu consideration of the premises and the
mutual covenants and agreements set forth, the parties. hereto
agree as follo--fs :
1.
The TOM agrees to permit COTE to constrsct a gravel
drive t-�relve feet (12 ) in width on and across the unimproved
portion of the Felt d.sight:cf-way_from t e_..texmitt Pal- ewe
ova port on of Fslt_Road at its intersection With
Drive Cc nee Caulu property.
2. COTE agrees to maintain said gravel driveway and keep
same clear of ice and snow at his oim cost and expense.
3. COTE. further agrees to , at all times , keep and maintain
Felt Road open and available for travel by members of the general
public
and to take no steps whatsoever to inhibit or restrict
travel on said roadway by member of the general public.
4. COTE further agrees to comply with all the terms and
conditions of the variances granted by the South Windsor Zoning
Board of Appeals on November 6 , 1975 and/or any amand=znts
there to
5 . COTE agrees to erect no permanent or terlporary
structures , including, but not Iirited to , fences , utility Doles ,
i:ater pipes or sanitary sewer pipes without the writtan
permission of the Engineering Department of the To:nz of
South Windsor he event said permission is granted
and such struc a is erected or installed, any costs .
incurred in removing or relocatin same when said Felt Road
is improved shall be borne by COTE.
This agreement shall be binding upon, and shall
inure to the benefit of,of the parties hereto. the heirs, successors and assigns
IN WITR£SS WHEREOF, the parties have i , set their
•I�eretratpds and seals and to a duplicate instrtm:&it Qf ' _ same tenor
and date this day, of July, 1976..
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED l ! �! �1'
In the Presence of: T.� Or SbtfM wt6SOR
• , /� Its Town Msnager
1
Exhibit D
1 of 3
AGREEMENT TO ENTER INTO A RIGHT OF WAY/ROADWAY EASEMENT
AGREEMENT
This Agreement made and entered into this day of May, 2001, by and between the
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, a municipal corporation having its territorial limits within the
County of Hartford and State of Connecticut(hereinafter "TOWN")and LINDA V. CLOUTIER
of the Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut (hereinafter
'CLOUTIER").
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, CLOUTIER is the owner of the premises known as 103 Palmer Drive, South
Windsor, Connecticut, as more particularly described in a deed recorded in Volume 731 at Page
184 of the South Windsor Land Records; and
WHEREAS, said premises of CLOUTIER are bounded on the southeasterly side by a
right of way known as Felt Road, so called; and
WHEREAS, by Agreement dated July 19, 1976, the Town had previously entered into an
Agreement with the predecessor in title to the premises owned by CLOUTIER,namely, CARL
R. COTE (hereafter"COTE") which Agreement between the TOWN and COTE provided for
certain easement and access rights by COTE over said Felt Road right of way; and
WHEREAS, at the time of the Agreement between the TOWN and COTE, on July 19,
1996, said Felt Road was an unimproved right-of-way and remains so until this day(except for
such improvements constructed in said right-of-way by COTE and his successors in title); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said Agreement between the TOWN and COTE dated July 19,
1976, said Agreement being recorded in Volume Page of the South Windsor Land
Records, the TOWN agreed to allow COTE to construct a gravel driveway within the Felt Road
right-of-way for purposes of access to his premises as 103 Palmer Drive, upon the terms and
conditions as more particularly set forth in said Agreement; and
WHEREAS, CLOUTIER has applied to the Town of South Windsor Planning and
Zoning Commission as well as other Town of South Windsor agencies for the approval of a re-
subdivision of the of the CLOUTIER premises into three single family residential building lots;
and
WHEREAS, if the re-subdivision application of CLOUTIER is approved by the Town
of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission and by other necessary agencies of the Town
of South Windsor, the July 19, 1976 Agreement referenced above will need to be modified;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained
herein, the parties do hereby agree as follows:
1. Upon the final approval of the re-subdivision application of CLOUTIER by the Town
of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission and by all other necessary Town of South
Windsor agencies, whose approvals are required in order to create three single family residential
building lots on said premises of CLOUTIER, CLOUTIER shall deliver to the TOWN a duly
executed right-of-way easement and maintenance agreement substantially in the form attached
hereto as Schedule A and incorporated herein by reference.
2. For its part, the TOWN agrees, that, within a reasonable period of time after receipt
of said executed right-of-way and maintenance agreement from CLOUTIER, that it shall execute
the same and forward it for filing it on the land records of the Town of South Windsor.
3. For her part, CLOUTIER acknowledges that until such time as the TOWN has
executed the right-of-way Easement and Maintenance Agreement attached hereto as Schedule
A, that the terms and conditions of the original Agreement between the TOWN and CARL R.
COTE dated July 19, 1996 remains in full force and legal effect.
4. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs,
successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
IN WITNBESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals and to a
duplicate instrument of the same tenor and date this day of May, 2001
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
In the presence of
By
Matthew B. Galligan
Town Manager
Linda V. Cloutier
STATE OF CONNECTICUT)
ss: South Windsor
COUNT OF HARTFORD )
On this day of May, 2001, before me the undersigned
officer personally appeared Matthew B. Galligan who acknowledged himself to be the Town
Manager of the Town of South Windsor, a municipal corporation of the State of Connecticut and
that he as Town Manager being duly authorized to do so executed the foregoing instrument for
the purposes therein contained by signing the name of the Town by himself as Town Manager.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand
Notary Public
STATE OF CONNECTICUT)
ss: South Windsor
COUNTY OF HARTFORD )
On this day of May, 2001, before me Harold R. Cummings, the undersigned
officer personally appeared Linda V. Cloutier known to me or satisfactorily proven to be the
person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that she
executed the same for the purposes therein contained .
In Witness Whereot I have hereunto set my hand.
Harold R. Cummings
Commissioner of the Superior Court
s 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074-2786
A.co AREA CODE 860/644-2511
FAX 860/644-3781
OFFICE
OF THE
TOWN COUNCIL
June 6, 2001
Mr. Walter Mealy, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, Ct. 06074
Dear Mr. Mealy:
At its Regular Meeting of June 4, 2001, the South Windsor Town Council
approved the following Resolution:
WHEREAS, Linda Cloutier is the owner of premises known as 103
Palmer Drive in South Windsor, Connecticut; and
WHEREAS, access to said property is provided over an unapproved
portion of Felt Road pursuant to an Agreement dated July 19, 1976
between the Town of South Windsor and Mrs. Cloutier's
predecessor in title, Karl Cote (Exhibit C. attached hereto); and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Cloutier has applied to the South Windsor Planning
& Zoning Commission as well as other Town Agencies for approval
of a resubdivision of the Cloutier premises into three (3) single
family residential building lots; and
WHEREAS, if the resubdivision application of Mrs. Cloutier is
approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and other
necessary agencies of the Town, the July 19, 1976 Agreement,
referenced above, will need to be modified; and
(Resolution Continued on Next Page)
e
Mr. Walter Mealy, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Commission
Re: Resolution - Agreement with Linda V. Cloutier
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a Public Hearing in
accordance with the Town Charter to review the conveyance of the
temporary easement encompassed in this Resolution on May 21,
2001
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Town Manager Matthew
B. Galligan is authorized to execute the agreement between Linda
V. Cloutier and the Town, appended hereto as Exhibit D, whereby
the parties agree to execute a Right-of-Way Easement and
maintenance Agreement substantially in the form attached hereto
as Exhibit E, upon the final approval of the resubdivision application
of Mrs. Cloutier by the Planning and Zoning Commission and all
other Town Agencies necessary to create three (3) single family
residential building lots on the premises of Mrs. Cloutier; and
BE IT FURTHE RESOLVED that Mrs. Cloutier acknowledges that
unless and until such time as the Town has executed the right-of-
way easement and maintenance agreement, attached hereto as
Exhibit E., the terms and conditions of the original agreement
between the Town of South Windsor and Karl Cote, dated July 19,
1996 (Exhibit C), remain in full force and legal effect.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia R. Brown
Clerk of the Council
Attmts. (Exhibits C., D., and E.)
cc:.- Town Manager Matthew B. Galligan
Town Attorney Barry Guliano
tOW 8F1
A
J
10SOR,`V.�
Exhibit
1 of 4
RIGHT OF WAY/ROADWAY EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
This Agreement made and entered into this day of May, 2001, by and between the
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, a municipal corporation having its territorial limits within-the
County of Hartford and State of Connecticut(hereinafter "TOWN")and LINDA V. CLOUTIER
of the Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut (hereinafter
"CLOIJTIER").
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, CLOUTIER is the owner of premises known as 103 Palmer Drive, South
Windsor, Connecticut as referenced in a deed recorded in Volume 731 Page 184 of the South
Windsor Land Records; and
WHEREAS,. the Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission has approved
a re-subdivision of said premises of CLOUTIER into three single family residential building lots;
and
WHEREAS, access to said three residential building lots is over and across the
unimproved portion of the Felt Road right-of-way from the terminus of the portion of Felt Road
at its intersection with Palmer Drive to the southeasterly boarder of the premises owned by
CLOUTIER; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to set forth in writing their understanding whereby
CLOUTIER, her heirs, successors and assigns, shall have an easement over said Felt Road right-
of-way for purposes of access to said three residential building lots;
NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained
herein, the parties do hereby agree as follows:
1. TOWN agrees to permit CLOUTIER, her heirs, successors and assigns, to construct
a driveway and all necessary appurtenances thereto for access to and from Palmer Drive, to said
three residential building lots; said driveway and appurtenances to be constructed and maintained
at all times in accordance with the conditions and stipulations of approval as established by the
Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission in its approval of the site plan of
development as set forth in said Commission's approval letter dated day of ,
2001 and as set forth on the site plan of development map as approved by said Town of South
Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission and as filed (or to be filed) in the office of the Town
Clerk in the Town of South Windsor.
2. The TOWN, for itself, its successors and assigns, assigns, grants and conveys unto
CLOUTIER, her heirs, successors and assigns, all rights of passage in, to and over that portion
of said Felt Road right-of-way as shown on said site plan of development for access to the three
residential building lots of CLOUTIER provided, however, that said access easement in said Felt
Road right-of-way is a non-exclusive easement and CLOUTIER, her heirs and assigns agrees to
at all times keep and maintain that portion of the Felt Road right-of-way which is subject to this
agreement open and available for travel by members of the general public and to take no steps
whatsoever to inhibit or restrict travel within said Felt Road right-of-way by a member of the
general public, specifically including but not limited to any person owning or having an interest
in land abutting Felt Road.
3. This Right-of--Way/Roadway Easement and Maintenance Agreement is given as a
covenant running with the land for purposes of ingress and egress to said three lots and for
purposes of installation, maintenance and connections to water, cable, telephone, electricity,
sewer lines, storm water drainage pipes and all other utilities in accordance with the stipulations
and conditions of approval of said Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission and
other agencies of the Town of South Windsor whose approvals were required for the
establishment of the three residential building lots. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall
in any way implicate any liability or responsibility on the part of the TOWN to repair, maintain
or replace any of the improvements constructed by CLOUTIER within the easement area, it
being expressly understood and agreed that the said CLOUTIER, her successors, heirs and
assigns shall be responsible, at all times, to construct, maintain and make all necessary repairs at
their own expense, to any of the said right-of-way/roadway improvements and appurtenances.
If Grantee or any of her heirs, successors or assigns request upgrading of the access way
including but not limited to installation of a cul-de-sac, any such improvements are to be done at
the requester's expense. Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed in any way any agreement or
consent by the Town to fund any future maintenance or improvements to the easement area.
4. The parties further stipulate and agree that this Agreement shall be recorded on the
land records of the Town of South Windsor and that each legally divisible residential lot utilizing
or having access to this Right-of--Way/Roadway Easement shall be liable for its pro rata share
of said costs referenced in this agreement. As of the date of this Agreement, each of the three
residential building lots approved by the Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission shall be liable for its one-third share of said costs. For her part, the said CLOUTIER
shall at the time of any sale or conveyance of any of the said three residential building lots
reference this agreement in said deed of conveyance with the stipulation that said conveyance is
subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement.
S. For herself, CLOUTIER, on behalf of herself, her heirs and assigns further agrees to
indemnify and hold the TOWN harmless from and against any and all liability for personal injury
or property damage arising out of or resulting from or which may in any way be attributable to
any construction, maintenance, repair or use of the said driveway and the appurtenances thereto
by Cloutier or her heirs, successors and assigns.
6. This agreement shall be governed by, construed and enforced by the courts by the
laws of the State of Connecticut.
7. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties and any prior
understandings or agreements of the parties, specifically including the agreement dated July 19,
1976 between the TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR and CARL R. COTE, referenced above,
shall and are hereby merged in this Agreement and this Agreement shall constitute the entire
understanding of the parties, except that, the terms and conditions of approval of the Town of
South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission in its approval; letter dated day of
2001 and the terms and conditions of approval of the Town of South Windsor Inland
and Wetlands Agency in its approval letter dated day of , 2001, are hereby
incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement as if more fully set forth herein.
8. For herself, CLOUTIER, and on behalf of herself her heirs, successors and assigns
further agrees to be responsible for the trimming and removal of all trees within the easement area
in order to carry out the purposes of this Agreement, together with the trimming and removal of
any trees on the premises of the Grantee, which may need to be trimmed or removed in order to
maintain said easement area as well as to control,by pippswale or otherwise, as approved by the
Town of South Windsor, any surface waters emanating from CLOUTIER'S premises or resulting
from any activities by CLOUTIER within the easement area.
9. As directed by the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission, CLOUTIER, on
behalf of herself and her heirs, successors and assigns further agrees to be responsible for the
following:
A. To install and maintain an area for the storage of trash for removal and pickup
including screenin0 paving
B. To provide for
p o the clustering of all mailboxes .
C. Installation of a sign identifying the residences served by the access way for
emergency service vehicles. - -
D. Installation of a "new style" stop sign to replace the existing stop sign at the
intersection of Felt Road and Palmer Drive.
10. Any modification of this Agreement or additional obligations assumed by either party
in connection with this Agreement shall be binding only if evidence in writing signed by each party
or an authorized representative of that party.
11. The failure of either party of this Agreement to insist upon the strict performance of
any of the terms and conditions of this agreement or the waiver of any breach of any of the terns
or conditions of this Agreement shall not be construed as thereafter waiving any such terms or
conditions but the same shall continue and remain in full force and effect as if no such forbearance
or waiver had occurred.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals and to a
duplicate instrument of the same tenor and date this day of May, , 2001
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
In the presence of
By
Matthew B. Galligan
Town Manager
Linda V. Cloutier
STATE OF CONNECTICUT)
ss: South Windsor
COUNT OF HARTFORD )
On this day of May, 2001, before me the
undersigned officer personally appeared Matthew B. Galligan who acknowledged himself to be
the Town Manager of the Town of South Windsor, a municipal corporation of the State of
Connecticut and that he as Town Manager being duly authorized to do so executed the foregoing
instrument for the purposes therein contained by signing the name of the Town by himself as Town
Manager.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand
Notary Public
STATE OF CONNECTICUT)
ss: South Windsor
COUNTY OF HARTFORD )On this day of May, 2001, before me Harold R. Cummings, the undersigned
officer personally appeared Linda V. CIoutier known to me or satisfactorily proven to be the
person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that she
executed the same for the purposes therein contained .
In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand.
Harold R. Cummings
Commissioner of the Superior Court
Cloutier Resubdivision and Special Exception for Interior lots -- PH 6/12/01
1. Request for approval of a resubdivision and Special Exception to create two
interior lots for property located at 103 Palmer Drive §5
AA-30 zone. r s xig
2. The original house lot, which does not have frontage on an improved town
street, was created by variance in 1975. At that time, ZBA noted only that the
variance was not intended to allow for the keeping of livestock on the 12-acre
lot. The Town Council in 1976 approved a driveway for the lot over the Felt
Rd right-of-way. In 1979, another variance was sought to allow a second lot.
The driveway for that second lot was proposed to exit at the other end of the
property, onto Foster Street, not Palmer Drive. The ZBA minutes indicate that
ZBA rejected the application for two reasons: (1) it was unclear who actually .
owned the right-of-way at the Foster Street end; and (2) it was the intent of
ZBA in granting the original variance that only one house be created by
variance. There was discussion during the,ZBA meeting about ZBA creating a
subdivision by granting multiple variances; and that the Planning and Zoning
Commission is the board to be dealing with subdivisions, not ZBA.
In n 20 , the Town Council.discontinued the-remainder of Felt _ d_
s i a imate 72 §pt no} h its inter ctio ' h Pa rr3e'r Vie.On
rr 4 t't is ye e cil appr � ed an a meni r vew ,f r =,`
de `al lots overt e F - oad ri 't- -way, T} e e em fit /
b co s e only if the P g g`and Zo ss'dn prov s he
resu is pplication. T sement inc s several coin itions:
• a at° , scregning, apd maintenance of an area for storage of trash;
' `
M ° b6 ;es to b� clustered together
'• I stall,lion,of;a sign identifying the residence addresses served by the
�/ccep's6lway, foreinergency vehicles; .did '
r
• In ailation.of fa new, l ger, re ' e vest p si to repta the e,�i�ing
stp'sign t te i ter ction o F t Road and almer brie e.
The Town Attorney has provided a letter to you discussing the Council's
granting of the easement.
Copies of all of these documents have been provided to the Commission for
your review.
'7
3. The requirements for interior lots in the AA-30 zone include: 6(
minimum lot size and 225 feet minimum lot width. The proposed interior lots
would be over 3 and 4 acres in size respectively and in excess of 225 feet in
width.
4. The criteria for approval of interior lots include:. ,
a. the subject area's boundary configurations,topography, soils,or other
natural resource characteristics;
b. proximity to neighboring properties and dwelling units;
c. restriction of existing views;
d. proposed buffering/screening;
e. potential drainage, traffic & environmental impacts
f, driveway locations, slopes & sight lints
g. utility service capabilities
h. property value impacts; and
i. future land use alternatives.
5. Access to the two interior lots is proposed to be an 18' wide paved drive
extending from the existing driveway that crosses the Felt Road ROW off of
Palmer Drive. The proposal would result in three houses exiting out onto
Palmer Drive. The longest driveway, to Lot 3, is about 1000 feet.-There is
potential for a fourth lot using the common drive because there is an existing
lot of record on the other side of Felt Road that also has access to the ROW._
The driveways servicing the new interior lots will include a turn-around for
emergency vehicles. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the plans and is satisfied
with the emergency access provisions.
6. The Police Department has questioned whether the new driveway will appear
to be a continuation of the roadway for drivers heading northbound on Felt
Road. Sgt. Field has requested a larger stop sign with the reflective 3M
material at the intersection of Felt Road and Palmer Drive.-
7. We have asked the applicant to address the issue of stacking of lots. The
interior lots regulations require that, "Unless the interior lot fronts on different
streets, no interior lot shall be permitted to the rear of any other rear lot
(stacking is not permitted)."
8. i rio ots °11 be s ed by blic ss ers a chi dividpal'ells. The
e s w' 1 e t to Ili gto o d v�'a a ea men j ov an �x ating house
t on li on R d. i
e ar nb re lated tl n the lots. T eiplica ' n eceived
a ov .l fo th c se at'` -pla
IO.There is no screening proposed between the existing house and the two
proposed interior lots. It appears that trees will remain between the proposed
two new houses, but there are no trees shown between the existing house and
the first new house on Lot 2.
If this application is approved, the Planning Dept. would like to see the -
following modifications addressed on the plans prior to Commission approval:
• The items required by the Council easement: common trash storage area,
provision for clustered mailboxes, identifying sign and new stop sign .
detail; and
• Screening between the existing house and the proposed house on Lot 2.
4 -4
vl r d'
!�-�/f U'`e� � � ���- �-�-e, ����mod ) �'
5 ��- a C�1� �P pia ;/ �_..
� a
,/.
�,
/�� � � � %
/ � � �� ��
� � � ® � i
��
�f � � � ��' � � _I � � o
� � � ,
� - � ��
• � � � ,, r
,� /
� � .
f� . .
A
/ � �
a. / � � / I
� ///
/ /
�, �
i
'' � / rr
�/ 1
,, , �� � j
n
-- -
R
r
May 26, 2001
Town Council Members
Town of South Windsor
Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Council Members,
We are writing in reference to the Resolution Authorizing the Execution
of an Agreement between the Town of South Windsor and Linda V.
Cloutier to Enter into a Right-of-Way/Roadway Easement
Pertaining to Felt Road.
As homeowners on Jonathan Lane, we are asking that the council uphold the
decision of a previous council and deny this resolution. Over 30 years ago,
there was a similar dispute and all aspects of the situation were examined.
It was decided that to maintain the quality and integrity of the properties
surrounding the parcel of land that it should be held as a ONE HOUSE - 12.5
acre property.
The original owner was able to demonstrate a hardship in that he purchased a
lot that was land locked therefore he was unable to build, but required to pay
taxes. As a result of that hardship, the Town of South Windsor granted a
ONE TIME ONLY SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
We purchased our property knowing our lot abutted land that held two
conditions: One that there was a possibility (however small) that one day a
discussion would arise concerning the paper road that existed. It was
explained to us that there was little to no chance of it ever being developed.
So, knowing the risks we decided to take that chance. The second condition
was that there was a house behind us with approximately 10 acres of woods.
Enough land to suspect a development could emerge. But we were assured
that it could not happen because of the decision passed down in the mid 70s.
That gave us comfort and allowed us to purchase our property-with our eyes
open.
The Cloutier's did the same, they bought their house and property knowing
the restrictions placed on the lot. They do not suffer a hardship, they have
a beautiful house and a lovely birched lot.
By authorizing this resolution, the council will be placing a number of
hardships on the surrounding homeowners on Jonathan Lane, as well as
Ellington Road. It isn't a simple decision to allow the application for two
additional houses. Rather, it opens the door to:
o numerous special exceptions needed to proceed, since the Cloutier's do
not meet all the criteria required for interior lots
• jeopardizing the value of the homes on Jonathan Lane since they will
now have a road in both the front and back yards (closer than a typical
development).
• negatively impacting 26 households by increased traffic, noise, and
drainage issues
We are not asking you to take anything away from the Cloutier's that is
rightfully theirs. We are asking that you uphold the previous Council's
decision and protect the rights of numerous surrounding landowners who
oppose this request.
Thank you for your time and careful consideration of this issue.
G�2u D
en & J in Johnkoski
42 Jonathan Lane
South Windsor, CT 06074
644-5543
May 24, 2001
Dear Town Council,
As a landowner on Ellington Road,we are asking that you reject the Cloutier's request to Enter
into a Right-of-Way/Roadway Easement Pertaining to Felt Road.
Many years ago, a different Council was faced with the same decision. A lot of time was spent
discussing what would happen if one house was allowed to be built on the property. It was
speculated that in future years another house would be approved, then another,and so on until a
development was created on a piece of land that was not meant to hold numerous homes. The
Council thought they made a decision in the best interest of everyone, by allowing just one
house, and one only. That way they met the needs of one land owner, and assured the rest there
would not be a development on that piece of land.
It would be argued that the drainage on our property was not effected by that one house. We, as
homeowners that experienced issues would disagree. We were told that the Jonathan Lane
development would not have any effect on our drainage,again we would have to disagree. Now
we are being told, for a third time,that our drainage would not be effected by one or two
additional houses,please hear us this time-we respectfully disagree.
The past Council studied, discussed, and listened to everyone who would be effected by the
building of one or more additional houses on that piece of land,and they believed it would not be
in the best interest of the people around the land to allow it. Living in one of the homes effected
by the acceptance of one house,and the development of Jonathan Lane, it would hurt our
property even more. Please support the past Council's vote.
Thank you,
zz`23 L l trY[�-�vvt Rcl
CD-
May 27,2001
South Windsor Town Council
1540 Sullivan Ave.
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Council Members,
We are opposed to Linda Cloutier's proposal regarding the use of the right of way adjacent to her
property and the proposed subdivision of her property.
Because of the lay of the land between the Cloutier's property and ours on Ellington Road, we
have always had drainage concerns. When Jonathan Lane was proposed,the residents along this
portion of Ellington Road objected to the development because of these issues. Jonathan Lane
was, nonetheless,approved and,as we anticipated,these drainage problems visibly worsened.
We have every reason to believe that the two additional homes proposed by the Cloutiers would
create further complications for us.
We do not see these two potential homes as having a significant benefit to the town. But we do
see them creating additional damage to our properties and associated property values. We ask
you to preserve our interests and vote against the current development requests.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
i
/ f -
1
Cc ,L1,1 c
1 �
May 24, 2001
Dear Town Council,
' r
As a landowner on Ellington Road we are as
king that you reject the Cloutier s request to Ente
� � g Y J q
into a Right-of-Way/Roadway Easement Pertaining to Felt Road.
• Many years ago,.a different Council was faced with the same decision. A lot of time was spent
discussing what would happen if one house was allowed to be built on the property. It was
speculated that in future years another house would be approved, then another, and so on until a
development was created on a piece of land that was not meant to hold numerous homes. The
Council thought they made a decision in the best interest of everyone,by allowing just one
house, and one only. That way they met the needs of one land owner, and assured the rest there
would not be a development on that piece of land.
It would be argued that the drainage on our property was not effected by that one house. We, as
homeowners that experienced issues would disagree. We were told that the Jonathan Lane
development would not have any effect on our drainage,again we would have to disagree. Now
we are being told, for a third time,that our drainage would not be effected by one or two
additional houses,please hear us this time-we respectfully disagree.
The past Council studied, discussed, and listened to everyone who would be effected by the
building of one or more additional houses on that piece of land,and they believed it would not be
in the best interest of the people around the land to allow it. Living in one of the homes effected
by the acceptance of one house,and the development of Jonathan Lane, it would hurt our
property even more. Please support the past Council's vote.
Thank you, 4_I)
06/12/2001 16:19 860-289-0849 PCI*CSI COMM PAGE 01
to
Peek
R. McLuskey
P.O. Box 1063 RECEIVED
2305 Ellington Road
JUN 12 2001
South Windsor, CT 06074-7063
SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT.
Mr.Walter Mealy
Planning&Zoning Commission
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor,CT 06074
Dear Chalrperson Mealy;
I am writing you concerning the application for a subdivision and associated permits
submitted by Linda Cloutier for the property located at 103 Palmer Drive.
My concerns have to do with the construction of these new structures and possible
ground water contamination to my well.
I reside at 230S Ellington Road and the slope of the land, as I see it, puts my well at risk
from the construction of a trench to accommodate the proposed sewer line which will
run Just over the property line common to my lot and the Cloutler's. I also have serious
concerns about the future problems that may result from the use of herbicides,
pesticides, and fertilizers that will undoubtly be used by these new homes to establish
and maintain the landscaping. I have been a resident of this home for approximately
four and a half years and one major consideration in buying this home was the
existence of good quality and supply of drinking water from the existing well. I fear that
these homes, as proposed, may force me to seek an outside source of clean drinking
water for my son and myself. I can III-afford the expense of constant monitoring of my
drinking water or the expense of procuring water from another source. Should this new
construction cause problems with my well I respectfully request that the town make any
and all provisions now during the planning process to protect me from financial liability
in correcting these potential problems should they occur.
Sincerely,
R. McLuskey
Celp tomasawicz attny
-'- CIO,,-6er 'i�pe .fit j RECEIVE®
A IN 11 n 30 Jonathan Lane
t5��h Windsor, CT 06074
SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPF, June 10, 2001
.
South Windsor Planning& Zoning Committee
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Planning& Zoning Committee Members:
We are the Holcomb's and we reside at 30 Jonathan Lane. We have two young children,
ages one and three. We have been residents of South Windsor since January 1993, and pay
annual property taxes of about$8,000 per year. We were disappointed last week with the
Town Council's five-to-four acceptance of an expansion and amendment of a right of way
and the associated proposed subdivision of their property requested by Mr. &Mrs. Cloutier
of Palmer Drive. We attended a public hearing on this matter with several of our neighbors
on Jonathan Lane and Ellington Road on May 21, and the Town Council meeting on June 4.
We provided the Town Council with a letter voicing our objections, and signed a petition
with many neighbors. We sent a copy of our letter to each member of the Planning&
Zoning Committee.
We are very concerned about the subdivision being proposed by the Cloutiers on a land-
locked piece of property behind our home. When the issue originally reached a level for
discussion, neighbors met Mr. Cloutier and asked him about his plans. At that time he said
he had no plans to build immediately,but some day he would like to build a home for his
daughter on the property. To be untruthful about his plans to build immediately was Mr.
Cloutier's prerogative. However,it is now our prerogative to not believe Mr. Cloutier's
desire to limit his plans to a three home subdivision. We understand what this application
requests currently,but Mr. Cloutier has consistently and regularly filed for appeals and
variances on this property, and each time, the plans have become more elaborate and more
intrusive. The neighbors of this property (and there are many) anticipate that there is much
more to come.
We realize that we may not have any legal recourse to stop this development and expansion
of what we consider a property that is unsuitable for development. That seems to be in your
hands and Mr. Cloutier has secured quite a well-armed team of attorneys, designers, and
others to argue every point and rebut every argument. This tells us that there is a lot of
financial gain desired by Mr. Cloutier, and we feel that this is at the expense of all of the
neighbors on Jonathan Lane and Ellington Road. We are just regular tax-paying citizens
utilizing the public process to the best of our abilities to fight this.
We want to exercise this right to request the Planning&Zoning Committee to reject the
Cloutier's application to develop this property. The private road that is being proposed runs
directly along the rear property boundaries of many properties on Jonathan Lane. Usually,a
private road to access homes on a land-locked property runs between two other homes on
the side. This is definitely not the case in this situation. This road runs behind our home
and quite a few others. We have young children and the thought of having a road (Jonathan
Lane) that runs across the entire front of our property and another road (Cloutier private
eighteen foot wide road) running twelve inches off our entire back yard property is
unfathomable. This takes away the privacy and safety of our back yard where our children
play. During development,it is inevitable that there will be large tree clearing trucks, cement
trucks, and other heavy construction trucks and equipment regularly driving on this private
road basically through our back yard. After the homes are built, there will be normal car
traffic plus delivery trucks and vans, school buses, and possibly garbage trucks rolling down
this road along our back yard within one foot of our property line. This is a serious
infringement upon our property value and our rights as taxpayers of South Windsor (and we
pay a lot of taxes on Jonathan Lane). We would be forced to consider selling our home and
relocating to another property or town that we would consider safe and suitable for children
if this development is enacted as proposed.
If there is no way to stop this development, then we would strongly encourage the Planning
&Zoning Committee to place significant and permanent restrictions on development:
1) Limit, permanently,the development to the two additional single-family homes as
proposed. It is apparent from the discussion at the Town Council meeting that
continued subdividing of the new lots is possible, and we think it is very likely. Our
concerns are based on the misinformation that we have received in the past and the
financial motivations, combined with the lack of regard for the neighbors, of those
involved in the development. Mr. Cloutier's attorney has abrasively and insultingly
threatened the neighbors with "a retirement community...or...a religious place of
worship with four hundred parking spaces" if Mr. Cloutier's current proposal is
rejected. We think that this obnoxious and threatening behavior and approach
strengthens our resolve on this issue and also illustrates that there are serious
financial motivations on the part of the Cloutier's, along with a determination to get
what they want,regardless of how it may impact others.
2) Require that the private road/driveway moved as far as possible away from the
Jonathan Lane properties' boundaries as quickly as possible after leaving the town
right of way off Palmer Drive. One foot away from the property line is not enough
with all the children that reside on Jonathan Lane. Require that the width of the
road/driveway be reduced.
3) Require Mr. Cloutier and any subsequent property owners to buffer the property
between the private road and the Jonathan Lane properties with a full hedge of tall
(minimum ten feet), high quality evergreens or a high quality solid wood fence of
similar height. These should be planted or erected on Mr. Cloutier's property
between the private road and our property boundaries.
4) Require and enforce tight restrictions on Mr. Cloutier and subsequent owners of the
property regarding noise (particularly early morning noise), burning refuse,livestock
and farm structures on the property, and the use of all-terrain vehicles. These issues
have been problems with the property and owners for the past eight years and we
don't want these problems continuing and spreading even closer to us.
5) Require the placement of the proposed homes to be as far away from the Jonathan
Lane property boundaries as possible.
6) Ensure that Mr. Cloutier properly addresses and resolves, at his expense, drainage
and all other issues normally associated with developments of these kinds. Many
neighbors on Jonathan Lane and Ellington Road are VERY concerned about the
grade of the property, the fact that this property is completely surrounded by other
homes and properties, the fact that there are currently drainage problems in the area,
and the development being planned is substantial.
I trust that the Planning&Zoning Committee will take the concerns of the neighbors
seriously into consideration at the June 12 meeting and REJECT the Cloutier's proposal, or
at a minimum, enact all of the restrictions noted above, and any others that are deemed
necessary, permanently with appropriate enforcement mechanisms.
Respectfully,
ea
Beth Ann Holcomb
Step en Holcomb
Cc: Matthew Galligan, Town Manager
Attorney Barry Guliano
Louise Evans, Secretary, Planning& Zoning Commission
Sue W. Larsen,Planning& Zoning Commission
Kevin McCann,Planning& Zoning Commission
Walter Mealy, Chairperson, Planning& Zoning Commission
Marshall Montana,Vice Chairperson,Planning& Zoning Commission
Patricia R. Porter,Planning& Zoning Commission
Timothy Wentzell,Planning& Zoning Commission
Roger Cottle,Alternate,Planning& Zoning Commission
Patrick Kennedy,Alternate, Planning& Zoning Commission
Doug Manion,Alternate, Planning& Zoning Commission
Gene&Janina Johnkoski RECEIVED
42 Jonathan Lane
South Windsor, CT 06074 J U L 0 2 2001
June 28, 2001 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT.
Mr. Walter J. Mealy, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Chairman Mealy:
We are writing in connection with Application 01-07P, Linda Cloutier's application
for a special exception and the creation of two interior lots on the northerly side of Palmer
Drive along the"paper street"known as Felt Road. We understand from the June 26 h hearing
that the matter has been continued and the public hearing kept open until your Commission's
meeting on July loth
As we discussed at the hearing on June 20h, both we and our neighbors have several
serious concerns with the proposed development. These concerns fall into several different
categories and we believe that each of them is within the jurisdiction of the Planning and
Zoning Commission under the applicable regulations.
First, we have serious concerns about safety issues related to the access to the
proposed new residential lots. The"driveway" along or near the former bed of Felt Road
would be very close to the rear boundary of our lot and those of our neighbors. This means of
access would in fact be closer to our homes than is generally the case with streets and
subdivision roads, where the lots usually abut other lots at the rear. Because of the general
concern about even the limited amount of traffic, particularly given the special needs of our
children, we do believe that the access shown on the application would pose a risk to residents
of Jonathan Lane and their children. Further, the placement of what would essentially be a
subdivision road so close to the rear of these properties would undoubtedly diminish their
value and would impact the expectations of all of the owners along Jonathan Lane. It is also
unclear whether the proposed access drive as shown on the application is consistent with the
Town Council's conditional abandonment of that portion of Felt Road.
Second, although it was not discussed in depth, the proposed development is likely to
have adverse impacts on drainage, particularly as it relates to the existing homes on Ellington
Road. Because the development of these two proposed lots would involve removal of
vegetation and the regarding of the terrain, it is probable that the level of runoff from the 12
acre site would increase in amount and velocity as it flows down toward those homes.
Several residents of that area had commented about drainage and, particularly, ice conditions
which exist under the current conditions. Development of this parcel would only exacerbate
that situation.
Another important question that must be addressed is the issue of"expectations".
When we and all of our neighbors purchased their homes on Jonathan Lane, we were well
aware of the fact that there had been a controversy in the past regarding this particular 12 acre
parcel. We were also well aware of the fact that the issue had been settled, we believed once
and for all, by the various land use agencies in the Town of South Windsor that that property
would be one house on one lot. It has remained as such for over twenty-five years and was a
state of affairs on which we and our neighbors had relied in making our investment decisions
to reside in this particular area.
The proposal before the Commission flies in the face of these reasonable and long-
standing expectations. The fact that no"hardship" needs to be shown under the regulations to
permit this development should not be flipped on its head to allow such a proposal, which
requires numerous permits, extraordinary actions of the Town Council and special exceptions
from the Commission, to coast through to approval in the face of substantial and legitimate
opposition.
In the event that the Commission is inclined to approve this special exception, we
would further request that it review the language of the special exception regulations,
particularly Section 4.6.2(a). Please consider carefully the aesthetics, the proposed buffering
and screening, the potential drainage, traffic and environmental impacts, impacts on property
values, and the potential for any future development of these parcels. We believe strongly
that thoughtful and objective evaluation of these issues will mean that the application must be
denied or, at a minimum, that steps must be taken in conjunction with the proposal to mitigate
the negative impacts on these important resources and characteristics of our neighborhood.
If this proposal is approved by the Commission, it must be done in such a way that the
environment and the surrounding properties are protected from degradation and further
encroachment by development. Conservation easements or protective buffers, relocation of
the access road as far into the site as possible, and restrictions on the ability of the property
owners to develop further residential or business uses on the parcel(regardless of what
changes the Commission may choose to make to its regulations in the future) are the bare
minimum of what we would consider to be reasonable accommodations to protect our
property and those of our neighbors, and the expectations that we all operated under when we
purchased our homes.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Respectfully yours,
(4ne& ni a Johnkoski
t'E'v r
RECEIVED
June 28, 2001 JUL 0 2 2001
SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT.
Councilman McCann
Planning and Zoning Commission
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Councilman McCann:
During the last Planning and Zoning meeting you commented on your inability to
understand the degree of opposition homeowners on Jonathan Lane were
expressing concerning the proposed application for a special exception and the
creation of two interior lots on the northerly side of Palmer Drive along the paper street
known as Felt Road. My attempt here is to explain why we are driven and where the
passion originates related to this issue. What I hope to do is step away from the
emotion and present only the facts. My concern.is that by presenting our views in this
manner the depth of their importance will diminish. Please understand this is not the
case. This is a serious matter to us and whatever the outcome it will significantly
effect us.
• We originally lived at 62 Steep Road, which is a cut-through street where cars
have a tendency to travel at speeds that exceeded the set limit.
• After the birth of our first son, we decided to find a lot in South Windsor that was
more condusive to a small child playing outside.
• We researched and looked at a number of possible lots to build a home.
• We were shown the development on Jonathan Lane.
• The wooded lots and cul-de-sac were a dream come true. Yet we were
apprehensive since our lot had a house behind it.
• The developer explained two issues with the lot we were interested in: 1) There
was a paper road, which had always been a paper road for about as long as
South Windsor had been established. T-# leas little to no chance of it ever
becoming a "real" road because of numerous conflicts/issues concerning it. (I
don't want to list all the specifics concerning this issue, since that is not my
purpose here, and it is well known throughout the town this road would remain
1
We have
a e been told that regulations have changed since that time, and .an argument
would be made that since time changes, so should regulations. Our question would
be: Is this a situation h "that could utilize a Grand-fathering clause - settling this
reoccurring issue once and for all?
We also ask that the Commission consider placing this parcel into a Conservation
easement which would protect it from future disputes. How many times does an
issue have to be discussed and how much time consumed before someone finally
says, Enough already?" �
Please understand Councilman McCann - it isn't the development specs we are
solely disputing - It's maintaining what is rightfully our - as per a Planning and
Zoning Commission decission-.that we are fervently,fighting.to-protect,
I will bea t the Jul 10th meeting and would be more than ha to answer an
Y g PPY Y
questions you may have. Thank you for being open to all sides of a controversy.
Sincerely,
s
ganintaR. Jo oski
42 Jonathan Lane
South Windsor, CT 06074
644-5543
cc: Chairman Walter J. Mealy
t
_ Scott&Carol Bettigole
24 Jonathan Lane
South Windsor, CT 06074
June 13,2001
South Windsor Planning and Zoning
1540 Sullivan Avenue p
South Windsor, CT 06074
Ladies and Gentlemen: 30-
We'd like to thank you for listening to our concerns I "Wo"ng to the proposed
subdivision of the Cloutier property on Palmet .
After leaving the meeting,we were still concerned about a comment made by Commissioner
McCann, in which he stated that he could not understand why the neighbors objected so
strongly to this proposal. We,the Jonathan Lane residents, intended to clearly state our
concerns to you. However, as you now know, this is a complicated issue and many
discussions relating to it have occurred in various other town meetings. It is difficult at times,
for us to recognize that you are not as familiar with the issues as we are.With this in mind,
we'd like to ask that we be able to continue our dialog with you on this issue.
Generally, our concerns fall into three categories:
1) Relevance of 1979 ZBA Decisions
2) Specifics of the development plan
3) Impact to our homes and safety
1) ZBA 1979Issues:
Our initial concern stems from whether the Cloutier property is or is not subdividable. We
have read the minutes from the 1975 and 1979 ZBA meetings and interpreted them to mean
that the precedent was set at that time to make the property a one lot estate. We bought our
property based on the understanding that this property was not subdividable. The Cloutier's
also understood this at the time they purchased their property. We feel this decision should
be upheld, especially now that several homeowners have relied on it.
The issue becomes muddied by the status of the stretch of Felt Road which ran behind our
properties. It may be hard for you to understand how we bought property looking for privacy
while all along having this road behind our house. Please understand that this portion of
Felt Road was never built. It is and has always been woods, regardless of what is noted on
the town maps. We took a calculated risk at the time we purchased our property because
we felt the town would never build this road.
?J Rased Devg"ment Plan:
We view the location of the proposed driveway as a clear attempt to place the less desirable
aspects of the development along the Jonathan Lane side, basically pushing the driveway as
far as possible to see if anyone objects. We do object.And while our primary request is that
the subdivision request be denied, we support Commissioner McCann's suggestion that,
should the development be approved, there is plenty of room to move the driveway onto the
Cloutier property immediately after it leaves the first 300 feet of the driveway.
We would ask that significant environmental buffering be required, exact details of which
should be worked out in advance of final approval. The Design Professionals
representatives stated last night that there would be buffering, however,we would feel
1 1 r
comfortable with this only once it is specified and put in writing. We feel that given the size
of the lots,this is a reasonable request which would still allow for a reasonable area to be
cleared and used around the proposed homes.
We are also concerned about the potential of further subdivision of this property in the future.
We learned at the June 4t', 2001 Town Council meeting that these lots could potentially be
resubdivided. We would like a commitment that this property would be permanently
restricted to these three and only three building lots.
3) fta9ts to Our Homes and Safetl
In addition,we object to this development for the following reasons:
1) Proximity to neighbors:The proposed lot 3 borders approximately 10 lots. While it is
easy now, in midsummer,to view this area as very wooded and private, we can already
see across the property to the houses on Ellington Road in the winter. We feel that
adding this home would clearly eliminate privacy in the winter months for all the residents
bordering the property. Further, squeezing in a rear lot with this many neighbors seems
unnecessary to us.
2) Safety impacts: Many families along Jonathan Lane have young children. We do not feel
comfortable with the potential for cars running so close to our back yards. Further, the
driveway would go downhill from Palmer toward Foster such that cars would pick up
speed, further creating safety concerns for our children.
3) Impact to neighbors: The proposed driveway puts a paved driveway behind several
houses on Jonathan Lane, creating a negative image to potential buyers of those homes
and increasing noise for those homes.
While the Cloutier's have painted a picture that this proposal is in everyone's best interests
and represents a minimal use of the land, we do not see this as being in our best interests
for the reasons outlined above. As for the best use of the land, there are other alternatives: it
can be left as is since there is no pressing need to develop it or it can be divided into only
one additional lot. Dividing it into only one additional lot may be a viable compromise
solution since it would give the Cloutier's the lot for the new home they seek. Even selling
the property to another buyer to be left as is can be a viable solution for the Cloutier's given
recent market appreciation combined with the below-market price at which they obtained the
property(Roughly$250,000 for the home and land.)
We hope this has helped to clarify our concerns. Please feel free to contact us if you have
questions or refer questions to us at the next P&Z meeting. We also invite you to walk
through our property to better understand the specifics of the issues at hand. Thank you
again for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Carol R. Bettigole
Scott Bettigole
7/09/01
To: Town of South Windsor Planning&Zoning Commission.
From: William Serkosky
111 Palmer Drive
South Windsor, Ct.
Subject: Linda Cloutier Petition
Since I will be unable to attend the Planning&Zoning Commission meeting on 11/10/01,
I have asked John Young to represent me at this meeting. We have discussed this issue
and agree on what result we would like on this Petition.
These are the options we have discussed in order of preference.
1. A town road with a cul-de-sac
2. A tree lined barrier to hide the garbage&recycling containers.
Respec.tfully,
William Serkosky
-,�& V Kristine& Paul Jenkins
C (�� 2329 Ellington Road RECEI
South Windsor,Ct.06074
JULE�
c� UC 1 7 200,
SOUTH%DSOR PLWN4GDEPT
July 12,2001
Mr.Walter Mealy
Planning&Zoning Commission
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor,CT.06074
Re: Cloutier Subdivision
Dear Mr.Mealy:
We have been out of town and unable to express our concerns regarding the Cloutier subdivison. Our
house is located next to the proposed easement.
We are very concerned and opposed to the proposed easement which would be located within feet of our
sewer line and which would most likely kill the trees on our property. Our sewer line is too close to the
proposed right of way for us to feel that it would be secure. Our sewer line is located next to our driveway,
runs under our driveway and into the side of our house. The hemlock trees are located close to the
property line and the root systems would most likely be destroyed.
We live on a very busy road,but the tall hemlock trees surrounding the backyard have provided us with a
quiet,private backyard. When we purchased our home in 1983,we were assured by Robert Sheridan(who
owned the Cloutier property)that he would never develop the woods behind our house. We now have
Jonathan Lane behind us and Mr.Cloutier is now in a position to destroy our trees and disrupt our sewer
line. We initially were attracted to South Windsor because of the open spaces and we were under the
impression that the town valued the beautiful undeveloped landscape of the town. We have also enjoyed
the wildlife living in the wooded area behind our house. There are deer,turkeys,and foxes living in the
woods.
I hope you agree that our concerns are valid concerns. This easement not only poses an immediate threat to
our sewer and trees but most likely will be an ongoing threat. If there are any problems with the
subdivision's electric or sewer lines in the future(2 months or 10 years from now) we may be faced with
this area being dug up for repairs.
Please feel free to contact us(644-9365)or come to examine our property to better understand our
concerns. We would like you to seriously consider our opposition and concerns regarding this matter.
Very truly yours,
Kristine Jenkins
01
Paul Jenkins
C �
y
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074-2786
AREA CODE 860/644-2511,EXTENSION 279
N�SOR•c FAX 860/644-3781
BARRY D. GULIANO
Town Attorney
June 12, 2001
Mr. Walter Mealy, Chairman
Planning 8s Zoning Commission
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Application for Subdivision by Linda V. Cloutier
Dear Mr. Mealy and Members of the South Windsor Planning 8s Zoning
Commission:
Enclosed herewith is a copy of a Resolution adopted by the South Windsor
Town Council at its meeting of June 4, 2001. By this Resolution, the Town
Council has agreed that, if the 3-lot subdivision being sought by Linda V.
Cloutier is approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission, the Town will enter
into a right-of-way easement and maintenance agreement for the occupant of
each lot to pass over the unimproved portion of Felt Road.
In adopting this Resolution, the Town Council made it clear on the record that
it took no position as to whether the application for subdivision should be
approved, recognizing that this issue is solely within the jurisdiction of the
Planning & Zoning Commission.
Very truly yours,
Barry . G liano
Town ey
Enclosure
MEMORANDUM
TO: TOWN CLERK
FROM: Doi% /U ciA,p r
SUBJECT: DISQUALIFICATION
DATE:
BY MEANS OF THIS MEMORANDUM,I AM DISQUALIFYING MYSELF FROMANY/ALL
PARTICIPATION IN MATTERS CONCERNING:
APPLICATION NO.
NAME OF PROJECT' C�.I[x �ti f
REASON FOR DISQUALIFICATION � ON�
Sod 111Z/C UN
7rA)A7z IA 2-AA
SIGNA OF COMMISSIONER
R -CEIVED
JUL 1 2d01 Scott&Carol Bettigole
24 Jonathan Lane
SOUTH WINDSORPLANNINGDEPT. South Windsor, CT 06074
June 13, 2001
South Windsor Planning and Zoning
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Ladies and Gentlemen: -
We'd like to thank you for listening to our concerns last night relating to the proposed
subdivision of the Cloutier property on Palmer Drive.
After leaving the meeting,we were still concerned about a comment made by Commissioner
McCann, in which he stated that he could not understand why the neighbors objected so
strongly to this proposal. We, the Jonathan Lane residents, intended to clearly state our
concerns to you. However, as you now know, this is a complicated issue and many
discussions relating to it have occurred in various other town meetings. It is difficult at times,
for us to recognize that you are not as familiar with the issues as we are.With this in mind,
we'd like to ask that we be able to continue our dialog with you on this issue.
Generally,our concerns fall into three categories:
1) Relevance of 1979 ZBA Decisions
2) Specifics of the development plan
3) Impact to our homes and safety
1) ZBA 1979 Issues:
Our initial concern stems from whether the Cloutier property is or is not subdividable. We
have read the minutes from the 1975 and 1979 ZBA meetings and interpreted them to mean
that the precedent was set at that time to make the property a one lot estate. We bought our
property based on the understanding that this property was not subdividable. The Cloutier's
also understood this at the time they purchased their property. We feel this decision should
be upheld, especially now that several homeowners have relied on it.
The issue becomes muddied by the status of the stretch of Felt Road which ran behind our
properties. It may be hard for you to understand how we bought property looking for privacy
while all along having this road behind our house. Please understand that this portion of
Felt Road was never built. It is and has always been woods, regardless of what is noted on
the town maps. We took a calculated risk at the time we purchased our property because
we felt the town would never build this road.
2) Proposed Development Plan:
We view the location of the proposed driveway as a clear attempt to place the less desirable
aspects of the development along the Jonathan Lane side, basically pushing the driveway as
far as possible to see if anyone objects. We do object.And while our primary request is that
the subdivision request be denied,we support Commissioner McCann's suggestion that,
should the development be approved, there is plenty of room to move the driveway onto the
Cloutier property immediately after it leaves the first 300 feet of the driveway.
We would ask that significant environmental buffering be required, exact details of which
should be worked out in advance of final approval. The Design Professionals
representatives stated last night that there would be buffering, however,we would feel
comfortable with this only once it is specified and put in writing. We feel that given the size
of the lots,this is a reasonable request which would still allow for a reasonable area to be
cleared and used around the proposed homes.
We are also concerned about the potential of further subdivision of this property in the future.
We learned at the June 0, 2001 Town Council meeting that these lots could potentially be
resubdivided. We would like a commitment that this property would be permanently
restricted to these three and only three building lots.
3) Impacts to Our Homes and Safety:
In addition,we object to this development for the following reasons:
1) Proximity to neighbors: The proposed lot 3 borders approximately 10 lots. While it is
easy now, in midsummer,to view this area as very wooded and private,we can already
see across the property to the houses on Ellington Road in the winter. We feel that
adding this home would clearly eliminate privacy in the winter months for all the residents
bordering the property. Further, squeezing in a rear lot with this many neighbors seems
unnecessary to us.
2) Safety impacts: Many families along Jonathan Lane have young children. We do not feel
comfortable with the potential for cars running so close to our back yards. Further, the
driveway would go downhill from Palmer toward Foster such that cars would pick up
speed,further creating safety concerns for our children.
3) Impact to neighbors: The proposed driveway puts a paved driveway behind several
houses on Jonathan Lane, creating a negative image to potential buyers of those homes
and increasing noise for those homes.
While the Cloutier's have painted a picture that this proposal is in everyone's best interests
and represents a minimal use of the land, we do not see this as being in our best interests
for the reasons outlined above. As for the best use of the land, there are other alternatives: it
can be left as is since there is no pressing need to develop it or it can be divided into only
one additional lot. Dividing it into only one additional lot may be a viable compromise
solution since it would give the Cloutier's the lot for the new home they seek. Even selling
the property to another buyer to be left as is can be a viable solution for the Cloutier's given
recent market appreciation combined with the below-market price at which they obtained the
property(Roughly$250,000 for the home and land.)
We hope this has helped to clarify our concerns. Please feel free to contact us if you have
questions or refer questions to us at the next P&Z meeting. We also invite you to walk
through our property to better understand the specifics of the issues at hand. Thank you
again for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Carol R. Bettigole
Scott Bettigole
June 17,2001
Dear Planning & Zoning Commission,
As a landowner on Palmer Drive and a neighbor of Linda Cloutier, I am in
favor of the low intensity subdivision being proposed by the Cloutiers.
The town of South Windsor has less and less land available in town and the
town has several high intensity subdivisions being built. The Cloutiers are
asking to build two homes on 3 acre plus lots. I see no reason why they
should not be granted the proposed subdivision development.
You,
r'
June 17,2001
Dear Planning & Zoning Commission,
As a landowner on Palmer Drive and a neighbor of Linda Cloutier, I am in
favor of the low intensity subdivision being proposed by the Cloutiers.
The town of South Windsor has less and less land available in town and the
town has several high intensity subdivisions being built. The Cloutiers are
asking to build two homes on 3 acre plus lots. I see no reason why they
should not be granted the proposed subdivision development.
Thank You,
r
f
June 17,2001
Dear Planning & Zoning Commission,
As a landowner on Ellington Road and a neighbor of Linda Cloutier, I am in
favor of the low intensity subdivision being proposed by the Cloutiers.
The town of South Windsor has less and less land available in town and the
town has several high intensity subdivisions being built. The Cloutiers are
asking to build two homes on 3 acre plus lots. I see no reason why they
should not be granted the proposed subdivision development.
Thank You,
June 17,2001
Dear Planning& Zoning Commission,
As a landowner on Palmer Drive and a neighbor of Linda Cloutier, I am in
favor of the low intensity subdivision being proposed by the Cloutiers.
The town of South Windsor has less and less land available in town and the
town has several high intensity subdivisions being built. The Cloutiers are
asking to build two homes on 3 acre plus lots. I see no reason why they
should not be granted the proposed subdivision development.
Thank You,
���0 -7�
June 17,2001
Dear Planning& Zoning Commission,
As a landowner on Palmer Drive and a neighbor of Linda Cloutier, I am in
favor of the low intensity subdivision being proposed by the Cloutiers.
The town of South Windsor has less and less land available in town and the
town has several high intensity subdivisions being built. The Cloutiers are
asking to build two homes on 3 acre plus lots. I see no reason why they
should not be granted the proposed subdivision development.
Thank You,
June 17,2001
Dear Planning& Zoning Commission,
As a landowner on Ellington Road and a neighbor of Linda Cloutier, I am in
favor of the low intensity subdivision being proposed by the Cloutiers.
The town of South Windsor has less and less land available in town and the
town has several high intensity subdivisions being built. The Cloutiers are
asking to build two homes on 3 acre plus lots. I see no reason why they
should not be granted the proposed subdivision development.
Thank You,
June 17,2001
Dear Planning & Zoning Commission,
As a landowner on Ellington Road and a neighbor of Linda Cloutier, I am in
favor of the low intensity subdivision being proposed by the Cloutiers.
The town of South Windsor has less and less land available in town and the
town has several high intensity subdivisions being built. The Cloutiers are
asking to build two homes on 3 acre plus lots. I see no reason why they
should not be granted the proposed subdivision development.
Thank You,
. � 1 �� 061
June 17,2001
Dear Planning & Zoning Commission,
As a landowner on Palmer Drive and a neighbor of Linda Cloutier, I am in
favor of the low intensity subdivision being proposed by the Cloutiers.
The town of South Windsor has less and less land available in town and the
town has several high intensity subdivisions being built. The Cloutiers are
asking to build two homes on 3 acre plus lots. I see no reason why they
should not be granted the proposed subdivision development.
Thank You,
June 17,2001
Dear Planning & Zoning Commission,
As a landowner on Palmer Drive and a neighbor of Linda Cloutier, I am in
favor of the low intensi1y subdivision being proposed by the Cloutiers.
The town of South Windsor has less and less land available in town and the
town has several high intensity subdivisions being built. The Cloutiers are
asking to build two homes on 3 acre plus lots. I see no reason why they
should not be granted the proposed subdivision development.
Thank You,
<j- G
FBI OIA br;V4
June 17,2001
Dear Planning & Zoning Commission,
As a landowner on Ellington Road and a neighbor of Linda Cloutier, I am in
favor of the low intensity subdivision being proposed by the Cloutiers.
The town of South Windsor has less and less land available in town and the
town has several high intensity subdivisions being built. The Cloutiers are
asking to build two homes on 3 acre plus lots. I see no reason why they
should not be granted the proposed subdivision development.
Thank You,
I2r
RECEIVED
JUL 0 2 2001
SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT.
June 28, 2001
Councilman McCann
Planning and Zoning Commission
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Councilman McCann:
During the last Planning and Zoning meeting you commented on your inability to
understand the degree of opposition homeowners on Jonathan Lane were
expressing concerning the proposed application for a special exception and the
creation of two interior lots on the northerly side of Palmer Drive along the paper street
known as Felt Road. My attempt here is to explain why we are driven and where the
passion originates related to this issue. What I hope to do is step away from the
emotion and present only the facts. My concern is that by presenting our views in this
manner the depth of their importance will diminish. Please understand this is not the
case. This is a serious matter to us and whatever the outcome it will significantly
effect us.
• We originally lived at 62 Steep Road, which is a cut-through street where cars
have a tendency to travel at speeds that exceeded the set limit.
• After the birth of our first son, we decided to find a lot in South Windsor that was
more condusive to a small child playing outside.
• We researched and looked at a number of possible lots to build a home.
• We were shown the development on Jonathan Lane.
• The wooded lots and cul-de-sac were a dream come true. Yet we were
apprehensive since our lot had a house behind it.
• The developer explained two issues with the lot we were interested in: 1) There
was a paper road, which had always been a paper road for about as long as
South Windsor had been established. TAVas little to no chance of it ever
becoming a "real" road because of numerous conflicts/issues concerning it. (I
don't want to list all the specifics concerning this issue, since that is not my
purpose here g
and it is well known throughout the town this road would remain
undeveloped) 2) The house behind it had its own history with the outcome
being it w+H remain a 1 house 12 acre parcel.
would
• The "History" of this house intrigued us and we felt compelled to understand
what it was.
• What we discovered, and were told, was that many years ago, a gentleman
bought the land. Then he wanted to build a house and was denied because it
was something called, "land-locked". He fought the denial, explaining he felt it
was unfair to be expected to paid taxes on the land and not be able to use it.
Qoll
• The Planning and Zoning Commission, at that time, determined there was a
"hardship, meaning someone was unjustly suffering - being penalized. Based
on that they granted a "ONE TIME SPECIAL EXCEPTION", and allowed the man
to build one house - making the land usable.
• Over the years the land was sold - every time with the same restriction on the
land: it was to be a one house lot. A number of times over the years, owners
approached Planning and Zoning requesting to divide the land and build.
• Those requests were denied because of the previous ruling determining the lot
to be a one house ONLY parcel.
• Knowing this, we decided to make the most crucial investment a young couple
could make. As most couples beginning a life together, we put most of our net
- w rth into the lot. Our lot was at the top of a cul-de-sac and we had approx. 11-
12 acres of woods behind us (that was challenged, reviewed and determined
to remain that way) - Who wouldn't?!
That is the basis for the passionate battle we are fighting. We bought our lot knowing
the laws, restrictions, and conditions of our property, and the surrounding property.
We made an educated decision based on the variances set by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Just as the Coutier's purchased the property - knowing the
restrictions set to #:e-property.
itleic
Our frustration stems from the fact that this portion of the issue seems to be clouded
and covered by all the discussions concerning building specifications and
regulations. Wouldn't it seem logical to first decide if the Cloutier's are able to build
on a parcel designated as a one house lot before expending the time and energy on
the proposed subdivision meeting code?
If that conversation should ever take place we ask that you consider our rights - (what
we have inherently received) a lot abutting a 1 house 12 acre parcel; The Cloutier's
rights - (what they inherently received) a 1 house 12 acre parcel; and make a decision
that would protect the rights of all the homeowners.
We have been told that regulations have changed since that time, and an argument
would be made that since time changes, so should regulations. Our question would
be: Is this a situation that could utilize a "Grand-fathering" clause - settling this
reoccurring issue once and for all?
We also ask that the Commission consider placing this parcel into a Conservation
easement which would protect it from future disputes. How many times does an
issue have to be discussed and how much time consumed before someone finally
says, "Enough already?"
Please understand Councilman McCann - it isn't the development specs we are
solely disputing - It's mgin aininq what is riahtfi,lly acing - as per a Planning and
Zoning Commission decission - that we are fervently fighting to protect.
I will be at the July 10th meeting and would be more than happy to answer any
questions you may have. Thank you for being open to all sides of a controversy.
Sincerely,
Janina R. Jo oski
42 Jonathan Lane
South Windsor, CT 06074
644-5543
cc: Chairman Walter J. Mealy
Gene&Janina Johnkoski
42 Jonathan Lane
South Windsor, CT 06074
June 28, 2001
Mr. Walter J. Mealy, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Chairman Mealy:
We are writing in connection with Application 01-07P, Linda Cloutier's application
for a special exception and the creation of two interior lots on the northerly side of Palmer
Drive along the"paper street" known as Felt Road. We understand from the June 26 h hearing
that the matter has been continued and the public hearing kept open until your Commission's
meeting on July 1 Oth
As we discussed at the hearing on June 26th, both we and our neighbors have several
serious concerns with the proposed development. These concerns fall into several different
categories and we believe that each of them is within the jurisdiction of the Planning and
Zoning Commission under the applicable regulations.
First, we have serious concerns about safety issues related to the access to the
proposed new residential lots. The"driveway" along or near the former bed of Felt Road
would be very close to the rear boundary of our lot and those of our neighbors. This means of
access would in fact be closer to our homes than is generally the case with streets and
subdivision roads, where the lots usually abut other lots at the rear. Because of the general
concern about even the limited amount of traffic, particularly given the special needs of our
children, we do believe that the access shown on the application would pose a risk to residents
of Jonathan Lane and their children. Further, the placement of what would essentially be a
subdivision road so close to the rear of these properties would undoubtedly diminish their
value and would impact the expectations of all of the owners along Jonathan Lane. It is also
unclear whether the proposed access drive as shown on the application is consistent with the
Town Council's conditional abandonment of that portion of Felt Road.
Second, although it was not discussed in depth, the proposed development is likely to
have adverse impacts on drainage, particularly as it relates to the existing homes on Ellington
Road. Because the development of these two proposed lots would involve removal of
vegetation and the regarding of the terrain, it is probable that the level of runoff from the 12
acre site would increase in amount and velocity as it flows down toward those homes.
Several residents of that area had commented about drainage and, particularly, ice conditions
which exist under the current conditions. Development of this parcel would only exacerbate
that situation.
Another important question that must be addressed is the issue of"expectations".
When we and all of our neighbors purchased their homes on Jonathan Lane, we were well
aware of the fact that there had been a controversy in the past regarding this particular 12 acre
parcel. We were also well aware of the fact that the issue had been settled, we believed once
and for all, by the various land use agencies in the Town of South Windsor that that property
would be one house on one lot. It has remained as such for over twenty-five years and was a
state of affairs on which we and our neighbors had relied in making our investment decisions
to reside in this particular area.
The proposal before the Commission flies in the face of these reasonable and long-
standing expectations. The fact that no "hardship" needs to be shown under the regulations to
permit this development should not be flipped on its head to allow such a proposal, which
requires numerous permits, extraordinary actions of the Town Council and special exceptions
from the Commission, to coast through to approval in the face of substantial and legitimate
opposition.
In the event that the Commission is inclined to approve this special exception, we
would further request that it review the language of the special exception regulations,
particularly Section 4.6.2(a). Please consider carefully the aesthetics, the proposed buffering
and screening, the potential drainage, traffic and environmental impacts, impacts on property
values, and the potential for any future development of these parcels. We believe strongly
that thoughtful and objective evaluation of these issues will mean that the application must be
denied or, at a minimum, that steps must be taken in conjunction with the proposal to mitigate
the negative impacts on these important resources and characteristics of our neighborhood.
If this proposal is approved by the Commission, it must be done in such a way that the
environment and the surrounding properties are protected from degradation and further
encroachment by development. Conservation easements or protective buffers, relocation of
the access road as far into the site as possible, and restrictions on the ability of the property
owners to develop further residential or business uses on the parcel(regardless of what
changes the Commission may choose to make to its regulations in the future) are the bare
minimum of what we would consider to be reasonable accommodations to protect our
property and those of our neighbors, and the expectations that we all operated under when we
purchased our homes.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Respectfully yours,
Y
Gene & nina Johnkoski
DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC.
civil engineers .planners . surveyors . gis
Abutting Property Owners June 30,2000
Cloutier Subdivision DPI Project No. 99-1245
Palmer Drive
South Windsor, Connecticut
Stanley&Barbara Wells
Robert E. LaFontaine
George&Germaine Bard
Aaron W. &Michelle M. Dixon
John H. &Audrey H.-Young
Evelyn R. Lyons
John E. VonKaenel
Myles J. &Barbara B. O'Reilly,Jr.
Charles E. &Kathleen D. Burns
Kenneth&Karen A. Johnson
Ronald&Janice M. Binkus
Mary C. Iczkowski
Charles A. &Dorothy L. Smith
Robin Mciuskey
Raymond&Geraldine Coligan
Arthur E. &Myra A. McNary
David P. &Nancy S. Shea
John F. Fiorita
Claudia B. Siniscalchi
Gregory C. Jarvis
Panos Livadiotis
Paul R. Jenkins
William C. &Lou Ann Beaumont
James V.Rogers
Wilfred E. Hebert,Jr.
165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074
Tel: (860)291-8755 •Fax: (860)291-8757
7i7.0I2001 14:43 860-289-0849 PCI*CSI COMM PAGE 01
i
Greg Jarvis ED
2315 Ellington Road RECEIVED
South Windsor, CT 06074-7063 JUL 10 2001
SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT,
Mr. Walter Mealy
Planning & Zoning Commission
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
REF: Cloutier Subdivision
Dear Chairperson Mealy;
As a concerned abutting property owner, I have watched the process
with complete disgust! I have heard the lies and the threats and
cannot believe the town would condone this activity! The vote
regarding the abandonment of Felt Road was a tainted vote — laced
with deceit and threats. Now that more of the truth is in the open,
the town should reverse this corrupt vote. Then conduct a re-vote. I
am quite agitated over the total disregard for the wells on properties
on Ellington Road. The properties have a very high water table in
which the ground is constantly moist. Any breaching of the sewer
line, which runs dangerously close to my property, sewage would be
drawn into my well very quickly due the fact that the Cloutier
property is twenty feet higher than mine and the capillary action
created by the flow of numerous rivers to the west of Ellington road.
Because of this capillary action, the homes on Ellington Road have
their wells located in the back yard and their septic tanks located in
the front. In fact, any use of"Chem-Lawn" or similar products
would pose a great health threat to all homeowners and occupants.
The only way to stop the threat is to reject this application. Keep
with the one house — one twelve acre ruling which was imposed years
ago. I find the placement of the sewer line seriously flawed! While
it's placement protects the Cloutier homes from problems, it will
07/10/2001 14:51 860-289-0849 PCI*CSI COMM PAGE 02
create problems and liability to all horns on Ellington road. The
easement between the Jenkins property and Uvadiotis property
shows the sewer line will cut through the root system of many tall
pine trees located on the Jenkins property and cause these fifty to
sixty foot trees to eventually topple. The sewer line will run close to
the Jenkins well, and the Livadiotis' abandoned well which is on the
same vein as other homes on Ellington Road.
In regards to property values, every homeowner bordering this
subdivision would suffer great losses. (Contrary to what the paid
mouthpiece from the local real estate emporium said at the council
meeting} I as a homebuyer would rather see a wooded parcel out my
back window than to peer into the windows of another house. The
housing prices in Manchester, East Hartford, Enfield, etc. are proof
of this.
If this application is approved, I wonder if the town will lower the
excessive tax burden on the abutting property owners? If this
application is to be further considered, I urge the council to carefully
examine all aspects of this application, such as "stacking". Please do
not take the word of anyone who will greatly profit from this, that
this is happening in other parts of town. In closing, I would hope the
planning & zoning council does the right thing and keep with the one
house — twelve acre lot contract which went into effect years ago,
Since I have water tests taken from my well dating back to the 1960' s
that show a good quality, stable source of drinking water, free from
any PCB's or chemicals, I would hate to see the town liable for any
well contamination or health problems, which would arise from
approval of this corrupt application.
Sincerely,
Greg Jarvis
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning
FROM: Barry D. Guliano, Town Attorney
DATE: July 10, 2001
RE: Status as Building Lot of Birch Hill Subdivision Lot Abutting
Unimproved Felt Road (Re: Cloutier PZC Application)
You have asked for a legal opinion regarding the status of a lot abutting
that unimproved portion of Felt Road over which Linda Cloutier has been
granted an easement by the Town for use as a driveway to her property on Felt
Road. The lot in question was originally part of the Birch Hill Estates
subdivision that was approved by the PZC in 1963 and 1964. The lot was
initially shown on maps of the subdivision as an unnumbered lot (see, e.g.,
Phase I - Map 475B and Phase II - Map 483A), but was provided with a lot
number in maps of subsequent phases of the subdivision (see Phase III - Map
485A). PZC Regulations at the time required that subdivision lots be
numbered. No mention of the specific lot number, however, can be found in
the minutes of any PZC meeting indicating that it was ever approved as a
building lot.
The record is significant in that it appears from the maps filed with PZC
to always have been the intent of the developer to create a separate building
r
Marcia A. Banach
April 25, 2000
Page 2
lot. Only the number and Phase in which the lot would be incorporated in the
subdivision were apparently in doubt. While it is true that the PZC minutes do
not reflect the specific approval of this lot, it is equally true that the minutes do
not reflect any disagreement with the later maps which depict the lot as a
numbered building lot.
This is precisely the type of situation for which the validating acts are
enacted by the State legislature every two years. The validating acts are based
on the concept that the legislature has the power to cure, by retroactive
enactment, a party's failure to comply with a procedural requirement which the
legislature had the right to alter prospectively, where the enactment's
retroactive application does not unjustly interfere with the vested rights of
another.
The most recent validating act, Special Act 99-7, was enacted in 1999
and applies to any act or omission, which occurred prior to January 1, 1999.
In relevant passages, it provides at Section 5 that
MAPS OR PLANS. No deed . . . or other instrument recorded prior to the
effective date of this act transferring any interest in a lot or lots shown on
a filed map or plan of subdivision shall be deemed to be invalid to convey
the . . . interest therein because:
(4) The map or plan fails in any way to comply with any requirement . . .
of any special or general law, municipal ordinance or regulation.
Marcia A. Banach
April 25, 2000
Page 3
Section 6 of the act further provides:
PLANNING AND ZONING. (a) No conveyance . . . or other transfer of any
interest in land comprising part of a subdivision shall be deemed invalid
to convey the . . . interest described therein because such land comprises
part of a subdivision that was not submitted for approval to the
municipal planning commission or other municipal agency charged with
the duty of approving subdivisions.
(b) No use or occupancy of . . . a lot or lots either shown on a filed or
recorded map or plan of subdivision or located in a subdivision created
by the physical division of land into three or more parcels shall be
deemed illegal or invalid because the lot or lots . . . [are] not shown on an
approved plan of subdivision or because the filed or recorded map or
plan of subdivision fails in any manner to comply with any requirement
or requirements of any general or special law, ordinance or regulation.
Validating acts enacted in prior years contained similar provisions. (See
Special Acts No. 97-6, 95-1, 93-17, 91-1, 89-6, 87-12). Applying the provisions
noted above, the lot in question would be a building lot in the subdivision in
the same manner as if it had been specifically approved back in 1963 or 1964.
It is, therefore, my opinion that the lot in question is a building lot,
subject to the same restrictions and requirements in defining building lots as
were in place when the first map depicting the unnumbered lot was originally
filed in 1963. There is no requirement that it meet current regulations not in
place in 1963 for it to be deemed a building lot. For example, I have been
advised by the Town Planner, Marcia Banach, that minutes of PZC meetings
around 1963 indicate that there was no requirement that a building
Marcia A. Banach
April 25, 2000
Page 4
lot abut a paved road. If this is correct, there would similarly be no such
requirement for the lot in question to be a building lot. The current owner need
only request and obtain a building permit and meet all of its requirements to
treat the lot as a building lot.
If there are further questions pertaining to this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
BDG/bdg
Lkr
/ 0 -zoo
IXA
------------------
DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC.
civil engineers .planners . surveyors . gis
RECEIVED July 30, 2001
Marcia Banach, Planning Director AUG 0 1 2001
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNfNG DEPT.
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re:Cloutier Subdivision DPI Project No. 99-1245
Felt Road
South Windsor, Connecticut
On behalf of our client, Linda Cloutier,I hereby request a 90 day extension from the original
filing date for recording the subdivision mylars in the office of the Town Clerk. Thank you.
DESIGN P FESSIONALS, INC.
By: ,
Peter R. DeMallie
Principal
cc: Linda&Ben Cloutier
Harold Cummings, Esq.
Karen Isherwood
Galen Semprebon
165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074
Tel: (860)291-8755 •Fax: (860) 291-8757
I, Walter J. Mealy, Chairman of the South Windsor Planning&Zoning Commission, hereby certify that on
July 17, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted to Linda Cloutier a Special Exception to Article
4.6.1 of the Zoning Regulations, Site Plan of Development and Resubdivision create two interior lots for
property located 103 Palmer Drive,AA-30 zone as shown on plans prepared by Design Professionals,Inc.,Job
No. 99-1245, dated 7/3/01 as revised. -
Assessor's Map and Parcel Number: Map#77 Parcel#25
More particularly bounded and described as follows: See attached
OWNER OF RECORD: Linda V. Cloutier
Dated at South Windsor, Connecticut this 31St day of July 2001.
In accordance with CGS Section 8-3d
Walter J. M ly, Chai
Planning&Zoning Commission
Received for record this day of , 19 at
South Windsor, Connecticut ATTEST:
towN a��
-own oi-lloe S-otdA
9 �
� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
iIOSOR-C°��a� TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511
July 31,2001
CERTIFIED MAIL
Ms.Linda Cloutier
103 Palmer Drive
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Ms. Cloutier:
Re: App101-07P, Cloutier Site Plan,Resubdivision and Special Exception
We are pleased to advise you that the Planning&Zoning Commission voted on July 17,2001 to approve with
modifications the above referenced application. This approval is for a site plan of development,resubdivision
and Special Exception to Article 4.6.1 to create two interior lots for property located 103 Palmer Drive,AA-30
zone as shown on plans prepared by Design Professionals,Inc.,Job No. 99-1245, dated 7/3/01 as revised. This
approval is subject to the following modifications:
1. This approval is for 2 lots,numbered 1 and 2.
2. Drainage and construction for this subdivision is subject to the approval of the Town Engineer.
3. All lots shall be serviced by the Town of South Windsor sanitary sewer system and are subject to the
approval of the Water Pollution Control Authority.
4. Water shall be supplied to this subdivision by private well.
5. A liability insurance policy shall be submitted to this Commission naming the Town of South Windsor as an
insured,with a combined single limit for bodily injury and/or property damage in the amount of$1,000,000.
6. This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation
Commission.
7. Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff.
8. All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of
South Windsor.
9. All easements for conservation purposes, drainage or utilities,that may be required in connection with the
approval of this subdivision,must be submitted on standard Town easement form where appropriate,to this
Commission prior to filing the mylars and issuance of building permits. All deeds for open space,public
improvements and roadways must be submitted prior to request for Town acceptance; all deeds must be in
accordance with the policy for accepting deeds and must be approved by the Engineering Department and
Town Attorney.
10. Footing drains are required for each house. Prior to the building of any structure on a lot, a topographic map,
drawn to a scale of 1" =40', shall be submitted for each lot in the subdivision, showing proposed contours,
elevations and the location of the footing drains:No building permits will be issued until the proposed
contours, floor elevations and location of footing drains have been approved by the Town Engineer.
11. If, for any reason, finished grading and other individual lot site work is not completed, the Town Engineer
shall determine the amount of a cash bond to ensure final grading and site work. This cash bond must be
submitted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
12. Quantity estimates must be submitted to the Town Engineer(on the enclosed form) for the purpose of
determining subdivision bonding. All bonds shall conform to the enclosed bond policy and shall be posted
prior to filing the final plans in the Town Clerk's office.
13. If the developer chooses to submit a Letter of Credit for a one-year term, in lieu of a surety bond, said Letter
of Credit must be renewed on a yearly basis until completion of the development. If a new Letter of Credit
has not been received within 30 days before the expiration date, the Commission may, at its option, call the
Letter it is holding.
14. A drainage assessment fee in the amount of$100.00 shall be submitted to this Commission.
15. No building permits will be issued until all modifications have been complied with, and the final plans have
been filed in the Town Clerk's office.
Special Exception has been granted for the creation of the interior lots and approval becomes effective upon
enclosed form going on file in the office of the town clerk
Black and white transparent mylars of Sheet#3 with the above modifications, together with three blueprint
copies of the entire set of plans must be submitted to this Commission within 30 days to be stamped and signed.
The letters of approval of this Commission as well as the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission
must be reproduced on the mylars.
After the Commission has signed mylars,they will be returned to you for filing in the Office of the Town Clerk
by November 5, 2001. After filing these plans, a copy of the receipt must be submitted to the Planning
Department.
Very truly yours,
Walter J. Mealy, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
WJM/dlf
cc: Town Engineer
Chief Building Official
Assessor
Superintendent of Pollution Control
Fire Marshal
Design Professionals, Inc.
DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. RECEiVED
civil engineers .planners . surveyors . gis AUG 13 20 01
AuN1�1�6 1
SOUTNWiNDSt
Marcia Banach, Planning Director
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re:Cloutier Subdivision DPI Project No. 99-1245
Felt Road
South Windsor, Connecticut
On behalf of our client, Linda Cloutier, I hereby request a second 90-day extension from the
original filing date for recording the subdivision mylars in the office of the Town Clerk. Thank
you.
DESIGN PR ESSIONALS, INC.
1
By: X
iAll,
Peter R. DeMallie
Principal
cc: Linda&Ben Cloutier
Harold Cummings, Esq.
Karen Isherwood
Galen Semprebon
165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074
Tel: (860) 291-8755 • Fax: (860)291-8757
c�
DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC. RECEIVED
civil engineers .planners . surveyors . gis AUG 13 2,001
som wDSOR PLANNING DEPT.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TO: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning DATE:August 13, 2001
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
RE: Cloutier Subdivision DPI PROJ NO: 99-1245
103 Palmer Drive
South Windsor, Connecticut
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
❑ for your use ❑ at your request
® for approval ❑ for your files
❑ for review and comment ❑ other
THE FOLLOWING: One (1) final blueprint set of plans, revised per approval conditions. If plans
are acceptable, I will submit the additional two sets of plans along with a recordable mylar of Sheet 3
as required. Thank you.
DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC.
1
By: _
Karen YMirwood
Project Engineer
165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074
Tel: (860)291-8755 • Fax: (860) 291-8757
tow" SC4
9 �
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
�Osoa.co TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511
August 30, 2001
Mr. Peter DeMallie
Design Professionals, Inc.
165 South Satellite Road
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Mr. DeMallie:
Re: Appl 01-07P, Cloutier
Please be advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on August 21, 2001
to grant a second 90-day extension to file mylars for the above-referenced subdivision
in the Town Clerk's office. The new filing deadline is May 3, 2002.
This extension is the final extension permitted under Connecticut General § 8-25.
Sincerely,
Walter J. Mealy, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
WJM/dlf
d�4
y
-own Ole'SIXzM
�;..•. • ��� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
°Soe.Co�' TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511
August 30, 2001
Mr. Peter DeMallie
Design Professionals, Inc.
165 South Satellite Road
South Windsor, CT 06074 -
Dear Mr. DeMallie:
Re: Appl 01-07P, Cloutier
Please be advised that the Planning &Zoning Commission voted on August 21, 2001, to
grant a 90-day extension for filing subdivision plans for the above-referenced
subdivision in the Town Clerk's office. The original filing deadline was November 5,
2001; the new filing deadline is February 3, 2002.
State statutes authorize one additional 90-day filing extension. If you wish to request
an additional extension, please request in writing prior to that date.
Sincerely,
Walter J. Mealy, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
WJM/dlf
tow N S f4
� fi � € `.r-" wig f �,kn� �' �.+ ``✓i.hr 4- ar+, i1� e.�...%✓:�`�. ..
It
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
�nSOR•COC AREA CODE 860/644-2511
September 21, 2001
Karen Isherwood
Design Professionals, Inc.
165 South Satellite Road
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Madam/Sir:
Re:Preconstruction Meeting—App101-07P, Cloutier Resubdivision/Special Exception— 8/31/01
IN ATTENDANCE
Michele Lipe TOSW 644-2511 ext 252
Michael Gantick TOSW 644-2511 ext 242
Steve Luchenbill Cox Communications 801 Park Street, Manchester 432-5290
Phaksinh Moundraty SNET 725-4168
Michael Covensky Coven Construction P O Box 427, Coventry, CT 742-0796
Benoit &Linda Cloutier 103 Palmer Drive, SW. 644-0770
Karen Isherwood Design Professionals, Inc. 165 South Satellite Road, SW 291'8755
Jeff Folger TOSW 644-2511 ext 229
The following is a brief summary of points discussed during the meeting:
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
1. All erosion and sedimentation control measures are to be in place prior to earth moving_operations in
each area and maintained/cleaned out area and maintained/cleaned out duringconstruction. Call Jeffrey Folger, Zoning/Wetlands
Enforcement Officer for inspection when measures are in place, prior to commencement of site work or
if any problems/concerns arise during construction.
2. All topsoil stockpile areas to be protected (ringed with haybales or equal).
3. During construction of the road/driveway a crushed stone tracking pad is to be installed and maintained
to minimize tracking of dirt/gravel on to Palmer Drive. Calcium chloride or water is to be used for dust
control as required.
Public Works
i
1
1. Three complete sets of approved/revised plans to be provided to Town prior to start of construction.
They will be stamped by the Planning Department along with plans developer needs. Only approved
plans are to be used on the job site.
2. The Engineering Department is to be notified forty-eight (48) hours prior to the start of major
construction work with inspections and testing per Developers Checklist (requested, required) for the
following:
a. After site is staked out
b. All drainage work
3. Certification of all products used -- storm pipe, structures, pavement, etc., shall be presented to the Town
Engineer prior to installation.
4. Applicant/developer should be aware that the inspection of the infrastructure improvements may result in
the replacement of structure tops and/or structures prior to final paving if found to be deficient.
5. As built plans are to include horizontal and vertical location of all underdrains, footing drains, and
sanitary sewers and house service laterals located as per revised as-built checklist.
6. All pipe and structures to be backfilled with free draining material, compacted in maximum one foot lifts
with approved compaction equipment or approved equal if deep trench is encountered. Any pipe or
structure work requires inspection prior to backfilling.
7. Any problems and/or questions regarding construction of this project will be directed to Mike Covensky
or Linda Cloutier at 644-0770.
8. All filling to be done in accordance with Department of Transportation specifications. To be compacted
in maximum lifts and tested as necessary.
9. Job meetings will be held as needed, and can be called by the developer or Town.
10. Forty-eight-(48) hours' notice needed for certificate of occupancy inspection.
11. Any proposed changes are to be presented to the Engineering or Planning Department prior to
implementation on change order form in quadruplicate with 4 copies of the drawing. Town will attempt
to turn around within 24 hours.
12. Normal hours of operation 7:00 a.m. —5:00 p.m.,no work on Sunday.
13. DOT permit needed for all work within state road. Copy must be given to the Engineering Department.
14. No paving after October 15 or before April 15 without written approval from Director of Public Works.
i
15. Extra care must be taken when compacting around structures such as catch basins and manholes. These
spots often become problem areas in the future due to settling, therefore,the town staff/inspectors will be
requesting additional compaction tests in these areas.
16. Sanitary lateral locations should be tied down to existing structures and shown on the progress as-builts.
17. During construction of individual sanitary sewer house laterals, the contractor shall prepare an as-built
sketch on standard form provided by the Engineering Department. This form should be submitted to the
design engineer/surveyor for their use in preparing the as-built plan. The Engineering Department
suggests that the contractor also show locations of foundation drains and water laterals on this form.
18. During construction for individual house lots, lot to lot drainage must be addressed with drainage swales
as necessary must be in place first. For lawn establishment,town staff will be requiring erosion control
measures to be installed prior to the issue of the certificate of occupancy to ensure soil stabilization. A
detailed erosion control plan must be implemented and depicted on the plot plan for review prior to the
issuance of the building permit—most particularly on lots with extensive grading. Operation and
Maintenance Plan for CB should be provided to lot/homeowners. Critical!!!
Planning_Department
1. Landscaping is to be installed in accordance with the approved landscaping plan. If there are changes
required, contact the Planning Dept. Additional landscaping installed on one part of a site will not
preclude planting all of the remaining items shown on the landscaping plan.
2. A mylar, $100.00 Drainage and Assessment fee, Quantity Estimates, and a Conservation and Drainage
easement must be provided. Mylar to go on file prior to issuance of building permits.
SNET/NU
1. Contact utilities for coordination of utilities connection.
Fire Marshal
1. Blasting (if required) to be coordinated with the Fire Marshal.
Police Services
1. Emergency phone numbers for the duration of the construction must be provided to Police Services on a
company letterhead. If the developer occupies or owns the building after construction emergency
numbers must be provided to Police Services.
2. All buildings located on property that abuts a public highway must be numbered and visible from the
street. All numbering shall comply with Town Ordinance 6-800 through 6-802.
Barns, garages, and outbuildings, which are located on the same premises as a numbered structure, are
excluded.
f
3. Erect temporary sign on the site during construction identifying the project.
4. If an alarm is to be installed contact Police Services.
Building Department
1. Plan review with Building Official/Fire Marshal required prior to application for building permit.
Coordinate with Chief Building Official.
Sincerely,
�� �
M chele R. Li , AICP
Assistant Director of Planning
MRL/pmm
cc: Jeffrey B. Doolittle, Town Engineer
Karl Reichle,Public Works
Mel Stead, Public Works
John R. Collins, Chief Building Official
Fred Shaw, Superintendent of Pollution Control
CL&P
SNET
Sapp 25 01 11 : 16a 860-291 -8;757 p. 2
PROJECT:,12AS"-Gt4VTI irfi;`dW TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR RECEIVED
STREET:PA t+ti�R 09-J-P&,T 9A. BOND ESTIMATE FORM
p8z t.D.: 2401 CALENDAR YEAR SEP 2 5 2001
ENGINEER:Y-J�9� .L_
DATE: /4-D! SOUTH W JDoSjO�PLANNING Bond
Reduction Reduction
Item Descri tion Unit Quantity Unit Price Cost No. 1 No. 2
1. Clearing&Gru bing LS "
2. Strip&Stockpile Topsoil CY 2.00
Earth Excavation
(Excluding Roadway&
3. Trench) CY 10.00
4, Roadway Excavation CY 12.D0
5. Earth Trench Exc.0-4 CY D 10.00
6, Earth Trench Exc.0-10 CY O 12.00 1 1p,31A,
7. Earth Trench Exc.0-16 CY 15.00
8. Earth Trench Exc.0-20 CY 18.00
g, Roadway Exc. (Rock) ICY 50.00
10. Rock Trench Exc.0-4 CY 50.00
11. Rock Trench Exc. D-10 CY 75.00
12. Rock Trench Exc.0-15 CY 100.00
13. Rock Trench Exc.0-20 CY 150.00
14. Formation of Subgrade SY 1.50
15. Subbase Gravel CY 20.00
16. Processed Aggregate TONS 18.00
17. Common Borrow CY 10.00
18. Gravel Borrow CY 15.00
Bit. Concrete
19, Class i) TONS 60.00
Bit. Concrete
20. (Class it) TONS 1 55.00
t2,�L
'varies
Sub-Total S •fIJ
RECEIVED
Page 1 of 6
SEP 2 5 2001
SOUTH WINDSOR
Sep 25 01 11 : 16a 860-291 -8757 p. 3
Bond Bond
Reduction Reduction
lem Descri .ion Unit Quantity Unit Price Cost No. 1 No.2
21. 5-Asphalt Lip Curbing LF 3.00
22. Road Widening Complete SY 50.00
23. 1conc Sidewalk 4'Wide ILF 1 30.00
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM COMPONENTS
24. 160" RCP Class IV In Place LF 130.00
25. 54" RCP Class IV In Place LF 100.00
26. - 48" RCP Class IV In Place LF -75.00
27. 42"RCP Class IV In Place LF 55.00
28. 36"RCP Class IV In Place LF 60.00
29. 30"RCP Class IV In Place LF 50.00
30. 24"RCP Class IV In Place LF 42,00
31_ 18"RCP Class IV In Place LF 35.00
32. 15"RCP Class IV In Place 30.00
33,
POLYETH LENE PIPE
34. 18"ADS-N-12 or Equal 21.00
35. 10"ADS-N-12 or Equal 22.50
36. 12"ADS-N-12 or Equal 24.00
37, 15'ADS-N-12 or Equal L 3 { 25.50 7130,So
38, 18'ADS-N-12 or Equal 28.00
sub-Total$ R 30.Sfl
Page 2 of 6
Sep 25 01 11 : 16a 860-291 -8757 p. 4
Bond Bond
Reduction Reduction
Item Descriotlon Unit Quantit Unit Price Cost No. 1 No. 2
UNDERDRAIN
39. 6"PVC,SDR 35 In Place LF 15.00
40. 8"PVC SDR 35 In Place ILF 20.00
RIPRAP
41. Modified Riprap CY 45.00
42. Intermediate Riprap CY 45.00
43. iStandard Riprap ICY 1 45.00
DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
u �
44. Type" "Catch Basin EA 1500.00 t SDI.eo
45_ Type"C"Double Grate EA 2000.00
46. Type"C-L"Catch Basin EA 1500.00
4T Manhole EA 1500.00
48. Manhole w/Drop Inlet EA 2500.00
49. Manhole Over Ten Feet EA 2000.00
50. Headwall EA
51. Endwall EA
52. Box Culvert LF
53. 15" Flared End EA 450.00
54. 1 B" Flared End EA 500.00
55. 24" Flared End EA1 550.00
56. 136"Flared End EA 850.00
Sub-Total
Page 3 of 6
Sep 25 01 11 : 17a BSO-291 -8757 p. 5
Bond Bond
Reduction Reduction
Item Descriatinn uantit Unit Price Cos! No. 1 No.2
57. Detention Outlet Structure EA 2500-00
101 Wide Gravel Access
58. Road LF 15.00
$g, Reset M.H.or C.B. EA 550.00
60.
SANITARY SEWER COMPONENTS
61. 12"PVC In Place SDR 35 LF 40.00
62_ 10" PVC In Place SDR 35 LF 37.00
63. 8"PVC In Place SDR 35 LF 35.00 Zit 190.00
64 6"PVC In Place SDR 35 LF 30.00
SANITARY SEWER STRUCTURES -•
65. Sanitary Manhole ;Tz- 1,500.00 �OrJ.av
Sanitary Manhole w/Drop
66. Inlet EA 2.500.00
Sanitary Manhole over 10
2.000.00
67. FT.
63.
69.
STRUCTURES 8 MISC. ITEMS
70. Retaining Wall LF
71_ Fence{Type: LF
Guide Rail
72. (Type. LF
Sub-Total
Page 4 of 6
Sep 25 01 11 : 17a 860-2S1 -8757 p. 6
n •
o
Bond Bond
Reduction Reduction
Item Descd ion Unit Quantity Unit Price Cost No. 1 No.2
End Anchorage
73. (Type: EA
74. Guide Post EA 100.00
75. Pavement Marking LF 1.50
76. Street Signs EA 75.00
77. Traffic signs EA 75.00
78, Street Lights EA 1,000.00
79. Furnishing/Piacing Topsoil SY 2.50
Fertilizing,Seeding and
80. Mulching SY 2.50
81. Trees EA Cj 150.0016,700-00
aintena nce/P rote ctio n of
82. Traffic LS
83. Construction Staking LS
84. As-Builts LS Q
85. Iron Pins EA -I 100.00 Q4� a0
86. Concrete Monuments EA 250.00
87. Driveway-Sit.Cone. SY 20.00
88.
59.
90.
*varies
Sub-Total $ 10.0/0o.00
Page 5 of 6
Sep 25 01 11 : 17a BSO-251 -8757 p. 7
original Estimat Bond Reduction#1 Bond Reduction#2
12,6;-z"
Sub-Total Page 1
Sub-Total Page 2
Sub-Total Page 3
Sub-Total Page 4
Sub-Total Page 5 3 1C 00
Sub-Total $ $
25% Contingencies x Sub-Total: $
g 5.
TOTAL $ 5 3 $
standard forms/bonds/bond estimate form
Page 6 of 6
Sep 25 01 11 : 16a 860-291 -8757 p. 1
DESIGN PROFESSIONALS INC .
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
raN� �FRotH:
GOMPAMY: DATE
-Fuw-t,3 ��rw�Nnssoxz ks/0 r
FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NU,01 PAGES INCLUDING COVER:
(�;44-3781 (o f31,LtrIA.)
PHONE NUMBER: TFI UKONE NUMBOL
8 -291-8755
RG. PAX NUMBER::
SU, anl�V IS!0pj 8500 291-8757
RGFNT ❑FOR REVIEW ❑ PLEASE COMMENT ❑PLEASE REPLY ❑PLEASE RECYCLE
NOTMICOMMENT S:
(A)F_ G( UL4 lt(K6 IIYIS Zb 8C- ApOIeSSeb
165 SOUTH SATELLITE RD SOUTH WINDSOR. CT 06074
Memorandum
To: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning
From: Jeffrey Doolittle, P.E. Town Engineer
Date: 10/02/01
Re: Cloutier Subdivision Bond
We have reviewed the bond estimate for the Cloutier Sudivision and
recommend it be set at $76,900. Attached is a copy of the bond estimate for
your records.
S:IENGINEERWOWIRCloutrerS BoOil ecommendation.do,el
Memorandum
DATE: October 9 2001
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Michele R. Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning
RE: BONDS
BONDS TO BE SET
Engineering recommends a bond in the amount of$76,900.00 for the public
improvements associated with Appl. #01-07P, Cloutier Subdivision
SOW N se
O-PSOUZA VZnd460t
m 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
SOR-CO AREA CODE 860/644-2511
October 15, 2001
Mr. Peter DeMallie
Design Professionals, Inc.
165 South Satellite Road
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Mr. DeMallie:
Re: Appl 01-07P Cloutier Subdivision
This is to advise you that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on
October 9, 2001, to set the site bond at $76,900.00.
A bond or letter of credit in this amount must be posted prior to the issuance of
building permits.
Sincerely,
Walter J. Mealy, ChaiLa.n
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
WJM/kag
Enclosure
cc: Town Engineer
Chief Building Official
10/30/2001 13:00 6440770 BENDRYWALL PAGE 01
f� Poet H'Fax Noie 7671 Dais ° ►
• F
Co.
F8x M Fax!i .
'} I
I }
i
pow
00
oop
�00
!i0lS�ai�47vP�e� '�7��lM
-tea z
Woo
mama NeoplNad>N°M
E; 001-TAZ/M=IA1Ar
�ZLO'LZ91099,p►3 !p�ri lei P�!�°�
GIVIOM
.� M: I :1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1: eeeee®aeee ZT:ET TOOZ/OE/GT
Z0 30t1d �nCMANaN39 9LLBbti9 99:ET ZBBZ/9E/6'
va. 12'7 3 PAGE 253 ��4 �a
3
RESTRICTED USE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this�v y of October, 2001, by and between LINDA V.
CLOUTIER of the Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford, and State of Connecticut,
hereinafter called"GRANTOR", and the TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, a municipal corporation
having its territorial limits within the County of Hartford, and State of Connecticut, hereinafter called
"GRANTEE";
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner of real property, hereinafter described, situated in the
Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford, and State of Connecticut, which Grantee, acting
through its Inland Wetlands Agency, and/or Planning and Zoning Commission and/or Town Council,
has determined would be in the public interest to retain, maintain and conserve in its natural state; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee has determined that the maintenance and conservation of the said
property of the Grantor can best be accomplished by the securing by Grantee of a conservation
easement over, across, and upon the said property of Grantor; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor is willing, in consideration of One Dollar($1.00) and other valuable
consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged , to grant, bargain, sell and confirm unto said
Grantee, its successors and assigns forever, the right, privilege and authority as a Conservation
Easement Agreement perpetually to preserve, protect, limit, conserve and maintain the land
hereinafter described in its present natural condition. All covenants contained herein are deemed to
run with the land.
Said premises subject to this Conservation Easement Agreement, hereinafter called the
"CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA" is referenced as the "25' Hedge Row Easement" on a
certain map or plan entitled, "RESURVEY PREPARED FOR LINDA V. CLOUTIER, 103
PALMER DRIVE, SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT PLOT PLAN BOUNDARY SURVEY
JOB NO: 99-1245 DATE: February 2, 2001 design professionals, inc. Civil Engineers • Planners
Surveyors • GIS 165 south satellite road, south windsor, connecticut 06074 Revisions 1 04-02-01
REV. PER TOWN CONRvIENTS-IWACC APPROVAL 2 7-03-01 RELOC. DRIVE/ ADD
EASEMENTS 3 8-10-01 ADD APPROVAL LETTERS 4 9-7-01 UPDATE BOUNDARY INFO.
Sheet 3/6" which map or plan is on file or to be filed in the office of the Town Clerk at the Town of
South Windsor.
Said premises being more particularly bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the easterly line of Lot 1, as shown on the above referenced map or
plan, said point being 185.04 feet on a bearing of S22°-57'-23"W to the southeast corner of said Lot
1; thence, S68°-15'-00"E, a distance of 25.00 feet to a point;thence, N21°45'-00"E, a distance of
1 CONVEYA.P'rr TAX RECEIVED
STP7` 77 S __ L0r_AL S No. x
TOWN CLERK OF SOUTH WINDSOR
YoL. 12'7 3 PAGE 254
329.42 feet to a point;thence,N21°-01'-28"E, a distance of 551.26 feet to a point;thence,N68°-58'-
32"W, a distance of 25.00 feet to a point; thence, S2P-01'-28"W, a distance of 551.10 feet to a
point; thence, S21°-45'-00"W, a distance of 317.70 feet to a point; said point being the point and
place of beginning.
Said CONERVATION EASEMENT AREA is being set aside to maintain the property in its
present natural and open condition to fulfill its present historic, scenic, vegetative, wildlife and/off
hydrological functions; to protect in perpetuity significant natural features of the property; and to
minimize the environmental impact of activities associated with the land development within the
Town of South Windsor.
The grant of this easement does not in any way grant to the public the right to enter upon said
CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA for any purpose whatsoever unless stated specifically in this
Conservation Easement Agreement.
COVENANTS
Grantor covenants and agrees to prohibit and refrain from the following activities under, over,
or upon the CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA:
1. No buildings, camping, accommodations, play equipment or vehicles of any type, or mobile
homes shall be placed or erected in the CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA. Fences are
prohibited unless approved through EXEPTIONS procedure, as described below.
2. No signs, billboards or other such advertising materials or structures of any kind or nature will
be placed or erected upon, below or above the CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA.
3. The topography of the landscape of the COARVATION EASEMENT AREA shall be
maintained in its present condition, and no topographic charges shall be made. Topographic
changes shall include, without exclusion, cutting of trees (except as may be required by good
tree husbandry and maintenance after receiving written approval of the Grantee), filling,
excavating, dredging, mining or drilling, removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rocks, or minerals,
alteration of natural or existing watercourses or drainage, or the construction and installation
of roads, driveways, utilities.
4. There shall be no use of pesticides, poisons, biocides or fertilizers, draining of wetlands,
burning or disturbance or change in the natural habitat of the CONERVATION EASEMENT
AREA.
5. There shall be no manipulation or alteration of natural watercourses, lakeshores, marshes or
other water bodies, nor shall any uses or activities in the CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AREA be permitted which could be detrimental to water purity or to any vegetative, wildlife
2
Y
VOL. 1273PAGE 255
or hydrological function.
6. There shall be no operation of vehicles, snowmobiles, dune buggies, motorcycles, mini-bikes,
go-carts, all-terrain vehicles or any other type of motorized vehicle in the CONSERVATION
EASEMENT AREA.
7. There shall be no dumping, no filling or placing of trash, ashes, leaves, waste, rubbish, garbage
or junk in the CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA. In the event that such materials are
places in the CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA, the Grantor, upon notice from the
Grantee, will remove said materials within 30 days of such notice.
8. There shall be no storage or placement of any equipment, natural or man-made materials or
substances in the CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA.
The Grantee, or its successors or assigns, does not waive or forfeit the right to take action as may
be necessary or required in order to ensure compliance with said covenants and/or the purposes for
which this Conservation Easement was granted. It is the responsibility of the property owner to be
fully aware of all the conditions contained in the Conservation Easement Agreement as expressed
herein. The Town of South Windsor will vigorously enforce the conditions established herein.
EXCEPTIONS
The Grantor with the written consent of the Grantee, acting by and through the Town of
South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission may enter upon the CONSERVATION
EASEMENT AREA to conduct the following activities:
1. Removal of debris, dead trees or brush for the purpose of promoting safety;
2. Pruning and thinning of live trees and brush for the purpose of promoting safety and
aesthetic quality, or restoration of natural balance including the removal of exotic species;
3. Planting of trees, shrubs or other vegetation for the purpose of enhancing wildlife or
aesthetic quality.
Grantee's approval for exempted activities may be withheld only upon a reasonable
determination by the Grantee that the action as proposed would be inconsistent with the purpose
of this Conservation Easement Agreement. Consideration shall be given to the manner in which
such activity is to be undertaken to ensure there is no detrimental impact to the natural character
of the land. In addition, the wildlife value of brush and dead trees to be removes shall be
considered and weighed against the purpose of the request.
The above procedure shall not abrogate the requirement to acquire any permits required
by local, state or federal law.
3
VOL. 12'7 3 PAGE 256
Before commencement of any site work in the CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA,
the Grantor shall mark the boundaries of the CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA with
wooden stakes. Such stakes shall be located at the endpoints of the boundary and at each change
of boundary direction. The endpoints of the boundary shall be permanently marked with
merestones.
ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT
Acceptance of this Conservation Easement Agreement by the Grantee shall be evidenced
by an affirmative vote of the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission or the South
Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency or the South Windsor Town Council in accordance with the
Town's Conservation Easement Ordinance, which is Section 164 of the South Windsor Code of
Ordinances.
LIMITATION ON RIGHT TO AMEND
If circumstances arise under which an amendment to or modification of this Conservation
Easement Agreement would be appropriate, Grantor and Grantee may jointly amend this
Agreement by following the procedure outlined in the Town's Conservation Easement Ordinance
which is Section 164 of the South Windsor Code or Ordinances.
RELEASE OF EASEMENT
If said CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA, or any part thereof, shall be taken by
condemnation, or release of the CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA has been requested,
then the procedures outlined in the Town's Conservation Easement Ordinance, which is Section
164 of the South Windsor Code of Ordinances must be followed.
IDENTIFICATION AND INSPECTION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA
The Grantor further covenants and agrees as follows:
1. The Grantor shall cause to be installed and maintained, merestones identifying the
boundaries of the CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA.
2. The Grantor hereby grants the Grantee the right to access the property for the purpose of
maintaining markers identifying the boundaries of the CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AREA.
3. The Grantor hereby grants the Grantee, upon reasonable notice, the right to have a
representative of the Town inspect the CONSERVATIONASEMENT AREA to
determine if the Grantor, and its successors and assigns, are complying with the covenants
and purposes of this Agreement.
4
VOL. 12 7 3 PAGE 257
4. The Grantee may enforce this Agreement by proceeding in law or in equity, including but
not limited to the right to require the restoration of the CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AREA to the condition at the time of this agreement. Any costs incurred by Grantee in
enforcing the terms of this Agreement against any violator including without limitation,
costs of suit and attorney's fees, shall be borne by the violator.
FINDING OF VIOLATION
1. If the Grantor is found by the Grantee, or its successor to have violated the terms of this
Easement or Agreement, the Grantor agrees, among other things, to cease and desist from
any activity violating the terms of this Conservation Easement Agreement, and further
agrees to restore the CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREAS as closely as possible to
their natural state. Such restoration shall include but is not limited to:
a. replanting with trees, shrubs or other appropriate vegetation acceptable to the
Grantee;
b. removal of any debris, trash, garbage, ashes, waste, rubbish, silt, unsightly or
offensive material;
C. removal of an unauthorized buildings, signs, billboards or other advertising, or
Y g , g
other structures on or above ground;
d. emplacement and maintenance of erosion controls;
e. Restoration shall be at the expense of the Grantor and in accordance with plans
developed by a qualified professional such as a landscape architect and/or
professional engineer, and approved by the Grantee or its successor.
2. If the Grantor is found to have violated a Conservation Easement Agreement, the Grantee,
or its successor, may exercise its discretion in accordance with the Town's Conservation
Easement Ordinance, which is Section 164 of the South Windsor Code of Ordinances, to
levy a daily fine following restoration has been achieved and certified by the appropriate
Town Agency.
The foregoing Conservation Easement Agreement shall be permanent and binding upon
The Grantor and his/her heirs, successors and assigns, except as herein before set forth, and inure
to the benefit of Grantee, its successors and assigns.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above-granted rights, privilege or authority unto said Grantee, its
successors and assigns forever, to its and their own proper use and behoof.
5
. 1 �
t ,
VOL. 1273PAoE 258
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set of caused to be set his hand and seal the say
any year first aforementioned.
Signe , Sealed and Delivered
In t Presence f. GRANTOR
O .S.
DA V. CLOUTrER
GRANTEE- TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
By: L.S.
D EBoaq H to. RE iD MA THEW B. GALL AN, own Manager
STATE OF CONNECTICUT)
) ss: South Windsor Octobe�001
COUNTY OF HARTFORD )
Personally appeared LINDA V. CLOUTIER Si er an Sealer of the foregoing instrument and
acknowledged the same to be his/her free act an deed, efore m .
Har d R. Cum gs
Commissioner of the Superior Court
STATE OF CONNECTICUT)
) ss: South Windsor October*36 2001
COUNTY OF HARTFORD )
Personally appeared TOWN OF SOUTH WIDNSOR, acting herein by MATTHEW B.
GALLIGAN, its Town Manager Signer and Sealer of the foregoing instrument and acknowledged
the same to be his free act and deed, and the free act and deed of said Town before me.,,. .;::.::,
RECEIVED FOR R,E�C�O�R�: Notary Public
DATE 1�TIME.i�LJ() M. My Commission Expires:1Q� i - �
k nr, n-,- 6
r ,
TOWN CLERK, SOUTH WINDSOR, CT `
6t.d1P 'I
RECEIVE®
RECEIVED
NOV 0 2 2001 TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR OCT 3 0 2001
SOUTH WINDSOR STAFF SITE CHANGE SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT.
ENGINEERING DEPT. FOR SITE & SUBDIVISION
GENERAL:
CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSON Raj TSjJEZW60D Phone N0. 291--87,55
Addre s s D P Z /65 S.S4-fU—U-I TG P,0 500 l Nbd d?9
Site Name Cj0()j7g-Z SU V)S/0A) p4-• P&Z No.
Owner LINDA V. CLDUTI ER Phone No.
Contractor MIJ<E SIG
Signature of Owner Date: /0 3
Signature of Design Engr Date: /� L d
CHANGE: (Describe location an nature of change. Include
Four (4 ) copies of plan/profile of Change. )
Reason for Change: (Why is change required)
—7-0-� PR6---sE,VC- 4S n PIw Fc IST/A26— I SEkV 1 nJ6- AS B f
DPa V E AS 177 vcg 4S P05�;18 LE . -
APPROVALS: (As Required)
Dir. Of Planning= L§d� Date: a 3 6
Town Engineer ` . Date:
Dir. of Public 'works Date:
Other: Date:
STAFF COMMENTS:
P Z o Lo
White - Town Engineer Yellow - Applicant
Pink - Director of Planning Goldenrod - Engineering Department
BOND TRANSMITTAL
DATE: o
APPLICANT NAME �p�Q� 1�1pr�.✓
ADDRESS 0 3
PROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS f Q�j �ol-( (/h�/' LOTS- a J
SUBDIVISION
P&Z OR IWA/CC APPLICATION NUMBER
AMOUNT OF BOND T-7 �I, D J
CHECK NUMBER
DEPARTMENT YL r
SUBMITTED BY � ` [ CJl-e�(e L, e c- /(
NAME DATE
RECEIVED BY FINANCE LLc - (f/ /f/ vt
NAME DATE
SUB ACCOUNT NUMBER
HAPIanning Department\PZC Secretary\forrm\BOND TRANSMITTAL 08-27-Ol.doc
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
STAFF SITE CHANGE
FOR SITE & SUBDIVISION
GENERAL:
CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSO hone No.
Address n
Site Name P&Z No. � /"
Owner Phone No.
Contractor L
Signature of Owner Date: Jc
Signature of Design Engr. Date:
CHANGE: (Describe location and nature of change. Include
Four (4 ) copies of plan/profile of Change. )
Reason for Change: (Why is change required)
..fix
4�1-
APPROVALS: (As Required)
Dir. Of Planning , Date: ��
r
Town Engineer Date:
Dir. of Public Works Date:
Other: Date:
STAFF COMMENTS:
White - Town Engineer Yellow - Applicant
Pink - Director of Planning Goldenrod - Engineering Department
l 0LA e-/
y r 7-0w�a O-PSotdA �•
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
SOR•co TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511
January 10,2002
Galen Semprebon,P.E.
Design Professionals,Inc. RECEIVED
165 South Satellite Rd.
South Windsor,CT 06074 JAN 2 4 2002
RE: Modify Prior Approval—Sewer Connection
SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT,
103 Palmer Dr.
South Windsor,CT
Dear Mr. Semprebon:
The South Windsor Water Pollution Control Authority,at its regular meeting of January 8,2002,gave
approval for the modification of the previous approval for connection to the Town's sewerage system of a
residential building at 103 Palmer Drive, South Windsor,CT06074,as more specifically shown on plans
entitled"Topographic Plan Grading&Utilities"prepared by Design Professionals,Inc.,Project No. 99-
1245,Drawing No.4/6,dated 2/2/01,revised 4/2/01,6/22/01,7/3/01, 8/10/01, 1/3/02,and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Review and approval of all easements by the Town Attorney.
2. Technical approval of the Town Engineering Department.
3. Final Authority approval and acceptance of the sanitary sewerage connection will be given once
The sewer line has been installed and inspected by the Town staff,and based upon the written
Verification of the Town staff that said sanitary sewer line was installed in substantial
conformance with the design plans previously approved by the Authority,and meeting all Town
regulations and appropriate technical specifications relating to sanitary sewer construction.
This approval letter must be superimposed on the final approval plans.
Very truly yours,
oseph Carino, Chairman
Water Pollution Control Authority
TH:dd
Cc: Matthew Galligan,Town Manager
Michael J. Gantick,Director of Public Works
Jeff Doolittle,Town Engineer
Marcia Banach,Director of Planning
John Collins,Chief Building Inspector
Linda Cloutier
L11P OFt7CFS �
CL; MINGS, LANZA AND PURNHAGEN,LLC
1610 F.I.LL`GTOX ROAD `
POST OFFICE ROX66- Or
sot'"r1!11"I'1"I)>0RX0j' N.0Q74.4"7 AW x ^'^�
( ►)611-3173 ` Ora
NEY$ �Ci:
MROL.D R.CL'.IINiL�NGS
MICIL1EI.J.L-1.VZt St.tRD R.I:CEILN
VLN'CE.i7J.PL'R\'IL c,E.N QUITtiSEL
April 9, 2002
Barry Guliano
Town Attorney
Town of South Windsor
Town Hail
1 SAC Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT. 06074
RE: Access Easement-Unin)proved Portion of Felt Road Easterly of Palmer Drive
Dear Barn-
I have been requested by Linda S. Driscoll to assist her in obtaining an access easement from the
Town of South Windsor to her buildim, lot located on the unimproved portion of Felt Road,
easreriy of Pahi-lcr Drive. I attach; for your immediate reference a copy of the deed to Linda's
property recorded at Volume 942 Pa`_e )7 of the South Windsor Land Records.
The Driscoll lot is located on the southerly" side of the unimproved portion of Felt Road, across
the road from the Cloutier property. As you may recall, at the time that we negotiated the right of
"',]V703dway easement and maintenance agreement between the Town of South Windsor and
Lind,; Courier. the only other building, lot other than the Cloutier property, accessed by this
portion of Felt Road was the Driscoll lot
Since the on!\" tour lots Much are serviced by this portion of Felt Road, are the three lots owned
b% Linciz. ciouticr anci the for owr.eu by Linda S. Driscoli, it seems to maize Sense, to amend the
exi;tin`, agreement dared .April _00�. between the Town of South Windsor and Linda V.
Cloutier to include the Driscoll property" In that way, all four properties would be subject to a
conmton a,reenienr
1 ha�c diSCUSSed this iS, e with Linda Cloutier. Linda Cloutier has advised me that she has no
objecti u
on to an;cndin_ the existing, a�_reement between her and the Town of South Windsor to
include the 'MMUM! lot ode ned by Linda S. Driscoll.
I wouid appreciate, therefore, your placing the request of Linda S. Driscoll to join in, as an
additional party to the agreement between the Town of South Windsor and Linda V. Cloutier on
the next available aeenda of the South Windsor Town Councisel.
Your corsidcration in this matter is Ureativ anvreciated.
Sinc rel y iars.
I
Hard Cumm;inus
HRC.' r U
cc Ling; S and Ke%in Driscoll, Linda V Cl,_)utier
RIGHT OF WAY/ROADWAY EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREE E.-ST
This Agreement made and entered into this Z,c-�day of April,2002. by and between the
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, a municipal corporation having its territorial limits within the
County of Hartford and State of Connecticut(hereinafter "TOWN')and LINDA V. CLOUTIER
of the Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut (hereinafter
"CLOUTIER").
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, CLOUTIER is the owner of premises known as 103 Palmer Drive, South
Windsor, Connecticut as referenced in a deed recorded in Volume 731 Page 184 of the South
Windsor Land Records; and
WHEREAS, the Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission has
approved a re-subdivision of said premises of CLOUTIER into three single family residential
building lots; and
WHEREAS, access to said three residential building lots is over and across the
unimproved portion of the Felt Road running approximately 370 feet from its intersection with
Palmer Drive to the southwesterly boarder of the premises owned by CLOUTER(hereinafter"the
Felt Road Right of Way"); and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to set forth in writing their understanding whereby
CLOUTIER. her heirs, successors and assigns,shall have an easement over said Felt Road Ri-oht
of Way for purposes of access to said three residential building lots;
NOu' THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained
herein. the parties do hereby agree as follows:
1. TO%VN agrees to permit CLOUTIER,her heirs, successors and assigns, to construct
a driyeWaV and all necessan• appurtenances thereto for access to and from Palmer Drive, to said
three residential building lots; said driyeu'ay and appurtenances to be constructed and maintained
at all times in accordance with the conditions and stipulations of approval as established by- the
Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission in its approval of the site plan of
development as set forth in said Commission's approval letter dated 3I" day of.Tttly 2001
hereafter "Plan approval" and as set forth on the site plan of development map as a roved by
said Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission and as fled in the office of the
Town Clerk in the Town of South Windsor.
2. The TO«1;, for itselF its successors and assigns, assigns, grants and conveys unto
CLOUTIER, her heirs, successors and assigns, an easement for all rights of passage in, to and
over that portion of said Felt Road Right of Way as shown on said site plan of development for
access to the three residential building lots of CLOUTIER provided, however, that said access
easement in said Felt Road Right of�Vay is a non-exclusive e
and assignsasement and CLOUTIER, her heirs
agrees to at all times keep and maintain that portion of the Felt Road Right of Way
,vhich :s subiect to this agreement open and available for travel by members of the general public
:al-e no steps whatsoeti' inhibit o
er to r restrict travel within said Felt Road Right of Way
: :._ ..: e. . . _ u', it • ;oecitically includincr
3. This Right-of-Way/Roadway Easement and Maintenance Agreement is given as a
covenant running with the Land for purposes of ingress and egress to said three lots and for
purposes of installation, maintenance and connections to water, cable, telephone, electlicin•,
sewer lines, storm water drainage pipes and all other utilities in accordance with the stipulations
and conditions of Plan Approval of said Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission and other agencies of the Town of South Windsor whose approvals were required
for the establishment of the three residential building lots Nothing contained in this Agree.^tent
shall in any way implicate any liability or responsibility on the part of the TOWN to repair,
maintain or replace any of the improvements constructed by CLOUTIER within the easement
area, it being expressly understood and agreed that the said CLOUTIER,her successors, heirs
and assigns shall be responsible, at all times, to construct, maintain and make all necessan_•
repairs at their own expense, to any of the said right-of-way/roadway improvements and
appurtenances. If Grantee or any of her heirs, successors or assigns request upgrading of the
access way including but not limited to installation of a cul-de-sac any such improvements are
to be done at the requester's expense. Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed in any way any agreement or consent by the Town to fund any future maintenance or improvements to the
easement area.
4. The parties further stipulate and agree that this Agreement shall be recorded on the
land records of the Town of South Windsor and that each legally ditirisible residential lot utilizing
or having access to this Felt Road Right of Way/Roadwav Easement shall be liable for its pro
rata share of said costs referenced in this agreement. As of the date of this Agreement, each of
the three residential building lots approved by the Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission shah be Iiable for its one-third share of said costs. For her part, the said
CLOUTIER shall at the time of any sale or conveyance of anv of the said three residential
building Iots reference this Agreement in said deed of conveyance with the stipulation that said
conveyance is subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is understood and agreed that all construction
requirements with regards to the Felt Road Right of Way imposed by the i own of South Windsor
in the Plan Approval shall be initially preformed by CLOUTIER and CT ' "n OIER shall indemnity•
subsequent owners of the residential building lots, other than CLOUTIER for any such initial
construction work which is not completed by CLOUTIER.
For herself, CLOUTIER. on behalf of herself, her heirs and assigns further agrees
to indemnify and hold the TOWN harmless from and against any and all liability for personal
injure, or property damage arising out of or resulting from or which may in any way be
attributable to any construction. maintenance, repair or use of the said driveway and the
appurtenances the by Cloutier or her heirs, successors and assigns. +
In the event that any owner becomes liable to any third party, including but not limited
to the Town of South Windsor, for any such claim arising out of or resulting from or in any way
attributable to any construction, maintenance, repair or use of said driveway and the
appurte;,a;�ces thereto, then said owner shall be entitled to indemnification from the other owners
for their pro rata responsibility for such claim.
�. his agreement shall be governed
_ bj , construed and en.rorcec the (�
afoul is i1 S' t1�i�'..
0,
7. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties and any prior
understandings or agreements of the parties,specifically including the agreement dated July 19,
• 1976 between the TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR and CARL R. COTE, referenced above,
shall and are hereby merged in this Agreement and this Agreement shall constitute the entire
understanding of the parties, except that, the teens and conditions of Plan Approval of the Tome
of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission in its approval; letter dated 31 n day of July,
2001 and the terms and conditions of approval of the Town of South Windsor Inland and
Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission in its approval letter dated 8'b day of March, 2001,
are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement as if more fully set forth
herein.
8. For herself, CLOUTIER, and on behalf of herself,her hens,successors and assigns
further agrees to be responsible for the trimming and removal of all trees within the easement area
in order to carry out the purposes of this Agreement, together with the trimming and removal of
any trees on the premises of the Grantee, which may need to be trimmed or removed in order
to maintain said easement area as well as to control, by pipe swale or othen%ise, as approved by
the Town of South Windsor, any surface waters emanating from CLOUTIER'S premises or
resulting from any activities by CLOUTIER within the easement area.
9. As directed by the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission, CLOUTIER, on
behalf of herself and her heirs, successors and assigns further agrees to be responsible for the
following:
A. To install and maintain an area for the storage of trash for removal and pickup
including screening paving
B. To provide for the clustering of all mailboxes .
C. Installation of a sign identifying the residences served by the access way for
emergency service vehicles.
D. Installation of a "new style" stop sign to replace the existing stop sign at the
intersection of Felt Road and Palmer Drive.
10. Any modification of this Agreement or additional obligations assumed by either
party in connection with this Agreement shall be binding only if evidence in writing signed by
each part%- or an authorized representative of that party.
11. The failure of either party of this Agreement to insist upon the strict performance of
any of the terms and conditions of this agreement or the waiver of any breach of any of the terms
or conditions of this Agreement shall not be construed as thereafter'Nvaiyin` any such terms or
conditions but the same shall continue and remain in full force and effect as if no such
forbearance or waiver had occurred.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have here to set their hands and seals and to a
duplicate instrument of the same tenor and date this L,,i day of April, 2002
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
In the presence of,
7
Matthew B. Galligan
441�4 '7Z Town Manager
a V. Cloutier
;W44�4��j
STATE OF CONNECTICUT)
ss: South Windsor
COUNT OF HARTFORD )
On this ZJ day of April, 2002, before me Barry Gu
o the undersigned officer
personally appeared Matthew B. GaIligan who acknowledged himself to be he To-m Manager
of the Town of South Windsor, a municipal corporation of the State of Connecticut and that he
as Town Manager being duly authorized to do so executed the foregoing instrument for the
purposes therein contained by signing the name of the Town by himself as Town Manager.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand,
Barry Gulia o
Commissi ner o the Superior Court
STATE OF CONNECTICUT)
ss: South Windsor
COLNTY OF HARTFORD )
On this— day of � 2 before me Haro
ld R. Cummings. the undersigned
officer personally appeared Linda V. Cloutier known to me or satisfactorily proven to be the
person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that she
executed the same for the purposes therein contained .
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand.
arold R. umm' G tngs
Commissioner of tht- Slinprinr
( N 8t4
N * Y
° �-Wn 0-/'?sou� �•
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074-2786
SOR.c AREA CODE 860/644-2511
FAX 860/644-3781
OFFICE
OF THE
TOWN COUNCIL
May 21. 2002
Mr. Matthew B. Galligan, Town Manager
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, Ct. 06074
Dear Mr. Galligan:
At its Regular Meeting of May 20, 2002, the South Windsor Town Council
approved the following Resolution:
WHEREAS, the Town Council, at a Regular Meeting dated June 4,
2001, authorized the execution of a Right-of-Way/Roadway
Easement and Maintenance Agreement between the Town of
South Windsor and Linda V. Cloutier pertaining to access and use
over and across the unimproved portion of Felt Road running
approximately 370 feet from its intersection with Palmer Drive to the
southwesterly border of the premises owned by Cloutier at 103
Palmer Drive, South Windsor, Connecticut; and
WHEREAS, said Agreement authorized access and use by the
three building lots comprising the subdivided Cloutier property; and
WHEREAS, said Agreement was executed between the Town and
Linda V. Cloutier on April 2, 2002; and
WHEREAS, a request has been made by the owner of a fourth
parcel owned by Linda S. Driscoll, which also requires access and
use of this unimproved portion of Felt Road; and
ZEC
(Resolution Continued on Next Page) MAY 2 ;002
SOUTH WINDSOR F�L,, i;,;U DFPT,
Mr. Matthew B. Galligan, Town Manager
Re: Amended Agreement — Cloutier/Felt Rd.
Page 2
May 21, 2002
WHEREAS, the Right-of-Way/Roadway Easement and
Maintenance Agreement between the Town and Cloutier should be
amended to include access and use by the property owned by
Linda S. Driscoll, and Cloutier has no objection to said amendment,
as noted in the letter from her attorney, Harold R. Cummings, dated
April 9, 2002, appended hereto as Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Town Manager
Matthew B. Galligan is authorized to execute an amended
Agreement between Linda V. Cloutier and the Town whereby a
fourth parcel owned by Linda S. Driscoll is included and Linda S.
Driscoll is made a party to the Right-of-Way/Roadway Easement
and Maintenance Agreement substantially in the form of the original
Agreement which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia R. Brown t
Clerk of the Council
Attmts. (Exhibits A. and B.)
Cc: Barry Guliano, Esq., Town Attorney
Atty, Harold Cummings
Marcia Banach, Director of Planning
RECEIVED
June 5, 2002 JUN 5 2002
SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT.
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Ave
South Windsor, Ct 06074
Att: Michele Lipe
Re: Cloutier ResubdivisionlSpecial Exception
Appl 01-07P
Dear Michele,
We are requesting for the release of the subdivision bond of$76,900.00 for our
subdivision at Palmer Drive/Felt Road, South Windsor, Ct. All the excavation work has
been completed and the grass is now grown.
Please forward the information to the engineering department for an inspection of the site.
If you have any questions in regard to this matter please call me at#644-0770.
Thank You
Linda V. Cloutier
June 11, 2002
Memorandum
To: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning
From: Jeffrey Doolittle, P.E. Town Engineer
Date: 06/11/02
Re: Cloutier Subdivision Bond
We have inspected the Cloutier Subdivision for the requested release of the
$76,900 bond that was posted. All of the improvments that were bonded for
this project have been substantially completed. The new trees that were
bonded have been planted but I understand we hold landscaping bonds for
at least one growing season. I have been told that the iron pins have been
set, however, I need to receive a letter from the Engineer certifying they are
all set according to the approved subdivision plans.
Based on the above information, I recommend that the bond for the cloutier
subdivision be reduced from $76,900 to $10,870. This amount will cover the
landscaping for the acceptance period and certification of the iron pins.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
2
S�wN sF�
y Ole Sou ?d&U&Ot
9 �
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
soR•co TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511
July 3, 2002
Linda Cloutier
103 Palmer Drive
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear: Mrs. Cloutier:
Re: App101-07P Cloutier Subdivision
This is to advise you that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on June 25, 2002, to
reduce the subdivision bond from$79,600.00 to $10,870.00.
Sincerely,
Kevin McCann, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
KMcC/kah
cc: Town Engineer
Chief Building Official
0110 REceiveQ
JAN 72003
SOUTH wuw sOR PLANNING Mn,
0
a m --�
Y/k 6mi
4t
,_j6X�k Ul
C7/-
JAN. 7, 2003 2: 13PM KMM REALESTATE 8602911866 N0, 796 P. 2
Ki XTOK, MICKJELS01V AND MF" :ERS, P. C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
230 R05ERTS STREET
SUITE 100
POST OFFICE BOX 280748
EAST HARTFORD, CONNECTICVT 06128-0748
DENNIS N. KANTOR ($60) 262-22,$a AVON OFFICE
JEFFRBY D. MICKELSON'' 56 EAST MAIN STREET
ROBERT M. MEYERS TELECOPIER SUITE 1
RICHARD I. SE(,LMAN (860) 289-1264 P.O. BOX BOB
LINDA B. MEYERS AVON, CONNECTICUT 06001-0906
ROBERT J. PISCITELLI TELI_COP16R (REAL ESTATE) (960) $77.6655
IRA A. JACOBS` (660) 291-1666 TELECOPiER (860) 677-7150
WILWAM J. SEVERNI
LESLIE ANN LINK' 'ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA
MARGARET M. BOZEK 'ALSO ADMITTED IN NEW YORK
January 7, 2003
Barry D. Guliano, Esquire
Town Attorney
Jeffrey Doolittle, P.E.
Town Engineer
Town Hall
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, Connecticut 06074
Re; Henry C. Ordway
Property at 479 Pleasant Valley Road, South Windsor
Dear Gentlemen:
At the request of Robert Ward, the project engineer and surveyor for Mr. Ordway, I
enclose a proposed deed from Mr. Ordway to the Town. I am told by Mr. Ward that the
planning and zoning commission wants to establish a formal street line for Pleasant Valley
Road. The map referenced in the deed is of record in the Town Clerk's office, I am told by Mr.
Ward.
This deed is one of the requirements of subdivision approval and is required before the
commission will sign and deliver the subdivision mylar.
I would appreciate it if each of you would kindly acknowledge receipt of this letter and
the proposed deed which I am presently faxing to each of you, Please also call me at the East
Hartford office of this law firm at your earliest convenience to advise if the form is acceptable.
JAN. 7. 2003 2: 14PM KMM REALESTATE 8602911866 N0, 796 P. 3
I am told by Mr. Ward that the next meeting of the commission is on January 14th and
he would like to have this matter cleared by each of you for that meeting.
I look forward to your responses at your earliest possible convenience.
Thank you for your kind and prompt cooperation.
Very truly yours,
Richard 1. Sellman
RIS/nrn
cc: Robert Ward
VIA FACSIMILE
JAN. 8. 2003 9:28AM KMM REALESTATE 8602911866 N0. 818 P. 2
QUITCLAIM DEED
I, Henry C.Ordway, of the Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford and State
of Connecticut("Grantor")grant and convey to The Town of South Windsor,a municipal
corporation organized and existing within the territorial limits of the State of Connecticut
WITH QUIT-CLAIM COVENANTS
Any and all interest that Grantor has or ought to have in or to that land being a portion of
the Pleasant Valley Road (formerly known as Depot Street) right-of-way in the Town of
South Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut, which land is located
northeasterly of Grantor's northeasterly property line shown on the below referenced map
as a line commencing at Grantor's northerly property comer and thence proceeding
S 48°414'-01° E, a distance of 350.59 feet to a point; thence proceeding, at a deflection
angle of 02°-09'-50",along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 761.27 feet and
a delta of 15°-18'-07", an arc length of 203.31 feet to a point marking the easterly comer
of Grantor's property, said above property line being shown on a certain map or plan
entitled, "Perimeter Survey For Zone Change On Property Of HENRY CHURCH
ORDWAY Located At 479 Pleasant Valley Road In South Windsor, Connecticut Scale:
As Noted September, 2002 Sheet 1 of 1", Prepared by Ward's Surveying Services 22
Eleanor Drive Vernon, Connecticut Map 90212012, which map or plan is on file in the
South Windsor Town Clerk's Office as Map 2887 to which reference may be had. d`f
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of January,2003.
N
v
Henry C.Ordway
STATE OF CONNECTICUT)
) ss: East Hartford January 2003
COUNTY OF HARTFORD )
Personally appeared Henry C. Ordway, signer of the foregoing instrument who
acknowledged that he signed the foregoing instrument for the purposes contained therein
and acknowledged the same to be his free act and deed,before me.
Commissioner of the Superior Court
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
«ennR951,or]way
64, 30
� I
26 ,.
DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC.
civil engineers ♦ planners ♦ surveyors
gis ♦ gps ♦ landscape architects
July 9,2003
Mr. Jeffrey Doolittle,P.E.
Town Engineer
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
RE 1Pfbdftf S*d Tvision,
Dear Mr. Doolittle:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that all iron pins have been installed as per the
approved subdivision plans for the above-referenced subdivision.
If you should have any questions regarding this matter,please give me a call.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
Richard P. Martel,P.E.,L.S.
cc: Mr. &Mrs. Cloutier
RECEIVED
JUL 11 2003
SOUTH WINDSOR
ENGINEERING DEPT,
165 South Satellite Road,South Windsor,Connecticut 06074
Tel:(860)291-8755•Fax:(860)291-8757
Email:dpicivil@aol.com
BOND RELEASE TRANSMITTAL
DATE: 71��J 'Q3
APPLICANT NAME L I ✓1
ADDRESS 51 C��c( W -I ►��
, S'oUfI WrAjs - 6T 0(,d7V
PROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS A/vvt.e v On. /Ilf- LOT
P&Z OR IWA/CC APPLICATION NUMBER -4 O I -01 P
SUB ACCOUNT NUMBER
ORIGINAL BOND AMOUNT /0 nro-
Please release the bond indicated above as all of the required
work has been completed.
tk . `7 310s
NAME DATE
la,310 3 BY
CHECK # ISSUED DATE
H.Tianning Depanment\PZC Secrecary\foms\BOND RELEASE TRANSMITTAL 08-27-01,doc
fly 3L
jcX
69
e rR
! ,-.� ! `fir•!'
=wQ
__out tea. `� �` h�� _��, __ _ 'Ya �•
CIL) cjka�,,Sk
.10
r .
s
n 4 (9 U,O� �So : , Q.68 A
9) o
150
i q a - 3 a y 60
60
N
lo8.2r
ss os, 622fo��3
ti S_ 0.79 AC• ?S` F
Jv
sa 63
f 0
z 0.64AC•
0 5 (16 )
2
a 64
0.91 AC• Sao.o
68
0.79AC• ��-
\g5.0 .a
$6.67' elk 67 0
t 00.0, �0 80 AC
0.
a 55 67' g9 h�O 0.68AC• ss cpj
s. 56 ;p02. 220.38. �s 0 72AC'
11181 pp O
Z 4g 150.18'. "' S
m ,2 76 N" 49. �s 06 y
0 77Ac 77
0 84Ac• �, 74
N 0.91 AC• 70
� N 0.80Ac
N
I'S 01 4,s Z�� 10. r1O 0,82 AC• c o
�J
� N
0 200 O' 5o O' r 3?�
O $ 72
s1.73. (88) 0.67 AC• 2po
z 78 ' k' 180.01 o S/
0 46 � 1.20�AC• 'Qo �EFAw 71
o
� 0 ���
�, (99 /50.0, 0.68 A'
d A )
�tK 150.0. (66)
7A /�_ ham
_ e sf��,2r„-`� �^e.�'e,e� dv i'L� 'lam v� �c�d.��2 S7�J �d r�
12 � `� �f�
t11,1 UI,U1�f c � �c vr. `7�� l�� rs w�- ���� �(�
, .
()�'A-UUVV/ 1�VVUa!—vavvv NaavFWW saaav� a Va a ra�G IVVa LA,
P9SA
j,
limitation of time for creditors to present their several claims against such estate according to
the order of the court of probate issuing such order;
(2) The executor or administrator of any estate, a settlement of which has been commenced
six years or more prior to the effective date of this act,failed to make a sworn return to the
court of probate of the order of such court limiting the time for creditors to present any such
claims against such estate.
Sec. 5. MAPS OR PLANS. No deed,mortgage,lease or other instrument recorded prior to the
effective date of this act transferring any interest in a lot or lots shown on a filed map or plan
of subdivision shall be deemed invalid to convey the title to the lot or lots or interest therein
because:
(1) The map or plan was not sealed or certified by a surveyor or was not prepared by the
owner of the land;
(2) The map or plan was not filed within the time limitations of any general or special law,
ordinance or regulation;
(3) The map or plan does not have endorsed thereon the approval of the commission,body or
official required by a general or special law, ordinance or regulation;
(4)The map or plan fails in any way to comply with any requirement or requirements of any
special or general law, municipal ordinance or regulation.
Sec. 6. PLANNING AND ZONING. (a) No conveyance,mortgage,lease or other transfer of
any interest in land comprising part of a subdivision shall be deemed invalid to convey the
title to the land or interest described therein because such land comprises part of a
subdivision that was not submitted for approval to the municipal planning commission or
other municipal agency charged with the duty of approving subdivisions.
(b) No use or occupancy of or the presence of any building or other structure erected on a lot
or lots either,shown on a filed or recorded map or,plan of subdivision or located in a
subdivision created by the physical division of land into three or more parcels shall be
deemed illegal or invalid because the lot or lots on which any such building or other
structure is located is not shown on an approved plan of subdivision or because the filed or
recorded map or plan of subdivision fails in any manner to comply with any requirement or
requirements of any general or special law, ordinance or regulation.
(c) Any and all actions taken by any planning commission, zoning commission, planning and
zoning commission, zoning board of appeals,building code board of appeals, inland-wetland
agency or any other commission,board, agency or municipal official, including a legislative
body, exercising the powers of any such commissions, otherwise valid except that said
planning commission, zoning commission, planning and zoning commission, zoning board
of appeals,building code board of appeals, inland-wetland agency or other commission,
board, agency or municipal official,including a legislative body,failed to comply with the
http://prdbasis.cga.state.ct.us/BASIS/TSSAHP/LINI/SA/DDW?W%3DSHORT NAME+P.../ 7/10/01
rage9SA-00007-R00SB-01006-SASpecialAct 1 of 1 01 1/.
ti
Y �1
requirement or requirements of any general or special law, ordinance or regulation
governing the contents, giving,mailing,publishing,filing or recording of any notice, either
of the hearing or of the action taken, is validated,provided no such action shall be validated
if an appeal from such action is pending in any court or the time for taking such appeal has
not expired as of the effective date of this act.
(d) Nothing contained in this act shall permit or validate the use of land in violation of the
planning, zoning or inland-wetland regulations of a municipality.
Sec..7. PROBATE COURT. The following actions of any probate court are hereby validated:
(1)The actions of, or pursuant to authorization by,any probate court having,under the
provisions of the general statutes,jurisdiction of the estate of any nonresident decedent, in
accepting jurisdiction and ordering on record a duly authenticated and exemplified copy of
the will of such decedent,with a copy of the proceedings proving and establishing the same
in another state,and the appointment by such probate court of an administrator with the will
annexed of such estate,after proceedings concerning the same had been commenced in
another probate court,which may or may not have jurisdiction, provided the probate court
in which such proceedings were first commenced shall have made a finding that it has no
jurisdiction and ordered the proceedings vacated;
(2) All orders of sale of real estate by any court of probate that are otherwise valid except that
such court made an alternative order of sale by either public or private sale,instead of
directing the method of such sale as required under the provisions of the general statutes;
(3) All orders for the limitation of time for presenting claims against the estate of deceased
persons heretofore made by any court of probate otherwise valid except that a notice to that
effect was not properly given as required under the provisions of the general statutes;
(4) The sale and conveyance of any real estate, or interest therein,pursuant to any valid order
issued by a probate court having jurisdiction,which sale and conveyance was valid except
for the failure to consummate the same for a period of ten years or more from the date of the
death of the person owning such real estate, provided any grantee of any heir or devisee of
the decedent having purchased any interest of such heir or devisee shall be entitled to the
share of such heir or devisee in the proceeds of such sale, and further provided if the name or
address of any person entitled to any share in the proceeds of any such sale shall not be
ascertainable by the probate court,such court shall appoint a trustee for the share of such
person,who shall give a probate bond and shall hold such share until demanded by the
person or persons entitled thereto.
Sec. 8. FINANCING STATEMENTS. No financing statement or assignment or release of a
security interest filed prior to the effective date of this act with the Secretary of the State
pursuant to article 9 of title 42a of the general statutes shall be deemed invalid because such
financing statement, assignment or release omits or incorrectly states the execution date.
Sec. 9. APPLICABILITY. No defects, omissions or irregularities enumerated in this act shall
http://prdbasis.cga.state.ct.usBASIS/TSSAHP/LIN1/SA/DDW?W%3DSHORT NAME+P.../ 7/10/01
Volume 190 Page N2 304
a ) FORM 94A coNNWrICUT•WARRANTY Dam•SURVIVORSHIP .un.a•w"LANK-N " •�'••'^•�
uw.�..•
' 81- kot
l
�u �ll
t� liomrc �rli It'
dui
$tram fit. That It, THE U&R HOUSING CORPORATION,a corporationy
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut, having an office and principal
i, place of business in the Town of Manchester, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut :t
for the consideration of a valuable sum in dollars
a�l received to its full satisfaction of RANNEY A. KLENKE and BARBARA C. KLENKE,
l: both of the Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut
"` does' give, grant, bargain, sell and confirm unto the said RANNEY A. KLENKE
?f I, and BARBARA C. KLENKE
t
and unto the survivor of them,and unto such survivor's heirs and assigns forever that
xK certain piece or parcel of land on the Southerly side of Felt Road, situated in the Town of South
Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut.
Sold land hereby conveyed is more particularly bounded as follows: 1
Commencing at a point an the Southerly side of Felt Road, which point is the Northwesterly .:
- i comer of land now or formerly of Peter Karmazyn and the Northeasterly comer of the land
s
herein conveyed; thence in a Westerly direction along the Southerly line of Felt Road, a distance
of One Hundred Seventy-nine and 25/100(179.25)feet, to a point which marks the Northeasterl
comer of Lot M58, as shown on a map or plan entitled, "BIRCH HILL ESTATES Foster Street,
r of U b R Housing Corp. Scale 1"=100' Date: Jan. 21, 1563
South Windsor, Conn. Property
- I Hoyden L.Griswold C.E. Degree of Accuracy A=2 Substantially Correct";thence in a Southerly
direction vlong the Easterly line of said Lot 158,a distance of One Hundred Fifty-six and 06/100
d ' direction along the Northerly line(156.06) feet, to a point; thence in a Southeasterly Eighty-
on
F r-
Lot 159, as shown the above described subdivision map, a distance of One Hundred three and 46/100(183.46)feet)to a point on the Westerly line of said land of Peter Karmazyn,
Il # thence in a Northerly direction along the Westerly line of land of said Peter Karmazyn to the
place of beginning, a distance of Two Hundred Seven and 82/100(207.82) feet.
Said premises also appears on the above described subdivision map as an un-numbered
r + •t lot bounded between Lots 058 and 059.
n I { ±x
r Volume 190 Page N2 305
lJitttUe ttttb to Bulb the above granted and bargained premises, with the
appurtenances thereof,unto them the said
grantees,and unto the survivor of them,and unto '
such survivor's heirs and assigns forever,to them and their own proper use and behoof.
U1119, it the said grantor does for itself, its successors
cx
reseoesntsro�,xirdsisisbsbr�ta,�and assigns,covenant with the said grantees and wAh the survivor
of them, and with such survivor's heirs and assigns, that at and until the enscaling of these
presents it is well seized of the premises, as a good indefeasible
estate-in FEE SIMPLE;and has good right to bargain and-sell the same in manner
and form as is above written;and that the same is free from all ineumbrances whatsoever,
except as hereinbefore mentioned.
_ ,�1tt1� �iti'f�rrltlDrP, it the said grantor do of by these presents
bind itself and its successors xk@kX,and assigns forever to
WARRANT AND DEFEND the above granted and bargained premises to them the said
grantees, and to the survivor of them and to such survivor's heirs and assigns, t
against all
claims and demands whatsoever, except as hereinbefore mentioned.'
THE U & R HOUSING CORPORATION, by
-- limar Rupner its President and duly authorized
agent has hereunto caused to be set its name
' �It �Iitttrstt �ITrrrnf, •
/ krrxxxb►odtnlWktrlclist�C •
xArapdx and Heal this 7` day i, r
--- - �" i year of ou
r of,¢ � 'a the a Lord
s n�eEeen Candied aad seven ` rve _ - -- _ '
if ✓tY r
Stpntd, S an Del:rered in preaenee of •.r�,Zi+!t,'+'/.;K``� 4
THE U&R HOUS CORE
�.. ,. ,.
Hermon Yules mor upper
' t
ot
Ir
>�ittir of lllnituriui, '
Giaut HARTFORD 88.
tiy of Manchester.IlnrCh 7tb. A. D. 1D7g
Peraonall A -
Y ppeared ILMAR RUPNER, President and duly authorized agent of The U d R Housing Corporation
^" Signer and Sealer of the foregoing inalrameni,and acknowledged the rams to be his 1
free act and deed and the free act and deed of said corporation,
before me.
Received or
Record
March 10,` 1975 at 11:50 z. Marilyn:W. Burgers —
�_
Asst. Town'Clerk - Herman Yules ) alxodkbsc 4
` Cammiaaioner q/ the Superior Court is
i
TOWN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - February 19, 1963 cec
Members present : Messrs. Hallowell & Carino �ttc
prof
Public -Hearing - Application-of Eve C. Haller for change of: zone bus:
from R-40 to I on i1
property of R. Jones, Ident Rd.
rol
! Addition to Zoning Regulations under 4.6.5 Indus har
Expandion Zones - Permitted uses to include 4.6.5 o�
and such light industry as the P & Z Commission
after a public hearing shall app rove" ore
isc
Hearing cancelled because of inability to secure enough Commission n t
Members to hear applications. Weather conditions very h t Aar
will be sent to Mrs. M. Paul and 'Mr. R. Jones when hearingris ° c
rescheduled.
Glee�e�� ' wcuti. ,17�i rh/ t'nenu-� o� e
Restfully submitted, e
Shot
Priscilla C. Snow, A le
Recording Secretary Prorr
Y t
f Y
TOWN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION- Februa
8ohe
Members present: Messrs. Carino, . Foran & Hallowell Vi11
Also present: Messrs. Markett, Burkhart., Me Lau hie
and Attorney Lassman -
C. Nicholson was present with maps on Section III -and IV on Graham sect
Estates. He requested preliminary as well as final a at
Markett has checked the entire map and finds no approval.. Walt the
a slight change in the drainage to eliminate the Possibility
He made t62
problems. possibility of la '
There are several lots in this subdivision which are to The
and pie shaped and Mr. Carino voiced an objection to lots of this . %dc
shape.
Birch all Estates was resubmitted_ b Mr.''
r ,Y.,_ Rupner and_Mr. _ Hayden_
Griswold with all snaps completed including the`71: lots,' Mr.,_Marxet' Adjc
informed then that they would Join into the drainage going down
Beelzebub Rd. and would be required to pay their share of the cost'
There has been an increase of one-'lot in 9
Section, a n z �
.� The w
- 1 fee received for this lot Inspect oii Fee of 0 has $
$93 s been received.
Sectionive
I consists of 2 lots as follows
33-45
56-51
58
67-71
$62,000 is the required bond for this section and will be submitted
soon.
ecutive Session
attorney lassman was present to discuss the subdivision sewerage �
roposals as written up by Mr. Markett. After considerable dis-
�,Ission it was felt that new subdivision regulations should be
3tten up and taken u at a 'Fs� p public hearing, including the new
• oposals submitted by Mr. Markett. There are several major
to be made in these regulations, includin the one coverin 9:rl J,roanges
0nunity water systems. Theses stems g g {
5•?a e�wn Council thereby making it necessary forbeen outlawed by the
1 � a than 10 houses any subdivision having 3
for to connect to municipal water. There was also ,
pcussion regarding the interpretation of "parcel" of land as used
�n in the regulations. It is Attorney lassman's interpretation that
_ts sparcel means any piece of land under common ownership which has
re10 divisions such as streets constitutes one parcel of land.
Me Board of Education has requested that they be notified of all
Oreliminary and final .-.approvals of subdivisions. ' This information
,hould: be sent to Mr., Woodmansee including location and number of lots.
, letter was received from the Town Manager stating that a report
Tom the Commission is expected by March 15 on the material submitted
Y the Capital Coals & Improvement Committee. Because of"the amount
work presently before the Commission it is impossible for discussion
this material and submission of a report. A public hearing is
cheduled for March 12 and the following week, the lgth, a meeting _
ll be held with Mr. Sprenkel to discuss this report.
_;h1 .l, report will be submitted within the week. to the Town Manager with
he estimated commission income for the next 6 months.
ct on
an
g Lrial`approval on the condition
..
It• a t e coribu v 3isstorm drainage system in
de o $ 73 on mush" a be furnished�ta the town ford `
late
6 'Ob
3° e subdivision maps of C. Nicholson, Graham Estates, and those of
Tudor •Hill were both rejected because of improper filing.
nutes were given Commission approval through January.
:ett .djourned 11:00 P.M.
3t.
—
Jas Respectfully submitted
Priscilla C. Snow
:Recording Secretary
:.ed
re It was the vote. of the Commission to aeclare the month of uguat vacation.
There will be two greetings in July, one the 17th which will be a public
9 hearing .together with the Town •Council and will be in order to present to
des the town's people the record of the effectiveness of our Town Plan. Mr.
?vholley made motion. .to meet and -present information along lines of previous
i meeting with the.Council. Mr. Kupchunos seconded - Tote 4 in favor with
Nir. �ar:.no abstaining. The regular monthly meeting is scheduled for the 4th
He Tuesday of the month.
Sept. 17th has been set for a public. hearing on the application of Clifford
Slier For change of zone on Neiderwerfer Rd.
A letter was received from Mr. Carolm Myrik requesting a change in the street
name of Hillside Drive because it conflicts with her street-name of Hillsdale
Rd. She states there is much confusion in Giving directicns. A letter will be
sent to her stating that the Com;issions feeling is that if any changes were
to be made they would have to be made to Hillsdale Rd. because of the number '
of people involved., the expense they would be put to in changing records
etc. as well as the inconvenience. If, however, the people on 'Hillsdale
:Rd. all wish to have the name of their street changed the Commission would be
happy to consider *t.
ere . McGra a ?,states submitted a report regarding their water system as requested
ion. ' by the Commission one year after completion of their first section. The re-
port was made up by Mr. Souther, Mr. Sexton and Mr. Brainard. They must have
on ; approval of the Commission and mown En_ineer before permits will be issued
to the remaini-n5 section.
are
A letter will be sent to N'r lass:nan requesting an answer to a previous letter
concerning the Shepard Garden Apartment situation.
a.
'ld:ourned 10:30 P:X. ,
ase
Respectfully submitted,
V�
Priscilla C. Snow
s Recording Secretary
T P14- PLURJJ'IG Pc °CNING .CO1K'IISSION -,July 232 1963
hem.
Members present: i�iessrs,. Kupahunos, Canino; Wholley Forari
ly -
Also present:, Mr. W. �arke'tt, Town Engineer
Ir. Ron Grenier was present with mars of Section VII of Pleasant Valley Estates.
He is requesting approval of the Com^ii_ssion to move the play ground from the
proposed area to another place in this sar.e section.
1
Mr. Aaron Dubitsky was present with r..: of Tudor gills. He explained all I•Ir. 4i
changes made in maps in accordance wi-� recussts• of the Commission and has
dots
corrected all reasons for disapproval- the Commission previously. d
agreed that if the Comm fission doesn This
a''nt :,c have as*many homes as he."is 'park
proposing.in his' development he would c` willing to have approval on a small Per 1
section and go forward slowly. He war.-s all- agree
ments in so that no changes cal be made .later the Commission, he�Town or the
He stated that he is willingto me +;. ver
Lo,.s
et =.; s„_�ulat;ons set South by the Commisti conk
and would agree to limiting to 10 hour es a year if necessary; ho•,rever, he doesn+ Wholl
want the Commission to simply table ac�ion a.'nd keep up the postponement .that rlr. r
has gone on in the past. If it is -on
main, he will consider it closed' recei
and will no., build.
Hayden Griswold, Jr. was present ter Section Ii of irch Hills contain' g PK .1C
r
12 lots on Palmer Dr. The drainage is :tread lled f data.
$367.50 plus $12 per lot .fee will be s-.:br,itted later.
Inspection fee of
Tudor
Mr. Griswold presented :nap$ on M.ikol:;,e Property on Deming
two lots involved. eming St. There are +h
Adjou:
There was
discussion regarding Bryan :a_nn Su^div-sion beinc 'built1 {
Stitch in Manchester. There are f lots :,ar; � n r. by t. B,
the subdivision was originallysubmi;,yea ply in South ;Windsor. At the time '
„o South Windsor there were only 2 '
lots in this town and therefore did no; zonstiltute a subdivision. They are
proposing to put apark area in this sumvision which will be in conjunction
with the park area in 1veryreights. The ; - '
�oaraission would like to have the
I1anchester Counsel contact Attorney Laassman t actually
check
in South Windsor and determine which ones the lot; that are par bly s
are South Windsor res onsi-
bility as far as c ldren in school are -'oncerned. p
Executive Session
:•teal Estate Center, Inca with an 8 lot subdivision
bdiv_s 'on on Pleasant-Valley Rd. was
• first discussed. Mr. Carino made motion that preliminary plans be given 'tentative approval on the condition that, he engineering changes requested
by South Windsor Town Engineer be inco=crated in f= Y
seconded motion and vote was unanimous. 7a1 plan. Pr. Wnolley
ect on' c .1 rch ills was p�r'¢aesen ed ro `ai _,. g� . , .n •,
� - - approval. There are"" �. $ v .>
4 = o.a,�n made motion to give approvd,
. �'hoI ey secon a and vo Ewa . w�anuno zs"
Maps on Section VII of Pleasant Valley lzt. were then discussed. They are
proposing a change in the recreation area from the center of the property on
Edgewood Dr. to corner .,of property. . The lot s ize is the .same- and it was felt
by all that it improved the road layout. We retain the 50 ft. right-of-way.
'dgewood Drive comes up to a point incl;:d`ng lots 36.0--and 327.' Judy Lane
extends and includes lot 359.
TC0 pL&IRUNG & Z0:1 JG COAL ISSION - F ebrsary 25, 1964
Members present: igessrs. Caring, 'rJhoZley & Joseph
Also present: Mr. W. Markett, Tn. Engineer
Received application from Mr. Stephen Filip on Avery St. for change of
zone from 111-30 to AA-30• Check .for $25,00 was received.
ova -vi
on
ubdi
Received maps for fan heckrforl$200 ,Jas,r ceived forfor Eivielsensper loslfee.n
Pleasant Jalle, load.
Received maps for 3irch Hill Lstates,for '3e.00 waslreceived.�c 31 lots,
numbers 1 - 15 and 17-32• Check
;fir, Caring said he would like to holc�a^speci hymhearegque�choO 4ndble- review
the regulations, particuZ3rly those . �.c,,.�ons -
the members should come back with
After discussing them at this :nee tine, ublic hearing can then oe
suggestions at the March 24th meeting. A P
? on ril 7 to revise the rem Zatiors as the Commitoldateon eforf ch changes
held F -
also include all requests the Commiss�om has received
of zone which include uoberman, Berger and Filip. Attorney Ahearn will
be requested to be presenvt.
da}e on the Berger ;ppiicaticn shc.zli: be sent
Netifi cation of the hearing; y L carboy. copy
:larks Attent
iion H. Bavid Leventhal w; th,a
to ilnan and ,
to �aldmar. Ccnst. ,o., 10 Simons Rd., W. Hartfor..
The following correspondence gas received by 1uhe Commi3sLon:
'iigh- Departme: requesting zoning regulations and
A letter from the
maps :ah_ch ifs• Markett will take care of.
��M
1+}orney Kuehn with copy to •1_. C wring
The Town Council sent a letter +mac V y request st by Messrs. Hill and west`crook.
,. g +h, ?iZlsdale Rd. quite laim re i4e�
recta_i
Th_ 5
has been an"veered.
T Engineer notifying the ,O=,is s ion that
A letter was received from the I Eng�.
new forms have been printed incZudi_,o the fee of p25.00
requesting an extension
�,
A letter was received from Real Estate Center, Inc. additional,
OIL' the 90 �r-ril:ag per-Lod on naps. They are requesting tis null
it was felt that 92 days have dready.passed and legally
hn'e
90 a3y,• - h final action on �h� q
and void. Before t e .o;rur:�ssion tatces any
it will be discussed with Attorney+Ahearn to deteri� e if the extension can
be granted after the expiration datee.
received from Park-3ay Corp, requesting an extension of time
o n their 90 day filing period for letter was re the 5 lot subdivision. This has also
k o
passed the 90 day period and w==1 be discussed with the Towns attorneyo
i
i
It was noted that Pleasant Val lay Estates, section VII also falls into the
sa.*,e category and although they have not requested an extension of time
they will be notified of Attorney Ahearn's decision. ;
It was agreed by the members thgt letters wi11 be seat to those involved I'
based on the attorneys decision. If he feels leg&y that an extension
can be granted after this 90 day period has expired, they will be so i
notified. If ,he determines it is null and void a letter to th-s affect
will be sent.
The motion was made by Mr. Wholley, seconded by :fir. Joseph and unanimously
voted to discuss and act upon the. subd risior. applications received at this
mea t_nig during executire`session.
Exec t-ive Session `
f, t
�-� •;�»�r.=...s f �,�� a.+x. €ate'` -_ - � j?� �rr �a�. �. '.s
Maps' n III of Sectio ;o E rpm H 1Z Estates were discus ed'. The Inspection
ee oa 855.g per to ee .of $31-was ,ecsived. M.r. Hallowell made} a
T F .tp
`mot b t to iv final royal to this is�cti.on. rx`. Jas2oh seconded motion
Viand Q was than mots, `in favor; s _._ . _._ _ _
The subdivision of Evelire Nielsen on Keasart 'Talley Road was discussed.
This subdivision contains 4 rouses, two of which are already built. iir.
Wbolley made motion to 5-'le ;;prC`*31 on the two new 1V YS, 1,1r. Ha.11cwel'
seconded motion and vote was unanimously in favor. :approval waz omen
on the basis that a $500 amo',mt ba given tc '� e TO'hm of 3out h :vird-acr
for each lot to be deposited the Pleasant `Talley Road Drainage account
for future drainage work on this road. T: .s :Honey .,rust be furnished before
building permits may be issued. ;$2.0C per lot fee wr_.. received
SUIMMUly
1. 2eceived application for change of one frJT R tc G!-30 fr.^m S-echen
r ilip on Avery St. - tentative hearing date April 7.
2. 3eceived maps for fznalappro'ra1 a on III rch Hill Estates..
I.
�,� .•� I�os..'�1 Z�. n •'lr, 3�. .Approval. given� �.��.,. , _._, _ _.
3. Received :naps for final approval on iveline Nielsen subdirsion on
Pleasant Valley Rd. 2 lots on plot of land already containing 2 hcuses. _
Approval given.
!,. Received requests for extension-of f iling pe.ri.M on two subdivisions -
Real ,Estate Center, Inc. and Parkway Corp. Will be discussed iet1 attorney.
3esrect`'ully pubmi ted,
Priscilla ,. Snow
Recording Secretary
§ 53.3 MISCELLANEOUS LAND USE ISSUES Pt. VII Ch-
` there is not much difference between a building on an undersized lot or or
an oversized building on a conforming lot; in both cases the violation is ad(
something observable, which should be protected under the statute after
three years.
prc
§ 53.4 Site Plans re€
occ
With site plan applications, the site plan can be modified or denied api
only if it fails to comply with requirements already contained in the Lo-
zoning or inland wetlands regulations.' In addition, improvements or Th
proposed improvements shown on a site plan for residential property the
which was approved prior to the effective date of a zone change or bui
change in zoning regulations is not required to conform to such dec
changes.
§ 53.5 Subdivision Lots zor
sio-
While as a general rule the filing of a map in the land records prior Ge
to subdivision regulations does not necessarily immunize property from
the effect of subsequent subdivision regulations,' there are several prc
statutes creating vested rights for subdivision lots approved by planning the
commissions under Chapter 126 of the General Statutes. In
Any subdivision lots which have been approved by the planning tale
commission prior to the effective date of a change in subdivision regula- acc
tions, zoning regulations or zoning boundaries, and recorded with the wh
town clerk, are not required to conform to any subsequent regulations wit
changes.' Also, when a subdivision application is filed with a planning
commission and there is a change in the zoning regulations, subdivision §
regulations or a change of zone while the application is pending before
the planning commission, it does not have to comply with any of these
fro
_ changes provided the plan meets the prior regulations and receives final n
ai
approval under the prior regulations! Pa:
The statutes do not protect lots which were never part of a subdivi- ty
sion approved by the planning commission.' of
Section 8-26a of the General Statutes, which exempts subdivisions ide
shown on a map approved by the planning commission, does not apply to ML:
$ 53.4 2. Adams v. Warren Planning and Zon- 5.
1, C.G.SA.§ 8-3(g). ing Commission, CV97-0074240, Superior of
2. C.G.SA.§ 8-3(h). Court at Litchfield,December 19, 1997(ap- 199
j 53.5 plying the statute to a recorded subdivision 6.
$
map which had not been signed by the of"
1. Johnson v. Board of Zoning Appeals commission chairman since the defect was 592
of Town of Stratford, 35 ConnApp. 820, cured by section 6(c) of the 1995 validating acti
- 825, 646 A.2d 953, 956 (1994); Sherman- act);C.G.SA.§ 8-26a.
Colonial Realty Corporation v. Goldsmith, 7
155 Conn. 175, 183, 230 A.2d 568, 572 3. C.G.S.A.H 8-28a and 8-28b. 170
(1967); Corsino v. Grover, 148 Conn. 299, 4. Miller v. Zoning Board of Appeals of mg
314, 170 A.2d 267,274(1961); State ex rel. Town of Westport, 36 ConnApp. 98, 105, Apr
La Voie v.Building Commission of Town of 647 A.2d 1050, 1053(1994). 8.
Trumbull, 135 Conn.415,420,65 A.2d 165, Zor
167(1949). 199
576
s Pt- VU Ch. 53 ESTOPPEL AND VESTED RIGHTS § 53.6
undersized lot or or protect a subdivision map filed with the town clerk prior to the
es the violation is adoption of subdivision regulations.°
er the statute after Section 8-26a of the General Statutes only applies to protect ap-
proved lots from subsequent amendments to the subdivision and zoning
regulations by municipal agencies and not changes in the lots which
modified or denied occur due to actions of the landowner.6 The statutory protection only
applies to lots in subdivisions approved by the planning commission.
contained in the Lots obtained from resubdividing an approved lot are not protected!
improvements or The application_does not have to be complete in all details required by
esiential property the subdivision regulations in order to obtain the statutory protection,
a zone change or but it must contain all essential information for the commission to
conform to such decide the question of approval.9
Subdivision lots which would otherwise be exempt from changes in
zoning or subdivision regulations may lose that protection if the subdivi- •
sion requirements are not co
land records prior General Statutes.'o mpleted as required by section 8-26c of the
'ze property from
there are several Even where a lot is not shown on a subdivision map, it may be
roved by planning protected from subsequent changes of land use regulations which make
s the lot nonconforming as to size, width, depth or frontage requirements.
In Horwitz v. Town of Waterford, 11 it was held to be an unconstitutional r'
by the planning taking to apply a regulation requiring a lot to have frontage on an ,t
subdivision regula- _ accepted street or highway before,a building permit could be issued
recorded with the where a property owner owned an isolated lot which could not comply
quent regulations with the regulation.
with a planning
ations, subdivision § 53.6 Adjacent Lots; Merger Provisions
is pending before = A property owner may have vested rights t a municipality with any of these ��
and receives final from combining two or more adjacent lots where legal title is in the same
name merely because it has adopted or amended zoning regulations.
Parcels retain their identity as separate lots even though the municipali-
part of a subdivi ty taxes the land as one tract or the owner fails to improve one or more
of the lots or take some similar physical action to confirm their separate
3mpts subdivisions identity.' Neither taxation of the land as one parcel or references to
i, does not apply to multiple lots on a map filed in the land records is controlling on the
ren Planning and Zon- 5. Sicilian v. Zoning Board of Appeals 8. See Harris v. Planning Commission
797-0074240, Superior of Town of Stratford, 8 Conn.L.Rptr. 563, of Town of Ridgefield, 151 Conn. 95, 100,
)ecember 19, 1997(ap- 1993 WL 117747(1993). 193 A.2d 499, 501 (1963) and section 23.9,
a recorded subdivision 6. Iannucci v. Zoning Board of Appeals infra.
t been signed by the of Town of Trumbull, 25 ConnApp.85, 91, 10. See section 50.2 and DeMartini v.
n since the defect was 592 A.2d 970,973 (1991) (2 lots merged by Zoning Board of Appeals of Westport, 5
of the 1995 validating actions of property owner). Conn.L.Rptr. 242, 1991 WL 246581 (1991).
a.
7. Corsino v. Grover, 148 Conn. at 314, 11. 151 Conn.320, 197 A.2d 636(1964).
28a and 8-28b. 170 A.2d at 274; Johnson v. Board of Zon-
A Appeals of Town of Stratford b3.6
ig Board of Appeals of �g PPe , 35 Conn. 1. Molic v. Zoning Board of Appeals of
36 ConnApp. 98, 105, App.at 825,646 A.2d at 956. Town of Redding, 18 ConnApp. 159, 164,
(1994). 8. FBIC, Inc. v. Ansonia Planning and 556 A.2d 1049, 1051 (1989); Carbone v.
Zoning Commission, 4 Conn.L.Rptr. 457, Vigliotti,222 Conn.216,227, 610 A.2d 565,
1991 WL 170240(1991). 570(1992).
577
§ 53.6 MISCELLANEOUS LAND USE ISSUES Pt. VII Ch. 53
factual issue of whether an owner intended to merge parcels, where the reasona,
owner's intent to merge the title of the lots is in issue.' However, there a pre-zc
can be lot merger under specific zoning regulations providing for it even finding
without merger of legal title of separate lots. a house
In Schultz v.Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Berlin,-'a property use a nc
owner was entitled to build on two adjacent lots where title was in the a mergE
same name even though they no longer met the minimum frontage minimu:
requirements as a result of a change in zoning regulations, where it merger
would be a hardship to combuie the two lots. Two segments of a single not m&
lot which were separated by a 40-foot right of way which divided the regulatit
property were two noncontiguous parcels and a variance could be applied whether
for each segment.' However, where a property-owner owns adjacent lots a confor
with title in the same name which are not shown on an approved ~•- shape pi
subdivision map, and which are rendered undersized by an increase in `h a merge
the minimum lot size requirements of the zoning re
gulations, in some V�;�� complies
cases the doctrine of lot merger applies, and the owner cannot build on
all the lots. The result depends upon the facts of each case the content '" co would
n
of relevant provisions in the local zoning ordinance, and whether the lots __ wouuld
sides wit
are being used as one units If the zoning regulations also provide merger
protection for lots which pre-existed zoning, the ownership of adjacent .. - such as
undersized lots does not result in a merger for zoning purposes.e Where _ of appeE
two nonconforming lots legally in existence when the zoning regulations board cc
became effective were later merged because of a merger provision, the
resultingundersized lot was g adjacent
protected as a nonconforming lot and :' -� Denial c
without a variance, but. the two prior lots no longer continued as be uphe
nonconforming uses; this result is consistent with the purpose of lot -:
merger provisions which is to reduce non-conformities, and section 8-2 supports
which protects nonconforming uses." . Eve
Where an adjacent lot which was nonconforming and existed prior to use of a
enactment of the zoning regulations was inherited by a property owner, zoning
there was no merger of the lots since there was no action taken by the merger
owner which could reasonably be considered a waiver of their status as - landowr_
separate lots.8 - parcel, t
Where the zoning board of appeals had found intent to merge lots, I9. Mar
the court could not substitute its judgment for the board's finding if of Town
2. Marino v.Zoning Board of Appeals of (1990), certification denied 216 Conn. 817, - held);610, 578 .
8
Town of Watertown, 22 ConnApp. 606, 580 A.2d 58(1990); Bell v.Zoning Board of Town of
609, 578 A.2d 165, 167 (1990),certification Appeals of Town of Newington, 27 Conn. merged in-
denied 216 Conn. 817, 580 A.2d 58 (1990). App. 41, 45-47, 604 A.2d 379, 381-82 =- 10. Iar
3. 144 Conn.332, 130 A.2d 789(1957). (1992)' of Town c
4. Bankers Trust Co.v.Zoning Board of 6. Johnson v. Board of Zoning Appeals 592 A.2d f
Appeals of Town of Weston, 165 Conn.624, of Town of Stratford, 35 ConnApp. 820, 11. He
345 A.2d 544(1974). 827,646 A.2d 953,957(1994). Conn. 32C
7. Paletsky v. Harwinton Zoning Board v. Zoning
5. Schultz v.Zoning Board of Appeals of of Appeals, 14 Conn.L.Rptr. 90, 1995 WL Stoningto,
Town of Berlin, supra; Johns v. Old Lyme 250201(1995). 614, 617
Zoning Board of Appeals, 3 Conn.Su- Conn.806
per.Ct.Rpts. 793 (1988); Marino v. Zoning 8. Case v. Zoning Board of Appeals of 12. Je:
Board of Appeals of Town of Watertown,22 South Windsor, 6 Conn.L.Trib.28,July 14, of Town o
ConnApp. 606, 608, 578 A.2d 165, 166 1980.
578 ^
w
t
Pt. VII Ch. 53 ESTOPPEL AND VESTED RIGHTS § 53.6
els, where the reasonably supported by the record, despite the fact the deeds referred to
owever, there a pre-zoning map which listed them as three separate parcels." A
ing for it even finding of merger may be shown by the owner's conduct in constructing
a house over the property line.10 A property owner is clearly entitled to i
'n,3 a property use a nonconforming lot if it is isolated." If the zoning regulations have
tle was in the a merger clause, a merger of two or more lots, sufficient to meet the
um frontage minimum area requirements of the zoning regulations, may occur." The
'ons, where it merger problem arises most often where two or more adjacent lots do
nts of a single not meet the lot area, shape or width requirements of the zoning
h divided the regulations. Under the phrasing of some regulations the question is
uld be applied whether combining one or more of the nonconforming lots will result in
s adjacent lots a conforming lot. For example, where-the zoning regulations had a lot
an approved shape provision for a 150 foot square to fit on each lot, and provided for
an increase in a merger of two adjacent lots if the resulting combined lot more nearly
tions, in some complied with the lot shape regulation, the merger provision was strictly
not build on construed and a merger did not occur because combination of the lots
e, the content would not result in an area 150 feet square, namely 150 feet on four '.
ether the lots sides with four right angles." Merger may also occur in the absence of a '
also provide = merger clause where the definition of words in the zoning ordinance �f= •'
'p of adjacent such as "lot" dictate the same result.14 In an appeal to the zoning board
oses.e Where of appeals from the granting of a building permit, it was held that the
ng regulations
board could determine as a question of fact if there had been merger of
provision, the adjacent lots so that subdivision approval was required to use them.la
ng lot and ;
continued as Denial of a certificate of zoning compliance because of lot merger must
purpose of lot be upheld in an appeal from the zoning board of appeals if reasonably .,
nd section 8-2 supported by the record.Air
' Even in those situations where a lot merger provision prevents the
use of all the claimed lots, the "merger" is only for zoning purposes. A
existed prior to g y g
roperty owner,
zoning commission cannot affect land titles and there is no actual
merger of the parcels on the land records for title purposes. Where the
a taken by the g p purp i,
their status as landowner combines or merges several parcels or lots into one larger
parcel the lot lines remain in place for title purposes until a deed of
to merge lots,
lyd's finding if '� 9. Marino v.Planning Board of Appeals 556 (1972); Torsiello v. Zoning Board of :
g .� of Town of Watertown, 22 ConnApp. at Appeals of City of Milford,3 ConnApp.47,
' 610, 578 A.2d at 167 (merger finding up- 484 A.2d 483(1984).
ed 216 Conn. 817, held); Bell v. Zoning Board of Appeals of
v.Zoning Board of - Town of Newington (finding that lot not 13. Miller v.Zoning Board of Appeals of
wington, 27 Conn. merged into two adjacent lots upheld). Town of Westport, 36 ConnApp. 98, 104, .
Ud 379, 381-82 ;�- 10. Iannucci v.Zoning Board of Appeals 647 A 2d 1050, 1053(1994).
of Town of Trumbull, 25 ConnApp.85, 89, 14. Neumann v. Zoning Board of Ap-
of Zoning Appeals 592 A.2d 970,972(1991). peals of Stonington, 14 ConnApp.at 60,61, !'
15 ConnApp. 820, 11. Horwitz v. Town of Waterford, 151 539 A.2d at 617.
994). - Conn. 320, 197 A.2d 636 (1964); Neumann
nton Zoning Board
v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Borough of 15. Molic v.Zoning Board of Appeals of
Town of Redding, 18 ConnApp. 159, 556
Stonington, 14 ConnApp. 55, 60, 539 A.2dlptr. 90, 1995 WL 614, 617 (1988), certification denied 208 A.2d 1049(1989).
Conn.806,545 A.2d 1103(1988). 16. Horn v. Zoning Board of Appeals of
)ard of Appeals of 12. Jenkins v. Zoning Board of Appeals City of Norwalk, 18 ConnApp. 674, 676,
:.Trib. 28,July 14, of Town of Darien, 162 Conn.621,295 A.2d 677,559 A.2d 1174,1175, 1176(1989).
579
--
zx
§ 53.6 MISCELLANEOUS LAND USE ISSUES Pt. -vII -
conveyance or a new subdivision is created, but by operation of law a
single parcel merges for zoning purposes.17
Since the building inspector is not the official with authority to _
determine whether two adjacent lots have merged, the issuance of a
building permit does not estop the municipality from claiming merger.18 y
However, any-ambiguity in the regulations should be construed in
favor of the property owner, since "zoning regulations, being in deroga-
tion of common law property rights, should not be extended by construc-
tion beyond the fair import of their language _Y p guage and cannot be construed to _
include by implication that which is not clearly within their expressed
_ terms." 18
The general rule is that contiguous land all owned by the same
proprietor does not necessarily constitute a single lot." Whether merger
has occurred depends on the intent of the owner, which is a factual issue L _
based on the owner's conduct under the surrounding circumstances.11
A special merger problem which occurs with old subdivisions with
undersized lots which did not obtain subdivision approval and therefore
the protection given to lots under section 8-26a of the General Statutes,
is the situation where the same owner has title to three or more abutting
or adjacent lots which do not meet the minimum area or shape provi-
sions in the current zoning regulations, which contain a merger provi-
sion. If less than all the undersized lots, if combined, would create a
conforming lot, the question is whether all of the lots have to be y
combined for zoning purposes. The result can depend on the phrasing of _ =--
the regulation, but if the strict construction doctrine is applied the usual Y
result and a fair interpretation of the regulation is that adjacent lots `
only have to be combined until a conforming lot is obtained. For '~
example, with 10 lots containing one acre in a two acre zone, a combina-
tion of two lots would create a conforming lot, and the result would be M_
four or five lots depending on their configuration. The owner should not
have to merge all the lots because it is unnecessary to do so to comply
with the minimum lot size provision. To combine them all would impose .: :.
a standard which would not apply to other property owners in the same
zone. Most merger provisions are written so that this result occurs and
that complies with the regulation. = 1
17. Friends of the Ridge v. Baltimore 20. Schultz v. Zoning Board of Appeals
Gas and Electric Company, 352 Md. 645, of Berlin, 144 Conn. at 338, 130 A.2d at a
724 A.2d 34,40--41(1999)(referring to Mol- 791; Carbone v.Vigliotti,222 Conn.at 227,
u.
is v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of 610 A.2d at 570.
Redding and other cases). 21. Carbone v. V'1 of ' 222 Conn a
o
--- 18. Iannucci v.Zoning Board of Appeals 227, 228, 610 A.2d at570, 571 (application
` of Town of Trumbull, 25 Conn.App. at 88, for building permits for separate lots after
592 A.2d at 972. condominium project rejected).
19. Dowling v.Zoning Board of Appeals 22. Tinicum Township v. Jones, 723
t of Town of Old Lyme, 187 Conn. 689, 694, A.2d 1068 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998) (evidence of
447 A.2d 1172, 1174(1982); J&M Realty some overt, unequivocal actions showing
f Co. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of City of the intent of the owner to physically merge
Norwalk 161 Conn.229,233,286 A.2d 317, two adjacent preexisting undersized lots
319(1971). must exist).
f: 580
Pt. I Ch. 10 SUBDIVISION REVIEW § 10.11
ri conveyed previous- sediment controls are required in the subdivision regulations.' Subdivi-
arcels were dedicated sion regulations must also encourage energy efficient patterns of devel-
xpress interest in the opment and land use, the use of solar techniques, and energy conserva-
tion. The subdivision applicant must show the commission when a
different regulations subdivision application is filed that passive solar energy techniques
's would be possible, which would not significantly increase the cost of housing have been
nee the definition of considered, and the planning commission shall consider the information
egulations apply to a submitted by the applicant when making a decision on the subdivision
applications The statute defines passive solar energy techniques as site
determine whether design techniques which maximize solar heat gain, minimize heat loss
esubdivision subject and provide•thermal storage within a building during the heating season,
ission to review not minimize heat gain, and provide for natural ventilation during the
'visions were illegal cooling season. The site design techniques are to include (1) house
y the definitions in orientation; (2) street and lot layout; (3) vegetation; (4) natural and
cretion in resolving man-made typographical features; and (5) protection of solar access
the Superior Court, within the development' As a practical matter, it is difficult for a
'thin its discretion planning commission to write meaningful standards to implement this
Peal to the courts as provision. Some of the considerations in the statute operate at cross
a division of land is - purposes. Most commissions are satisfied with some attention to trees
onably supported by and whether a significant side of the house has a southern exposure.
cretion on what is Soil erosion and sediment control provisions and passive solar ener-
ion was arbitrary, y'agency at a hearing gy techniques are also discussed in sections 7.7 and 7.8.
:
lish a claim at trial Review of subdivision applications by the town's inland wetlands
-205 of the General agency, which generally has a conservation bent, also injects conserva-
ions cannot prohibit tion considerations into the subdivision approval process.
,t ownership form of
' § 10.11 Validating Prior Megal Subdivisions
ions At one time there was a problem where a property owner made an
standards, the stet- illegal division of land and attempted to rectify it later by an application
land conservation. to the planning commission. Applying the concept that subdivision
and powers of a planning commission were to be strictly construed, it was
P yg ounds held in one case that a planning commission had no authority to approve
nd soil erosion andJ -
a prior, illegal subdivision since the commission's powers were limited to
4-166, 556 A.2d 1049,
the approval, modification or disapproval of a plan or proposed subdivi-
sion.'
coning board of appeals , sion.i This was cured by an amendment in 1973-to section 8-26 which
tacent parcels had not allowed Planning commissions to review "subdivisions and resubdivi-
t their subsequent divi. sions in existence but which were not submitted to the commission for
e subdivision approval, required approval, whether or not shown on an existing map or plan or
could not substitute its whether or not conveyances had been made of any of the property
ictual determination of included in such subdivisions or resubdivisions."= Planning commis-
lopment . C.G.S.A.§ 8-25(a). 2. Public Act 73-550(1973).
Corp,1P• v. San- 3. C.G.S.A.§§ 8-25(b)and 8-26.
416, 180 A.2d 631,632
4. C.G.S.A.§ 8-25(b).
L0.10 § 10.11
1. Dooley v. Town Plan and Zoning
5. Commission of Town of Fairfield, 151 Conn.
151.153,195 A.2d 432,433(1963).
219
10.11 LAND USE AGENCIES Pt. I
Cl
sions can now validate prior divisions of land which did not receive
subdivision approval. V A.
Cc
A previously approved subdivision application can be refiled and re
approved a second time to cure procedural defects.3 of
The validating acts also cure certain types of mistakes made in of
processing subdivision applications which would otherwise make the ar
subdivision void or voidable.' le
pr
10.12 Standards in Subdivision Regulations d.
A planning commission reviewing a subdivision application acts in tic
w
an administrative capacity and must approve a plan which conforms to
the subdivision regulations. To require uniformity in treatment of sL
applicants, P=a pp ' , the regulations must be controlled by filed standards to be 5-c-
applied to all cases of a similar nature.' The planning commission is SE
given the power by the legislature under sections 8-25 and 8-26 to adopt
regulations covering specific subjects. Where the legislature enacts a in
standard stating legislative policy and guidelines for regulations, the w
planning commission as an administrative agency is authorized to fill in
the details by specific regulations. While the commission has discretion
within the statutory parameters as to the content of subdivision regula- t"
tions, they cannot be written in such a way that they can be arbitrarily of
and differently applied to similar applications. This concept is summer st-
rized'as follows: - C.-
The subdivision la
regulations upon which the commission, acting cc
administratively, should rule, must contain known and fixed standards er
applying to all cases of a like nature and must conform to the principle bt
that a regulation, like a statute, cannot be too general in its terms.... ti
The test of a permissible subdivision regulation is whether the criteria rE
contained in the commission's regulations are as reasonably precise as ac
the subject matter requires and are reasonably adequate and sufficient tl-
to guide the commission and to enable those affected to know their rf
rights and obligations.. .. Although some of the standards may be w
general in their terms they must be reasonably sufficient to identify the n(
criteria to be evaluated in their enforcement in order to meet the many tc
variables involved since it would be impossible to establish one standard rc-
which would adequately cover all future cases. Blakeman v. Planning
Commission, 152 Conn. 303, 307, 206 A.2d 425, 427. Forest Construc- ME
tion Co. v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 155 Conn. 669, 680, 236 T-
d:
3. Lombardo v. Planning and Zoning ment Corporation v. City of Norwalk, 156 re
Commission of Town of Manchester, 43 Conn. 369, 375-77, 242 A.2d 781, 784-M it
Conn.Sup. 508, 518, 519, 663 A.2d 1128, d
1132, 1133 (1994), affirmed 38 ConnApp.
812,663 A.2d•431(1995). 2. Aunt Hack Ridge Estates, Inc. v. c-
4. See section 55.1. Planning Commission of City of Danbury,
160 Conn. 109, 114, 273 A.2d 880, 883
10.12 (1970). tr_
1. Beach v. Planning and Zoning Com- S. Sonn v.Planning Commission of City 9.
mission of Town of Milford, 141 Conn. 79, of Bristol, 172 Conn. 156, 159-62,374 A.2d st
ir
85, 103 A-2d 814,817(1954); RX Develop- 159, 161-62(1976). 6
6
220
S Pt. VII
hat no economically
d in Connecticut.a
Farms, Inc. v. Town of CHAPTER 55
218, 719
nd 465, VALIDATING ACTS
nd 24 Conn.L.RptRPt r.242
otion to strike c om_
Table of Sections
Sec.
55.1 Effect of Validating Acts on Defects in Land Use Decisions.
Wes+tlaw Electronic Research
See WestIaw Electronic Research Guide preceding the Summary of Contents.
Olt
f
55.1 Effect of Validating Acts on Defects in Land Use
Decisions
A concept that is often overlooked by counsel in administrative
appeals where a claim of a procedural defect is made, is the effect of
validating acts which cure some defects in planning and zoning applica-
tions and decisions. B validating acts the legislature can cure by a
Y �
subsequent amendment the failure to follow a requirement which it
originally could have dispensed with, provided that vested rights have
not intervened, and a validating act can be applied retroactively to
pending cases.' The terms of the validating act control, and it will not
apply to pending cases except to the extent it so provides a The
validating acts are based on the concept that the legislature has the
power to cure, by retroactive enactment, a party's failure to comply with
a procedural requirement which the legislature had the right to alter
prospectively, and where the enactment's retroactive application does
not operate in a manner that would unjustly abrogate vested rights."
155.1 Conn.App. 538, 541, 520 A.2d 246, 247
1. Kelly v. Planning and Zoning Com- (1987), cart. denied 203 Conn. 803, 522
mission of Town of Hamden, 13 Conn.App. A.2d 294 (1987), where the validating act
446, 448, 537 A.2d 509, 510 (1988); Capal- was rimed,but the defendants did not have
bo v.Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals standing to challenge validity of the legal
of Town of Greenwich,208 Conn.480,489, notice that would be cured by the validating
547 A.2d 528, 532 (1988); Connecticut act).
State Employees Ass n, Inc. v. Connecticut 2. Young v.Chase, 18 Conn.App.85,98,
Personnel Policy Board, 165 Conn. 448, 557 A.2d 134, 140 (1989) cert. denied 211
454, 455, 334 A.2d 909, 912, 913 (1973); Conn 807, 559 A.2d 1141 (1989); Capalbo
Manchester Environmental Coalition v. v.Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals of
Stockton, 184 Conn.51,71,441 A.2d 68,80
Town of Greenwich,208 Conn.at 485, 489,
(1981); Farmington Savings Bank v. Zon-
047 A.2d at 531,533.
ing Board of Appeals of Town of Farming-
ton, 189 Conn.. 727, 738, 739, 458 A.2d 3. Hartford v. Freedom of Information
1151, 1156, 1157 (1983); Archambault v. Commission, 201 Conn. 421, 426, 518 A.2d
Charles. 11 Conn.Law Trib. 21, May 27, 49, 52 (1986). See also Foran v. Zoning
1985. (See also Planning and Zoning Com- Board of Appeals of Town of Westport, 158
mission of Town of Lebanon v. Gaal, 9 Conn. 331, 337, 260 A.2d 609, 612 (1969);
619
§ 55.1 MISCELLANEOUS LAND USE ISSUES Pt.
- Ch.
The legislature now passes a special act at least every two years
containing similar provisions. See Special Acts #87-12 89-6 91-1 93-
17, 95-1, 97-6 and 99-7 "an act validating acts and deeds, valid except to `for certain irregularities and omissions." One provision hea
Win P concerns g and zoning and validates transfers of land which are part of a an
subdivision not submitted to the planning commission for approval.* A do
related provision validates deeds and transfers of an interest in subdivi- Pub
sion lots shown on a recorded map`,Which was not properly certified by a surveyor, signed by the the
These provisions are designed to protect'led
the integrwithin applicable
yho title to land and
prevent defects in following subdivision procedures from invalidating
deeds, mortgages and leases, and does not consider whether any of the age.
Participants in the transfer had actual or constructive knowledge of the an G
defect. Another section validates the use or occupancy or presence of - act
su
any building or structure built on a subdivision lot where the lot is not _ (u d
Shown on an approved subdivision plan or the recorded subdivision map occu
does not comply with any law, ordinance or re s =f
protection for nonconforminggelation. This provides = date
section 8-13a of the Gel Stat structures, andawouldapplyon to theif the users o ..-. mig.,
occupancy of the structure was pursuant to a certicate of occupancy . _ Accc
which overlooked the defect in the recorded subdivision ma , JanL
Section 6(b) of S P
Pedal Act 95-1 was held to validate a recorded
subdlvislon map which was approved in November 1993 but not _ act
chairman "
by the airman of the Planning commission; signed _that protected 4't state
t3' against changes in the zoningP tected the proper- t
and subdivision regulations under ' ''= that
section 8-26a of the General Statutes which the subdivision.? occurred after approval of .. day
As in Kelly v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Ham- mg `
den, supra, section 6(c) validates all actions taken b reme
Y planning commis-
sions, zoning commissions, zoning boards of appeals, inland wetlandeffbc-
agencies and other municipal agencies or officials exercising similar :- Stat
powers where there was a failure to comply with requirements as to r State.
notice of the hearing or the action taken, unless an appeal was taken a de(
from such action. This provision is important, since failure to comply L_ impr(
with some notice _�"..
otherwise be raised at an requirements is �s a jurisdictional defect which can
resul-
Depending upon the problem raised in the appeal, the validating an ac
acts cure numerous procedural defects in prior decisions and actions of year `
municipal land use agencies. It does not validate the use of land in
violation of the planning or zoning regulations of the municipality.8 9.
Validating acts apply only to actions taken before the effective date ofPlawn
the statute. LRptr
� L,.Rptr
State v. Blasko, 202 Conn. 541, 544, 522 8. Section 6(b).
A.2d 753, 755 (1987); Enfield Federal Sav-
ings&Loan Ass'n v.Bissell, 184 Conn.569, 7. Adams v. Warren Planning and Zon-
572,440 A.2d 220,221(1981). ing Commission, CV97-0074240, Superior
4. Section 6(a). Court at Litchfield,December 19, 1997.
5. Section 5. 8. Section 6(d).
620
• VUCh. 55 VALIDATING ACTS § 55.1 '
1
two years ye 3
i 91-1 93- The purpose of the provision in section 6(c) of the validating acts is
' to cure claims of jurisdictional defects in the giving of notice of public '
•slid except hearings or the decisions of zoning commissions, planning commissions '
Berns plan-part of a and zoning boards of appeals, but the validating acts do not address and `
;
proval4 do not apply to validate the failure of a zoning commission to hold a
A
in subdi A public hearing which was required by statute prior to the amendment of `
rtified by a the zoning regulations.'
o l nd and The validating act also does not apply if an appeal taken from the
o land and
'validating agency's action is pending in any court, or if the effective time for taking
any of the an appeal had not expired as of the effective date of the special act. The
edge of the act also states at the end that it takes effect as of the date-of its passage
resence of (usually in June, not October) when the Governor signs the special act, '
lot is not and that it applies only to defects, omissions or irregularities which -
nsion map occurred on or before the prior January 1st. It is important to check the
is provides date of the action in question,and if it only occurred after January 1st,it l
'ovision in might not be cured until the next validating act two years later.
:he use or - Accordingly, the latest validating act would only apply to events before
occupancy January 1 1999.
The Appellate Court has held that section 6(c) of the 1997 validating
i recorded - act was only intended to cure the failure to comply with procedural '
not signed =s statutory moments and not substantive statutory
he proper- ry requirements, and
)ns under that since failure to publish a notice of a zoning decision within the 15
pprovai of _;_: day statutory time limit made the commission's action void, the validat-
e
ing act did not apply and remedy that defect in the notice even if it
t o Ham- remedied an improper description of the property."
f
Cr commis- Public Act 99-238, called an act concerning validating provisions,
i wetland effective July 1, 2000, adds subsection (r) to section 8-8 of the General
ig similar
Statutes. This amendment provides that an appeal or action to set aside
ants as to a decision or action of a zo
vas taken Wing agency which is defective because of
to comply improper notice of a hearing or action by the agency can be brought
vhich can within two years of the action or decision. This statute has a similar
result as section 6 of the validating acts. It is unclear whether it creates
an additional two year appeal period from decisions, or imposes a two
validating actions of year time limit on defective notice claims.
>f land in 9. Berlin Batting Cages, Inc. v. Berlin 10. Taft v. Wheelabrator Putnam, Inc.,
iicipality.
�e date of Planning and Zoning Commission,24 Conn. 55 Conn-App. 359, 367, 368, —A.Zd _ a
L.Rptr. 569, 570, 5 Conn.Ops. 650 (1999) (1999). a
1
a
ag and Zon-
'A, Superior
), 1997.
621
o all People to whom these.Presents shall come, Greeting:
NOW YE, THAT I , WILLIAM J. MANNING, of the Town of East Hartford,
,ounty of Hartford and State: of Connecticut,
or the consideration of Ten Dollars .and other' valuable considerations, .
:ceived to my full satisfaction of CARLO G. PRESTILEO, TRUSTEE, of the
Cown of South Windsor, County of Hartford and State . of Connecticut, I
to give,grant,bargain,sell and confirm unto the said Carlo G. Prestileo,Tni step,
is successors and assigns forever,
A certain piece or parcel of land located in the Town of South
indsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut , being more
articularly bounded and described as follows: •.
NORTHERLY by Lots 1 through 14 as shown op a map entitled
"Property of William J. Manning South Windsor,
Conn. Scale 1" - 100' Apr. '.21 , 1956 -Revised
May 22, 1956 Lots added Cecil W. Brooks , Land
Surveyor" , which map is on file in the South
�� '
Windsor Town Clerk's Off ice , .1356.87 feet;
EASTERLY by -Lot 15 , as shown on said. map; 66.67 'feet;
SOUTHEASTERLY by Felt Road; and
WESTERLY ' by land now or :formerly..of Edith House,. 838.02 feet;
containing 12.5 acres , more or less , and being the major- portion of the
premises •described' in. a Warrantee Deed- from Belle C. Tuttle to !
William J. Manning dated June 5 , 1956 and recorded in Volume A54 at
page -272 of the South Windsor Land Records.
''.
r
41 -Op
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR .
STAFF SITE CHANGE
FOR SITE & SUBDIVISION
GENERAL:
CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSONA12OU Ph c ie No. I' �
Address 01 RO S-SA eLtA G JQ� t ill rtl i Cr QW7f
Site Name, P&Z No
Owner bhAA V. C t oy j5 r ,€�* Phone No.
Contractor C d !
Signature of Owner . , Date: R)
Signature of Design Eng Date: # .
CHANGE (Describe location and ature of change. Include
Four (4 ) copies of. plan/profile- of Change. )
`7"0 L(.r ~ i
Reason for Changer (Why is change required)
o�
APPROVALS.: (As Re uire
Dr. Of. Planning , , Date: f
Town Engineer ; f`f Date: �4 +
Dir. of Public Wor s Date:
Other: Date
STAFF COMMENTS:
,t.
White - Town Engineer Yellow Applicant
Pink - Director of. Planning Goldenrod - Engineering Department
I
1°wN aft
° " -own o-P S-0ad, vi��
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
OR-co TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511
July 29, 2003
Mrs. Linda Cloutier
57 Ordway Drive
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Mrs: Cloutier:
/Re: Appl#01-07P, Cloutier
This is to advise you that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved on July 22,2003 to release the
site bond for the above-referenced project in the amount of$10,800.00.
Advance arrangements should be made to pick up the bond to ensure that the necessary contact person(s)
will be available. If you have any further questions contact the Planning Department at 644-2511, ext.
252. Thank you.
Sincerely,
de4���
Kevin McCann, Chairman
Planning&Zoning Commission
KMcC/kah
cc: Town Engineer
}'Crt"�'l'F.�- G+di? 977Y7AG•`I'c^ "". qyc�. r
77
TOWN OF SOUTH`WINDSOR
STAFF SITE CHANGE
FOR SITE & SUBDIVISION
GENERAL:
CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSON „ Phone No2fl-ftz
S� I� ---
Address
Site Name P&Z No.
Owner--Lwba V.CL6,1172L Phone No. 1,44-p ' 0.
Contractor
Signature of Owner ' Date:
Signature of Design En Date.:3 tlo ::
—
CHANGE: (Describe location a d ature o change. Include
Four (4 ) copies of plan/profile of Change. )
wilv/
Reason for Change: (Why is change required)
APPROVALS: (As -Required)
Dir. Of PlanninIks
Date: 1K-
Town Engineer Date: '
Dir. of Public Date:
Other: Date:
STAFF COMMENTS:
White Town Engineer Yellow - Applicant
' Pink - Director of Planning Goldenrod - Engineering Department
9 g g �.:>
Volume 239 Paae N° 306i
f• . `.� - -- .,." q� Vollnie 239 Pate . No
307
.-
Ct....l..�L.,.i
WARRANTEE DEED (Sorvltonhip) No. 114M(10 PQ Nzzli,C.=I Iew
q 610 z.=
To all People'to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting:
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above_ granted and. bargained premises, with the ap-
KNOW YE, THAT I, CARL R. COTE, of the Town of Old 3uybrook, County purtenances thereof, unto them the said grantees and the survivor of them, and the heirs
of Middlesex and State of Connecticut
and assigns of the survivor of them forever, and to their own proper use and behoof. And f
also, I the said grantor do for my sel f, my heirs, executors,
for the consideration of ONE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($110,000.00) administrators,and assigns covenant with the said grantees,their survivor and such survivor's
zyy heirs and assigns, that at and until the ensealing of these presents, I am
well seized of the premises, as a good indefeasible estate in FEE SIMPLE;
received to my full satisfaction of ROBERT J. SHERIDAN and CAROL A. 3 and have a good right to bargain and sell the same in manner and form as is above
SHERIDAN, both of the Town of Enfield, County of Hartford and State of written; and that the same is free from all encumbrances whatsoever, except as is above
? }� - '
:1 30 written.
Connecticut 4
AND FURTHERMORE, I the said grantor do by these presents
do give, grant, bargain, sell and confirm unto the said - c bind my self and my 'heirs and assigns forever "
1
ROBERT J. SHERIDAN and CAROL A. SHERIDAN 4 to WARRANT AND DEFEND the above granted and bargained premises to them the said
t and the survivor of them, and the heirs and assigns of the survivor of them forever a certain grantees and to the survivor of them and to such survivor's heirs and assigns, against all
piece or parcel of land located in the Town of South Windsor, County claims and demands whatsoever, except as is above written. `
of Hartford and State of Connecticut known as 10.3 Palmer Drive as shows t �
on a map entitled "Property of William J.•Manning South )Yindsor, Conn. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I, CARL R. COTE, 4 }
Scale 1" - 100 Apr. 21, 1956 Revised May 22, 1956 Lots added Cecil W. jt
Brooks, Land Surveyor", which map is on file in the .South Windsor Town _-
Clerk's office, and being more particularly bounded and described
... " t
as follows, to wit: f a ha vo eu to set my hand this 29th day of March 19 78
NORTHERLY: By lots 1 through 14 as shown on said map, partly Si id and Dd ►U in t!u presexce o
by each in all one thousand three hundred fifty-six +
and eighty seven one hundredths (1,356.87) feet r� (�`'�' -• ••,t .. �...... ...........L.e<e,. Y.fi. . .t5e.......................... I:
i i e "- rCL
EASTERLY: By Lot
aone shown
h hundredths said
(map,
sixty-six and CARL R. COTE
!'f
sixty-seven4 Rat l�, row k:
' rc 4-'J--4'a.... �............ ........................
' SOUTHEASTERLY: By Felt Road; and -
3 4`. .....................................................................
WESTERLY: By land now or formerly of Edith House, eight hundred '
thirty-eight and two one hundredths (838.02) feet; `
containing12.5 acres, more or less. '- ............................................................................ i s
STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
Said premises are conveyed subject to taxes to the Town of South - _ COUNTY OF HARTFORD �• South Windsor March 29 ' 19 78 -
Windsor on the grand list of October 1, 1977. ' Personally Appeared CARL R. COTE
4 _ Signer(s) of the foregoing Instrument,and acknowled the s to be 11-2
free act and deed, before ine.
Received For Record
March 29, 1978 at 4:29 pm
Charles N. Enes, Town Clerk * "of C#MMi"i~0lsuper:.rC.ud
Gay/FS!!.horn a L/
s
STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
.; COUNTY OF ss. 19 LL _
-s 12 00 Cane ante Tax reoQlvQa � Personally Appeared
t . , as aforesaid, Signer of the foregoing Instrument, and �. .
„ acknowledged the same to be free act and deed as such F'
f and the free act and deed of said corporation/pamtership, before me.
Town Clark of South Windsor, "
Grantees'Address:
a. N.mry prbla I J.of Peau/Corutieiiora oJSrperior Corm t ,
................................................ ...............
t I ors
..
mastructign Of u1C - rnur. :�:.�.::::::� n e
EXISTING \WOOD \ SEE DETAIL P- o_ \ rn
GARAGE F N ACE 2 BOT. ELEV.=278.5^� PRQ SSE \
> eswale EN OSURE,�`\ N aA` \ o � RR
All proposed
SEE NOTE #12
IN
\ o
PROP
\ � GPR-
o \
S01
LOT # 1
211,656 S.F. a`10
' \
4.8 AC. \ R\
y \ R=30' /
c) R=30' \ 12' GRAVEL DRIVE 25' HEDGE ROW
\ (SEE DETAIL)/ EASEMENT /
12' GRAVEL DRIVE
\
SEE DETAIL
\ 30' TRAVEL EAS&4ENT
IN FAVOR OF LOT #3 (7701 S.F.)
J�9 Y
EXISTING
HOUSE
25' HEDGE ROW\ �Z�R=30' / / / EASEMENT N/F
SHARMA
be �f�✓El
/ 522 3q Ln 04
/
y PROP. GRADE
N/F EXISTING 3.1 MAX
GRADE
NJOHNKOSHI �4 ` iz'-<COMPACTED) ROLLED I
Z ���\ LOT #1OS -S7 PROOP R0.L 6 Q GRAVEL BASE.
/
�' 4 FILTER FABRIC,o\� �� 12' GRAVEL DRIVE MST EE CT-DOT SPEC.
!o SEE DETAIL � (� fe �5w& -D"V" d .
�' 12. EL GRAV DMVEWAY-
18' J� J
� COMMON NOT TO SCALE
D�
rn
oo: SEE DETAIL _ __ _� . __860.291-8755
�a5°4 GRAPHIC SCALE
N/F m I I isign
CAGNA �
Q 1 Dr rw, rofessionals, inc,
LOT #106 inc
h 40
tL ! Civil Engineers - Planners • S
c eYo
I lTTI CllTplllTp nll� - -
v rs CIS
E
al c. _a: ..a nan-7w- F ,8' coy ors .,
)
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR RECEIVE®
STAFF SITE CHANGE MAY 2 8 2002
FOR SITE & SUBDIVISION
GENERAL: SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT
-.,
CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSON_�fimJSA69V&I) Phone No.2 f I-0O�1-!�S
Address DQT.' ( aS S.S.AT4LtT& kh . S}Urh WiAJD&D- ,CT Ob071
Site Name C_UVTje4E_ &MDjVISSIaM P&Z No.
Owner L-1011 V,CL4ynLy Phone No.(„44-077a
Contractor
Signature of Owner A6aj ` Date:
Signature of Design En Dater 4Z
CHANGE: (Describe location a d ature o change. Include
Four (4 ) copies of plan/profile of Change. )
l9 Corn ve 2 --ro 8e l6 uhbe d_
W1 i2`' ,
Reason for Change: (Why is change required)
PAW5Tf2JT IUyT' De&1kO B/ Ci Tif& , QuA)Ems,
APPROVALS: (As Required)
Dir. Of Planning Date:
Town Engineer z Date:
Dir. of Public Wo4ks Date:
Other: Date:
STAFF COMMENTS:
C wVL, CC e` —
White - Town Engineer Yellow - Applicant
Pink - Director of Planning Goldenrod - Engineering Department
j;onst UCtion of the
EXISTING WOOD
\ � SEE DETAIIr—�' &
GARAGE Fl�3tRRNACE Z BOT. ELEV.=278.5 PROvs� \ o�
rVala akog the Sty EN(� OSURE rn H a p o_
a PR
pr 01
All oposod \�� \ ,� v uc
\� SEE NOTE #12 go \
Qx
PRpP- \
o \
LOT # 1
a �\
211,656 S.F. \ \
4.8 AC-
\ \ o
R=30'
�0 \ R=30' \ 12' GRAVEL DRIVE 25' HEDGE ROW
\ (SEE DET�)/ EASEMENT
12' GRAVEL DRIVE / �• D
SEE DETAIL
\
30' TRAVEL EASEMENTIL/ / '/0�� r{'
IN FAVOR OF LOT #3 (7701 S.F.) °�2 y
L
EXISTING (f Ll! SU
HOUSE
#103 \ \ / / S 91 / / /e C 6 6Q-,,?-
\
\ / / 25' HEDGE
EASEMENT N2,° 5 2a/\ R=30' / / NSF
SHARMA IV TO
/ SZ�39 LOI 04
6 /
/ Caro.
6 �'
PROPP.. GRADE
N�F EXISTING
X F Gee 1 1 ° DE
TOHNKOSEI y4
(n tff� 5,9 S - -STRIP TOPSOIL 4 12'-(COMPACTE3) ROLLED
1 O \ -PROOF RQL 4 -4 GRAVEL BASE.
Z / LA �. 6��' LOT #105 a 4 6 FILTER FABRIC-
- 0
- tT �� MUST MEET CT.DOT SPEC.
/ oo'0 5`9 � Wt �0/ 12' GRAVEL DRIVE n.ae.OI-zs
SEE DETAIL SECTI❑N
12' GRAVEL DRIV'EWA1T� « D�•A V 3
1 COMMON NOT TO SCALE
/
QkAV
SEE DETAIL
(
o` 860-291-8755
,$50 N223E GRAPHIC SCALE
+Q a
N/F
esign
O CAGNA _ ( IN FI.M.)... -- - _- ■ Ofessionals inc.
y Q LOT #106 1 inch = 40 &
_ _ _ ! CIA Engineers - Planners • Surveyors • C!S
E F 18' COMMON 06 ...,;;� ......+. ......,�..,. _._._..,._s:,...+ n�nw i
- 4
..,a+ s r �Yt 1. <
9 �" r Al
,: pqx p I
-
- -. .,.. -
t
,..
b.
GEI.N��t.
-
il
ilt.o 1.fit@ �u
, ll� �3.t, �11 �;
Ot�rn @jNrmw Pic� �.. Nd'
CQ17t t .$ ;4Y
I
,_,�_
,
R1.. G A crik�� GCat� GT1 a . c -" T'i�G]��z 1�
- 4'�: a - ter, .." IQ I . . , }
i
.: , .,,
-.
kV
e
Rnt ;" � }
�'
1 -
. py , }
x
th�� 1. A �
SURF
y fim
%
I�k
s
Y
Y' Y
N
x
».
._ i
:' �,
{) ,S
,�, 0
1
�+"'s av
Wh'.� ee 1�Pp�. � i
fink -� A G a ' Q ,$e-
' ' ? . ng� �x inch A a m q;I
..
�-
, w
: .t�..`... ': ::.a,'Sri:Sr_:'a,$c5' .1{ t ..::4 isxs4-I�Y�'rH ea o`h:,�c 13 ,�;+- at:L ,kG.nS. rg.?em.:•�"""difEd are6. S'�`2�re' ,>`SS.s 1.s �s_{.A�..�x3�.�y�ay3,' r:.
construction of the rni,?. :�. .....� .. — -
EXISTING \WOOD \ SEE DETAIL ` ^LLJ Q.�^ Z \
F NAA BOT. ELEV.=278.5 PR SSE,>� eawadc GARAGE EN OS �8,` NO ti � PR AD R a_ 0, \ c
proposed tE
SEE NOTE #12 so \
PROP
o \Q \ \
.a
LOT # 1
211,656 S.F.
4.8 AC.
\ %
�Ny R=30'
0 R=30' \ 12' GRAVEL DRIVE
25' HEDGE ROW
\ (SEE DETAIL)/ EASTMEN
12' GRAVEL DRIVE �. D
SEE DETAIL)
\ 30' TRAVEL EASEMENT
IN FAVOR OF LOT #3 (7701 S.F.) / / �o Za
EXISTINGSU
HOUSE / Z �5�
#103 \ \ / / 59 6 1� / / /f c
25 OW NZ�o,
5 ?_
EASEMENT l` R=30' / / N/F
com/ SHARMA /n lv TO
SZ�3g LO 04
6
/
PROP. GRADE -
PR MAX,
N/F EX
GRADE
JOHNKOSKI v4
-STRIP TOPSOIL p G DMPACTED) ROLLED
4 .4 GRAVEL BASE.
Z j� LOT #105 -PROOF-ROLL �p 4: ' GRAVEL
FILTER FABRIC
- MUST MEET CT.DOT SPEC.
6
0/ 12' GRAVEL DRIVE M.0aut-L6
SECTIQ
SEE DETAIL (g Ig (Iwa v l9�t I
t" "'•,9od� 12' GRAVELDRIVEWAYS 3
18' COMMON !n DP-ive) NOT TO SCALE
rn °o.' SEE DETAIL C r r- --860 291 8755
,85oa GRAPHIC SCALE
N223E N/F 40 o 40 esign
A
/ n LOT 06 - ( > ..�.... __.__.._-- rofessionals inc,
R 1 u� = 40 & ■ s
_. .._.. -
Civil Engineers Planners Surveyors - cis
IC]:) CC)f ITII ClliPIt.TO
E F' 18' COM ON
N;y r
; OW W �
Qf Q
O .aQ t R
O
V i 3 x 8 t •Mi he77
.a r
.E �. .
00
t s
y,
to
"70, W'
y /�.�
�r 't i1 RiAi� t a �t 'S? 1 �% •w �'�`}F'P t a �.fis r t.i FM'y.�-.fi- +d.y..
n000t
r�
.s�A x F. � s • �.
• 1M4rYaM•fYr� { �. - .
{ + t
� � t
k„ ��.y[ y�� �'Lr �a�y��s�+y y'� 7 fT., ,, •ry�:'•�:�y `¢(� ._may •�•�+�._ p: •�},{.,i ♦� R .�M L 41f�W. �i� ., t ' ..nM�'J rJ' �"+ .1�17i r ep.tu
F
l v yV/
! v
RELEASE TRANSMITTAL
r DATE: �'✓�7 ��.Z
APPLI
ADD lc ��.Ctz e� Ord J'C
JECT LOCATION/ADDRESS ] (�?� G�-E �n c W. 'U(_ LOT
P&Z OR IWA/CC APPLICATION NUMBER P�U —0`�
SUB ACCOUNT NUMBER 5S 6 U C7
ORIGINAL BOND AMOUNT J(,.; g o U h e c„,
Fkas,,�
Please release the bond indicated above as all of the required
work has been completed.
�h-7
NAME DATE
BY cX �.► c� e v
CHECK # ISSUED DATE
H.\Planning DepanmenAPZC Secretary\forms\BOND RELEASE TRANSMITTAL 08-27-01.doc