HomeMy WebLinkAboutLitigation TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Minutes (Verbatim) - November 24, 1998
Application #98-58P, Shady Brook SRD
Good evening Mr. DeMallie, I assume you're here to present this application.
Yes, Chairman Castro and members of the commission, good evening.
That's correct. I'm Peter DeMa.11ie. Principle of Design Professionals, office
here is South Windsor. We're representing the applicant, B&M Enterprises.
Brian Edward's, as you know, who is seated in the second to last row there
on your right. Who is proposing a senior residence development known
Shady Brook Village.
With this application we're just covering a couple of things. First of all we're
creating the building lot 9.11 acre lot for the senior residence development.
We're requesting siteplan approval for the senior residence development.
And we're also requesting special exception to enable the senior residence
development to go forward.
So it's really three items rolled into one application.
Our design team, if I could go around the room to present them to you aside
from myself. The planner for the project, Karen to your left, Karen
Isherwood is the Project Engineer. Seated behind her is Robert Arsenault,
Chief of Engineering for Design Professionals. To his left is Rosemary
Aldridge, she's the Landscape Architect from Planametrics in Avon. To her
left is Bruce Hilson, he's with Traffic Engineering Solutions from
Glastonbury, he's a Traffic Engineer. Seated behind Rosemary is Dan
Wright, from Dan Wright Associates, who is the Project Architect. And also
representing the owners of the project Harold Cumming's, who is the
Attorney, and I think that's it.
2
The location of the project, most of you probably reviewed the plans, but if I
may for the edification of the public, the site is located on the north side of
Strong Road. That's between the site entrances is equal distance between
Bancroft Lane and Gorski Drive. Again on the north side, or other side of the
street from that single-family home development. It is west of which is west
of Route 5, in a residential zone, A-40 zone and is also west of the industrial
zone. The industrial zone does go from basically from our entrance drive to
the east and is also opposite of about half of the I believe it's called Gorski
Estates, the development south of us.
So as for site location that will cover that. The original submission that we
had made, another project entitled Brookside Landing, which was withdrawn,
was for a similar 20-unit senior residence development, but also it contained a
public cul-de-sac street. And it also contained two single-family homes on
individual lots on that public cul-de-sac street. After a meeting with Town
Staff, they suggested a private non-cul-de-sac street, in lieu of the public cul-
de-sac street. And we removed the two building lots from the application and
public cul-de-sac nature of it.
We also added on some acreage which is encumbered by a conservation
easement in the front left frontage along Strong Road. The easement is in
favor of the South Windsor Land Conservation Trust.
South Windsor Land Conservation Trust at present owns a significant tract of
land to the west, north, east and in fact south of this particular development.
They were approached for the frontage area and they agreed to convey that to
my client in the event there were a conservation easement over it. Which
would encumber it just the same as if they were to own it for conservation
purposes.
So there will be walking trails, what have you, through out the, what was it
16 acres now?
Approximately 15.
Approximately 15 acres of land that the South Windsor Land Conservation
Trust owns primarily to the north and west of the site. And of course that will
be available for the residents of this development and also residents in the
surrounding neighborhood to utilize the walking trails that they'll be
t
3
developing throughout that which is independent. Completely independent of
this application.
Mr. Edward's, right now, is only involved with the subject 9.11 acres. The
remaining land to the east is owned by Bancroft Brook LLC, and the other
land surrounding it is owned by the South Windsor Land Conservation Trust.
The subject application tonight, Shady Brook Village, as I indicated is 9.11
acre tract. It's a proposed senior residence development, which is as we've
done in the past. As Mr. Edward's has done in the past, is an elderly
condominium form of ownership. They're proposing 20 dwelling units. All
with an attached garage. All with a full basement. All with two bedrooms.
Approximately 1,400 square feet of living space. One floor living. They're a
low profile ranch-style homes.
Four of those, four of the buildings will be, as you can see around the cul-de-
sac there. Four of the buildings will be attached residences with four units
each, and if I can maybe use this pointer here. Those one, two, three, four
right there, those are the attached units. Four to a building. And then we
have in this area down here, we have four units, all detached. Two of which
have a two-car garage, which is new. And two of which have a one-car
garage.
Bailey Circle, which is the street that'll enter this development, again is a
private street. It will;terminate in an island green of, cul-de-sac if you will.
Not unlike that at Porter Share.
There is a common parking area, with a total of 13 parking spaces within that
island, for visitor parking. There are also 22 garage spaces. Again that's one
for each unit, plus a second space for two of the detached units, as I
mentioned.
There are 22 driveway parking spaces for a total of 2.87 parking spaces per
unit, or 57 total. Your regulations require 30, which is I believe one and a
half spaces per unit.
The conservation easement area, which is if I can point down right in that
area there, that is a two acre encumbrance for the South Windsor Land
Conservation Trust. And there are no improvements whatsoever, proposed in
4
kalgAtL_ that area at all. It'll be identical in nature to the conservation area that they
have on the balance of their abutting tract.
Your regulations allow for eight dwelling units for net buildable acre. That's
after we take out for the wetlands, floodplain and any steep slopes on the
property. And we show 2-1/2 units per net buildable acre, the computations
as shown on the plans. Inpervious coverage you allow up to 60% on the
property over the 9.11 acres, and we're proposing 16%. Substantially
reduced from what is allowed.
This is a first mixed use single-family and multi-family elderly condominium
in the senior residence development. A form of ownership that's been
proposed. The first development for individual single-family homes, of
course, was Collins Hill one and two, along Sullivan Avenue. That's been
approved and actually fully built out. So that was the first detached complex,
elderly condominium. And the first attached complex was Wyndemere
Court, on Nevers Road, which is I believe 14 units, the first one done by Mr.
Edward's, both of those. And that was the first of all the senior residence
developments. All the others, of course, Porter Share, and Collins Crossing
were attached 20 unit senior residence development.
So there's a little bit of a mix mixing the single-family and the multi-family on
this particular site. Mr. Edward's and his advisors on this, marketing people,
are convinced that there is such a demand and they've been getting a lot of
feedback from many prospective purchasers of these types of units. And it
seems like there's demand to go to both single-family and multi-family as
your regulations were amended to allow. And we're trying this out on this
development here.
We have incidentally, we have submitted a separate special exception
application, as of this date, for one individual lot, that area right there where
there is a house, it's 2.73 acres in size. It's for an interior lot, it's not the
subject of the hearing tonight. It will be the subject of the hearing, I
understand it might be as early as December 8. What we're requesting is that
the commission defer any action on this application until after you've heard
that particular item, and after you've acted on that particular item. By virtue
of the fact that your interior lot regulations do not allow a interior lot
subdivision after the first lot is cut out, which would be the case with this
subject application.
5
I'd like to bring a few things to your attention, first is that there is a 50' right-
of-way along, a common 50' right-of-way, where the entrance in fee that we
have to our development, which is right in this area right here. Glen Knafel,
the property owner north and east of our entrance drive, has an unbuilt lot.
And that has rights over our right-of-way. So in other words, that lot could
be access potentially, by virtue of the legal instrument he has on file over our
proposed private street.
Also, I'd like to bring to your attention, I'll submit for the record, that Mr.
Edward's has secured from the abutter on either side of the entrance drive,
authorization to clear any branches, vegetation which may be obstructing the
siteline for the entrance drive. That's the Winton Property and also the
Charette Property, and I'll just submit those to Mr. Iazzetta if I may?
The commission has zoned this land for residential uses. The property to the
east is the industrial zone, including that across from Bancroft Brook, or
Bancroft Lane as I mentioned.
It has been brought to our attention that there is some noise generated
sometimes at odd hours by industrial use to the east, known as Preston
Trucking. It's been brought to our attention and I'd just like to bring a few
things for the record.
First of all, our particular site, the closet unit to their property line is 500',
approximately. That's that single-family residence right there. That's the
closest we are distant from their property line. Which is a relatively
significant distance, but as you know sound does travel.
Also, I'd like to bring to your attention just that not only in your zoning
regulations, but also, by virtue of a town ordinance and statutes, any noise
that exceeds, in other words any objectionable noise which exceeds noise
level between industrial properties and residential properties, is an
enforceable action by your zoning enforcement officer. And as you know
he's got a meter. It's not as good as the one that the police department has
but he does have a meter for monitoring any noise generating between
industrial and residential properties.
6
Also, the police department, within the last year or so, secured a much more
sophisticated instrument for measuring noise levels between industrial and
residential properties and in fact police officers received training in the use of
that instrument and they are they of course are in charge of enforcing the
town ordinances of the town. And there is a noise ordinance of the Town of
South Windsor which is in addition to the zoning ordinance that you have
embodied within your zoning regulations.
So you have, through your zoning enforcement officer, through the police
department, there are measures to enforce the state, local ordinance and the
zoning regulations regarding any noise that might be generated, which is
objectionable. And we trust that and we hope that that would be enforced so
that nothing objectionable is as far as noise goes, permeates off the industrial
property into residential areas. And of course, this commission has zoned this
area for residential purposes.
The application was unanimously approved by the Inland/Wetlands Agency
last Wednesday night, that's on November 18. Just to let you know they
were considering, during their deliberations, they considered stormwater
drainage, the two detention basins. And how we took effectively, in our
opinion, took measures to control erosion and to minimize impact on the
wetlands. There is very tiny wetlands impact. It's only where the two
detention basins that we have in the northwest and northeast comers of our
site, discharge into down toward Bancroft Brook.
In fact, Jeff Folger recommended that he seek the advice of the soil
conservation services engineer, who was brought in on the project. And he
had made some recommendations for modifications to the plan which were
incorporated.
They also looked at issue of flooding, and we have zero runoff increase as our
engineers are going to represent to you. And we're not having an impact at
that. There are other things that Mr. Folger indicated, in his opinion, which
were affecting flooding. And he indicated it was predominately downstream
obstructions, beyond the control of us or immediate abutters.
i
Of course, we've gone before the Architecture Review Committee, and I trust
their recommendations will be favorable. We still need to go to the Water
Pollution Control Authority.
t
7
We have notified a little bit twist on the norm. We have notified, at the
request of the Inland/Wetlands Agency, and only with this application, this is
the first one I can think of. We notified all abutters, plus all parties who have
properties within 500' of our subject site, of this application, as well as the
Wand/Wetlands Agency Application. We did that by certified mail/return
receipt. And that was provided to the Inland/Wetlands Agency.
Next, I'd like to introduce Karen Isherwood, who is project engineer,just to
review quickly the engineering aspects of the plan.
Karen?
Good evening. For the record my name is Karen Isherwood, and I'm the
U,�Ucje0ct Engineer for Design Professionals, here is South Windsor.
There are only a few engineering issues related to this site. Bailey Circle is a
24' wide private road used for access to the 20 unit senior residence
development and the single family lot.
Public utilities will be are available in Strong Road. Water, directly at the
intersection of Bailey Circle and Strong Road and sanitary sewer will be
connected via gravity flow at the intersection of Gorski and Strong Road.
We're planning on bringing the sanitary sewer up the remainder of Strong
Road to Bailey Circle and bringing it up Bailey Circle to the residences.
Strong water attenuation and quality are achieved using attention basins.
We've designed two dry basins in the northwest and the northeast corner of
the lot. We've designed the dry basins to maximize detention and minimize
peak flow. Doing this has allowed us to achieve zero increase and runoff,
which is required. Both detention basins also discharge to Bancroft Brook.
The soils at discharge are classified as , and are known as
being highly erodable. Therefore, we need to take extra precautions to
minimize this chance. We're providing tow drains along the perimeter to
intercept groundwater and prevent bleeding through the soils which could
cause erosion. We're also providing two plunge pools at each discharge.
One at the top of the slopes and one at the bottom of the stone rip rap
channel, at the tow of the slope.
8
We are providing an operation to maintenance schedule which will detail
,�& emporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures. And
we're also noting in our sequence of construction, the need to stabilize these
detention basins before we put any stormwater, before we discharge any
stormwater into them.
We are in receipt of the town engineer's comments and are able to comply to
all of his comments. At this point this is the extent of our engineering for this
site, as I said it was very limited. And we will be able to answer any
questions following the presentation, regarding and sharing. Thank you.
Rosemary Aldrige, the Landscape Architect from Planametrics next, is going
to present her landscape plan, including buffering.
Good evening my name is Rosemary Aldrige. I'm a licensed landscape
*qA- architect with Planametrics from Avon. And I've prepared the planting plan
and lighting plan for the project.
The purpose with the planting plan was threefold. First of all to provide some
buffering and screening to our residential neighbors. To provide some shade
in the parking areas, drives and on the west and south side of the units. And
also to provide color and texture, seasonal interest in all four seasons of the
year.
Just briefly, the there's a mix of planting on the site. A mix of evergreen
trees, deciduous trees, and shrubs and ground covers. And the first issue with
buffering and screening to our residential neighbors.
On the south side of the site, I've provided an area of a mix of evergreen trees
and shrubs. Actually, let me change the drawing so you can actually see the
planting plan. So you see, again you see an area along the south side of our
property line a mix of evergreen trees and shrubs. For the evergreen trees
I've chosen Fraser Fir. Deciduous trees some white birch and also Northern
Red Oak. For shrubs a mix of some shade tolerant shrubs as well because we
do have some existing trees along our property lines. And so those this
planted area would be on the north side of existing trees. So we need some
shade tolerant shrubs, some vibernums, witch hazel and that type of thing.
9
Atvy�
Tall growing plants that will fill in from ground level up to eight to 12 in
height. So there's a mix of those with very tall growing evergreen trees.
Along the driveways and around the parking lot we have Northern Red Oak,
we have some Shablow in some of the frontyards here, which is one of our
small native deciduous trees. Just providing some shade and some color and
seasonal interest for the fronts of the units.
We do have some existing trees all along this north side of the property which
will remain and along the west side of the property that will remain. And
then looking out from the backs of the units, again some seasonal interests,
some small flowering trees. Some crabapples, again some Shablow, some
native shrubs such as Winterberries and Bayberries, again for that seasonal
interest. And then we have also, the two detention basins. One in the
northwest side and I guess you'd call it the northeast side. And on these
slopes on the sides of the basins I've proposed some Red Twig Dogwoods,
against some viburnums and winterberries, those native habitat type shrubs.
And then at the tops of the slopes where we're dealing with some rather dry,
sandy soils, again the bayberries, which will do very nicely in that type of
situation.
So, as far as general the screening especially, it's really all around the site, a
mix of evergreens and deciduous. The intention is not to create a solid hedge
of material but some very natural groupings and so prominent views from
residential neighbors to our south would be very subtlety screened by
strategic groupings of trees with tall growing shrubs in between.
I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you.
We have a few more presenters. First I'd like to introduce to you Dan
Wright, whose the project architect. And Dan has some plans that he'd like
to present to you for the single-family detached residences. And also the
multi-family attached residences.
My name is Dan Wright and I'm the Architect for the project. My office is in
Vernon and 49 Hartford Turnpike. The first drawing, closest to the
commission on the right, on the floor, is a plan and elevations of the single-
family (tape change)
10
uh the drawing on the easel is the elevation of the multiple unit building.
And then to the left on the floor is are some photographs of the Collins
project, which the units are basically the same units and the materials be the
same, and so on. For Shady Brook we've got four detached units. 16
attached units and four buildings of four units which you've heard. Arranged
in a New England green kind of a format. Two detached units have 2-car
garages. All the other units have a single car garage, attached. All units are
one-story and full basement. The detached units are 11400 square feet a
piece. The eight end units of the attached buildings are 1,398 square feet a
piece. The eight interior units are 1,352 square feet, slightly smaller units.
All the units contain two-bedrooms, two full baths, a living room, kitchen,
dining room, private deck. A main level laundry. Lots of closet space and
cathedral ceilings.
There is an option for handicapped accessibility to a number of the units.
They're traditional style buildings. Low maintenance material exteriors.
Earth tone clapboard style vinyl siding, with white trim. Which give us a
two-tone, two-color appearance for all of the buildings.
The different attached buildings, the four different attached buildings would
be of different colors, the entire building would be the same color with white
trim. But each of the buildings would be slightly different color, in earth
tones.
There would be some brick areas, some brick focus areas. Asphalt shingles,
again in earth tones. And the building height would be approximately 22'.
As you see on the floor the third drawing, or the third (cough) the third board
is in fact the units that have been built at Collins Crossing. We envision these
units to be basically the same, very similar. The floor plans are the same and
it's not often that you get to take photographs of a proposed project.
And in fact what is labeled as Shady Brook Village should probably read
proposed Shady Brook Village. And questions?
Okay.
11
�Uh, Bruce Hilson from Traffic Engineering Solutions will be addressing you
regarding traffic aspects of the development.
Good evening. My name's Bruce Nilson I'm with Traffic Engineering
Solutions. My office is located in Glastonbury. I've been doing traffic
engineering in the State of Connecticut for 20 years. I'm a registered
professional engineer in Connecticut as well as other states in New England.
We performed a traffic study for the proposed development. It's entitled
Brookside Landing, which was the original name of the development. It's
since been changed. The report was dated August of 1998.
We addressed essentially the innersection of Bailey Circle with Strong Road.
The amount of traffic, the volume of traffic that's going to be generated by
the 20-22 units on site, is going to be very diminutive.
For instance during the morning peak hour fewer that 20 vehicles an hour,
both coming and going, 13 one way, six the other thereabouts. In the
afternoon, again, fewer than 20 vehicles during the entire hour.
So we focused on the intersection of Bailey Circle and Strong Road. We
looked at two aspects. One the ability of that intersection to handle the
traffic. What's its operating level of service. And secondly, whether or not
the sitelines would be adequate to allow vehicles to safely enter and exit the
site.
Strong Road runs in this direction, east/west. About 700' to the west is Main
Street and to the east is Route 5, John Fitch Highway.
Bailey Circle will intersect from the north, and what we found is with the
traffic volumes that are presently traveling Strong Road and the traffic
volumes coming and going from Bailey Circle, that all movements, left turns,-
right turns, entering and leaving will operate at a level of service A. Which is
the best level of service that you can achieve.
They also looked at the sitelines looking from Bailey Road to the east, and
then Bailey Road, excuse Bailey Circle, toward the west first and then toward
the east. What we found is looking toward the west we can see 470'. And
12
the reason we can't see any further is because the road goes down hill rather
abruptly and cars disappear beyond that.
We can achieve that siteline by clearing some a couple of small trees in the
front yard of our neighbor. And as indicated earlier, we do have a letter from
the neighbor willing to allow that to take place so that we can achieve the
sitelines.
As a point of reference the looking toward the west from Gorski Drive, which
is in this general area here, looking toward the left. Their siteline is about
305'. So we're more than 150' better as far as our intersection site distance
is concerned. Looking from Bailey Circle toward the west then from Gorski
Drive looking toward the west.
Looking toward the east, the siteline is about 500'. A little better than 500'.
We compared those with the intersection site distances recommended by the
Connecticut Department of Transportation in their design guidelines. And we
used the prevailing 85th percentile speed. We obtained the 85th percentile
speed in conjunction with the traffic counsel we made. We put a machine out
there with tubes going across the road. It counted the volume of traffic. And
also the speed at which the traffic was traveling.
We found that the 85th percentile speed, in the eastbound direction, coming
from the west going this way, is about 41 miles per hour.
Traveling in the westbound direction from the right, going toward the left, is
40 miles per hour.
In the report we have a table that presents the minimum as well as the
desirable intersection site distances. We find that looking toward the right we
fall midway, and in fact a little better toward the higher end of that
framework, minimum to desirable for the prevailing 85th percentile speed.
Looking toward the left, or toward the east, we found that the intersection site
distance that we're able to provide will virtually meet the desirable
intersection site distance presented in the Connecticut DOT highway design
guidelines.
13
Again, let me reemphasize the 85th percentile speed is the speed at which 85
percent of the drivers drive at or less than. And that speed is 41 miles an
hour in one direction and 40 in the opposite direction. And in fact, we found
from our speed study that fewer than one percent of all the vehicles that drive
Strong Road, travel at speeds of 50 miles an hour or greater. That's five
vehicles during an entire day. Out of the 500 vehicles that travel Strong
Road.
Our conclusion is, that we feel that the level of service, being level of Service
A, is very good. And that the sitelines that are provided, both entering and
leaving Bailey Circle, are more than adequate to allow drivers to enter and
leave safely.
We conclude that the development of this 22 residential units, will not have
any detrimental impact on traffic operations or safety in the area.
I'd be happy to answer any questions after the completion of our
presentation. Thank you.
Also, we have two more short presentations. Hal Cumming's would like to
introduce something into the record, followed by Cile Decker.
For the record Peter, I take great exception to your opening remarks. This is
MTnot an elderly project. This is a senior project. Anybody 55 or older can live
their. And since I'm 53, I'm not ready to call myself elderly. Senior maybe,
but not elderly.
I my approach, I'm submitting this exhibit is a copy of the proposed
deed from the South Windsor Land Conservation Trust to Bancroft Brook
Limited Liability Company by way of a little background. I represent both
Bancroft Brook Limited Liability Company and also the South Windsor Land
Trust. Sometime ago the current owner, Bancroft Brook Limited Liability
Company deeded the acreage to the South Windsor Land Trust. South
Windsor Land Trust is the present fee owner of all of the adjoining land
between the proposal area and the Bancroft Brook including Bancroft Brook
and the land to the other side, to the north of Bancroft Brook. And also to the
west.
R
14
The land trust acquires parcels two ways. Either we'll take an outright deed
in fee. Or we'll take a conservation easement. As far as the land trust is
concerned we don't care whether we own or whether we have all rights of
control over the property for conservation purposes.
As you review that deed, you will note that in fact we use the format of the
South Windsor Land Conservation Trust Easement when the town takes land.
Under a conservation easement. The same language is used as in this deed.
Essentially when the property owner, Bancroft Brook, deeded the land to the
land trust at that time the intent was a town road going in where you see
Bailey Circle. And at that point the land owner had no issue and just deeded
the land to the land trust.
Subsequently, when it was discovered that the town road requirements
wouldn't be met, the property owner approached the land trust and requested
as a part of the application, that this area be reconveyed.
Since the land trust would've taken rights under an easement in the first
place, as far as we're concerned, it's a neutral transaction and the area that
you see to be deeded to land trust with the conservation easement back, as
you look at that deed you will see the land trust has full control over the
property. Nothing can be built. Nothing can be done on that property. And
also it's total right of access for land trust purposes.
Again, I wanted to go into that a little bit simply because the land trust is very
concerned that the town realize, and this board realize, that it takes it's
responsibility to maintain in the natural state, the properties that it acquires,
either by deed or by easement. And the practical affect is that property will
continue in a conservation state in a natural state, under the full control of the
land trust, as you see in the deed. Thank you.
Cile Decker from Cile Decker Associates would like to make a few remarks
regarding the demand for this project based on her experience.
Good evening. For the record my name is Cile Decker. And my company is
Coldwell Banker/Cile Decker Associates. I have been, my company has
marketed now for subdivisions for B&M Enterprises which are Senior
Residential Developments and Hal's point is very well taken..
15
Just for a little background explanation. 55 is the magic age. We actually
had one person move in who was going to be 55 by the time the closing
happens. So you can see we have the younger end of the spectrum. And
recently we had a closing with a woman who had just celebrated her 91 st
A
birthday just prior to closing. And that was in the last subdivision that we've
just completed.
So I want you to understand-that there's-a broad spectrum of people who are
very, very interested in this project.
The kinds of people that we're getting into these projects are varied. Some of
them are people that have lived in South Windsor for years, that now want to
scale down and decided they wanted a smaller home. Some are people who
travel a lot. And they decide they don't want to have their big homes
anymore, they want to have a different lifestyle,an easier lifestyle. And they
can leave for six months out of the year and feel comfortable with these kinds
of units.
Many of the people are coming from out of town, and out of state. And they
seem to be people who have children who live in this area. And they now
want to come and be near their-, they've maybe never lived here. And they
want to be near their children and their grandchildren, etcetera. So, the
spectrum of people is very, very broad and very,_very appealing. And we've
done, I think B&M and the people who've been involved with these projects
in providing aesthetically the things that people want. As well as all those
things that are needed to suit their lifestyles. We've studied different ways of
going and we know what the needs are and the kinds of things we've done.
With the central air, and the first floor laundries, and the attached garages and
the full basements and all those things. These are the things that we find that
are needed.
We do follow-up with the people that have moved in and people are very,
very happy with the units.
We have a list of people that call the office and say if something comes
available at either Wyndemere or Porter's Share or either one of the Collins
Crossing, Nevers Road or Sullivan Avenue, please let us know. Well we just
don't have any turnover in those areas, because people are very, very much
satisfied with them.
16
And right now, without trying to do any marketing or those kinds of things, I
can tell you that we have quite a list of people who are interested to know
about the next project. Who've called us in.
We've even had people who've offered to give us deposit money on the next
project. Obviously I can't take deposit money. But, not even knowing what
the projects going to be. Not even knowing, really, where it's going to be.
But just that there is that kind of interest.
So, I guess my purpose here tonight is to tell you if you have any reservations
about the need for any additional program like this. An additional subdivision
like this, it's certainly there. I could probably provide you with at least 20
names right now, of people who are interested. And it's very well known in
the community that these projects are doing what they are supposed to do.
And I'll be here later if you have any questions. Thank you.
Thank you Cile. I'd just like a few concluding remarks. You've heard from
our traffic engineer. And he indicated that we're going to have low, I think
the term he used was diminutive, levels of traffic volumes egressing and
ingressing to and from this project. We also learned-that the siteline is more
than adequate at the street intersection. In fact it far exceeds that of Gorski
Drive,just to the west of us in the subdivision to the south.
We've also learned that the landscape architectural aspects, I think as
Rosemary reviewed how she's proposing to landscape the development. It's
beautifully landscaped and also she's has adequate buffer treatments to screen
this particular development from abutting uses and vice versa for the abutters.
Also, we've learned that the engineering aspects of the development, in terms
of flooding, we have zero runoff increase. We're going to have zero impact
on the floor waters down in Bancroft Brook. That, of course, is primarily
contributed to downstream effects.
We've also, if you look at your purpose of the Senior Residence
Development, I urge you to take a look at that section 412A, which addresses
the need for senior housing in the community and how this type of
development can meet and address those needs, unmet needs, as Cile Decker
indicated there is significant unmet needs in this community.
17
And also if you look at that same Section D, your review criteria for special
exception in here and you go down through that list and you'll find that we
meet or exceed those conditions or requirements for a senior residence
development. For example, we're in close proximity to permanent open
space as the South Windsor Land Conservation Trust land is contiguous to
this. It will have walking trails throughout that available. There are other,
there are houses of worship in relative close proximity to this site.
And recognize also, that this is a development that's designed for the
motoring public for residents who will have motor vehicles. In fact, every
single unit has a one or two-car garage. So they can easily get, go down
Strong Road and get to the other facilities in close proximity within the Town
of South Windsor.
So we believe we've presented a development which will have extremely low
impact on the neighborhood. It can be nestled in here. Very low traffic
volumes as Dan Wright indicated. Attractive residential scale. In fact, only
one story buildings and with the buffer treatments you're really not going to
know that this development is there. With the exception of the entrance
driveway which will be a privately maintained road.
And as far as the tax impact, they're going to be paying their taxes, all the
residences here. Residents here. And they're also going to be maintaining
the entire infrastructure here. There are no expenditure of funds on the part of
the town to maintain any part of the infrastructure. It's not a public road.
Not a public storm drain system.
So it has very low impact and reasonable taxes that will be paid to the town
so it will have a net benefit to the town from a tax perspective.
And, of course, the no impact on the school system whatsoever other than
dollars available to assist the school system.
So with that we'd like to conclude our formal presentation. But everyone
here is available for any questions from the commission. Or questions from
the public through the chair. And we'd be glad to address any of that. Thank
you.
18
Thank you Mr. DeMallie. Mr. Iazzetta, I believe you have some Planning
Department comments. And Engineering comes next.
Good evening. Unfortunately Marcia is unable to attend this meeting. She
was involved in an automobile accident so I will be filling in for her. I do
have her comments here, which I will read for you for the record.
This is a request for a resubdivision, special exception and siteplan approval
to construct a 20-unit senior residence development on Strong Road.
The subject site property is 11.84 acres, with one lot of 9.1 acres for the
SRD, and the remaining parcel with 2.73 acres.
The applicant has just filed an additional application for a special exception to
allow an interior lot on the 2.73 acre parcel. If an interior lot is to be created
from that remainder parcel, it must be done prior to or prior to simultaneous,
that's the way it reads, with this SRD subdivision. Or the right to create an
interior lot will be forfeited under our interior lot regulations.
Number 2. There are existing single family residents to the south and west of
the proposed Shady Brook Senior Residence Development. To the east is an
industrially zoned land and uses, including Preston Trucking. There is an
existing 50' right-of-way along the new driveway to the industrially zoned
rear property currently owned by Glen Knafel (see sheet three of your
drawings for location of the Knafel property).
To the northeast is property of the South Windsor Land Conservation Trust.
We would also note the presence of a 10' strip of land belonging to the Land
Trust surrounding most of the property. The town staff are concerned about
this 10' strip of land, as it will be exceptionally difficult for (tape change) . . .
for residents and neighbors to differentiate where Shady Brook land ends and
the 10' strip of Land Trust property begins.
Number three. The proposed density is 2.4 units per net buildable acre.
Maximum eight units per net buildable acre are allowed. Maximum number
of units in a senior residence development is 20 units. Proposed impervious
coverage is 16%, 60% is allowed. Required parking is 1.5 spaces per unit, or
30 spaces. The applicant has provided 57 spaces or 2.85 spaces per unit. It
appears that all other zoning requirements are met.
19
Number four. There are regulated wetlands on the site. The Inland/Wetlands
iy6t'12� Conservation Commission approved the application on November 18th, with
a $10,000 bond and an approval condition requiring the design engineer to
oversee the installation of the detention basins. If this application is approved
it will bring the total SRD units approved up to 72. The maximum number of
units that the commission may approve is curing capped at 115.
Number six. Public water is available on Strong Road. Public sewer can be
extended from Gorski Drive. WPCA approval is required. If the
development will have curbside refuse collection and recycling, a hold
harmless agreement and permission to enter form, will need to be provided to
the town, to allow the refuse and recycling vehicles to enter the site.
Number seven. Sergeant Tom Field, the South Windsor Police Department
Traffic Authority, has reviewed this proposal and has the following
comments. This is dated September 18th, 1998.
I viewed the site on Strong Road, Shady Brook Village, and found that
existing shrubs and trees at 90 Strong Road blocked the siteline west. The
view to the east was also blocked by shrubs and trees and SNET telephone
pole #2204.
Strong Road at this site has very little traffic going by the proposed road.
The two proposed houses are very close to the existing Preston Tracking
terminal. We have had and continue to receive complaints of noise from
residential homeowners living near industrial zones and truck terminals.
Signed E. Thomas Field, Sergeant, South Windsor Police Services, Traffic
Unit Manager.
There is a 25' buffer requirements around the site perimeter in addition to the
yard setbacks. The applicant has included cross-sections, as required, to
demonstrate the buffer.
Number Nine. The Human Services Department has provided a
memorandum regarding the provision of senior residence development.
20
jell This is dated October 12, 1998, from Human Services and Adult and Senior
Services Director. Subject: Senior Residence Development.
In response to your request for input from a senior resident's perspective,
please be advised as follows: According to a survey of American's age 50
and older, done by the American Association of Retired Persons, quote
understanding senior housing into the next century, end quote, dated
September 1996, older people are very diverse in their housing needs and
preferences.
Seventy percent of respondents believe.that their current residences where
they will always live. This finding seems consistent with an 1989 and 1992
survey also conducted by AARP.
It seems fair to assume that thirty percent of the senior population will be
looking at other ways to meet their housing needs.
Senior residence development's seem to be well received by the seniors that
have moved into these homes. In keeping with the overall finding of AARP
survey most of these folks plan on staying in these homes and never having to
move again.
A portion, approximately 1/3 of this overall senior population will at some
time, or regularly, use the senior center, require transportation. In home
services. Meals on wheels. Outreach. Medical. Education. Social Services.
Family Meetings, etcetera. It is important to note that this will have an
impact on the senior service delivery system in South Windsor, as this
addition to our senior population ages in place. Signed Valerie Bellard?
Continuing. Number Ten. The Special Exception criteria's for review of an
SRD include:
Traffic impacts will not be detrimental to the residential character of
the neighborhood;
There will be minimal adverse effects on existing uses in the area;
Surrounding property values will be conserved and the character of the
neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted;
21
Impacts will be not be detrimental to the capacity of the present and
proposed utilities; street, drainage system, sidewalks and other elements of
the infrastructure;
The land is physically suited to the proposed use and minimal adverse
environmental impacts are created;
The SRD proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Town Plan of Development;
The SRD proposal will help meet senior housing needs of South
Windsor;
The location of the SRD facility is within reasonable proximity to
community facilities or amenities; which serve the needs of elderly residents;
or is within reasonable proximity to indoor/outdoor activity centers, or is
within close proximity to or contains permanent open space;
The SRD facility has been designed to meet the needs of handicapped
residents or visitors;
The architectural design is aesthetically pleasing and low profile.
If this application is approved the Planning Department requests no additional
approval conditions other than as already noted.
And this is from Marcia Banach, Director of Planning. Take a breath.
Okay, the engineering perspective as Karen indicated we have about a page
and a half of housekeeping items, but I'd like to highlight a few of them. As
little as possible after reading Marcia's comments.
We have reviewed the revised drawings dated 11/17, for the proposed Shady
Brook Village and have the following comments.
Strong Road's street lines should be established by monumentation and deed
along the frontage of this property. There is two pieces that they have along
Strong Road.
r
22
A catch basin should be placed on the west side of Bailey Circle at Strong
Road.
Outlet protection is required at the outlets of putting drain outlet pipes.
The profile from station zero plus 51 to three plus 50 plus or minus, should be
revised to eliminate the changes in grade between two plus 0 and two plus 50.
Sanitary sewers as shown, is at a 2.4% slope. The town standards indicate
that the velocity in the pipe should be greater than or equal to 2.5' per second
in the upper reaches of sewers. Applicant must show that a minimum of 2.5'
per second flow is proposed.
I also have a comment from Jeffrey Folger the Zoning Enforcement
Inland/Wetlands Officer. It's dated 11/23/98. It concerns the location of the
stormwater outfall on Shady Brook Village. He says; I would recommend
moving the location of the level spreader associated with the northwestern
stormfall outfall approximately 30' to the south. Which will put the spreader
just south of the number 75 wetland flag.
In examining the location of the proposed northwestern stormwater outfall, it
appears that the current outfall location will result in a higher risk of erosion
and entail a greater level of disturbance because the spreader would have to
be placed in and through an existing berm. And directed at the brook. The
revised location will result in stormwater flows taking a longer, flatter route to
the brook, thereby increasing the attenuation of pollutants and slowing flow
velocities.
As he indicated this basically just came on board yesterday and I do have a
sketch here that the proposed change which isn't on your drawings. Thank
you.
Thank you Jerry. At this time we go into the audience and I'll for people that
would care to speak in favor and speak in opposition or have a question. I
would ask that all questions come through the chair. We'll try to get an
answer for you.
So is there anyone here that would care to speak in favor of this application?
23
I have a question.
Well you'll have your turn sir. You have to pay attention when I call for
participation. Yes sir, would you step to the microphone and when you're
done, Jerry do you have a piece of paper there where we can . . .
ldt� It's right here and there's a pen and a pencil.
Okay.
<Arw The UCONN game is on tonight I want to get home. I won't take too long.
My name is Eugene Flynn. I live at 21 Cityview Terrace. That's at Collins
Crossing. We've been here now in the Town of South Windsor for
approximately a year and a half. We lived in Windsor for 38 years and the
move here was very traumatic and you know, it was not easy to do. But we
did come here and someone called me and asked me to come down tonight
and talk to you about B&M Enterprises and Brian Edward's and I never
heard of these people until a year and a half ago and but wonder why I'm
coming here at all tonight. And I guess I'm here tonight to say thank you to
Brian Edward's and to B&M Enterprises.
The project that we live in, if you can call it that, it's like beautiful. It's
heaven. We have 18 units over there. We're all detached. We all have our
own garages. We're all very compatible with each other. The quality of the
work that was done on the project I think is superior, in my own opinion.
The minor things that did go wrong were fixed, they were fixed in a timely
manner. Although some people perhaps thought they weren't fast enough.
But all of this was done and it was done in a good way by Brian Edward's.
And I think they have an A team and I'm a tax payer in South Windsor now.
And I'm concerned about what comes in here. And I think this type of
project is needed and necessary. And I think the people that did the job up
there should be allowed to do a few more. And so I just want to thank them
and thank you for listening to me. Thank you very much.
Thank you sir. Is there anyone else who would care to speak in favor of this
application?
24
My name is Amy Pankowski. My husband and I have been residents of
South Windsor for 40 years. We owned a big home. And decided we
wanted to downsize and at that time Brian was building Collins Crossing so
we bought one of his units. We're over on Hunter Drive and we enjoy it very
much. And I feel that Brian has done a wonderful job in meeting the needs of
the seniors. And I also think that there is a greater demand, as indicated by
the cars that come in and out of our area. And also I have a petition here that
was signed by a group of the people. And I'd like to read it.
We the undersigned, although not able to be present for the public
hearing, would like to make our thoughts known respecting the proposed
senior residential development called Shady Brook Village off Strong Road.
We hope you will accept this into the public record. We are residents
of Collins Hill One and Two the Senior Residential Development off of
Sullivan Avenue.
We are happy to be in South Windsor. We hope you approve this
project because we feel that there should be more senior residential
developments in town. Some of us have family members of friends that
would like to live in a similar community. We are aware that Shady Brook is
in the process of approval, so we wanted to endorse this project as we feel it
will be a boost for the Town of South Windsor, as well as an additional
location for seniors within the town to reside.
We are very happy with this unique, quiet community of our senior
peers, and hope you will consider favorably, Shady Brook Village.
We respectively ask that you accept this into the public record.
Thank you. If you care bring it forward, we'll put it into the record. Also,
could you print your name and address on that sheet that's on the podium.
9&tv�- Thank you.
Okay. Is there anyone else who would care to speak in favor of this
application?
Yes sir.
25
My name is Stan Terlage and I'm at 11 Collins Crossing_ And I guess I can
"T- only repeat what my cohorts have repeated. I'm one of those transferee's
from another town that came into South Windsor because the need for senior
housing was there. I think the town should be lauded that they got out of the
gate faster than my town did. And had something like these senior
developments in South Windsor.
I'm happy at Collins Hill. I think the hill's been transformed into a place of
beauty. We did have some problems in all. They were adequately taken care
of. And I think there's a big need for more of this housing because we
seniors are a growing group and we all want to downsize and get rid of those
chores of maintenance and shoveling and so forth. But we're not quite ready
for assisted living,.such as going up in the center of town. And this
adequately meets our needs. And we're happy where we are and I think that
that will be the same for any resident's of the new project. Thank you very
much.
Thank you sir_ Can I get you to print your name and address on that sheet in
front of on the podium? Thank you.
Is there anyone else who would care to speak in favor of this application?
Is there anyone who would care to speak in opposition or have a question?
Yes sir, in the back.
7Mr. Castro would it be possible, I,mean some of these diagrams are very
refined and beautiful, and photographs and so forth. Is it possible to have a
five minute break . . .
OA2&z Sure, we can do that.
I'll call a five minute recess at this time and we'll resume at about quarter to.
Is that okay?
Okay we'll call the public hearing back to order. And at this time again, we
will ask for participation from the audience. People who care to speak in
opposition or have a question. Yes ma'am. I would also ask that you when
you're done to sign the you can do it after you speak . . .
26
My name is Laurie Charette, and I live at 90 Strong Road,which is right on
the corner of the right-of-way going into that land. I have some questions
t6UIL concerning the traffic, basically. Living right there, I know the siteline isn't
exactly accurate as to what the traffic company was saying. Excuse me. I
know we have a very hard time pulling in and out of our driveway, due to the
sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Depending on the time of the
year you can't see up or down due to the sun.
Also, there's a little berm which is west of my driveway. And there's a little
bend in the road, which makes the siteline very difficult to see. And the hill
at the bottom of Strong Road, which faces west.
One of my concerns is there's eight kids between the ages of ten years old
and four months old in those four houses along Strong Road. And you know,
there is a lot of traffic, they speed up and down that road. You know, the
machines that they uses, aren't accurate. I would say the average speed is 45,
on that road. From standpoint of standing in my driveway and just watching
cars. And I've contacted Officer Fields about this, to no avail. And my
question is where do I go to see if I can get a stop sign put in at that
intersection to slow traffic down. Because now I'm going to have four places
that I have to look when I'm backing out of my driveway. One being the
proposed road, Gorski east and west on Strong Road. And I have a hard time
getting out now. I mean, you know, I'm not looking to get hit or anything but
it's a dangerous spot right there. Because of the berm and the bend in the
road, and the hill.
Um, my other question is the road's going to be 25' wide. How far from my
property line is this road going to be, if I can get an answer to that.
Um, I realize it's a private road. And some of the questions I have here have
been answered.
Another question I have is is this going to effect the value of my property?
You know these are basically, by looking at it they're like condo units. And
is it going to effect the value of my property right now. Right now we're in a
very desirable neighborhood. I have a small ranch. But across the street
from me U gave $200,000 homes. And behind me now, you know, and I'm
not completely opposed to this. I enjoy looking out my back window and
27
seeing nothing there, but I just want to know is this going to effect my
aALat�l property value? And is it going to be lower than what I've got invested into
my property?
And I'd like to know what the price of the units are going to be so I can kind
of base what my home is worth now? Or what my home may be worth. I'd
like to know when construction's going to begin. Is it going to begin in the
winter, which, you know, heavy equipment going in there clearing land. I'd
prefer to start when my windows are shut, as opposed, because we have a
backyard pool. You know with the kids and stuff back there, and I would
prefer, you know, a little bit of quiet.
Speaking of quiet we do have the noise level from Preston Trucking. We've
got a new trucking company moving in at the end of Strong Road. We've
also got the garbage company that has a noise level. They start at four
o'clock in the morning with banging.
(Question - couldn't hear)
The garbage company?
(Answer)
Tobacco Valley. Their noise starts at four ( tape change) realize there's a
noise ordinance but how can you put a trucking company out of business for
making noise? You can't. You know,they were there. I guess that's
basically it for my questions.
I'm not completely opposed to it. If anything has to go back there I would
love to see a senior residence go back there. No, I'm very happy with the
way it is now, but if anything has to go back there, and I've seen Brian's
work. Brian does beautiful work. I'm in favor of his work. But, you know,
these are issues that I have personally, because I live right there. I have kids
that play in the woods back there, and I am concerned about it. And I guess
that's about it. Thank you.
Okay. Mr. DeMallie.
(Question asked - couldn't hear)
28
1q11Le� ould you like us to respond to the question.
Yes, I would if you'll let me I will call the questions one at a time.
The stop sign I believe, is the traffic authority of the police department.
You'd have to petition them and have them review that.
9AALt6L Okay.
The property line to the road, Mr. DeMallie?
From the private drive to our property, westerly property line, which is also
her easterly property line is 12-13'. The road is basically centered in the
right-of-way, how wide 24?
It's a 24' wide roadway, and it's centered in the right-of-way, 50' right-of-
way.
Property value. Would you care to have Cile respond?
Yes, Cile Decker is prepared to respond on that.
I obviously can't respond to the part about noise or diesel smells or any of
those kinds of things, but I can tell you that basically we've had no effect on
property values on the projects we've done. As a matter of fact I'd like to
just site up to you the projects that we've done on Nevers Road and Sullivan
Avenue. If you know how that Collins Hill runs you have the one SRD on
one end on the Nevers Road end another on the Sullivan Avenue end. Collins
Hill is a hill and it goes up and then down again. And there are some
spectacular views on the top of that hill. We have 10 lots up there known as
Sunrise Estates. There are restrictions in that area, the homes are a minunum
of 2,800 square feet, as you all probably know. And I can tell you right now
we have out of the 10 lots we have four left, and there's a spec house going
up on one and so that basically leaves three. And those homes are in the
price range of, I'd say minimum coming in at around $385,000. So they're
that kind of price range. The SRD are very, very visible from those homes
and you have to go through either one or the other of those subdivisions in
order to get up to those high prices homes.
29
&JklL So it doesn't seem to be having that kind of an effect.
Okay, Cile while you're up there, price of the units. Would you be able to
address that?
Which units?
O-Iffb-o These particular units.
The ones that we're proposing now?
Yes.
I, my assumption is, and I can't give you an accurate price. My assumption
they're going to be somewhere in the high $140s to low $150s, that kind of a
price range.
fAA Thank you.
If I might just also follow up on that coincidentally, within the last week I had
an opportunity to review an appraisal of one of the 1,250 square foot units at
Q Porter Share, done by an appraisal for Savings Bank of Rockville, and the
unit appraised at $144,000, current market value. And that's a 1,25a square
foot unit, which would be slightly smaller than the ones being proposed here,
so I think it would be safe to say that the current market values would be at
least in the $140s.
Okay. Construction. If this were approved when do you think it would
begin?
Yesterday (laughter).
They already closed the asphalt they are going to close the asphalt plant in
6,bL�L three weeks, but . . Our clients intention is to commence construction as soon
as he receives approval, weather permitting. Like to proceed immediately
with construction of development. And as you know the last few winters,
two winters at least, have been relatively mild and relatively snow-free, and
they have been able to do work progress on work, through the winter. So the
30
expectation is that it would start immediately and Cile Decker gave me an
indication of the market demand for senior residence developments, even
though this project is not specifically noted as necessarily in their interest.
Okay. Is there anyone else who would care to speak in opposition or have a
question?
All right. One more.
Where our house is, we're in a strictly residential zone. So I realize that it's,
I realize Collins Crossing that the property values aren't any lowered, but it's
also on Sullivan Avenue. You know, we're in a residential zone. Where, like
I said, I have a very small ranch, and behind us we're going to look out to not
far from my backyard what looks like condos. They're beautiful. Don't get
me wrong. They're beautiful units. But, you know, from I've put a lot of
money into my house. And we're still working on it and you know, I just
want to make sure that I'm going to get some of my money back. And it's
not going to interfere with my profitability.
ea, We, I can't guarantee that I . .
Well that's . . .
We've had some testimony . .
7 I know I'm just saying that that Sullivan Avenue I can understand because . .
Sullivan Avenue, incidentally, where they were talking about is all residential.
7 It's business zoned there. The property value is not going to go down.
It's all residential in that area.
'7 Is it?
Yes.
'� Even with the oil company across the street from . . okay. f
31
Is there anyone else who would care to speak in opposition, yes ma'am.
Did I, lady from Strong Road. Did I get you sign the.
Yeah.
You cans sp
eak first an
d d do it after.
My name is Louise Goodwin. I'm a resident of Main Street and there's a few
concerns that we have at this point. Some of them are already brought up as
far as the noise level. Preston Trucking, Tobacco Valley Sanitation. Capital
Moving which will be coming in, it's a moving company, it's got trucks. It's
going to make just as much noise, most likely if not more, than Preston
Trucking all hours of the night.
Route 5 traffic, no one's mentioned that at this point. We live, I live on Main
Street. I can still hear Route 5 traffic. I chose to live on Main Street because
of Main Street the way it is. And the aesthetics and historical and all of that.
I can deal with the traffic, you can't get rid of Route 5 traffic. But, my
concern is the seniors at this point. I feel for them, I feel that there is a need
for this type of housing in town. I have an aging mother in the same
circumstance. I have in-laws in the same circumstance. We just feel that this
particular site is not really, we feel 100% chosen for this type of facility.
There is a couple of concerns, that as far as the trees that are going to be cut
down. Right now they're used as a buffer for the noise,Route 5 noise. Some
of the Preston Trucking noise. Also, guns in Windsor. No ones really picked
up that concern. There is a shooting range in Windsor, that we hear. And, if
seniors were to move into this type of environment, I think their moving in to
have some quiet time. I don't know if they want to be listening to trucks
during the evening, guns, Route 5 traffic. That type of thing. The guns are
prominent during summertime. Most of the seniors and most of everyone else
is outside. And you can really hear that.
As far as the trees, losing the buffer zone, we have a big concern about that,
�/ too.
32
We're concerned too that the seniors moving in, I know in other towns when
they have this type of establishment, they address the issue of living in a type
of industrial type of environment by telling the potential buyers up front that
this is a noise type of level. Is that going to be done in this particular
proposal? Will there be written notification to them?
&Lb_6 I'm confused. I don't understand the question.
When potential buyers come in to look at the property and all that, they don't
live there. They don't hear the noise. Will someone be telling them, the
P"14" association or whatever, be telling them that this is a potential noise level. Or
that the noise level is at a certain amount?
No I couldn't . . .
Well, we have a concern with that, too.
The major thing is if this retirement community comes in and people start
moving out because of the noise level, what will it become at that point? Will
it go to lower cost housing? Can they change the usage of that at this point to
lower cost housing? We certainly don't want that in our neighborhood.
There's wildlife back there which is another issue. We've had beautiful foxes
in the back. There's an endangered, I-think it was a salamander or
something, someone had told me lives back there. That issue hasn't been
addressed either,and that's a.concern. We bought the property because of
the beautiful backyard, the brook area. The wildlife. The birds are
phenomenal out there. Where are the birds going to go if there's no trees.
Granted there's going to be a little bit of trees in our slope, but the trees in the
back will be all gone. So I believe will also be displaced in that area.
With all these concerns we have gone around and we've got at least, I'm
basically a representative. Because of the holiday week a lot of people
couldn't make it. We have a petition of over 75 names of residents,Main
Street residents, Oxbow, Ferry Lane, residents, unfortunately because of the
time limit we didn't get a chance to go to the Strong Road area. And I guess
there is some opposition there. If we need to,that can also be done. But I'd
like to present this to the zoning board.
33
Please.
If I might, Mr. Chairman for a second.
Could you sit down Mr. Cumming's . . .
&Ulm+ Yes, in objection to the submission of the petition . . .
(�,� I'll note your objection but she has the floor.
I understand. But I'd just like to comment before you accept it.
You may comment when I call upon you.
Thank you.
The petition is basically a similar petition we did for the wetlands
commission, opposing at that point in time it was the water, the flooding
problem. I know you don't need to hear that at this point. It has gone
through that. We are addressing zoning board issues and we kind of
combined them together in that particular, so we didn't have to go back and
forth among the people.
Do you have any concerns or questions on that?
I don't.
Okay.
I will ask Mr. Cummings when you're done speaking, I have a specific
question I want him to answer.
Okay. I just want . . .
We're not going to have a verbal verbiage back and forth. But I do have a
question for him. If you're done speaking.
Okay, one other issue. If this were to go through, we feel it might set a
precedent for other condo type living. Not necessarily retirement type of
34
living in the neighborhood of Main Street. We'd like to keep the historical
aesthetics alive for future generations, basically. And we feel and all those
people on the petition feel that the opposition is there. Thank you.
Okay, thanks for your comments. Mr. Cummings there was a question asked
about, specifically now, about housing reverting to something other than
senior residence. And would you explain how that covenant works, and how
complicated it is to do something like that.
Yes sir. It is a covenant that runs with the land. It's part of the original
declaration that everybody buying, it's part of the declaration and bylaws that
are submitted to this town approved by the Planning Commission. The end
result is every single resident would have to agree to a change in the use of
the facility. Then they would have and also all the banks, mortgaging on the
units. And then they would have to come to this commission to seek a
petition. So, I guess the best example I can give is I'm familiar with a
number of subdivisions that were developed since the 50's, where there were
restrictive covenants which limited uses of property. I'm not aware of a
single project in the last 50 years, where the homeowners of a 20 unit
subdivision, were able to get everybody together to break the conveyance that
were put on at the time of the original subdivision. So, using that as an
analogy, all I can say is as close to anything is a certainty in this life,the
concept of the unit owners getting together and everybody agreeing to
petition for a change, is extremely unlikely. And it would still require an
amendment by this so it's for all practical purposes locked in as a senior
residence project.
eAQ1U Okay, thank you.
And if I might address the petition.
I'll give you time. Oh the petition?
Just briefly, in reviewing that petition, we do object for it being into the
@ � record as essentially a heresay document. But more importantly, I would
request this commission to review the factual statement, if it's the same
petition that was filed before inland/wetlands I believe there is significant
factual errors in the statement at the beginning. And I question whether the
people that signed that really understood the nature of this application.
35
So in reviewing that I would simply suggest that the petition is flawed
because of a defective factual statement it references the project extending to
Oxbow Lane. This property goes nowhere near Oxbow Lane. The South
Windsor Land Trust, owns the abutting property there so. I think it's
important in reviewing that for substance. Thank you.
Your comments are noted. Is there anyone else who would care to speak in
opposition. Where, do you have something fiu-ther? Are you going to
respond to his comments.
Um, briefly.
All right. Let me get to the rest of the audience here and if there's time at the
end. Is there anyone else who would care to speak in opposition to this
application or have a question? Yes, ma'am.
My name is Barbara Giard I live at 80 Strong Road. Aside from some of the
things some other people have already said I'm concerned about the value of
my property. There is noise from Preston Trucking that we do hear and I'm a
little bit farther down.
I'm concerned with the displacing of the wildlife behind us, by taking all
those trees down.
As was just stated I guess I'm still a little confused as far as what exactly a
covenant means as far as there being seniors there and not . . .
Well, the State of Connecticut when they designate this as a senior residence
zone their under they have bylaws and they have, I'll try to do it as simply as
I can without getting into. . .it's dedicated under certain specific conditions
and bylaws that state what it's used for. What the criteria's to get involved.
The 55 years of age. There's all kinds of things that are spelled out. It's not
changed very easily.
So, it's not going to be like a deed requirement then as far as like the deed on
the homes.
&Lttz They operated under rules and regulations . . .
36
Chapter 828?
C� 1 Yeah, there's specific to a .
That's just also one of my concerns is that it stays a senior residence. I'm not
totally opposed to it either but if that's what it's going to be I'd like to keep it
there.
I'm also concerned with the exact amount of a buffer that's going to be
behind our property. Before there's evergreens and there row of shrubbery
and all that is starting. On one of the maps we saw that the South.Windsor
Land Conservation does looks like they do own a strip of land. I'd like to, if
I could find out exactly how much that is and where they are going to start
their planting of evergreens and all that. And I guess that's about it.
Zrb,—o Okay thank you.
Is there anyone else who would care to speak in opposition or have a
question.
Yes sir?
Good evening ladies and gentleman. My name is Bruce Burnham. I've lived
on Main Street for 20 years and I have some questions and some comments to
make about this.
I think is a very schizophrenic piece of property. It lies between Old Main
Street which is very historic and Route 5 which is very commercial.
The town itself has decided, because of their zoning plan, to create this
impossible situation. You have industry on one side, and you have historic
homes, residences, along Main Street. Now, how are you going to solve this
problem? You've already allowed three trucking companies, Tobacco
Valley, Preston and the new company to come in along Route 5.
This land is now open and fallow land. It acts as a buffer between Route 5
and Main Street. Main Street is an historic district. It's soon to become,
hopefully, a scenic road. It therefore, has aesthetic characters to it. It has
37
historic capabilities to it. And it has an ambiance which needs to be
t3"L4IW protected. The open land protects that. Now what protects the retirement
community if the zoning board of the Town of South Windsor allows the
retirement community to go it?
If the people move in and they spend $140,000 for these units, and after they
get in and the trees, the leaves are down in the winter time. What is going to
happen to the noise level in that area. Now the attorney says that the noise
level would be enforced. But the town zoning board has already allowed the
trucking companies to come in. Now how are you going to tell the bucking
companies that they cannot function as a trucking company. They cannot
start their engines at four o'clock in the morning. They can't close the hoods
of their bucks. They can't blow their horns. Which is all happening because
I just talked to the people that live in that area. Now, if you allow the
retirement community to invest in this area,and there's you're going to be
creating a battle between the retirement community and the trucking
companies. It is your responsibility because you have created that situation.
You've created an impossible scenario.
Now I hope you consider that when you make a decision as far as this.
The zoning laws of the town are very specific. And I have a question. Is the
site plan and the buildings themselves aesthetically pleasing. They appear to
be so. If I was doing this I'd much I'd be much in favor of the colonial
architecture over the traditional or contemporary architecture because it
maybe seen through the trees along Main Street. I think the photographs on
the floor are much more attractive than the ones up on the top that seem more
appropriate I should say.
Number two. The commission may grant a special exception. They're
asking for a variance in a Residential A-40 zone, however, this is not '
appropriate because of it's location is adjacent and between the historic
district and an industrial zone. For the reasons I just said.
The commission knows the buyers cannot be legally warned that they are
next to an industrial, therefore it becomes your responsibility if you were to
approve this.
38
Number four. The traffic impacts along Strong Road and Old Main Street
6WJA4r could be detrimental to the residential character to this quiet, historic
neighborhood.
The property itself abuts a house, that is the oldest house on the street. It was
built in 1694, the Joseph Strong House. It's one of the four oldest houses on
the street. And (tape change) and the industrial zone. You're going to be
creating an impossible problem.
Five. The surrounding property values will be adversely effected and the
character of the neighborhood will be absolutely disrupted. There will be
adverse environmental impact in the area and this could be effective because
of the runoffs into the stream. In a flood situation, if you've looked at the
new parking lot on the new trucking company, it is gigantic. It looks like it
could possibly hold 200 trucks. Now, the question, I'm not familiar with
engineering on the site. Is that runoff coming down , is that
going to be running down the pipes along Strong Road? Is that runoff, which
is downhill going to effect Main Street? And in a heavy rain could you be
creating a problem of runoff in that stream from both properties. The three
trucking companies and the now the pavement on Bailey Street and, which is
all going to be paved. Where is that rainwater? If we got a 6" of rain in an
hour, is it going to washoff down into Mr. Sunderland's historic home in that
area? Which has been known to flood before. Has consideration been taken
about that?
I'm concerned about the erosion downstream that could occur in a heavy
storm. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Could I get you to print your name and address on the planners
table. Mr. DeMallie would you care to respond?
Yes in particular I'd like to respond. There have been a number of comments
regarding the view toward the east for the industrial zone and notification to
prospective home owners.
Just to let you know, Mr. Edward's would like to have us add to the plan, the
site plan that will be shown to everybody that looks at these units, Cile
Decker and her associates would be utilizing. And that he will be utilizing in
his office. And we prepare all the plans that he uses. He's authorized us
{k
t
39
make it perfectly clear to the east side of the development, that it's industrial
zone will add that right along there. That it's industrially zoned. That's east
of the development where the industrial zone line occurs.
So that everyone's aware that it's industrially zoned to the east. That's
number one.
Number two. I guess if you've seen probably the finest example is at Collins
Crossing, behind Hunter Drive. The Collins Crossing senior residence
development, you've seen the size of the trees that Mr. Edward's has. He has
the largest hydraulic spade, I believe, in Connecticut for moving trees. He
has ability within his own business to move large trees, evergreen.trees onto
the site. Transplant evergreen trees on the site. To supplement or replace the
smaller nursery grown stock on the landscape plan.
So he is intending to, and he's even notified some of the neighbors of this.
He is intending to put larger trees that he transplants along the buffer, to
supplement the smaller nursery stock that we have. So it'd be an instant
buffer. So that the view toward the industrial area and the view behind the
units abutting those residences along Strong Road can be obscured
substantially, and immediately.
Collins Hill I and II also, if you see between that development and existing
residents, I know, along Sullivan Avenue, he's installed very large, mature
trees, evergreen. And I think that's basically that's your intention to install
large trees that are going to be as tall as around 20'. His large hydraulic
spade can move. And he's had a very successful rate of retention of those
particular plantings.
So he has the capability of doing that at very low expense for himself,
because he owns the whole operation and he can, and he will be doing that.
And also we'll be adding that notation right on the plan so it's clear to anyone
looking at the plans where the industrial zone starts. And there will be no
confusion as to where it is. It'll be right there on the plans. So he's
authorized us to do that.
Thank you.
Anyone else care to speak in opposition or have a question?
40
Yes, the young lady with the red jacket, you may come up. I will only say
Un this, that the petition, the commission will judge for itself what's in that
petition. All right, please.
If you want to (without microphone)
b4j�w Pardon me?
? If you want I won't bother with the petition.
aAAio I'm sorry I still can't hear you.
Do you want, can I make my comments on the petition . . .
Oh yeah, please. By all means.
Actually, it says extending to the Oxbow Road area. It wasn't the Oxbow
Road street. It is the area of Oxbow Road. And as far as the flooding
problems, there are problems now we feel with all the drainoff from all these
other companies and all that. It's just going to continue it in addition to this
too. That was the meaning behind that.
But there was one thing I forgot to suggest, if we could, could we suggest a
noise level survey? To be actually done in that area, to see what the actual
levels would be? That way everyone would be clear.
For what purpose. I don't believe this development's going to create any
noise?
The noise level in the particular area now.
The ambient noise probably is not a concern, as it addresses this application.
But if people moving in don't know about the noise.
7 I'm sorry.
41
I don't know what, the Latin term is buyer beware. I don't know what else to
say.
Okay. Well it was a suggestion at this point. That way everybody would be
clear on it. Thank you.
Okay. Is there anyone else who would care to speak in opposition or have a
question before I close the public's participation.
Just a request that the commission not take any action until after the public
hearing on the interior lot. Application has already been submitted.
040� Does that require we hold the public hearing open?
&n(4kj,�u Probably a good idea to do that.
O, ,o All right.
And convene it the same night as the that one lot interior lot, the special
&jbA_-U exception application and site plan is heard by this commission.
All right. If that's the case does the commission care to ask questions now.
0-4'0t�'6 Or would you rather hold them until the continuation?
We probably won't have everyone here.
Okay.
All right let me go to the commission then. Doug?
Just two quick questions. One is this is going to be a common interest
community form of ownership, is that right?
vnc �o Yes.
�� Okay.
42
And secondly. What, in going through the special exception criteria. Could
you point out how the facility has been designed to meet the needs of
handicapped residents or visitors?
Yeah, uh I think Mr. Wright can address that. He has there are policies that
the building department has to require the handicapped accessibility and there
are certain provisions that are required of the development. I think Mr.
Wright could address that. Aside from the ability, well accessibility into the
unit and internally within the unit, what is required by Mr. Collins, Chief
Building Official.
The answer is yes. Not all of the units, but a number of them are capable of
that if it's selected and in effect has to be in certain cases. It's designed into
the unit.
Is there a certain number or percentage of them that have to have that
accessibility.
Yeah, I think it's two or whatever. But really what has happened is that
we've responded to the market. And we found that in each case I want to say
that it was we ended up with the number that was requested by the
regulations.
Is that Mr. Town Engineer, do you know what that regulation is?
No. I don't.
` Basically it's a couple units.
Okay.
If my just add, Mr. Edward's has indicated that it's a requirement that 10%
which is two units for every 20, is required to be handicapped accessible.
Okay.
�l Thank you.
Tim? Terry? Walter?
43
Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. I have first some comments that Mrs. Pat
Porter, Commissioner Porter would like to be read into the record this
evening.
Number one. Mrs. Porter will ask for . . .I'm sorry?
Can I, how can Mrs. Porter comment without seeing the application?
Uh, she researched up at the Town Planners Office, and as other people come
in and write notes or letters to the Commission, so has she.
(Question without microphone)
So she can make her comments at the next meeting.
Well, I think it would be more appropriate . . .
I,,* Okay.
after reviewing the presentation. Almost as a sense of predetermination.
Right. Okay.
OAAr0 I mean that's my opinion anyway.
All right. Fine. What she did she was going to make a comment knowing
that this parcel was next to an industrial zone. Which she did note before this
hearing.
Okay.
(k"-4) So, hold it off for the next portion.
My other question was form of ownership, which has been asked. And as far
as the noise, we're having a residential zone, or next to an industrial zone, it's
been this commission's experience that our noise ordinance doesn't hold
much water. When it comes to trying to enforce it. We've had one case
where a gentleman has been coming to this commission for eight years, with a
s
44
noise problem within a member of an industrial zone. And that has never
come to fi-uition to either side.
We know that trees will be taken down. We've heard comments on the
noise. Comments not withstanding of the folks who live over on Collins
Crossing, they don't put up with that noise. In fact, Mr. Flynn alluded to a
peaceful, quiet community. I don't know that this would be such, being next
to the truckers that have already been mentioned this evening. Those are my
comments, thank you.
�Azblo Susan?
Just two quick questions, I believe. I just would like a little bit of clarification
&W_e v on this right-of-way, with the Mr. Knafel's property. Just so I have it clear in
my mind. Now that's an industrial piece of property. They have the right-of-
way that's going to go right over the road, part of Bailey Circle?
nftk�- The Glen Knafel's property?
�OA,g- � Right.
Yeah, that's in a vacant parcel. It's in the industrial zone. They already
have, without us doing anything, and again we're residentially zoned right
Pam- now in our property. They already have the rights in place previously held
the rights in place for access to their property over our entrance drive. That
area, it goes up to a certain point where it starts to curve off, their rights
terminate at that point. In other words, so they can turn right into their land.
Okay, so we could have a residential zone and an industrial zone on a short
Q"hz" piece of that road?
It's a small parcel and it is possible to have that. But of course, all industrial
uses require siteplan approval by this commission, or some other kind of
approval by this commission. To my knowledge he hasn't approved
anything. His family members own the house in front of that parcel, and also
the property to the east. The Winton's and the Knafel's are related. I believe
he's the grandson of Mrs. Winton who owns the residence which she does
not occupy out front.
45
So it is possible for them to propose an industrial use there. They would also
have to meet the buffer requirements to the commission, on their property in
addition to all the buffering that we're doing. And recognize that between the
proposed SRD development and their building lot;industrially zoned building
lot, is another parcel which is subject of a future application, well an
application that's already been submitted. So for the record I've mentioned
that. And I think Mrs. Banach and her remarks indicated that. That's a
subject of one house lot and the requirements for buffering on that one house
lot which will separate that parcel also, from the SRD development.
So there are buffers will be required on the proposed interior lot along it's
easterly line, which is the industrial zoned line. And also along the westerly
line of their property. And so the exact design of that will be subject to
approval by you and reviewed by the Engineering and Planning Department
Staff. So it is possible to have something developed there, that's correct.
That's an existing condition. That could happen now. Right now. They
could come in with an application to do something on that property and have
a driveway that comes in between the Winton House and the Charette House.
That could happen right now.
Okay.
Whenever we have an industrial zone abutting a residential zone in this town
fi we've always had to plan. Every other community in this state
ate- always had somewhat of a problem between that. There's got to be
something in transition. Question is what use is going transition? It has be
residential use in transition. Because it's residentially zoned. And we're
saying that with our buffers and these regulations require a buffer. Whereas if
you had a single-family development, it'd be slightly different. But with this
particular type of development we think it's a nice transition and Mr.
Edward's is proposing to bring in much larger trees than you're required to
have in a buffer. And he's going to do that just like he did at Collins
Crossing and Collins Hill. Some degree in Collins Hill, but especially the
back of Collins Crossing, between the Sunrise View Estates Neighborhood
and the Collins Crossing SRD on Hunter Drive.
Okay.
46
� If you see there there's a line of very substantial trees that he installed
himself, above and beyond the commission's requirements.
Okay.
And then I have a question for Mrs. Goodwin. You mentioned that there was
some form of an endangered species. With the public hearing being open
until December 8, could you provide proof that an endangered species does
live on that property?
I didn't hear the answer?
Yes.
Okay.
Where in the commission now,, Mr. Cummings.
r I'm sorry.
I'd just also wanted to address Mr. Mealy s comment.
Mr. Mealy's comment? Yeah.
Mrs. Evans?
Yes, there was one question, Mr. Chairman that the someone from the public
asked that didn't really get answered. And that concerned drainage and the
flow of drainage. I wanted Jerry, could you talk about the drainage of
existing approved projects and how they are going. And then I could ask
Peter or someone to talk about the drainage again from this particular project?
The Capitol Moving and Storage siteplan has a significant swale around two
sides of it. Let's see if it's north it would be the west in the north side that
provide a detention/retention type of situation. I don't think that that goes in
this direction. I think it goes out towards Route 5. There's none of that
storm drainage in Capitol Moving that does goes into the system in Strong
Road.
t
47
When that area was proposed for another use years ago, the furniture people
were going to be doing something at that time, we were going to, in fact, take
some of the storm drainage from Strong Road and put it into their system.
Which was going out the back of their property.
But what's proposed for Capitol Moving and Storage was basically retention
system, or most of that's going to be retained on site. And then go into the
ground.
This facility here we talked to the engineers early on, and suggested that
detention may not be the best situation here since the brook is right in the
back of the property. But from a standpoint of sedimentation control and
after looking at the time of concentration and the time that the peak gets to
this area from upstream, it was decided that this detention would work very
well, for both reasons. For stormwater and also for erosion control,
sedimentation control.
We've looked this, Jeff has looked at this, Soil Conservation Services has
looked at this site, the detention proposed they've made several suggestions.
And there's been some changes made from the original design to provide as
little erosion problems as possible with the stormwater runoff. They've
several areas where there is a level spreader. There's been quite a bit of
design in this area. There's even now a tow drain, basically an underdrain for
a portion of both those detention areas to keep the side slopes from sloping
from the ground water.
So there's been a substantial investigation, determination and design in this
site to try and avoid those kind of problems downstream or into the brook.
64tAAk/j, Now where does the Preston Trucking Company . .
(Couldn't understand response)
6A44-6- Peter, that was adequate I think to cover unless there was something you
wanted to add to it?
We've gone through a long process with Jerry and with Jeff Folger and also
WX.aLCl , Bob's been to communication with the Soil Conservation Services State }
Engineer and his recommendations and we modified the plans to meet, we
48
believe, the requirements of all three officials. And Mr. Arsenault put his
,n stamp on it with Karen Isherwood to come up with a design which does not
give any additional problem to the existing flooding condition there, and also
does a proper job in handling our stormwater runoff for erosion control
measures and stuff.
So we think we've done an adequate job. There is a 100 year flood plain in
the brook, we recognize that. Jeff Folger at the Inland/Wetlands Agency
meeting, and I think Jerry might be familiar with these comments but, he
indicated that the immediate flooding in that immediate area, is really caused
by constrictions and blockages downstream from the site. Which is beyond
the control of us or the Goodwin family . . .
Well, I know that when the culvert under Strong Road was increased in size it
made a big difference in the amount of water that was spreading out to the
north . .
Aatft� That was an enhancement.
eka4411 Well, yes and no. But okay. It all depends on how you look at it.
aThat aesthetically . .
dAk,&44_j- There was deeper water before.
But now it's more marshy than it was. Okay. Thank you very much.
A couple of,just a couple of questions for clarification. So we really have
two interior lots. One is in the industrial zone, which has nothing to do with
this. And the other, we're holding the public hearing open to consider. And
that interior lot is labeled the remaining land of Bancroft Brook.
Yes, I believe it's 2.73 acres in size. That's a subject of the additional
application, this hearings been held open for. And the other, what you're
calling an interior lot. I don't know how that it originally was approved, r
maybe it predates any zoning requirement for that. But, that's an existing, j
and it never came in under your interior lot provisions. It's a rear parcel. It
i
49
has no frontage on any street. And it's industrially zoned. And it has a right-
of-way going out to Strong Road. Which has historical right-of-way, that's
on land records.
Okay. Which is going to be the new entrance?
Yes. It will be the new entrance. They still have rights over it. Just like they
khuvu do today, they'll have rights over that.
Earlier on when we were talking about sanitary and water service. Where is
the water service actually going to enter the property?
It's right along Strong Road in the front, and it comes right up our driveway,
into the driveway.
The main . .
( � .,Yeah, it's right along Strong Road.
OAZUtp- Oh, okay.
And the sewer is down at I believe, Gorski and Strong Road.
Right, I saw that on the plan . .
ik&VA :- . we'll bring it out to the east and then in.
I didn't see the water service on the plan.
I guess it will allow for sewers connections if they choose for the residences
along the frontage, also.
If they choose to do that if they were to have a failed septic system.
Okay.
There was a comment, several times about two-car garages. I only saw one-
car garages on the plans that I'm looking at.
50
There are two, if you notice, of the four units as you go in on the left hand
side. They are separate homes.
� e- Correct.
There are two of them with the extra-wide driveways. And they have an
extra-wide garage, you can indicate there. The last one on the left? The first
and the forth. The two end units. Those are both with two-car garages.
� - Okay.
And those are the only two-car garages units proposed for the 20-unit
development.
Okay.
Then there was a reference Peter, to an existing house on this property.
Where is that? Can somebody point that out to me?
AeJM,Q._ There is no existing house on this property that I'm aware of.
There is an existing, on to the east of the entrance drive there is an existing
residence in the industrial zone.
Oe, Oh, okay.
Which is, I believe, owned by Florence Winton, who does not reside there.
Okay.
Okay.
And then the only other question I had was and I'm looking at drawing three A
of thirteen. Behind the Charette's and the Giard's and the Bennett's and so
forth, there's that what is that a 10' buffer.
There is a, it's not a buffer it's not under our control. There is a 15' wide, the
&_R Q,Q.« entire parcel that the South Windsor Land Trust owns basically a contiguous
parcel, they have a 15' wide, the width of their parcel between those
z
1�
51
residences there and our development, is 15' in width. And again, Mr.
P
Edward's does not have any control over that. That was a grant a donation
by the current property owners to, a conveyance by the current property
owners to the South Windsor Land Trust and Mr. Edward's was not involved.
He's agreed to purchase the remaining land, the 9.11 acres.
Where there is 15', and it's wooded, it will remain wooded. They like the
idea of pathways. And as I mentioned earlier in my presentation, there's an
approximately two acre conservation easement over the land which gives us
frontage, along Bancroft Brook. Which we will keep it forever just like the
rest of the land that they own in fee.
So that 15' strip is forever. It'll be natural state. Same thing with the
conservation easement and their remaining 15, 16, 17 acres that they have to
the west, north and east of the project.
So if I wanted to gain access to this this area, I could go down there and park
on Strong Road and walk in between the Giard's and the Bennett's.
F� That's an existing condition.
Okay.
And that the South Windsor Land Conservation Trust owns it. They have the
only other large tract. Who owns the one the one in your office?
bkq" �'Q'The South Windsor Land Trust.
&htAJJ,tx- No I mean, what's the name of the tract?
&"t4JT The, you mean to the rear of the?
Yeah, what's the name of that one, what's her name? Who donated it?
b*YKI+Oh, the Williams.
Yes, the William's tract on Ellington Road, Route 30 which surroundings Mr.
&MAJI — Cummings office building is the largest single tract that the South Windsor
Land Conservation Trust owns. They have another small parcel along the
52
Scantic River. It's about five or six acres, I know we did some mapping for
them at one point. And they also will eventually own the 23 acres at Deming
Hill Estates which will be a little bit larger than this, and now they own this.
And that's the extent of their land holdings to my understanding.
But they will create trails just like what's going to happen at the open space
Deming Hill Estates. And they already have done the William's property.
I've walked it myself several times. And you go nature hiking and that type
of thing. That's the intent here.
But this, what I'm looking at here is a can be a walking trail?
It could be a walking trail . . .
In other words I could walk along there and nobody would come out and
threaten me with their shotgun?
Okay.
The intent of the land trust is to do similar to if you go to my office at 1610
Ellington Road. And out behind the barn there you'll see a sign that was put
up by an Eagle Scout, and there's a trail. And throughout the 80 acres behind
our office, all South Windsor Land Trust land or easement rights, some in fee
and some in easement. Over the years encouraging Boy Scouts, Eagle
Scouts, Girl Scouts have created a number of walking and hiking trails which
are regularly used by a number of South Windsor folks. If you look at that
map, a person can come in off of Strong Road, and actually on land trust land
that'll eventually be trails, walking trails; go all the way around the brook, the
land in the back and come out the other side.
One of the concerns of the land trust in accepting the parcel, was that there be
a circular trail, so you could go in on one (tape change)
C� Marcia?
Yeah, Peter on this industrial interior lot. Is everyone sharing the same, I
mean I know there's, understand there's a right-of-way, is there room for
Y"�them to have a separate road. Or is everyone going to be all using the same
25' wide square road.
53
They have rights to construct a driveway somewhere within that 50' right-of-
way.
A4itW4t_& So theoretically . . .
We would be . .
I mean because I was going to say, I mean some time in the future if they
decide to develop this lot as an industrial use, it could get pretty exciting if
it's only 25' wide and you've got industrial use and another house in the back
and plus this senior residence also.
They could have what most likely scenario is they would have a driveway
coming off this existing roadway, this constructed private roadway.
But they still would have to access this road at some point and time to get out
to Strong Road. I mean there's not enough room there for them to have a
parallel exit onto Strong Road.
No, there really isn't enough room for them to have a parallel driveway.
� R- They'd end up utilizing the pavement that we're putting down.
That's what I was asking. So yes, they will be utilizing that.
Aa&x Absolutely.
�t,e► � Okay.
If they ever develop it, and if they want to utilize that right-of-way, they have
their family members own other property there. There's nothing to say that
they wouldn't consolidate those. Again, it's the grandson who owns the
property to the rear.
Well, he does now. But I'm just concerned at_some point in the future that all
of a sudden.
��Yeah, that would make it very interesting to say the least.
54
Yeah.
Has there been any consideration given to buffering to the rear as far as the
noise levels are concerned. I know, Rosemary, you went and described very
nicely what was on the property as far as vegetation right now. And then you
never mentioned again. Is it all going to be cut down. Or, I mean is anything
going to be left on the property except around the edges?
If I may just indicate one thing. The majority of the land between us and the
industrial zone is that 2.73 acre parcel. We're proposing, and subject of the
next hearing, one single-family home there. The vast majority of the trees on
that property will remain . .
Well, you hope. I mean he could go in, that person could go and cut it down,
too.
Well, as Mr. uh, and the applicant is Mr. Edward's, of B&M Enterprises. As
Mr. Edward's indicated through me,just a few minutes ago, he has every
intention of putting in extra plantings along that buffer, along the easterly side
of that lot. To screen both the SRD and that residential lot from any
industrial. So, he'll put in permanent evergreen vegetation. So even if the
leaves fall down you'll still get the buffer screening effect.
k,d ZN� ** Okay, I guess I have a question for Rosemary.
Just generally to answer you question. The tree removal is related to the
(ttJj,;,L grading plant. So, wherever the grading ends the tree removal ends. So,
where you see that.
So, that pretty much, you're pretty much clearing everything out, except for
`_ 11 around the edges?
Not entirely.
I mean is there anything of any substance in there that's worth saving or?
Or that could be put aside and maybe replanted at a later date by Brian?
Well there is a group with gt' p of(without microphone) west side. �
r f
t
f
55
�I don't imaging they're going to want you to do much with those.
(Response without microphone)
O—ty�� Yeah.
So all of that remains and basically the 15' (again without microphone)
Nbt"- �
So, essentially as I said you're pretty much clearing the site except for around
the edges?
CUAi---V Yes.
And there's nothing in the middle that's, because of the grading plan you
can't save anything that's in the middle. Is it heavily wooded right now?
Some places are totally wooded. Some places are a little bit more open . . .
There's that's probably (no mic) So there's a variety.
&AX- Okay.
n If I may just add a quick comment. In conferring with Mr. Edward's. He has
KI� tagged 50, identified 50-75 trees onsite that they're going to move to the
perimeter of the site.
Okay, good.
And relocate for additional buffering. And also, this map shows the
developed area of the property. There is a couple of hundred, there's
approximately 300' from the westerly most unit, for example, to the closest
property line which is going to remain essentially all wooded in that ravine
there. So just to give you an idea that this doesn't show, and if I may just
walk up to the exhibit to show you.
kA— You may.
,�� The area's that we're not showing are going to remain wooded.
t
56
This whole are here (over by exhibit-no mic) all in here. 300'.
Okay. Okay. I know that this is not to do with the commission but I think
the suggestion for the stop sign at the intersection where this road comes out
would be a very good idea. Because I think it sort of would protect everyone.
When we decide what we're going to do with this we could send a
recommendation into the traffic department and say that we think it's a very
good idea for safety.
I am concerned about the drainage downstream, Jerry because I know many
years when the Gorski subdivision was put in there was some very, very large
problems, as I recall. And, you know, I'm sure that you guys are on top of it
but just so we don't have something of that magnitude happening again. It
was sort of catastrophic as I recall. Something to do with runoff on steep
slopes and they hadn't seeded things. But I just remember it was a great
muddy water downstream for quite a while.
It still is a real problem and erosion in that subdivision continues and it's
getting to the point where we may have to go in and do something. This is all
in litigation right now with Mr. Gorski, etcetera.
Okay. I know it's been an ongoing problem, but just so we don't have
4L- something.
Yeah, that's what I was saying, you know, with the type of soils that are in
the back of this property, we've taken some real, I wouldn't say extreme, but
real definitive measures to try and stabilize the area and not have the situation
that happened at the outflow of Mr. Gorski's detention basin.
What they've done here is they've done soil conservation has taken a page
from what they did on Dower Road, what that drainage ditch in the back that
they had and use some of their philosophies there and these detention basins
and try to stabilize the embankments and also stabilize the outfall.
Okay. Well, because I just, you know, when you have a problem already
happening downstream, you don't want to certainly don't want to add to it.
If the Wand/Wetlands Agency required in their approval, which I believe you
have before you, if not was alluded to in the comments from Marcia Banach,
57
and they required that the design engineer, that's Mr. Arsenault, be present
y � and observe the installation of the sensitive areas that they were working with
FCS engineer, Jeff Folger and Jerry Iazzetta.
ARUK,4 All right.
So, there'll have to be an onsite inspection. Which was not the case I'm sure
I don't remember what happened with that. But I just know it was a big
��' problem, and you just don't want to see it made worse.
We even inspected it once and wrote up a report on it and we've observed it
&IXA,tL-s- and we know exactly what happened.
Okay. Good. Thank you.
Okay. I believe that do you have something.
Yes, I just want to ask Mr. Chairman at the continuance I'd like to request a
presence of Jeff Folger, he's been mentioned several times this evening with
statements where there's been questions we've had on drainage, both Louise
and Marshall. And I would like his presence at our next continuance of this
hearing. Thank you.
J"-4. Well I'd like to make a motion to continue this public hearing to December &.
e— Is there a second.
� Second.
&AU-
Let's have a discussion, that was a question, Jerry.
If I may this situation with the easement industrial use, etcetera. We will be
looking at that a little further, and bring something probably back and the next
hearing so that everybody knows that we don't just surprise somebody with
something.
Okay.
58
Let me call the motion. All in favor of continuing this until December 8, will
l� be the continuance date, signify by saying Aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Public hearing will be continued until the eighth of December. I'm not sure
of the agenda item order but we'll post it over the next few days.
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Minutes (Verbatim) - February 16, 1999
Application #98-58P, Shady Brook SRD
G Regrettably the proposed SRD site on Strong Road does not have the luxury
of being placed at the Community Center or any other facility for that matter.
A trucking terminal borders its boundaries along with Capitol Moving and
Storage. And Tobacco Valley being close by.
The noise from the trucks from these sites along with the smell of diesel
fumes from trucks warning up, the constant hooking up and unhooking of
trailers with loud back-up horns that these trucks will have will become an
unbearable nuisance, especially on the hot summer months.
I also feel that the entrance of this site is dangerous because it is on top of a
blind hill.
The front footage is also questionable.
And, in fact we've already touched on all the rest of that. I believe that if we
allow this project to go through we will have far more problems to impose
undue stress on our elderly because of issues I have brought up is not good
planning on the part of Planning & Zoning. Therefore, I make a motion to
deny the application.
I'll second it.
c�S�c e Okay any further discussion?
0,,o<N,(_tYes.
Okay.
2
Um, I have some of the concerns.
Oh.
I'm very concerned about the noise. We have just been through many hours
C_,of listening over the course of the last two years about someone who has a
house next to an industrial area. And we have people from Main Street come
in and complain about the noise from the trucks. And now we're putting a
whole new residential development right next, closer to the problem, and
people who are are hearing it.
You know, after what we've been through over on, that's not Barber Road.
�_orAO`' Barbara.
Yeah.
mean, I guess I just don't get it. I mean it just doesn't mare sense to me.
The other thing that I'm concerned about is, I mean I like the housing for the
elderly project. And I think they're a good thing. And I'm as we get older
we see the need for more. Um, however, it is a kind, oh you're not going to
get older.
�C, � o I'm your older . . .
vNU\`l It would take longer for Frank to get older.
LGSl c° Right.
Just wait to the next couple of months.
At any rate, this is the kind of multi-family housing. When you look at all the
little streets that go from Route 5 down to Main Street, this is like the first
incursion of this type of housing into this area. And I think the potential after
this is opening up a lot of doors for things to happen.
I might there are life five or six streets all the way the length of South
Windsor that go down Route 5 into Main Street. Hardly any of them have
3
any building on it. And I'm just overly concerned about starting some bind of
a precedent with letting something like this start here. And somebody or
someone else can say, well gee we were down on Chapel Road, or Pleasant
Valley Road, there's a lot of land down there that's not developing. A lot of
it's wet, and you can't do anything to it anyway. And this happens to be, I
guess one of the higher area. But, it's just letting something happen down
there, nothing's there right now. And you know that once one happens here
there's going to be pressure to put others. And I just don't think it would, I
just don't think it's the right place for it.
•fit t i
�<pYr Okay, when you say others, you mean other senior residence or just other
development.
,-,,ca' &LtNot other development, I have I don't think, I mean have who knows what's
,,d\vn^planned for the rest of the whole area there. I don't think this is the area for
multiple types of houses. That whole corridor going down there. And that's
what I'm concerned about, being it one thing or another.
�GnS Well . .
Oh I'm sorry.
I just wanted to say as I'm listening to Marcia. I sat here one evening with
the Lou Miller family and we looked at an overhead of this piece of property
with that industrial land. I can't imagine why Planning & Zoning allowed that
home, Lou Miller's, to be put that close to industrial land. I was amazed, I
thought it was the dumbest thing I ever saw. I'd just like to reiterate what
Marcia said. What we're doing here is the same thing. I consider the Police
ordinance for noise incidence ridiculous, it's not being held up. There's no
problems t+,vn Gnsve,j. And at that portion of Marcia's statement I'd like to
agree . .
Well, one of the reasons I voted for the rear lot, was because that's the type
j�,,c1ry of residential use I feel ought to go in. Next to a questionable area. To put
the more dense development in seems to be exactly what all the rest of you
are saying. It's seeing a lot of lot more people into contact with a possibly
poor situation. Rather than restricting it through to a few. Like (too many
papers shuffling around)
4
I thinly it's got a lot of problems from the standpoint of noise. I'm just not in
favor of putting a dense piece of development into a questionable area.
I disagree with the applicant who said that it was close to all sorts of things.
Life the applicant mentioned the Community Center, not the Community
Center the convalescent home, the Congregational Church. Things of this
sort. It's not any it's not exceptionally close to any of those. Two, three
miles that's quite a bit.
Well or else it's a stupid regulation to have, requirement or regulation.
Because you could argue well nothing is far away within the town. And I
thinly that's really true. But, we in putting that into our regulation have to
mean something more than that.
Yeah.
1 �;5 More than just that you can hop in your car and you can go five miles, or
three miles or whatever you need to do.
I would life to see such an area stay densely developed. Walter, I thinly that
there's a problem. You say why did we put residential next to industrial.
What do you put there? Something has to go next to it.
Wady No. If you looped at the overhead the way that little hoof. It was a little hoof
1(,Vec' Y that went up into it, and that lot could have been changed. So he wasn't that
close.
Well that was . .
That's that's
PtaVi I'm just reiterating, you know. All the problem
I thinly that we all want to make. . .
,,,p&9hat was when the parr center compound . .
5
I think it's great to have the conservation easement land in there.
Conservation commission land. I think that that's a positive thing for any
kind of residential development that goes in there.
o All right.
All right. Well, oh Susan. Sorry.
I just want to, you know, I agree with what everyone said. I just want to add
c�er� my own perceptions having gone and deliberately driven Strong Road several
times, especially when you've had a lot of that ice and snow and stuff. I
don't think that particular parcel of land can handle that amount of
development. So I wouldn't even, you know, I wouldn't even look at this at
all for 20 units. It just, it can't handle it. The drainage isn't going to be there.
�c,�,Ac o Same with density.
LG�,e r,The density is just too much. Way too much.
Vic,Sic o Anything further?
Okay we have a motion to deny. And a second. A lot of discussion on it.
� n S Can we have a motion to deny, I mean we've been through this before.
Been there.
Yeah, you don't have to reverse.
C�Ct Spa Well there was a motion to deny.
Yes, you did.
You're right I did. I did.
�cin5 Yeah, I know we've had discussion on this before, that's why I want to . . .
Well I think we're done.
. 4
'ON06 If you think you're done, if you all would indulge me and let me read you back
4�- what I've got to make sure its.
D Well, I think we're done.
��,a.V%-Okay.
The past history of the Planning and Zoning Commission with noise problems and
complaints of residential areas next to industrial areas has been very intense. This
would be the first incursion of multi-family housing on the west side of Main St.
area, it would be precedent setting in the rural neighborhood of Main St. thus it is
inappropriate for the Main St. area. Bringing in higher density against an
industrial zone is not a good idea we should keep the density sparse.
Abutting the industrial zone. Isn't it abutting?
It will be when I finish. I'm just writing down what you're saying right now. It's
,\JaffcC�--not close enough to community services. The development density itself is too
intense for this parcel. Does this summarize everything everybody said?
o I think that about does it.
O.K., let me call the motion. All those in favor of this application signify by saying
aye.
Ayes
�0�kj J Abstentions or nays?
This application is denied.
CV 99 058 75 31
BANCROFT BROOK LLC :SUPERIOR COURT
ET AL : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
HARTFORD
V. : AT HARTFORD
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, : OCTOBER 5,2001
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Plaintiffs Bancroft Brook LLC and B & M Enterprises, Inc. appeal the decision of
the defendant planning and zoning commission of the town of South Windsor denying the
plaintiffs' application for a special exception/site development plan approval for the
construction and operation of a Senior Residence Development(SRD) on their property
in that town. The commission acted pursuant to General Statutes § 8-3, 8-3c and
applicable plan and zoning regulations of the town. The plaintiff appeals pursuant to § 8-
8. The court finds in favor of the plaintiffs.
-,
CD
T
�sm AA
V
1
The facts essential to the court's decision are undisputed and fully reflected in the
record. Plaintiff Bancroft Brook LLC is the owner of a 9.11 acre parcel of land in South
Windsor. Plaintiff B & M Enterprises, Inc. holds an option to purchase the property. The
land is in a Rural Residential district, zoned R-40. Applicable zoning regulations allow
the construction and operation of a Senior Residence Development providing housing for
the elderly upon the obtaining of a special exception and site plan approval from the
defendant commission.
In October 1998, the plaintiffs applied for a special exception/site plan approval
for an SRD consisting of twenty dwelling units on their property as well as a
resubdivision. The requested resubdivision would carve out a single family residential lot,
which would be adjacent to the SRD parcel. The commission convened a public hearing
on November 18, 1998, which was continued to January 12, 1999, and concluded at that
time. On February 16, 1999, the commission met and voted to deny the plaintiffs'
application for SRD approval. The commission approved the resubdivision creating the
single family residential lot.
In its decision denying the SRD, the commission cited four reasons, set forth
below verbatim:
"1. Serious reservations about siting a high-density development directly adjacent
to an industrial zone with existing industrial uses, due to the ongoing noise
complaints from other residential developments abutting industrial zones.
2. Locating a multi-family development in the rural, historic Main Street area is
inappropriate. This would set a precedent for future high-density development
applications west of Route 5, which is an area whose rural character the
Commission desires to preserve and maintain. Commissioners indicated that the
density should be kept low in this area for both prevention of noise complaints
2
and preservation of rural character.
3. This site is not within reasonable proximity to community facilities or
amenities which serve the needs of elderly residents.
4. The proposed density is too high for the site. "
It is this decision which is the subject of this appeal.
It is stipulated by the parties that the plaintiffs are owners of the property which is
the subject of the commission's decision. They are, therefore, aggrieved by that decision
and have standing to bring this appeal.
In their brief and at oral argument on this appeal, the plaintiffs advance essentially
three arguments in support of their appeal: 1)that the commission misinterpreted and
illegally applied the applicable regulations; 2) that there was insufficient evidence of
excessive noise emanating from the industrial zone; and 3) that one of the commissioners
was biased and acted so as to deprive the plaintiffs of a fair hearing.
Before addressing the specific issues raised by this appeal, it will be helpful to
restate several general principles of the law relating to the role of the commission and the
court in special permit cases. If an application for a special permit satisfies the
requirements of applicable regulations and statutes, the commission must grant it. But
this does not mean that the commission's review of the application is a mere formality.
" We previously have recognized that the special permit process is, in fact, discretionary
... (We have also) concluded that general considerations such as public health, safety and
welfare, which are enumerated in zoning regulations, may be the basis for the denial of a
special permit. Also, we have stated that before the zoning commission can determine
3
whether the specially permitted use is compatible with the uses permitted as of right in
the particular zoning district, it is required to judge whether any concerns, such as parking
or traffic congestion, would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood ... Although
it is true that the zoning commission does not have discretion to deny a special permit
when the proposal meets the standards, it does have the discretion to determine whether
the proposal meets the standards set forth in the regulations. If during the exercise of its
discretion, the zoning commission decides that all of the standards enumerated in the
special permit regulations are met,then it can no longer deny the application. The
converse is, however, equally true. Thus,the zoning commission can exercise its
discretion during the review of the proposed special exception, as it applies the
regulations to the specific application before it. ... In situations in which the zoning
commission does state the reasons for its action, the question for the court to pass on is
simply whether the reasons assigned are reasonably supported by the record and whether
they are pertinent to the considerations which the commission is required to apply under
the zoning regulations ... The agency's decision must be sustained if an examination of
the record discloses evidence that supports any one of the reasons given. (Citations and
internal quotation marks omitted.) Irwin v. Planning& Zoning Commission, 244 Conn.
619, 626-629 (1998).
The first reason cited by the commission as a basis for its decision is that noise
from the nearby industrial zone might engender complaints from residents of the SRD.
The principal flaw in this reasoning is that there is nothing in the regulations that supports
it. All of the regulations that might be considered even remotely pertinent to the proposal
4
in this regard are focused on potentially adverse effects that the project might have on the
existing neighborhood, not on potential problems that the neighborhood might have on
the SRD. Thus, for example, Regulations sec. 4.1.12.d.1. requires that "traffic impacts
will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood." So, although the
commission is "required to judge whether any concerns, such as parking or traffic
congestion, would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood," Irwin v. Planning
and Zoning Commission, supra, 244 Conn. 627; even if noise is in the same category as
parking and traffic congestion, the commission has no authority to reject a special permit
application on the ground that the_applicant's property would be adversely impacted.
Although noise that already exists in the neighborhood might very properly be a concern
of the applicant and later of someone contemplating moving into one of the units, it
would seem to be none of the commission's business in its consideration of this
application.
The commission's concerns are expressly based on "ongoing complaints from
other residential developments abutting industrial zones." This would be relevant to the
plaintiffs' application only if there was substantial evidence that there is also significant
and undue noise emanating from the industrial property that is near the plaintiffs'
proposed project. Such evidence as there is,however, is at best vague and
unsubstantiated. The most egregious indication of the unreliability of this evidence is the
statement made during the public hearing by one of the commissioners, Patricia Porter,
who said that she herself had made two recent complaints about noise generated by a
trucking company on the property nearest the plaintiffs' SRD. Later, when questioned
5
under oath at a deposition called by the plaintiffs, Commissioner Porter admitted that her
statement at the public hearing was false.
Further, and most significantly, on the noise issue, the court notes that South
Windsor has enacted an ordinance establishing a "noise pollution standard," the purpose
of which is to control the volume of noise emanating from a particular site. The ordinance
sets noise limits for the different zones in the town, including the industrial zones, and it
prohibits an individual or a business from emitting noise beyond its own boundary in
excess of the applicable limit. This ordinance applies to the industrial zone nearest to the
plaintiffs' property in the residential zone, which is the subject of this appeal. There is no
evidence in the record that the noise emanating from the industrial zone into the
plaintiffs' property is in excess of the applicable limit or that any of the businesses
generating noise in that industrial zone have been the subjects of enforcement action
pursuant to the ordinance. It is noteworthy in this regard that the commission's stated
reason for denying the plaintiffs' application is that the commission anticipates noise
complaints, not noise violations.
The defendant commission argues that the ordinance would not adequately protect
the residents of the SRD because the many exceptions to the enforcement provisions
mandated by state law and regulations allow a legal but nonetheless bothersome level of
noise. In effect, the commission says that the noise justifies the denial of the plaintiffs'
application even though the noise level complies with the applicable regulations. This
argument illustrates one of the fundamental flaws in the town's reasoning in rejecting the
special permit. The commission concedes that the application conforms to the
6
i
requirements of existing regulations, in this case the noise ordinance, but nevertheless
rejects the application on the basis that the regulations are inadequate. In essence, the
commission seeks to establish a higher or different standard for the current application
than that already established by existing regulations. The law does not afford the
commission such discretion in considering an application for a special permit that
complies with the current regulations. If the town is not satisfied that current regulations
accomplish its goals, the proper course is to change the regulations.
The commission also argues, apparently in the alternative, that if it were forced by
complaints from SRD residents to enforce the noise ordinance against businesses in the
industrial zone, that would be contrary to the requirement in the regulations that the
project have "minimal impact on surrounding properties." The commission's
interpretation of this requirement is plainly erroneous. "Impact," in this context,
obviously does not mean the effect that due enforcement of the law might have on a
violator. The commission's reasoning, if adopted, would logically require it to reject any
application for an SRD on the basis that the residents might insist that the government
enforce laws that restrict the conduct of business -pollution prevention, traffic control,
outdoor advertising, are just some examples that come to mind. The short answer to the
commission's argument in this regard is that the government should enforce duly enacted
laws without waiting for citizen complaints and without regard for the "impact" that such
enforcement might have on the violator.
Finally,the plaintiffs point out that the commission's approval of the new
residential subdivision lot, which is directly adjacent to the industrial zone, is inconsistent
7
with its assertion that noise emanating from that industrial zone will be annoying or
harmful to residents. In its brief to the court, the commission in effect concedes that the
residents of the new lot might be just as adversely affected by the noise as the SRD
residents, but since there will be at most only one family on the lot, the commission
claims that its actions are "a reasonable compromise between the interests of the town in
minimizing problems with noise" and the interests of the plaintiffs in the use of their
property. The point that the commission seems to miss is that its actions should be based
on the protection of all its citizens, that the protection of just one individual from illegal
noise, or any other illegal activity, is as necessary as is the protection of many. If the
commission was truly acting to protect its citizens from the harmful effects of noise from
the industrial zone, it would not have approved a residential subdivision directly adjacent
to the source of the noise even if only one person would be a victim. (It's entirely likely,
of course, that a whole family will occupy the new lot,perhaps even a family that
includes elderly people.) In approving the subdivision as a "compromise," however, the
commission undermines its entire argument that excessive noise emanating from the
industrial zone is a problem that can legitimately be a basis for official action; that is, can
be a basis for denying the plaintiffs' application.
For the reasons set forth above, the court concludes that there was insufficient
evidence to support the commission's fmding that there was noise in excess of the legal
limit emanating from businesses in the industrial zone to the plaintiffs' property. Further,
the commission abused its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' application on the basis
that noise from such businesses would harm or annoy SRD residents in the absence of
8
evidence that such noise exceeds the legal limit.
The second reason given by the commission for denying the plaintiffs' application
is that a multi-family development is "inappropriate" in the Main Street area of town. In
its brief, the commission cites section 4.1.12.d.6. of the regulations in support of this
reason. That section requires that the SRD proposal be "consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Town Plan of Development." One of the goals of the Plan of
Development is to establish a "Rural land use category" of certain land in the town zoned
for residential use. This "category" is "characterized by the Community's lowest intensity
land uses. The primary land uses to be encouraged are: agriculture; open space; nature
preserves; and passive recreation. Residential land uses would be limited to single-family
homes on large lots only, with recommended minimum residential density far exceeding
one acre for every home." The plaintiffs' land is located within this geographical
"category." The town's zoning regulations do not, however,provide these limitations on
the plaintiffs' property, which is located in a residential A-40 zone. In addition to the
single family homes on large lots endorsed by the town plan,the regulations currently in
force for that zone permit professional offices, boarding houses, two family dwellings,
and SRD's by special permit. That is to say,the town's duly enacted regulations have not
caught up with the vision of the area set forth in the town plan.
In Irwin v. Planning&Zoning Commission, supra, 244 Conn. 631, the Supreme
court reaffirmed the general rule that "because the overall objectives contained in the
town plan must be implemented by specific regulations, the plan itself can operate only as
an interpretive tool," citing Smith v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 227 Conn. 71 (1993). In
9
1 .
the Irwin case, the court approved the administrative agency's reliance on the town's plan
of development but "only as an aid for interpreting the standards in the regulation."
In the present case, in rejecting the SRD permit as "inappropriate" in the "rural
Main Street area," the commission is not using the town plan as a tool for interpreting the
existing zoning regulations,which allow SRD's by special permit, but rather, the
commission is seeking to implement the goals of the town plan in the absence of specific
zoning regulations accomplishing those goals. Such action exceeds the authority of the
commission
The third reason cited by the commission for denying the application is that the
project would not be "within reasonable proximity to community facilities" for elderly
people. The applicable regulation is section 4.1.12.d.8., which requires that:
8. The location of the SRD facility is within reasonable proximity to community
facilities or amenities which serve the needs or elderly residents, or is within
reasonable proximity to indoor/outdoor activity centers, or is within close
proximity to or contains permanent open space land. (Emphasis added.)
It is undisputed that the plaintiffs' project includes the donation of fifteen acres of
land surrounding the SRD to be designated as permanent open space. Thus, the
application complies with this section of the regulations, which requires reasonable
proximity to community facilities only as an alternative to open space. The commission's
argument that the open space must be suitable for hiking by possibly fragile or unstable
elderly citizens finds no support in the plain language of this regulation.
The last reason cited by the commission for denying the application is that "the
proposed density is too high for the site." It is undisputed that section 4.1.12.f., as
10
applied to the project set forth in the plaintiffs' application, sets the maximum density at
eight units per buildable acre, subject to an overall limit of twenty units. The site contains
7.89 buildable acres, and the proposal calls for twenty units. This is a "density" of 2.53
units per acre, well within the requirements of the applicable regulation.
The commission argues that it has the discretion to impose tighter density limits
within those contained in the regulations. In this case, the commission contends that its
conclusion that the density of the plaintiffs' project is excessive is justified by evidence in
the record of"poor drainage conditions." The court has examined the record in this
regard . The record discloses, first, that the project was approved by the town's Inland
Wetlands and Watercourses and Conservation Commissions. During the course of the
public hearing before the defendant commission, the subject of drainage received some
comment from town officials,the public, and the plaintiffs' engineer. There is
considerable evidence in the record indicating that all drainage concerns were adequately
addressed by the plaintiffs' final construction plans and to the satisfaction of the town's
professional staff. The fact that the subject was discussed and that some members of the
public were not satisfied with the final plans is not substantial evidence which would
support the commission's decision in this regard. The court concludes that the
commission's reasoning in rejecting the application insofar as it is based on the "density"
of the project has no support in the regulations or in the evidence.
In Irwin v. Planning&Zoning" Commission, supra 244 Conn. 628, our Supreme
Court states the familiar rule setting the high bar that a plaintiff must scale in order to
overturn a decision of the commission: "In applying the law to the facts of a particular
11
$ f
case, the (commission) is endowed with a liberal discretion, and its action is subject to
review by the courts only to determine whether it was unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal."
In the present case, for the reasons set forth above, the court concludes that the
commission's stated reasons for denying the plaintiffs' application for a special
exception/site development plan approval are not supported by evidence in the record or
by provisions of applicable law or regulations. The commission's decision may not,
therefore, be affirmed.
The appeal is sustained.
Malone�J.
12