60 Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2005
SOUTHINGTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 4, 2005
Town Hall Council Chambers, 75 Main Street, Second Floor
MINUTES Chairman Francis Kenefick, called the Public Hearing
portion of the Regular Meeting of the Southington Planning
& Zoning Commission to order at 7:02 pm with the following
members in attendance: Michael DelSanto, John DeMello, John Carmody, Dolores
Longo, Zaya Oshana and James LaRosa Alternates: John Moise Robert Borkowski Brian Zaccagnino Others: Mary Hughes, Town Planner, Mark Sciota, Town
Attorney and Anthony Tranquillo, Town Engineer Absent: Christopher Petrone, Alternate John Weichsel, Town Manager A quorum was determined. FRANCIS KENEFICK, Chairman, presiding: (Summary Minutes: meeting recorded on tape, as well) A. Continued Public Hearing from the September 20, 2005
Meeting - Special Permit Use Application of Queen Street
Partners, LLC proposing the removal of an existing
structure and the proposed construction of a car wash
facility, 312 Queen Street, SPU #0496. Ms. Hughes reported to the Commission that this application
was continued in order to give the applicant to address
some of the concerns that were expressed by the Commission.
I believe that a number of the applicant’s representatives
are here this evening. SEV BOVINO: Planner, with Kratzert, Jones & Associates,
representing the applicant. This property is located at 312
Queen Street, Route 10. Served by public water and sewer. The proposed use is allowed under special permit of your
zoning regulations with the requirement that a traffic
study is to be provided and the statement of water usage.
The traffic study was provided the last time. The statement
of water usage, also. In addition to that, since the last meeting we have
provided, revised plans showing improvement in the stacking
up to the teller area from Queen Street entering the site. I’ve provided the Planning Department with a copy of a
letter --- some legal documentation regarding the rights of
the property owner over the New Britain Water Company
easement. (Submitted another copy for the record.) A copy of the water usage statement. (Submitted) Two letters from the water company in Southington
indicating that there is a 14-inch water main with adequate
pressure to serve the proposal. (Submitted) And, then a letter dated September 28th, which really
addresses the site plan requirements. (Submitted) In addition to the record, submitted to the Planning
Department, a copy of a letter from Rapido Rabbit Carwash,
which talks about the recycling of the water up to 80
percent and also a report regarding the solid waste coming
out of the facility. (Submitted) We did notify the property owners within 500 feet as
required. The revisions to the plan include a grit oil separator at
the front of the building before it ties into the sanitary
sewer as requested by the Town Engineer and it is a
requirement. We located the dumpster to have clear movement at the
escape lane. Explained. This is not a full service car wash. It is just an exterior
car wash facility. In the beginning you’ll see high usage
because it’s new in Town, but then things will get back to
normal. Compared to Home Depot opening in Town. Adam Shapps, the applicant, will be talking to you more
about the operation of the car wash. He’ll go into great
detail giving a step-by-step approach to entering the
tunnel. We have Ted DosSAntos here, the traffic engineer. The other comments are mostly site plan related issues.
We’ll leave those to be discussed later if you approve the
SPU. ADAM SHAPPS: 667 Aspen Lane, Orange, CT. I’m the applicant
for the car wash. One important point I want you to
understand before I continue. We listened to the discussion
and concerns among you regarding traffic at the September
6th meeting. We understand your concerns and will work with
the Commission to come up with a solution. We have talked
internally among our team and would like to stipulate a
condition of approval. That the left turn lane out of the
site be prohibited. We feel that this condition will give
the Commission a level of comfort that egress will allow
safe and efficient flow of traffic on to Route 10. I’m going to give you a complete explanation of how this
property car wash operates. It is much different than most
other car washes. All we do is wash cars. It is considered
an exterior express car wash. This car wash only washes the
outside of the car. Person never gets out of their car.
They may get out of their car to go to the vacuum stations
after the car is washed. The drying process takes place in
the tunnel by 9 large blowers completely drying the car.
Two employees at all times at the wash helping customers
with questions, traffic control and keeping the car wash
clean. I have a site layout to walk you through the car wash
process and I have photos of each one of the stops along
the way that a customer will be making when they get their
car washed.
Traffic flow on this site is the most important factor when
laying out a new facility. There are four important points
on the site where vehicle control takes place: auto teller
area, pre wash stacking area, tunnel entrance and vacuums. (Indicated on the layout where each station is.) Took the Commission through the process of the car wash
explaining each stop. He concluded that according to industry standard, a car
wash of this type will wash approximately 60,000 cars a
year. This breaks to roughly 167 cars a day or 14 cars per
hour based on a 12-hour workday. Our traffic engineer, Ted DosSantos, will discuss with you
the frequency that cars will be able to take a right out of
the site. Thank you. Mr. Bovino interjected that parking spaces for employees
were included and additional spaces for potential visitors,
sales people. We have one handicapped and five regular
parking spaces. The Commission has the right to request
additional spaces if you so choose. The vacuuming stations were discussed. Mr. DelSanto asked if the dual stacking line could be
extended down. Discussion followed. A main concern is cars
stacking out into the road. If you can extend that down,
you have double stacking and you can move the auto teller
down more. Mr. Bovino said that would be a site plan issue
investigated later. This is the SPU. After the tunnel, the first 20 feet will be heated. Past
that, we will be sanding and salting that whole area. TED DOS SANTOS: Traffic Engineer with Fuss & O’Neill. I just wanted to speak that we have done a little bit of
work since the last time we were here. We want to work with
you to address some of your traffic concerns. We did meet with Captain Simone at the Police Department.
We listened to many of their concerns. We went back and
discussed internally and we’ve agreed to stipulate the
restriction of left turns out of the site. Spoke real quick about the ability of vehicles to make the
right turn out of the site. Gaps in the traffic flow will
allow the right turns out of the site every time that light
turns red. Explained the cycle. We think it will be an efficient operation. Right turn only
out of the site to keep traffic moving without impacting
the operation of the car wash. The restricted left turn being by design or signage was
extensively discussed. Sketch on blackboard. Plans have been submitted to the DOT for approval of
changes to Route 10. The Chair called for anybody speaking against the
application at this time. ATTORNEY HECHT: Kevin J. Hecht, 220 South Main Street,
Cheshire, CT. I represent Southington Autowash, LLC. Steve
Krawczyk is the owner/operator at that establishment. He
has 24 years of experience. Mr. Krawczyk made some comparisons with his site. - Traffic coming in/out of his site is 6 to 8 times the
volume, which he has in the July/August when the traffic
study was completed in. We are talking about a
substantially greater number of vehicles coming in/out of
his site and would expect the same at another site in close
proximity to his. Discussed the volumes projected. The numbers today were
different than those at the public hearing on September
6th. Clearly there are uses for this site, which are much lower
traffic volume. Explained there is not sufficient stacking
room. Chief Daly’s memo of September 15th was referenced. He has
concerns about stacking, icing, left turn movements. Compared car wash cycle between Southington Auto Wash and
the applicant’s. Dryer cycle was discussed. Blowers & towel drying at
Southington Auto Wash and not at the applicant’s. Left turn prohibition at both sites was compared.
Southington Car Wash had between 10 and 20 accidents a year
in front of his site before the prohibition. The sign
installation has caused a subsiding of that. The issue is traffic. There is insufficient room for the
vehicles for stacking on the applicant’s site, both pre
wash and post wash, I think. A real risk of queuing on to
Queen Street. A potential icing problem with the blow-
drying and no towel drying in this application. We have
impacts of levels of service on unsignalized intersections
and driveways in the area. Attorney Hecht reviewed the Traffic Engineer’s report
indicating there will be a decreased level of service
throughout out the unsignalized intersections on Queen
Street. Explained. Overall, it is pretty clear, I think, there is a potential
here and this Commission under it’s SPU prerogatives and
general considerations is to take into consideration the
public health, safety and general welfare, property values,
comfort of public usage in general, may attach reasonable
conditions and safeguards as a precondition to it’s
approval. I ask you to take a close look at this application as it
relates to Queen Street traffic. I think you have to
consider the site planning issues and SPU issues together.
Explained. You have some control at site plan, but your major control
is here in the SPU process. You have much more discretion
in approving or denying an application or attaching
conditions. I printed off the Internet, the home page for the Rapido
Rabbit. Explained and submitted for the record. Discussion
followed on the submission. Mr. Krawczyk directs traffic on busy days to keep the
queuing off of Queen Street. You don’t have the staff in
this operation to do that. Explanation. There is nothing but potential problems, both coming into
the site, on site and exiting the site as I view the
traffic reports and the information from Rapido Rabbit. Discussion. Relative to the suicide lane, the traffic engineer says we
ought to have it. It’s better if we do have it, but if we
don’t get it, it’s still okay. I’m not sure which way it
is. Compared to car wash in the south end of Cheshire. To approve this site as an auto wash and be stuck with that
use from this point forward depending what you can do with
the site and what happens with DOT to get that double left
turn lane approved, is a scary thought. Discussion. You ought to look long and hard at this application,
consider all the site plan issues along with the SPU issues
because they’re so inter-related and it’s such a critical
point in our Town that we can’t treat it with too much or
too little consideration. Mr. LaRosa asked Attorney Hecht, you are not for or against
this application, would you like to see it approved?
Attorney Hecht says he represents Southington Autowash,
LLC. I’m not here opposing this application for competitive
purposes, but we have a lot of information -- 24 years of
experience--- which I think you could use. Extensive discussion relative to traffic and queuing on
Queen Street. Mr. LaRosa noted his traffic may be reduced because there
is now two facilities. Attorney Hecht said that is
possible. Extensive discussion. Mr. LaRosa asked if Southington Autowash had a heat pad
like the applicant does. Attorney Hecht said they do not
have a heat pad. Southington Autowash's tunnel is longer.
Explained the benefits of that. Then there is the blow dry
and the toweling section. Discussion.
The Chair called for rebuttal. Mr. Bovino wished to respond to some of the concerns
raised. The customers coming to the carwash are existing
traffic on the roadway. We’ll take some customers away from
the existing facilities and we hope they’ll come to this
car wash. It’s not additional people that come to Queen
Street to wash their cars. As far as icing, we did offer that certain times there is
icing on Queen Street. You cannot avoid it. We have offered
deicing to be applied at that time. If we need additional
employees at those times, there will be additional
employees. The applicant, Mr. Shapps, addressed comments regarding the
business model. I would like to confirm the conveyor. It
can handle 130 cars an hour. It is not that we will be
washing 130 cars an hour. Just clarify that point. Our site is only an exterior carwash. Southington Car Care
is an oil change facility. It’s a self-serve wand facility,
it’s a detail center and it’s also a car wash. It’s
actually four businesses that are being run out of that one
facility. It’s not just a car wash. Thank you. Ted Dos Santos, traffic engineer, just real quick on some
points that were made about my report and my testimony. As to the numbers expressed, in the industry, you look at
the peak hour. That’s the way the analysis is conduced
across the state and the country. Look at the peak period,
peak traffic generation, gaps in traffic. Explanation. The traffic signal will provide a gap in traffic. If you
run the engineering numbers, we’ve got about 8 seconds per
cycle during which traffic will be allowed to exit the
site. It’s 2 seconds per vehicle in the industry, so you
can probably figure on moving 4 cars off of the site in
each cycle. Discussion. The traffic operation works for right turns out of the
site. Explanation. We did meet with the police department earlier to address
some of their concerns, but I am not aware of a traffic
memo from Chief Daly. Ms. Hughes said she didn’t have such
a memo. Anecdotal evidence about accidents in front of the
Southington Wash. The reason we follow an industry standard
method for conducting an accident review is so that there
will be some basis for these types of statements. As to the
accidents in front of Southington Auto Wash, it’s my
understanding the left turn restriction was recent. We did
compile three years of accident data and it was complied
for the length of north of the Queen B Plaza signal to
south of the Wal Mart traffic signal and over that segment
of Route 10, there was an average of 16 accidents per year.
It’s a stretch to think there were 10 to 20 accidents right
in front of that one driveway for any length of time. It
would be reflected in the statistics. As to the decrease in level of service on the corridor
statement, I don’t think that was consistent with what the
report said. Explained. Regarding the two way left turn lane and my comments we
felt like it was a good recommendation. (End of Tape #1, Side A) (Beginning of Tape #1, Side B) Even without the two way left turn lane the unsignalized
driveway could work here, the same as it does at many other
carwashes and gas stations and other businesses up and down
Route 10. That’s all I have to say. Thank you. Attorney Hecht submitted a copy of the letter from Chief
Daly to pass to the Commission. (Submitted.) With respect to the traffic engineer’s concerns about his
representations about what his report said, I refer you to
Page 7. (Read)
The Chair closed the public hearing at this time on this
application. B. Special Permit Use application of Chris and Cathie
Topper proposing to construct a parent/grandparent
apartment addition to an existing single-family dwelling,
property located at 240 Pin Oak Drive, SPU #407. Ms. Hughes read the legal notice for the items that are
schedule for public hearing this evening. The Chair called for those speaking in favor of the
application. CHRIS TOPPER: 240 Pin Oak Drive. My father passed away in
the 1997. Over the past few years my mother has been by
herself and it has become more difficult for her. We
decided to put the addition on our house after looking at
her options. I met with the Town Staff and was informed of all the rules
and regulations to do this. I believe the plan that we’ve
submitted meets all the provisions outlined in
Southington’s regulations. We did notify everyone within 250 feet of our house. I
don’t believe anyone is speaking against this. I’ve spoken
with my neighbors and no one seems to have a problem. I ask for your approval for this and hopefully have it
watertight by the end of the year. The in-law area is 513
sf, meeting the requirements. Ms. Hughes indicated he has complied completely with the
regulations. The Chair called for those speaking against the
application. Hearing no further comments, the Chair closed this public
hearing item.
C. Petition of Douglas Mitchell to Enact a zoning
Regulation Text Amendment proposing to amend Section 3-
01.2F.3 pertaining to the establishment of private horse
stables which promotes retention of open space for purposes
of providing a location for not more than eight (8) horses
which cannot be used for riding and similar purposes, ZA
#524. The Chair called for those speaking in favor of the
application. SEV BOVINO: Planner, with Kratzert, Jones representing the
applicant. Reviewed the proposed amendment. The amendment is townwide,
but we have a map indicating the property that we’ve been
dealing with over the last few months which is located in
the rear of Pratt Street, on the west side. I believe that this text change is needed to allow people
that want to take care of aging horses on their property,
taken on a case-by-case basis, provided it is not for
profit and that property distances are provided to other
properties surrounding the facility. Fencing is providing.
A barn to house the animals would be provided. We have
placed on the amendment the requirement that a veterinarian
would have to issue a letter indicting the conditions of
the horse to be housed at this location or whatever
particular location. I encourage you to look at this as if it were an assisted
living facility for people or even an active adult facility
where you allow one unit per each 3000 sf of land. Example:
40 units in 3 acres. We’re only talking about having a barn
with 8 to 10 horses in. I think it’s a reasonable request and with the proper
guidelines this can work for every one. Today I spoke to Mr. Gibbons of the UNCONN Cooperative
Extension Service located in Haddam, CT. He wrote a book on
keeping horses in a residential area. He says the rule of 1
horse per acre is related to the horses living off the
land. Discussion.
Today the horses are more for enjoyment. They are fed in
the barn with grains and hay. In our case, we are talking
about rescued horses that have to be inside. The space
required for each horse in this case is basically the
stall, which is a maximum size of 16 x 16 for a stallion,
very healthy. Otherwise, it could be 16 x 12 for each
horse. The outside keeping area for a horse is about 120 s with a
small shelter for bad weather. And, a paddock area, which
he feels a half-acre would be plenty of space for these
horses to have a small amount of exercise. The more important issues are the distances to property
lines. For the barn, 50 to 100 feet is adequate. Proper
screening around the border, natural or otherwise, will be
required. Removal of manure is very important on a regular basis. Mr. Doug Mitchell is here and would like to add to my
presentation and then if you have any questions, we’d be
glad to answer them. Mr. Bovino Presented photos of the property to submit to
the record showing the barn and the property. A letter from Veterinarian Ronald Emmons was submitted for
the record. Copies of regulations in different Towns as it relates to
the requirements of keeping horses. (Cheshire, Meriden) DOUG MITCHELL: 214 Pratt Street, Southington, CT. My first subject is regarding Item 1 on the memo that Ms.
Hughes sent to assist all of the Commissioners and to see
what relevant horse standards are. This memo is very misleading in three ways: - First, in many cases she provided information direct to
equine facilities that board horses for sale or for trade
or for training. Ms. Hughes knows that this does not apply
to our barn or to our first or second application here
tonight.
- Second, Ms. Hughes picked out Towns an average of 45
minutes away. My research found every Town chosen had the
strictest regulations and not the common norm. They were
the exception to the rule. Along with the Towns mentioned, part of Wallingford was
supplied and the important part of Wallingford was left
out. - Thirdly, this information is also misleading because Ms.
Hughes did not include horse regulations from our
neighboring Towns. They would be against her opinion that 8
horses is too many on 2.8 acres. Regulations from neighboring towns would be a better guide
than ones from a totally different geographical area.
That’s why I supplied ones in our own area. Ms. Hughes provided: Mansfield, Canton, Avon, Simsbury,
Newtown and half of Wallingford’s regulations. These towns
are an average of 45 minutes from here. They’re not
Southington. Commissioners, to assist the Commission with my accurate
way, we researched adjoining Towns. (Outlined Town regulations in adjoining Towns.) - Meriden - Cheshire - Wallingford I can provide many more Towns with similar regulations. Southington’s regulations are very strict, to start with. I have figures to help everyone understand how the land at
214 Pratt Street is being used. This information is to
refute Ms. Hughes’ opinion that 2.8 acres is not enough
land for 8 horses. The new home on the property, the barn and 1/2 acre of
corral, uses up .8 acres of the 2.8-acre parcel. We have a
lot of acreage left over. I feel this is not absurd, to quote our Town Manager at one
of the previous meetings.
I have submitted a short letter I requested from a very
experienced equine veterinarian with 16 years of
experience. Please respect his opinion as he is sought out
for his experience and many training seminars throughout
the State. Almost lastly, I would like to read a brief unofficial
conversation that my wife, Marsha Mitchell had with a fact
finder from the Regional Planning Commission of Southern
Central Connecticut that came on our property and evaluated
the situation. Possibly Ms. Hughes may have asked to have
this done. Ms. Hughes clarified that under Connecticut state law, we
are required to refer any proposed text change to regional
planning agencies, which any of our abutting municipalities
belong to. So, it would be: Central Connecticut, Naugatuck
Council of Governments, South Connecticut Regional and
Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agencies. I have to
do that under State law. (Read the letter, which is unofficial until October 20th,
2005.) Any questions? Ms. Longo referred to a previous approval he had from the
ZBA about ten years ago. Discussion followed. Mr. Mitchell concluded by saying he did not know of the 2-
horse limit or he would not have put up a 9-horse barn. Discussion. Mr. Carmody asked: In your opinion, based on your
experience, the needs of a healthy horse are different from
the needs of a hospice or a convalescent horse? Mr.
Mitchell responded: Absolutely. HILDA CAPARAL: 104 Beechwood Drive. I am a former ex-race
horse owner. I also was a 4-H volunteer and presently the
State FFA member at-large. Explained. I am in support of this petition to keep his retired and
rescued horses. I find this issue very disturbing. Do not
let us forget that Southington was and somewhat is a
farming community. We do have the Apple Festival here and
that is for farming. At one time they did use horses. We also support vocational agriculture science and
technology, which is going to be expanded at SHS in the
near future. I worked very hard to pass that referendum. I have been to the Mitchell barn and his manure containment
is properly done and I can say this by taking a management
manure course at the Connecticut Farm Bureau. I applaud the family for the time, money and commitment to
these horses that he has rescued and are retired. As far as having horses on 2.8 acres, at racetracks, the
racehorses stay in their stall, which is about 10 x 10, 22
hours out of a 24-hour day. I encourage you to let Doug keep the horses and let the
horses live out their days. As a side note as far as manure, not all manure, but a lot
of manure is used for manure cultivation farming. Thank you for your time. ART MATTHEWS: I own the farm on 786 East Street. I am a
farmer. I see no problem with horses if they are in a box
stall. The manure is removed and taken care of. The horses
don’t need much pasture. Adequately taken care of in a box
stall. I have one horse, 16 cows, and ducks and geese and goats. I
am a farm. I have 11 acres. SUSAN CARHARD: I’m speaking as a member of the Connecticut
general public at large. My address is 190 Litchfield
Street, Torrington, CT. I support the application. I have been following. The Chair clarified you are supposed to be a Southington
resident. Thank you for your time coming out here tonight,
also.
The Chair called for those speaking against the
application. (No response) Ms. Longo verified with Ms. Hughes that this text change
would be for anyone in Town that would have 2.8 acres and
wanted to have up to 8 horses on it, am I correct? Ms.
Hughes responded the horses are aged. Attorney Sciota commented it has to be stated here that the
Commission separates healthy horses from hospice horses.
That has to be stated on the record. We are separating
those two types of horses. Discussion. Ms. Hughes said she received a communication from the
CCRPA. There has to be a 35-day period lapse before you can
close the hearing so they have an opportunity to comment.
(Read the letter dated October 3, 2005.) We have to continue this to the 18th. Mr. Bovino advised the applicant is willing to modify the
wording from professional to veterinarian. The application
clearly indicates it is for the explicit purpose of
providing a location for sick and aging horses which cannot
be used for riding and other similar purposes provided the
application is for non-profit. The Chair continued this item to the October 18th meeting. D. Petition of Landmark Properties, LLC proposing to change
the Zoning District Boundaries from Industrial I-1 to
Residential R-12 for an 8.53 acre parcel of property to
permit development of multifamily dwellings, property
located at 5-7 East summer Street ZC #526. The Chair called for those speaking in favor of the
application. ATTORNEY BALDWIN: Ken Baldwin, I’m a lawyer with Robinson &
Cole. Home address is 32 Whitesail Drive here in
Southington. Work address is 280 Trumbull Street in
Hartford. I’m here tonight on behalf of Landmark Properties in their
application for a zone change from I-1 to R-12 residential
for an 8.53 acre parcel at 5-7 East Summer Street. The abutter’s map on the board shows the 8.5 acres that
we’re talking about this evening. To the north and east of
the parcel is the Quinnipiac River and R-12 zoned
properties fronting on Bristol Street and George Street. To
the south is land also in the I-1 zone, primarily
residential parcels, even though it is in the industrial
zone. And, to the west, some additional land in the
industrial zone, the new Rails to Trail, together with
uses, again, primarily residential uses on the east side of
Summer Street. On the west side of Summer Street it is
additional R-12 properties and residential land uses. If you look at the historical industrial use in this part
of Town and it is indicated in Ms. Hughes’s memo, this
property has been zoned industrial since about 1957.
Historically, this industrial corridor extends from the
Ideal Forging properties all of the way down to the center
of Plantsville. Primarily focused on the rail corridor that
used to go through Town bringing and taking product from
industrial uses in the vicinity. That was appropriate then but I represent to you tonight
that it is no longer appropriate in this part of Town. That
is essentially the reason why we’re here tonight seeking
your approval of the zone change to residential use. Since industrial uses were in place in this part of Town,
the predominant pattern for development in this area has
been for residential development. So much so, that I would
represent to the Commission tonight that the continued use
of properties in this area for residential purposes would
in fact be a detriment to the existing and well-established
communities in this part of Town. Ms. Hughes commented in her memo about spot zoning. It is
our position, supported by information that we are going to
present to you tonight, that this is not spot zoning.
Explained the overall size of the parcel is not a
determining factor under the law with respect to spot
zoning. You need to consider where the parcel sits in relation to
other zones in the area. You need to consider whether this
is a parcel that is adjacent to other zones that would
naturally extend to the parcel in question. Clearly, the R-
12 zone to the north and the east and the west, we’re
dealing with a natural extension of that residential zone
on to this parcel. This is not an isolated piece. We do have a natural
extension from that R-12 zoning district. With respect to our need to prove that this is consistent
with your comprehensive plan, we’re not just talking about
your plan of development here. The comprehensive plan means
a number of things. Explained it includes existing uses in
the area and development patterns in the area. It’s clear
that the development patterns in this area for this parcel
or adjacent parcels all in the industrial zone is
residential in nature. Pointed out a few commercial/industrial facilities. To the south, in the industrial zone, you have residential
uses of all parcels until you get down to Lot 105. Beyond that, clearly the zoning regulations contemplate
residential development surrounding this parcel. The zoning
map indicates this is an industrial zone, which is why
we’re here. Ms. Hughes’ memo did mention the future land use map of the
plan of development does find that this parcel should have
been designated or is designated for future land use as
industrial in the 1991 plan. I would submit that that is
simply a dated document at this point given the nature of
the development. Other aspects of your plan of development do recognize this
area of Town is appropriate for high density and multi
family development. The Goals Section of your plan of development also talks
about avoiding intrusion of the industrial development into
residential areas.
The character of this area has changed over time. From
predominantly an industrial use to what is clearly a
predominantly residential use in this area. We have the new residential amenity, if you will, the Rails
to Trails adjacent to this site. The applicant did consider industrial uses for this
property. Frankly, still considering them. The preference
would be to come in with something more consistent with
your redevelopment in a residential development. They did consider some type of public storage facility like
you have behind Ragozzino’s. We have different estimates of
anywhere from 300 to 600 units. I don’t know whether that’s
a reality, or not. We’re not comfortable with that. We feel
it’s inconsistent with the area land use and it’s more
appropriate to use this parcel for residential purposes. Discussion. Everyone is aware of the industrial uses in this area and
the regular conflicts the Town experiences with the
industrial uses and the residential development in this
part of Town. We’re trying to avoid any additional conflict
going forward with this property. We are in full conformance and agree with Mary Hughes’
memo, Item 2, in particular in that you have before you an
application that certain exemplifies the fact that the
character of this neighborhood has changed. Clearly the character has changed significantly since 1957.
It warrants a reclassification of this parcel to the R-12
zone. There is another aspect of this project which includes a
multifamily special permit and I’ll wait to talk about that
when the application comes up with the next public hearing. Thank you. The Chair called for those speaking in favor of the
application. (No response) The Chair called for those speaking against the
application. NANCY SCORPIO MARTIN: 360 Berlin Street. I represent my
parents whose property abuts this proposed change. Do you know if that would affect their property? (No. 99 on
the map.) Does it include this? Ms. Hughes said it does not include that property. The Speaker commented that thru the years, people have
tried to do zone changes in this area and they’ve all been
denied. What would change your minds now after all this
time has elapsed, to make it R-12? I know myself and my late uncle had applied for a zone
change to change it to R-12 to put in single-family homes,
1 or 2 on a 3.8 acres, and we were denied due to many
factors. One of which was the wetlands that surrounds this
property. Explained. We’d like to see the wetlands issue explored further. Possibly a traffic study coming into the property for the
proposal of the multifamily homes and/or whatever is
proposed. The Rails to Trails was just put in and you had planned to
close done that entrance from Summer Street into East
Summer. I know the fire department had said no because you
couldn’t get the emergency vehicles in and out of there. Only one entrance in/out of the property. The roads going
in there cannot handle that type of traffic. Explained. Do you plan on doing a traffic study and a wetland study? I
know there was a wetlands that were filled in. There’s a
lot of dumping areas in this area and even the Town years
ago had used some of this area for dumping. I’d be happy to
point that out to anybody when you come in for a soil
sample. Thank you very much. Mr. Carmody asked Attorney Baldwin if they had looked at
the traffic impact. Attorney Baldwin said the applicant is
looking at that with the special permit application more so
than the zone change application. Under the zone change
application we are asking for simply an approval to convert
this to residential. (End of Tape #1, Side B) (Beginning of Tape #2, Side A) Attorney Baldwin continued that regardless of the traffic,
this is appropriate to be R-12 zoned. The R-12 zoning would
allow us to do a number of things: single family homes,
multi family homes with a special permit. Attorney Sciota pointed out that the zone change comes
first. If the zone change is approved you are not required
to put what you have in there. That’s what he’s asking. Are
you prepared to give a worst-case scenario for traffic by
the next meeting? Attorney Baldwin said yes, they were. Mr. Carmody asked about the impact on the surrounding R-12
properties. Is there going to be a negative impact to
property values? The people that live around there should
know about that. Attorney Baldwin noted that. RICHARD AMNOTT: 108 Germania Street. I see this area being
a cash cow. A condo pit. We have Spring Lake Village here
in Southington as an example. We also have the other
example on Darling Street. I don’t want to see those kinds
of things there in my backyard. Okay? There’s going to be an impact on that Rails to Trail. It’s
a beautiful thing. If you haven’t walked on it, you ought
to give it a shot. I watch hundreds of people all weekend
enjoy that. This is going to be a significant impact on
that. If they’re single-family homes, that’s one thing. But if
we’re going to put a condo complex in there, that’s going
to be bad. If that’s the plan, it’s going to take away from the entire
neighborhood. This is an old neighborhood. Lots of old
homes. You put something big and brand new, it’s going to
be like this odd ball in the middle of this area. It’s just
not going to fit. I’d like to see it left alone. It’s pristine the way it is.
It’s great.
If you go towards Southington, the first intersection, what
do you find? Two gin mills and a package store. You take a
left and go towards Plantsville, the first intersection,
gin mills and package stores. If you get a low-end condo
complex in there, what’s going to happen? Don’t do it. Don’t change it. Leave it alone. Once you
change the zoning, then there’s no stopping it. You change
the zoning, it’s all over. Thank you. Mr. DelSanto pointed out that if it stays I-1, it could be
a factory, it could be a shop, a big building that has
piano/organ testing. The Speaker replied if nothing’s been done with it and it’s
not appropriate for industry, I don’t think anything is
going to happen to it. Even if they put storage units out
there, you’re not dealing with the impact of the number of
people, children, everything to that area. I don’t want to see a Darling Street there. And, something
like Spring Lake Village is totally out of character.
Totally. Thank you. BRUCE GILBERT: 62 George Street. My concerns are
environmental and also floodplain. It does flood on that
side of the river. It’s flooded by backyard but never got
to the house. Part is a flooding concern. The other part is environmental and the impact it can have
on the river, which goes into the Long Island Sound. I don’t think it should be high density, certainly. If it’s
going to be residential, it should be far enough away from
the river where there’s no impact on the river. The other thing is the Rails to Trails. East Summer Street,
the entries into that both cross the Rails to Trails. A lot
more traffic in there will be brought in. You’ve got kids
on bikes, roller blades, that kind of thing, going up and
down the trail all the time. That’s all I have to say. Thank you. MARIO SIMEONE: 75 Germania. I have property also on 60
George Street. The flooding is bad in the area. Usually
once in the springtime it’ll come up almost to the
backyard. This year is the first year I’ve got water in the
basement. Anytime of construction over there, I feel is going
adversely affect the property. And, also the influx of
people. Police don’t patrol the Rails to Trails at night.
You have to go out with a baseball bat. Threaten the
people. I really don’t need more people in the area. RUSSELL BEEBEE: 27 East Summer Street. I’m totally, 100
percent completely against having a condo, any kind of a
condo situation down in that area. It is subject to flooding. One year down further by the
bridge, the whole street got flooded out and the water came
up probably maybe 30 feet from our house. So that can be
very dangerous to flooding. I’ve seen it. Totally completely against any kind of a condo system
there. Thank you. MARCIANNE MACDONALD: 55 East Summer Street. You have a
letter to Mary from my husband and I that was delivered. The gist of this, have any of you been on East Summer
Street? You’re talking a cow path. It’s 10 feet at the
narrowest in front of my house and it’s 13 feet at the
widest. We’re going to change a zone to an R-12 with 25 proposed
units. Minimum if a husband and wife in each one, there’s 2
cars. So, we are at 50 more cars now. You’re going to feed
a two-lane road into a one-lane road. We have people with little kids. We have the Trail to deal
with. Fire trucks can’t come down the north entrance, only
on the south. If this is granted, you’ve destroyed us. We have the two intersections to deal with. I’d rather see
a factory go in there. At least they go home at night. I have a factory on each side of me right now. People are
fine. You’re talking 17 trucks between the two factories.
Personal vehicles and if there is one trailer truck
delivering that parks and waits to pull in to any of the
loading zones of either of those two places or at the end
at the south, you do not get out of that street. If we have any kind of emergency, the vehicles can’t get
through when the trucks are there. When the Trail was being built and we were fighting it, I
brought in pictures. Explained trucks waiting to deliver
things. Four houses could get out to work. The police had
to come in and move the trucks. Add to the trucks, all of our cars and there’s 9 residents,
there’s 2 and I’ve got 3 at our house. We have a two
family. There’s other two families. You’re talking 8
vehicles in some of them. What’re we going to do on a one-
lane road? Please, think this over. Go walk it. I’ll walk it with you.
But two lanes coming out from condos aren’t going to work. There’s an alternative. There’s a piece of property that’s
available and they can make another cut going out into
Summer Street. It’s the house after the Rungi property.
It’s for sale. They can build their own private road and
leave us alone. We can’t take it. We don’t own a Queen Street down there. Please, leave it industrial. Thank you. CYNTHIA MARTONE: 214 Summer Street and I also own 224
Summer Street. I walk down East Summer Street every day. I’ve talked this
parcel of property. I have similar concerns about the road
traffic. The availability for access in that area. Environmental concerns, also, about the river and the high-
density housing we have in that area. I see this as a
perfect parcel for open space. I would love to see it as an
extension of the Rails to Trails and open space to the
river. We don’t do much in this Town to enjoy our river
area. That’s what I’d love to see. I don’t think it’s appropriate for multifamily. If it does
turn into residential, maybe a two-acre, three or four
family house, maximum, is all that street can support. I don’t know if there has been any good proposal put forth
for access out of that parcel of property versus East
Summer Street. The Rails to Trails is fabulous for the Town
and the area and it would be hazard to allow more traffic
crossing the two portions of Rails to Trails. That’s it, thank you. Hearing no further comments in opposition, the Chair called
for rebuttal. ATTORNEY BALDWIN: We heard a number of issues tonight. I
think some of it we need to address, particularly as it
relates to the traffic issue, which we will be prepared to
do at your November meeting. Rather than waste your time with responses, I think perhaps
it would be in our best interest and the Commission’s
benefit to get our responses together and come back here
with a response at the next meeting. Attorney Sciota noted that with the Attorney’s permission,
we can continue this one, as well as the SPU to the next
meeting. Attorney Baldwin agreed that would be appropriate. Mr. DelSanto asked Ms. Hughes: There will be an extensive
inland/wetlands study on this property? Ms. Hughes
responded: Absolutely. Mr. DelSanto commented just because flooding had come up
with resident that got up to speak and that’s important. The Chair asked the Town Engineer about the roads, East
Summer Street, going in and out of that place. What’s the
status? Mr. Tranquillo responded he would rather write a memo for
the next meeting. I have some extensive knowledge of that
area and I think it would be more appropriate to put it in
writing. The Chair continued this public hearing to the next
meeting. E. Special Permit Use Application of Landmark Properties,
LLC proposing to allow for the construction of multifamily
residential dwellings within the Residential r-12 zone,
property located 5-7 East Summer Street, pending approval
of Zone Boundary Change Application #526, SPU #408. The Chair opened the public hearing and continued it to the
October 18th meeting. (Whereupon, the public hearing portion of the meeting was
adjourned at 8:55 o’clock, p.m.) * * * * * * * * * * *
SOUTHINGTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 4, 2005
Town Hall Council Chambers, 75 Main Street, Second Floor
MINUTES
Chairman Francis Kenefick, called the Regular Meeting of
the Southington Planning & Zoning Commission to order at
9:00 pm with the following members in attendance: Michael DelSanto, John DeMello, John Carmody, Dolores
Longo, Zaya Oshana and James LaRosa Alternates: John Moise Robert Borkowski Brian Zaccagnino Others: Mary Hughes, Town Planner, Mark Sciota, Town
Attorney and Anthony Tranquillo, Town Engineer Absent: Christopher Petrone, Alternate John Weichsel, Town Manager A quorum was determined. FRANCIS KENEFICK, Chairman, presiding: (Verbatim Minutes: meeting recorded on tape, as well) THE CHAIR: Approval of Minutes - a. Regular Meeting of
September 20, 2005 MR. OSHANA: So moved. MR. DELSANTO: Second. (Motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.) THE CHAIR: Granted: 7 to 0. Approved. A. Special Permit Use application of Chris and Cathie
Topper proposing to construct a parent/grandparent
apartment addition to an existing single-family dwelling,
property located at 240 Pin Oak Drive, SPU #407. THE CHAIR: What’s your pleasure? MS. LONGO: Move for approval.
MR. DELSANTO: Second. THE CHAIR: We’re all set with this? MR. DELSANTO: The four stipulations added. MS. HUGHES: We have the four stipulations. We have the
affidavit. It’s ready for action this evening. THE CHAIR: We have a motion for approval and we have a
second? MR. CARMODY: Second. (Motion passed 7 to 0 on a roll call vote.) THE CHAIR: Approved: 7 to 0. MS. HUGHES: You are all set, Chris. B. Special Permit Use Application of Queen Street Partners,
LLC proposing the removal of an existing structure and the
proposed construction of a car wash facility, 312 Queen
Street, SPU #0496. MS. HUGHES: This application was the subject of a public
hearing on September 6th and it was continued to the last
meeting on September 20th and then again was the subject of
a public hearing this evening. We closed the public hearing
and it’s up to you whether you are ready for action this
evening, or not? MR. DEMELLO: I had no problem with. THE CHAIR: We have a motion. MS. HUGHES: I didn’t hear, John. MR. DEMLLO: I didn’t make a motion, yet. I had no problem
with it. MR. DELSANTO: Didn’t we get a letter from the police saying
that they need to speak on this? MS. HUGHES: No, no, no.
MR. DELSANTO: Oh, they didn’t. Okay. MS. HUGHES: They met with Captain Simone. The letter I
received from Chief Daly was a letter saying Fuss & O’Neill
had met with Captain Simone and if I wanted to know the
details of their meeting, to give them a call. So, the handwritten notes on that letter are from my
telephone conversation with Chief Daly. There’ll be no
further commentary from the police department. MR. DELSANTO: Those are just their concerns? MS. HUGHES: Those are the concerns he expressed to me on
the telephone. THE CHAIR: You feel they’ve addressed this? MS. HUGHES: Well, I think that, you know, Tony and I both
think that you can restrict, there is a way to restrict the
right turns on that, as a matter of engineering. THE CHAIR: Left turns. MS. HUGHES: Well, right turn out. THE CHAIR: Do you people, let me ask Staff, do you people
feel comfortable with acting on this? MR. TRANQUILLO: I think as long as we restrict the left
turns out. MS. HUGHES: That was my major concern. MR. TRANQUILLO: Well, I think there is only a certain
amount of cars that are going to be washed on Queen Street.
So, they’re going to take some traffic away from the
existing car washes. MS. HUGHES: You have a car wash at the Mobil. You have a
car wash at the Shell. You have a car wash at ---there’s
one other gas station. THE CHAIR: Lazy Lane. MS. HUGHES: There’s one other car wash --- the gas station
had a car wash. THE CHAIR: Shell Station. MS. HUGHES: You have Sparkle. You have Southington Car
Wash. So, I don’t think that this is going to create a
problem so long as we manage the traffic. MR. CARMODY: Mr. Chairman, I feel more comfortable tabling
it. We took in some more information tonight and I’d like
to think about it. So, I am going to make a motion to ---
do you want to say something before I make it? MS. LONGO: I just want to say something and then I’ll go
along with that, too. Um, someone mentioned when they were
standing there before, it’s a special permit use. And, once
we approve that, it’s a car wash. A car wash is a car wash.
No matter what you two might want to say or what you guys
can do. It’s something this Board has to take a look at and
what we feel comfortable that we should do. On that note --- MR. CARMODY: I’ll make a motion --- I’ll wait. MS. LONGO: I’ll second it. MR. MOISE: Tony, because it is a state road, as far as the
signage or whatever with the left hand turn, we have to go
through the State? MR. TRANQUILLO: The procedure is that the Commission has to
take action first. MR. MOISE: Okay. MR. TRANQUILLO: You have to satisfy the Commission and then
it goes to the State and the State has, so to speak, veto
power. They can override our plan if they don’t agree with
it. THE CHAIR: Makes sense, though. MR. TRANQUILLO: What’s that? THE CHAIR: It makes a lot of sense.
MR. TRANQUILLO: Well, I’m comfortable they’ll go along with
it, but they haven’t always done that. When they see
something that we haven’t seen, and they have other
concerns, they have the right to require something
different. MR. MOISE: What’s usually the timeframe on something like
that? He said that maybe he’ll talk to the guy next week? ATTORNEY SCIOTA: No. They won’t take final action until you
approve. They’re not going to get anything to you next
week. MR. MOISE: So, regardless of anything then it would be
contingent. MR. TRANQUILLO: The State has got to review it. MR. MOISE: Okay. MR. CARMODY: Motion to table. MS. LONGO: Second that. (Motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.) THE CHAIR: We tabled it: 7 to 0. C. Petition of Douglas Mitchell to Enact a zoning
Regulation Text Amendment proposing to amend Section 3-
01.2F.3 pertaining to the establishment of private horse
stables which promotes retention of open space for purposes
of providing a location for not more than eight (8) horses
which cannot be used for riding and similar purposes, ZA
#524. MS. HUGHES: This application is continued. The public
hearing is continued to your meeting on October 18th. MR. DELSANTO: Move to table. MR. DEMELLO: Second. (Motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.) THE CHAIR: Tabled: 7 to 0.
D. Petition of Landmark Properties, LLC proposing to change
the Zoning District Boundaries from Industrial I-1 to
Residential R-12 for an 8.53 acre parcel of property to
permit development of multifamily dwellings, property
located at 5-7 East summer Street ZC #526. MR. OSHANA: Move to table. MR. DELSANTO: Second. MS. LONGO: Second. (Motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.) THE CHAIR: Tabled: 7 to 0. MS. HUGHES: Fran, the second application is a special
permit use application that is related to D, so I just
recommend you table. E. Special Permit Use Application of Landmark Properties,
LLC proposing to allow for the construction of multifamily
residential dwellings within the Residential r-12 zone,
property located 5-7 East Summer Street, pending approval
of Zone Boundary Change Application #526, SPU #408. MR. DELSANTO: Move to table. MR. DEMELLO: Second. (Motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.) THE CHAIR: Tabled: 7 to 0. F. Discussion of Public Comments received regarding
enacting a Moratorium on residential development and down
zoning until the Plan of Conservation and Development has
been adopted. MR. OSHANA: I have some comments! THE CHAIR: Go ahead.
MR. OSHANA: I wrote them down, just to make it easier. I
think that we had a public hearing a couple of weeks ago
and I think it was very informative. It gave us a chance to
hear people coming in on both sides, both for and against
it. There’s a couple of issues I’d like to follow up on and
then some comments I’d like to make. I was concerned with
some of the comments made. The comments from Councilman
Riccio that came up came as a complete surprise. It seems
as if this issue is now being made in to a political and a
personal issue and that is the furthest thing that this
Commission or I had in mind. This Commission has discussed a moratorium on several
occasions and several different types of moratoriums over
several years. We first started talking, raised the issue
of a moratorium on certain types of housing back in
November of 2002. We discussed it in January of 2004. December of 2004. April
of 2005. July 19, 2005 when this proposal was first brought
up and then discussed at subsequent meetings. If there was
a concern about a moratorium, I’m not sure why it took this
long to surface because it’s nothing new. Discussion started over 1.5 years ago regarding an option
of a moratorium linked to the Plan of Development. To plan
for the future and not just continue the way things have
been going. To politicize this issue of such importance, I
believe, is wrong. Attorney Denorfia’s attempt to personalize and politicize
this issue, I think, was also wrong. To say that he built
my house and now I’m trying to stop others from moving into
Town, I take as a personal attack on my integrity and I
think it is beneath Attorney Denorfia. It is an attempt also to shift the focus away from the real
issue. We need to plan. And, with the Plan of Development
in progress now, this is an ideal time to do so. Also, the attempt to politicize this is also wrong and he
knows it. He was in attendance at two thirds of the
Commission meeting where we discussed the issue of
moratoriums over the last 3.5 years.
Let’s look at the facts. We are now in the process of
creating a Plan of Development. The Police Department
states through the Police Chief that we are ten officers
under the average. Statistics. We are the lowest
officer/resident ratio in ten of the surrounding Towns. The Superintendent of Schools, despite when an attorney
stated at a public hearing, has actually stated and I’ll
quote three particular items quoting him: “Residential growth is a factor as it relates to student
enrollment growth. Since 2000, we have increased 224
students. Enrollment is expected to continue grow over the
next five years by another 200. It appears to me that this
growth will continue to challenge the resources of the
school budget.” “Enrollment growth will obviously place additional strains
and challenges on our school budget.” “Currently, the per pupil expense exceeds $9,000. This,
again, coupled with other non-enrollment mandates, continue
to place resource demands on our school district.” The Fire Department stated in the document received this
week “with the increase in residential and commercial
growth there has been an increase in the number of fires.
The fire department’s voluntary personnel have been
depleted through the years and a limited amount of daytime
volunteer responders is especially felt with the increase
in daytime calls. There have been yearly budgetary requests
to increase the number of daytime career fire fighters
which have been denied.” Now, from these comments, quoting the police, fire and
educational department, it appears we currently have issues
in all three areas. The increased growth will only make
these items worse. To say that the police numbers are just statistics, and we
are not in “crime wave” is also shortsighted. Do we need to
get into one before we actually take action? Do we want a
fire spread around Town that we can’t cover? We do we want
overcrowded schools? It is this Commission’s responsibility to plan and
implement the safe, proper and orderly development of
Southington. We are at a point now where we are researching
and creating a Plan of Development. Now we can stop, look
around at where we were, where we are and where we’re going
and develop a plan that serves all of the residents in the
Town of Southington. To say that this Commission already has the authority to
deal with issues on a case-by-case basis is true. However,
it has not worked very well. We need to look at issues in
the big picture to see how they affect things going
forward. Not just isolated issues, piece by piece, that we
cobble together that ultimately lead to the new norm. I believe this Commission must use all of the tools at his
resource in order to plan for the Town’s safe, properly and
orderly development. That’s what we were elected to do.
This moratorium would be a temporary pause to the growth
going on in this Town until the Commission puts together a
Plan of Development, which will guide the growth of
Southington for the foreseeable future. We have yet to see any final conclusions or recommendations
from TPA, the firm who is creating the plan. A few meetings
ago we were told we were six months away from completion.
At the public hearing, that number changed to three months.
Based on where we are now in the process, I would say it
looks like, at least to me, like we’re at least six months
away from completion of that plan. This Commission is charged with overseeing the development
of Southington. We must seriously consider a temporary
moratorium on residential growth and down zoning until the
completion of the Plan of Development. It is a fact from
TPA that 81 percent of the money spent in the Town of
Southington to run services is borne by the residential
taxpayers of Southington. We need to plan development
properly so that we do not continue to increase the burden
on our residents and strain the resources that keep this
Town a Town we can all be proud of. It is crucial to this Commission and to future Commissions
and I believe it is in the best interest of Southington to
plan for the safe, proper and orderly development. Having said that, I would like to make a motion to have the
Town Attorney draft the language for a temporary moratorium
on residential development and down zoning so that we can
send that to public hearing. Thank you. THE CHAIR: We have a motion. MR. LA ROSA: I’ll make that a second. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: Let me just clarify. Residential
development and we call it down zoning, but we mean from a
higher, excuse me, from a lower density zone to a higher
density zone. MR. OSHANA: Correct. THE CHAIR: We have a motion and a second for uh ---
moratorium. MR. LA ROSA: I didn’t write anything down, but the main
reason why I think we talked about this, and we have talked
about this over the years. We really didn’t have any tool
to do it. But what TPA told us and in several instances,
and she used an example of pieces of the puzzle. Take all
of the pieces of the puzzle, put them on the table, and
these pieces of the puzzle is what they talked about, the
police, the school. The issues with the Town utilities is
not an issue and we know that. But this is a lot of information that we got. And, a
temporary moratorium is just so we can get a handle on it.
Last meeting, someone said: take a breath. I don’t think
it’s a bad idea. It’s not forever. We don’t know --- we
have some indications of where this is going to go. There
are a lot of unanswered questions. I haven’t sat down and
spoke to anyone on the BOE. I have the information. I want
to hear it from them. I did, however, speak with the Chief of Police and he
raised some serious concerns that, you know, I’m not at the
point where, you know, I just want to ignore that. Right
now. It’s temporary. It’s taking a breath. We’ve been going out of control in Town forever. I mean,
we’ve been going nuts. And, Zaya said six months. I think
we can try to do a better job and I think we can get this
thing done in maybe in three, if we hustle. And, you know,
the fact that Attorney Denorfia did say that we’re hurting
the little guy. Well, you know, I have a lot of friends and family that are
in this industry. So, yah, by me making this motion, I’m
creating enemies, but I’ve got to look at the Town. I mean,
the Town as a whole. You know, there’s 40,000 people in
this Town. I mean, you know, for Tony to say that we’re
going to hurt the few is ridiculous. Yes, I just moved in my house, you know, a couple of years
ago. And, I’m not basically saying --- we didn’t have this
information --- we did not even start the study until six
months ago. Maybe a year ago we started to probe it. So, all I’m saying is let’s take a little breath. Let’s see
what this information is. We can hustle. We can speed this
thing through. Because, I do care about the little people.
In three months, we’ll have this thing done, and move on. THE CHAIR: John? MR. CARMODY: I’m going to respectfully disagree with Zaya
and Jimmy. More along the lines of --- and I didn’t write
anything down here --- my objection to it has more to do
with the practical terms, not necessarily the ideal that
you guys are talking about. The notion of a temporary pause
and taking a breath, in a vacuum, I don’t think that’s a
problem. But I think we have to really think practically
speaking. A moratorium or the thought of that is not --- the remedy
that you seek, that temporary remedy that you seek, I don’t
think practically is what you are going to get. Personally. In fact, take a look at what we’re looking at here. You can
kind of see what kind of activity we kind of triggered by
just the mulling, the talking and hearings that we’ve had.
So, it’s my belief that --- I should’ve wrote something
down because I’m kind of going all over the place here a
little bit. That a temporary moratorium is going to have the intended
effect that you want it to. Actually, I believe, it’s going
to have the opposite. We’re going to spur more activity in
the next few months. People who have parcels of land, to
get those applications in, under the gun, because let’s
play this out a little bit.
We have Mark draft up something. It’s going to be in the
newspapers. People are going to know about. It’s going to
go to public hearing. Before anything gets enacted, it’s
35-day grace period, anyway, right? ATTORNEY SCIOTA: We have to notify all the regionals, yes. MR. CARMODY: So, you’re talking, you know, let’s call it 50
days. THE CHAIR: John, excuse me. Before you go any further. I
wish you would write something down and I wish everybody
would write something down. So, why don’t you just ask for
a table on this and write something down --- MR. CARMODY: Okay. THE CHAIR: --- and come back to the next meeting and
discuss it. MR. CARMODY: Sure. THE CHAIR: Because, you know, this is something that is
pretty serious, I think. Okay? Now, if you want to continue, go ahead, continue. But I’m
just saying --- MS. LONGO: I’d also like to chime in here for a minute,
too, you know, I mean? THE CHAIR: John, let John finish here. MS. LONGO: After he finishes. MR. DELSANTO: I think we all have something to say about
it. MR. CARMODY: Part of the things that you guys mentioned
about --- some of the numbers that you talked about with
the officers and the school stuff, I don’t think we’re real
clear. We get conflicting information from the
Superintendent. We get conflicting information from TPA.
And, some numbers that I saw from the hearing that we took
on different decades of school children. I don’t know. At
best, it’s mixed, the message. And, I’m worried about other
unintended consequences about --- I’m just worried about
what a moratorium might trigger. Instead of, hey, let’s just concentrate on the Plan of
Development because that’s what we’re really trying to nail
down how we’re going to control growth. Let’s do that.
Let’s stay on that path and not trigger any unintended
consequences that a moratorium might bring. And, you know, if you want me to put it down in a clearer
message next time, I’ll do that. That’s it. MR. LA ROSA: John is absolutely right. There is conflicting
information. There’s a lot of it. Let’s take a breath and
get the information before we make these conflicting
informations worse. That’s all it is. Yes, we are going to
trigger more growth, but that growth is going to come
anyways. The attempts for that growth with applications would come
anyways. But that’s just it. With all this information we
have here, there’s --- one person says one thing. One
person says the other thing. Let’s get a clear picture
before we continue. THE CHAIR: Dolores, what do you want to say? MS. LONGO: I just wanted to bring up I’ve been on the Board
for 25 and almost 26 years. You’ve been on about 12, 16
years. I mean, there’s a lot of times that we could have
sit here and done something. Now we’re crying wolf at the
last minute and we really only have ourselves to blame.
Because every one of us has the knowledge of the past Plan
of Development. What should have been done. Everybody’s too
busy, don’t want to take the time. And, we really represent
a two-prong situation. (End of Tape #2, Side A) (Beginning of Tape #2, Side B) MR. LA ROSA: I’m very confused. Dolores, I understand what
you’re saying but --- MS. LONGO: Facts is facts. They speak for themselves.
MR. LA ROSA: Ten years ago, half of this Board wasn’t here. MS. LONGO: I’m saying, I didn’t say all of you were here.
I’m just saying that for --- every one of you knew you got
elected for planning and zoning. Every one of you. How many
times did you ever come in, or any of you ever come in and
say, let’s have a night just for planning tonight? What we
can do for our Town. What can we plan to make our Town
differently? MR. LA ROSA: Why didn’t you do that? MS. LONGO: I have tried a couple of times. Mary, just asked
some stuff now and it got rejected. When I wanted to put
stuff up. MR. LA ROSA: I’d like to pat this Commission on the back --
- MS. LONGO: It wasn’t good enough. MR. LA ROSA: I mean, we’ve --- we have been here, I’ve been
here less than five years. MS. LONGO: Well, time enough to do something. MR. LA ROSA: Mike the same as me. I mean, John. And, we got
a Plan of Development up and running. Five years. MS. LONGO: I’m just saying, I’m just saying, you can be
here another ten and you’ll be gray like the rest of us.
And, nothing’s done. MR. LA ROSA: I think we’re doing all right. I think we’re
moving in the right direction. THE CHAIR: Mike, did you want to say something? MR. DELSANTO: Well, I just --- once again, obviously, I
don’t have anything prepared and I was waiting for the day
until I had to have something prepared, but I’m against the
moratorium. I don’t think it’s fair and equitable for all
residents in Southington. Particularly, homeowners, builders, the little people. The
plumbers, the electricians. It got brought out in our ---
in that public hearing a couple of weeks ago and if I am to
understand this correctly, the moratorium calls for down
zoning. We already have that right now. We deal with that
on a case by case basis. People come before us and if they
want to down zone, we look at it as a whole, we look into
it, and we have the right, we have the responsibility to
deny that application on a case by case basis. Let’s
continue to do that. Let’s be smart from here on out. Let’s
get the word out. Let’s vote consistently. Let’s get the
word out that if you’re planning on coming before us with
an appliclation for down zoning, you may want to rethink it
because we’re under the gun here. Not a week goes by when someone doesn’t come up to me and
say, why are you allowing so much building in Town? Because
you know something? Those people are fortunate enough to
own property in this Town. Okay? And, they should be
afforded the same right, the same responsibility as anyone
before them. To say now that they’re not allowed to do so? I’m not for
it. It’s not fair to all residents of Southington. MR. CARMODY: You know what? There’s a motion on the table.
Does a table supercede? ATTORNEY SCIOTA: Yes, it does. MR. CARMODY: I’ll make a motion to table. MR. DEMELLO: I’ll second that motion. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: No discussion, a direct vote. THE CHAIR: Let’s call the roll. Motion and a second for
tabling. MS. HUGHES: Mr. Carmody: Yes Mr. DelSanto: Yes Mr. DeMello: Yes Mr. LaRosa: No Ms. Longo: No Mr. Oshana: No Chair Kenefick: Yes The motion to table passes: 4 to 3.
THE CHAIR: Site Plan Application of 1103 Queen Street
proposing to reconstruct an existing building 1,423 sf
building and to construct a 1,728 sf addition to an
existing building (garage) with associated filling of the
floodplain area, property located at 1103 Queen Street SPR
#1410 & FF #190. MS. HUGHE: Well, we have a very patient applicant that
worked through all of their issues with the Conservation
Commission and we’re happy to report that this is finally
ready for action this evening. So, I’m going to let Mr. Katt and Mr. Pickcard do their
little song and dance. MR. KATT: He does the song and dance. I’m not very good at
singing. (Laughter) In fact, the choir director, if I even go near the choir
loft has an apoplexy --- My name is William Katt and I’m an engineer. My offices are
in Plymouth, CT. With me this evening is Mr. Ken Pickard,
Pickard Land Surveying from Marlborough, CT representing
the applicant. Our application is changed slightly. The original
application showed that we were going to do some excavation
within the floodplain area. We are doing no --- we had to
remove the excavation from the floodplain area in order to
satisfy the IW area. The application itself, I hope you can hear me while I
point. Unfortunately, I’m left handed. The application is to reconstruct an existing building
located on Queen Street, if you wish to call it a building.
It is still standing. And, also to add an addition to the
existing garage at the rear of the building. And,
associated work that goes along with that. Basically, pave
the parking lot and do the associated work. Toward the rear, there is a gravel access way around the
building, to the rear of the building, basically to access
the building. The reason its gravel is that we don’t want
it to become (pause) attractive, I guess is the best way to
put it. We’re trying to keep it basically a private area
back there. The area is served by the public sanitary sewer and it does
have a well on site. That’s basically our proposal. THE CHAIR: Do you have any idea what you are going to be
doing there? MR. PICKARD: The front building’s going to be commercial.
Two units in that front building. And the rear building,
existing rear building is a garage. That’s what it was
before. And, then the new building is what they call
business incubators. Small business people want to come in
and they need a little place to set up shop, that kind of
thing. THE CHAIR: Great. Whatever you’re going to do is going to
be a great improvement over what we’re looking at up there. MR. CARMODY: Motion to approve. MR. DELSANTO: Second. (Motion passed 7 to 0 on a roll call vote.) THE CHAIR: Approved: 7 to 0. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: Was there a site waiver on this one? MS. HUGHES: Mark, I don’t --- ATTORNEY SCIOTA: Never mind. MS. HUGHES: It’s been going on since July. THE CHAIR: It’s approved, right? It should have been on
there. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: Forget I said that. MS. HUGHES: Wait a minute. Just as a matter of --- I don’t
recall. I know we had a recommendation to approve the FF.
So, maybe -- ATTORNEY SCIOTA: Vote on the FF.
MS. LONGO: I move to approve the FF. MR. DELSANTO: Second. (Motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.) THE CHAIR: The FF is approved: 7 to 0. All right? H. Site Plan Application of Joseph Pacheco proposing
removal of an existing split rail fence around the existing
play area at the Cherrywood Manor Condominiums complex in
addition to removal of picnic tables, 220 & 222 West Main
Street, SPR #433.1. MS. HUGHES: We received a request at your last meeting to
extend the mandatory action date so that the matter can be
brought before the condo association. So, is anyone here on behalf of Cherrywood? (No response) Then I just recommend you table. MR. DELSANTO: Move to table. MS. LONGO: Second. (Motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.) THE CHAIR: Tabled: 7 to 0. This thing has been on for ages,
though. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: Well, the 21st of November is the last
date. THE CHAIR: We ought to just tell them to put the picnic
tables back and the fence up. Whatever. I. Site Plan Application of Mutual Housing Association of
SCCT proposing to construct 40 units of elderly housing
units to replace existing retail complex building, property
located at 491 Darling Street SPR #1415. MS. HUGHES: This is ready for action this evening. The only
thing that staff would request is that we get a little
better, more detailed affordability plan that Mark and I
can review. Attorney Thompson has spoken on a couple of occasions
regarding this proposal. MR. BOVINO: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, Sev Bovino,
Planner with Kratzert & Jones representing the applicant. I
did provide in there the short paragraph. Did you get that? MS. HUGHES: Yes, I did. MR. BOVINO: And, you want an expanded version of that? MS. HUGHES: Right, right. MR. BOVINO: There’s no problem with that. MS. HUGHES: Just how you determine the affordability and
all that. MR. BOVINO: Yes. It’s going to be reviewed by the MHA of
Southern Connecticut. They will conduct a certification of
all of the residents to certify that the property is
serving the population. Quickly, I’ll go over some of the things. We have addressed
the staff comments. Some of them are the lot coverage,
which is less than the 20 percent. The building height. The
parking. We met the requirements of the parking. The
recreation, we are providing some amenities like lounges, a
community room, outdoor benches. This is an independent living residence. They will cook and
do their own laundry. No food service operation is provided
on site. There is a question about the finish materials and they are
indicated on the building elevation. We have architectural
shingles for the roof, bricks on the facing with cedar
clapboard siding, aluminum windows. This project will meet
the affordable housing guidelines for Section 8-20(g)-1.
And, the fire department provided a letter for the fire
hydrants. THE CHAIR: Okay, great. MR. DEMELLO: Mr. Chairman, if there is no further comments,
I’d like to make a motion for approval of this application. MR. DELSANTO: Second. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: With the stipulation that Mary put on. MR.DEMELLO: With the stipulation that the Town Planner put
on. THE CHAIR: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any
discussion? MR. CARMODY: We’re not going to make Attorney Thompson get
up there? And, say something to earn his money? Say, hello? ATTORNEY SCIOTA: He’s been waiting all night. That’s good. MS. LONGO: He does say a few words. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: We’ve got a motion and a second. I’m
sorry, you can’t say anything now. ATTORNEY THOMPSON: I don’t want to say anything. THE CHAIR: That’s nice of you. ATTORNEY THOMPSON: I wanted to say that, though. (Motion passed 7 to 0 on a roll call vote.) THE CHAIR: Approved: 7u to 0. J. Site Plan Application of Queen Street Partners, LLC
proposing the removal of an existing structure in order to
construct a car wash facility within a Business zone,
property located at 312 Queen Street, SPR #1416. MS. HUGHES: This application’s sister, the SPU, was tabled
so it needs to be tabled. MR. OSHANA: Move to table.
MR. DELSANTO: Second. (Motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.) THE CHAIR: Tabled: 7 to 0. K. Site Plan Application of Lovely Development Group
proposing to construct a daycare facility and two office
buildings with related infrastructures totaling 25,240 sf
in conjunction with the previously approved SPU Application
#385, property located at 1137 West Street, SPR #1417. MS. HUGHES: This application is ready for action this
evening. MS. LONGO: Move for approval. MR. DELSANTO: Second. MS. HUGHES: Wait a minute! MS. LONGO: All right. MR. BOVINO: We worked so hard, I’d like to show it to you.
I know you want to go home. You haven’t seen these. The Staff requested elevations for
the other two buildings. This is the office for a dental
association and this is a medical building. It’s the
building closer to the street. This is the southerly view
of the building. And, you have seen in the past the
daycare. (Showed) (Undertone comments) Basically, everything is a colonial motif in terms of the
buildings. As Mary said, the application is ready for
action. She did request some information regarding the play
area and I’m just going to put it into the record for her. Tony reviewed the application and I believe he’s all set
with the --- there is an item that we need to address. It’s
the sidewalk issue. We are proposing a sidewalk on West
Street. This is an I-1 zone where sidewalks are, you are
allowed to waive the sidewalks where they’re not going to
be used. And, on Curtis Street, we feel they are not going
to be used, so if you could consider that waiver.
THE CHAIR: Yes, but look at all we’ve done for you out
there. Sev? An I-1 zone, and looks what’s going in there. MR. BOVINO: Well, that’s the request. We’re trying to --- THE CHAIR: You’re trying. MR. BOVINO: Basically, it’s a sidewalk that won’t be used
on that end because it leads to the industrial zone across
the street and --- it’s up to the Commission. MS. HUGHES: You know, ordinarily I am not an advocate of
sidewalks to nowhere. But --- THE CHAIR: West Street is a different story. MS. HUGHES: No. But at this point, we don’t, Northstar is a
big questions mark and we don’t know what’s going to be
happening up in there. At some point in the future you can
always come back and ask for the waiver again if plans
don’t come through or whatnot. But I think at this time in
this particular instance, with all the question marks we
have hanging over our head on 322, that it probably
wouldn’t behoove the Commission to waive the walks in this
location. MR. OSHANA: I think we should leave the walks there. I’d
like to make a motion for approval of this project, as is. THE CHAIR: On both sides? MR. OSHANA: On both sides. MR. CARMODY: Second. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: Are they currently on the plan that way,
Tony? Are they currently on the plan the way that they --- MR. TRANQUILLO: I don’t think they show them on Curtis. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: Because if you are approving the plans and
you are approving what’s on there --- MR. BOVINO: You can stipulate it. The reason I didn’t show
them on Curtis is because again this is an industrial zone
and not because, you know, I was trying to avoid them.
ATTORNEY SCIOTA: Zaya, in your approval, if you want the
sidewalks, you are going to have to stip it because they’re
not shown on the plan. MR. OSHANA: With a stipulation that sidewalks be placed on
West Street and along Curtis. MR. BOVINO: We’re providing West Street. MS. HUGHES: We’re just confirming it, Sev. MR. BOVINO: Okay. MR. CARMODY: Second. THE CHAIR: We’ve got a second. Okay. Now discussion. Now, Tony wants to say something. MR. TRANQUILLO: Also add a stipulation that the sewer
service has to be approved by the Town Council. They don’t
have that approval, yet. MS. HUGHES: We also need confirmation --- Sev has been
working with the water board, but we need confirmation from
the water board as to --- THE CHAIR: Water, sewer --- MS. HUGHES: And, sidewalks. MR. LA ROSA: Phone and cable. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: Electricity, cable. (Laughter) MR. BOVINO: No. We’ve got that. THE CHAIR: Sev, you did your job, but that was a tough one. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: Sev, you got up. That was your big problem
when you got up. Would the motion maker put those stips in and the seconder
put those in.
MR. OSHANA: Adding a stipulation for the sewer service to
be approved by the Town Council and water, as stated by the
Town Planner. MR. CARMODY: I gladly add those to my second. THE CHAIR: And, the sidewalks on Curtis Street and West
Street. Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval. Is there
any other discussion? (No response) (Motion passed 7 to 0 on a roll call vote.) THE CHAIR: Approved: 7 to 0. L. Site Plan Application of Easter Seals Goodwill, Inc.
proposing to occupy an existing 12,000 sf building for the
establishment of a Goodwill Store facility with a drop off
area, compactor, and the installation of a 2 foot retaining
wall within the existing Queen B Plaza, property located at
350 Queen Street, SPR #1418. MS. HUGHES: This application was tabled to have an
opportunity for the applicant to come in and discuss
screening options with Town Staff, as well as to give Staff
an opportunity to go out there. I think Tony and I are both
of the opinion that it’s pretty, fairly well screened with
the vegetation and the location of the Hollywood Video
building where it is. MR. TRANQUILLO: Yes, they are going to park two trailers
there, but no one is going to see them. It’s very well
screened by the building and landscaping is there. THE CHAIR: If you say so, sir. MS. LONGO: So, it’s ready to go then. Move for approval. MR. DELSANTO: Second. THE CHAIR: Motion and a second for approval. Any
discussion? MR. DEMELLO: The only thing is, is out in front there where
they are going to have the drop off, you know, that drive
comes through there and you’ve got parking on one side to
the left, south of the building? Is or are you guys cutting
into that cement are there, where the cars can pull in? Okay, great. (Motion passed 7 to 0 on a roll call vote.) THE CHAIR: Approved: 7 to 0. MS. HUGHES: Chairman Kenefick, in the interest of time --- THE CHAIR: Oh, yes. Items M.N.O.P.Q.R.S.T and U and V, we
need tables on. MR. DELSANTO: Move to table those items. MR. DEMELLO: Second. (Motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.) THE CHAIR: All tabled. M. Site Plan Application of GHIO Family Limited Partnership
proposing to construct a 3,233 sf Dunkin Donuts retail
facility with drive up window and offices, property located
at 2000 West Street, SPR #1419. (Tabled) N. Subdivision Application of Calco Construction &
Development proposing to subdivide property for purposes of
creating 7 single family lots (Spring Meadow) property
located off Spring Street known as Assessor’s Map #171,
Parcel #10, S #1231. (Tabled) O. Subdivision Application of Waller construction Company
proposing to subdiv8ide property for purposes of creating
31 lots in an R-20/25 and R-80 zone (Laurelwood Estates)
property located off Winding Ridge and Mount Vernon Road S
#1221.1. (Tabled) P. Site Plan Application of Michael Stevens proposing to
convert an existing building into a psychic readings
business, property coated at 1257-1259 Queen Street SPR
#1420. (Tabled) Q. Site Plan Application of Hendel’s Inc., proposing the
conversion of an existing gasoline service station & auto
repair business to a gasoline station & convenience store
facility, property located at 273 Meriden Waterbury Road
SPR #1421. (Tabled) R. Subdivision Application of Jeff Wight dba/Ace building &
Design proposing to subdivide property for purposes of
creating two lots (William Lavorgna & Joan Stais) property
located at 98 Summit Street S #1232. (Tabled) S. Subdivision Application of Vintage Estates, LLC
proposing to subdivide property for purposes of creating 21
single family lots (Vintage Estates), property located at
741, 751 & 765 Savage Street and rear property of others S
#1233. (Tabled) T. Subdivision Application of Calco Construction &
Development proposing to subdivide property for purposes of
creating 7 single-family lots (Cortland Estates) property
located at 235 Flanders Street, S #1234. (Tabled) U. Subdivision Application of Baldwin Estates, LLC
proposing a resubdivision of property for purposed of
creating 16 lots within an R012L One (Baldwin Estates),
property located at 725 West Street and Hart Street S
#1224.1. (Scheduled or the October 18, 2005 public hearing) (Tabled) V. Special Permit Use Application of 341 West Street
Associates, LLC proposing to establish a 37-unit housing
community for residents 55+ and over, property located at
341 West Street, SPU #409. (Scheduled for the October 18, 2005 public hearing) (Tabled) NEW BUSINESS ITEMS A. Site Plan for Dr. Carol Grant proposing to modify a
previously approved site plan for the chiropractic center
by removing an existing dwelling and a dumpster in
conjunction with the previously approved Grant Chiropractic
Center, property located at 1601 Meriden Waterbury Road SPR
#1397.1. THE CHAIR: Tony? MR. TRANQUILLO: I’m all set on this application but I want
the curb cut closed off, curbed off on Route 322 and the
area loamed and seeded. MR. BOVINO: What is the request? THE CHAIR: I hope you heard this before, Sev. MR. TRANQUILLO: Closed off, the curb. Route 322.
UNIDENTIFIABLE: C - U - R - B MR. BOVINO: That’s what is shown on the plan. The entire
curb cut is to be closed but a new one is proposed to be
installed to have a one way in. I just don’t want it to be
like --- MS. HUGHES: You want it closed completely or do you want it
--- (Everyone speaking) MR. TRANQUILLO: One way in. But the rest of the site,
because it’s all one big open curb cut. MS. HUGHES: All right. As depicted on the plan. THE CHAIR: You guys are agreeing on this. MR. TRANQUILLO: Yes, we’re agreeing. THE CHAIR: Okay, just in and not out on Meriden Waterbury
Road. MR. TRANQUILLO: Just an entrance. MR. BOVINO: Yes, it’s shown that way. THE CHAIR: I thought you were going to close the whole
thing down. MS. LONGO: That’s what it sounded like. MS. HUGHES: Yes. That why I was like --- MR. TRANQUILLO: Well, the curb cut now is wide open and I
want it throttled down. MR. BOVINO: It’s basically pave the entire frontage and I
agree it’s going to be closed. THE CHAIR: Okay. MS. HUGHES: The other issue we have to address is the
sidewalk waiver.
MR. BOVINO: It’ll be curbed, it’s to be curbed, yes. It’ll
e curbed. You can stipulate it. THE CHAIR: Sidewalks on Clark Street. MR. BOVINO: Sidewalks, were addressed the last time on
this. Whatever we did. I don’t remember. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: Were they waived, already? MR. BOVINO: I believe they were, yes. MR. DEMELLO: I’ll make a motion to waive the sidewalks. MR. DELSANTO: Second. THE CHAIR: Where? MR. DEMELLO: On Clark Street. Right? You’re talking ---
where is this? MR. OSHANA: Can we verify what we did last time if we
already took action? MS. HUGHES: Why don’t we slow down. I’ve got to pull the
file because I don’t know if we waived sidewalks at the
last time. MS. LONGO: I don’t think so. MR. TRANQUILLO: Mr. Cyr says: No. (Laughter) MR. DELSANTO: Then it’s settled. MS. HUGHES: Are you looking for a job? (Laughter) (Everyone commenting) MS. LONGO: I don’t remember that, either. MS. HUGHES: I don’t recall, why we don’t just table it, so
I can ---
MR. DEMELLO: Okay, move to table. MS. LONGO: Second. MR. BOVINO: Can I ask a question? You mean to table it
temporarily or for the next meeting. (Everyone laughing and commenting) MS. HUGHES: Table it to the next meeting. MR. BOVINO: The thing is, they’re trying to pave it because
the plants are going to close up soon, as you know. So, I believe that sidewalks were waived, otherwise, they
would be on the plan. MS. HUGHES: I don’t know. I honestly don’t have the answer. MR. TRANQUILLO: Well, require sidewalks unless previously
waived. How does that sound? MR. DELSANTO: That sounds perfect. MR. DEMELLO: Can we stipulate that? MS. HUGHES: Sure, why not? (Laughter, laughter) MR. DEMELLO: You want me to stipulate that? I’ll stipulate
that we approve the plan unless, you know, with the
stipulation --- MR. TRANQUILLO: Mark, what’s your opinion? (Everyone talking and laughing at the same time.) ATTORNEY SCIOTA: Not that I want to stay here any longer,
but I’ll be happy to --- take a two minute break and get
the file. What’s the big deal? MS. LONGO: Yes, let’s do that. MR. DELSANTO: Let’s table this item. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: I’ll get it. I’ll help Mary get it.
(Undertone comments/laughter) (Attorney Sciota and Ms. Hughes left the room.) (Undertone comments/laughter) THE CHAIR: Excuse me. Under Items B, C, D, we can table,
also. MR. DELSANTO: Move to table. MR. CARMODY: Second. THE CHAIR: We’ve got a motion and a second for table on. (Motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.) THE CHAIR: All tabled: 7 to 0. B. Site Plan Application of Riverbend Associates, LLC
proposing to construct a 35-unit condominium complex (Royal
Acres), property located at 2118 Meriden Waterbury
Turnpike, SPR #1422. (Undertone comments / laughter) (Tabled) C. Subdivision Application of NBA, LLC proposing to
subdivide property for purposes of creating 9 single family
lots (Sandy Ridge estates), property located off the
easterly side of Churchill Street known as Assessor’s Map
#165, Parcel 020 S #1235. (Tabled) D. Subdivision Application of John’s Custom Carpentry, Inc.
proposing to subdivide property for purposes of creating 12
single family lots (Pine Hollow Estates) property located
off West Pines Drive known as Assessor’s Map #154, Parcel 2
(S#1236)
(Tabled) (Undertone comments / laughter) Items to Schedule for Public Hearing on October 18, 2005 or
November 1, 2005. A. Special Permit Use Application of Ricky & Cynthia
Theriault proposing to construct an addition to an existing
single family dwelling for purposes of establishing a
parent/grandparent apartment, property located at 15 Tunxis
Path SPU #410. (Laughter/laughter) THE CHAIR: I think we can schedule that. That’ll be fine. MR. OSHANA: The 18th? THE CHAIR: Yes. Uh, no, the November 1st. (Undertone comments/conversation.) Miscellaneous A. Request for Approval in accordance with Section 8-24 of
the Connecticut General Statutes for the donation of 5+
acres of property located at 2118 Meriden Waterbury Road by
the proposed Royal Acres condominiums Referral #400. THE CHAIR: I think we’re looking for a table on this, also,
right? (Attorney Sciota and Ms. Hughes entered the room.) MS. HUGHES: Not to contradict Mr. Cry, but a motion to
waive sidewalks was granted on Clark and Meriden Waterbury
Road by a 6 to 1 vote. And, guess who voted “no”? SEVERAL VOICES: Zaya. MS. HUGHES: That’s right!
MR. OSHANA: There is something to be said for consistency,
isn’t there? MS. HUGHES: We waived them on both 322 and --- THE CHAIR: Okay. So, then we got to --- you need a motion
to --- ATTORNEY SCIOTA: A motion for approval with Tony’s
stipulation because the plan doesn’t show sidewalks so you
are consistent now. MR. DEMELLO: So, I’ll make a motion for approval with the
stipulations from the Town Engineer. MS. LONGO: Second. (Motion passed 7 to 0 on a roll call vote.) (Undertone comments / laughter) THE CHAIR: While you ere gone, Mary, we tabled B, C and D. MS. HUGHES: Those are my boys and girls. THE CHAIR: And, we scheduled A for November 1st. MS. HUGHES: That’s what I call using your time efficiently. THE CHAIR: Now, we’re on to A, Miscellaneous. MS. HUGHES: That needs to be tabled. THE CHAIR: I thought we needed a table. MR. DEMELLO: Move to table. MR. DELSANTO: Second. (Motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.) THE CHAIR: Tabled: 7 to 0. B. Request for Release of the $8,200 Maintenance bond for
the Strawberry Fields Section IV Subdivision held to cover
Blueberry Lane Extension S #1199.
MS. HUGHES: Good to go! MR. DELSANTO: So moved. MR. CARMODY: Second. MR. DEMELLO: Second. (Motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.) THE CHAIR: Granted: 7 to 0. C. Request for Release of the $96,000 Earth Excavation
Performance bond and the $3,600 Erosion & Sedimentation
Bond for the Tilcon Connecticut, Inc. Earth Excavation
permit, northwest of the intersection of West Queen Street
Extension and DePaolo Drive, EE #102. MS. HUGHES: Essentially what we are doing is we’re
releasing the excess bonding we have on their operation. MS. LONGO: So moved. MR. OSHANA: Second. THE CHAIR: We have a second on that. MR. CARMODY: Yes, Dolores. (Motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.) (Undertone comments) D. Request for Release of the $5,600 Erosion and
Sedimentation Bond held to cover the Mongillo Estates
Subdivision, property located off Jude Lane, S #1206. MS. HUGHES: This is also ready for action. MR. OSHANA: Move to release. MR. CARMODY: Second.
(Motion passed unanimously on a voice vote.) THE CHAIR: 7 to 0, granted. E. Plan of Conservation and Development. MS. HUGHES: I just want to briefly give you a couple of
things. Okay? Lou Perillo, TPA and myself have continued to meet with the
development company out of New York called Meridian
Development Group that wants to redevelop Ideal Forge. What we’re proposing is that the Commission schedule an
informational session with them at your November 1st
meeting so they can tell you where they are going with
their plan. I’d like to invite the Town Council, the SEED Committee,
Conservation and Zoning Board of Appeals because it’s going
to take all of these boards working together in order to
bring this Brownfield to fruition. So, I would like to send out a save the date memo to them.
I’d like to put them on the Agenda first even if we have
some carryover public hearings. I think the more exposure
we get on this project, the more community support it will
get. The other thing is that we had talked about the possibility
of doing another special study on the Pratt & Whitney site.
And, that’s --- I think it’s pretty critical. I’m here
asking the Board for authorization for them to take a look
at the adaptive reuse of Pratt & Whitney. MR. DELSANTO: Sure. MR. CARMODY: Absolutely. (Everyone commenting.) MR. DELSANTO: Mary, did you say the first meeting was going
to be at one of our regular meetings? MS. HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DELSANTO: Is there a time when we can have it when it’s
a little less on the Agenda? ATTORNEY SCIOTA: We’re not scheduling any public hearings
on that first meeting in November. THE CHAIR: We just did. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: What’s that? THE CHAIR: We just did. MS. HUGHES: We can change that to the 18th. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: When did you do that? THE CHAIR: While you were gone. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: Oh, that’s why. MS. HUGHES: When he was helping me, Fran. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: I was helping her find the plan. (Undertone comments and conversations.) MR. OSHANA: We’re talking about the Plan of Development?
It’s on the Agenda now? MR. CARMODY: Yes, ask the Chairman. FROM THE AUDIENCE: Mr. Chairman, may I speak? THE CHAIR: Hold on one second. MS. HUGHES: Yes, we are talking about the Plan of
Development. MR. OSHANA: We had the meeting with TPA way back when they
put together some scope and outline and all that. Have they
put together milestones and due dates and you know,
expected completion dates where we can -- MS. HUGHES: I can ask that. I mean, I don’t have anything
currently. They have given us an estimate, but I can have
them update that.
THE CHAIR: Mary, I think it’s very, very important that we
do this because I mean, you heard discussion tonight here. MS. HUGHES: Sure. I’ll get --- THE CHAIR: So, either we’re going to have to nail these
people down and say when we are going to have to do this
even if we got to meet a little bit more or whatever. But,
I would like an answer before our next meeting. MS. HUGHES: Sure. She --- THE CHAIR: As to when this thing is going to be done. MS. HUGHES: It’s not a problem for them to give you a
projected schedule. It’s not a problem at all. MR. OSHANA: Give us milestones and completion dates of what
is going to be done on those dates? MS. HUGHES: Sure. MR. BORKOWSKI: Can I ask a stupid question. MS. HUGHES: There is no such thing as a stupid question,
fritter boy. MR. CARMODY: From him? There might be. MR. BORKOWSKI: You are scheduling it for November 1st with
the Economic Development --- MS. HUGHES: Town Council, ZBA, Conservation and SEED. MR. BORKOWSKI: Correct me if I’m wrong. There is an
election on November 8th and technically you could have
different people on different Boards a week later. MS. HUGHES: This is what Meridian would like to do, Bob. MR. BORKOWSKI: Is there anyway they can do it two weeks
later? MS. HUGHES: This is, you know, I mean, this is what they’d
like to do. They know that there is a municipal election.
This is what they’ve asked us to do. So, I mean, I don’t
really --- MR. BORKOWSKI: I’m just saying, for, instead of not having
to rehash things. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: You could also technically invite the
candidates. Invite all 12 of the Council. MR. BORKOWSKI: Just for practical purposes. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: If you want to do it, we could do that. We
could say for practical purposes we’re inviting the sitting
Council plus the, so 12 and 12 would be what it is. All the
sitting Council members are running. MS. HUGHES: You’d have to get me the names of the people on
the ticket. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: I think I could think of them, yes. MS. LONGO: He’ll handle that. (Undertone comments) THE CHAIR: All right, that’s a great idea. Invite
everybody. But before the next meeting, Mary --- MS. HUGHES: Yes? THE CHAIR: --- we’ve got to get the --- MS. HUGHES: I will get that for you, Fran. THE CHAIR: TPA to write something down when this Plan of
Development is going to be done. MS. HUGHES: Sure, it’s not a problem. THE CHAIR: Very, very, very important. MS. HUGHES: Fran! I got it. MR. OSHANA: And, more than just when it’s going to be done
but what they’re going to be completing and when along the
way.
THE CHAIR: Right, exactly. MS. HUGHES: Sure. Not a problem. THE CHAIR: And, SPEED IT UP! MS. HUGHES: What do you want me to do, Fran? THE CHAIR: Well, I’m just saying, it seems like we’re going
-- MR. OSHANA: Nowhere. MR. CARMODY: Could you be more clear? THE CHAIR: --- SLOW. Okay? MS. HUGHES: Um-hum. THE CHAIR: All right. This gentleman wants to get up and
say something. I don’t know what you want to say. FROM THE AUDIENCE: For the record, may name is Steve
(Inaudible) and I live at 592 Savage Street. I’m also one
of the business owners at 491 Darling Street. The proposal
that you just passed, I had no prior notice that they were
even looking to put something in there until about a month
ago. I came to the last meeting, unfortunately I came with my
children and when I came back, the meeting was adjourned. I
never had an opportunity to come up and do any opposition
to this and to give my opinions on what happened. In fact, when I found out about it, I’ve got over 2000
signed, you know, signatures for a petition I put across. THE CHAIR: Sir, what’re we going to do now? MR. DELSANTO: We had a public hearing on this. MS. HUGHES: This didn’t require a public hearing. SPEAKER: It doesn’t require a public hearing. MS. LONGO: No.
SPEAKER: Why? I mean, I’m a business owner there. I mean, I
also live in Southington, a taxpayer. I’m part of the
community and so are four other people. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: There are certain applications that do
require a public hearing under our regulations and some
that do not. This one does not fall under the public
hearing scope. SPEAKER: So, then all of this is for naught? ATTORNEY SCIOTA: You’re a business owner in the srip mall,
itself? SPEAKER: Yes. THE CHAIR: I think that’s between you and the landlord
there, no? ATTORNEY SCIOTA: The landlord obviously is transferring the
land, I assume, to these people who are putting the
application in. So, I don’t know what kind of leases you
have. If you have a long-term lease, you have some power.
If you have an oral month to month lease then --- SPEAKER: No, I have a lease. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: So you have some power. SPEAKER: What I’m saying is, I can’t do anything to oppose
them putting something there? THE CHAIR: I think you’re a lot stronger if you have a
long-term lease to do something against these people, but I
doubt you’re going to do something. But what does it have
to do with us? ATTORNEY SCIOTA: It’s tough to do anything now. SPEAKER: Well, sorry. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: Not that --- having a business owner there
--- and obviously it’s a closed application, but having a
business owner there, you would speak against it. That
would have been something that would have been brought up.
But really what this is the land use aspect, not
necessarily a business person being forced out, isn’t
really a --- SPEAKER: I mean, you’re building another assisted living in
the most concentrated area in the whole Town. You’ve got an
assisted living complex to people who can’t even drive.
They rely on my store. You know, that’s the plain truth of
it. You’re saying I have no voice? ATTORNEY SCIOTA: I think you have to talk to your landlord
because he’s the one selling or it’s the one selling the
property. MR. DELSANTO: Your beef should be with your landlord, sir. ATTORNEY SCIOTA: They’re the ones selling it. MR. DEMELLO: One, thing. Mary? Not to cut him short, but
just for the next meeting would you put on the Agenda --- SPEAKER: Thank you. THE CHAIR: Thank you. MR. DEMELLO: -- the square lots? MS. HUGHES: Sure. MS. LONGO: Public hearing, right? THE CHAIR: I’ve got a job for Frank tomorrow. MS. HUGHES: Frank won’t be in until the afternoon. MR. DELSANTO: One more thing, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Perillo
looking into the application for the down zoning? From I-1
to R-12? On East Summer Street? MS. HUGHES: I know I’ve had conversations with him. MR. DELSANTO: Could we maybe contact him for the next
meeting? MS. HUGHES: I can ask him, sure. MR. DELSANTO: Just to come in and ask what his input is.
Ask him whether or not this piece of property is viable as
I-1 or, you know? THE CHAIR: Right this down. Frank, tomorrow afternoon. MS. HUGHES: You think I’m going to remember that? (Everyone speaking at the same time.) THE CHAIR: C - V- S. Storage trailers. (Upon a motion made, seconded and passed unanimously, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:58 o’clock, p.m.)