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.)