Tolland Planning & Zoning Commission - Town of Tolland CT |

Agenda

Tolland Planning & Zoning Commission Remote Zoom Meeting

Monday, April 26, 2021 at 7:00 p.m.

1. Call to Order

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Seating of Alternate(s)

4. Additions to Agenda

5. Public Comment - Any person wishing to ask a question, make a comment or put forward a

suggestion for any item or matter other than a public hearing item.

6. Appointment of David Corcoran, AICP, Director of Planning & Development as the Zoning

Enforcement Officer.

7. Public Hearing(s)

7.1. PZC #21-6, 53 Merrow Road – Special Permit per Section 16-15 for Pre-Development Site

Grading. Zone: Tolland Village Area. Applicant: S.D. Williams LLC. Continued from April

12, 2021.

7.2. PZC #21-4, 65 Merrow Road – Special Permit pursuant to Section 7-5.A.3. for the installation

of a drive through service window at an existing restaurant as well as a Site Plan Modification

pursuant to Section 7-4 for the construction of a new drive through facility and the connection

of the property to the public sewer system. Zone: Tolland Village Area. Applicant: Pacheco

Realty, LLC.

8. Old Business

8.1. Possible action – PZC #21-6, 53 Merrow Road.

8.2. Possible action – PZC #21-4, 65 Merrow Road.

9. New Business

9.1. 73 Williams Way, Driveway Permit requiring a waiver pursuant to Section 19-1.J.2.a.

Applicant: John Reinard.

9.2. PZC #21-9, 154 Hartford Turnpike – Special Permit per Section 14-3.C.2. to allow an

automotive repair in the Aquifer Protection Area. Zone: Commercial/Industrial Zone – A.

Applicant: Borghesi Building & Engineering Co., Inc. Commission to set Public Hearing date.

10. Reports

10.1. Town Council Liaison

10.2. Capitol Region Council of Governments

10.3. Zoning Enforcement Report

10.4. Planning Update

11. Other Business

12. Correspondence

13. Public Participation

14. Approval of Minutes –April 12, 2021 Regular Meeting

15. Adjournment

All public business will be conducted by 11:00 p.m. unless waived by a vote of the Commission.

The Town of Tolland is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer.

To join the Zoom Meeting, either click:

https://zoom.us/j/4325402030?pwd=NG43ZHcyOXBQOGJldzZVTmQxNmhZZz09

Or call: 1-646-876-9923 and input:

Meeting ID: 432 540 2030

Passcode: 444555

https://zoom.us/j/4325402030?pwd=NG43ZHcyOXBQOGJldzZVTmQxNmhZZz09

AGENDA ITEM 7.1

1

TOWN OF TOLLAND Planning & Development Department 21 Tolland Green, Tolland CT 06084

Tel.: (860) 871-3601

MEMORANDUM TO: Tolland Planning and Zoning Commission

FROM: David Corcoran AICP, Director of Planning and Development

DATE: April 20, 2021

SUBJECT: Application #PZ 21-6. 53 Merrow Rd.

Special Permit per Section 16-15 for per-development site grading. Zone: TVA. Applicant: S. D.

Williams, LLC.

Date Submitted March 8, 2021

Date of Receipt March 22, 2021

Deadline for Decision 35 from 3/22 to close hearing, 65 days from hearing close to

decide.

Extension Eligible? Yes Total Possible Days 65

Application Summary

Special Permit:

The applicant is seeking a Special Permit from the PZC for Pre-Development Site Grading in accordance with

Section 16-15 of the Zoning Regulations. The purpose of this application is to prepare the site for future

development by grading and adding two detention basins, retaining walls, and seeding.

The application was approved by the Inland Wetlands Commission at their March 4, 2021 meeting as presented.

Plan Comments:

1. Section 16-15 (C)(9): Pre-Development Site Grading:

Prohibits stockpiling within 200 feet of property lines, though the Commission has the ability to waive this

requirement if the applicant can demonstrate a reduced distance will not cause noise, dust, or visual impacts to

abutting land uses.

Comment:

The plan provided shows a temporary stockpile located within 200 feet of the south property line. The

temporary stockpile location is shrouded by trees to minimize visual impact and is located in the best area on

the site to avoid disturbance of both wetlands and the adjacent residential neighborhoods.

General Comments:

2. Schedule:

The Applicant proposes to limit their activities to 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Saturday.

2

Recommended Motion

1. Approval/disapproval of Application #PZ 21-6 for a Special Permit to allow for Pre-Development Site Grading

with a waiver of Section 16-15(C)(9) of the Tolland Zoning Regulations to allow for a temporary stockpile

within 200 feet of the property line conditioned on adherence with the approved Site Plan narrative.

Conditions:

Post a surety with the Town guaranteeing satisfactory completion of the Erosion and Sediment Control

Plan as agreed on between the Applicant and the Town Engineer.

1

David Corcoran

From: Richard Conti <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 11:35To: David CorcoranSubject: [EXTERNAL]RE: Request for Opinion on 53 Merrow Rd Application

David: In response to the questions you ask below, I offer the following opinion. By way of background, the Town negotiated a “Purchase and Sale Agreement” (hereinafter, “P&S”) dated February 27, 2020 between the Town and Stephen D. Williams (hereinafter, “Williams”) for the purchase of 9.7 acres known as Parcel Wilbur Cross 22/K/020 (hereinafter, the “Property”). There are two portions of that agreement which are relevant to the questions asked: “4. CLOSING: The Closing shall take place at the earlier date of sixty (60) days following the final approval, without appeal, of all necessary State and local administrative approvals from governmental authorities for Buyer’s development of his adjoining property, utilizing the Premises for storm water drainage and/or treatment facilities and/or open space and/or commercial development approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; or May 1, 2023, whichever shall first occur. If Buyer has secured necessary approvals to commence site plan preparation for the proposed final development, Buyer may waive all approval contingencies and close on the Premises in order to commence execution of the approved site preparation plan.” and, “6.F. Right of Access to Grade. Seller hereby grants Buyer, his employees, agents and assigns, the right to enter upon the Property for the purposes of grading prior to closing. Such grading shall be accomplished for the purpose of developing other property of the Buyer contiguous to the Property. The parties acknowledge that any such grading requires the prior approval of the Tolland Planning and Zoning Commission. Prior to and during the term of any such grading, the Buyer shall provide insurance coverage to the Seller, in such form and amounts as deemed appropriate to the Seller’s insurance consultant. In addition, Buyer shall execute, prior to such grading, a hold harmless agreement holding Seller harmless from any and all claims by the Buyer, his employees, agents, assigns and any third parties resulting from any such grading activities. Finally, Buyer shall not deposit any fill or other materials on the Property which did not originate therefrom.” When read together, these paragraphs anticipate that should Williams decide to move forward with grading, he needs to secure approvals to do so. I understand that he made an application to the Inland Wetlands Commission and that application was granted. I also understand that there is currently pending before the Planning and Zoning Commission (“hereinafter, “PZC”) an application for a special permit for “site grading, removal of excess cut and installation of detention basins for future development which is to be determined.” This latter application is the one contemplated in paragraph 6.F. above. The PZC has yet to act on that application. Should the PZC approve the pending application, Williams would have alternative procedures with respect to closing. He could secure “all necessary State and local administrative approvals from governmental authorities for Buyer’s development of his adjoining property, utilizing the Premises for storm water drainage and/or treatment facilities and/or open space and/or commercial development approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission:”. If he chooses this alternative, he would be obligated to purchase the Property within 60 days of such approvals, without appeal. If he is unable to secure such approvals, he could elect not to move forward with acquiring the Property. Alternatively, Williams could “waive all approval contingencies and close on the Premises in order to commence execution of the approved site preparation plan”. So, if his current application is approved, he could elect to close on the property before he gets further approvals for the overall project. In that case, he would still have to obtain all of the same approvals before he could move forward with developing the project, but he could not use the denial of any

2

approval as a reason not to close, thereby assuming the risk of not obtaining those approvals. In addition, whether he closes prior to or after such approvals, the deed from the Town to Williams would contain a contingency which provides that the parcel must be used for economic development purposes or title will revert to the Town, mirroring the same requirement as is contained in the conveyance from the State. I believe this answers your first question below. With respect to the second question, there was no provision in paragraph 6.F. of the P&S for “performance bonding or guarantee for future maintenance/removal of the proposed detention basins” should Williams current application before the PZC be approved, he performs the approved grading and thereafter he does not take title to the parcel. In addition, I can find no reference in the Zoning Regulations or the Connecticut General Statutes which provides for such type of bonding or guarantee. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the PZC does not have the authority to require any such bonding or guarantee. Rick Conti Richard S. Conti Diana, Conti & Tunila, LLP 1091 Main Street Manchester, CT 06040 860‐643‐2181 [email protected]

From: David Corcoran [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 11:20 AM To: Richard Conti <[email protected]> Cc: Michael Rosen <[email protected]> Subject: Request for Opinion on 53 Merrow Rd Application Good Morning Rick, At the Planning and Zoning Commission last night a couple questions were raised regarding the application for Pre‐Development Site Grading at 53 Merrow Rd that we would like to seek your opinion on:

1. Does the Town’s Purchase and Sale Agreement with Steve Williams allow for Mr. Williams to take title on the property upon completion of the Pre‐Development Site Grading project, or would he need to propose a development that satisfies the need for Economic Development before he is able to take title?

2. Does the Town have the authority to require any sort of performance bonding or guarantee for future maintenance/removal of the proposed detention basins on the Town‐owned parcel if the Pre‐Development Site Grading Project is successfully and fully completed but the Town‐owned parcel remains in the Town’s name and no further development occurs on the parcel?

I have attached the application for the project – please let me know if you need any additional documentation or supporting materials. If possible, we would like to receive this back a week in advance of our April 26th P&Z meeting.

Thanks, David Corcoran, AICP Director of Planning and Development Town of Tolland 21 Tolland Green Tolland, CT 06042 (860) 871‐3601

Special Meeting Agenda Tolland Inland Wetlands Commission

Zoom Remote Meeting Thursday, March 4, 2021at 7:00 p.m.

Members Present: Lee Lafountain, Chairman

Archie Tanner, Vice Chairman Raymond Culver, Regular Bob Ross, Regular Gary Hoehne, Alternate

Members Absent: Todd Penney, Regular Others present: Andrea Drabicki, Assistant Planner/Wetlands Agent Town of Tolland Chuck Eaton, Town Engineer

Ryan Scrittorale, professional engineer for IWC #20-16 Robin Messier Pearson, attorney for IWC application # 20-16

George Logan, Soil Scientist/Wetlands Scientist, for IWC application # 20-16 Steven Williams, applicant for IWC #20-16

Mike Byram, citizen Matt Sexton, property owner 75 Woodfields Drive Chris Cook, property owner 60 Woodfields Drive

Start Recording time to start recording 7:05pm

1. Call to Order Meeting recording started. Meeting called to order at 7:05 pm. Lafountain reviewed the rules for this remote meeting. All public citizens who wish to speak will be limited to 5 minutes each. Chat feature in Zoom will be monitored as well in order to provide opportunity for public citizens to participate.

2. Seating of Alternate(s) – Seat Hoefne for Penney at this time.

3. Public Participation – issues of concern not on the Agenda (2-minute limit) – none

4. Additions/Changes/Deletions to Agenda - none

5. Public Hearing

Public Hearing opened at 7:06pm 5.1 IWC #20-16, 53 Merrow Road and Parcel 22/K/020 – Co-applicant with the Town of Tolland. Request for site grading and creation of new stormwater treatment basins. Applicant: Stephen Williams. Lafountain reviewed the rules of the public hearing and how the Zoom format has been adopted for this meeting.

Inland Wetlands Commission March 4, 2021 2

Scrittorale of Benesch reviewed the test pit exploration completed on 2/25/21. 8 test pits were used to determine the location of the ledge to determine if the retaining walls can be built as

proposed. Scrittorale said geotechnical engineers were consulted and thought it was appropriate

to have a geotechnical engineer on site during the execution of this project. Scrittorale said in the area near the detention basins areas have sandy soils that will drain well.

Scrittorale said Wetlands A, B and C were studied including a pre and post activity analysis. He said for the analysis Wetlands A and B were grouped together and that both had decreased recharge areas but increased flows to the wetlands. The same was found for Wetlands C, slightly reduced drainage area but increasing drainage volume. All 3 of the wetlands were tested for low intensity storm events which is what would normally contribute to the wetlands George Logan reviewed his involvement with the property. Logan agrees with the plan for the property and believes the impact to the hydrology will not be significant. He reviewed they are overflow wetlands and reviewed the flows of water through the wetlands systems.

Scrittorale referenced the third item which discussed the phasing of the project. Scrittorale said each phase will be less than 5 acres and is independent and separate in regards to erosion and sedimentation controls. He said phase one preserves the septic system currently used by Dunkin’ and includes the construction of the first detention basin. He said phase 2 includes the second detention basin and proposes to include the Dunkin’ septic area unless the system still in use.

Scrittorale said if the septic system is still in operation, it will not be included in the second phase either. Scrittorale referenced Eaton’s most recent memo which indicates all outstanding issues have been addressed. Culver said all of his concerns have been addressed and does not have any further questions.

Lafountain asked about the rock wall. Scrittorale referenced Eaton’s response and referenced the grading plan. Ryan said because the ledge on site is variable and that if the wall or slopes needed to be modified, it would only lesson the amount of cut on that side. He said if the rock is not as structurally sound, additional fill material may be required to create stability. Tanner said he is satisfied. Ross agreed. Lafountain stated that the location of the Dunkin’ septic system is present on the most recent set of plans as requested at the previous meeting. Eaton referenced the letter dated February 16, 2021 and discussed the following:

Item #1 - which discussed the test pits has been satisfied. He said the applicant did the borings and there is significant ledge there. He said having a Geotech engineer present satisfies his concerns and is in support of this level of oversite.

Item #2 - the property to the east belongs to the town at this time. Eaton said that property would be transferred to the Applicant and therefore the applicant would be responsible for maintenance of the basins and site during and after construction.

Item #3 - additional erosion and sedimentation controls were added as discussed.

Item #4 - size of the pipes that would transfer water from the trap to the basins was addressed and information is included in the most updated plan

Item # 7 - concerns regarding the test pits were adequately addressed


Item #8 grading to lower stormwater basin – area was regraded on the plans to allow for maintenance access.

Lafountain asked about the maintenance plan. Scrittorale said the maintenance plan is included as part of the stormwater report and referenced page 5 -7 of stormwater report. Culver asked if the plan follows DEEP guidelines. Ryan said yes and follows the guidelines for a discharge permit. Lafountain opened the meeting to the public. Drabicki read a question from Mike Byram, citizen, who asked about the process to complete a

boring test and how long it takes for a boring test to be completed. Scrittorale said exploratory test pits were completed which included measuring the distance from grade to ledge. He said this is a different type of test than what is done for a foundation. Ryan deferred to Williams regarding the time estimate for completion of this project. Williams said he will have to go through Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the work being done. Lafountain clarified that Byram wants to know from start to finish of grading. Williams said it will dependent on what the town wants.

Scrittorale said the duration may also be impacted by the amount and location of the ledge. Drabicki read a question from Sexton who asked about the landscaping plan. Drabicki said and questions or concerns about landscaping should be addressed to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Drabicki read a question from Byram who said one of the proposed retaining walls are very close to

the property line and expressed concern about that location. Scrittorale said all disturbances will be 100 feet away from the property line. Lafountain said those types of concerns should be addressed with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Lafountain allowed time for additional public participation. No further comments.

Scrittorale said his presentation was complete. Lafountain asked Commissioners and town staff and other present if there were any additional questions or concerns at this time. Culver/Hoehne: motion to close the public hearing.

Tanner – Y, Culver – Y, Ross – Y, Hoehne - Y, Lafountain – Y.

Unanimously approved.

Public Hearing closed at 7:33pm.

6. New Business - none

7. Old Business

7.1 IWC #20-16, 53 Merrow Road and Parcel 22/K/020, possible decision. Culver/Tanner: motion approve as shown on the March 1, 2021 plans.


Tanner – Y, Culver – Y, Ross – Y, Hoehne - Y, Lafountain – Y.

Unanimously approved.

8. Wetlands Agent Report

8.1 Fire Station Update – Drabicki said that the fire stations in town need to be rehabilitated and

Station 140, 340s both have wetlands on the property. She said the fire chief has been notified and

suggested an application for a blanket permit. Eaton said the plans will eventually come before the

Commission, Eaton and the planning committee wanted the Inlands Wetlands Commission to be

aware that this project would be going for referendum but the funding for the planning would be

included from the referendum budget which is why plans will not come before the Commission

prior to the referendum.

Lafountain said he thinks a regular permit would be more appropriate than a blanket permit for

this type of project.

Eaton said Station 140 has a crumbing foundation would need to be replaced. Eaton said the

conceptual plan includes possibly adding on to the building to add a training facility and sleeping

quarters. Eaton said the parking of rescue vehicles would also be reconfigured and the bays to the

front would be expanded. Eaton said the wetlands are located in the back of the property.

Eaton said Station 340 and 440 are in need of an overhaul as well. He said the planning committee

has been considering a cost comparison between rehabilitating what is currently on site versus

razing and rebuilding. He said so far it seems that razing and rebuilding will be more cost effective

than retrofitting the current structures. He said the Station 340 has a pond and a small stream;

work in regulated area but they don’t plan to fill the wetlands.

Eaton said Littell (Director of Public Safety) is working on a phasing plan which will address whether

the new buildings will be built on the existing building site or whether the old buildings will remain

in place and the new buildings will be built in a different part of the property.

Hoehne asked about Station 140 and whether training would be done with fire retardant foam

which might be a concern with wetlands on the property. Eaton said he does not think so but

should be addressed with Littell. Drabicki said she spoke to Littell about the property and that a

wetlands crossing would need to be established to access the rear of the property. She said they

are considering placing a training tower in that part of the property, but it would be based on the

amount of funds that would be available. Eaton said that is not part of the building expansion

project.

Lafountain said that each Station project should be handled separately. Eaton does not advise a

blanket permit; Eaton said he thought regular permits are appropriate. Lafountain agrees. Tanner

said this should be handled as regular permits. Eaton just wanted the Commission to know that

this is in the planning process but that they would be coming to the Commission once the plans has

been developed.


8.2 Conservation permit discussion - Drabicki said based on what she could find, conditions for the

permit were not included. She said she found the minutes where this permit was discussed which

addressed the conditions. Drabicki read the relevant portions of the minutes from the meetings

when the permit was discussed. Lafountain and Tanner reviewed the discussion about the types of

equipment that could be used (hand tools and non-motorized equipment) and the types of work

that could be completed under the blanket permit.

8.3 Drabicki said the Conservation Commission is in the process of evaluating their parcels that

have been affected by gypsy moths and said there is a webinar on forest management that may be

available regarding forest management. Lafountain asked if there is a participant limit. Lafountain

asked Drabicki to contact the Conservation Commission Chair to see if the Inlands Wetlands

Commissioners could be invited to attend the webinar as well.

9. Other Business – none

10. Correspondence – none

11. Approval of Minutes – February 21, 2021 Regular Meeting with the correction of the spelling of

Hoehne’s name

Culver/Ross: Motion to approve the minutes from the February 21, 2021 Regular Meeting with

the correction of the spelling of Hoehne’s name.

Lafountain – Y, Tanner – Y, Culver- Y, Ross – Y, Hoehne – Y.

12. Adjourn

Ross/Hoehne: motion to adjourn.

Lafountain – Y, Tanner – Y, Culver- Y, Ross- Y, Hoehne – Y. Unanimously approved.

Meeting adjourned at 7:54 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

June Kausch Clerk, Inland Wetlands Commission

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION TOLLAND, CONNECTICUT

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2019 MEMBERS PRESENT: Andy Powell, Acting Chair Bruce Mayer, Vice Chair Barb Dimauro, Secretary Joe Matteis, alternate Mark Farrell, alternate OTHERS PRESENT: Heidi Samokar, Director of Planning & Development Brenda Falusi, Town Council Liaison Michael Rosen, Town Manager Jay Ussery, Surveyor, J. R. Russo & Associates Mark Peterson, P.E., Gardner & Peterson Associates Public 1. Call to Order: Andy Powell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Council

Chambers.

2. Pledge of Allegiance: Recited.

3. Seating of Alternates: Mr. Powell seated Mark Farrell for Sue Errickson, and Joe Matteis for Kurt Schenher.

4. Additions to Agenda: Mark Farrell/Joe Matteis motion to add Item 8.3 under New Business to discuss approval of a sign for a new business at 239 Merrow Road. Motion unanimously approved.

5. Public Comment: None.

6. Public Hearing:

6.1 P&Z #19-18, 48 Kozley Road – Resubdivision to create 2 additional building lots.

Applicant: Robert Krajewski. Zone: Residential Design District. Ms. Dimauro read the legal notice. Jay Ussery, a surveyor with J. R. Russo & Associates, representing the applicant, Robert Krajewski, reviewed the resubdivision request. This is an approximately 11-1/2 acre parcel on the northeast side of Kozley Road. The Krajewski home is located on this parcel and the applicant wishes to cut out two lots, each more than the minimum two-acre lot size, and each with frontage on Kozley Road. The lots would be served by private wells and septic systems. Mr. Ussery said their application is currently before the Inland Wetlands Commission and they expect the Commission to act this month. There will be

September 9, 2019 – Tolland Planning & Zoning Commission

2

minor wetlands disturbance. Soil testing with the Health Department has been completed and a septic design has also been provided to the Department. The Health Department has granted their approval. They have also addressed all issues with staff. Mr. Ussery said originally they proposed a footing drain that would go into a culvert in the right-of-way. This has been relocated to the southwest corner of the lot and will no longer outlet directly into the culvert. The specifications are to be reviewed by Public Works Director Scott Lappen, and Mr. Ussery said he will be checking in with Mr. Lappen. He said Mr. Lappen’s only concern was this does not cause any icing. Mr. Ussery said in order to develop the lots, they will need to do some clearing of the woods. The Public Hearing was opened to public comment. Marsh Summers of 59 Kozley Road asked if the lots will be set back from the road or if they will be cutting trees at the road. Mr. Ussery said presently they expect to do some clearing at the road for the driveway and then flare out the clearing further back. Mr. Summers, whose home is across the street from the proposed lots, said he has a turn-around cul-de-sac in front of his house and has never seen any icing up. He noted there is a small metal piping between the turnaround and the road and asked if anyone knew when it was installed. Mr. Ussery said he was unsure, but there is nothing in their proposal that would change any of the drainage on Mr. Summers’ side of Kozley Road. Joe Matteis/Mark Farrell motion to continue the Public Hearing for P&Z #19-18 to the September 23, 2019 meeting. Motion was unanimously approved.

7. Old Business

7.1 Possible decision on P&Z #19-18 – Continued to September 23, 2019.

7.2 Plan of Conservation and Development – Ms. Samokar reminded the Commission that the public hearing will be held on September 23, 2019. The POCD is online and there is a link to it on the Planning & Development page. A copy can also be found in the Planning Office and at the Tolland Public Library.

8. New Business

8.1 P&Z #762, Somerset Woods, Old Post Road – Request for 5 year extension to complete work approved on Site Plan. Mark Peterson, P.E. with Gardner & Peterson, representing the applicant, provided some history of the application. It originally began with Lee & Lamont Realty and was approved for 66 age-restricted units in 2003. At that time the development was called Belvedere Ridge. In 2010, Tomlen, LLC, the current owner came in and the age restriction was removed. Some other changes were also made to the original


3

application such as allowing some duplex units. They were allowed a five year extension. Ms. Samokar noted that the development is on a private road, and like at another development, they have not done the top coat of the road. Without the top coat, the catch basins are a bit higher than the road but she is not aware of any drainage issues. She said this was a complex approval, requiring work to be done in phases. Ms. Samokar said there were some violations of the approval a couple of years before she became the Director of Planning but they have been worked out. She added that it makes sense to grant the extension, but her concern is that five years from now they may still have an incomplete road. Mr. Matteis asked how many of the units have been completed. Mr. Peterson said presently nine units of the sixty-six have a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Mayer recalled there were some issues with pumping out the drain and asked if that maintenance has been ongoing. Mr. Peterson said the developer brought in fill for that project and they put together a plan to stabilize the embankment that has been working out. The Commission discussed an on-going safety issue regarding a gated accessway that provides emergency access from the Business Park. It was noted it was not plowed the last two years. Mr. Peterson said there are two access gates, one to keep people out of the Phase II area and another where they need to provide an access path from the Star Hill Athletic Center. Mr. Matteis asked if there has been any recent activity at the site. Ms. Samokar said she thinks it has been around two years since a CO has been issued. She said the Commission can grant “up to” five years for an extension, which means they could grant less time. Mr. Matteis said he is not opposed to granting an extension but feels that because work at the site has been stagnant, it might be better to grant a shorter time to encourage the developer to check in with them sooner. Mr. Mayer said an issue for him is if the roads will deteriorate to such a condition in five years that there might be a public health issue. Mr. Powell asked Ms. Samokar to summarize any pluses or minuses to granting a shorter extension. Ms. Samokar said if they were to grant a shorter extension, she would suggest a four-year extension. This would give the Commission some leverage to get the developer in to talk, then they could still give the developer that extra year. This might provide them some motivation. Mr. Matteis agreed they would want to get the developer before the Commission before his time runs out. Mr. Peterson agreed that it would be in the developer’s best interest to be proactive and come before them in four years’ time. He said they are aware the clock is ticking. Joe Matteis/Barb Dimauro motion to approve a four-year extension for P&Z #762, Somerset Woods. Mr. Farrell said he is not opposed to the extension offer, but it is


4

clear the developer will not be able to complete what remains of the 66 units in five years. A vote was taken on the motion, and it was unanimously approved.

8.2 8-24 Review – Purchase and Sale Agreement between the Town of Tolland and Stephen D. Williams for the purchase of the parcel described as Wilbur Cross 22/K/020. Ms. Samokar reviewed her September 4, 2019 memo. She said this would be basically an update of what the Commission previously approved, but to allow for site grading. She said Mr. Williams would like to begin pre-development site grading. Mr. Mayer said in the original agreement, Mr. Williams was going to put together a proposal, but now it appears he wants to grade it before he even owns it and has found anyone to develop it. He said giving a positive 8-24 referral feels to him like they would not be good stewards of the land. He was concerned about a worst case scenario where the town ends up with land that is not useful to them, as it is being prepped for his plans. Mr. Matteis questioned why Mr. Williams does not purchase the town land first. Ms. Samokar said the town does not want to release the land until they know his final plan. He has until 2023 to do any site grading and seek approvals from the PZC for development. Mr. Matteis said the free excavation work will be beneficial to the town as the goal has been to use the land for economic development. He said most of the town property abuts his land and the highway and most of the neighborhood will not be impacted. Mr. Mayer said he would feel better if Mr. Williams were paying taxes on the property. Mr. Farrell asked if they would get to see a site plan before any development was done. Ms. Samokar said the Commission would see it twice, once for the grading and then again for a site development plan. Mr. Powell said he did not see a down side to the grading. Mr. Matteis agreed. Mr. Mayer said right now the site is wooded and attractive. He said he would not want to see the site become an eyesore. Ms. Samokar said the grading on the town property would have to be cohesive with the grading on Mr. Williams’ adjacent property. Mr. Matteis asked how long the town has owned the land. Ms. Samokar said she was unsure. It was originally intended to be open space but then legislation was passed to use it for economic development. Mr. Matteis said in a worst case scenario, Mr. Williams would have to reseed the land and they would end up with a field. He would not be allowed to leave it in an unattractive state.


5

Ms. Dimauro said this is in line with what they originally wanted, and sometimes you have to take a chance. She noted that Mr. Williams is a known developer in town with a good reputation. Mr. Powell said this is consistent with the model they considered for development and recommended granting a favorable 8-24 review. The discussion was opened to public comment. Brenda Falusi of 4 Laurel Ridge asked if the town can harvest the trees, and the town should make sure it harvests the trees if they decide to go forward. She also asked if there is road access from the adjacent residential area. It was noted there is not as that area is on a cul-de-sac. Mr. Matteis noted that the neighborhood will have the opportunity to speak when the application for grading comes before the Commission. Kenny Trice of 53 Doe Run said an element to consider is what type of sound barrier might be established for the neighboring properties. Ms. Samokar said excavation activity requires a 100 foot buffer there. Jason Philbin of 11 Harvest Lane asked if the land owner is saying he cannot pitch a plan because of the existing trees. Mr. Powell said Mr. Williams felt the ability to market the property was hindered by the topography, and it would be easier to visualize potential development if it were prepped in advance. Mr. Matteis said the site grading would cut out a lot of development costs for a potential developer. Barb Dimauro/Joe Matteis motion to provide a positive 8-24 referral for the purchase and sale agreement between the Town of Tolland and Stephen D. Williams for the purchase of the parcel described as Wilbur Cross 22/K/020. Ms. Dimauro, Mr. Matteis, Mr. Powell and Mr. Farrell voted in favor. Mr. Mayer was opposed. Motion carried.

8.3 Sign discussion for new business at 239 Merrow Road – Ms. Samokar said this proposal is from the applicant Mohammed Tanash, for Moe’s Smoke and Vape Shop. She said the proposed sign meets the size requirements but he is asking for a modification because he wants it to be internally lit. Any approval would require a minimum of four affirmative votes. Mr. Powell asked if there has been any similar approval in recent years. It was noted that the Commission approved an internally lit roof sign for the NAPA store. Mr. Mayer said this type of sign is explicitly not permitted in their regulations and he feels they cannot approve the request unless a regulation change is made. He said they should be upholding their regulations. Mr. Powell said if the sign meets the lumens requirements of the existing regulations, it shouldn’t make a difference. Ms. Samokar noted that an internally lit sign would be brighter than one where an external light is shining on it.


6

Mr. Mayer asked if the applicant provided a rationale for not conforming to their regulations. It was noted he had not, nor that he showed up for the meeting. Ms. Dimauro noted that the Commission approved an internally lit sign for NAPA only after the applicant came before them and demonstrated that he could not find a corporate sign that complied with their regulations. Mr. Farrell said he agreed that the applicant should provide a reason for his request. Mark Farrell/Bruce Mayer motion to approve the sign for the new business at 239 Merrow Road, externally lit as per their zoning regulations. Motion was unanimously approved.

9. Reports

9.1 Town Council Liaison – Brenda Falusi – Ms. Falusi reviewed the Town Council’s September 10 agenda. Mr. Matteis discussed surplus vehicles and equipment saying it was done in the past through sealed bids. Mr. Powell welcomed new Town Manager Michael Rosen saying he looked forward to working with him. As it was his first day, Mr. Rosen said he was looking forward to jumping in and familiarizing himself with the POCD.

9.2 Capitol Region Council of Governments – No report.

9.3 Zoning Enforcement Report – Ms. Samokar reported that the issue with the chickens on Old Cathole Road was resolved. The property owner opted to get rid of them rather than take out a permit.

Ms. Samokar said she also sent a second letter to the property owner on Eaton Road where some unknown activity was taking place. She reviewed her letter, which expressed concerns about vehicle repairs, what appeared to be a junkyard on the property, and commercial storage with no permits for a home occupation for business on the property. Phil Martin, the property owner, attended the meeting and provided some background. He said he has had an excavating business there since the early 1960’s, which he said was grandfathered in from before zoning. He said he does only his own vehicle repairs on site. He acknowledged he had a lot of junk on the site, mostly parts he got for repairs but expects to get rid of about 40 percent of it by the fall. He said he has had occasional, minor oil leaks and spills. He said he has a surface well near the watershed area. He also said he has no problems with erosion control. Mr. Martin said he felt he was being a little ganged up on by the Water Company, the Sanitation Department and the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP). He said DEEP gave him a letter but someone from DEEP came out and told him he didn’t see a problem with the site and that was the end of


7

it. Mr. Martin said he doesn’t litter or contaminate the property, and while he has asphalt on the site, asphalt is not a contaminant. Mr. Martin also noted he is registered with the town and state and his business is established as an LLC. He said he used to do some road work for the town many years ago. Ms. Samokar said the question is what was permitted in the 1960’s and she will need to research this. She said she suspected outside storage might not meet today’s standards. Mr. Powell noted that land use laws have changed some where water is involved and a lot more attention is now paid to that. He told Mr. Martin he appreciated him coming in to talk with them.

9.4 Planning Update – Ms. Samokar said she needed a volunteer on September 30 for the Four Town Regional Economic Development Plan focus group. The Town Council and Economic Development Commission has been invited and the group will meet at the Lake Lodge in Coventry. While they need one volunteer to participate from the PZC, any other members may attend as observers. Mr. Powell volunteered to attend. Ms. Samokar said the Old Cathole Road work has gone out to bid and bids are due Wednesday. The actual paving will not start until next spring and summer. Ms. Samokar said the Conservation Commission reached out to the UConn School of Landscape Architecture and ten or eleven students will be holding a design charrette on Friday afternoon, October 18, at the Senior Center to come up with concepts for the Wanat property. Ms. Samokar reminded the Commission there will be a UConn CLEAR (Center for Land Use Education and Research) training on October 26 from 9:00 to 3:30 p.m. in Haddam and she recommended PZC members attend. She asked that anyone interested let her know by this Thursday.

10. Other Business: None. 11. Correspondence: None.

12. Public Participation: Adam Grossman of 9 Metcalf Road asked if he could see a

rendition of the sign for the Smoke and Vape Shop. Ms. Dimauro showed him an 8-1/2” x 11” facsimile of the sign. Kenny Trice of 53 Doe Run said indirect lighting is a better alternative.

Town Manager Michael Rosen noted that sealed bids for surplus equipment are used by the town when vehicles or equipment are at or in excess of $3,000.

13. Approval of Minutes: Approve meeting minutes of August 26, 2019 Regular Meeting. Barb Dimauro/Joe Matteis motion to approve the August 26, 2019 Regular Meeting minutes. Motion was unanimously approved.


8

14. Adjournment: Barb Dimauro/Joe Matteis motion to adjourn the meeting and pay the

clerk at 8:35 p.m. Motion was unanimously approved.

Respectfully submitted, Annie Gentile Clerk

AGENDA ITEM 7.2

Legal Notice

Public Hearing

Tolland Planning & Zoning Commission

The Tolland Planning & Zoning Commission will conduct three Public Hearings on Monday,

March 22, 2021 remotely, commencing at 7:00 p.m., to hear and discuss the following:

1. PZC #21-1, Regulation Amendment – Amend Article 10 of the Zoning Regulations to allow

drive-through service at gasoline station/convenience store with a quick serve restaurant use

in the Gateway Design District. Applicant: Aisha Kahan.

2. PZC #21-3, 55 Mountain Spring Road – Subdivision to create a 2.05 acre lot from an

existing 22.75-acre lot. Zone: Residential Design District. Applicant: Elvin & Lisa

Miranda.

3. PZC #21-4, 65 Merrow Road – Special Permit per Section 7.5.A.3. for the installation of a

drive through service window at an existing restaurant. Zone: Tolland Village Area.

Applicant: Pacheco Realty, LLC.

A copy of the application(s) are on file and available to review in the Town Clerk’s and Town

Planner’s Offices at 21 Tolland Green, Tolland, CT 06084.

To be advertised twice in the Journal Inquirer: Thursday, March 11, 2021 and

Friday, March 19, 2021

adrabicki

Typewritten Text

21-04


Tel.: (860) 871-3601


FROM: Michael D’Amato, AICP, CZEO, Planning & Development

DATE: March 15, 2021. Revised April 21, 2021

SUBJECT: Application #PZ 21-4. 65 Merrow Rd. Special Permit with Site Plan Modification to allow Drive Through at existing Dunkin Donuts. TVA Zone, Applicant: Pacheo Realty, LLC c/o Dorian

Famiglietti. Owner: Pacheo Realty, LLC.

Application Summary

Special Permit: The applicant is seeking a Special Permit from the PZC to allow for the addition of a Drive-through on their

property. Article 7-5 (A)(3) allows this use provided the facility is designed in accordance with Section 16-5 of

the Zoning Regulations.

Site Plan Modification: If the Special Permit is approved, the applicant will need to construct the associated site improvements necessary to facilitate the drive-through, menu board, travel lanes, parking etc. in accordance with Tolland’s site plan standards so a modification to the existing site plan is also necessary.

While the application has two components, the Commission should treat this application as one request which

should follow the statutory review timeframes associated with a Special Permit.

Outstanding Plan Comments to 4/18 plan revision:

1. Large Vehicle Parking:

The applicant has proposed to allow the large vehicle parking area to remain. This appears to create circulation

issues as currently this area allows for more flexible “one- way” site flow as indicated by the image. The

entrance in green is to remain, but the access in red will be constricted by the installation of the new parking

spaces.

Additionally, staff is concerned that the lack of curbing installed along the new parking area may allow for

vehicles to use the newly constructed parking spaces as a means to access or exit this area which will create

parking and vehicle queueing issues. If the large parking area is to remain, protection needs to be added to

prevent misuse of the parking spaces in that area and it must be demonstrated that “large vehicles” can safely

enter and exit this area.

Date Submitted February 18, 2021 Date of Receipt February 22, 2021

Deadline for Decision 35 from 3/22 to close hearing, 65 days from hearing close to decide.

Extension Eligible? Yes Total Possible Days 65

2. Low Impact Development:

The applicant has requested a waiver to Section 4 of the Tolland Low Impact Development and Stormwater

Management Design Manual. Section 4.14 allows the Commission to approve a waiver of these requirements if it

finds that the applicant has demonstrated that design improvements required by this manual are not feasible or

practicable.

Comment:

The applicant should be prepared to present evidence to the Commission to identify why the standards of this

section should not be applicable to this redevelopment.

Engineering Review March 2, 2021 Town of Tolland Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Andrea Drabicki 21 Tolland Green Tolland, CT 06084 Subject: Stormwater Review for 65 Merrow Road Commission members: As requested, CHA reviewed the following items: Item 1 Six sheet site plan, Modification to Site Plan, Land of Pacheco Realty, LLC, 65 Merrow Road, Tolland,

Connecticut, prepared by Gardner & Peterson Associates, LLC, dated January 19, 2021 Item 2 Traffic Assessment, Dunkin Donuts, 65 Merrow Road (CT Route 195), Tolland, CT, prepared by

Bubaris Traffic Associates, dated December 5, 2020 Item 3 Letter addressed to the Planning & Zoning Commission Re: Modification to Site Plan, Land of

Pacheco Realty, LLC, 65 Merrow Road, prepared by Gardner & Peterson Associates, LLC, dated February 17, 2021

CHA offers the following comments based on the Tolland LID and Stormwater Management Design Manual, the Tolland Zoning Regulations, and general engineering practice:

1. The letter listed as Item 3 above requests a waiver for the requirements of section 4.0 of the Tolland

Design Manual as a redevelopment application. Redevelopment projects require the use of low impact

development stormwater system to the maximum extent practicable. The existing site does not appear

to utilize any stormwater treatment or management practices. The Commission and the Applicant must

discuss which Low Impact Development measures, if any, can be practically applied to the site.

2. Details regarding abandonment of the existing septic system distribution piping and leach field on the

adjacent parcel must be included on the site plans. The site plans must depict the existing septic system

distribution piping on site and the leach field on the adjacent lot.

3. Section 16-5 of the zoning regulations (Drive-through Service) requires information regarding the

stacking length needed for the anticipated volume of drive-through vehicles to be included with the

application. The Design Engineer must provide the stacking demonstration on the plan set.

CHA offers the following comments on the Traffic Assessment:

4. The Traffic Engineer relied on previous 2012 counts at the site driveways to determine traffic impacts. The Traffic Engineer must present current Dunkin Donuts transactions over a week or conduct new counts to understand current hourly trends and determine the peak hours of impact.

5. The baseline traffic on Merrow Road in the report are based on volumes that are lower than historic 2012 traffic volumes. The analysis must be rerun using the higher 2012 counts.

6. The Traffic Engineer applied a 25% increase in traffic to account for the addition of a drive-through. The Traffic Engineer must estimate drive-through traffic based on current ITE numbers, or if they feel 25% is appropriate, use whichever is higher of the two.

7. The Traffic Engineer should investigate trip patterns. With a drive-through window, pass-by trips may be

more likely to occur and may change turning patterns at the driveways.

8. The Traffic Engineer must determine if a midday weekday analysis is needed for increased lunch traffic.

9. The Traffic Engineer should determine if any nearby projects or background growth should be applied to account for future growth in traffic.

10. The traffic analysis should include volume-to-capacity ratios and the 95th percentile queues at intersections where level of service is a LOS D or poorer.

Please contact us if you have any questions about the review comments. Sincerely, Chuck Eaton, P.E., LEED-AP Tolland Town Engineer cc via email: Mike D’Amato, Interim Town Planner, Tyche Planning & Policy Eric Peterson, PE, LS, Gardner & Peterson Assoc u:\muni_ct\tolland\2019400.000_tolland_generalservices\application reviews\65 merrow road dd\2021-03-02_engineering-review_65-merrow-rd.docx

1

Cindy Murdock

From: Mark Jackson <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 8:47 AMTo: Public HearingSubject: [EXTERNAL]Drive Through Windows

Some day the pandemic will be over. In the meantime, I think drive through windows are a good idea. Dunkin' Donuts on Merrow Road does not have a drive through window. This means that everyone including healthcare workers and first responders are required to go into an enclosed space every morning to get their well deserved morning coffee and breakfast. Also, Dunkin' Donuts is a major stop off place from people who travel interstate from Maine to Florida. This creates further spreading of the virus from Covid hot spots. Once the pandemic is over, I still like the idea of a drive through window for the convenience for us locals. I'm 69 with a bad back and it just plain hurts for me to get into and out of the restaurant. I can do it but it sure would be nice to drive up to a window to get a donut. Thanks for listening. Mark Jackson, 22 Stone Pond Road, Tolland, CT 06084. 860-595-7046.

AGENDA ITEM 9.1

1


Tel.: (860) 871-3601


FROM: David Corcoran AICP, Director of Planning and Development

DATE: April 20, 2021

SUBJECT: Request for a Driveway Requiring a Waiver – 73 Williams Way Driveway Permit. Zone:

RDD

Application Summary

The applicant is requesting to construct a second driveway in accordance with Section 19-1.J.2.a of the Tolland

Zoning Regulations which states:

No more than one curb cut shall be allowed for a parcel in the RDD or VCZ zones unless the second curb

cut is for agricultural purposes or unless approved by the Commission.

The applicant has indicated their plans to eventually construct a barn behind their property and develop a hobby

farm. On February 10, 2021 the applicant submitted an application for this second driveway, but does not

currently have a timetable for when they propose to begin construction on the second driveway or begin

agricultural activities in the rear of the parcel.

The proposed driveway was approved by the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission at their March 18,

2021 meeting.

This application is before the Planning and Zoning Commission to confirm the proposed agriculture use prior to

granting approval for the second driveway.

Recommended Motion

1. Approval/disapproval of the driveway permit for a second driveway for agricultural purposes at 73 Williams

Way in accordance with Section 19-1.J.2.a of the Tolland Zoning Regulations.

AGENDA ITEM 9.2

AGENDA ITEM 14

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

TOLLAND, CONNECTICUT

REMOTE MEETING

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 12, 2021

MEMBERS PRESENT: Andy Powell, Chair

Bruce Mayer, Vice Chair

Deb Goetz, Secretary

Joe Matteis

Jon Crickmore

Jason Philbin, Alternate

OTHERS PRESENT: David Corcoran, Director of Planning & Community Development

Brenda Falusi, Town Council Liaison

John Littell, Fire Chief/Director of Public Safety

Donald Poland, PhD, AICP, Goman & York

Allan Borghesi, applicant, Borghesi Building & Engineering

Stan Bush, applicant, Red’s Building Supplies

Steve Williams, applicant, S. D. Williams, LLC

Attorney Peter Alter, representing Steve Williams

Ryan Scrittorale, P.E., Alfred Benesch Company for Steve Williams

Public

1. Call to Order: Andy Powell, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

2. Pledge of Allegiance: Recited

3. Seating of Alternates: None.

4. Additions to Agenda: There were no additions; however, Ms. Goetz suggested Items 9.1, 9.2, and

9.3 be moved up on the Agenda out of courtesy for Fire Chief, John Littell. There was consensus

from the Commission to do so, moving these items up to follow public comment.

Mr. Powell took the opportunity to introduce David Corcoran, Tolland’s new Director of Planning &

Community Development and to share a little about himself. Mr. Corcoran said he has been on the

job now for about two weeks and has worked as a planner for about eight years, most recently in

Boise, Idaho on the county level and working on transportation and planning. Before that he worked

in Montana doing planning for smaller communities and his job here in Tolland is a return to that type

of work. He is looking forward to the job and will continue to work for a while with Interim Planner

Michael D’Amato during the transition.

5. Public Comment: None.

April 12, 2021 – Tolland Planning & Zoning Commission

2

6. New Business

6.1 8-24 Referral – Firehouse project, Station 140, 64 Crystal Lake Road

6.2 8-24 Referral – Firehouse project, Station 340, 247 Gehring Road

6.3 8-24 Referral – Firehouse project, Station 440, 107 Plains Road

Chief John Littell provided an overview of the Tolland Fire Department facilities history and the

project goals for each referral. These projects would bring Fire Stations 140, 340 and 440 into

compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and current CT building code requirements and

address various space needs of the Public Safety Department. He said he is hopeful that these projects

will be passed as part of the upcoming referendum. Complete information can be found on the town

website.

Ms. Goetz asked what the Commission was being asked to approve as there are no site plans in the

packets. Mr. Powell said they are being asked to give a positive or negative referral based on the

projects at hand in general. Chief Littell added that they normally replace their ambulances every four

to five years and having a third as a backup should help with any mutual aid situation as well as

reduce response times.

MOTION: Jon Crickmore/Deb Goetz to move Items 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 to Old Business for action. Ms.

Goetz, Mr. Mayer, Mr. Crickmore, Mr. Matteis and Mr. Powell voted in favor. Motion carried.

7. Public Hearing(s)

7.1 PZC #20-15, 154 Hartford Turnpike – Special Permit per Section 12-2.C.7 and Section 16-2 to

allow a 3,130+/- square foot addition to be used as an oil change facility. Zone:

Commercial/Industrial Zone. Applicant: Borghesi Building & Engineering Company, Inc.

Continued from March 8, 2021.

Mr. Corcoran said in discussion with the Town Engineer, the town’s concerns are mostly satisfied.

Customers will be required to stay in their vehicles during service, and there are some minor

revisions regarding traffic circulation that need to be done.

Applicant Allan Borghesi, a registered civil engineer, made the presentation. He said this

Valvoline is a franchisee who owns about 150 Valvolines, and he runs a clean operation. This is in

the CIZ-A zone where they will be removing part of the car wash—the tunnel end and one bay.

They will be putting on an approximately 700 square foot addition which has a basement below it.

He noted that he had been before the Design Advisory Board (DAB) and they asked for him to

make revisions to the design to match the old building more closely. He also added some

landscaping facing Route 30 as well as Sand Hill Road. He received approvals from the

Department of Transportation for curb cuts and traffic circulation and he moved a “Do Not Exit”

sign.

Mr. Borghesi said they will be installing a PVC membrane all around the building to protect the

environment from any leaks or spills. They are also adding a handicapped parking space. He noted

an error on the drawing for the north elevation that will be corrected, a request from the DAB.

Ms. Goetz asked if Mr. Borghesi could provide any visual renditions of the building. Mr. Borghesi

held up the drawings to the screen so all could see the existing front of the building and the

proposed addition, and then the same for the side view and rear view.


3

Mr. Mayer asked if people will have to remain in their cars during their oil changes. He noted he

normally would go to the waiting room for this type of service. Mr. Borghesi said drivers are

mandated that they must drive their cars into the center, but they can then leave and go to the

waiting room.

Mr. Mayer also asked about the membrane. As this building falls in the Aquifer Protection Zone,

he asked if there had ever been a spill at one of this franchisee’s Valvolines and if the membrane

contained it. Mr. Borghesi noted the basement contains tanks with oil, but they will be located in

an impenetrable, confined area—which will contain the oil if there ever is a spill. He also noted he

provided specifications on the membrane to the town engineer, and the town engineer was

comfortable with them.

Mr. Corcoran noted that the applicant will have to get a building permit when they are preparing to

open and the environmental controls will be inspected. However, he will have to confirm whether

or not the applicant would need to come before the PZC again for this.

Brenda Falusi of 4 Laurel Ridge Road said she was excited to see this business come to Tolland

and asked if it will open up any new job opportunities. Mr. Borghesi said right now the entire

operation is handled by one person, but the new operation would require three to five people. Ms.

Falusi also discussed the location of the coin machine.

MOTION: Joe Matteis/Bruce Mayer to close the public hearing for PZC #20-15. Mr. Matteis,

Mr. Crickmore, Mr. Mayer, Ms. Goetz and Mr. Powell voted in favor. Motion carried.

7.2 PZC #21-5, 212 Hartford Turnpike – Special Permit per Section 12-2.C.5 for sales and outdoor

storage of building supplies. Zone: Commercial/Industrial Zone. Applicant: Red’s Building

Supplies, LLC.

Mr. Corcoran said this application involves a minor modification to the site, including the fence,

site grading and non-structural repairs. There will be some stocking of materials outside. He said

the town recommended a 6-foot vinyl fence instead of a chain link fence and that material not be

stored in front of the building and not too high.

Applicant Stan Bush said he purchased the company in Franklin and changed the name, and his

goal was to expand the company in five years. A friend will be running this new location in

Tolland. He wants to beautify the property and do some grading. He proposed instead of a vinyl

fence to install a chain link fence with green slats to block the view of materials.

Ms. Goetz asked if Mr. Bush had spoken about his plans to the residential neighbor next door. She

noted there is a house with a three-bay garage there. Mr. Bush said both he and the neighbor are

leasing their properties from the same owner and he was okay with the changes. Mr. Bush said

there is presently an old wooden stockade fence in disrepair and he will be moving the fence about

30 feet away to give the person leasing the house more yard space.

Mr. Crickmore asked why the town was requesting an expensive vinyl fence. Mr. Corcoran said

the town would be satisfied with a chain link fence with slats. The goal was to make sure the

visuals were acceptable.

Mr. Mayer said the site plan looks like they are proposing putting in a pine tree buffer. Mr. Bush

said that is not the case. They will only be replacing the existing fence, painting the building and

cleaning up outdoors. Mr. Mayer asked why they needed a public hearing for this. Mr. Corcoran

said it appears to be because it is a change of use from an automotive-related type of business to


4

contract construction service. Mr. Crickmore said it is probably also because of the outside storage

requirements.

There were no questions or comments from the public.

MOTION: Bruce Mayer/Joe Matteis to close the public hearing for PZC #21-5. Ms. Goetz, Mr.

Mayer, Mr. Crickmore, Mr. Matteis and Mr. Powell voted in favor. Motion carried.

7.3 PZC #21-6, 53 Merrow Road – Special Permit per Section 16-15 for Pre-Development Site

Grading. Zone: Tolland Village Area. Applicant: S. D. Williams, LLC.

Mr. Corcoran said the applicant went through an extensive process to meet town requirements, and

the Inland/Wetlands Commission has approved the erosion/sedimentation control plan. He said the

town feels the proposed time frame for the work is reasonable. The Commission will have to

consider a requested waiver of a temporary stockpile, which he wants to place 200 feet off the side

property line. He said the applicant is requesting a spot as far from the property and wetlands as

possible to keep it from becoming a nuisance issue.

Ms. Goetz asked if the predevelopment site grading includes cutting trees. She said they have

received several letters on this issue. Mr. Corcoran said the applicant is permitted to cut trees as

long as the activity does not disturb wetlands.

Attorney Peter Alter of Alter & Pearson in Glastonbury attended the meeting along with Ryan

Scrittorale, P.E. with Alfred Benesch Company. They both represent Mr. Williams. Attorney

Alter said his client is seeking a pre-development opportunity to grade his site to prepare it for

development. He screen-shared the existing conditions. Mr. Williams owns 18.5 acres directly

next to another 9.5 acres owned by the town. Together they total 28 acres in the Tolland Village

Area.

Attorney Alter said Mr. Williams obtained the permits he needed from Inland Wetlands. He said

the site is accessed by a driveway off the Williams-owned property on Route 195. The property

will require substantial regrading to make it attractive to any developer, and according to his

contract, Mr. Williams has up to five years to complete the grading. Once this work is completed

and the land is ready for development, Attorney Alter said the applicant will need to come back

before both the PZC and Inland Wetlands, depending on whatever the future project may be.

Attorney Alter said he can’t say for certain if blasting will need to be done, but he expects there

may need to be some. He added that blasting is overseen by the fire marshal. He noted also that the

site plan was reviewed by the town engineer, town staff and the Inland Wetlands Commission.

Ryan Scrittorale said this property is mostly wooded. He reviewed the proposed grading plan and

the various erosion and sedimentation controls. There are two proposed temporary sedimentation

traps. They will be trying to keep away from the wetlands and upland review areas. The pre-

grading plan will be broken into three phases each under five acres of disturbance, and Mr.

Scrittorale reviewed each phase.

Attorney Alter said the plan meets submittal requirements and general requirements and the plan

satisfies the Special Permit requirements. He reviewed questions that came up in emails from the

public. Referencing questions from Christopher Cook, Attorney Alter said Mr. Williams wants to

make the land as developable as possible and the site could eventually accept most types of

commercial entities. He said he would expect the grading to accommodate most types of

development.


5

Attorney Alter reviewed the extent of tree clearing, noting it will not be completely clear cut.

Referencing Mr. Cook’s questions 3, 4, and 5, he said his answers are all “no.”

He referenced questions asked by Joyce Mazzadra regarding tree cutting, saying there will be

substantial areas where trees will remain. He noted Mr. Williams is taking significant economic

risk investing money to make this a commercial site.

Attorney Alter said Linda Byam said she was concerned that there was no final plan. Attorney

Alter said there will not be until Mr. Williams can show potential developers that the land could be

developed. He noted Mr. Byam had asked similar questions about blasting that were answered

earlier.

Ms. Goetz asked if this presentation will be made available online. Attorney Alter said he could do

so.

Mr. Crickmore asked if the town had any enforcement mechanisms for if the applicant did not

follow the rules that are agreed to in any approval. Mr. Corcoran said the Commission can get a

performance surety for erosion and sedimentation controls, and he recommended they get this. He

said they would need to work with the applicant to hold an appropriate amount of money back

until certain milestones are reached.

Mr. Mayer asked where crushing and screening operations would be located on the site and how

they would deal with mitigating noise and dust. Mr. Scrittorale said they will use water for dust

control and they will locate crushing/screening where it will best diffuse noise.

Steve Williams, 36 Buff Cap Road, provided two pictures, one of the debris left behind when the

Dunkin Donuts was built. He said he would clean up the debris and do the setup there. The second

picture is the clearing of the septic system area and this is where the crusher would be located.

Mr. Mayer asked what they would do with rock during the initial stages. Mr. Williams said a track

crusher could be set up in a small area. He said they will have to crush what is there now. Mr.

Powell asked about the current height of the existing debris piles. Mr. Williams said they are

dumped on a slope, so it is anywhere from minimal to 25 feet high.

Mr. Matteis asked if they had any idea when Dunkin Donuts would be hooking up to the sewer

system. Mr. Williams said they would want to hook in during Phase II and so he would have to do

the retention basins first.

Mr. Mayer asked how high the retention wall is expected to be on the northeast side of the

property and if there were any safety concerns. Mr. Scrittorale said they are just rock face and

there would not be a significant drop off in that area. The range would go from about flush on the

left to roughly 12 feet maximum. He said the rock face wall would be sloped. He said he could

provide more detail if needed and they could also grade a gentler slope if requested. Mr. Williams

noted that because this is a pre-grading plan, there is a 100 foot buffer required. Attorney Alter

said they would be amenable, as a condition of approval, to grading at a 2 to 1 slope if any grading

area was deemed hazardous.

Ms. Goetz asked about proposed commencement and completion dates. Attorney Alter said if this

application is approved, they would start right away as soon as the bond is posted and start on the

pile of building debris from the Dunkin Donuts site. They would then move on to Phase I. They

expect the entire project would take two to five years.


6

Mr. Crickmore asked what the approximate height of the stockpile would be. Mr. Scrittorale said it

is hard to specify and would be contingent on the crushing operation. He said, however, that the

surrounding tree line would substantially block the view.

The public hearing was opened to public comment. Mike Byam of 70 Woodfields Drive said he

was concerned about blasting as his well falls within a possible blasting area. He asked if they do

decide to blast, if there will be opportunities for the public to talk about this. Mr. Scrittorale said

they would need to conform to state and local regulations, which starts with a pre-blast survey to

look at impact areas. He said those who might potentially be impacted would be informed.

Mr. Byam noted that according to the regulations, excavation is allowed on weekdays but only

equipment maintenance can be done on Saturdays. He said the northern side of the retention basin

is visually close to his residential cul-de-sac and asked that they might do something to buffer that.

Brenda Falusi of 4 Laurel Ridge Road said she was excited about the possibilities, but expressed

concern that there are only four years left on the contract between Mr. Williams and the town. She

asked what the applicant’s plans might be for the basins and pipes on the Tolland property if

development does not occur before the contract runs out. Attorney Alter said the most likely

scenario would be that Mr. Williams would close on the property with the town and take

ownership of it beforehand. The cost of the sale would be one dollar.

Ms. Falusi said the way she understood the contract, if the property is not developed before the

end of the contract terms, then the land would revert back to the town. She expressed concern

about the retention basins and not wanting runoff to go onto neighboring properties. Attorney

Alter said it was his understanding from reading it that Mr. Williams only has to prepare it for

development and that he does not have to have a development plan to buy it. He said it would

seem unlikely that Mr. Williams would go through the expense of grading the property and

building retention basins and then not build on the land.

Linda Byam of 70 Woodfields Drive said she understood the contract required Mr. Williams to get

all approvals including one for a development plan before he could purchase the property.

Attorney Alter disagreed. Reading from the contract, he said the buyer may waive all approval

contingencies in order to close on an approved site prep plan, which is what they are seeking right

now.

Ms. Byam said the clearing in the area of the retention basins goes from the end of the cul-de-sac

directly through to the highway, and this will change the character of their neighborhood and

impact property values. She said she hoped they could do some mitigation.

Mr. Mayer said it appears there is some confusion about the terms of the contract with regard to

when Mr. Williams could take possession of the property. He suggested they get a legal opinion

from the town attorney for clarification. Mr. Powell suggested they keep the public hearing open

until they can get this information.

Ms. Goetz said she understood the reason for the contract was so that Mr. Williams could do just

what he is requesting to do now.

Mr. Matteis said the legal opinion around the purchase agreement is irrelevant to what they need to

consider today. He noted Mr. Williams can grade the property without owning it. Mr. Mayer said

he still felt it would be good to get that legal clarification. He asked what would happen if Mr.


7

Williams graded the property, cleared trees and put in retention basins, and then the land was not

developed.

Attorney Alter agreed that the purchase details of the contract are not relevant for this application.

He said the question should be whether they meet all the regulation requirements.

Mr. Powell said they also still have to address the requested waiver. Attorney Alter said if the

Commission does not approve the waiver, they could put the stockpile in another place that meets

the regulations. Mr. Matteis said the requested location for the stockpile is the best place.

Ms. Goetz asked about the performance guarantee and if they could ask for funds for the town to

fill in the basins if Mr. Williams does not take possession of the property. Mr. Matteis noted that

once the land is graded, the basins will be necessary. Mr. Corcoran said if they wanted funds for

this they would have to look into it further.

Mr. Powell suggested holding the public hearing open to the next meeting so they can get an

answer on the bonding information for erosion and sedimentation controls. Mr. Mayer suggested

as long as they were keeping it open to also get clarification from the town attorney on the

purchase details in the contract.

MOTION: Bruce Mayer/Deb Goetz to continue the public hearing for PZC #21-6 to the April 26,

2021 meeting to get appropriate bonding information and to get a legal clarification from the town

attorney on the purchase terms of the town’s contract with Mr. Williams.

There was discussion on the motion. Mr. Crickmore said he understood the concerns about the

purchase terms but felt they should not ask for this clarification as it is outside the purview of the

PZC.

Mr. Mayer said the PZC did an 8-24 referral on this contract and it is not unreasonable to want to

understand the terms of the contract.

Mr. Matteis agreed with Mr. Crickmore.

Ms. Goetz said she felt they should continue the public hearing as it is important that the neighbors

to this project are comfortable with the whole process. She said this application was poorly

noticed.

A vote was taken on the motion. Ms. Goetz, Mr. Mayer, Mr. Matteis and Mr. Powell voted in

favor. Mr. Crickmore was opposed. Motion carried.

8. Old Business

8.1 Possible action – PZC #20-15, 154 Hartford Turnpike

MOTION: Jon Crickmore/Joe Matteis to approve PZC #20-15.

Mr. Matteis, Mr. Crickmore, Mr, Mayer, Ms. Goetz and Mr. Powell voted in favor. Motion

carried.


8

8.2 Possible action – PZC #21-5, 212 Hartford Turnpike

MOTION: Jon Crickmore/Joe Matteis to approve PZC #21-5 with the following conditions.

1. A 6-foot chain link fence with slats be installed around the property to provide adequate visual

screening.

2. No storage or display of building products or materials shall be allowed in front of the

building or within a required parking space.

3. On site building products/materials shall not be stacked or stored in a manner that is unsafe for

employees and customers and safe access aisles between products shall be maintained, in

accordance with fire marshal regulations.

A vote was taken on the motion. Mr. Matteis, Mr. Crickmore, Mr. Mayer, Ms. Goetz and Mr.

Powell were in favor. Motion carried.

8.3 8-24 Referral – Firehouse project, Station 140, 64 Crystal Lake Road

8.4 8-24 Referral, Firehouse project, Station 340, 247 Gehring Road

8.5 8-24 Referral, Firehouse project, Station 440, 107 Plains Road

MOTION: Joe Matteis/Jon Crickmore to provide a favorable 8-24 Referral for the Firehouse

projects for Stations 140, 340 and 440. Ms. Goetz, Mr. Mayer, Mr. Crickmore, Mr. Matteis and

Mr. Powell voted in favor. Motion carried.

9. Zoning Regulations Working Session

9.1 Discussion TVA Regulations – Don Poland, PhD, AICP, Goman + York: Dr. Poland reviewed the

uses being considered for the Tolland Village Area (TVA). It was noted some categories of use

were grouped together and a question arose if a brew pub qualifies as a restaurant. It was

suggested that because a brew pub requires a permit, it would qualify as a restaurant. However, a

micro-brewery, micro-distillery and micro-winery may be less cut and dry and may need to be

separated out as tasting rooms.

Mr. Powell asked if they could segment out housing based on the number of units in a multi-

housing development. Dr. Poland said they could, but recommended avoiding it as it can become

cumbersome. At the same time, the TVA is a different type of zone. He suggested if they do it,

that they not overdo it.

Ms. Goetz said she wanted to find things that the PZC could permit on a smaller scale, but then

require a Special Permit for larger types of the same things.

Mr. Matteis said if they are looking at the sizes of uses, they should discuss the 20 percent

requirement for affordable housing. He said a developer has to build a lot of units in order to meet

that requirement if they want to turn a profit. He said he would want to find ways to incentivize

things like that as well as Open Space without actually requiring it. He asked if they could find a

way to incentivize affordable units. Dr. Poland said 20 percent affordable units is a reasonable

ceiling but suggested requiring a minimum of 10 percent affordable units and encouraging more

for certain considerations.

Mr. Matteis suggested the possibility of tax abatements. His concern was that if they can’t build

more affordable housing, the state may end up penalizing them by taking away ECS funding or

adding to their mill rate.


9

Mr. Crickmore asked if they could allow developers to build fewer affordable units if all the units

were made specifically for people with disabilities. This would take into consideration the higher

cost to build such units. Dr. Poland said they could possibly encourage this, noting it came up in

the Santini Builders discussion. He said the challenge is the affordability for any developer to

build them. He said he was also not sure if they could restrict only to disabled persons as this may

push up against fair housing laws.

Mr. Matteis brought up the section in the TVA uses that does not allow multi-family housing on

first floors, except for townhouses. He said this type of requirement would leave out disabled

persons. He suggested eliminating this.

Dr. Poland said that is probably a carryover from the original TVA regulations. He said it goes

back to when they were envisioning apartments over businesses. However, what they find is that

areas lose that vibrant neighborhood feel and that today they see more bifurcated or hybrid sites.

Ms. Goetz asked what the plan is now for the TVA. Dr. Poland said they are still looking at a mix

of commercial and residential. He said they have discussed whether to allow an overlay or master

plan type approach as they have in the Technology Campus Zone. Mr. Powell said he felt master

plans make sense with larger tracts of land.

Ms. Goetz asked to discuss drive-thru restaurants, pharmacies and banks. Dr. Poland said as we

approach the post-Covid age, there will be an expectation for more of these types of services,

especially for restaurants.

Mr. Matteis said he sees a value in drive-thru restaurants and if they want to be open to a greater

diversity of housing types, they need to recognize also that not everyone looks for conventional, sit

down dining. He noted that fears of Tolland becoming the next Manchester or South Windsor are

unfounded as Tolland does not have enough developable land anyway.

Ms. Goetz brought up automotive uses, noting Dr. Poland had said if a use is in a district, it should

be allowed rather than grandfathered. Dr. Poland said they need to get away from the

“grandfather” term. These are “non-conforming” uses – a use that was established either prior to

zoning or prior to a change in zoning. He noted there are two to three non-conforming automotive

uses in the TVA as they were previously allowed when it was part of the Gateway Design District

(GDD). Because of their non-conforming status, those businesses cannot expand. This hurts such

businesses on the lending side too. If they weren’t non-conforming, they would likely be bought

up.

Ms. Goetz asked what their next step should be. Mr. Matteis asked that Dr. Poland provide them

with a chart with all the uses the Commission agreed on and to highlight those where there were

differences of opinion. Dr. Poland said he would do so and drop the GDD out of it.

Dr. Poland said they also need to determine whether they want the TVA to be simply a modified

GDD or whether they want to go the master plan route. Mr. Powell said a sticking point with

making it another GDD was whether to allow huge 30,000 square foot buildings like the Big Y.

Mr. Matteis said he would prefer first to loosen up the permitted uses in the TVA. He is not

opposed to an overlay, but he would like to first fix and expand on the uses allowed there. He

noted there are a lot of small buildings in the TVA and an overlay could be confusing for simple,

small developments. There was consensus that this was the best approach.


10

Ms. Goetz asked if Dr. Poland would be rewriting the regulations or if this was to be done by the

town. Dr. Poland said he would be drafting them, so there will probably be a brand new Article

VII. He will also put together a summary of what has been done in the other zones. The

Commission will meet again with Dr. Poland in another month.

MOTION: Joe Matteis/Deb Goetz to extend the meeting beyond 11:00 P.M. Mr. Matteis, Mr.

Crickmore, Ms. Goetz, Mr. Mayer and Mr. Powell voted in favor. Motion carried.

10. Reports

10.1 Town Council Liaison: Brenda Falusi said at their meeting tomorrow, the Town Council will be

doing two proclamations, one for Earth Day and the other for Fair Housing month. They will be

considering a resolution to authorize the Town Manager to complete and resolve pending

pyrrhotite claims against CIRMA. There will be a discussion with Trooper Eklund on the

responsibility of Resident Troopers to the town. There will be a consideration for an appropriation

for Rec Center improvements and a Storage Project. They will consider a resolution to approve the

transfer of funds from the BOE’s audited unexpended balance to the Education Reserve Fund. And

there will be some appointments for vacancies to boards and commissions.

10.2 Capitol Region Council of Governments: No report.

10.3 Zoning Enforcement Report: No report.

10.4 Planning Update: Mr. Corcoran said there was a request to start holding hybrid meetings and this

was discussed with the Town Manager Mike Rosen and the health department. At this point in

time, they still feel the town is at high risk and it is not yet recommended.

11. Other Business: Mr. Mayer brought up the correspondence in their packets that indicated AirBnBs

are not permitted in town. He asked Mr. Corcoran to look into it. If it is true, it would be a lost

opportunity. Mr. Corcoran said he has an email out to Mr. D’Amato. This may come down to an

interpretation of what an AirBnB is. Is it considered a hotel?

Ms. Goetz asked if anyone will be responding to that letter. She said it should be made known that

Tolland permits hotels. They have just never had a developer that built one. Mr. Matteis noted the

letter was sent to the PZC and the Economic Development Commission (EDC). As a member of the

EDC, Mr. Crickmore said it was discussed and someone was going to follow up on it. They did not

think AirBnB’s were not allowed.

12. Correspondence: None.

13. Public Participation: Brenda Falusi apologized for not welcoming Mr. Corcoran earlier. She

thanked him for choosing Tolland and said she looked forward to working with him.

14. Approval of Minutes – March 22, 2021 Regular Meeting

MOTION: Bruce Mayer/Joe Matteis to approve the March 22, 2021 Regular Meeting minutes. Mr.

Matteis, Mr. Crickmore, Ms. Goetz, Mr. Mayer and Mr. Powell voted in favor. Motion carried.


11

15. Adjournment

Mr. Matteis asked that going forward, they go back to the way they used to provide packet

information, all in one .pdf document. The way it has been done the last two meetings has been very

challenging to open and print out. Mr. Corcoran said he will do this.

MOTION: Joe Matteis/Jon Crickmore to adjourn the meeting and pay the clerk at 11:11 PM.

Mr. Mayer, Ms. Goetz, Mr. Crickmore, Mr. Matteis and Mr. Powell voted in favor. Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Annie Gentile

Clerk

Tolland Planning & Zoning Commission - Town of Tolland CT |

Documents

Transcript of Tolland Planning & Zoning Commission - Town of Tolland CT |