TOWN OF GRANBY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2007
Present: Paula Johnson, Chairwoman, Daniel P. Brown, Jr., Margaret Chapple, Charles Kraiza, James Sansone and Linda Spevacek. Francis Armentano, Director of Community Development and Edward Sweeney, Town Engineer.
The meeting opened at 7:05 p.m.
Public session: There was no public comment.
ON A MOTION by Put Brown, seconded by Linda Spevacek, the Commission voted to approve the minutes of October 23, 2007 with the following addition: Page 1, paragraph 6, insert after sentence 6: The Planning and Zoning Commission has no authority to enforce private deed restrictions. All approved.
Public hearing on an application seeking to excavate and remove earth materials for property located at 114 Wells Road and 537 Salmon Brook Street, File Z-16-07, resumed at 7:07 p.m. Chairwoman Johnson granted Bill Elliott, 531 Salmon Brook Street, permission to speak at this time, prior to the regular public session, as he indicated he would be leaving the meeting early due to illness. He stated he was originally opposed to the application but since has reconsidered. He feels cattle and farmland are good for the town provided pollution and contamination are minimized. He has been told that his well would not be endangered by the application. Attorney Walter Twachtman, representing HPJ Construction, Pierce Builders Inc. and Steven Janeski, presented the application. He noted that
108,000 cubic yards of material would be removed from the site, making this property more useable for cattle and farming. He further noted that the sand was a valuable resource used for the public good. Attorney Twachtman addressed the questions of the public from the last meeting. He presented amendments to the original Operation Plan identified as the Facts and Project Operational Specifications. The revised hours of operation will be limited to 8:00 a.m. – 4 p.m., Monday – Friday, primarily during the winter months. The proposed time of year would reduce the potential negative impacts on the neighbors, particularly the blowing of sand and dust. The site cannot be watered during the winter. Specifications on dust control were distributed. Attorney Twachtman noted that calcium flakes would be used during the winter months to control dust, if necessary. The proposed completion date would be April 30, 2008. On May 1, 2008
the topsoil would be spread on the disturbed area, seeded, watered and the project ended. The materials will be taken to Tilcon at 536 Salmon Brook Street. The plant usually closes for the winter but the owner has agreed to keep the scale house in operation. The operational specifications address dust, spilling, banks, screening, noise and more. A letter was submitted for the file from Jim Laplan, District Engineering, District IV, Thomaston, CT. An analysis of the Wind Rose data and information on noiseless alarms for the vehicles was submitted. Attorney Twachtman demonstrated with a CD the noise of this alarm. Mr. Pierce stated he intends to install these alarms on all of his vehicles. Mr. Pierce stated that there would be 3 trucks per day hauling material off the site. Each truck would make an estimated 20 trips each per day. Commission member Put Brown inquired about the permanency of the farming. He
expressed concern for the area disturbance of earth excavation, which could then be followed by the area disturbance of home construction. If this is a farming application, he suggested that perhaps the town could be assured that the farming would continue through the establishment of an agricultural preservation easement. Other Commission members asked various questions. Leonard Murray, Sawmill Road, submitted a petition and voiced his opposition to the project. Shirley Ryan, 25 Fern Hollow Road, read a letter into the minutes and submitted it for the file opposing the project. Some residents spoke against this application for health reasons, noise, dust, proximity of Wells Road School, a commercial operation in a residential zone and overall reduction of their comfort of living. Other residents spoke in favor of the application encouraging the preservation of our farming operations and noting the excellent farm that Mr. Janeski runs. Also noted
was the trustworthiness of both Pierce Builders and Mr. Janeski. A resident suggested the applicant post a bond for the completion of the project. Attorney Danielle Omasta, representing John Dallen, commented on the amount of diesel exhaust fumes going into the neighbor’s yards and homes that would be generated by the number of truck trips per day. She presented information regarding diesel fumes from the National Resources Defense Council. She also provided information published by the American Lung Association on particulate air pollution. She discussed how the proposed excavation is inconsistent with residential use and demonstrated that the use is located within a residential zone. She noted the anticipated reduction in property values, violations of DEP/EPA restrictions and codes and the offensive noise from backup beepers, even the modified sound as presented by the applicant. She further noted she is not convinced the earth material
needs to be removed from the site and that those opposed to the application are not against farming and animals. Attorney Omasta submitted a letter from Richard Blumenthal concerning this matter. Royal Griffin, 40 Fern Hollow Drive, submitted aerial photos to demonstrate that excavation operations are not typically located next to residential areas in the Farmington Valley area. John Dallen, 11 Sawmill Road, spoke on health issues caused by diesel fumes. He stated that this is a commercial activity not a farming operation. He submitted a copy of a map showing this is a residential area and not a commercial area and noted that he doesn’t feel the sand need to be removed. He indicated he is not against farming. Fran Armentano discussed the slope of the property that would exist at the property boundary to the south, following the completion of this project. He recommended a 6-1 slope rather than a 2-1 slope, noting the suggestion
of a possible future phase to excavate the area to the south. Mr. Armentano suggested that the applicant prepare a landscaping plan for the area where the proposed excavation abuts the residential properties to the north. He asked the applicant what he would do if, when May 1st arrives, less than 108,000 yards of material has been removed from the site. Mr. Pierce stated that they would stop hauling and restore the site. Mr. Pierce briefly reviewed the possibility of a phase 2 of this project. The public hearing adjourned at 8:59 p.m. to be continued November 27, 2007 pending comments from the Inland Wetland and Watercourses Commission.
Public hearing on an application seeking a renewal of a Special Permit for earth excavation for property located at 359 and 361R North Granby Road, File Z-27-05, opened at 9:00 p.m. Steven Hayes, 359 North Granby Road, stated that for various reasons the proposed excavation has not been completed on his property within the last 2 years. The project has been going very well and the first completed area has been restored. There will be hay growing in this area in the spring. Fran read a letter dated November 13, 2007 into the minutes from James and Nancy Oates. Mr. Oates expressed concern on the trucks unloading equipment on Route 189 and on the noise of the screening. There was no public comment. Fran stated that the Town has not received any complaints or heard of any concerns on
this property. The public hearing closed at 9:19 p.m.
Public hearing on an application to amend Section 8.6 of the Zoning Regulations concerning signs opened at 9:20 p.m. These amendments propose changes to the maximum height of signs, the computation of the area of a sign, eliminates commercial event signs and addresses the signposts. Fran reviewed the background leading to the preparation of the amendment. Members of the public suggested allowance should be made for the posts, signs should reflect the area and building and noted that the CVS and Carmon Funeral Home signs are examples of appropriate signs for the location and purpose. Commission members discussed methods of measuring the distance between the posts. A letter from CRCOG was submitted indicating no conflicts with neighboring towns. The public hearing closed at 9:36
p.m.
Staff Reports and Correspondence
Fran informed the Commission members that a letter was sent out to various real estate agencies informing them of the sign requirements that are applicable to real estate signs.
Fran submitted a copy of a letter that was sent to the owner of 261 Salmon Brook Street from Bill Volovski, Building Official and a reply letter from Attorney Brignole.
Fran spoke of a meeting that he had with Town Attorney Holtman concerning earth excavation and the interpretation of the sign regulations.
Sign illumination was briefly discussed.
ON A MOTION by James Sansone, seconded by Margaret Chapple, the Commission voted to approve an application seeking a renewal of a Special Permit for earth excavation for property located at 359 and 361R North Granby Road, File Z-17-07, as outlined on a map labeled exhibit A and an Operation Plan labeled exhibit B, with the following conditions:
1. Erosion and sedimentation control devices shall be installed and maintained under the direction of Town Engineer, Ed Sweeney.
2. The permit shall expire on 11/30/09.
3. The applicant is advised of the State DOT requirement for the proposed curb cut. Only this curb cut may be used by trucks entering and exiting the site under the subject application.
4. The earth excavation and removal shall occur in accordance with the Operation Plan identified as Exhibit B.
5. The screening machinery shall be relocated towards the rear of the operation as directed by the Town Engineer.
6. The applicant shall limit the loading and unloading of heavy equipment on North Granby Road. Such loading shall normally occur on the site and off the road.
All approved as the Commission found that the application was in conformance with the Zoning Regulations, Section 9 and 8.2.
ON A MOTION by Linda Spevacek, seconded by Margaret Chapple, the Commission voted to approve an application to amend Section 8.6 of the Zoning Regulations concerning signs with a minor change regarding the measuring of the distance between the sign posts. All approved, as the Commission found that the change was supported by the Plan of Conservation and Development and Section 1.0 Authority & Purposes Section of the Zoning Regulations .
A copy of the amendment as adopted by the Commission is attached and made a part of these minutes.
The meeting adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dorcus S. Forsyth
Recording Secretary
Amendment to Section 8.6 of the Zoning Regulations
Approved: 11-13-07
Effective: 11-16-07
New wording is as outlined in BOLD below
Wording to be removed is shown as lined out.
8.6.4.1 COMPUTATION OF AREA OF INDIVIDUAL SIGNS. The area of a sign face (which is also the sign area of a wall sign or other sign with only one face) shall be computed by means of the smallest square, circle, rectangle, triangle, or combination thereof that will encompass the extreme limits of the writing, representation, emblem, or other display. This area shall include any material or color forming an integral part of the background of the display or used to differentiate the sign from the backdrop or structure against which it is placed, but shall not include any supporting framework, bracing, or decorative fence or wall when such fence or wall otherwise meets Zoning Regulations and is clearly incidental to the
display itself. The area of a freestanding sign shall include all solid areas located between the posts. Where there is only one post, the sign area will be all areas except the post. Where a post is not clearly distinguished from the sign, the entire area, including the posts shall be counted within the area of the sign.
8.6.12.1.2 Either a FREESTANDING Sign containing a maximum area of 9 square feet; or a DIRECTORY Sign containing a maximum of 30 square feet with no more than 5 square feet dedicated to any occupant may be permitted per lot. Freestanding and directory signs shall have a maximum height of 12 feet (8) eight feet. The posts of such signs shall not be more than 6 feet apart, measured from the center of each post.
8.6.12.1.3 SPECIAL COMMERCIAL EVENT Signs on a lot containing a commercial building or buildings with a combined commercial total square footage of not less than 3,000 square feet or more than 6,000 square feet. Said lot may have one such sign with a changeable portion of up to 9 square feet and a non changeable portion of up to 8 square feet, with the sign post no more than 4 feet apart, designed in basic accordance with figure A1. The Commercial Event Sign shall be in lieu of either the Directory or Freestanding sign and shall have a maximum height of 9 feet. DELETE
8.6.12.1.4 SPECIAL COMMERCIAL EVENT Signs on a lot containing a commercial building or buildings with a combined commercial total square footage of more than 6,000 square feet. Said lot may have one such sign with a changeable portion of up to 16 square feet and a non changeable portion of up to 12 square feet, with the sign post no more than 4 feet apart, designed in basic accordance with figure A1. The Special Commercial Event Sign may be in addition to either a Directory or Freestanding sign and shall have a maximum height of 10 feet. DELETE
8.6.12.2 SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES:
8.6.12.2.1 FREESTANDING Signs for Non-Residential, Special Permit Uses within Residential Zones with a maximum size of 9 square feet, limited to one per lot and placed outside of the road right of way, with a maximum height of 8 (6) six feet, provided the sign is compatible with the residential character of the area. The posts of such signs shall not be more than 4 feet apart, measured from the center of each post.
8.6.12.2.2 FREESTANDING Signs for Planned Development Multifamily Developments with a maximum size of 9 square feet, limited to one per lot and placed outside of the road right of way, with a maximum height of 8 (6) six feet, provided the sign is compatible with the residential character of the area. (maximum height of 6 feet) The posts of such signs shall not be more than 4 feet apart, measured from the center of each post.
| 
