Simsbury, CT - Zoning Commission Minutes

Chairman Barney addressed the applicant stating that the commissioner’s here this evening were also here for the first portion of the public hearing. He said that Mr. Grace and Mr. Delehanty have listened to the tapes, read the written record and looked at the application. He proposed that with the applicant’s permission that they both be acting sitting commissioners this evening. Chairman Barney said that Mr. Barnett and Mr. Gallagher have both read the written record (minutes, application and map materials). He proposed that they also act as sitting commissioners this evening. Attorney Donohue agreed.

T. J. Donohue, Attorney, spoke on behalf of this application. He said that they are continuing the public hearing on the zone change and they also have a new public hearing requesting a special exception for increase in coverage to 60% on the front site. Attorney Donohue asked the Chairman if they could take the two matters up as a single public hearing recognizing that they are for the same subject matter. Chairman Barney said okay. Attorney Donohue said that this process began in November and that they have been to eight (8) town meetings. They have had unanimous approvals from the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, Inland Wetlands Watercourses Commission, and the unanimous support of the Economic Development Commission. They also have had favorable comment from the Town of placeCityAvon and from the Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG). He said that this is an application of an existing business which has done business on the site for 30 years to adaptively reuse and redevelop buildings (portions which are functionally obsolete), to add another use and to make a major reinvestment in this site. The Planning Commission found that this was totally in keeping with its Plan of Development because the Planning Commission wants them to utilize property adjacent to Route 44 for economic development purposes. Attorney Donohue said that the net new taxes in town would be in access of $350,000. He said that they were pleased to hear from the neighbors and heard their concerns on the property going down a bit. This application will handle it and will make new investment with paying particular attention to the neighbors. The buffers will be maintained and enhanced. The neighbors also expressed concern that the conservation easement expiring on the property in eight years and protections that they had 25-years ago will be gone. The proposal buffer, in the future, will be extended out 300-feet further along addressStreetWest Mountain Road and the developer will restrict access through their site from addressStreetWest Mountain Road to Route 44. This will be closed out by covenant, except for the Fire Marshal’s breakdown lane.

Tom Daly, Professional Engineer, Milone & MacBroom, spoke on storm water management. Showing a plan, he explained how the water flows through the site now explaining that currently there is a 24½ pipe that goes under Route 44 (extremely deep) and there is a pond on the southern side. Ultimately, the Lowe’s project would discharge into that. The 24½pipe goes across the site into a small wetland pocket and then goes to a 30½ and then a 36½ pipe that discharges to the rear of the property. It enters a 30½ culvert that goes down addressStreetBushy Hill Lane and under addressStreetBushy Hill Road on through the Stop and Shop parking lot. In the back of Shop and Stop there is a vast wetland. He said that this is the existing and also the proposed water path. Mr. Daly said that he had been asked by Howard Beach to contact Langdon Engineering directly to confirm that their design would not be negatively impacted by the potential of the Lowe’s. Langdon Engineering gave them all their hydraulic data, which they imported into their model. There is no negative impact associated with the potential Lowe’s project.

Tom Daly spoke of the water quality saying that currently the site has no water quality. The water runs off the pavement into a small wetland (shown on plan) and discharges down the road way. As part of this proposal they will be doing significant improvements to the water quality. The impervious surfaces for the entire development will be routed through a sediment chamber, which also has an oil water separator (containment capacity). The water will discharge into a storm water basin in the rear. The storm water basin will have approximately two feet of storage below the outlet pipe. The two feet of water will never leave the site. It will infiltrate into the soil, percolate and recharge the ground water. No sediment will leave the site. Mr. Daly said that they are exceeding the DEP’s recommendations for site development. Tom Daly said regarding the aquifer they have researched both the town mapping and the DEP web site. This area is not defined in the aquifer. He said that the aquifer concerns that were noted were not found to be true based upon published mapping. Mr. Daly said that the DEP web site had been updated in March of 2007.

Mark Vertucci, Senior Transportation Engineer, Fuss & O’Neill, spoke on the traffic impact on Route 44 in light of the Lowe’s application on file in placeCityCanton. He said that it is industry standard as well as DOT and STC protocol to review applications for projects in the order they are submitted. There is no application in as to what is being proposed for Lowe’s as far as where the access driveway is going, size of the development or if there are any offsite improvements being proposed. Mr. Vertucci said that it is difficult without knowing that information to speculate on what the impacts might be. He said that any future impact by Lowe’s would have to be reviewed by DOT when Lowe’s gets their STC application in. They would also be responsible for including our traffic volumes and our proposed office site improvements in their background base line traffic analysis. He said that he did try and estimate what a Lowe’s might generate in traffic volume. He said that he checked ITE rates and used an average size for a home improvement store of 125,000 square feet. He estimated traffic volume of 120 new trips on Route 44 near the site frontage in front of the Hoffman site during the afternoon peak hour and about 250 new trips during the Saturday mid day peak hour. He said that there would not be any increase in level of service at the Hoffman driveway or at the intersection of Route 44/Route 167.

Mr. Vertucci discussed access to the Best Buy driveway. He said that DOT has completed their review. The STC has no drainage comments, but four traffic comments. The comments are 1) request the Best Buy internal site driveway further back, 2) install left turn lane on Route 44 eastbound coming into the site, 3) modify the traffic signals to incorporate detection for that turn lane and swap out the existing vehicle detector on the Hoffman driveway, and 4) removing vegetation along the McDonalds site frontage on Route 44 for a clear line of site.

Attorney Donohue said that they were asked if they seek a special exception concerning coverage. They said that their application was in approvable form with grandfathered coverage, ratios and/or with the marking parcel, but after discussions with staff and listening to the commission they did file a modified permit seeking coverage in case the commission wishes to grant this on just the existing Hoffman parcel. They have a plan that will go to the allowed 60% coverage. Attorney Donohue said that they also have a letter from the Fire Marshal.

He gave copies to the commission members and staff. He also spoke on the traffic on addressStreetWest Mountain Road due to the application. The applicant proposes extending its buffer easement both in years and in length along addressStreetWest Mountain Road. He said that the new buffer will be another 287 feet long. There will be a restriction on all commercial traffic from addressStreetWest Mountain Road through the site to Route 44 and back again. This will be done by covenant. He also spoke on the comments made by neighbors on the use of addressStreetWest Mountain Road as a test drive area for car sales and how it was not appreciated. Attorney Donohue said that Hoffman will take all appropriate steps including notice to all employees and posting of signs at the dealership to discourage this practice.

Kevin O’Reilly, O’Reilly, Talbot & Okun Associates, Hydro-Geologist, spoke on the ground water contamination. A plan will be submitted to the DEP by March 19^th. This will involve installation of ground water monitoring wells down grading of the Hoffman operation to determine what is leaving that property that is causing the addressStreet5 Bushy Hill Lane matter. The ground water will be tested for chlorinated solvents including TCE as well as other parameters that might be common with this type of business. He showed on a plan where they thought the wells might be placed, but explained that the actual location of the wells are subject to DEP approval. Chairman Barney asked if the monitoring wells would go the length of the frontage on both the Hoffman side and the other side of addressStreetWest Mountain Road. Mr. O’Reilly said that there are already two monitoring wells (GP3 and GP4) that DEP installed on the west side of addressStreetWest Mountain Road. These were tested by DEP and found to be clean. These wells are 20-feet deep. Chairman Barney asked if they could go to 40-feet. Mr. O’Reilly said that they have discussed with DEP that some of the wells that will be installed would go down as deep as 40-feet. He did explain that the well with the highest concentration at 5 Bushy Hill is a shallow well (20-feet). Chairman Barney said that as this matter goes forward he would like the town to be periodically updated on the status of what is going on in the field. Also, they would like copies of any communications.

Commissioner Gallagher asked where on the new site the material will be stored. Mr. O’Reilly said that the issue of the TCE findings at addressStreet5 Bushy Hill Lane was first made known to Hoffman’s in the fall of 2005. Their firm went in and did an inspection of the property by looking at drums and barrels that were on the property, but also they reviewed waste manifests from the facility dating back many years. They did not find any record of current storage or past storage of TCE on the property. Mr. O’Reilly said that their office has no knowledge of TCE being used on the property. Commissioner Gallagher asked in the three new service areas where will they keep bulk oil, gasoline, etc. Sam Pines, Hoffman Group, Service and Parts Director said that all the bulk oil is stored in tanks above ground in the shops and in contained areas. The tanks are double walled. The waste oil and antifreeze is currently removed by Safety Kleen. Commissioner Gallagher asked if drainage in the floors of the garage areas is hooked to a separator. Mr. Pines said that they have oil/water separators and they are maintained by Safety Kleen.

Chairman Barney said that one of the issues (whether application is approved or not) is an ongoing maintenance issue that needs to be addressed by the applicant. There is deterioration of the property that has led to other problems such as pavement cracks, parked cars leaking various solvents into the cracks, access to the crash gate, etc. Chairman Barney said that he would be interested in a site management plan developed by the applicant with a twice a year report to the town staff indicating that the pavement condition is in good shape, emergency vehicle access lane has been maintained, etc. Attorney Donohue said that with respect to the maintenance plan and the bi-annual reporting they have incorporated a type of this measure into the Fire Marshal’s request, but can make this a condition of approval.

Commissioner Grace asked how the increase in buffering around the property would be irrigated and maintained. Tom Daly, Milone & MacBroom, said that there are two buffer issues. He worked with the Design and Review Board on the first one. The mature buffer does provide a good buffer. There are 40-foot white pines on top of a 4-foot high berm. The white pines have grown out of their life expectancy and have some dead limbs at their bottoms. The applicant is proposing to take down the dead limbs at the bottom and supplement them with low story plantings to thicken the existing buffer. Mr. Daly said that the buffer that is in the remaining area

does not seem to have been ever planted up. It may have been part of the old driving range. It is now densely vegetated and does not need to be touched. This is an excellent buffer. Chairman Barney asked how they would provide sufficient water and maintenance for the plantings to survive. Mr. Daly said that a lot of times when they do plantings the commission asks them to look at it from a year standpoint (and then a 3 year standpoint) by writing a letter to the commission to tell them that the under story plantings that have been provided are established and are growing well. Those areas could also be irrigated (he did not know if they currently are irrigated). Mr. Daly said that they would be planting trees like mountain laurels and rhododendrons. They are species that are well suited for shaded conditions. Chairman Barney asked if it would be possible to put in irrigation to ensure the welfare of the plants. Mr. Daly said that they would be committed to providing some irrigation along the buffer.

Nancy Slauenwhite, addressStreet11 Maureen Drive, said that she opposes the rezoning of the property at addressStreet395 West Mountain Road from R-40 to B-3. This rezoning will have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. There is no apparent need for commercialism creeping down addressStreetWest Mountain Road. The reasons being noise, safety, infringement on the residential area, pollution and traffic. Mrs. Slauenwhite also said that Hoffman Enterprises has not been a good neighbor. They do not keep their property up. She said that despite receiving citations over the years they still continue to use the area as a dumping ground. Mrs. Slauenwhite said what is to say that by having a third dealership that all of a sudden their property will be pristine. This has been going on for 30-years. She also has a concern regarding traffic. There has been an increase in traffic generated in this portion of town especially during the afternoons and Saturdays. She asked if a study has been done that includes the increased number of tractor trailer trucks that will be on Route 44 bringing merchandise and automobiles to Lowe’s, Best Buy and the third car dealership on the Hoffman property. Will there be a time line for deliveries? She questioned if the McDonald’s exit onto the Hoffman property will mesh with the increased traffic onto that same property. Will there be enough parking spaces proposed in the new request that will allow for visitor parking as well as auto inventory? She also asked if the entrances to Lowe’s and Hoffman’s be opposite each other for the sake of safety.

Jennifer Giannini, addressStreet5 Bushy Hill Lane, said that she is happy that after two years that her foremost concern is being addressed. This is still not acceptable. She spoke of her concerns on traffic stating that at the previous meeting it was stated that it would bring little to no impact, however, when Attorney Donohue was asked about traffic (River Oaks project) he said that anything new brings traffic. She feels that this is a contradiction. She said that they did not expect any more expansion at Hoffman. It is already 300-feet off of Route 44. How much further on addressStreetWest Mountain Road are they going to consider Route 44? Mrs. Giannini feels that further expansion will leave their house with the value of a shed. She also said that the buffer does not work well saying that she can see Hoffman Honda from her living room. She said that they should hold just as much value as residents of placeCitySimsbury as they do those that are doctors or lawyers. They are still citizens and still pay tax dollars. This could ruin every family in the area financially. Mrs. Giannini asked, respectfully, that this meeting stay open until the ground water test results are received. Chairman Barney said that this hearing has to close this evening by state statute. He also said that he has asked that any activity from the DEP be provided to the town.

Elizabeth Oaks, addressStreet13 Maureen Drive, said that she opposes the zone change. Her concern is traffic and noise. She said that she cannot walk her children down addressStreetWest Mountain Road. It is unsafe. The cars coming from the dealership (have dealer plates) speed along addressStreetWest Mountain Road. Mrs. Oaks said that the character of placeCitySimsbury is being comprised by over development. She moved back here with her family because of the character of placeCitySimsbury and the redevelopment of this site will further compromise the quality of life of their neighbors.

Priscilla Flynn, 375 West Mountain Road, (in-laws live at 389 W. Mountain Rd, sister-in-law lives at addressStreet382 W. Mountain Rd.), said that she has more petitions with her in regards to the opposition of the Hoffman project (rezoning). She also showed a map outlining where the SHARE Steering Committee members reside. She said the SHARE members have said that they are very much in favor of the Hoffman project. Not one of them is in their immediate area. Mrs. Flynn said that she does oppose the rezoning of the Markie property from R-40 to B-3. She is very concerned about the road safety, traffic, and noise concerns. She asked when construction would start (in the morning). Chairman Barney asked the applicant, if this is approved, what they would do to contain construction time and days. Chairman Barney asked Mrs. Flynn if timeMinute30Hour77:30 a.m. would be a suitable time. Mrs. Flynn said that would be fine. Attorney Donohue said that the applicant agrees to timeMinute30Hour77:30 a.m. start.

Harald Bender, addressStreet6 Maureen Drive, said that he was happy that people had noticed his slide presentation at the last meeting. He has been told that Hoffman had seven people and two pickup trucks picking up anything that was not frozen to the ground. Mr. Bender gave a CD and additional pictures for the record. He received the pictures that he was distributing today (3/5). He said that he has a problem with ongoing maintenance. Mr. Bender mentioned that in 1998 oil tanks were removed without a permit. After a neighbor called the permit was taken out. The issue he has is if that permit had not come would there still be 40-yards of polluted soil in the ground. Mr. Bender said that the parking lot on the Markie property was not approved unanimously (or otherwise) by the various agencies. He asked if this should go back to the various agencies that need to speak on that issue. He mentioned that a number of years ago there was a pollution issue with the Arco Gas Station. The aquifer never got analyzed, plotted or mapped because the state is looking at town information and the town did not finish mapping it because of the pollution. Mr. Bender said that the Avon Water Company considers the entire stretch from placePlaceNameTootin-Hill PlaceTypeSchool all the way into placeAvon as a well recharge area for the wells that you use in placeAvon that supplies water to placeAvon and placeCitySimsbury. He said that he cannot see how they can talk about an area that is well dependent and has that kind of a water resource underneath it as not being important to us.

John Slauenwhite, addressStreet11 Maureen Drive, Vice President of the South West Homeowners Association, said that his organization represents about 200 families in the south west section of town. He said that this organization goes back to 1974 when Mr. Hoffman made an application for Scott Oldsmobile. This association is very sensitive to commercial expansion into residential areas. He distributed copies of several documents to the commission members. Mr. Slauenwhite read a letter dated June, 1974 letter stating that at its dateYear1974Day3Month6June 3, 1974 meeting the Simsbury Zoning Commission adopted the following resolution: “The Simsbury Zoning Commission supplements its resolution of dateYear1974Day25Month3March 25, 1974 regarding the application of David Rothstein for site plan approval for an automotive park. It is the intention of the Commission that addressStreetWest Mountain Road, in its entirety, be preserved as a residential area. To this end the Commission has denied any access from the subject parcel to addressStreetWest Mountain Road. The Commission declares that its long range policy is to maintain addressStreetWest Mountain Road, in its entirety, as a residential area, to permit no additional commercial use of land abutting addressStreetWest Mountain Road and to permit no future access to addressStreetWest Mountain Road from any commercial properties abutting on addressStreetWest Mountain Road”. Mr. Slauenwhite said that their association came into conflict with Hoffman again in 1983. He said that this deals with a conservation easement that has been completely omitted from all the meetings that they have now been to. He said that when Bob Taylor made the presentation (in 1983) he said that this would be in perpetuity (a permanent thing). It became a 30-year agreement upon signing. At all the current presentations this easement has been considered just a minor thing. He said that this was the heart and soul of the expansion. This would control it and would leave their neighborhood neighborly. Mr. Slauenwhite also said that Hoffman has completely ignored many of the things that they were told that they had to do. He said that they want to preserve their neighborhood and want to abide by agreements that were made in the past. He asked that the commission keep it green and keep it clean.

David Sherwood, Attorney, Alter and Sherwood, LLC, said that he represents Betty Fiora, owner of the 50-foot piece of property which separates the Hoffman property from the Markie property. Attorney Sherwood said that he found reviewing this application quite difficult because of the degree of conflicting and contradictory information which was submitted by the applicant and its experts. He distributed handouts to the commission members. Chairman Barney asked if Attorney Sherwood had spoke to the town staff regarding his issues. Attorney Sherwood said that he has spoken with Mr. Peck several times. Chairman Barney asked if these issues are still open or resolved. Attorney Sherwood said that as far as he is concerned these issues have not been resolved.

Attorney Sherwood discussed the building size estimates provided by the applicant. He said that in a letter from Mr. Clifdon, Town of Simsbury Water Pollution & Control, to Mr. Daly, Mr. Clifdon had been told that there would be a 61,335 square foot increase as a result of the proposed development. Attorney Sherwood said that the economic study (presented at February meeting) gave the existing square footage of 44,000 and the proposed as 115,335. This indicates that there would be a 71,335 square foot increase. Attorney Sherwood said that Fuss & O’Neill submitted two studies on traffic. He said that the first report was submitted with the original application had the existing development at 59,972 square feet and the proposed development at 136,020 square feet. This would represent 76,048 additional square feet. They also submitted a supplemental report (in the middle of January) stating that the existing development is 59,972 square feet, but the proposed development is now 130,237 square feet. This would represent 70,265 additional square feet. Attorney Sherwood said that Milone & MacBroom in their original site plan dated dateYear2006Day11Month12December 11, 2006 (front page), gave the square footage in connection with the parking calculation. Attorney Sherwood said that he comes up with a total of 58,000 square feet. He said that the Zoning Commission heard from Mr. Kaiser (architect) saying that with respect to the building sizes he came up with 107,000 square feet. On Milone & MacBroom’s most recent site plan (dated dateYear2007Day16Month2February 16, 2007) they are now at 63,990 square feet. Attorney Sherwood said that none of these numbers match and the difference among the numbers are not trivial. The applicant had been asked about these numbers by Mr. Peck via a memo to the commission prior to February 5^th and they have not been explained or resolved. He said that this is not a trivial number as the parking is based on the gross floor area of the proposed development, and the numbers being given do not indicate that anyone has taken a careful look at what parking is required. The applicant has never given the total number of existing parking spaces.

Attorney Sherwood also spoke on the area coverage and parking calculations that had been submitted. He said that the Fuss & O’Neill traffic study (version 1 – submitted in December, 2006) has the site acreage at 23.2 acres and parking at 421. The supplemental study has the site acreage at 17.53 acres and the parking still at 421. He said that the Markie site was not included in the supplemental study, but it is not explained in the report. Attorney Sherwood said that the 1^st and 2^nd study differ in the amount of acreage of the proposal. He said that the Milone & MacBroom site plan dated dateYear2006Day11Month12December 11, 2006 gives the site acreage of 23.3 acres and the lot coverage is calculated at 46% based on 10.76 acres. The proposed parking is 556 total spaces (plus inventory and storage areas not included in the number of parking spaces). This differs from the Fuss & O’Neill numbers. Attorney Sherwood said that the Milone & MacBroom site plan dated January 16, 2007 has the site acreage of 23.3 acres with lot coverage at 46%, but given as 10.86 acres with a total of 554 parking spaces (plus inventory storage areas). He said that the parking has now gone down 2 spaces. If this a non-conforming use this makes a big difference. We need to know what they have in order to determine whether they have a pre-existing nonconforming use. The burden is on the applicant to show the commission that they have it. The Milone & MacBroom site plan dated dateYear2007Day16Month2February 16, 2007 shows the site acreage as 23.519 acres (based on a survey done in January). The current proposal for lot coverage is 11.32 acres (48.1%) with parking of 544 total spaces (inventory storage areas not included). Attorney Sherwood said that there are probably explanations for the numbers the applicant has come up with, but they need to tell the commission what site plan they want approved and what numbers they want the commission to use. There are five different versions of the site plan and only 2 went to the Conservation Commission for review.

Attorney Sherwood said that his client, Ms. Fiora, opposes the zone change on the Markie property from R40 to B3. The Zoning Commission has almost complete discretion in deciding on a zone change. A determination has to be made on whether the proposal is in the best interest of the community at large. He said that he does not think that any of the development plans, which include the Markie parcel, can be approved because the Markie parcel is not contiguous to the balance of the Hoffman property. In order for a property to be developed as a unit, the property has to be contiguous. Attorney Sherwood said that one of the site plans which was submitted by the applicant in January (in booklet) shows an alternate plan with inventory storage on the Markie property. He said that this is not approvable because the inventory storage on the Markie parcel is not for parking on the Markie parcel; it is an accessory use to the auto dealership. Inventory storage on the Markie parcel would violate Article 5, Section f.1 of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations. Attorney Sherwood said that the Hoffman property has the right to use the 50-foot strip of land (Ms. Fiora’s property between Hoffman and Markie’s) for highway purposes only (it is an easement). The strip of land is part of a much larger piece of property that Ms. Fiora owns. This leads from a 19 ½ acre piece of property out to addressStreetWest Mountain Road. The Markie’s have no right to use the 50-foot piece of land. There is an easement in favor of Hoffman, but no easement in favor of Markie’s. There is no traversing from one parcel to another without violating Ms. Fiora’s property rights. Also, the 50-foot piece of land is Ms. Fiora’s only access to the 19 ½ acres piece of property. This should be taken into account. She also has a deeded access easement across the Hoffman property which is not shown on any of the plans. There is an easement recorded in the land records. The applicant has not taken this into account. This should have been shown on the site plan and the survey. He showed the commission members on a plan where this easement lies.

Attorney Sherwood said that they believe that the Town of placeCitySimsbury should refuse to modify the conservation easement and restriction. The Zoning Commission has discretion on whether to refuse the zone change request and also has discretion with respect to whether or not the conservation easement should be modified. The purpose of the conservation easement was to limit the northerly extension of commercial development along addressStreetWest Mountain Road. He said that the only reason that the applicant has come up with as to why the easement should be modified is because then the commercial development could proceed northerly. There has not been any reason with respect to conservation or community interest. The easement was voluntarily entered into by the applicant at the time it was executed. The same entity is before you now. They want to expand so they want the easement modified. He said to look at their track record as to how the easement has been taken care of up to now.

Attorney Sherwood said that if this commission is inclined to approve this application they need to know which of the alternative site plans they intend to approve and make sure that it has all of the applicable numbers for coverage, building area, parking, etc. He said that the applicant has failed to submit a sworn statement with respect to the beneficiaries of the Trust. In order for the commission to make a determination with respect to whether it has a conflict of interest in acting on the application it needs to know who the principles are. He also said that it would also facilitate the publics’ ability to determine whether or not the Connecticut Transfer Act has been complied with. Auto body shops are subject to the Connecticut Transfer Act. He said that they cannot tell if there has been a violation of the Connecticut Transfer Act as they do not know who the beneficiaries of the Trust are. Attorney Sherwood also said that he does not think the general statutes allow this commission to conditionally approve a zone change other than the possible exception of a zone change for affordable housing.

Joan Coe, 26 Whitcomb Drive, briefly questioned Commissioner Grace regarding a hearing before the Ethics Commission. Ms. Coe went on to say that there should not be a zone change. The applicant would only be encroaching on other peoples’ property in the neighborhood and the neighborhood property would be depreciated. A change should be to the benefit of the community not to the developer. She said that she has not heard any testimony that this is going to benefit any of the people that this commission represents. She asked that they deny the zone change. Ms. Coe said that she also does not think anybody in SHARE would be embracing this project with the encroachment of the R-40 and taking over that property as the people in SHARE are fighting to protect their neighborhoods. She said that the commission does not know the scope of the pollution at this time nor how far the pollution will go and whose wells are contaminated. Each well has to be tested specific to the type of contamination. Who is the responsible party and who is going to pay for cleanup? Mrs. Coe said that this hearing should be kept open until everything is resolved.

Daniel Burke, addressStreet385 West Mountain Road, said that he opposes the zone change. He said that his property is about 250-feet away from Hoffman and he can hear what is going on at Hoffman’s. More police protection will be needed with the Best Buy. Who will pay? The Hoffman property is not taken care of now, it will not be in the future. He said if the Markie property is zoned for business in four years Hoffman will be back here again trying to put in another store. The creeping will go another half mile down addressStreetWest Mountain Road and this is totally unacceptable.

Robert Sedor, addressStreet14 Maureen Drive, said that he has concerns with both the proposed construction and the Markie property. He said that he is an engineer and has water concerns and drainage questions regarding how the water will drain. Mr. Sedor said that there is a bowl in the center of the existing property that collects water. The drainage on the current property, because the property is not properly maintained, allows for the collection of ground water. He showed on a plan where this collects. He asked if this will be elevated so it will drain properly during the site construction and will the site be maintained so that it does drain properly. Mr. Sedor also questioned the increase in parking and showed on the plan the location. He said that the topography of the map indicates that this a very steep terrain. There will be encroachment on existing non-impervious soil. He said that if a road is built across the right of way onto the Markie property there will be drainage on both sides of the elevation unless it is elevated. He asked where this will be drained to. Mr. Sedor also expressed traffic and safety concerns with the McDonalds site saying he feels this new construction will bring in more people coming over from the McDonalds. He also said that he cannot allow his children to play in the front yard anymore as during the afternoon there is too much traffic that uses Maureen Drive (from Bushy Hill) to avoid the traffic lights. He opposes the encroachment because this will not be a value to the neighborhoods based on water concerns, traffic and potential access onto addressStreetWest Mountain Road. Mr. Sedor feels that there should be a third party study to ensure that the land drains properly.

Marnie Ganter, addressStreet382 West Mountain Road, said that Hoffman has promised to maintain and do a better job on the site. She said that Mountain Laurel and Rhododendrons require maintenance. They will need to have a landscaper come in to take care of the site. Who will be responsible for maintaining this and who is going to make sure that they do maintain it? Who do they report to if they are not doing what they have been told to do? She asked if there is going to be an ordinance on delivery trucks to prevent them from going in at timeMinute0Hour0midnight to timeMinute0Hour55:00 a.m. When will they deliver? Mrs. Ganter said that the financial burden has fallen onto Betty Fiora. She has been fighting this for years. She said that Ms. Fiora does not live in placeCitySimsbury, but she cares about placeCitySimsbury and preserving the land the way it should be. She stressed concerns about increased traffic. Ms. Ganter said that the Markie property sits on top of a hill. She asked what happens when the cars start to leak and the stuff goes down into the waters. Everyone has wells. She said that she knows that these concerns have been slightly addressed, but does not feel that they have been completely understood.

Beth Ganter, addressStreet382 West Mountain Road, said that she appreciates the commission’s time and consideration on everything. She is concerned about the safety issue. There has been a large amount of young adolescents and teenagers that walk down addressStreetWest Mountain Road and addressStreetBushy Hill Road since Simsbury Commons has come into place. There are no sidewalks and lighting is a concern. She said that Best Buy is a desirable location for young people because of the CD’s, video games, etc. Ms. Ganter said that she is not impressed with the people who work there. It is generally younger adults, transient population. What is the benefit to the Town of placeCitySimsbury and to placeCitySimsbury residents’? She said that as this is primarily a residential setting an alternate location would be a better suited answer such as the proposal for River Oaks.

T. J. Donohue, Attorney, said that they are appreciative of all the land use agencies that they have been before. He said that through town staff, the commission and this process the applicant has submitted an amended site plan that abandons the Markie property as something that needs to be treated at this time by this commission. It abandons the parking lot process on the Markie property. It will enable the entire program to be built on the front properties. They would not traverse the 50-foot strip or go north of the Markie line.

Attorney Donohue spoke of Attorney Sherwood’s letter of dateYear2007Day5Month3March 5, 2007 regarding the other easement from 1943. He said that point A shown on the map that Attorney Sherwood has provided is 150-feet north of the northerly boundary of the Markie property. Attorney Donohue said that he is not sure where this easement is and he does not think Attorney Sherwood is sure either. At law, if it traverses any portion of the Hoffman property that is utilized as a dealership it has been extinguished by abandonment. He said that with respect to the square footages and the extensive mathematical exercises that Attorney Sherwood has gone through at the outset the zoning regulations cause the applicant to use different calculations for different purposes. He said that impervious surfaces and coverage’s are calculated based upon the footprints. Some of the buildings have second floors and that would cause some differences. Under the regulations parking is calculated based upon the use of that portion of the building. Showrooms have a different criteria and requirement than other areas of this facility.

Attorney Donohue said that this is a simple application and they only need to focus on the last filed site plan. It has an A-2 survey that has the tables and measurements as required prepared and presented by an Engineer. The map is in full and final form. The record includes all the applications and all the board submission materials along with a letter request which was made to Chairman Barney and First Selectman Vincent to modify and extend the conservation easement. The record includes supplemental drawings, and the site plan drawings do show pedestrian paths through the Hoffman property. They are being revised to include a path to the McDonald’s property. Attorney Donohue said that there also is a full engineering report, traffic report, building elevations, utility letters from the Simsbury Water Pollution Authority and the Avon Water Company, Inland Wetlands & Watercourses application, Planning Commission favorable referral letter, Economic Development Commission referral letter, Design Review Board referral letter, copy of the existing conservation easement and a copy of the proposed conservation easement.

Attorney Donohue said that they are hopeful that the commission will consider all of the exhibits, all of the information that they have received and be respectful to the applicant as well as the neighbors. He said that they have met each of the exactions. Attorney Donohue said that this is an important opportunity for the applicant and also for placeCitySimsbury. They have been in the process for over a year. He said with their approvals the Hoffman family will renew and redevelop this great property. It is a redevelopment of an existing property. They would like to move forward with it as they have important and significant contract commitments to placeCityToyota, Honda, and Best Buy. They have been in this process for more than a year and time is very important. Attorney Donohue said that he does regret is that the deferred maintenance on this property caused a besmirching of the Hoffman family name. He said that he is gratified of the neighbors who have admitted that they shop and do business with the Hoffman’s. He said that the Hoffman’s support every organization in this community and the greater placeCityHartford community. Attorney Donohue said that he is regretful that they have not treated this property better, but is sure that they will in the future.

Attorney Donohue was asked by Mrs. Ganter when deliveries will take place and also who will ensure that the property is taken care of. Chairman Barney said that the job of who is going to keep on top of them is the job of the town and he has asked that this also be the job of the applicant. They will report twice a year to the town on the various aspects that were decided on tonight, which are the property maintenance issues, asphalt maintenance issues, building maintenance issues, trash, rubbish, etc. Greater vigilance will also have to be applied from the zoning enforcement standpoint to make sure compliance is there. Attorney Donohue said that Hoffman has an incumbent landscaping firm, but Sam Pines runs the property for Hoffman. With respect to the conservation easement area if the commission would like town counsel to put in a stronger enforcement mechanism that would be fine. Attorney Donohue said that with respect with deliveries Mr. Pines said that the deliveries now are mostly during the day. Mr. Pines said to the extent that they can he will try and enforce reasonable times for deliveries, particular in the nature of that area. Chairman Barney asked about deliveries to Best Buy. Attorney Donohue said that he has to do some research on this and also car deliveries.

Jack Neubieser, Borghesi Engineering, spoke on behalf of the site plan approval for a proposed Men’s Warehouse. The property is located at 6 placeCityAlbany Turnpike, the former Acme Auto building. The project being proposed is for the construction of a new 5,012 square foot retail store for the Men’s Warehouse. The existing building would come down and a new building would go up. Mr. Neubieser said that the property is zoned B-III, design business development. They have been before the Zoning Board of Appeals and were granted variances for the front and side yard setbacks for both the building and parking because of the odd configuration of the property itself. He showed on a plan how the building, driveway and parking would be located on the site. Mr. Neubieser discussed the comments made by the Design Review Board saying they also recommended this project for approval with the following conditions: 1) the metal guardrail on the north side of the parking lot shall be changed to a wood post and beam guardrail (that has been done), 2) the guardrail shall be located approximately 18½ to 24½ off the north side of the termination of the proposed bituminous concrete (that has been done), and 3) lighting at the back of the building associated with the rear door shall consist of one wall pack light (that has been done). Mr. Neubieser said that the impervious surface coverage is currently 60% and will change slightly to 59.7%. He said that the Design Review Board recommended that the words “Men’s Warehouse” located on the fascia be removed, leaving the “Men’s Warehouse” name and logo on the pediment above the door. He said that, as a tenant, Men’s Warehouse is reluctant to agree to that recommendation. They would like to leave the “Men’s Warehouse” name on the building. Lighting of signs was also briefly discussed.

Commissioner Askham moved to approve, with the Design Review Board’s recommendations (memo dated 2/28/07 to the Zoning Commission) with the exception of the removing of the words “Men’s Warehouse” located on the fascia, the application of J. Fine, MIJI Avon, LLC, Owner, Allan Borghesi, Borghesi Bldg. & Eng. Co., Inc., Agent, for a Site Plan Approval for a Men’s Warehouse (retail store) to be constructed on property located at 6 Albany Turnpike. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Barnett and passed unanimously.