Page 1
TOWN OF MANCHESTER
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
March 20, 2017 Lincoln Center Hearing Room
7:00 P.M. 494 Main Street
AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. TOWN OF MANCHESTER PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION – Request a zone
change from Form-Based Zone to Business II Zone and Design Overlay Zone at 230 Middle
Turnpike West.
Zone Change (2017-010)
NEW BUSINESS:
1. TOWN OF MANCHESTER PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION – Request a zone
change from Form-Based Zone to Business II Zone and Design Overlay Zone at 230 Middle
Turnpike West.
Zone Change (2017-010)
2. HOCKANUM FLATS, LLC – To construct a 3,100 sq. ft. building addition, realign
drainage, and modify the parking and driveway at 171 Tolland Turnpike.
Inland Wetlands Permit – Determination of Significance (2017-011)
Inland Wetlands Permit (2017-011)
Special Exception Modification (2017-012)
3. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 13, 2017 - Public Hearing/Business Meeting
5. RECEIPT OF NEW APPLICATIONS
R:\Planning\PZC\2017\03 - March 20\Agenda 20 MAR 2017.docx
Page 2
TOWN OF MANCHESTER
LEGAL NOTICE
The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on March 20, 2017, at 7:00
P.M. in the Lincoln Center Hearing Room, 494 Main Street, Manchester, Connecticut to hear
and consider the following petition:
TOWN OF MANCHESTER PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION – Zone Change
(2017-010) – Request a zone change from Form-Based Zone to Business II Zone and Design
Overlay Zone at 230 Middle Turnpike West.
At this hearing interested persons may be heard and written communications received. A copy
of the proposed zoning district change may be reviewed in the Town Clerk’s office, 41 Center
Street, during regular business hours, 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or in the
Planning Department, 494 Main Street, during regular business hours, 8:30 – 4:30, Monday
through Friday.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Eric Prause, Chair
Page 3
TOWN OF MANCHESTER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Renata Bertotti, Senior Planner
DATE: March 15, 2017
RE: Town of Manchester PZC – 230 Middle Turnpike West
Zone Change: Form-Based Zone to Business II and Design Overlay Zone (2017-010)
Introduction
The Commission is proposing a zone district change from Form-Based zone (FBZ) to Business II
(BII) and Design Overlay zone for 230 Middle Turnpike West. The subject property is located on
the south side of Middle Turnpike West, across the street from the Waddell Elementary school.
Background
Until May 2012, the subject site was zoned General Business. In May 2012 the Commission
approved a zoning map amendment which included 230 Middle Turnpike West, adopting a Form-
Based Zone (FBZ) for this area.
Center Motors, a motor vehicle dealer and repair service, has been operating at the above referenced
address since the late 1990s. The owners of Center Motors, Michael and Sally Flynn, applied for a
similar zone change in August of 2016. The Commission, rather than focusing and acting on a
proposed zone change for this one lot alone, decided to take a more comprehensive look at the
Form-Based Zone area, and discussed this item on their November 21, 2016 workshop. This
proposed map amendment comes as a result of that discussion.
Proposed Zone Change
The Form-Based Zone is regulated under Article II Section 26 of the zoning regulations, and
allowed uses are summarized to include:
1. Residential uses - accessory apartments, live/work quarters, townhouses and row
houses, multi-family buildings.
2. Mixed-use buildings.
3. Lodging - hotels, inns.
4. Office - business and medical.
5. Institutional and Public uses – adult, child and group day care, educational
institutions, places of worship, libraries, public recreation facilities, fraternal or
Page 4
March 15, 2017
Page 2
social organizations, lodges or clubs, government administration uses or buildings,
convention or conference centers, art galleries, museums, and performing arts
facilities.
6. Retail.
7. Personal service.
8. Food Service - including restaurants, cafés, taverns, grills, alcoholic liquor sales,
food service stores, and refreshment stands.
9. Consumer services - indoor entertainment, private recreation facilities, radio and
T.V. broadcasting studios, general repair services, and financial and real estate
services.
10. Educational / research and development.
11. Packaging & Delivery.
12. Wireless telecommunication antennas.
13. Outdoor entertainment.
If the proposed zone change is approved, the uses that could be allowed at 230 Middle Turnpike
West include:
1. Residential - multi-family historic mill conversion and residential above first floor
commercial in mixed-use buildings.
2. Mixed-use buildings - residential units above the first story commercial use either as
of right or as special exception depending on the number of dwelling units and their
combined gross floor area.
3. Lodging - hotel, motel.
4. Office.
5. Institutional and public use - municipal offices, police stations and fire houses, adult
day care, family day care homes, child day care centers, group day care homes,
schools and places of worship, clubs and fraternal organizations, public utility
buildings, and municipal buildings and uses.
6. Retail.
7. Personal service shop.
8. Food Service - including restaurants, sidewalk cafés, taverns, grills, and alcoholic
Page 5
March 15, 2017
Page 3
liquor sales.
9. Consumer services - billiard or poolrooms, bowling alleys, theaters and similar
amusement enterprises.
10. Newspaper and job printing.
11. Radio and television broadcasting studios.
12. Wireless telecommunication antennas and facilities.
13. Funeral parlors.
14. Public parking lots.
15. Wholesale store and sample rooms; bulk storage or warehouse for such commodities
as food, furniture and hardware.
16. Tennis and badminton courts, skating rinks and health and recreation clubs.
17. Automobile sales - new and/or used.
18. Automobile repair and service garages or shops.
19. Automobile washes.
20. Carnivals and circuses.
21. Outdoor entertainment.
Some of the FBZ and BII uses listed above are permitted and some require special exception
approval by the Commission. Special exception uses are subject to the criteria of Article IV Section
20 of the zoning regulations and require a public hearing. I categorized and listed similar uses in
corresponding order for ease of comparison.
The purpose of the Design Overlay Zone is “to ensure development in previously developed areas
will protect, preserve, and enhance the unique historical and/or architectural qualities of overlay
districts and retain an area’s distinctive character and scale, and to promote the best examples of
architecture found in overlay districts to improve existing property conditions, address the presence
of blighted conditions, and increase property values.”
The provisions of the Design Overlay zoning regulations apply to the construction of new buildings;
changes, additions, or alterations to existing buildings; new accessory structures; and alterations or
additions to existing accessory structures that are visible from the street. The repair or replacement
of exterior materials or architectural features with the same materials or architectural features does
not require the Commission’s review.
Page 6
March 15, 2017
Page 4
For the Commission’s Consideration
Relationship to the Town Plan of Conservation and Development
The Character Map in the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development (the Plan) designates the
subject parcel as a Mixed-Use Center.
The Plan describes the Mixed-Use Center as “Consists of a tight network of streets with wide sidewalks,
tree plantings and a street wall created by building frontages. These areas are centers of activity, serving
as a transit hub and containing residential, commercial and office uses. Parking is typically on street or
behind primary buildings. Additional uses include parks, libraries, schools, and other institutional uses.
Net residential densities range from 10 to over 20 units per acre.” (Excerpt from the Plan)
Relationship to Surrounding Zoning
The attached map illustrates the subject parcel, which is located at the outer edge of the FBZ district.
The FBZ bounds the site to the west and to the south. Properties along Middle Turnpike West
traveling east from the subject site are zoned Business II and later on Residence C and Residence B.
Traveling west on Middle Turnpike West, there is a General Business zoned parcel across the
intersection with Broad Street. The Waddell School property across the street is zoned Residence
A. The Residence A zone continues north and west further on from the site. Residence B, and later
on Residence A and Residence C zoned areas are located to the east of the site.
Surrounding uses are a mix and consist of several nearby gas stations, a school, restaurants,
shopping plazas, a pizzeria, smaller scale retail shops, offices, single- and multi-family residences,
and institutional uses (CHR).
Considering the location of the subject site (at the edge of the zoning district), its use as an automotive
service and repair facility, and the surrounding zoning, the Staff believes it is appropriate to re-zone the
property to Business II with Design Overlay.
RB R:\Planning\PZC\2017\03 - March 20\Packet Memos\2017-010 Zone Change 230 MTW.doc
Page 9
TOWN OF MANCHESTER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency
FROM: Matthew R. Bordeaux, Environmental Planner/Wetlands Agent
DATE: March 15, 2017
RE: Hockanum Flats, LLC – 179 Tolland Turnpike
Inland Wetlands Permit and Determination of Significance (2017-011)
Special Exception Modification (2017-012)
Introduction
The proposed project consists of the construction of a 3,048 square foot building addition to the
existing building located at 171 Tolland Turnpike. The existing building is home of Lynch
Toyota’s used automobile sales facility and is currently used for sales and repairs. The proposed
addition will provide additional enclosed space for automobile repair activities and storage.
Inland Wetlands Permit
The proposed activity occurs in the regulated 100’ upland review area of the Hockanum River.
The river, flowing east to west, is located to the north of the existing facility. The Hockanum
River linear trail passes between the subject facility and the river as well. The proposal is limited
to the existing footprint of the automobile sales and service facility and no notable increase in
impervious surface will occur as a result of the proposal. Therefore, no note-worthy short or
long-term impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed activity.
Determination of Significance
The Inland Wetlands Agency is required to make a determination of the significance of the
impact of the proposed activities on the wetlands, watercourses, and/or water bodies. In making
its determination, the Commission should be guided by the definition of "Significant Impact
Activity" as found in the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations which means any
activity, including, but not limited to, the following activities which may have a major effect or
significant impact:
a. Any activity involving a deposition or removal of material which will or may have a
substantial effect on the wetland or watercourse or on wetlands or watercourses outside the
area for which the activity is proposed; or
b. Any activity which substantially changes the natural channel or may inhibit the natural
dynamics of a watercourse system; or
Page 10
March 15, 2017
Page 2 of 3
c. Any activity which substantially diminishes the natural capacity of an inland wetland or
watercourse to support aquatic, plant or animal life, prevent flooding, supply water,
assimilate waste, facilitate drainage, provide recreation or open space or perform other
functions; or
d. Any activity which is likely to cause or has the potential to cause substantial turbidity,
siltation or sedimentation in a wetland or watercourse; or
e. Any activity which causes a substantial diminution of flow of a natural watercourse or
groundwater levels of the wetland or watercourse; or
f. Any activity which is likely to cause or has the potential to cause pollution of a wetland or
watercourse; or
g. Any activity which damages or destroys unique wetland or watercourse areas or such areas
having demonstrable scientific or educational value.
If the Agency finds the proposed activity will have a significant impact on the wetlands, a public
hearing is required. Should the Agency find this activity will not create a significant impact,
then no public hearing is required.
Special Exception Modification
The applicant is requesting a Special Exception Modification in accordance with Article II,
Section 24.02.01 for the automobile repair and service garage located in the General Business
zone.
Access and Parking
The site is currently accessible by an existing driveway apron lined-up at the intersection of
Parker Street and Tolland Turnpike. The site can also be accessed across the property line with
the adjacent Lynch Toyota at 179 Tolland Turnpike. There are no proposed changes to the site
access.
The proposal includes the realignment of the striped parking aisles on the easterly half of the site.
Parking of inventory will be pushed easterly to utilize the existing paved surface and the next
row of parking will also be shifted east and parking stalls restriped as shown on the attached
plans. There will be no increase or decrease in the total number of spaces on site.
There is no increase in traffic expected as a result of the proposed modifications.
Building
The proposed project involves the construction of a 3,048 square foot addition to the northeast
corner of the existing building. The proposed addition will be utilized for additional automobile
repair and storage.
Page 11
March 15, 2017
Page 3 of 3
The existing building is currently serviced by public water and sewer. Based on the size,
location and the proposed use of the addition the applicant’s engineer indicates that the existing
public utilities servicing the site will be sufficient to service the site once the addition is
constructed.
A computer rendering of the proposed building addition façade is attached. The applicant has
been advised to bring a materials sample board to the meeting for the Commission’s review.
Stormwater Management
The proposed building addition will require the relocation of an existing catch basin on the
easterly side of the building. The applicant’s engineer states that this portion of the storm
drainage system will be reconstructed using the same pipe sizes, catch basin types and
connection to the existing stormwater treatment chamber. Stormwater collection areas and flow
patterns will not change due to the catch basin relocations.
The proposed building addition will result in the loss of 985 square feet of pervious area due to
the removal of the stone covered landscape area adjacent to the existing building. This loss will
be mitigated by the removal of 985 square feet of impervious paved parking area along the
easterly side of the existing parking lot as shown on the attached plan. This area will be re-
established with a grass covered pervious area. The realignment of the parking lot will require
the removal and replacement of some landscaped islands as well. Based on the proposed
stormwater mitigation measures no increase in peak off-site flow of stormwater is anticipated
from the site as a result of the proposed building addition.
Staff Review
Staff has reviewed the plans and documents submitted with this application. Michelle Handfield,
Assistant Town Engineer, provided the applicant with comments requesting revised labeling and
confirmation of various details on the plans. The Engineering Division recommended approval
with modifications requiring the comments from Mrs. Handfield to be addressed prior to
submittal of the final plans and issuance of any construction permits.
Mr. Bordeaux, Environmental Planner commented that more room would be available in the
landscaped islands if the parking spaces proposed to be restriped were shifted south slightly.
There were no further outstanding comments.
MRB
Attachments R:\Planning\PZC\2017\03 - March 20\Packet Memos\2017-011,012.docx
Page 14
PZC – PH – 2/13/17 - 1
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING
HELD BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 13, 2017
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Eric Prause, Chairman
Andy Kidd, Vice Chairman
Michael Stebe, Secretary
Timothy Bergin
Alternate Member Sitting: Patrick Kennedy
Absent: Jessica Scorso
Julian Stoppelman
Teresa Ike
Also Present: Gary Anderson, Director of Planning
Renata Bertotti, Senior Planner
Katie Williford, Administrative Secretary
Nancy Martel, Recording Secretary
Time Convened: 7:00 P.M.
Mr. Prause opened the Public Hearing by introducing the members of the Commission.
Mr. Stebe read the legal notice.
TOWN OF MANCHESTER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION – To revise Art. II,
Sec. 8 (CUD zone) as follows: To remove multi-family dwellings and high-rise apartments from
the list of permitted uses; to add stand-alone multi-family or multi-family above ground floor
commercial as special exception uses; and to add accessory use of yards, walkways, and parking
lots as a permitted use. To revise Art. IV Sec 20 (Special Exception Criteria) to remove the
reference to the CBD zone at Art. IV, Sec. 20.01.01 j. To delete Art. IV Sec. 2 (High Rise
Apartments). – Zoning Regulation Amendment (2016-145)
Renata Bertotti, Senior Planner for the Town of Manchester Planning Department, described the
application to amend several sections of the zoning regulations pertaining to multi-family
dwellings in the Comprehensive Urban Development (CUD) Zone, accessory use of yards,
walkways and parking lots and special exception criteria.
The amendment to Art. II, Sec. 8 (CUD zone) was modeled after an amendment recently adopted
for the General Business zone. Its intent is to allow stand-alone and mixed use residential use in
zoning districts that are commercial in nature. The intent behind this amendment is to promote a
mix of uses so even standalone residential buildings are on parcels that are mixed-use, she said.
DRAFT
Page 15
PZC – PH – 2/13/17 - 2
Ms. Bertotti stated that the proposal meets the purpose of the CUD zone to promote a greater
flexibility of uses. She explained that this amendment also meets several intents, goals and
objectives of the Plan of Conservation and Development and reiterated that this is a continuation
of an amendment to the General Business Zone.
One difference is that, when the GB zone amendment was adopted, the GB zone did not allow
residential uses at all. The CUD zone, however, permits multi-family developments as of right
under current regulations, subject to the development standards of the PRD zone or high-rise
apartment regulations. The PRD design standards do not lend themselves to mixed-use types of
developments and may not be well suited to the CUD zoning district, Ms. Bertotti said,
speculating that this may explain why there has never been a proposal for this type of residential
development in this zoning district. The zoning regulations pertaining to high rise apartments
have been in place since 1972 and the Planning Department has never received an application for
high rise apartments. She further stated that the high rise apartments section includes many
building code and fire code requirements which should not be part of the zoning regulations.
Ms. Bertotti explained that the Pavilions apartments were the only apartments ever built in the
CUD zone, and those were part of the original plan for the entire mall area. The Planning
Department now proposes to delete the current provisions in the CUD zoning regulations that
allow multi-family dwellings subject to development standards which are not the most
appropriate for this zoning district.
Ms. Bertotti further stated the Planning Department proposes replacing the provision which
currently permits residential uses under the PRD or High Rise apartment development standards
with one that will allow stand-alone and mixed-use multi-family above ground floor commercial,
subject to special exception in the CUD zone. The special exception approval would be subject
to review criteria, including the building standards that are modeled after the form-based code
regulations and other standards that are specific to these types of commercial sites. For example,
the Planning Department proposes that at least 50% of the ground floor must remain commercial
to prevent the entire site from being converted into a residential site. The Planning Department
also proposes height regulations directly related to the size of the commercial buildings and their
distance from mass transit. She also detailed the proposal for smaller sites and commercial
buildings and open space and parking requirements.
She reminded the Commission that in July 2016, they adopted regulations which deal with the
use of walkways, parking lots and yards. This regulation also intended to address the seasonal
sale events such as the annual fireworks sales at Plaza Azteca and the appliance sale in front of
P. C. Richard & Sons. However, the amendment ended up in the section of the zoning
regulations that deals with the general requirements for all business zones and these locations, P.
C. Richard & Sons and Plaza Azteca, are in the Comprehensive Urban Development zone. The
current proposal would add these same provisions to apply in the CUD zone.
Ms. Bertotti further added, in a discussion of residential uses, that when the Commission adopted
the amendment to the General Business zone regulations, Integration of Use was added under the
Special Exception Criteria. That provision included a reference to the CBD zone, because staff
originally intended to return to the Commission with a proposal to delete high rise apartments
and propose these changes in both the CUD and CBD zones. However, it later became clear that
these standards would be very difficult to meet in the CBD zone. Therefore, staff now proposes
Page 16
PZC – PH – 2/13/17 - 3
to delete the reference to the CBD zone under Integration of Use in the Special Exception
Criteria, and not to change the CBD zone regulations at all.
The proposed zoning regulation amendment was sent for review to CRCOG to which the
response read, “The staff of the Regional Planning Commission of the Capitol Region Council of
Government, has reviewed this referral and finds no apparent conflict with the concerns of
neighboring towns. We would encourage the Planning & Zoning Commission to consider
adding provisions to provide for affordable housing opportunities in accordance with the
Regional Plan of Conservation and Development housing goal to increase the range of choice in
housing for people of all incomes and all ages, but especially for those who have the least choice
in achieving their locational preference.” Additionally, CRCOG referred to the general goal of
the Regional Plan of Conservation and Development which reads, “Increase the range of choice
in housing for people of all incomes and all ages, but especially for those who have the least
choice in achieving their locational preference.”
Mr. Bergin requested clarification regarding the terms used in the amendment.
Ms. Bertotti informed him that the intent of the regulation is to provide for mixed use on the
commercial sites.
Mr. Kidd inquired as to whether other communities’ regulations were reviewed in the
requirements for this proposal.
In response, Ms. Bertotti stated the specific ratios and percentages were copied from the General
Business Zone regulation, to ensure that 50% was not exceeded one way or the other.
Mr. Stebe inquired whether individual balconies would be included in the open space
requirement.
Ms. Bertotti stated that a minimum of 25% of open space must be dedicated to residential use
only, and balconies could be included. Additionally, each site would be required to incorporate a
minimum of 25% that is accessible to all tenants of the plaza.
Mr. Stebe requested clarification as it was his understanding that open space should be accessible
to all residents and he does not believe that an individual’s apartment balcony fits into open
space.
Ms. Bertotti further informed the Commission that this provision can be removed from the
proposal.
Mr. Stebe requested further clarification regarding mixed usage of a site, i.e., two buildings, with
building one commercial and building two residential.
Ms. Bertotti explained it is 50% per site.
Mr. Anderson clarified that the buildings must be the same size.
Page 17
PZC – PH – 2/13/17 - 4
Mr. Bergin noted that there are two subsections under open space, one 25% of the total open
space dedicated exclusively to tenants, including balconies. The next subsection is that a
minimum of 25% of the total open space be available for all patrons of the property and does not
reference balconies. Therefore, is it possible that 25% would not fall under that calculation?
Ms. Bertotti stated that each development must have a minimum of 50% of open space.
Residential uses may have balconies and commercial uses may have sitting areas, common
plazas, central entertainment spaces accessible via pedestrian access ways, excluding balconies.
Mr. Prause pointed out to Ms. Bertotti her reference to accessory uses, stating that Art. II Sec.
8.02.15 references accessory uses. He speculated that this may be redundant to the section
currently proposed.
Ms. Bertotti replied that these accessory uses are different from the uses regulated as the
accessory uses of yards, walkways and parking lots which pertain to display, sale and seasonal
sales.
Mr. Prause asked, if the site is within a half mile of existing mass transit and it exceeds 200,000
square feet, the building height could be up to 80 feet.
Ms. Bertotti asserted that this was correct; both criteria would have to be met.
Mr. Prause further queried Ms. Bertotti whether there were any changes to Art. II, Sec. 9.
Ms. Bertotti replied that there were no changes.
Mr. Kennedy affirmed that he would not construe that the open space would include balconies of
individual apartments.
Mr. Prause inquired whether there were changes to the Central Business District zone to remove
references to High Rise Apartment regulations.
Ms. Bertotti informed the Commission that there are no proposed changes to the CBD zone.
Mr. Prause stated that there are references in the CUD zone regulations to high rises and he did
not know whether there was one in the Central Business District.
Ms. Bertotti stated that if there is one, it should be removed at a later date.
Mr. Stebe questioned the parking section, whether the proposed subsections 1, 2 and 3 are all
referring to only the residential use. Additionally, he stated that it’s “all other uses” which refers
back to the original CUD regulations.
Ms. Bertotti stated that that parking section regulates mixed use developments with commercial
uses on the ground floor.
Mr. Stebe further asked if the applicant must specifically request the 15% parking reduction as
part of their application.
Page 18
PZC – PH – 2/13/17 - 5
Ms. Bertotti replied that they would have to, but whether or not reduction is granted is at the
Commission’s discretion, so the Commission would formally act on the request.
Mr. Stebe inquired about number 6, Circulation.
Ms. Bertotti stated that the regulation is intended to avoid separate access for the residential uses,
e.g., from the back of a commercial plaza. The parking and driveway connectivity is intended to
keep the mixed use development standard.
Mr. Prause requested comment from the public.
Mr. Kennedy moved to close the Public hearing. Mr. Stebe seconded the motion and all
members voted in favor.
TOWN OF MANCHESTER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION – Zoning Regulation
Amendment 2016-148 to revise Article I, Sec 2, Definitions, to add a definition for outdoor
entertainment. To revise Article II, Sec 8, Comprehensive Urban Development Zone, Article II,
Sec 10, Business 1 Zone, Article II, Sec 11, Business 2 Zone, Article II, Sec 12, Business 3
Zone, Article II, Sec 14, Business 5 Zone, Article II, Sec 15, Central Business District, Article II,
Sec 22, Special Design Commercial Business Zone, Article II, Sec 24, General Business Zone,
and Article II, Sec 26, Form Based Zone to add outdoor entertainment as a special exception use.
Ms. Bertotti relayed that in July 2016, the Commission was approached regarding music at an
outdoor patio at Main Pub. She further stated that the Manchester zoning regulations are written
in a permissive manner, so if a use is not listed as permitted, it is not allowed.
Ms. Bertotti went on to state that a discussion was held regarding the proposed definition for
outdoor entertainment at the recent workshop. The Commission indicated they would only allow
this under special exception which would require a public hearing and a review under the special
exception criteria.
Ms. Bertotti reviewed the zoning districts in which the outdoor entertainment use is proposed to
be allowed and a discussion continued around sound amplification, buffering and hours of
operation. This proposal, in the staff’s opinion, meets several goals of the Town’s Plan of
Conservation and Development, Ms. Bertotti said.
Mr. Kidd affirmed that during the workshop, conditioning the special exception was discussed.
He expressed concerns about enforcing the special exception criteria.
Ms. Bertotti reiterated that these regulations are enforceable. However, she expressed concern
about the Zoning Officer’s ability to enforce the regulations outside of normal working hours.
She maintained that as long as the regulation is legal, it’s enforceable.
Mr. Anderson clarified that in terms of the hours of operation and days of the week, the hours of
operation coincide with the Town’s noise ordinance. He continued that an applicant would have
Page 19
PZC – PH – 2/13/17 - 6
to request a change to the hours of operation and days of the week, and the regulation would
allow the Commission some flexibility.
Mr. Kidd wondered if this proposal had been discussed with the Town Attorney to which Ms.
Bertotti replied that it had not and Mr. Kidd expressed his concerns about challenges by
applicants and residents. He reminded the Commission that in the workshop other towns’
regulations were reviewed.
Ms. Bertotti discussed several town regulations that Mr. Shiel had investigated.
After a discussion with Ms. Bertotti, Mr. Prause expressed his satisfaction that the regulations
are consistent with the current Town regulations. He further inquired about the current threshold
regarding notifying other towns about properties of concern, to which Ms. Bertotti replied that
she was not sure and would have to look it up.
Mr. Prause inquired whether this regulation addresses lighting.
Ms. Bertotti replied that zoning regulations currently did not address this.
Mr. Kidd inquired whether an applicant would have to come before the Commission with each
different proposal to which Ms. Bertotti replied that depending on the changes, different
proposals may require a new public hearing.
Mr. Prause called for public comment.
Mary Fish, 19 Strickland Street, Manchester voiced her opposition to the change in regulations
regarding the Business I Zone as this zone is surrounded by residential areas with little to no
buffering. She brought up the variables in sound travel that are only mitigated by large barriers.
She felt that allowing outdoor entertainment in the Business I zone is essentially allowing it in
residential areas. Ms. Fish stated that the negative impact for an increase in noise level will bring
more calls to the Police Department and referenced effects on property values.
Keith Beaulieu, owner of the Main Pub Restaurant, said he is looking to add outdoor
entertainment to his restaurant, inside the framework of Ms. Fish’s concerns. Mr. Beaulieu
stated that his intent has been to add the entertainment in a manner which is beneficial to all. He
also pointed out that there are establishments within the town that are already allowing outdoor
entertainment without permission, without regulation and without enforcement. He asserted that
the allowance would be beneficial to the Main Pub and would expand the Downtown area.
Mr. Prause called for further public comment and there was none.
Mr. Kidd stated that he is concerned about the enforceability. He also wondered if there was a
way to address the Business I zone to make it less all-encompassing. Mr. Kidd would like an
opinion from the Town Attorney regarding the special exception conditioning. He would like to
leave the public hearing open to follow up.
Mr. Stebe proposed an amendment to include the Chair’s comment on light to include “sound
and light equipment oriented in a manner that directs sound and light away from abutting
Page 20
PZC – PH – 2/13/17 - 7
properties.” He reflected on prior discussions about creating a community vibe and creating a
connection between neighborhoods and having something for people to do and a reason to draw
people into the neighborhoods and into the downtown toward 384 and downtown heading north,
making the connection between the two. He assumed that Mr. Pellegrini would have imparted
the opinion that the applicant always has recourse to challenge. He further stated that the
Commission has the ability to add in additional requirements if they are within 200 feet of a
residential location, place of worship or a school. He believes there are locations that would
benefit from this level of guidance. Mr. Stebe’s opinion is that the proposed regulation can work
provided the Commission considers each exception brought forth. He further reiterated the
criteria on each zoning area to include sound amplification and lighting equipment oriented in
the manner that directs the sound and light away from abutting properties and buffering is
provided to mitigate noise and light trespass.
Mr. Kennedy stated that he agreed with Mr. Stebe’s opinion and believes the court would find
the criteria reasonable. He affirmed that the CRCOG comments are just boilerplate. He believes
that a court would see the proposed regulation as perfectly reasonable. He further stated that the
Commission is given heightened abilities to impose conditions near schools, churches or
residences.
Mr. Stebe requested clarification on notifying abutting towns and whether it is a business
practice at this point.
Ms. Bertotti explained that notification of abutting municipalities in instances of most
applications which require a public hearing is an existing requirement in the general statutes.
She further stated that the Town sends a notification to all direct abutters, whether they are in our
town or the town adjacent to us. The Town is also required, under general statutes, to send a
notification to abutting towns if there is a proposal for certain applications.
Mr. Anderson clarified that pretty much anything would trigger the notification if a public
hearing is required.
Mr. Prause asked whether there is any feedback on the 10 PM restriction and wondered how
viable that requirement would be with outdoor entertainment.
Mr. Anderson stated that they felt it was reasonable as there is always the opportunity to bring
the music indoors after hours.
Mr. Prause agreed with Mr. Kidd about leaving the public hearing open. He is concerned about
lighting and whether something could be added tonight or if it should be acted upon later.
Ms. Bertotti explained that this is not a significant change to the proposal. If the Commission
wants to proceed with the added language regarding sound and light equipment, the Planning
Department could add that. It is not a change that would require another notice.
Mr. Kennedy felt that adding the word “light” would be a relatively minor change.
Page 21
PZC – PH – 2/13/17 - 8
Mr. Stebe concurred with Mr. Kennedy, and that it should be limited to the sound amplification
equipment and light equipment oriented in a manner to direct the sound and light away from
abutters to mitigate the noise and light trespass.
Mr. Prause expressed the need to address the fact that there are places doing this now and
expressed his concerns about the regulations. He further stated that adding lighting to the
condition would be useful, or at least should be reviewed as part of an application. He agreed
with Ms. Fish that BI to BIII zones are generally surrounded by residential use.
Mr. Bergin agreed with Commissioners Kennedy and Stebe. He stated that the prevailing
regulation will be the noise ordinance in most cases. He agreed with making a provision for
light. Mr. Bergin said he is comfortable with approving this proposal as a special exception use.
Mr. Kennedy moved to close the Public hearing. Mr. Stebe seconded the motion and all
members voted in favor.
The Chairman closed the Public Hearing at 8:47 P.M.
___________________ ______________________________________
Date Eric Prause, Chairman
NOTICE: A DIGITAL RECORDING OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING CAN BE
HEARD IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
Page 22
PZC – BM – 2/13/17 - 1
MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING
HELD BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 13, 2017
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Eric Prause, Chairman
Andy Kidd, Vice Chairman
Michael Stebe, Secretary
Timothy Bergin
Alternate Member Sitting: Patrick Kennedy
Absent: Jessica Scorso
Julian Stoppelman
Teresa Ike
Also Present: Gary Anderson, Director of Planning
Renata Bertotti, Senior Planner
Katie Williford, Administrative Secretary
Nancy Martel, Recording Secretary
Time Convened: 8:47 P.M.
NEW BUSINESS
TILCON, INC. – For removal of an existing weigh scale and building at 116 Union Street. –
Inland Wetlands Permit – Determination of Significance (2016-147); Inland Wetlands Permit
(2016-147)
Mr. Tom Daly, Professional Engineer with the firm of Milone & MacBroom, spoke on behalf of
Tilcon, Inc. regarding the application for a wetlands permit for activity within the upland review
area. The parcel has an address of 116 Union Street, but the property is off North Main Street.
The scale house is an integral part of the Tilcon operation and determines the billing.
Mr. Daly continued that the proposed activity will include the removal of the scale house and the
weigh scale. The scale is proposed to be replaced with a more modern version, and the proposed
location is outside of the regulated upland review area. The existing building will be demolished
and removed, and the location filled with good granular fill, compacted and paved. An area that
is currently impervious will be removed and restored to lawn, resulting in a 3,000 sq. ft.
reduction of impervious surface. Mr. Daly said he believes that this project will result in
minimal to no potential erosion.
Mr. Prause asked for clarification of the site, which Mr. Daly provided. He was informed that
the temporary adjacent buildings will be removed as well.
DRAFT
Page 23
PZC – BM – 2/13/17 - 2
Mr. Stebe asked if there were any contaminants on this site. He was told that the material is
contained in the trucks.
Ms. Bertotti stated on behalf of Matt Bordeaux, the Town’s Environmental Planner and
Wetlands Agent, that he is satisfied with the design for this application. The applicant was
responsive to reducing the excess asphalt in the area as well as erosion and sediment controls.
Staff recommends approval subject to modifications of some minor comments that are contained
in a memo from Michelle Handfield, Assistant Town Engineer.
Mr. Daly stated that they have no objection to the comments and will address them.
Mr. Prause asked Ms. Bertotti whether this will require an erosion and sedimentation control
plan and if there should be a ruling on the flood plain impact.
Ms. Bertotti replied that the disturbance is under a half acre and would not require an erosion and
sedimentation control plan. She further stated that they have never submitted an application for a
flood plain approval. Mr. Daly said a flood plain approval is not needed because there will be no
change in grade.
Inland Wetlands Permit – Determination of Significance (2016-147)
MOTION: Mr. Kennedy moved to find the proposed activity at the above-referenced location
as shown on the Inland Wetlands Permit application 2016-147 will not have a
significant impact on the wetlands and, therefore, will not require a public
hearing.
Mr. Stebe seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Inland Wetlands Permit (2016-147)
MOTION: Mr. Kennedy moved to approve the Inland Wetland Permit with the modification
as specified in staff memorandum from:
1. Michelle Handfield, Civil Engineer, dated February 1, 2017.
The reason for the approval is that the proposed activity does not disturb the natural or
indigenous character of the land by significant impact or major effect. The approval is valid for
five years. The work in the regulated area must be completed within one year of
commencement.
Mr. Stebe seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
JOSEPH D’ASCOLI (MANCHESTER HOUSING AUTHORITY) – For a photo voltaic solar
array at 11 Bluefield Drive – Special Exception Modification (2017-005).
Joe Milazzo, Paquette Electric, spoke on behalf of the Manchester Housing Authority. Mr.
Milazzo described the area for the solar array installation. He noted that the area is not readily
visible from the road, and is not near wetlands. There will be a slight modification, removal of
Page 24
PZC – BM – 2/13/17 - 3
the organic material, and laying a pad of 4” gravel to prevent vegetation growth. Mr. Milazzo
further stated the array will be connected to a medium voltage transformer which will tie into an
existing telephone pole. Several existing trees will be removed and additional trees moved. The
area will be split into four subarrays, approximately two feet between each array to help with
snow accumulation. One residential building is closest to the northeast corner of the array. The
site will utilize a culvert tying into the existing catch basin. The area impacted is approximately
140 feet wide by 60 feet deep. Additionally, a permanent six foot chain link fence will be
erected in accordance with electrical code requirements.
In answer to the questions from staff, Mr. Milazzo displayed to the Commission the completed
revised plans along with general comments. The construction entrance depiction was also
presented, as well as the impact on the existing sidewalk.
Mr. Prause inquired about the current use of the field to which Mr. Milazzo replied that it is open
space. Mr. Milazzo requested Gary Sweet speak to this.
Mr. Gary Sweet, 99 Green Manor Road, Modernization Coordinator for the Manchester Housing
Authority, informed the Commission that this field is not used, as the grade is too steep for the
residents of this facility. He relayed that the Manchester Housing Authority has a large amount
of open space.
Mr. Prause inquired of Ms. Bertotti about the history of this application and the open space
requirements. He asked if this was part of the open space which was not traceable.
Ms. Bertotti replied that there were no records indicating whether this space was counted
towards the open space requirement when the original special exception was approved. She
informed the Commission that Mr. Sweet had submitted an open space table indicating that there
is an adequate amount of open space excluding this area. The open space requirements at the
time of the original special exception approval were regulated under landscaping requirements
and were not very specific, she said. When the additional building was built in the 80s, there
was a more specific, per-unit open space requirement that required no more than 5% grade.
Under that second approval for the last building that was added, this space could not be counted
because it would not meet that grade requirement.
Mr. Prause said it appeared that the amount of open space that would be lost would be minimal,
about 13,000 sq.ft. out of the 800,000 sq.ft. of open space provided.
He also inquired about the threshold of this installation going through the Siting Council as
opposed to Planning and Zoning.
Ms. Bertotti replied that she did not believe this should go to the Siting Council. It was her belief
that the Siting Council generally regulates telecommunication facilities, not this type of utility
generation.
Mr. Stebe inquired why the solar arrays are not being installed on the rooftops of the buildings in
an effort to retain the open space.
Page 25
PZC – BM – 2/13/17 - 4
Mr. Milazzo informed the Commission that each home uses 100 amp service. The arrays would
have to be split into small arrays for each home as they wouldn’t be able to handle the power.
Many of the roofs also have peaks that would prevent placing that number of panels on them. It
would not be possible to generate the same amount of energy by placing panels on the roofs, he
said.
Mr. Sweet reflected on the Housing Authority’s struggle with Federal funding for roof issues and
said the placement of arrays on each roof would require a new roof on each unit, which would
not be economical. He asserted that the Housing Authority’s energy conservation program
enhances the plan for Connecticut to become completely renewable energy-oriented by the year
2030. Additionally, this would be the only solar farm for any public housing authority in New
England.
Mr. Prause asked for a further description of the landscaping with this project.
Mr. Milazzo replied that there will be very little landscaping. He went on to give a complete
description of the landscaping planned.
Mr. Bergin inquired about concerns regarding sound generation with the equipment to which
Mr. Milazzo replied that there will be no noise generated. Mr. Milazzo went on to give a
complete description of the electrical system’s configuration. He continued on to explain that
the solar array will produce approximately 15% of the yearly energy being used by the
Manchester Housing Authority. Any excess power cannot be outputted to the grid as it would be
too costly to upgrade the transformers.
Mr. Prause requested clarification that the only equipment that will be outside of the gate will be
a transformer that is set on a pad.
Mr. Milazzo affirmed that it would be a pad-mounted transformer.
Ms. Bertotti reiterated that the applicant has been provided with comments from Michelle
Handfield, Engineering Department, to which the applicant responded. The revisions and
comments to the plans can be reviewed after the Commission approves this application. They are
technical in nature related to the site survey, etc.
Mr. Stebe asked if the permanent fence would include razor wire to which Mr. Milazzo replied it
does not.
Special Exception Modification (2017-005)
MOTION Mr. Kennedy moved to approve the special exception modification at 11 Bluefield
Drive at the Corner of Case Dr., House Dr. & Carver Ln. with the modifications
as specified in staff memorandum from:
1. Michelle Handfield, Assistant Town Engineer, dated January 27, 2017.
Mr. Bergin seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Page 26
PZC – BM – 2/13/17 - 5
The reason for the approval is that the proposed special exception modification meets the
requirements of Article IV, Section 20.
COMMUNITY HEALTH RESOURCES – Pre-Application Review to discuss a 13-unit
supportive housing development at 50-51-60-70-71 Kathleen Way
Attorney Tim Hollister, Hartford, represented Community Health Resources accompanied by
Architect Paul Bailey as well as Michele Gaudet and Heather Gates from CHR.
Mr. Hollister explained that the property referenced is zoned Planned Residential Development
(PRD) and is presently approved for five single-family home lots, all of which are undeveloped
and would be merged under the proposal. Per discussions with Ms. Bertotti, the zone change and
site plan approval would be required because, even though the property is already zoned PRD,
CHR is looking to change the use from single-family to multi-family. He pointed out that multi-
family use is a permitted use, not a special exception use, under Art. II Sec. 7.02.03. Mr.
Hollister also referenced a letter dated January 10, 2017 from Jim Davis, Zoning Enforcement
Officer, that stated “The proposed design concept appears to comply with all applicable zoning
regulations.” CHR is proposing 13 units, 12 residential units and an on-site staff supervisor unit.
This will be permanent supportive housing for young adults ranging in age from 18 to 24 who
are presently homeless. CHR is applying to the Department of Housing for funding for this
proposal, which has not yet been granted.
Mr. Hollister continued to explain the plans for the residents of this site. Services would not
include alcohol or drug addiction recovery services, Department of Children and Families
placement, or Department of Correction placement, he said. He informed the Commission that
CHR has not yet reached out to the neighbors.
Mr. Bailey, with the architectural firm in New Haven, entered into a description of his firm and
the other units they have designed for CHR in Manchester. Mr. Bailey went on to illustrate the
proposed site with the building and parking design. He went on to explain how the site was
designed to minimize the effect on the single-family homes on Kathleen Way. Mr. Bailey also
stated that they would like to reduce the number of parking spaces. Additionally, Mr. Bailey
provided a rendering of the building site, pointing out the aspects that were designed with the
neighboring residents in mind. He went on further to show a depiction of the floor plans.
Ms. Gates, President and CEO of Community Health Resources, gave a description of CHR’s
services. She went on to inform the Commission that this proposed site is designed for the
homeless between the ages of 18 and 24. The proposed design is unique in that there will be
supportive staff on site to provide a stabilizing adult presence as well as additional case
management.
Ms. Bertotti inquired whether Mr. Hollister had on hand documentation of the original approval
to bring the Commission up to date as the original approval was for seven lots. At that time, the
site was approved for seven single family lots, two lots having frontage on North Main Street
and five lots to be accessed off Kathleen Way, she said. A discussion ensued while reviewing
the zoning map.
Page 27
PZC – BM – 2/13/17 - 6
Ms. Bertotti noted the main point of the discussion is to get a sense of whether it is appropriate to
change the zoning to introduce this multi-family development in the mostly single family area.
She further explained that PRD zoning regulations permit single family houses, duplexes and
multi-family houses and the applicant would have to come before the Commission, which would
review this proposal as a zone change.
Mr. Stebe responded to Ms. Bertotti asking, since this is already zoned PRD, if this is a change
of the use within the zone.
Ms. Bertotti replied that the PRD zone is a zoning district approved together with the Plan of
Development. The character of the zone is directly represented by the specific Plan of
Development and each time a plan is changed, the zone effectively changes as well.
Mr. Anderson informed the Commission that each PRD zone on the map goes with a plan. So
when you change that plan, you are changing the map.
Mr. Bergin questioned staff about how the abutting properties on Kathleen Way and Carolyn
Drive came to be designated PRD.
Ms. Bertotti stated that it was an approval that occurred prior to this zone change, and prior to
her employment with the Town.
Mr. Bergin inquired whether the development was approved and built with single family
residences before being designated as a PRD Zone, to which Ms. Bertotti stated that it was zoned
PRD and it was subsequently built.
Mr. Kidd reflected on the orientation of the building and inquired whether the Commission can
relax the parking requirements.
Ms. Bertotti stated the parking is required and there are no provisions for waivers. The only way
to reduce the required parking would be through a variance or a regulation amendment.
Mr. Kidd recognized that the parking requirement adds extra impervious surface for no good
reason. He also agreed with Ms. Bertotti’s opinion regarding this multi-family house as a stand-
alone entity around single-family homes, which will be a discussion.
Mr. Prause commented that any supportive housing is valuable, particularly the plan to have
support staff live on the site. He expressed his concern about feedback from the neighborhood.
Mr. Kennedy expressed that Art. II Sec. 7.05.01 appears to be a confusing procedure because this
location was approved as a PRD zone. He expressed his pleasure with the appearance of the
building.
Mr. Bergin stated he appreciates the services that CHR provides, especially considering the
recent closure of a homeless shelter. He inquired whether CHR considered replacing the
services of the homeless shelter.
Page 28
PZC – BM – 2/13/17 - 7
Ms. Gates replied that CHR has been committed to developing permanent housing for
individuals. CHR had staff in the shelter working with homeless individuals and Ms. Gates
expressed that they were concerned when the homeless shelter closed and, in fact, did some
advocacy with the Department of Housing in an effort to keep it open. However, CHR is
dedicated to permanent housing rather than transitional or temporary housing.
Mr. Bergin inquired whether the clientele would age out of this housing.
Ms. Gates stated that this housing is intended to be permanent until the residents decide to move;
they would not age out. The goal is to help residents become educated, learn to work and deal
with the issues of moving into adulthood.
Mr. Bergin questioned whether the facility would have an elevator to enable disabled residents to
utilize the exercise room on the second floor.
Mr. Bailey replied that the design includes seven units on the first floor that will be accessible to
the handicapped. There will be six more units on the second floor which are not accessible.
Mr. Bergin clarified that handicapped residents on the first floor could not access the exercise
room.
Mr. Bailey stated that they may revisit that issue.
Mr. Bergin responded that he too compliments the design of the building. Furthermore, as a
final thought, he suggested a reduction in parking, perhaps not tied to this specific application,
for a facility such as this which does not warrant the size of the parking area.
Ms. Bertotti inquired whether the applicant is satisfied with the feedback they have received.
She further stated that the basic issue is whether this proposal will fit the character of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Prause reiterated that this matter comes down to location and neighborhood compatibility.
Mr. Bailey responded that the plan offers more open space in this plan than there was in the
original approved seven lots, especially if the parking can be reduced. He stated he has the
impression that most of the Commission is in favor of this proposal.
Mr. Prause stated that he agrees with the purpose. However, the Commission is tasked with
representing residents in that area and ensuring that the proposal is in the best interest of the
Town and suggests that CHR be prepared to assuage neighbors’ fears.
Ms. Gates commented that she appreciates the Commission for taking the time to review this
proposal, and that CHR is prepared for the comments and issues from neighboring residents.
CHR will be taking the Commission’s feedback into advisement in going forward.
Mr. Kennedy expressed his concern over putting a multi-family building in a single-family
neighborhood.
Page 29
PZC – BM – 2/13/17 - 8
Ms. Bertotti described briefly the neighborhood, which includes a rail line, industrial property
and single family residential properties.
Mr. Kidd reiterated this is a neighborhood compatibility issue, though this is an admirable use.
He suggested that CHR may best be served by looking at some other properties.
Mr. Prause mentioned that a better option would be to place the entrance off North Main Street
rather than Kathleen Way. This would effectively create a barrier for the residential properties.
Mr. Anderson commented that a pre-application review seeks to determine whether a proposal is
something that the Commission could feel is appropriate in a location. He believes that this
proposal is something that the Commission could potentially agree is appropriate in this location,
but there are concerns the applicant will need to address.
Ms. Gates explained CHR’s mission to serve a population with a goal to maintain positive
relations within communities.
TOWN OF MANCHESTER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION – Zoning regulation
amendment regarding multi-family dwellings and high-rise apartments in the CUD zone;
accessory use of yards, walkways, and parking lots; Special Exception Criteria to remove the
reference to the CBD zone; and to delete Article IV, Sec 2 (High-Rise Apartments). - Zoning
Regulation Amendment (2016-145)
MOTION: Mr. Kennedy moved to approve the zoning regulation amendment regarding
multi-family dwellings and high-rise apartments in the CUD zone; accessory use
of yards, walkways, and parking lots; Special Exception Criteria to remove the
reference to the CBD zone; and to delete Article IV, Sec 2 (High-Rise
Apartments), with the following modification:
1. At Art. II Sec. 8.03.03 (3)(iii)(1), the word “balconies,” will be replaced with
“common balconies,” and “etc.” will be replaced with “or similar common
areas.”
Mr. Prause requested clarification of Mr. Kennedy’s reference to Section 8.03.03(3)(iii)(1)
Mr. Kennedy said he wanted to clarify that balconies in individual apartments would not be
considered open space in order to avoid setting a precedent.
The reason for the approval is that the proposed amendments correct the previous oversight with
regard to the accessory of yards, walkways, and parking lots, and are consistent with the
Manchester 2020 Plan of Conservation and Development of redeveloping and investing in
existing and potential mixed use areas districts and centers, transportation nodes and corridors,
promoting walkable neighborhoods, and diversifying the town’s housing stock. The zoning
regulation amendment will be effective on March 1, 2017.
Mr. Stebe seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
Page 30
PZC – BM – 2/13/17 - 9
TOWN OF MANCHESTER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION – Zoning regulation
amendment regarding Outdoor Entertainment. - Zoning Regulation Amendment (2016-148)
Mr. Kidd stated that the only reason he voted against the motion to close the public hearing was
to get more clarity on the conditional approach to special exceptions. He stated that he is in
favor of this application.
MOTION: Mr. Kennedy moved to approve the Town of Manchester Planning and Zoning
Commission zoning regulation amendment 2016-148 regarding Outdoor
Entertainment with the following modifications:
1. Wherever it appears, the phrase “sound amplification equipment” will be replaced with
“sound amplification and light equipment;” and
2. Wherever it appears, the phrase “directs the sound away from abutting properties,” will
be replaced with “directs the sound and light away from abutting properties.”
Mr. Stebe suggested amending the motion to also replace the phrase “mitigate noise trespass”
with “mitigate noise and light trespass.”
AMENDED MOTION: Mr. Kennedy moved to approve the zoning regulation amendment
regarding Outdoor Entertainment with the following modifications:
1. Wherever it appears, the phrase “sound amplification equipment” will be replaced with
“sound amplification and light equipment;” and
2. Wherever it appears, the phrase “directs the sound away from abutting properties,” will
be replaced with “directs the sound and light away from abutting properties.”
3. Wherever it appears, the phrase “mitigate noise trespass” will be replaced with “mitigate
noise and light trespass.”
Mr. Stebe seconded the amended motion and all members voted in favor.
The reason for the approval is the proposed amendment is consistent with the Manchester 2020
Plan of Conservation and Development in that it supports community aspirations identified
therein, including but not limited to the desire to be a vibrant, thriving and energetic community,
and to provide the physical arrangement and design spaces that create community through
programs and spontaneous interaction. The Zoning Regulation Amendment will be effective on
March 1, 2017.
Mr. Stebe seconded the motion and all members voted in favor.
RECEIPT OF NEW APPLICATIONS
1. Hockanum Flats, LLC – Inland Wetlands Permit (2017-011); Special Exception
Modification (2017-012) – To construct a building addition for the Lynch Toyota body
Page 31
PZC – BM – 2/13/17 - 10
shop, realign drainage, move catch basins, and modify the parking and driveway at 171
Tolland Turnpike.
2. Town of Manchester Planning & Zoning Commission – Zone Change (2017-010) –
Request a zone change from Form-Based Zone to Business II Zone and Design Overlay
Zone at 230 Middle Turnpike West.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
At the March 6 Commission meeting, there may be a review of the application for go-kart tracks
as well as an erosion and sediment control plan and wetlands permit application for the Center
Springs Park extension, Ms. Bertotti said.
At the March 20 Commission meeting, Ms. Bertotti will present a zone map amendment and
Lynch Toyota will present their building addition application.
The Chairman closed the business meeting at 10:55 PM.
____________________________ ______________________________
Date Eric Prause, Chairman
NOTICE: A DIGITAL RECORDING OF THIS BUSINESS MEETING CAN BE
HEARD IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
