Board Members Present: Robert Hiscox, Alan Havican, Donald Pomeroy, Thomas Galvin
Alternates Present: Alexander Delelle
Others Present: Bill Donovan, Land Use Inspector, Tom Kreykes & Dick Harrall - HMA, Inc.
Members Present: Gil Graveline, Frances Carpentier (Alt.), Anthony Parrella (Alt.)
Chairman Robert Hiscox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. The meeting was taped. Alexander Delelle was seated for Gil Graveline.
Public Hearings:
a. 7:05 p.m. - Town of Prospect Plan of Conservation and Development - Amendment No. 1.Chairman Hiscox read the notice of public hearing
as it appeared in the Citizen's News on April 30, 2004 and May 7, 2004. Chairman Hiscox stated that, if there were no objections, oral or written
comments received during this public hearing regarding the proposed residential 2-acre zoning on Summit Road need not be repeated at the second public
hearing scheduled at 7:30 p.m. on proposed revisions to the zoning district map. The record would note such comments as part of the record for both
public hearings as the two hearings are inter-related. There were no objections from the audience or the Commissioners. Chairman Hiscox read the written
correspondence into the record.
1) Comments from South Central Regional Planning Commission dated March 18, 2004.
2) Staff Recommendations from the Council Governments Central Naugatuck Valley Dated
May 12, 2004.
3) Leter dated May 5, 2004 from Neil E. Walsh & Wendy A. Thornley, 97 Summit Road.
4) Letter dated May 6, 2004 from Robert Capanna, 23 Luke Street.
5) Letter dated May 7, 2004 from Clarence Miller, Executor of the Estate of Beatrice Cruikshank, 86, 88. 90 Scott Road
and 123,145 Summit Road.
6) Letter dated May 10, 2004 from George Pavlik, Pavlik Real Estate, Union City Road & Summit Road.
7) Letter dated May 10, 2004 from William D. Stafford, Sr., 253 Nejako Dr., Middletown, CT.
8) Letter dated May 12, 2004 from Mark Capanna, 16R Bronson Road.
9) Letter dated May 12, 2004 from Robert J. Chatfield, Mayor - Town of Prospect
Chairman Hiscox explained the purpose of the proposed amendment to the Plan of Conservation & Development and opened the hearing to comments from the public.
- Franklin Pilicy, 365 Main St., Watertown, CT, stated he was representing four property owners, Clarence Miller, Neil Walsh, George Pavlik and William Dunn. Pursuant to Conn. General Statutes Section 8-3b, Attorney Pilicy stated that a protest petition is being circulated and will be presented to the Commission requiring that any change in the zoning regulations be approved by a two-thirds majortiy vote of the Commission. Attorney Pilicy's clients feel that it is too soon since the adoption of the latest revision to the Town's Plan of Conservatin & Development to be making such a major change. Specifically the proposed 2-acre zoning and related text changes. Attorney Pilicy stated his client's concern that copies of the proposed changes were not readily available for review and asked that the public hearings not be closed this evening in order to allow more time for review and comments. Attorney Pilicy stated concerns with proposed definition changes to the building square, buffer areas and changes to open space requirements and indicated that the proposed changes are too prohibitive for development of the Summit Road area. Attorney Pilicy also stated that there are inconsistencies between zoning regulations and subdivision regulations. Chairman Hiscox asked Attorney Pilicy whether his clients would be in favor of residential 1-acre zoning in the Summit Road area. Attorney Pilicy stated that his clients would prefer to see zoning consistent with existing residential zoning without the text changes to the building square.
- Jim Hil, 32 Holcomb St., West Haven, CT, representing Rosenfield Enterprises, agreed with Attorney Pilicy that the hearings should remain open to allow for additional review of the proposed changes. Mr. Hill stated his client is opposed to the proposed 2-acre zoning and the text changes regarding the building square. Mr. Hill pointed out that the only areas currently requiring 2-acre zoning are publicly held lands. Mr. Hill further stated that there is an appearance of a lack of standards regarding open space requirements that need clarification.
- Attorney Patrick J. McGrath, 500 Chase Parkway, Waterbury, CT representing RMK Prospect Associates, objected to proposed changes in the definition of the minimumh square stating the changes are too restrictive and would prohibit reasonable development within the Town. Attorney McGrath stated that the proposed text changes to the minimum lot coverage would conflict with the current site development plan proposed for the commercial park area. The second scheduled public hearing was opened for the evening to allow further comments regarding revisions to the zoning regulations.
b.8:17- Comprehensive Revision to Prospect Zoning Regulations and Zoning District Map. Chairman Hiscox read the notice of public hearing as it appeared in the Citizens News on April 30, 2004 and May 7, 2004 as well as a letter dated April 14, 2004 from the South Central Connecticut Regional Planning Commision regarding the proposed amendments to the Prospect Zoning Regualtions. It was noted for the record that previous correspondence and comments from the public placed on the record at the first public hearing would be made a part of this as well. The hearing was opened to public comments.
-Attorney Patrick J. McGrath, representing RMK Prospect Associates, stated concerns regarding restrictions in an elderly housing develpment as well as concerns with restricting facilities to be 1-story, ground level buildings. Attorney McGrath also indicated that the regulations regarding open space and wetlands under elderly housing are too restrictive.
-John Kaufman, 84 Clark Hill Road, member of the Inland Wetlands Commission, stated he was in favor of the proposed 2-acre zoning in the Summit Road area and the text changes regarding the building square.
-Larry Beausoleil, 66 Smoke Rise Circle, stated that the propsoed changes are too restrictive to allow for reasonable development in Prospect. Mr. Beausoleil commented that open space requirements need to be better defined and that the Wetlands Commission should regulate wetland issues.
-Attorney Pilicy submitted a Petition of Protest against the Amendment of Zoning Regulations pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Section 8-3(b).
8:32 p.m. Comprehensive Revison to Prospect Subdivision Regulations. Chairman Hiscox read the notice of public hearing as it appeared in the Citizens's News on April 30,2004 and May 7, 2004. Comments from the Town Attorney dated May 3, 2004 were noted for the record as well as memorandum dated May 11, 2004 from Tom Kreykes, HMS, Inc. regarding the Town Attorney's comments. The hearing was opened to public comment. It was noted that written and oral comments heard earlier pertaining to the proposed subdivision regualtions would be considered part of this hearing.
-George Pavlik, 165 Summit Road, stated his agreement with continuing the public hearings to allow more time for review and comments. Mr. Pavlik stated he feels that the proposed changes will have a depreciative effect on real estate property.
David Young, 35 Nancy Mae Avenue, asked what criteria was used when deciding 1-acre vs. 2-acre zoning, particularly health and safety concerns. Chairman Hiscox summarized the Planning and Zoning Commission's last two years of udating an overall plan of development for the Town.
- Attorney Franklin Pilicy, 365 Main Street, Watertown, CT, spoke regarding the purpose of building square and placement within a lot area stating that the proposed regulations are too restrictive to allow for reasonable development of property.
- Dick Harrall, Harrall-Michalowski Associates, clarified a misunderstanding between the definition of a lot area and the buildable square.
- Anne Stein, 22 Cook Road, commended the Commission's efforts of looking at the overall growth of the Town and stated that she is in favor of downsizing future development.
Jim Ashe, Old Logtown Road, cautioned that larger lots sizes and more road length could cost taxpayers more money as well.
- Ralph Weloy, 2151 Scott Road, Cheshire, CT, stated his inability to obtain copies of the proposed changes.
- Attorney Franlin Pilicy stated that there was confusion with the definition of the minimum square that needs clarification.
Chairman Hiscox asked Mr. Harrall to prepare a fact sheet on the buildable square with examples for the continuation of the hearings. The three public hearings were continued to May 26, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.
Discussion: The Commissioners reviewed the confusion with the buildable sqaure with Dick Harrall and Tom Kreykes of HMA, Inc. A fact sheet with examples will be prepared for the continuation of the public hearings.
Motion by A. Havican, seconded by D. Pomeroy to adjourn at 9:50 p.m.Unanimous.
Robert Hiscox, Chairman