Board Members Present: Robert Hiscox, Alan Havican, Donald Pomeroy
Alternates Present: None
Others Present: Bill Donovan, Land Use Inspector/Acting Clerk
Members Absent: Gil Graveline, Thomas Galvin, Francis Carpentier (Alt.), Anthony Parrella (Alt.), Alexander Delelle
Chairman Robert Hiscox called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was taped. (Note: the tape did not record and there is no taped record).
Approval of Minutes: Motion by A. Havican, seconded by D. Pomeroy to approve the minutes of the September 1, 2004 meeting as presented. Unanimous.
Correspondence:
1. Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley: Schedule for Land Use Training Sessions.
2. Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley: Minutes of the May 4, 2004 Regional Planning Commission meeting.
3. Connecticut Water Company: Public Water Supply Watershed or Aquifer Area Project Notification Form.
Motion by D. Pomeroy, seconded by A. Havican to accept the correspondence. Unanimous.
Public Participation: Kimberly Tompkins, 10 Rozum Circle questioned whether the Prospect Self-Storage Facility at 38 Industrial Road was in full compliance with the approvals granted by Planning & Zoning and the zoning regulations. Mrs. Tompkins felt there are discrepancies in the hours of operation, the types of businesses operating out of the facility and the degree and intensity of the facility lighting. Mrs. Tompkins mentioned she had previously submitted a letter concerning Prospect Storage to the commission that was summarized by the Chairman but not read in its entirety. She does not feel those issues mentioned in her letter are being adequately addressed by Planning & Zoning. Chairman Hiscox stated copies of Mrs. Tompkins letter were sent to all commission members prior to the September 1st meeting, and he did read her letter in its entirety at that meeting. Chairman Hiscox stated that summarizing correspondence is the standard practice at all meetings. All correspondence received is filed and available for commission members and the public to review. He further stated he had asked Bill Donovan to send Mrs. Tompkins a letter advising her that her letter had been received and her points would be taken into consideration by the commission. Mrs. Tompkins stated these problems have been going on now for 3 years and are still not corrected. Chairman Hiscox again stated the commission will be reviewing the approvals granted to Prospect Storage, and at a future date he will ask the commission to visit Rozum Circle following a P&Z meeting when the storage facility’s lighting would be on to observe the effects of that lighting on the residents of Rozum Circle.
Old Business: None
Public Hearings: None
New Business:
a. Jerry L Gibson, 47 Morris Road. Application for a Special-Permit Home Occupation. Bill Donovan mentioned that Mr. Gibson was not able to attend tonight’s meeting because of a family emergency. Chairman Hiscox asked if the application was in order. Bill stated is was and Chairman Hiscox called for a vote to accept the application and set a date for a public hearing. Motion by A. Havican, seconded by D. Pomeroy to accept the application from Jerry Gibson for a Home Occupation for Real Estate Sales and set a public hearing for October 6, 2004 at 7:15 p.m. Unanimous.
b. Christine & Michael McAllen, 170 Scott Road. Pre-application review for Elderly Housing. Mr. & Mrs. McAllen are planning to utilize an existing, non-conforming building on their property for proposed elderly housing and were seeking the commission’s initial comments prior to formal application. Chairman Hiscox noted that the McAllen’s building is 200 feet long whereas the regulations limit the maximum length for a building for elderly housing to 150 feet. The regulations also limit the number of units per building to 8; the McAllens were planning to construct 9 units in their building. After discussion, the McAllens stated they will reduce the number of units in their building to 8 and apply for a variance to allow the building to remain at 200 feet in length. If the variance is approved, the McAllens will come back to the commission with a formal application for Elderly Housing.
c. Vincent Porzio, 97 Waterbury Road. Amendment to Site Plan. Mr. Porzio manages the Prospect Car Wash and presented a letter from the property owner, Joseph Commendatore allowing Mr. Porzio to present the application. Mr. Porzio stated that the existing underground suction hose used for vacuuming cars has broken somewhere between the building and the outside vacuum island. Rather than dig up the entire line to effect a repair, Mr. Porzio is proposing an overhead archway that would house the suction hose. The existing underground line would be abandoned. The existing vacuum islands would be relocated approximately 50 east of their present location to accommodate the proposed archway. Chairman Hiscox noted this would also move the vacuum island 50 feet further from the abutting residential properties. Motion by D. Pomeroy, seconded by A. Havican to accept and approve the application from Vincent Porzio for a Site Plan amendment to allow the construction of an overhead archway for a vacuum hose and the relocation of the existing vacuum islands at 97 Waterbury Road. Unanimous.
d. Prospect Resource Group, 54A Talmadge Hill Road. Pre-application review for elderly housing. Mark Lancor of Dymar Engineering represented the applicant. Mr. Lancor distributed to the commission copies of his letter of July 28th addressed to Dan Gracierstein of Prospect Resource Group. In his letter, Mr. Lancor describes the regulatory protocol and key items required in seeking a sewer connection from the Borough of Naugatuck’s sanitary collection and treatment system to the proposed elderly housing complex on Route 69 (54A Talmadge Hill Road). Mr. Lancor reviewed those items with the commission and asked what the next steps would be to move forward with Planning & Zoning. Chairman Hiscox raised several questions: what specific amendments to the Plan of Conservation & Development would be required, could the sanitary connection be utilized by other users along the route or would it be a private system solely for the benefit of the elderly housing project; what are the projected costs, and who would pay for those costs? Mr. Lancor stated the Town of Prospect would determine who would be able to connect, or not connect onto the sanitary line. Prospect’s WPCA and their regulations would likely be the authority ultimately responsible for final determination on contractual specifics, a defined service area and permitted future service connections. Chairman Hiscox cited what he felt would be benefits to the proposed sanitary extension: the option to connect industrial and other users within the aquifer protection area onto a sanitary system, and as an available sanitary connection for a proposed new school site adjacent Route 68. Possible negative consequences might be a higher density of housing and more intense use of properties. Chairman Hiscox stated he would want to see some type of an impact study done to address these issues. The commission recommended Mr. Lancor contact HMA Associates who worked with the commission in up-dating the Plan of Conservation and Development and zoning regulations. Bill Donovan will also contact HMA and advise Mr. Lancor accordingly on how Prospect Resource Group should proceed.
Public Participation: Kimberly Tompkins, 10 Rozum Circle asked for more detail on the Home Occupation at 47 Morris Road submitted earlier in the meeting. Mrs. Tompkins also asked if the commission had additional information on the proposed school site on Route 68. Chairman Hiscox stated the site is currently zoned Industrial and would require a zone change and additional site plan approval from Planning & Zoning. If the Town agrees to go forward with this site, Chairman Hiscox stated voters would first need to approve the purchase of this property and a second referendum to approve construction of a new school.
Land Use Inspector’s Report: Bill Donovan reported on inland wetlands issues at the Boulder Brook Elderly Housing project that resulted in a “Cease & Desist” enforcement order and a consequent Special Hearing before the Inland Wetlands Commission to determine whether the applicant’s permit itself should be revoked. Had the permit been revoked, the Special Permit issued for this project would then be in violation as one of the conditions of approval was the prior approval by the Inland Wetlands Commission. The Inland Wetlands commission did vote to retain the permit as a result of significant improvements to the site made by the applicant following the issuance of the “Cease & Desist” order. Commissioners asked questions on the status of various zoning violations. Chairman Hiscox directed Bill to actively continue with follow-up letters and enforcement orders. Motion by A. Havican, seconded by D. Pomeroy to accept the Land Use Inspector’s report. Unanimous.
Public Participation: None
Motion by D. Pomeroy, seconded by A. Havican to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. Unanimous.
Robert Hiscox
Robert Hiscox, Chairman