Board Members Present: Robert Hiscox, Donald Pomeroy, and Thomas Galvin Alternates Present: None Others Present: Bill Donovan, Land Use Inspector Members Absent: Gil Graveline, Alan Havican, Francis Carpentier (Alt.) Anthony Parella (Alt.) and Alexander Delelle (Alt.)
Chairman Robert Hiscox called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was taped.
Approval of Minutes: Motion by D. Pomeroy, seconded by R. Hiscox to approve the minutes of the March 16, 2005 meeting as presented. The vote on the motion was 2-0 in favor with T. Galvin abstaining. Motion Carried.
Correspondence: 1. Letter dated March 17, 2005 from Carmody & Torrance re: Capanna V. Planning and Zoning Commission.
Motion by D. Pomeroy, seconded by T. Galvin to accept the correspondence. Unanimous.
Public Participation: Fran Carpentier, 1 Overlook Court, presented the Commissioners with pictures and comments regarding four properties on Plank Road with apparent zoning violations. Mr. Carpentier asked the Commissioners to act promptly to rectify the issues he outlined, as he believes the violations create a "less-than-desirable image of Plank Road, the surrounding streets and the Town of Prospect." The Commissioners briefly discussed the properties cited by Mr. Carpentier, noting that a cease & desist order had been issued previously on at least one of the properties. Bill Donovan was directed to upgrade enforcement procedures regarding these properties. T. Galvin cautioned that enforcement actions should be reviewed to ensure properties that have been cited previously be upgraded prior to enforcement actions for new allegations. Dave Krikorian, 4 Boardman Drive, stated the same concerns on Plank Road as Mr. Carpenter and asked when the issues would be resolved. Chairman Hiscox reviewed the enforcement process.
Old Business: none
Public Hearings: 7:15 p.m. - Toll Brothers, Inc., 53 Church Hill Road, Newtown, CT. Petition to amend the Zoning Regulations - Section 4.1 - Elderly Housing. Chairman Hiscox read the Notice of Public Hearing as it appeared in the Republican American on March 24th and April 1st, 2005. Attorney Edward Fitzpatrick represented the applicant and outlined proposed amendments. Attorney Fitzpatrick stated that the current requirements to designate 30% of the proposed units as affordable housing does not coincide with neighboring municipalities. Many have no requirements. Middlebury suggests 10% but it is not required. The recommended change is to require 15% of proposed units to be designated as affordable. This reduction would allow for a viable project while eliminating the need for mid-rise buildings with architectural consequences and fire safety issues. Attorney Fitzpatrick stated that the intent of 55 and older developments allow a municpality's aging population to remain in the community, with no impact on the school system and low impacts on Town resources while providing a substantial tax benefit to the Town. The second amendment would determine qualifying median income utilizing the Waterbury Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area. Attorney Fitzpatrick stated that this is the method that would be used for the Town of Prospect. A third amendment would increase the allowed number of three-bednroom units not to exceed 50% of the total untis. Again, Attorney Fitzpatrick stated that these restrictions are not found in surrounding municipalities. Chairman Hiscox questioned the need for more three-bedroom units. Bob Robertson of Toll Brosthers stated that the primary use of the third bedroom in recent projects has been for a study or home office. The final amendment is to reduce exterior wall offsets from "at least ten feet" to "at least two feet." Attorney Fitzpatrick showed a picture of how the reduced offsets could enhance the overall architectural design of a proposed project stating that the Commissioners could require proposed architectural design as part of an application review. Chairman Hiscox read staff recommendations from the Regional Planning Commission, Council of the Central Naugatuck Valley indicating that the proposed revisions are not in accordance with the Regional Plan of Conservation and Development. Attorney Fitzpatrick stated in response that the Town's current Regulations are designed for a "set aside" development. Toll Brothers would not be proposing an affordable project and since the Town has only one elderly housing regulation, they are looking for a regulation to come under to propose an over 55 community with an affordable component. The hearing was opened to the public for comments. Rich Maloney, 5 Heritage Drive, was not in favor of more three-beddroom units, questioning who would oversee limits on who would be residing there. Christine McAllen, Sherwood Drive, asked what effect these proposed changes would have on her elderly housing applications if approved. In order for Mrs. McAllen to change her elderly housing project, she would need to come back to the Commisison for an amendment. Patricia Geary, 31 Lee Road, asked about the standards to determine eligibility for affordable units and whether any untis would be handicapped accessible. Mrs. Geary also stated concerns with three-bedroom units. There were no further comments from the public. Motion by T. Galvin, seconded by D. Pomeroy to close the public hearing for a petition to amend the Zoning Regulations Section 4/1 - Elderly Housing. Unanimous.
8:07 p.m.- Town of Prospect, 36 Center Street, Proposed Text Changes, Corrections, Deletions, and Additions to Zoning & Subdivision Regulations. Chairman Hiscox dispensed with reading the notice of public hearing due to the length but noted that it is on file and appeared in the Republican American on March 24th and April 1st, 2005. Copies were made available for the public. Bill Donovan reviewed each item as proposed. Chairman Hiscox noted that staff comments received from the Regional Planning Commission, Council of the Central Naugatuck Valley, read at the previous public hearing would be made a part of this public hearing as well. The hearing was opened to comments from the public. George Carrinton, 18 Lee Road, asked whether the 40-year limit associated with designated affordable housing could be extended by the Town. Bill Donovan stated that the limit is part of the statutory language under Section 8-30g. Chairman Hiscox directed Bill to check with the Town Attorney. Tom Satkunas, 232 New Haven Road, questioned the intent of the proposed zoning regulation change to Section 3-1- Uses by District, under IND-1 and IND-2 to add General Contractors, Service and Equipment (SP) and Processing of Earth Material, Stockpiling of Earth Material (SP). Mr. Satkunas was concerned with the possible consequences to commercial property by limiting uses. Mike Renkwith, 54 Clark Hill Road, stated a concern with notification of abutting owners regarding home occupations. Chairman Hiscox stated that an application for a special permit does require proof of notification to abutting owners. Mr. Renkwith also questioned the 200-foot notification requirement when the applicant lives within a 55 & older development. Rich Maloney, 5 Heritage Drive, asked whether the Commission would consider incorporating set backs from the road and/or visual screening with the proposed new uses within an industrial zone. Mr. Maloney also indicated that allowing earth processing within an industrial zone wouldn't necessarilty enhance the area and could be a detriment to neighboring businesses. There were no further comments from the public. Chairman Hiscox asked for clarification of set aside development. Bill Donovan referred the Commissioners to the letter from the Town Attorney distributed at the March 16th meeting and gave an interpretation of affordable housing requirements. Motion by T. Galvin, seconded by D. Pomeroy to close the public hearing for proposed text changes, corrections, deletions and additions to Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Unanimous,
8:43 p.m. - G.& G. Trust, 103 Union City Road. Application for a Change of Zoning Designation from Industrial to Business. Chairman Hiscox read the notice of public hearing as it appeared in the Republican American on March 24th and April 1, 2005. Letters were also read into the record from John & Catherine Guerreiro, 3 Cedar Hill Drive, and Peter Scionti of Eagle Auto Body, 128 Union City Road, in support of the proposed zone change. Proof of notification to abutting properties was received. Gregory Ploski represented the applicant and described the subject property which is located within an acquifier area. Mr. Ploski also stated that they would like to encourage more retail use in the building and feels that the change is compatible with surrounding properties and in compliance with the Town's Plan of Development. The hearing was opened to comments from the public. The following residents spoke in favor of the proposed zone change stating the property has sufficient room for parking, is an appropriate site for encouraging retail businesses and the change could lessen the impact on the acquifer area: Tom Satkunas, 232 New Haven Road, Donna Clark, 92 Union City Road, Theresa Desrochers, Dorothy Avenue, Carmen ACcousti, 77R Clark Hill Road, Bob Tuckey, 7 Rockridge Terrace, Ernie LeClerc, 9 Genest Avenue, Mark Lloret, 95 Salem Road, George Carrington, 18 Lee Road, Bob Pinto, Union City Road and Rich Rioux, 8 Stephen Court. There were no further comments from the public. Motion by D. Pomeroy, seconded by T. Galvin to close the public hearing for a change of zoning designatin from Industrial to Business for property located at 103 Union City Road. Unanimous. Discussion was held on the proposed zone change. In the Commissioners' opinion the change would comply with the Town's Plan of Development and the Town Zoning Map. Motion by T. Galvin, seconded by D. Pomeroy to change the zoning designation for 103 Union City Road from Industrial-(1) to Business and set the effective date for the change at May 6, 2005. Unanimous
a. Prospect Resource Group, Hamden, CT. Petition to Amend Prospect's Plan of Conservation & Development to Establish a Sewer District with the Extension of Sanitary Sewers. Chairman Hiscox stated that there would not be a formal petition presented this evening, however, an informal discussion would be held with a representative of the Town's planning firm. Dick Harrall of HMA, Inc., stated that he was asked to work with the prospective applicant at their expense to analyze and present information to the Commission onpossible implications of different directions the Town might take regarding the establishment of a sewer district and/or extension of sanitary sewers. Mr. Harrall distributed copies of a "Report on a Possible Amendment to the Prospect Plan of Conservation and Development" for the Commissioners. Mr. Harrall explained that a proposal is pending for development of a parcel on Route 69 for planned congregate elderly housing. The applicant has determined that in order to develop the parcel, installation of sanitary sewers primarily for economic development and different housing types. The future proposed development for the Route 69 property is intending to provide a more diverse housing mix. Mr. Harrall's report goes on to provide an analysis for consideration by the Commission of two alternative approaches for a potential sewer service district. The analysis questions whether the use of the sewer line in the future, if constructed, is restricted to just the proposed development or, because it passes by a number of adjacent parcels, would become available to additional users. The report further provides information as to the potential impacts of a large sewer service area. Mr. Harrall's report will be on file in the Land Use Office for review. Mr. Harrall stated in summary that the creation of a sewer district is not necessary to accommodate the proposed development, however, if the Town chooses to change the sewer policy to serve a larger area, an amendment would be required to the Plan of Development. Mr. Harralll suggested that the Commission provide a copy of this report to the town attorney for review.
b.Sean Galvin, 27 Rockridge Terrace, Application for a Special Permit for a Home Occupation - Lawn Care Service. The applicant was not in attendance.
Land Use Inspector's Report: Bill Donovan reported that the enforcement hearing held for a citation issued for a commercial truck on residential property on Clark Hill Road resulted in no fine being imposed. Based on documentation supplied by the property owner, the hearing officers determined that the property owner had a pre-exising non-conforming use. The Commissioners discussed tightening the time lines for zoning enforcement and strictly following the time lines. Motion by T. Galvin, seconded by D. Pomeroy to accept the Land Use Inspector's report. Unanimous
Public Participation: None
Motion D. Pomeroy, seconded by T. Galvin to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Unanimous
Robert Hiscox, Chairman