Board Members Present: Gil Graveline (7:05), Alan Havican, Donald Pomeroy and Thomas Galvin Alternates Present: Alexander Delelle Others Present: Bill Donovan, Land Use Inspector Members Absent: Robert Hiscox and Anthony Parrella (Alt.)
Acting Chairman Thomas Galvin called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. The meeting was taped. A. Delelle was seated for R. Hiscox.
Approval of Minutes: G. Graveline arrived and was seated as Acting Chairman. Motion by A. Havican, seconded by T. Galvin to approve the minutes of the July 20, 2005 meeting as presented. The Vote was 4-0 in favor with 1 abstention. Motion Carried
Correspondence: 1. Letter Dated July 8, 2005 from Kenneth Faroni, Planning & Permit Coordinator for O & G Industries, re: Prospect Quarry Security Status Report. >/br>2. Connecticut Water Company 2004 Water Quality Report. Motion by D. Pomeroy, seconded by T. Galvin to accept the correspondence. Unanimous.
Public Participation: Ed Miller, 29 Woodcrest Drive, commented on the security report received from O & G Industries.
Old Business: None
Public Hearings:
7:10 p.m. Michael Santangelo, 220 Straitsville Road. Special Permit Application for a Home Occupation for an Office – Carpentry Business. Acting Chairman G. Graveline read the “Notice of Public Hearing” as it appeared in the Republican American on July 22nd & 29th, 2005. Mike Santangelo submitted proof of notification to abutting owners and presented his application indicating that he wanted to use his home as the billing address for his carpentry business. Approximately 140 square feet of his home would be used for an office. No employees or clients would be coming to his home. Mr. Santangelo utilizes his personal, mid-size pick up truck for the business. The truck has no signage on it. There will be no outside storage of equipment or supplies. There were no comments from the public. Motion by D. Pomeroy, seconded by A. Delelle to close the public hearing for a special permit for a home office for a carpentry business at 220 Straitsville Road. Unanimous. Motion by A. Delelle, seconded by A. Havican to approve a special permit for a home office for a carpentry business at 220 Straitsville Road. Under discussion it was noted for the record that in the Commission’s judgment, the subject home occupation complies with the criteria set forth under Section 12.10 – Special Findings, of the Prospect Zoning Regulations. The vote on the motion was Unanimous.
7:15 p.m. Henry & Tammy Berberat, 83 Union City Road. Application for a Change of Zone Designation from Industrial (1) to Residential – 99 Union City Road. Acting Chairman G. Graveline read the “Notice of Public Hearing” as it appeared in the Republican American on July 22nd & 29th, 2005 and a letter from the property owners, Rita Stawarz, Lori Soden & Diane Randolph, giving their consent for Mr. & Mrs. Berberat to present the application for a change of zone. Attorney Edward Fitzpatrick indicated that he would be representing the Berberats and submitted proof of notification to abutting owners. Attorney Fitzpatrick stated that the vacant parcel is approximately 31 acres, bounded on the east and south by residential property and on the west and north by Business and Industrial. The applicant is proposing a change to RA-1to allow for a single-family development consisting of approximately 15 homes on a minimum of 1-acre lots. Attorney Fitzpatrick indicated that the zone change is consistent with the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development for the following reasons: 1) The property is located near an Acquifer Protection Zone. Attorney Fitzpatrick noted that special care must be taken when developing this parcel to limit or not permit high intensity uses and the proposed housing development would be a less intense use than an industrial development; 2) A portion of the property on Salem Road is already zoned residential; and 3) The Plan of Development calls for limiting noise and air pollution and improving quality of traffic. The proposed housing development would be serviced by city water and septic. The development would also provide a significant amount of open space to allow for buffers between abutting industrial property. Attorney Fitzpatrick also noted that if the property were changed to a RA-1 zone, cluster housing would not be permitted. G. Graveline questioned Atty. Fitzpatrick regarding the split zone. B. Donovan stated this property is similar to what was on Summit Road. The portion of the property on the Salem Road side was left as residential to create a buffer from any industrial development of the property. The hearing was opened to comments from the public. Attorney Kevin McSherry, 38 Fairview Avenue, Naugatuck, stated that he is representing several adjacent and abutting land owners who are opposed to the application and submitted a “Protest to Zone Change” as required by Article 14.4 of the Prospect Zoning Regulations. Submission of the protest will require a two-thirds majority vote of the Commission in order for this change to be approved. Attorney McSherry indicated that the purpose of keeping a portion of this site along Salem Road as residential was done expressly to provide protection from industrial traffic exiting on Salem Road. Abutting owners have a significant concern for an increase in residential traffic if the change is approved. Attorney McSherry stated that although the applicant is suggesting a single-family development, the Zoning Regulations would allow for a large-scale housing development with as many as 8 units per one acre of land. Attorney McSherry further stated that a change in the zone designation for this property would reduce the Town’s remaining Industrial/Commercial property deemed as able to be developed from 4% to 2.8%. Attorney McSherry suggested that although the Aquifer Protection Regulations would place constraints on the type of industrial use of this parcel, it could still allow for development to increase the industrial tax base for the Town which is completely in line with the Town’s Plan of Development. Attorney McSherry’s clients feel that it would be a mistake to approve this zone change and asked that the Commission deny the application. Barbara Dowling, 77 Salem Road, Donna Clark, 95 Union City Road, Ed Miller, 29 Woodcrest Drive, Eric Koch, 75 Salem Road, Jim DeCosta, 239 Cook Road and Brian Reilly, Cedar Hill Drive all stated opposition to the proposed change citing concerns with possible large-scale housing developments which could increase traffic exiting onto an already dangerous portion of Salem Road as well as Route 68. These residents also indicated that we shouldn’t be reducing our industrial tax base, we should be increasing it. More residential homes would mean more children in the school system as well. Acting Chairman G. Graveline read correspondence submitted regarding the proposed zone change. Mayor Robert Chatfield, Frank & Kathleen Bunker, 20 Cedar Hill Drive, Arlene Baker, 163 Matthew Street and James & Janice Blake, 2 Cedar Hill Road were all opposed to the change. Mike Scaviola, 4 Blue Trail Drive, stated that changing this parcel to residential will place an additional burden on existing businesses in the area when new residential neighbors want additional buffers from the existing businesses. Attorney Fitzpatrick stated that design of a new road entrance along Route 68 would be regulated by the State Department of Transportation. Also, determination of whether the proposed road would be a through-road to Salem Road or be a cul-de-sac would be based on issues with wetlands and site line distances. Attorney Fitzpatrick restated that the proposed development would be a single-family home development. A multi-family development can not be constructed without sanitary sewer connection. The only exception to that would be if the State were to determine the site suitable for affordable housing as there currently is an insufficient amount of affordable housing in Prospect. Burrus Harlow, 7 Cedar Hill Drive, stated that an industrial use of this property would have less impact on area water supply than a residential development. Attorney Fitzpatrick reiterated that the proposed development would be serviced by city water. Attorney McSherry argued that regarding the sewage issue as related by Attorney Fitzpatrick, an adequate septic system could be designed for a large complex with many units to be in accord with the Town’s Regulations. There were no further comments from the public. Motion by D. Pomeroy to close the public hearing. T. Galvin felt the hearing should remain open to allow for further input related to the small portion of this parcel that is residential. A. Havican agreed the hearing could be continued to the next meeting to allow for any necessary information to be submitted. There was no second to the motion. The hearing was continued to August 17, 2005 at 7:45 p.m.
8:20 p.m.Robert & Mark Capanna, 100 Scott Road. Special Permit Application for General Contracting, Construction of Industrial Building and Processing & Stockpiling of Earth Material. The hearing was continued from July 20, 2005. Acting Chairman G. Graveline read a letter dated July 28, 2005 from William Stafford, owner of 100 Scott Road, citing the history of this parcel regarding zoning issues and Town official’s reluctance to change the zone to residential, thereby reducing available property for industrial development. Also read into the record was a legal argument submitted by Attorney Franklin Pilicy, the applicant’s attorney, stating that “The proposed use is authorized subject to a Special Permit as set forth in the “Land Uses” section of the Zoning Regulations”. Andy Green, professional engineer with Milone & MacBroom, reviewed minor changes made to the site plan and addressed concerns stated at the previous meeting. The Commissioners received a packet of information regarding questions raised at the previous meeting. G. Graveline asked whether the location of the gate had been changed on the site plan. Mr. Green stated that it had not. The hearing was opened to the public for comments. Doug Gokey, Timber Hill Road, Michele Vitti, 52 Scott Road, Larry Barone, Timber Hill Road, Donna Miribilio, Timber Hill Road, Ron Laone, 111 Scott Road, John Killinger, Cheryl Lane, Pam Walsh, 29 Cheryl Lane, Hernold Linton, 89 Scott Road, and Rich Porter, 24 Timber Hill Road, all spoke in opposition to the proposed application citing traffic issues with speeding vehicles along Scott Road, large commercial vehicles entering and exiting the site, site line restrictions in the area, school bus safety concerns, noise generated from processing operations, dust control issues and reduced property values. Mr. Gokey also stated that the applicant had not stated the number of trucks that would be stored on site, types of equipment that would be utilized and the types of business that might be allowed in the rented space of the building. Neighbors agreed that the site has always been zoned industrial, however the character of Scott Road has changed over the years and this type of industrial use would not be appropriate for this site. Jack Crumb, Maria Hotchkiss Road, stated his support for the applicants, indicating that he knows them to stand behind their word and also stated the same for their engineering firm. Mr. Crumb is in favor of keeping the property zoned industrial. T. Galvin asked the applicant whether the possibility exists to move the entrance to the site if they own the property on both sides of this lot. The applicant indicated there would be greater disturbance to wetlands. There were no further comments from the public. Motion by D. Pomeroy, seconded by T. Galvin to close the public hearing for a special permit for general contracting, construction of an industrial building, processing and stockpiling of earth material for 100 Scott Road. Unanimous.
Motionby A. Havican, seconded by T. Galvin to move to “New Business” before continuing with the next scheduled public hearing. Unanimous.
New Business: a.Sandra Esteves & Brian Grom, 34 Salem Road. Special Permit Application for a Child Consignment Resale Store – 33 Union City Road. A letter was read from Robert Pinto granting permission for presentation of this application. Sandra Esteves & Brian Grom stated that they would like to open a child consignment store in a portion of the building at 33 Union City Road. Used children’s goods for ages up to size 14/16 as well as used infant furniture is proposed for resale. Ms. Esteves stated that an occasional outdoor display of small items would be kept to a minimum. Motion by T. Galvin, seconded by A. Delelle to accept the application for a special permit for a child consignment resale store at 33 Union City Rd. and set a public hearing for Aug. 17, 2005 at 7:05 p.m. Unanimous.
8:35 p.m. – Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Regulations – Section 5.3.3, Junk Vehicles, Unregistered
Motor Vehicles, Vehicles Involved in Restoration. The public hearing was continued from July 20, 2005. Acting
Chairman G. Graveline read the acknowledgement of receipt from the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck
Valley and the South Central Regional Council of Governments. Land Use Inspector, Bill Donovan, stated that the
hearing was continued to allow time for comments from the Regional Planning Agencies. The Commissioners reviewed
the memo submitted at the previous meeting describing the proposed amendment. Bill stated that a correction should
be made to Section 5.3.3.4 to read “A maximum of two (2) vehicles, registered or unregistered, fit or unfit for highway
use as described in Sections 5.3.3.1 through 5.3.3.3 shall be allowed to be stored outdoors on a lot at any one time”.
The Commissioners agreed with the change.
Land Use Inspector’s Report: Bill Donovan reported on a citation notice issued for a produce vendor on Route 69 who had been issued a solicitor’s permit by the Mayor’s office. Bill stated that due to miscommunications between the Mayor’s office and the Planning & Zoning Commission the vendor will be allowed to finish out this season. Prospect Resource Group will be holding an informational meeting at Addona’s Catering Facility on August 9th to give an overview of the congregate elderly housing project that is being proposed on Route 69. Bill also reported that the Commissioner’s would soon have to consider whether a lounge would be allowed as an accessory use to a proposed new restaurant, as a “bar” is a prohibitive use in the Regulations. Motion by A. Havican, seconded by T. Galvin to accept the Land Use Inspector’s Report. Unanimous
.Public Participation: None
Motion by A. Havican, seconded by D. Pomeroy to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Unanimous.Gil Graveline Gil Graveline, Acting Chairman