Board Members Present: Robert Hiscox, Gil Graveline, Alan Havican, Donald Pomeroy and Thomas Galvin Alternates Present: None Others Present: Bill Donovan, Land Use Inspector Members Absent: Francis Carpentier (Alt.), Anthony Parrella (Alt.) and Alexander Delelle (Alt.)
Chairman R. Hiscox called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was taped. Chairman Hiscox stated that he had received a letter of resignation from Alternate Member Francis Carpentier stating that he was moving out of Prospect. D. Pomeroy commented that Fran offered a lot to the Commission and that he would be missed. The other members agreed.
Approval of Minutes: Motion by A. Havican, seconded by D. Pomeroy to approve the minutes of the June 1, 2005 meeting as presented. Unanimous.Correspondence:
Chairman Hiscox asked Bill to look into a boat on Farmwood Drive. Motion by T. Galvin, seconded by G. Graveline to accept the correspondence. Unanimous.
Public Participation: None
a. Keith Gavigan, 5 Amber Court – Review of Home Occupation Permit. Bill Donovan stated that he had received a phone call from Mr. Gavigan indicating that the storage tank had been removed from his property on June 6, 2005. Chairman Hiscox and T. Galvin stated they had driven by 5 Amber Court and noted the storage tank was gone. The Commissioners felt that no further action needed to be taken at this time.
b. Amendment to Zoning Regulations – Unregistered Motor Vehicles. Bill Donovan indicated that he is in the process of rewording the language for the proposed amendment. Chairman Hiscox stated that the proposed amendment would be carried on the next meeting agenda.
New Business: a.Doris A. Primus, 33 Union City Road – Special Permit Application for a Tanning Salon. David and Doris Primus of 23 Scott Road stated they are seeking to open a tanning salon to be located in a portion of the existing building at 33 Union City Road previously occupied by Parties With Pizzazz. The property owner, Robert Pinto, was in attendance. There would be only one employee and no public restroom. Chesprocott approval has been received. Motion by T. Galvin, seconded by G. Graveline to accept the special permit application for a tanning salon at 33 Union City Road and set a public hearing for July 6, 2005 at 7:10 p.m. Unanimous.
Land Use Inspector’s Report:Bill Donovan distributed an updated Zoning Enforcement Log dated June 15, 2005. The Commissioners briefly discussed the log. Bill indicated that there are three new locations being served with a notice of violation for firewood storage, 249 Cheshire Road, 105 Waterbury Road and 110 Waterbury Road. Bill also stated that he would be investigating Curtiss Water Gardens on Union City Road for the same type of violation. Chairman Hiscox stated that canvas structures are still located at 122 Waterbury Road and 25 Straitsville Road. Bill stated that he has issued a municipal citation to St. Anthony’s Church for large commercial vehicles. Father Cascia has contacted Bill and indicated that the situation will be handled. Bill is in the process of notifying the alleged home occupation violations cited at the previous meeting. [continued on page 3]
7:18 p.m. – Diane Hamelin, 192 Straitsville Road. Petition to Amend the Zoning Regulations to Add Canine Day Care as a Permitted Use in a Business Zone, Industrial (1) or Industrial (2) Zone. Chairman Hiscox read the notice of public hearing as it appeared in the Republican American on June 3rd & 10th, 2005. Referral from the Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley Staff Recommendation was noted for the record also. Chairman Hiscox stated that a similar petition was presented at a previous meeting. The previous proposal requested the added use in a business zone by special permit. The applicant withdrew the previous petition and resubmitted a new petition to add “canine day care” as an allowed use in a Business zone, Industrial (1) zone or Industrial (2) zone by special permit. The Commissioners agreed that testimony for the previous application would be considered a part of the current petition before them for consideration. Diane Hamelin stated that she has been working with canine care including training and grooming for the past twenty years. Mrs. Hamelin stated that it is becoming more evident that there is a need for daytime care for pets and offered the following criteria for consideration. A canine day care would provide an environment that is safe, monitored and controlled where owners can entrust care for their pet for the day. The atmosphere should provide controlled and monitored socializing, play, exercise, training and grooming activity. The program is structured for sociable canines only. A pet assessment would be conducted prior to enrollment. Day care hours would be Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Only healthy, fully vaccinated canines more than 4 months of age would be allowed and any canines 6 months of age and older must be spayed or neutered and all canines will be licensed. The environment should provide an outdoor exercise area with fencing at least five feet high as well as a sight barrier. Any canine found to be barking for more than five minutes would be moved inside to substantially muffle the sound. The environment inside and outside shall be maintained in a sanitary and odor free condition at all times. Canine waste shall be immediately collected and the area sanitized. Waste shall be contained in a closed container and disposed of off site. Interior space shall be provided and allow for a minimum of approximately 50 square feet per dog, however, the actual area could vary based on the size of the dog. One supervisor is required for approximately fifteen dogs and shall be present at all times. Parking would be in compliance with Section 6.4 of the Regualations and would require an area for drop off and pick up. Signage shall comply with Section 8.4. Mrs. Hamelin stated that this criteria is based on information received from Susan Briggs, Chairperson of the American Boarding Kennel Association Committee responsible for setting standards for canine day care centers. Bill Donovan asked Mrs. Hamelin if she felt an industrial zoned location is appropriate for a canine day care facility. Mrs. Hamelin stated her preference would be a residential setting, however depending on the location of the property, an industrial site could be set up to be appropriate. Chairman Hiscox stated that his concerns revolve around nuisance noise associated with barking dogs and feels that an industrial site would be more favorable than a business zone. It was reiterated that this use if approved would be by special permit only. Mrs. Hamelin expanded on the sight barriers to help to eliminate the potential for barking. G. Graveline asked if separation of different types of dogs would reduce the potential of barking. Chairman Hiscox asked Mrs. Hamelin how enforcement could be handled if complaints of barking dogs were to become a problem. Mrs. Hamelin stated it should be handled in the same manner that any other type of noise complaint would be enforced. The hearing was opened to the public for comments. There were no comments from the public. G. Graveline suggested that the Commission might want to include a list of criteria to be included in the Regulations specifically relating to a “canine day care”. Motion by D. Pomeroy, seconded by G. Graveline to close the public hearing for a proposed amendment to the Regulations to allow for a “canine day care” in a Business zone, Industrial (1) zone or Industrial (2) zone by special permit. Unanimous.
7:45 p.m. – Andrew Adames, 41 Punkup Road, Oxford, CT. Change of Zone Designation from Residential to Business for a Portion of 124 Waterbury Road. The public hearing was continued from June 1, 2005. Attorney Robert Uskevich represented the applicant and presented a reconfigured drawing to allow a portion of 124 Waterbury Road to be re-zoned as business, leaving the remaining 1.37 acres as residential. Attorney Uskevich stated that based on comments at the previous meeting, the engineer was able to substantially reduce the impact on abutting residential properties. If the zone change is granted a lot line revision will be made and an easement granted for access to the remaining residential lot. Chairman Hiscox asked whether the remaining residential lot would be considered a rear lot. Attorney Uskevich stated that based on Prospect’s Regulations he would consider the remaining residential lot to be a “flag” lot with an area in excess of 60,000 square feet. Attorney Uskevich further stated that the proposed change is not changing the status of the second lot. A lot line revision would make the existing front lot larger and the second lot smaller while keeping each lot in conformity with the requirements of the Regulations. Attorney Uskevich summarized that the proposed zone change is consistent with Prospect’s Comprehensive Plan that indicates some business use would be integrated with residential along the Route 69 corridor. Attorney Uskevich stated that recent development in Town has already started that process and that the reconfigured map proposed this evening provides a greater buffer for the abutting residential properties. The hearing was opened to comments from the public. Donna Marlak, 8 Maria Hotchkiss Road, stated she was opposed to the zone change and cited concerns for her water supply. Tanya Marlak-Sage, 15 Maria Hotchkiss Road, cited concerns with the effects that a restaurant would have on a residential neighborhood. George Marlak, 8 Maria Hotchkiss Road, asked for clarification of the buffer area discussed. John Altmann, 10 Maria Hotchkiss Road, is opposed to the zone change stating the property is not commercial viable as was determined by a previous Planning & Zoning Commission in 1985. Cheryl Glick, 128 Waterbury Road, asked for clarification of the access driveway. Ann Stein, Cook Road, asked why the entire 124 Waterbury Road wouldn’t be changed to business. There were no further comments from the public. Motion by T. Galvin, seconded by D. Pomeroy to close the public hearing for a proposed zone change for a portion of 124 Waterbury Road from residential to business. Unanimous.
Land Use Inspector’s Report: [continued] Bill Donovan had nothing further to report. Chairman Hiscox restated that time lines needed to be strictly adhered to regarding enforcement issues. Motion by A. Havican, seconded by G. Graveline to accept the Land Use Inspector’s Report. Unanimous
Public Participation: Hank Berberat, Tesco Rentals, stated that Bill Donovan suggested that the Commission be updated regarding progress at the Boulder Brook project and Mr. Berberat submitted a drawing showing proposed deck/patio locations for each of the units. Mr. Berberat stated that decks were not shown on the original plans. The Commissioners reviewed the drawing submitted noting the decks or patios would not fall within setback areas. The Commissioners had no concerns with the proposed decks.
Bill Donovan asked the Commissioners for direction as to what the next step will be regarding the proposed sewer extension. The Commissioners discussed comments received at a public workshop held on June 8th as well as whether or not another public workshop should be held. Discussion was also held on determining the Water Pollution Control Authority’s role is in this process. It was decided that Prospect Resource Group should submit a formal petition to amend the Plan of Development, including applicable fees, with specific language as to their proposed changes being requested. The Commission will then move forward with a formal public hearing.
Motion by A. Havican, seconded by T. Galvin to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Unanimous.
Robert Hiscox, Chairman