Board Members Present: Robert Hiscox, Gil Graveline, Don Pomeroy, Tom Galvin, & Al Havican Alternates Present: Jack Crumb & Al Delelle Others Present: Bill Donovan, Land Use Inspector Members Absent: none
Chairman Robert Hiscox called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. The meeting was taped.
Approval of Minutes: Chairman Hiscox asked about the gate between the Citgo Station, 20 Union City Road and Prospect Towing at 1 Old Schoolhouse Road and whether it is for emergency access only. The Commission discussed that the intent of the gate is for emergency purposes only. Motion by G. Graveline, seconded by A. Havican to accept the minutes of the August 2, 2006 meeting as amended. Unanimous.
Correspondence: 1.) Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley memo Re: Revisions in State Statutes Concerning Requirements 2.) BL Companies Re: Land Use Agent Professionalism 3.) DEP letter Re: Dam construction 4.) Carmody & Torrance letter Re: Boulder Brook Development Site Improvement Bond
Motion by A. Havican, seconded by G. Graveline to accept the correspondence. Unanimous.
Public Participation: John Kaufman, Chairman of the Prospect Open Space Purchase Advisory Committee (POSPAC) discussed open space at the Finno property. He mentioned the Plan of Development and some things in the Plan not complying with the Regulations, specifically where it mentions conservation lands should be zoned residential two acre. Mr. Kaufman submitted a letter discussing the POSPAC recommendations regarding for a Public Airing and Change of Regulations. Also attached were two letters: Regional Water Authority regarding Finno Development and State of Connecticut Department of Public Health regarding Drinking Water Source Protection review for the Finno property.
Old Business: (see page 2)
Public Hearings: 7:10 p.m. HESCH, LLC, 54A Talmadge Hill Rd. Zone Change application from Planned Congregate Elderly (PCEH) & Business District (B) to Residential One Acre (R1A). (Public hearing continued from July 5th, 2006) Frank Marcantonio representing the applicant discussed traffic concerns that were brought up at the last meeting. He mentioned the Village of East Farms on Scott Road. There are 182 residents approximately 1/3 with cars and 100 employees. This equals out to approximately 160 vehicles driving in and out of the complex a day versus a 30 lot subdivision where approximately 60 cars a day would be traveling in and out of the development. The PCEH development that could possibly be built on this property could generate more than 300 cars going in and out daily. He feels that there would certainly be fewer cars with residential homes as opposed to Planned Congregate Elderly Housing Development. Mr. Marcantonio also mentioned the Plan of Conservation and Development and the business corridor. He further discussed the amount of traffic that would be generated if the business property was developed. Mr. Marcantonio noted one of the maps in the plan does not show business south of route 68. He also discussed several maps in the plan. Mr. Marcantonio mentioned a letter from the Commission extending the residential one-acre status of the property to October, 2004. The owner of the property at the time requested an extension to keep the PCEH Zone. Mr. Marcantonio mentioned other inconsistencies with the Plan. R. Hiscox asked approximately how many acres of wetlands are on the property. Mr. Marcantonio stated that there are about 6 acres of wetlands. Chairman Hiscox asked for comments from the public: Doug Barnes, Heritage Drive asked about a cut through road. Chairman Hiscox stated that in all likelihood if the land were to be developed it would have both the entrance and exit off of Route 69. John Kaufman, Clark Hill Road mentioned the Plan and cited Map 20, Land Use Plan which has this property zoned as Residential two Acre. Also, Map 17 in the Plan lists this piece of property as a potential school site. Mr. Kaufman feels that this is a better use for the land. Chairman Hiscox stated that this land has to be changed to Residential in order to put a school there anyways. Ann Stein, Cook Road wanted to agree with Mr. Kaufman. She would also rather see this property Residential 2 acre. Greg Ploski, Clark Hill Road discussed Residential two acre zoning. Tom Satkunas, 232 New Haven Road feels that the zone should stay the same. Adelle Grey, Cook Road would also like to leave the zone the way it is. G. Graveline asked B. Donovan if there was a time limit on the PCEH Zone. B. Donovan mentioned that the PCEH zone was to stay in effect until Oct. 2004. After that time the Commission felt that there was no great need to convert it back to Residential One Acre until in the future someone proposed to change the zone. B. Donovan also mentioned the proposed change to the Plan to allow for a sewer extension to this property that was denied; therefore a PCEH development could not go on this property without a sewer; the necessary utilities to support that type of complex are not available. Mr. Marcantonio wanted to state that the difference between the Residential 1 and 2 acre zone is approximately 10 houses, rather than a very large commercial building. Motion by T. Galvin, seconded by G. Graveline to close the pubic hearing for a Zone Change at 54 A Talmadge Hill Road, from Planned Congregate Elderly Housing (PCEH) and Business District (B) to Residential One Acre (R1A), submitted by HESCH, LLC. Unanimous.
Old Business: Finno Development, Inc., 80 Cook Road. Application for a 27-lot residential subdivision. (Public hearing closed 7/5/06) Atty. Duffy, representing the applicant submitted a revised plan showing the open space greenway across the top of the property and a reconfigured subdivision. This plan is showing 23 lots as opposed to 27 lots. Chairman Hiscox asked about the easement for the town across the land to Dogwood Drive. Atty. Duffy stated he does not want the open space greenway to be used for vehicular traffic. The Commission and the applicant discussed widening the southern boundary of the open space parcel to allow for foot traffic onto the Ridgewood Country Club property for potential continuation of this greenway. Chairman Hiscox stated that there is no intent for the greenway to become a place for vehicular traffic. A. Havican stated he feels this plan is well done. Chairman Hiscox asked if the town engineer had time to double check the reconfiguration and the drainage. Atty. Duffy stated that the town engineer has not reviewed this updated plan. D. Pomeroy asked about the detention basin. Atty. Duffy discussed changes in drainage. Chairman Hiscox feels that this plan is substantially better than the other proposals for the open space land. Atty. Duffy mentioned the Conservation Area that is still in place on Lot 13. The Commission discussed the Wetlands Commission reviewing the plan to confirm that this plan is not more of an impact on wetlands than what was approved. G. Graveline asked if the detention basin has been changed at all. Atty. Duffy stated that the basin has not been changed. This detention basin drainage has been re-designed for this development – no longer including Dogwood Drive. Chairman Hiscox wants Gene McCarthy, the Assistant Director of Public Works and the Chairman of the Inland Wetlands Commission to review this plan. The Commission is accepting this as a modification to the original plan and not a new application. Chairman Hiscox again mentioned that this open space is the best of the proposals. Although the other proposals did meet the regulation this plan provides for potential future open space to other properties on either side of this property. The resolution will state that there is no vehicular traffic permitted through the open space greenway. B. Donovan stated Gene McCarthy and the Wetlands Commission will need a more detailed plan for review. Atty. Duffy stated that the size of the piping in the roads will not be changed. B. Donovan will draft a Resolution of Approval for the following meeting.
New Business: Jim Decosta, 16 Industrial Road. Proposed new 5,000 SF Industrial Building. Mr. DeCosta is proposing to build an additional metal framed building on his property. He presented the Commission with an “A-2” as-built of the property and the proposed new building drawn in; 150 feet by 50 feet (7500 square feet). Chairman Hiscox asked if the building will meet all setbacks. Mr. Decosta stated that yes it will meet all setbacks and there will be the required 100 foot buffer to the residential properties. This business repairs forklifts. The applicant stated that this building will be for mostly storage. Chairman Hiscox stated that this application is for a storage building. If the applicant in the future wants to do something other than storage in this new building he will have to apply for a Change of Use. B. Donovan mentioned that there be a condition of approval that the Fire Marshall reviews this building. Motion by T. Galvin, seconded by D. Pomeroy to accept and approve the application submitted by Jim DeCosta for a 7,500 SF (150ft.x50ft.) Industrial Building at 16 Industrial Road. Unanimous.
Mark & Karen Southard, 17 Salem Road. Pre-application review for two lot subdivision. Rowland Desrosier, a licensed surveyor, presented the Commission with a plan that is currently before the Inlands Wetlands Commission. The Wetlands Commission asked Mr. Desrosier to review this plan with the Planning and Zoning Commission and see whether or not they would be in favor of the existing driveway off of Salem Road being utilized for not only the 3 current houses but the 2 proposed houses so that they will not have to create a driveway that disturbs an extensive amount of wetlands to access onto Straitsville Road. The Commission discussed rear lots and stacking. The Chairman stated that his immediate concern is the rear lot issue. Utilizing the existing driveway violates the driveway regulations. T. Galvin mentioned the length of the driveway. The proposed driveway from Straitsville Road will be approximately 1,000 feet in length which is 500 feet more than the maximum allowed length of a driveway according to the Subdivision Regulations. Chairman Hiscox stated this is probably a feasible alternative for a driveway but it might be more feasible as a road because there is a 50 foot right of way. G. Graveline asked if the Commission has any power over an easement access way. G. Graveline feels that this would work with a fee simple strip; they would be rear lots fronting off of Straitsville Road. D. Pomeroy feels that the original proposal with the access to Straitsville is consistent with the Commission’s previous decisions. Mr. Desrosier mentioned Section 7 of the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant feels that this is a unique situation.,
Land Use Inspector’s Report: B. Donovan presented the Commission with a proposal on 80 Straitsville Road. The plan is showing a single lot and a single home in the rear of the property. Instead of building a driveway through the wetlands the proposal is to access in the way of an easement on the current driveway. Chairman Hiscox asked if a single driveway should service 3 or more lots. The Commission discussed rear lots and the length of driveways. The length restriction of driveways only applies to subdivisions. The Commission feels that this plan meets the regulations; however they would not be in favor of a re-subdivision proposal for this lot as the original subdivision proposal for the entire parcel, including 80 Straitsville Road, called for a maximum of three lots. The Chairman stated that he feels this is bad precedent. B. Donovan also mentioned a large parcel on Summit Road that the land owner wants to split. The Commission discussed rear lots. In the Zoning Regulations the minimum frontage is 150 feet. The Zoning Regulations does define a rear lot as the same in the Subdivision Regulations. Therefore, does the Commission feel that rear lots are allowed in our Zoning Regulations? B. Donovan submitted a sample drawing. B. Donovan is asking that given rear lots are referenced in the Zoning Regulations would the Commission allow someone to create a rear lot when there is not a subdivision. G. Graveline feels that rear lots just aren’t referenced in the Bulk Regulations; they are mentioned everywhere else. The Commission feels there is no problem with this. B. Donovan presented the Commission with a picture of a sign at St. Anthony’s Church prohibiting trucks parking in the lot. Chairman Hiscox asked where the town is as far as GIS. B. Donovan stated this is a three to four year project. Applied Geographics has to re-digitalize the maps. There was general discussion on GIS. Chairman Hiscox asked about recreational trailer issues. The appropriate enforcement action should be taken on the vehicles that are in violation. There are also two tree cutting operations in town, one on the corner of Route 68 and Plank. If the property owner is working out of his home he will need to obtain a Home Occupation permit. B. Donovan stated that he did speak with him and he was given a Cease and Desist. The property owner did state that he has his business in Cheshire and is only taking his truck home. There is also a chipper on the property and there is only one commercial vehicle allowed on a residential property not exceeding 11,000 pounds gross weight. Also, on 27A Juggernaut Road it appears that there is commercial equipment being stored on the property. J. Crumb mentioned the new building at Colonial Gardens on Route 68. B. Donovan stated that they have the necessary permits to install that building. Chairman Hiscox mentioned canvas huts on Williams Drive. Chairman Hiscox suggested that as the Commission discusses these issues they should be placed on the agenda as old business until they are resolved. Chairman Hiscox also stated that he wants to look into, in the future, the process that was used to determine where the open space is set aside. He felt uncomfortable in the ways things moved along with the Finno application. It was unfair to the public, the Commission and the applicant. In future preliminary subdivision reviews the decision on open space should be incorporated before the developer has engineered detailed plans finished. The Commission should put together a checklist. The Commission should also look into proposing modifications to the preliminary review section of the Subdivision Regulations. The Commission feels that the process should be improved. Chairman Hiscox mentioned property owners completing their site plans. Should a business be allowed to open before the approved site plan is completed? B. Donovan mentioned that site plans are good for 5 years. The Commission discussed the process and consistency. B. Donovan asked if windmills are allowed. The Commission feels that if someone wanted to build a windmill on their property they would have to come before the Commission and propose to add this type of structure to the regulations. G. Graveline reminded B. Donovan to contact the attorney regarding easements for fee simple access.
Motion by T. Galvin, seconded by A. Havican to accept the Land Use Inspector’s report. Motion unanimous.
Possible Executive Session: Discuss strategy and negotiations with respect to pending litigation Job performance review of Land Use Inspector The Possible Executive Session was re-scheduled to the next meeting on September 6th, 2006.
Public Participation: Adelle Grey of Cook Road expressed to the Chairman and Commission that she feels that they did nothing wrong in their decision for open space for the Finno Development. Deb Ridolfi mentioned open space land and maybe having the Land Trust or one of the Open Space Committee’s map out on the vacant lands where they would like to see the open space before someone comes in with a formal application. Mrs. Ridolfi also asked for a clarification regarding rear lots, specifically the property on 80 Straitsville Road
Adjournment: Motion by T. Galvin, seconded by G. Graveline to adjourn at 9:54 p.m. Unanimous.
Robert Hiscox Robert Hiscox, Chairman