Board Members Present: Robert Hiscox, Gil Graveline, Don Pomeroy, Al Havican, & Tom Galvin Alternates Present: Jack Crumb Others present: Bill Donovan, Land Use Inspector Members Absent: Anthony Parrella (alt.) & Al Delelle (alt.)
Chairman Robert Hiscox called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was taped.
Approval of Minutes: Motion>/b> by T. Galvin, seconded by G. Graveline to approve the minutes of the January 11, 2006 meeting. Unanimous. Motion by A. Havican, seconded by T. Galvin to approve the minutes of the January 18, 2006 meeting. Unanimous.
Correspondence: none Public Participation: none
Public Hearings: 7:05 p.m. Andy Adames, 126 Waterbury Rd. Application for Site Plan approval for a proposed restaurant. Chairman Hiscox read entire “Notice of Public Hearing” as it appeared in the Republican American on January 20 and 27, 2006. The Commission received proof of notification to abutting property owners and the City of Waterbury’s Bureau of Water. The Chairman stated that there have already been two preliminary reviews of the site plan and there has been prior discussion at previous meetings. Attorney Robert Uskevich represented the applicant. The Proposed restaurant will have a one way access in and a one way access out. There are 83 parking spaces 4 of which are handicap. There will be office space on the second floor for restaurant use only. The property will be served by septic and city water. The applicants have not yet received Chesprocott approval. Fred D’Amico, the applicant’s engineer stated they also need approval from the state because they will be discharging over 2,000 gallons a day. Attorney Uskevich discussed with the Commission the plantings proposed throughout, street trees, landscaping on the center island, landscaping all around the building and at the exit and entrance point. There are traffic control signs that will be placed on the property: enter, one way, do not enter, and stop signs to control the traffic and safety of the pedestrians. The Chairman stated that this land does have access to a rear residential property; he suggested having some type of private drive sign. The applicant stated that there will be that type of sign and it is shown on the most updated plan. The applicant also submitted a lighting plan. The plan is designed with two twin lighting poles in the parking lot and there will be no lights trespassing onto abutting properties. The hours of operation will be 11:30 a.m.-10 p.m. on the weekdays and 11:30a.m. -11 p.m. on the weekends (summer hours). The parking lot lights will not stay on all night, except for the first 2-3 weeks after they are open. The applicant stated that when the food service is done, the bar /lounge area will also close. Atty. Uskevich submitted copies of the proposed signage. There will an additional sign on the entrance door that has the hours of operation. Fred D’Amico discussed erosion control during the construction. R. Hiscox asked for B. Donovan to make sure the sign on the building itself complies with the regulations. Atty. Uskevich stated that this structure will be built within the same foot print of the existing structure: there will also be a small addition off the rear. Chairman Hiscox stated that Scott Poryanda, the town engineer who reviewed the plans listed a few concerns. The applicant stated that they are in the process of addressing all of the concerns listed. Chairman Hiscox read a letter from the Inland Wetlands Commission dated January 27, 2006 stating some concerns they had with storm water discharge and sediment controls. Motion by T. Galvin seconded by G. Graveline to close the public hearing for an application for site plan approval submitted by Andy Adames for a proposed restaurant at 126 Waterbury Rd. Unanimous.
7:10 p.m. Toll Brothers, 120 Scott Rd. Special Permit application for a proposed elderly housing project. (continued from 1/11/06) (7:24 p.m.) Attorney Fitzpatrick represented the applicant with regard to this proposal. He submitted a reduced copy of the plan to the Commission. John Mancini the project engineer from BL Companies was also in attendance along with Dan Walton and Martin Mallon from Toll Brothers. Attorney Fitzpatrick stated that on the second page of the plans are all the bulk standards that apply to this project. R. Hiscox mentioned the size of the Community Building; Section 4.1.8.1 of the regulations requires 25 square feet per unit. Atty. Fitzpatrick asked in previous discussions if the size of the Community Building could include all the amenities outside such as the tennis courts, etc. The Chairman stated his concern is that the applicant needs to fully account on the implementing of this regulation, pending the Commission discussing this issue. Attorney Fitzpatrick stated that this site could handle the larger Community building if needed. The Chairman asked to have the details on what they were considering to include in the Community building as far as calculations. Atty. Fitzpatrick mentioned concerns that were brought up at the last meeting. The fiscal impact summary was presented that was done by Mr. Klepper-smith (Data-Core Partners LLC.) The Chairman stated that he feels there is a potential impact to the Regional school system. If people from town moved into these units, most likely with families (children) would buy their homes. D. Pomeroy stated that he feels it would be very difficult to calculate that. Atty. Fitzpatrick stated that the factors in the report are based on actual data and deductions for appropriate services have been noted. Another comment he would like to address is what other uses could be made at the site. Prospect Regulations allow this property to be utilized for example as a bottling plant, or a commerce park (which was proposed about 5-6 years ago). This proposal was prepared for the State of Connecticut by DeCarlo and Doll. This type of development would entail larger roads and more intense traffic which would also be more intrusive and have much more disturbance to the wetlands. The traffic impact study was submitted to the Commission at the beginning of the public hearing. John Mancini explained that one of the reasons for building the elderly housing type developments is to keep the over 55 , good standing citizens in the town. J. Mancini mentioned that there had been a change to the plans and they have recaptured 6 acres of land that they previously would have disturbed and left it a wooded area. Also, one of the roads was moved so that they didn’t go through two pockets of wetland. Another significant change is that one part that would have been lawn was changed to a forested area. In addition to those small changes, a question was asked of the applicants regarding the required parking in case of an emergency. This was discussed with the Fire Marshall and they ran a program showing the exact size of the fire truck as far as enough space and turning radius. The applicants submitted a fire truck movement and on street parking plan. The visitor parking can be accommodated while still keeping fire safety in mind. The applicant did meet with the town’s consultant who is doing the road-way plan on Scott Rd. The applicant is proposing the road way grades in respect to the town’s future plans for road work on Scott Rd. Atty. Fitzpatrick mentioned the affordability of the units. There are 55 units of affordable housing. Prospect residents, who qualify under the fair affordable housing act, will be eligible for consideration. And the affordable units will be indistinguishable. The Chairman stated that any comments regarding Wetlands issues should be directed to the Wetlands Commission. J. Crumb mentioned side walks on each side of the road. The Commission will have to discuss their interpretation of Section 4.1.8.1. Atty. Fitzpatrick stated that one of the reasons why there are side walks on only one side of the road is that it decreases the area of impervious surfaces. The towns engineering consultants feel that the side walks on one side are appropriate. Chairman Hiscox asked for comments from the public: George Hughes, Hughes Court asked questions regarding affordable housing, his concern is water. The Chairman stated that the water main will come up Route 69 through Oak Lane and into the project. There will also be no septic systems the project will be connecting into Waterbury sewers with an Inter-municipal agreement. The Prospect Water Pollution Control Authority would deal with this issue. The project can not be built until the agreement is final between Waterbury and Prospect. Mr. Hughes is concerned about his water level dropping because of the construction and drainage off the property. The Chairman stated that some of the water that now currently would be ground water recharge is now draining off the site and the Commission is not qualified to address that issue. Mr. Hughes was wondering where the master bedrooms and facilities would be located. Chairman Hiscox stated that they will both be on the first floor at the buyer’s request. D. Pomeroy asked about surface water and where it discharges and whether or not it has any effect on the other side of Scott Rd. J. Mancini stated that there will be a zero net increase in storm water runoff off site and they are bringing city water into the project. J. Mancini mentioned proposing an IPM & OPM (operation plan manual) which describes what the operational maintenance requirements are, when the catch basins are cleaned, and detention basins, when to fertilize, what type of fertilizer etc… These manuals will be provided and the home owners association will adopt them. Selim Noujaim, 104 Dinatali Rd. a Waterbury, State representative. He mentioned the article in the Waterbury Republican and comments made by Mayor Chatfield. He is concerned about the city of Waterbury and what the benefits are to them. Fifteen acres of this property are in Waterbury. Mr. Noujaim is also concerned about Scott Road in Waterbury and the traffic. He stated there is already so much congestion in Waterbury on that road. Two members from the Board of Alderman of Waterbury who were also in attendance stated they have to address the sewer issue before it is approved. These issues are very important to Mr. Noujaim and the residents from Waterbury; they want smart growth. T. Galvin stated that Scott Road in the Waterbury side was very developed and Prospect wasn’t asked about their concerns regarding traffic coming in from Waterbury. R. Hiscox stated that a sewer agreement has to be worked out with each of the town’s officials. Chairman Hiscox stated that the land in Waterbury owned by Toll Brothers would be subject to Waterbury’s regulations. Mr. Noujaim stated the benefits to Waterbury with regards to the medical building did not happen. The city of Waterbury collects whatever sewer fees that comes from the medical building and the same would be with the proposed development. The Chairman stated that this application is for a parcel of land in Prospect governed by Prospect regulations. With regard to improvements on Scott road the Town of Prospect has a long term plan to update Scott road in 3 phases. A lot of these comments are more pertinent to Waterbury’s elected officials. Selim Noujaim wants the citizens of Waterbury to understand all of the ramifications. D. Pomeroy stated that he used to live on Scott Rd. and he is sympathetic to the lower end of Scott Rd. He really wants the people to understand what’s driving the Scott Rd. development; this is going to happen whether this project is approved or not. J. Mancini stated that when the State of Connecticut proposes major development on the state highways they need to address projects for the major arterials and make sure that they are able to handle the traffic coming off the highway trying to avoid the construction. The town of Prospect and the State decided to make the connection. The coinciding of these two projects makes it better for everyone including Waterbury. Cicero Booker Jr. stated that he liked to see the manor that the Commission represented the citizens of Prospect and the best interests of them. He is interested in the sewer, the water, and the traffic. He mentioned 15 acres of this project in Waterbury but there is no development on that side. The public water supply for this project comes from the Connecticut Water Company. Bob McGovern a resident of Waterbury is concerned about the traffic. He doesn’t think the town of Waterbury needs anymore sewage. Sherri Cocchiola, 10 Maple Drive, is concerned about the residents in this project that are allowed to live there if they are over 21 years old. Chairman Hiscox stated that that issue is governed by the Home Owners Association. There are also visitation limitations with regard to children under 21 years of age. Arthur Denze, 56 Phyllis Ave. is on the Board of Alderman in Waterbury. He is also concerned about traffic. Mr. Denze wanted to comment that a number of years ago Waterbury was mandated by the state to improve their sewer and water system. He is concerned about the burden on the tax payers in Waterbury. Mr. Denze also asked what would happen if they aren’t able to rent the units to people over 55, will they become low income housing. John Mancini wanted to discuss the process that they have taken regarding the sewer. They have met with the city of Waterbury, Department of Public Sewer. They wanted to make sure there is enough capacity for the sewer. The plant is working on less than 30% of its capacity. This is a regional plant and it is looked at by the DEP as a plant that should allow connection from other communities. The first steps they have to do are to make sure they are able to make the connection and they are moving forward with that process. The applicants modeled the proposed agreement after other agreements with Prospect and the city of Waterbury. Elaine Schieffer, 133 Cook Rd. wanted to know how many homes are on Scott Rd. currently, approximately less than 100. She wanted to know if the applicants have considered the traffic coming into Prospect. Atty. Fitzpatrick stated that the age restriction is enforced. This will be a private, gated community. 10% of the units will be handicap accessible. The remaining units are capable of handling handicap modifications. Jim Borbus, Beach Dr. asked if this property encompasses the entire current zone Commerce Park. The Commission stated that this property is the only property zoned Commerce Park in town. Mr. Borbus wanted to know if there are any restrictions on them having to sell these units to people under 55 years old. Attorney Fitzpatrick stated that yes there are restrictions. The Planning & Zoning Commission would have to change the regulations in order to allow people under the age of 55 to occupy these units. Mr. Borbus commented that he was hoping this Commerce Park would actually become a Commerce Park. He personally doesn’t want to see this type of development being built. However if single family units were built on this property it would be a burden on the school system. Mike Drayer, 2 Stonefield Dr. feels that there is an inconsistency with this proposed project and Prospect’s Plan of Conservation of Development and the Growth management principal defined in Connecticut’s Plan of Conservation and Development. Mr. Drayer wanted to know where the boundaries are as far as where you can develop and provide sewers. The Chairman stated that it is all local regulation. T. Galvin stated that the town’s plan does clearly state where they want sewers extended. The Commission feels that the state and town plans of conservation and DEP plans all coincide. Mr. Drayer also asked about Storm Water Management. J. Mancini stated that the sewer is a lateral not a sewer main extension. J. Mancini also discussed their plan for Storm Water Management. Lou Miculo from Hartley Dr. in Waterbury expressed concerns on the increase of traffic. Bonnie Sereduct, 35 Summit Rd. asked how many phases are involved. Attorney Fitzpatrick, stated that there are 6 phases proposed for the project. The applicants are planning to build the Community Building and the amenities in the first phase. Ms. Sereduct also asked about rentals. Are there certain rental restrictions regarding this property? Attorney Fitzpatrick stated that the association makes up the rules on how they want to handle residents in the units. There are annual reports requirements to make sure all the restrictions are complied with. Any renters also have to be over 55 years old and if the unit for rent is an affordable unit the renter has to also qualify for the affordable portion. Brian Reilly, Cedar Hill Dr. asked about a forty year old gas line going through the property. J. Mancini stated that they have to respect the gas line easement and they are not building on it. The gas main has check points and the gas company is required to collect data on a regular basis. Tom Satkunas, New Haven Rd. asked about the construction on Scott Rd. Jim Borbus, asked how many people at their other developments utilize the 2nd floor. Dan Walton, from Toll Brothers stated that many of the units are utilizing the 2nd floor. Chairman Hiscox mentioned a site walk to the North Haven Site. Dan Walton stated that he would need prior notice of the site walk but the Commission and the public are more than welcome to come to the site walk. Dan Walton also wanted to mention that the development is a private facility. The Commission will discuss what will work best on their schedules. This project can get approval from all the necessary commissions and the project will still be contingent upon the sewer agreement between Waterbury and Prospect. The public hearing was continued to February 15, 2006 at 7:10 p.m.
Old Business: a. Southridge Estates Phase II-Bond Reduction: Request for a bond reduction for Southridge Estates Phase II -Reduction from $48,500 to $16,000. Chairman Hiscox asked what the requirements are for the end of the driveways. B. Donovan stated that the first 10 feet are requested to be paved. R. Hiscox stated that Rachel Ann Court has significant erosion from the driveways on the street. He is concerned about significant amounts of dirt and mud draining onto the town road. R. Hiscox wants to request on the behalf of the Commission that there be some type of ordinance or regulation to prevent this in the future. B. Donovan stated that he will work up some type of verbiage to add to the subdivision regulations. There are similar regulations in other towns. B. Donovan stated that Prospect’s public works is opposed to the fence on top of the stone wall on Southridge Road. R. Hiscox stated that he feels that the town would be negligent not to require a fence on top of that wall. There is a potential to fall over that wall and into the town right of way which would end up in a potential law suit. B. Donovan suggested holding $18,000: $16,000 for the final road paving and $2,000 for the fence on top of the wall. Motion by D. Pomeroy, seconded by A. Havican to reduce the bond for Southridge Estates Phase II from $48,500 to $18,000. Unanimous.
New Business: none
Land Use Inspector’s Report: B. Donovan mentioned considering a date to talk about any readjustments regarding regulations for trailers and boats, some kind of workshop. R. Hiscox stated that he would like to see a preliminary review for the Cook Rd. development (Reggie Finno) at the March 1, 2006 meeting. The Commission will hold a workshop from 7-7:30 p.m. on March 1, 2006 for the purpose of discussing and allowing for public input in regards to the parking and storage of recreational type vehicles. R. Hiscox stated that he wants to appoint a subcommittee to address vendors and ATV use; to meet with members of the town council. The Commission would like some kind of conflict resolution with regards to these 2 issues. B. Donovan stated that we are still shy one alternate member. D. Pomeroy stated that Anthony Parrella was removed as an alternate on the Planning & Zoning Commission. Motion by T. Galvin, seconded by G. Graveline to accept the Land Use Inspector’s report. Unanimous.
Public Participation: Greg Ploski, Clark Hill Rd. stated that he thought the LoRusso Brothers who were the original owners of Southridge Estates were going to pave Spring Road. The Commission should review this. R. Hiscox stated that he thought O&G was going to fix Spring Rd. D. Pomeroy stated that he believes there was an agreement with LoRusso Brothers. The Commission asked B. Donovan to look into this issue. Mr. Ploski stated that he feels that the regulations need definitions on undefined terms. They need some type of standard; this will eliminate a lot of confusion.Motion by A. Havican, seconded by D. Pomeroy to adjourn the meeting at 9:51p.m. Unanimous.
Robert Hiscox, Chairman