Board Members Present: Robert Hiscox, Gil Graveline, Don Pomeroy (7:12p.m.), Al Havican, & Tom Galvin Alternates Present: Jack Crumb Others present: Bill Donovan, Land Use Inspector >/br>Members Absent: Al Delelle (alt.)
Chairman Robert Hiscox called the meeting to order at 7:01p.m. The meeting was taped.
Jack Crumb (alt.) was seated for Don Pomeroy.
Approval of Minutes: Motion by T. Galvin, seconded by G Graveline to approve the minutes of the February 1st, 2006 meeting. Unanimous.
Correspondence: 1.) Southwest Conservation District Newsletter - Spring 2006. 2.) 2006 Community Builders Institute Courses >/br>3.) Connecticut Federation of Planning & Zoning Agencies - Length of Service/Lifetime Achievement Awards. 4.) Connecticut Federation of Planning & Zoning Agencies – 58th Annual Conference at the Aqua-turf on March 23, 2006. 5.) Council of Governments of Central Naugatuck Valley – Annual Report 2004-2005 6.) Representative Selim G. Noujaim – Letter of appreciation. 7.) Christine & Richard Hinckley, 471 Matthew Street. Re: Drainage issues.
Motion by T. Galvin, seconded by A. Havican to accept the correspondence. Unanimous.
Public Participation:
Charles Cerrato, 20 Candee Rd. wanted to express his concerns regarding a home business on Amber Court next to him. He stated that there are three commercial vans with multiple employees coming in and out through out the day. There was, in the past, a commercial dumpster and garbage all over the yard. There was also a waste water tank that was placed within 20 feet of the side property line. The owner of the home business kept the waste tank open and it created a very bad odor. There are also eighteen wheeler trailer trucks making deliveries. Mr. Cerrato stated that he was never notified of this application and approval. He feels that this is a commercial business within a residential zone and he doesn’t think this application should have been approved. Mr. Cerrato is also concerned about his well water being contaminated. The Chairman stated that he spoke with Mr. Cerrato’s wife regarding this location. He also visited the site and contacted the Land Use Enforcement Officer and asked him to look into this issue. The Chairman stated that when the owner of the home business originally came before the Planning & Zoning Commission there was no requirement to notify the abutting property owners. Recent complaints of odors were investigated and the business owner stated that he recently had his septic tank pumped. The Chairman stated that the property owner is also on the agenda for the next Planning & Zoning meeting for review of his Home Occupation Special Permit. The issue of employees gathering at the site is being looked into. The permit does allow for the storage of cleaning fluids on site. The fire marshal has been asked to visit the site and inspect this issue; all of this will be part of the review that will take place at the next meeting. Joan Aldman, 10 Maria Hotchkiss Rd.asked about the buffer zone around the parking lot of the proposed restaurant at 126 Waterbury Road. B. Donovan stated that the back residential lot is serving as a buffer at this time. There will also be 25 feet of separation between the parking lot and the side closest to Waterbury Rd. and it will have a row of evergreens. The Chairman stated that the details of this application and site plan are available in the Land Use Office. John Perugini, Buckley Lane. stated that he had a buffer zone between Buckley Lane and the Industrial Park that isn’t there anymore; now there is a day care. He wanted to make everyone aware that buffers aren’t there forever.
Public Hearings:
7:10 p.m. Toll Brothers, 120 Scott Rd. Special Permit application for a proposed elderly housing project. (continued from 1/11/06) (7:18 p.m.) The Chairman read the letter from Atty. Fitzpatrick granting a 35 day extension of time for the public hearing. The Commission also reviewed the letter from Atty. Fitzpatrick regarding the requested square footage of the various public amenities. The Commission needs to take a look at this. The Chairman also read a letter from Land Tech Consultants stating that they feel side walks on both sides would result in an increase of impervious surfaces that could affect the wetlands and storm water management. Atty. Fitzpatrick, representing the applicant with regards to this proposal submitted copies of an appraisal indicating that there is no negative impact on existing property values. He also wanted to address archaeological matters. He submitted a Phase II archaeological survey and a letter dated January 12, 2006 from Dr. Lucianne Lavin from the Connecticut Commission on Culture & Tourism asking that two archaeological sites be preserved. There was a foundation and a well discovered that will be preserved and there will be a preservation easement for those structures. Another archaeological site was found but it is off the site. The applicants would like to seek permission for a temporary easement and preserve that also if the property owner allows them to. Atty. Fitzpatrick stated that if the Commission wants the applicants to build a 9,000 sq. foot Community Building they will. The Community Building as of now is proposed to be 7,000 sq. feet but the total common amenities constitute 25,625 sq. ft. Chairman Hiscox mentioned that the Commission members could walk the site in North Haven in pairs or on their own. The Chairman asked for comments from the public: Joseph Gomez, 261 New Haven Road, is an advocate of Affordable Senior Housing. The town’s people have many concerns about the proposal. Some of their concerns included: Prospect Elderly housing shouldn’t be 2 &3 bedroom units with multiple levels, the pricing is too high, he believes that state guidelines maintain that at least 30% be affordable not 15%, the completion of this project will increase the population and will change the dynamic of Prospect forever. Mr. Gomez also feels that it is speculative that any agreement between Prospect and Waterbury would be perpetual. He also requested that the label “affordable and elderly” be removed from this application. Chairman Hiscox stated that this application is not a done deal. It is not a done deal until it goes through the appropriate steps and modifications as part of a special permit. The Commission operates on a professional basis balancing the needs of the community and the rights of the property owners. Regarding the issue of 2-3 bedrooms and 2 floors, the developer proposes and develops what the market will bare. The Commission has had this discussion before regarding affordability for the elderly. It is not profitable to the developer to build that type of development. The Town of Prospect can’t build them for the residents, if they could they would. With regards to the population, the town of Prospect will grow at a faster rate than was planned for in the Plan of Conservation and Development. The Waterbury sewer agreement is out of the Commission’s control. If the sewers were to shut down the project would shut down. There is a required 15% of affordable housing in this type of development in Prospect. It is a step in the right direction in terms of the percent of affordable units. 30% is the state recommendation but it is not required. J. Perugini, Buckley La. stated that the 30% could change. Doug Patrick, 12 Oak Lane is concerned about the cut through traffic, during the construction and after. Chairman Hiscox stated that the traffic flow will change substantially after Austin Rd. is opened up. A traffic study has already been submitted by the applicant. T. Galvin stated that if this project wasn’t proposed the Scott Road improvements and Austin Road opening up would take place anyway. The Chairman stated that the “No Thru Trucks” signs are an issue that is dealt with by the Mayors office, the Public Works Dept. and the Police Dept. Mr. Patrick also asked about the waterline through Oak Lane. Would that happen anyway? The Chairman stated that this would be a positive thing for the Oak Lane residents as far as water hook ups. Traffic patterns are constantly reviewed by the Town. The Commission has to look at whether or not the applicants are meeting the regulations of the Town. There will be two entrances off of Scott Rd. and they will be gated. Terrance Dominy, 45 Williams Dr. asked if there are going to be side walks on both sides of Scott Road. He also asked about whether or not the Commission can request in the special permit that the applicant could make a certain required length of the contract for the agreement with Waterbury in regards to the sewer. Atty. Fitzpatrick stated that whatever agreement is made will be permanent. The sewer agreement is in the process right now. Mr. Dominy addressed traffic issues. How will the traffic be slowed down? The Chairman stated that increased enforcement and signage could be put into place. He askedabout the area for recreation. The Commission stated that the total is 25,625 sq. feet. Mr. Dominy asked if there is a mandatory area of outdoor recreation for this type of project. He also asked about open space. The Chairman stated that there is no open space requirement for this type of development: that only applies to subdivisions. The Chairman stated that the applicant will pay taxes on the entire property. There is also a substantial net increase to the town as far as taxes and a minimal impact on the school system. The regulations and the nature of this proposal defined this project as Elderly Housing. Mike Dreyer, 2 Stonefield Dr. asked questions in regards to the 53% portion of undisturbed property. There are 171 acres in Prospect. He wanted to know how many acres of the property is wetlands. Atty. Fitzpatrick stated that the property has roughly 43 acres of wetlands. Mr. Dreyer asked if there is any disturbance to the wetlands. B. Donovan stated that they are disturbing a total of approximately 1/10 of one acre of wetlands as far as a direct impact. Mr. Dreyer also asked how much of the land that could be developed is not being developed. The Chairman stated that the applicant is maximizing the use of the useable land. John Mancini, from BL Companies stated that 52.5% is to be left undeveloped. There are 42.7 acres of wetlands which leave approximately 50 acres that could be developed but isn’t. Mr. Dreyer mentioned the sewer hook up again. He feels that the state’s intent for building the sewer plant in Waterbury is to service those areas and neighborhoods with failing septic systems. He also stated that the town does not have an existing infrastructure to support this project as far as sewer. Tina Crose from Scott Rd. in Cheshire wanted to know how far the development will be from her home. She also saw surveying flags and was wondering if it was from this project. J. Mancini stated that the parcel is hundreds of feet from Cheshire. Ms. Crose also asked whether or not the project will be draining onto her property. J. Mancini stated that there will be no runoff onto her property. Mr. Dominy, 45 Williams Drive asked about the buffer zones. Ralph Walley a resident of Cheshire asked about the map and the directions. The Commission stated that a majority of the land is South of the pipeline. J. Mancini stated that the closest unit to Cheshire is 300 feet. Barbara Goodrich, Scott Rd. & Birchwood Terrace expressed concerns about the traffic. She has lived on Scott Rd. for 43 years and she feels that a project of this size will destroy the small town, and she is not in favor of this project. The Public Hearing was continued to March 1, 2006 at 7:40 p.m. B. Donovan asked as of today is there an approval for individual septic systems at this site for this project. Atty. Fitzpatrick stated no there is not. B. Donovan also asked if there is an approved onsite sanitary treatment facility for the project. Atty. Fitzpatrick stated no. B. Donovan asked if there is an approved agreement with the town of Waterbury for sanitary service. Atty. Fitzpatrick stated no. He also stated that in regards to affordable housing there will never be a true affordable housing project in the town unless it is serviced by sanitary sewer. He also stated that the town would need State funding and public utilities in order to build an affordable housing complex. Atty. Fitzpatrick also stated that as far as the proposal that is before the Commission right now, the town will maintain the affordable units in town after they are built and sold. D. Pomeroy asked if that will be in the deed as a restriction, the affordability of the unit perpetuating to another owner. Atty. Fitzpatrick stated that yes it will be a deed restriction remaining for at least 40 years.
Old Business: Andy Adames, 126 Waterbury Rd. Application for Site Plan approval for a proposed restaurant. (Public Hearing closed: 2/1/06)>/br>/p>
B. Donovan stated that there have been revisions on the site plan since our last meeting. The plans are at the towns engineer for his final review. Also, the state has not given final approval for the septic system. Chairman Hiscox stated that he wants B. Donovan to still review the type of signage on the building.
New Business:
Appoint sub-committee to address Vendor and ATV issues. The sub-committee will meet with the mayor and the members of the Town Council. They need to come to an understanding in regards to Vendors vs. the solicitation ordinance and also the ATV issues. D. Pomeroy, J. Crumb and A. Havican volunteered to be on the sub-committee and work with the mayor on those specific ordinance conflicts.
The Chairman also wanted to address the issue regarding Open Space. In the subdivision regulations it calls for a non-partisan group comprised of one representative member of the Planning & Zoning Commission, the Town Council, the Board of Recreation, the Conservation Commission and the Inland Wetlands Commission to act as an advisory committee to evaluate “open space” potential. People in town have talked with the mayor and requested appointments for an open space committee for the town. This committee has no legislative authority. R. Hiscox asked if this is a conflict of interest. The Commission feels that it would not be a conflict of interest. T. Galvin stated that he will volunteer to be part of this advisory committee. Motion by D. Pomeroy seconded by G. Graveline to appoint T. Galvin to the Advisory Committee for open space. Unanimous.
Land Use Inspector’s Report:
R. Hiscox mentioned Service Master, a home business at 5 Amber Court. R. Hiscox stated that there was no Resolution of Approval for this application. The applicant did have a letter of “statement of use”. Keith Gavigan, the owner of this business stores chemicals in a residential area. There are deliveries by 18 wheelers and there are also odor concerns. The issue of cars being parked on the property needs to be addressed. The employees are also supposed to park off site. Two vehicles were approved as part of the business: one parked in the garage and one in back of the house. R. Hiscox stated that it has reportedly been increased to 3 vehicles. The storage tank and the dumpster have been removed. The applicant will come in at the next meeting for a review. Chairman Hiscox also mentioned the letter from Christine Hinckley regarding drainage issues on her property. B. Donovan described it as a dispute with her footing drain discharge onto the neighbor’s property. He also mentioned that the Prospect Building Inspector has sent correspondence to Mrs. Hinckley to correct the problem. B. Donovan also mentioned a 27 lot subdivision on Cook Road that would connect Dogwood Drive onto Cook Road. The applicant will be on the next meetings agenda for a preliminary review. B. Donovan submitted a letter of resume from an appraiser who would like to appraise this project. The developer would pay for the appraisal determining the fair market value of the land to be subdivided. The Commission doesn’t have to accept his final appraisal. R. Hiscox stated that the land trust might be interested in this property. If they come in for a proposal for this land the Commission has the option to take the land for open space rather than the open space fee. The Commission stated that they will agree for the developer to hire this appraiser. B. Donovan also stated that Toll Brothers are due to be at Wetlands on Feb. 22nd and they will most likely close that public hearing. R. Hiscox mentioned the Commission members individually going to the Toll Brothers project in North Haven, and not as an announced site walk.
Motion by T. Galvin, seconded by A. Havican to accept the Land Use Inspector’s report. Unanimous.
Public Participation: none
Motion by T. Galvin, seconded by A. Havican to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Unanimous.
Robert Hiscox, Chairman