Planning & Zoning Commission

Board Members Present: Robert Hiscox, Gil Graveline, Al Havican, Don Pomeroy & Tom Galvin
Alternates Present: Jack Crumb
Others present: Bill Donovan, Land Use Inspector
Members Absent: Al Delelle (alt.)

Chairman Robert Hiscox called the meeting to order at 7:44 p.m. The meeting was taped.

Approval of Minutes: Motion by D. Pomeroy, seconded by A. Havican to approve the minutes of the February 15th, 2006 meeting as amended. Unanimous.

Correspondence:
1.) Connecticut Federation of Planning & Zoning Agencies Quarterly Newsletter-Winter 2006
2.) Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley Memo-Land Use Educational Partnership (re-scheduled & re-located)
3.) Prospect Conservation Commission Minutes of February 16th 2006 meeting
4.) Council of Governments Central Naugatuck Valley-Minutes of the January 10th, 2006 meeting

Public Participation: Charlie Cerrato, 20 Candee Rd. discussed his concerns regarding Keith Gavigan’s Service Master home business located at 5 Amber Court. Mr. Cerrato submitted photos showing a number of vehicles parked on the property. The Chairman stated that this is a commercial business in a residential neighborhood and the storage of chemicals in the garage shouldn’t have been allowed. The pictures also showed trailer truck deliveries, and the waster water tank, which has already been removed. Chris Buchholz, 4 Morris Rd. asked Bill Donovan whether or not he called Chesprocott to find out where the septic system is. B. Donovan stated that he wanted to see if there was a plot plan of his septic system to determine if it’s possible that his recreational trailer be moved elsewhere on property to comply with the regulations.

Public Hearings:
7:40 p.m. (7:52 p.m.)Toll Brothers, 120 Scott Rd. Special Permit application for a proposed elderly housing project. (Continued from 1/11/06). The Chairman mentioned correspondence received from Jean Meehan and Liz Patrick in regards to their concerns about this project. These letters will be read later in the meeting. There were also letters from Carla Perugini-Erickson, Chairman of the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) and Ned Fitzpatrick regarding the sewer hook-up. Atty. Edward Fitzpatrick who is representing the applicant discussed open space. He submitted copies of an open space plan. He stated that Prospect’s Zoning Regulations require approximately 8 ½ acres of open space for this project. Toll Brothers are proposing 19.46 acres of open space. Atty. Fitzpatrick stated that this figure does not include wetlands. Atty. Fitzpatrick also submitted a plan regarding the turning radius for emergency vehicles, showing that there is no problem with fire apparatus access. The Chairman asked for comments from the public: Mayor Robert Chatfield, 25 Cornwall Ave. stated that he has no statutory authority for Planning & Zoning concerns. He presented the Commission with a map on the history of Scott Road and the projected reconstruction of Scott Road, which has been in the planning stage long before the Toll Brothers project was presented. The re-construction of Scott Rd. is funded 80% by the Federal Government and 20% by the State Government. The width of paving on Scott Road is going to be widened to 28 feet. There will be new drainage and the road will be leveled out at various locations. The construction is being done in 3 phases: The first phase will be from the town line to Nicholas Court, the second phase from Nicholas Court to Maria Hotchkiss Rd. and the third phase from Maria Hotchkiss to Route 69. John Mancini from BL Companies, the engineer on the Toll Brothers project, stated that one of the first things Toll Brothers would have to do is to extend the water line. His suggestion would be to do that during the time of year where it would coordinate with the Town’s re-construction project on Scott Road. The Chairman stated that there will be appropriate bonding. The Mayor stated that the town has formed a new ordinance on town road openings. The Chairman asked whether or not there will be an alert to residents along the way and some kind of coordination in case they want to hook up to the water line. J. Mancini stated that the CT Water Company notifies the residents along the way. There is a long period of time for the trench where the water main is to settle, that’s when the hook up happens; before the permanent pavement is put over the trench. The mayor stated that this is not a town owned water main. Liz Patrick, 12 Oak Lane wanted the Chairman to read her letter of correspondence. Her letter mentioned her concerns on cut through traffic. She also asked questions regarding what side of the road the water main will be on and about notifications for the water line. Other concerns she had were the sewer hook up with Waterbury and the age restriction. She and her husband are not in favor of this project. Mayor Chatfield wanted to mention that the sewer plant; in Waterbury is a regional plant, they would not have gotten funding for it otherwise. The fee just for Toll Brothers to hook up to the sewer in Waterbury is over $300,000 and is being addressed with the WPCA, Atty. John Knot and the city of Waterbury. The Mayor also mentioned that the town is not responsible for maintaining the streets and the lights for this project. There are also no children in this project; the town is also not responsible for garbage or recycling. He stated that it’s a matter of dollars and cents. Given the nature of the development and the age of the residents there may be an increase in medical emergencies. Mayor Chatfield supports this project because it’s not going to cost the town anything. Chairman Hiscox asked Mayor Chatfield about the increased amount of traffic that cuts through Oak Lane and the other roads. Mayor Bob stated that Maria Hotchkiss was updated a few years ago; Rosewood and Orchard Lane will be updated in the future. The mayor stated that there is no way to be able to control the traffic going through the town. There are 9,200 people in Prospect and 12,000 cars. J. Crumb asked if there could be some kind of “No thru trucks” sign. The mayor stated that the State deals with that issue and the town has no way to enforce them. Terry Dominy, 45 Williams Dr. asked if there is going to be side walks on Scott Road. The mayor stated that as of now there will not be side walks on Scott Road. Rita Stauffer, 12 Scott Road mentioned the traffic on Scott Road. She is against the Toll Brothers project. Chuck Witkowski, 6 Coer Rd. asked about the water line and the pressure. Terry Lynch, Horizon View is here on behalf of her mother who lives on Scott Road. She asked about the front yard being cut out of her mother‘s property. John Mancini stated that Toll Brothers, in the area of their two driveways and in order to have enough room for bypass traffic, the road will widen from 28 feet to 34 feet (3 feet from each side). The property that is being taken to widen the road is in the town’s right of way. Mrs. Lynch stated that there are a lot of concerns; the entire neighborhood will be changing. John Perugini from Buckley Lane asked how long the response time will be to the furthest unit in this project in case of an emergency. The Mayor stated that it will take about 3 ½ minutes which is the average time. He also stated that this project will also have fire hydrants. Charlie Cerrato, 20 Candee Rd. asked the mayor about the revenue the town will receive from this proposed project. The mayor also stated that he hopes that some of the people moving into the project will get involved with the town government. D. Pomeroy asked whether or not there will be a gas main. J. Mancini stated that the hook up to the gas main is still in discussion. The units with be provided will gas heat, stoves, etc. J. Crumb asked whether or not the walking trail leads to the garden area. J. Mancini stated that yes it does. Also the open space shown on the plan submitted tonight is contiguous to the walking trails. Christine Baker, 187 Matthew St. asked about open space. She also asked about water quality and water tables. She also had concerns about the environment and the habitat (animals &urban sprawl). Ms. Baker asked about the average prices of the units. Atty. Fitzpatrick stated that the entire property consists of 171 acres; 90 acres will remain undisturbed. A commerce park was proposed in the past for this property which would have been much more harmful to the environment. Toll Brothers very thoroughly researches the environmental impact. They are very protective of the environmental issues. The developer also does not have control over the affordable unit pricing. Adelle Grey, Cook Road asked about restrictions on age. Atty. Fitzpatrick stated that the town zoning regulation establishes this project as an over 55 housing development. Also, the development’s rules have restrictions in it. It is important to the integrity of the development that the restrictions be enforced. Toll Brothers regulations are much stricter than the towns. All the neighbors want to protect their investment. The developer has to do everything in accordance to the current federal fair housing act. Atty. Fitzpatrick stated that public transportation will not enter the project; this project will be gated. The Chairman stated that the wetlands will be monitored by the Prospect Inland Wetlands Commission. Terrance Dominy, 45 Williams Drive asked about the density. Atty. Fitzpatrick stated that 8 units per acre deal with the density of the entire parcel. The Chairman stated that there is a minimum of 5 acres in order for an elderly housing development to be built. The Chairman also stated that the units have to be a minimum of 40 feet apart. Deb Ridolfi asked what other uses are allowed in this current zone. The Commission stated that there are a number of uses that would be allowed in this zone. Attorney Fitzpatrick stated that this project is all privately funded. Atty. Fitzpatrick also stated there is no outdoor storage of recreational trailers. Greg Ploski, 114 Clark Hill Rd. feels that this is the highest and best use for this property. The benefits to the town are incalculable. He believes that this project is good for the town. Terrance Dominy asked if the Commission can change the density. The Commission can go through the process and change the density required but the Toll Brothers project would fall under the current zoning regulations. There are conditions the Commission can put on the special permit but the conditions have to comply with the regulations. Ann Stein, Cook Rd. asked about off street parking for guests. The Chairman stated they are not required. Mrs. Stein also asked if we will be hiring another Land Use Officer and Building Inspector for this project. The Commission realizes the need for additional help in the Land Use Office and Building Dept. Mrs. Stein wanted to know what would happen if the units did not sell. Atty. Fitzpatrick stated that the phases will be slowed down until the units are sold. J. Mancini stated that the land will not be disturbed until they are ready to build and the units are sold. She feels that this project and land is very over developed. Mrs. Stein asked whether or not the town can put a stop light on the road if needed. The Chairman stated that the town has the ability to put up local caution lights. He also mentioned the Plan of Development which encourages elderly housing developments of any kind in the town of Prospect. Mrs. Stein asked if the Commission will consider placing a moratorium and see how this project goes before the town allows another one similar to this. She stated that this elderly housing development would put us over the 2010 projection in terms of population. Mrs. Stein read an article regarding Toll Brothers. Chuck Witkowski asked about tax credits that senior citizens get. He asked if this decreases the projected tax revenue. The Commission is not sure, the Tax Assessor and Tax Collector will be asked these questions. Liz Patrick, 12 Oak Lane asked what the next procedure is. Will this Public Hearing be tabled or continued? The Chairman read the letter from Atty. Fitzpatrick regarding the sewer extension into Waterbury. The letter stated that the applicant agrees if the Special Permit is approved that there will be no zoning permit or building permit issued until the inter-municipal sanitary sewer agreement is executed and until there has been an approval of the WPCA for the interior design of that portion of the sanitary sewer and until payment and the appropriate fees and charges have been made. The Chairman also read a letter from Carla Perugini-Erickson, the Chairman of Prospect’s WPCA that stated that since this is not a public sewer the WPCA will take no action related to either review or approval of this project as a whole. However, the WPCA is obligated to review and consider for approval each connection to the proposed sewer system. The letter also stated that to date the WPCA has received neither a formal application nor any official correspondence regarding this project. The WPCA recommended that for future projects, the approval be modified to require the WPCA’s approval of any applicable projects prior to issuance of any building permits. The Chairman stated that the public hearing is going to be continued for at least one more meeting. After the closing of the Public hearing there will be a resolution of approval and within 65 days the application will be voted on one way or the other. The Special Permit can be approved with a stipulation that an inter-municipal agreement must be reached. D. Pomeroy stated that he visited the North Haven site. He was impressed with the layout and how they dealt with the wetlands and how they delineated the wetlands. He was concerned about areas for guests to park. He also was able to see the inside of one of the units. He stated that he was there for 2 hours and not one car went in or out. He thought that the quality of the units were exceptional. The residents also spoke very well of the Toll Brothers organization. D. Pomeroy asked if the roads will be the same width as the North Haven project. J. Mancini stated that yes they’ll be the same size from 22-24 feet. D. Pomeroy asked if the architectural features will look about the same as North Haven. The applicants stated that yes they will be very similar but it will be a little more open in the Prospect development. The pubic hearing was continued to 7:30 on March 15th, 2006.

Old Business:
Andy Adames, 126 Waterbury Rd. Application for Site Plan approval for a proposed restaurant. (Public Hearing closed: 2/1/06) No action was taken; the applicant still has not received state health approval.

New Business:
Keith Gavigan-Review of Home Occupation Special Permit. The Commission has received complaints of odors and other concerns regarding this home occupation. Mr. Gavigan submitted a letter showing that his septic tank was pumped in January. He stated that the odor that was coming from his property was due to a pumping of his septic system. Mr. Gavigan also presented the Commission with two letters from neighbors who are in favor of his home business. He also stated that he is not dumping anything in his yard. He stated that he feels that he is in full compliance with the regulations as far as home occupations. The Chairman stated that he has some concerns regarding a number of issues. One issue is the original permit. He stated that this type of business is a commercial business. The Chairman stated that the Commission’s understanding was that this business was allowed 2 commercial vehicles on the site. There are pictures in the record that show three vehicles on the property. The applicant stated that he has 3 commercial vehicles but one is stored off site. The 3rd vehicle picks up materials in the morning and leaves. The Chairman also mentioned the issue of allowing chemical storage in a residential area. He is opposed to the storage of chemicals on-site. There are also concerns regarding a number of cars on his property. Mr. Gavigan stated that on Thursday mornings he has a men’s group affiliated with his church that meets at his house. The Chairman mentioned the times that were listed where there were a number of cars in his driveway. The Chairman said that what is stated in Mr. Gavigan’s statement of use does not comply with the current regulations. The Chairman also mentioned the 18 wheeler making deliveries. Mr. Gavigan stated that once a year in the winter an 18 wheeler truck makes a delivery, the supplies last him about 4 months. The Chairman mentioned 40 gallons of chemicals that was discussed in the minutes. There is an abutting neighbor who has very serious concerns. The Chairman read the regulations in regards to Home Occupations. Deliveries are limited to smaller vehicles etc… The Chairman stated that he does not believe his business belongs in a residential neighborhood. He believes that it is a commercial business in nature. When a home occupation comes before the board for a review, the Commission re-issues, modifies or revokes the permit. The Chairman believes that the Commission should revoke the permit if it hasn’t already expired. The history and nature of the business, the size of the business and issues associated with it are the Chairman’s reason for wanting to revoke this permit. T. Galvin asked the date that this home occupation permit was approved. Keith Gavigan stated that he doesn’t store chemicals; he stores cleaning shampoos. Chairman Hiscox stated that this kind of business is inappropriate in a residential zone; it belongs in a commercial zone. A. Havican stated that it has grown enough where it should move to a commercial zone. Mr. Gavigan stated that he has had the same three trucks since he started. The Chairman stated that what has changed is the impact on the neighborhood. The home occupation should be invisible. When an applicant has to come to the Commission more than once with regards to concerns, that usually tells you that the home occupation is not appropriate for a residential area. The Chairman stated that the Commission will give a reasonable amount of time to make the necessary arrangements. The Commission will grant a 4 month period for Mr. Gavigan needs to move his business by July 1st, 2006. Motion by G. Graveline, seconded by A. Havican to revoke Keith Gavigan’s Home Occupation-Special Permit for Service Master at 5 Amber Court and allow a 4 month period, until July 1st, 2006, to relocate his business. Unanimous. The Chairman stated that this permit is being revoked due to the fact it is not in compliance with the regulations, there is a history of complaints, questionable amount of cars on the site at one time and large amounts of chemical storage. This is more of a commercial business versus a home occupation. This does not meet the intent of the home occupation as stated in our regulations.

Land Use Inspector’s Report: B. Donovan stated that regarding Senor Panchos, he is waiting to hear from the State Health Dept. on the septic system. Chairman Hiscox is concerned about the time limit for them to make a decision. B. Donovan stated that he’ll have a Resolution of Approval at the next meeting for this application. He also mentioned vendors. R. Hiscox mentioned the subcommittee that’s meeting with the Town Council in regards to the Solicitation Ordinance. Vendors are not permitted. The Committee needs to work out an understanding of the interpretation of the regulation in regards to vendors vs. the solicitation ordinance. B. Donovan also mentioned telecommunications facilities. In the regulations there is a section for these towers and there are standards. At 229 Cheshire Road the tower is being extended by 12 feet, from 150 ft. (the maximum height allowed under our resolution of approval for this tower) to 162 ft. The citing council ruled to allow the additional 12 feet. Regarding the telecommunications tower at 12 Kluge Road, B. Donovan sent a letter to the Citing Council asking for drainage improvements to reduce increased surface water runoff from this site resulting from added impervious surfaces with construction of the new tower. There are flooding conditions on Kluge Road which is creating icing conditions. The citing council did order for CL&P to install additional drainage. This project has helped the runoff on Kluge Road. B. Donovan stated that local authority is not the final say on these issues; the Citing Council makes the final decision. R. Hiscox mentioned maybe putting a telecommunications tower where the water tower is; it could create additional revenue for the town by leasing it out. D. Pomeroy mentioned that Connecticut Citing Councils decisions are overturned frequently. Motion by T. Galvin, seconded by D. Pomeroy to accept the Land Use Inspector’s report. Unanimous.

Public Participation: none
The Commission discussed scheduling another Special Executive Session for 6:30 p.m. on March 22, 2006. B. Donovan is invited and the Commission asked that the town’s attorney be available at 7:15 p.m. Motion by A. Havican, seconded by T. Galvin to schedule a Special Executive Session for 6:30 p.m. on March 22, 2006. Unanimous.

Motion by A. Havican, seconded by T. Galvin to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Unanimous

Robert Hiscox, Chairman