Planning & Zoning

June 18, 2008

Chairman Hiscox called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. The meeting was taped.

Members Present: Robert Hiscox, Donald Pomeroy, Al Delelle, Greg Ploski, Al Havican
Alternates Present: G. Graveline
Absent: Jack Crumb, Ed Miller
Also Present: Bill Donovan, Land Use Inspector

Chairman Hiscox noted that although the Agenda stated a Public Hearing was scheduled for continued review of the regulation revisions, that Public Hearing was closed at the May 21, 2008 meeting.

Approval of Minutes: Motion by A. Havican seconded by A. Delelle to approve the May 21, 2008 minutes. Unanimous.

Correspondence:
1. UConn - College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Journal - Spring 2008
2. Letter & Attachments from Carol & Russell Lawrence, 9 Barry Lane dated June 10, 2008 in opposition to the gunsmith home occupation special permit.
3. Letter from Land Use Inspector Bill Donovan dated 6/18/08 re: bond reduction at Woodmont Estates Subdivision.
4. Letter from Carl Graveline re: Anthony Dorso’s property located at 30A Scott Road.

In response to the letter from Carol & Russell Lawrence, 9 Barry Lane dated June 10, 2008 in opposition to the gunsmith home occupation special permit, Chairman Hiscox stated that this letter would be addressed during the public hearing scheduled for 7:10 p.m.

Motion by D. Pomeroy seconded by A. Havican to accept the correspondence. Unanimous.

Under discussion the Commissioners discussed taking a motion to approve Larry Farrell’s request for a bond reduction on the Woodmont Estates Subdivision in accordance with Land Use Inspector Bill Donovan’s letter dated 6/18/08. Motion by D. Pomeroy, seconded by G. Ploski to approve the bond reduction request made by Larry Farrell for the Woodmont Estates Subdivision to reduce the bond from the original amount of $681,000.00 by $191,000.00 leaving a remaining balance of $490,000.00. Unanimous.

Public Participation:

E. Schieffer, 133 Cook Road - Mrs. Schieffer came before the Commission looking for advice as to how she could split her 5 ½ acre property in order to give her daughter and son-in-law a building lot. She stated that in 1988 she had planned to split the property and obtained a 3 ft.driveway variance necessary for the split. The split, for personal reasons, never occurred and since that time the Regulations have changed and under the current Regulations, the proposed split would be considered “stacking” of two rear lots and therefore would be prohibited. After Commission discussion, Chairman Hiscox advised Mrs. Schieffer that she would need to apply for a variance before the Zoning Board of Appeals. D. Wartko, 14 Brighton Road stated concern over the amount of trucks carrying fill that have been brought onto 44 Bayberry Drive. Chairman Hiscox stated that he has spoken with the property owner and that he will be meeting with the Building Inspector regarding this matter. Land Use Inspector Bill Donovan stated that the property owners did obtain an Inland Wetland Permit to create a water garden on the property. The Commission discussed the permit requirements for movement of more than one hundred (100) cubic yards of earthen material. Chairman Hiscox asked Bill Donovan to follow up on this matter. M. Beltrami, 14 Blue Trail Drive stated continued concern over tow trucks and trailers being kept at 15 Blue Trail Drive. D. Pomeroy and Chairman Hiscox both stated that they had driven by the property numerous times over the past few weeks and have not seen the trucks being referred to at the property. Ms. Beltrami further asked if a carrier type trailer that would carry a racecar would be allowed. Chairman Hiscox stated that recreational type vehicles are allowed as long as they are being stored on the property in compliance with the Regulations. J. Capobianco, 7 Blue Trail Drive asked the Commission if the owner of 15 Blue Trail Drive had responded to the Commission’s correspondence. D. Pomeroy stated that the property owners do not need to respond if they are not in violation. Chairman Hiscox asked Bill Donovan if he had ever received a response and Mr. Donovan stated that he had not.

Public Hearings:
- 7:10 p.m. William Blakely, 7 Barry Lane, Special Permit Application for a Home Occupation: Gunsmith. Chairman Hiscox read into the record the “Notice of Public Hearing” for this application as it appeared in the Republican American on June 6, 2008 and June 13, 2008. For the record Chairman Hiscox noted the correspondence received from Carol & Russell Lawrence, 9 Barry Lane dated June 10, 2008 in opposition to the gunsmith home occupation special permit and that all Commissioners had received a copy of the correspondence. William Blakely stated that he would like to run a home occupation as a gunsmith to repair, modify and service firearms. Mr. Blakely stated that he would be the only employee using his own pickup truck and that there would be no signage or outdoor storage at the property. He stated that he would not be making explosives or keeping ammunition on the property and that he would not be servicing machine guns or assault type weapons only pistols, rifles and hand guns. He further stated that he would not shoot the firearms on the property and named several local ranges where he would test fire the guns. He stated that there would only be 2 to 3 customers a week at most and that they would only be at the property for a few minutes at a time either to drop off or pick up a firearm. Mr. Blakely stated there would be 1 to 2 Federal Express type deliveries per week. Land Use Inspector Bill Donovan asked the applicant how he planned to handle the disposal of the various oils and chemicals that he would use in the servicing process. Mr. Blakely stated that he would collect the oil and chemicals in metal containers and bring them to the recycling center. Bill Donovan further asked the applicant if he had an alarm system on his home to which the applicant stated that he did and it was monitored by ADT. Chairman Hiscox stated for the record that having a security system is not a requirement for a home occupation. G. Ploski asked how many firearms the applicant planned to have on site at one time, how large of a safe the applicant had and if all of the firearms would be kept in the safe and if he ever got to the point where he had too many firearms on site would he increase his certified safe capacity to accommodate all the weapons. Mr. Blakely stated he did have a separate gun safe for his personal guns and that he had a safe which holds up to 10 firearms for his customers. He stated that if he could not fit all of the customer firearms in the current safe that he would increase certified safe capacity. Chairman Hiscox questioned the applicant if he needed to obtain a State license to be a gunsmith. Mr. Blakely stated that he has applied for a Federal license through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms and was not able to obtain his Federal license until he was issued a permit by the Town. G. Graveline questioned where the parking spaces would be. The applicant replied that the parking would be in back of the home. Chairman Hiscox asked the public for comments. Carol Lawrence, 9 Barry Lane a direct neighbor of the applicant’s property highlighted portions from her correspondence submitted to the Commission. Mrs. Lawrence noted she had two young sons and the Barry Lane neighborhood consisted of several children from toddlers to teens. Mrs. Lawrence noted that she spoke to an Allstate Insurance agent who stated that the suggested policy for a gunsmith home occupation should be no less than $1,000,000.00 and that no insurance company would want to bear such a responsibility. She further stated that the patron parking spaces that Mr. Blakely showed on his application did not exist due to a non-working drain at the base of the applicant’s driveway leaving the patron spaces frozen over or under water throughout the year. Mrs. Lawrence further stated that due to the lack of parking, patrons would either park in neighbors’ driveways or in the cul-de-sac and then be walking through the neighborhood with their firearms to enter the Blakely residence leaving their ammunition and assault weapons in their vehicles putting the neighbors at risk. Mrs. Lawrence stated concern over the increased traffic and noted that a post office box may alleviate some of the Fed Ex type deliveries. She stated that there is no way for the applicant to screen patrons and that potentially irate customers with firearms may be loitering on the street as children walk home from their bus stops. She said the residents would request police to patrol the area many times a day thereby adding to the increased traffic. She noted that a set of guidelines for the modifications that Mr. Blakely will offer his patrons was not listed in the application as required. She further noted concern over the cleaning agents used, ventilation of the fumes, and stated that waste removal must be monitored. Mrs. Lawrence stated that if this special permit were to be granted it would negatively affect the value of the homes in the neighborhood and the Town. Mrs. Lawrence quoted Section 5.4.6 “The home occupation must clearly be incidental and subordinate to the residential use of the main building and shall not impair the residential character of the premises”. Chairman Hiscox asked the applicant if he wished to respond to the public comments and the applicant did not. D. Pomeroy questioned if the applicant’s proposed patron parking space were located in wetlands. Land Use Inspector Bill Donovan showed a map which indicated that 7 Barry Lane is not in a wetland area. G. Graveline asked for a more detailed drawing showing exactly where all of the parking spaces are to be located on the property. G. Graveline questioned if someone dropping off or picking up a firearm needed to have a license to carry a firearm? Mr. Blakely stated that they needed to have a permit for the gun and he would be asking all patrons to show proof of a permit and no one other than the permittee would be allowed to pick up or drop off the weapon. D. Kelliher, 5 Barry Lane questioned if the weapons would be concealed when being brought in or out of 7 Barry Lane. Mr. Blakeley stated that he would set up appointments and would personally escort patrons in and out of his home to ensure that all of the firearms will be in cases or concealed. J. Andrews, 14 Brighton Road stated that being a gunsmith is an honorable profession. Mrs. Andrews stated that it is not a simple process to obtain a pistol permit - you need to be screened and fingerprinted by State Police and if you have a criminal record you cannot get a permit. She further stated that if there is to be no ammunition kept at the property there can’t be any accidents. She also stated that the gun oil used in the servicing process is minimal and that she would welcome a gunsmith into her neighborhood. L. Farland, 43 Summit Road stated concern for the children who live in the Barry Lane neighborhood. She asked the Commission to consider that these families bought their houses on a dead end street for traffic safety reasons and now they have to worry about guns in the neighborhood. G. Ploski asked the applicant if the ATF keeps a paper trail and how they monitor gunsmith activity. Mr. Blakley stated that he has forms which he needs to fill out anytime he works on a firearm which include names, serial numbers, etc. which are held by the gunsmith and that the ATF can come out to review the paperwork at any time. Chairman Hiscox stated safety concerns over having guns in our neighborhoods and the intent of the Regulations. He reminded the applicant that this application is only to repair weapons and that the applicant would not be allowed to sell any firearms if the application is\ approved. After Commission discussion the public hearing was continued to July 2, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. in order for Mr. Blakely to provide the Commission with a scale drawing outlining the parking and for further discussion and public comments.

Old Business:

- Curtiss Landscaping, 36 Union City Road - Updated Site Plan. At the Commission’s request, Alicia Strileckis presented the Commission with a drawing outlining her business property. After Commission discussion, Chairman Hiscox asked Mrs. Strileckis to prepare a more detailed site plan in accordance with Article 11 of the Zoning Regulations and present it to the Commission at the next scheduled Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on July 2, 2008.

New Business:

- Matt Switajewski, Scott Road - Pre-Application Review of proposed farm & greenhouse in residential area. Mr. Switajewski was not present and therefore no action was taken.

- Vincent DeLuca, 173 Summit Road - Special Permit Application for a Home Occupation: Handyman. Applicant was not present and therefore no action was taken.

- Paulo DaCosta, 245 Straitsville Road - Special Permit Application for a Home Occupation: Masonry. Mr. DaCosta presented the Commission his application for a Home Occupation for an office for his masonry business. The applicant stated that he would use the office for bookkeeping purposes only. He stated that he would only be using his own pick up truck and that there would not be any other employees at the property. The applicant stated that there may be an occasional service provider picking up or dropping off plans and/or estimates. D. Pomeroy questioned if there would be any outdoor storage of masonry materials and the applicant responded no. Motion by D. Pomeroy, seconded by A. Havican to accept the application from Paulo DaCosta, 245 Straitsville Road for a Special Permit for a Home Occupation: Masonry and set a public hearing for July 2, 2008 at 7:20 p.m. Unanimous.

- Ralph & Dawn Powell, 39 Melissa Lane for a Special Permit for a Home Occupation: Office for Powell Enterprises, LLC for bookkeeping purposes. Ralph Powell presented the Commission with an Application for a Home Occupation for an office for Powell Enterprises, LLC for bookkeeping purposes. The applicant stated that he would be the only employee and that there would be no one coming to the office. Motion by D. Pomeroy, seconded by A. Havican to accept the application from Ralph & Dawn Powell, 39 Melissa Lane for a Special Permit for a Home Occupation: Office for Powell Enterprises, LLC for bookkeeping purposes and set a public hearing for July 2, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. Unanimous.

G. Ploski excused himself from the meeting. Chairman Hiscox seated G. Graveline for G. Ploski.

- G & G Trust, Et Al, 99 Union City Road - Pre-Application - Private roadway design for proposed Industrial Subdivision.< /i> Roland Desrosiers of R.J. Desrosiers and Associates appeared on behalf of the applicant for an informal preliminary discussion. Mr. Desrosiers stated that he has been hired to prepare the road design for a private road (Ploski Drive) for the proposed Industrial Subdivision at 99 Union City Road. Mr. Desrosier submitted a Construction Plan dated June 9, 2008 showing the proposed road only - not the entire subdivision. Mr. Desrosiers stated that the road would be 32 ft. wide and will come in off of Rt. 68 at a 3% grade and then into a vertical curve which breaks to a grade of 5.12 % and then finishes in a 100 ft. diameter cul-de-sac at a grade of 2.35% all in accordance to Prospect’s Zoning requirements. Mr. Desrosiers stated that this private road would be owned by the individual owners of the lots in the Industrial Subdivision and that the Town would bear none of the expense. He stated that the first 200 feet of the road would be paved and will have catch basins at the 200 ft. mark and then the remainder would be gravel or trap dust type base with the thickness of the road to the Town’s specifications. Chairman Hiscox questioned if this road was in the Aquifer Protection Zone and Mr. Desrosiers said part of the road is in the Aquifer Protection Zone. Chairman Hiscox asked that when the formal application is submitted that it be in compliance with all of the Aquifer Protection Regulations and that it meets the specifications according to the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Desrosiers then submitted a second 2 page plan dated June 9, 2008 showing the methodology for construction i.e. anti-tracking apron, energy dissipater, sediment control fence, etc. which he stated were all conforming to the “2002 Connecticut Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control”. Mr. Desrosiers asked the Commission if they would require open space and Chairman Hiscox responded that the Town would require open space or a fee. The Chairman noted that the Commission had a preliminary discussion with the applicant at a previous meeting about the open space possibly being at the end of Salem Road to the left of the pond. Mr. Desrosiers further stated that once this road is constructed the driveway to 103 Union City Road will be eliminated and landscaped eliminating a road cut on Rt. 68. Mr. Desrosiers said that he believes a formal application will be brought to the Commission in the next month or so.

Land Use Inspector’s Report
Under discussion the Chairman stated concern as to the time frame of the Public Hearing on the proposed Regulation Revisions which was closed at the May 21, 2008 meeting. After Commission discussion with Land Use Inspector Bill Donovan the Commission voted to grant the Commission a 65 day extension of time to render a decision on the proposed Regulation Revisions. Motion by D. Pomeroy, seconded by A. Havican to grant the Commission a 65 day extension of time to render a decision on the remaining proposed Regulation Revisions which were subject to a Public Hearing that closed on 5/21/08. Unanimous. Land Use Inspector Bill Donovan stated that he had followed up with Ken Feroni of O & G about his question of a new permit to bring in different screener machines to make a smaller product. Mr. Feroni stated that he was probably a little too quick to contact Bill but regardless the issue is now on hold. If in the future whatever new process they brought in to make smaller product would take no more time to process than what they are using now. Bill stated that he received a call from Steve Borowy of Stallion Corporation who are the owners of 5 lots in the Industrial Park. Mr. Borowy asked if he needs a permit to keep 20’ to 40’ metal outdoor storage bins on these Industrial properties. After Commission discussion, Chairman Hiscox stated that Stallion Corporation would need to fill out an application for a special permit for outdoor storage within an a Industrial Zone and provide a detailed site plan. In response to the correspondence received from Carl Graveline dated 6/12/08 regarding Dorso: 30A Scott Road: Subdivision and 500’ Driveway, Bill Donovan stated that Mr. Dorso’s property was subject to a boundary change whereby Mr. Dorso sold his neighbor a portion of his property and it does not qualify as a subdivision or re-subdivision. Bill stated that he has two legal opinions on this matter, one from Attorney Franklin Pilicy and one from the Town’s Attorney, and therefore Mr. Dorso does not need to come in to satisfy any subdivision regulations. As to the second issue with the driveway in excess of 500’, Bill stated that the 500’ driveway length limit for a rear lot went into effect with our most recent complete revision of the Subdivision Regulations in 2004 - prior to that, there was no limit on the length of the driveway for a rear lot. The land in question is vacant with no improvements and under State Statutes governing Land Use, if there is a vacant parcel of land that is contained within an approved subdivision any development of that land has to comply with the subdivision regulations in effect at that time of approval and this subdivision was approved in the mid- seventies before there were limits on the lengths of a driveway for a rear lot. Bill further stated that Mr. Dorso has gotten two Inland Wetland approvals, one for timber harvesting and the second for the driveway crossing over the wetlands. Bill further stated that Mr. Dorso provided the Inland Wetland Commission with a complete soil report, good site plans and the Inland Wetland Commission had a site walk on the property and approved the wetlands regulated activities which Mr. Dorso is working on at this time. Chairman Hiscox questioned Bill about the garage mentioned in the letter and Bill stated that Mr. Dorso had an application and public hearing before the ZBA on June 17, 2008 to obtain a 500’ variance to construct an oversized garage. The application was denied by the ZBA so Mr. Dorso did not get the approval to build the larger attached garage. Bill stated that Mr. Dorso can still come back at a later date and apply for a separate detached garage as long as he meets all of the regulations. G. Graveline asked Bill if you can have a 3 car garage attached to your house and a detached garage also. Bill stated that you can as long as you meet all the requirements. G. Graveline further asked Bill if the 5 acre parcel released from Dorso sold to Vitti is now all contiguous land for Vitti. Bill responded that it is now a common piece of property not a separate building lot. He further stated it has no access to a Town road so it is not considered as a separate subdivision lot. D. Pomeroy questioned if the Tax Assessor is taxing the property as two separate lots. Chairman Hiscox stated concern about this becoming “some back door way of subdividing the land” and that it needs to be formally resolved by the Planning and Zoning Commission that this is not an approved building lot. Chairman Hiscox stated that since the Planning & Zoning Commission had received formal correspondence, he asked that Bill follow up on this matter and to also contact Carl Graveline and keep him informed. D. Pomeroy stated concern over the need for tracking pads to keep the soil off of Scott Road near the new entrance of the Toll Brothers project. D. Pomeroy also mentioned the tree trimmer truck is still coming onto the property on Plank Road. Chairman Hiscox stated concern that the DeZinno truck has been coming in the past few weekends on Matthew Street and that the property owner is perpetually filling, grading and growing grass continuing to extend back in to the woods. Chairman Hiscox informed the Commission that two appeals have been filed in response to the Commission’s Resolution of Approval of the Amended Special Permit which was approved for the property at 1 Old School House Road at the May 7, 2008 meeting. The Chairman stated that he has driven by 1 Old School House Road and noticed that the required 2 ft. planters are not in compliance and asked Bill to follow up. The Chairman further asked Bill if Mr. DiLoreto had ever provided DMV certification that the vehicle which he takes home to Cook Road meets the weight requirement. Bill stated that although he had been asked to do so, Mr. DiLoreto has not provided him with a certification and that he would follow up. Motion by D. Pomeroy, seconded by A. Delelle to accept Bill’s report. Unanimous

Public Participation: None

Adjournment: Motion by A. Havican, seconded by D. Pomeroy to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. Unanimous

Robert Hiscox