September 3, 2008
Chairman Hiscox called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was taped.
Members Present: Robert Hiscox, Donald Pomeroy, Al Havican, Al Delelle (7:30 p.m.) Alternates Present: Jack Crumb, G. Graveline Absent: Greg Ploski, Ed Miller (Alt.) Also Present: Bill Donovan, Land Use Inspector
J. Crumb was seated for A. Delelle. G. Graveline was seated for G. Ploski.
Approval of Minutes:Motion by A. Havican seconded by D. Pomeroy to approve the August 6, 2008 minutes as amended. Unanimous.
Correspondence:
.1) Regency at Prospect by Toll Brothers - Letter dated August 19, 2008 regarding offering of Affordable Housing Units. 2) Central Naugatuck Valley Regional Plan of Conservation & Development 2008. 3) Connecticut Water Company - Letter dated August 25, 2008 regarding 99 Union City Road. 4) Regional Planning Commission - Council of Governments, Central Naugatuck Valley - Minutes from May 6, 2008 meeting. 5) Letter dated August 30, 2008 signed by seven Cedar Hill Drive residents.
In response to the two letters regarding the proposed industrial subdivision of 99 Union City Road from the Connecticut Water Company dated August 25, 2008 and from seven Cedar Hill Drive residents dated August 30, 2008, Chairman Hiscox stated that both letters 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.
Public Participation: None
Old Business:
a. Prospect Parks and Recreation Department - Site Plan Application for a proposed dog park at McGrath Park After commission discussion, Motion by A. Havican, seconded by D. Pomeroy to approve the Site Plan Application from the Prospect Park and Recreation Department for a proposed dog park at McGrath Park. Unanimous.
b. Regulation Revisions (continued from 4/2/08) After discussion on the proposed revisions to the Prospect Zoning Regulations, the commissioners agreed to continue the public hearing to September 17, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Hiscox stated that the commission still needs to address several items including the Plan of Development and the Zoning Map but are awaiting input from the open space committee. The commissioners will also hold discussion on commercial greenhouses in residential zones and property boundary line setback requirements for detached garages.
Public Hearings:
Chairman Hiscox read into record the “Notice of Public Hearings” for the public hearings as it appeared in the Republican American on August 22nd and August 29th, 2008.
a. 7:10 p.m. G. & G. Trust, Et Al - Proposed 5-Lot Industrial Subdivision for 99 Union City Road. Chairman Hiscox opened the public hearing by stating that this public hearing is only for the application for the road construction and to subdivide the Industrial land. The Chairman further stated that if this application is granted, then each lot will be developed separately and will be required to have an individual site plan that will come before the Planning & Zoning Commission for review. Chairman Hiscox stated that this public hearing would not be closed tonight and that a site walk of the property would be scheduled for the commissioners and invited the public to attend the site walk as well. The Chairman further stated that the revised plans which had just been received today, will have to be reviewed by the town engineer and the public works director. Attorney Bob Mezzo and Roland Desrosiers of R.J. Desrosiers and Associates appeared on behalf of the applicants and presented the commission with the “certificate of mailing” receipts from the letters sent out to the adjacent property owners along with a revised industrial re-subdivision plan dated July 17, 2008 and a drainage analysis dated July 10, 2008. Mr. Desrosiers stated that the proposed 5-lot subdivision is located on the southern side of Rt. 68 in an Industrial Zone - a portion of which is included in an Aquifer Protection Area. Mr. Desrosiers stated that the site plan was revised to change the discharge of drainage from the road itself and provided an updated cross section of the proposed road. Mr. Desrosiers stated that the first 200 feet of the road would be paved. The remaining portion leading toward the cul-de-sac will have a gravel surface with a proposed grass swale along the easterly side of the road which would intercept runoff from the lots in the subdivision and funnel it into the grass swale. Mr. Desrosiers stated that he had a meeting with Gene McCarthy, the assistant director of public works who indicated some concerns about drainage problems in the Gramar Avenue area which is west of this property. Mr. Desrosiers further stated that the runoff from this property is heading down in that general direction and so he went out and obtained some updated topography maps because the topos and contours provided to the commission with the first plan were U.S.G.S. enlargements and that this second plan shows updated contours. Mr. Desroisers stated that the applicants’ proposal is to construct a road which starts at Union City Road in a southerly direction with a cul-de-sac at the end. The contours of the site are flowing westerly with a high spot on the property and then gradually slopes toward Gramar Ave. He stated that the high spot on the property also pitches toward Union City Road and that water will be collected in catch basin drains which will discharge onto Union City Road. Mr. Desrosiers stated that all of the catch basins will have sumps in them and during construction they are going to put silt sacks in to collect any fines or siltation. He further stated that the catch basin at the end of the cul-de-sac will discharge to a rip-rap de-energizer and then a grass swale which will discharge the water toward the wetlands as it already does right now. Mr. Desrosiers stated that there are no plans for the individual lots but there is a note on the plans that states when each individual lot owner wants to develop their lot they will have to prepare a separate site plan and come before the Planning & Zoning Commission for approval. Mr. Desrosier further stated that the drainage calculations submitted indicate that each individual lot that is designed will have some sort of water runoff detention to provide for zero increase runoff so none of the neighbors will be impacted by any of the development. Mr. Desrosiers stated that the property to the east is an existing residential subdivision, Cedar Hill Drive, and will not get any runoff from the proposed development. He further stated that the developers will maintain a 100 foot buffer area and in the buffer area there will be no parking or buildings - only a landscaping mixture of evergreens and deciduous trees. Mr. Desrosiers stated that since the property is partially located in an Aquifer Protection Area, there are specific zoning regulations which need to be followed during the development of Lots 1, 2 & 3. Mr. Desrosiers stated that the plan updates some erosion control measures and details to be used and implemented during the construction and final grading. J. Crumb asked how much of the road is to be paved and Mr. Desrosiers stated the first 200 feet. Chairman Hiscox asked Mr. Desrosiers why the first set of plans had paved cross sections but the new plans do not show the pavement. Chairman Hiscox then asked Land Use Inspector Bill Donovan if our Subdivision Regulations provide for gravel roads. Bill Donovan responded no. Chairman Hiscox further stated that with regard to the Aquifer Protection Area it is his intention that the commission go through their checklist completely for each site to assure the public that anything to do with the Aquifer Protection Area will be in compliance with the Regulations. Chairman Hiscox asked if the Prospect Land Trust was interested in the property and explained to the public that the subdivision regulations require that a developer either give a portion of open space or a fee in lieu of open space which is then put into an account to purchase future open space. He further stated that if the Land Trust is interested the commission was in the mind to have the open space acquired by the Land Trust, but if the Land Trust is not interested the Town will not take the property. The commission would revert back to the regulation which allows the commission to collect a fee. J. Crumb stated that in his experience silt sacks do not work for a long period of time and asked if a binder could be placed on the road until such a time when the road could be paved. Mr. Desroiers stated that the applicants did not want to pave the road because they believe that the large trucks and cranes will dig up the pavement and thought that they would be able to maintain a gravel road on their own, but if the board requires the road to be completely paved the applicant will comply. Chairman Hiscox stated that he would prefer that an industrial paved road be installed to comply with the subdivision regulations. For the record, Chairman Hiscox read the letters received by the Planning & Zoning Commission regarding the application for the proposed industrial subdivision of 99 Union City Road from the Connecticut Water Company dated August 25, 2008 and from seven Cedar Hill Drive residents dated August 30, 2008. Chairman Hiscox asked for comments from the public. John Dikeman, Prospect Land Trust stated that the Prospect Land Trust had limited discussion regarding the proposed open space being offered. Mr. Dikeman stated that the Land Trust would like to walk the site and had some concern about maintaining this size property. Mr. Dikeman stated that the next Land Trust meeting is scheduled for September 25th and this proposal would be more fully discussed at that time. Don Reilly, 35 Tress Road stated that he was in attendance on behalf of his father and the residents of Cedar Hill Drive. Mr. Reilly stated concern over the location of the driveway and asked the commission if the State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation had approved the proposed driveway and/or road. Chairman Hiscox stated that they did not have DOT approval yet and the commission would not give any approval until it was approved by the State. Mr. Desrosiers stated that when the DOT approves the road cut, the current driveway at 103 Union City Road would be eliminated and the only access way would be the new road. Mr. Reilly asked Mr. Desrosiers if he was aware of any recent subdivisions in Connecticut that had dirt or gravel roads. Mr. Desrosiers said that there are subdivisions in Hebron and the Colchester area that have dirt and gravel roads. He stated that they mix the dirt and gravel roads with oil and then cover it with sand and this was a well known process used in the past. Mr. Reilly further asked Mr. Desrosiers what the cost differential was between paving the proposed road and leaving it gravel and dirt. Chairman Hiscox stated that cost would have no bearing on the commission’s decision. Mr. Reilly questioned public safety, utilities and the use of fire hydrants. Chairman Hiscox stated that the utilities would be underground and Mr. Desrosiers stated that there would be a water main in the new road and water services will be brought to each individual lot. Mr. Reilly stated concern that if the commission approved this application with a dirt road that it would be setting a precedence for other properties to be developed in town with a dirt road and asked the commission to uphold the current regulations and protect the Cedar Hill Drive neighborhood and their investments. He stated that if the commission was to approve this plan that they may consider giving the Cedar Hill Drive residents some extra consideration by implementing additional conditions. He suggested 10 ft. to 20 ft. berms with evergreens within the 100 ft. buffer areas and asked the developers if they would consider an additional 10% open space on top of the 100 ft. buffer and agree to not keep any outdoor storage on the Cedar Hill Drive side of the sudivision. Mr. Reilly further stated when Industrial Road was being developed the developer left a 100 ft. buffer of trees between Dorothy Avenue to protect the neighbors. P. Esatto, 70 Salem Road stated concern for the wetlands and the Aquifer Protection Area and asked if any studies had been done. Chairman Hiscox stated that there are regulations which prohibit certain activities in the Aquifer Protection Area and the commission has a checklist of items that are prohibited in an Aquifer Protection Area and that will limit what will be allowed and that the commission will go through the checklist as each site is developed and will defer to the Connecticut Water Company’s recommendations. Mr. Esatto also questioned the residential portion of the lot at Salem Road and asked if the 100 ft. buffer started at the residential line to which Mr. Desrosiers stated yes. J. Kaufman, 84 Clark Hill Road presented the commission with a map of the Aquifer Protection Area and stated his concern over the ability of the Town to monitor activities that can possibly harm the Aquifer Protection Area. He further stated that he wanted to impress upon the commission how unique of a resource the Aquifer Protection Area was for the region and for Prospect. Mr. Kaufman stated that the Aquifer is located in one of the most populated sections of Prospect and this section relies heavily on the Aquifer for recharge of their drinking water. Mr. Kaufman stated that he hopes the commission adheres to their own regulations by requiring the proposed road be paved with curbing and some form of a grease/oil traps that could intercept any grease/oil spills that could occur with the storage of cranes right on top of an Aquifer. Mr. Kaufman suggested that monitoring wells be installed and be monitored at least twice a year and hopefully if any pollutant levels start to show they could be tracked and shut down in order to save the Aquifer. Mr. Kaufman also suggested that any conditions implemented be placed on Land Records so any future buyers/tenants of the property will be aware of and hopefully adhere to the conditions. J. Blake, 2 Cedar Hill Drive stated concern over the position of the proposed new road and asked how far it would be from the edge of the road to the buffer. Mr. Desrosiers stated it would be at least 120 feet and that there is currently a line painted on Rt. 68 showing where the road will access the property. Chairman Hiscox asked for any further public comment. Chairman Hiscox stated that the public hearing will be continued to September 17, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. and a site walk of the property will take place on Saturday, September 13, 2008 at 8:00 a.m.
b. 7:20 p.m. Industrial Storage, LLC, 99 Union City Road - Special Permit Application to temporarily park 17 modular storage units on property in an Industrial Zone. Chairman Hiscox stated for the record that this application is to use the property as it is right now. He further stated that if the industrial subdivision, which application is currently pending, is approved, Mr. Gallagher would have to come back before the Planning & Zoning Commission to present a site plan for the specific lot he plans to utilize. Bob Mezzo, attorney for the applicant and John Gallagher, managing member of Industrial Storage, LLC appeared on behalf of the applicant and presented the commission with the “certificate of mailing” receipts from the letters sent out to the adjacent property owners along with a revised site plan showing 99 Union City Road as a single lot, access way through the current driveway of 103 Union City Road and indicating where the proposed 17 modular storage units will be placed. The applicant provided the commission with a photograph of the storage units and explained that they are similar to modular classrooms. Chairman Hiscox asked the public for comments. D. Pomeroy asked if the subdivision application was approved, will these storage units be assembled into a building to which John Gallagher answered yes. D. Reilly, Tress Road questioned what driveway would be used to get the units onto the property and if the units are moved around once the Special Permit is in place if this would be considered a violation. Mr. Reilly also asked that if the special permit is granted, can the commission place a condition on the permit which will require screening and/or fencing in accordance with Section 3.5.1.3 of the Zoning Regulations. Chairman Hiscox stated that he did not feel that such a condition would be necessary on the permit but that the commission could discuss and decide if such a condition is necessary. Mr. Reilly further asked what the hours of operation would be for the use of the cranes to be kept on the property. Mr. Gallagher stated that his business is open from about 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. but this site would be for storage only. J. Blake, 2 Cedar Hill Road asked if the modular units would be placed on dirt and if they are on wheels and who would be policing what was inside the units. Chairman Hiscox stated that if a complaint or something came up, then our Land Use Inspector Bill Donovan would look into it further. B. Reilly, 14 Cedar Hill Road provided the commission with photographs of 99 Union City Road showing storage containers and cranes already being stored on the property and asked the commission if any permit had already been issued for the property. Chairman Hiscox stated that nothing had been approved for outdoor storage on the property. Attorney Mezzo stated that his client was unaware that the cranes and containers were on 99 Union City Road and believed that they were on 103 Union City Road. Chairman Hiscox asked Bill Donovan to alert the property owner that the Planning & Zoning Commission is looking for an explanation of what is out there and that a site walk will be scheduled. Chairman Hiscox continued the public hearing until September 17, 2008 at 7:20 p.m.
c. 7:30 p.m. Crosspointe Exotics, LLC, 50 Waterbury Road - Special Permit Application for a used car dealership. Mark Guastaferri and Bob Scrip appeared as the applicants and presented the commission with the “certificate of mailing” receipts from the letters sent out to the adjacent property owners. Mr. Scrip stated that this business will sell “high end collector” type cars using mostly internet sales and will have very little activity on the property. G. Graveline asked if any repairs would take place on the property and Mr. Scrip stated that should a vehicle that they are trying to sell need any repairs, painting, etc., the work would be done at the autobody shop that he owns in town. Mr. Guastaferri stated that there would not be any signs or outdoor storage of the vehicles. Mr. Guastaferri stated that he and Mr. Scrip have hired an expert to complete their application for their State of Connecticut Dealers License which is also necessary for them to run this business. D. Pomeroy asked how many of the garage bays in the building will this business occupy. Mr. Guastaferri stated that the vehicles would be stored in two of the ten bays on the property - specifically, the second and third bays in from the driveway. Chairman Hiscox asked if the Town of Prospect can collect taxes on the value of these cars. Mr. Scrip stated that the Town can collect taxes on the vehicles only if they are registered. He further stated that the State will collect sales tax when a vehicle is sold and the Town of Prospect can tax the business on any equipment owned by the business. D. Pomeroy questioned the noise level from cars that may have compression pipes rather than a muffler and if this business would have any such cars and Mr. Scrip stated that it is not beyond the realm of possibility. Mr. Guastaferri stated that with regard to noise he would have to answer to the other tenants in this building. Chairman Hiscox asked for public comments. There was none. Motion by D. Pomeroy, seconded by A. Havican to close the public hearing for Crosspointe Exotics, LLC, 50 Waterbury Road for a Special Permit for a used car dealership. Unanimous.
Land Use Inspector’s Report: Bill Donovan asked the commission for clarification with regard to the renewal of home occupation permits. After commission discussion, it was decided that when a home occupation permit expires, the Land Use Office would renew the permit internally, without a public hearing, as long as the permit was not the subject of a complaint or commissioner concern. Bill informed the commission that the Prospect Estates subdivision off of Cook Road is now in the foreclosure process and may be taken over by a new owner in the near future. Bill further advised the commission that the permit is under Prospect Estates, LLC and at some point the commission may have to recognize a new owner. Bill stated that there is an existing $50,000.00 bond in place and there is still work which needs to be done. Bill further stated that the new owners will need to provide a replacement bond before the commission should consider releasing the current bond. Chairman Hiscox asked Bill to look into the “Scholar Painting” signs that have popped up all over Town. Chairman Hiscox asked Bill to address the UPS sandwich board sign located at 50 Waterbury Road. The Chairman also asked Bill to take the next step with regard to the Dunkin Donuts wrap around type sign stating that they continue to keep putting the signs up even though they have been asked repeatedly not to. Chairman Hiscox also asked for a status on 483 Matthew Street. Bill stated that although he had asked the homeowner several times to come in and apply for a variance, they have yet to do so. Chairman Hiscox asked that Bill proceed with a Cease & Desist on this matter. G. Graveline asked for a status on the addition put onto the rear of 22 Union City Road. Bill responded that because the owner did not respond to the Cease & Desist, he recently had a Municipal Citation served on the property owner by a state marshal but as of today has not heard from the owner. J. Crumb asked about the commercial vehicles on 170 Scott Road in the back of the elderly apartment building. G. Graveline stated that the rear of 170 Scott Road borders industrial property in Waterbury and the commercial vehicles are located on the Waterbury side. G. Graveline stated that he spoke to Mr. McAllen who told him he finally gained access to the property from Progress Lane in Waterbury and that Mr. McAllen knows where the property line is. G. Graveline also questioned the difference between a private road and a public road and what is Planning & Zoning’s jurisdiction of a private road with lots on it. Bill stated that a private road needs to be built to the Town’s specifications as it may become necessary for the Town to take over the road in the future. Motion by D. Pomeroy, seconded by G. Graveline to accept the Land Use Inspector’s report. Unanimous.
Public Participation: None
Adjournment Motion: by A. Havican, seconded by G. Graveline to adjourn at 9:03 p.m. Unanimous
Robert Hiscox