February 16, 2011
Chairman Pomeroy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was taped.
Members Present: D. Pomeroy, A. Delelle, A. Havican, G. Ploski, J. Crumb
Alternates Present: G. Graveline, D. Santoro
Absent: K. Clifford
Others Present: William Donovan, Land Use Inspector
Motion by G. Ploski, seconded by A. Delelle to approve the January 5, 2011 minutes as amended. Unanimous.
Motion by A. Havican, seconded by A. Delelle to approve the January 19, 2011 minutes. Unanimous.
Correspondence:
1. Connecticut Community Foundation – Invitation to Naugatuck River Forum.
2. Winter 2011 Newsletter of the Center for Land Use Education and Research at the University
of Connecticut
3. CT Federation of Planning & Zoning Agencies – 63rd Annual Conference Notice
4. Referral letter dated 1/6/11 from Virginia Mason, Assistant Director, Regional Planning
Commission, Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley re: Municipality of
Naugatuck proposed regulation amendments.
5. Copy of letter from Timothy Reilly, Save Prospect Corp. dated 1/24/11 to Stephen Sackter,
Chairman, Prospect Inland Wetlands Commission re: request for consideration of Wetlands
Setbacks – Wind Power Regulations
6. Copy of letter from Timothy Reilly, Save Prospect Corp. dated 2/1/11 to Thomas Galvin,
Chairman, Prospect Town Council re: Upcoming Siting Council Hearings – Town
Representation
Motion by G. Ploski, seconded by A. Delelle to accept the correspondence. Unanimous.
Public Participation:
Chairman Pomeroy asked the public for comments and stated that while public comments are strongly encouraged, the commission will only dedicate 10 minutes to any one subject. No public comment.
New Business:
a. TSC Properties, LLC, 170 Scott Road – Special Permit Application for General Contractors, service & equipment. Attorney Warren Hess, 180 Church Street, Naugatuck, CT and Michael McAllen, the principal of TSC Properties, appeared and presented the commission with a Special Permit Application for General Contractors, Service & Equipment use at 170 Scott Road. The application included a Site Development Report dated February 2011 and a Site Development Plan dated January 2011 prepared by Steven C. Sullivan a civil engineer from CCA, LLC, and a Building Plan entitled “McAllen Contractors Garage” dated 4/13/10 prepared by Borghesi Building & Engineering Co., Inc. Attorney Hess briefly outlined the history of this property which included a text change amendment, a zone change and several variances granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals that ultimately allowed Mr. McAllen to apply for this Special Permit. Attorney Hess stated that 170 Scott Road is now zoned Commerce Park District that allows General Contractors, Service & Equipment uses by Special Permit. Mr. McAllen stated that the proposed 7,500 sq. ft. commercial building has not changed and remains the same as when discussed with this commission during the public hearing on the text and zone changes Attorney Hess spoke of earlier tonight. Motion by G. Ploski, seconded by A. Havican to accept the Special Permit Application from TSC Properties for General Contractors, Service & Equipment use at 170 Scott Road and to set a public hearing for March 16, 2011 at 7:30 p.m. Unanimous.
Public Hearing:
7:10 p.m. Tom Satkunas, 232 New Haven Road – Application to add a new section to the Prospect Zoning Regulations to regulate wind power (continued from 1/19/11). Attorney Warren Hess, 180 Church Street appeared with and on behalf of the applicant Tom Satkunas. Attorney Hess submitted a revised set of proposed regulations for commission review. Attorney Hess briefly detailed the proposed revisions for the commission highlighting the following changes from the last set of proposed revisions: 1) added definitions for flicker, shadow, ice-throw and ice-shedding; 2) larger “utility scale” wind facilities will only be allowed in industrial zones and require a special permit and smaller “on-site” wind facilities will be allowed in commercial and industrial zones and require a site plan; 3) setbacks for the larger “utility scale” wind facilities to be sixth tenths (.6 ) of a mile or 3,168-ft. with a height limitation of 200-ft; 4) setbacks for smaller “on-site” wind facilities to be 800-ft. with a height limitation of 100-ft.; 5) added “spacing” requirement for all towers or turbines to be separated by a distance equal to seven times the rotor width or the manufacturer’s specification, whichever is greater. Attorney Hess stated that he and the applicant are open to suggestions from the public and the commission but request that this public hearing be closed and voted on tonight in order to have wind power regulations in place before the State of Connecticut’s Siting Council evidentiary hearing on the BNE Energy petition which is scheduled for February 24th. Attorney Hess stated that while the Siting Council has jurisdiction over larger wind projects such as the one currently pending in Prospect, according to State Statute, the Siting Council shall consider Town regulations in their review process. The commission held discussion with Attorney Hess and the applicant on several of the ongoing concerns that have been discussed during recent commission meetings such as compatibility of wind turbines in a residential zone, proposed setbacks, and height limitations. J. Crumb stated concern over the lack of expert testimony available to speak to the commission on wind turbines. Attorney Hess stated there are no rules in Connecticut that govern large scale wind projects and therefore there are no experts. The commission stated concern over the possibility of setting regulations so restrictive that essentially zone wind turbines out of Prospect. Attorney Hess stated that variances and zone changes could always be sought in the future. Chairman Pomeroy asked for comments from the public. Calvin Goodwin, 19 Woodcrest Drive stated that it is okay to zone some things out of Town and offered Bradley International Airport as an example. Joe Lukeski, 213 New Haven Road stated concern about figuring out the right setback stating that the commission is looking for something that doesn’t exist. Josh Walker, 29 Lee Road stated that utility scale wind facilities will pose some sort of risk to property values and the safety, health and well being of residents and that the .6 of a mile setback comes from an unbiased logical source. Tim Reilly, 17 Woodcrest Drive stated that his group has researched wind facilities across the U.S. and was able to locate and study 63 facilities. Mr. Reilly stated that if the project currently before the Siting Council goes forward, Prospect will be the most dense site in the Country having 234 homes within the .6 of a mile setback. Mr. Reilly stated that the Cape Cod Zoning Commission is putting a 3,000-ft setback requirement for all future projects and that he believes that the bear minimum setback that should be set for Prospect is 3,168-ft. Greg Cerrato, 20 Candee Road stated that new wind technology is coming out everyday such as silent vertical turbines and that he feels the commission should not rush wind facility regulations out of fear or zone out the harvesting of free energy from wind. Attorney Hess requested that the commission close the public hearing and take a vote on the proposed regulations or call a special meeting before February 24th. Land Use Inspector Bill Donovan stated that he strongly recommends that the public hearing remain open and that the commission give the Town’s legal counsel the opportunity to review a final version of the proposed regulations. The commission concurred. Chairman Pomeroy stated that it is the commission’s standard procedure to consult with the Town’s legal counsel on these types of matters and asked Attorney Hess to provide Bill Donovan, before the next scheduled meeting on March 2nd, a final draft to be reviewed by the Town’s legal counsel, and where her comments will be provided to the commission prior to a vote being taken on this proposal. Bill Donovan stated that due to the substantial changes to the proposed regulations, he would also like to forward a copy to the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley for their review. Tim Reilly, 17 Woodcrest Drive stated that the Siting Council will continue to accept supplemental information after the February 16th submittal deadline and that the Siting Council has already set continuation dates for the Evidentiary Hearings to take place on March 3rd, 15th and 31st. Chairman Pomeroy continued the public hearing to March 2, 2011 at 7:10 p.m.
7:30 p.m. Proposed text change amendment to Prospect Zoning Regulations Section 3.1 Uses By District to add “Redemption Center” and “Recycling” as permitted uses by special permit in the Business, Industrial 1 and Industrial 2 Districts and amendment to Section 2.2 Definitions to add definitions for “Redemption Center” and “Recycling”. Chairman Pomeroy asked for comments from the public. Calvin Goodwin, 19 Woodcrest Drive stated that it would be nice to have a properly run redemption center in Town. Motion by G. Ploski, seconded by A Havican to close the public hearing on proposed text change amendment to Prospect Zoning Regulations Section 3.1 Uses By District to add “Redemption Center” and “Recycling” as permitted uses by special permit in the Business, Industrial 1 and Industrial 2 Districts and amendment to Section 2.2 Definitions to add definitions for “Redemption Center” and “Recycling”. Unanimous.
Old Business: None
Land Use Inspector’s Report:
Bill advised the commission of an e-mail the Land Use Office received from Attorney Mark Branse concerning a potentially dangerous bill currently pending before the General Assembly. Bill stated that the proposed bill will essentially allow a subdivider, after receiving approval from the commission, to file a mylar map with the Town Clerk and sell off lots before a site improvement bond is secured, thus leaving the Town powerless to obtain a proper bond prior to the commencement of development. Bill stated that he would forward Attorney Branse’s e-mail to the commission for their review. Motion by A. Havican, seconded by A. Delelle to accept the Land Use Inspector’s Report. Unanimous.
Public Participation:
Chairman Pomeroy asked the public for comments and stated that while public comments are strongly encouraged, the commission will only dedicate 10 minutes to any one subject. Dan Walton, Project Manager of Toll Brothers’ Regency at Prospect appeared to give the commission a yearly update as required by their Special Permit dated 5/3/06. Mr. Walton stated that at this time there are 138 units sold and 110 residents living at the Regency at Prospect. Mr. Walton stated that Phases 1 and 2 are 100% complete, Phase 3 is progressing and work has also now begun in Phase 4. Mr. Walton also requested clarification from the commission as to the required 25’ building separation. Mr. Walton stated that while the building foundations are all at least 25’ apart, some of the buildings’ overhangs and porches impinge into the 25’ setback. Mr. Walton stated that these porches are for aesthetic purposes only and are too small to ever be enclosed. After discussion, the commission concurred that Toll Brothers is not in violation of their Special Permit but for clarification purposes would add verbiage to the Special Permit specifying minimum setback distances for buildings.
Adjournment:
Motion by A. Havican, seconded by G. Ploski to adjourn at 9:18 p.m. Unanimous.
Donald Pomeroy, Chairman