PUBLIC HEARING I   Tuesday, MARCH 4th, 2008

EAST LYME PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

The East Lyme Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the Application of Walnut Hill Chase, LLC for a 25 lot Re-Subdivision of properties located at 40 & 44 Grassy Hill Road and 89 Walnut Hill Road including road construction (Assessor’s Map 52, Lots 57, 57-1 and 123 & 123-1) on March 4, 2008 at Camp Rell, Smith Street, Niantic, CT. Chairman Picarazzi opened the Public Hearing and called it to order at 7:02 PM.

PRESENT:                 Lisa Picarazzi, Chairman, Francine Schwartz, Secretary, Chris Sandford, Paul Dagle, Mike Bowers, Tom Perron

ALSO PRESENT:       Attorney Theodore Harris, Representing the Applicant

                                 Dennis Goderre, Principal, BL Companies

                                 Bob Landino, Principal, Walnut Chase

                                 Jeff Johnson, BL Companies

                                 Derrick Cole, LPE, BL Companies Director of Transportation

                                 David Cicia, Sr. Engineer, BL Companies

                                 Cathy Labadia, President, Heritage Consultants LLC

                                 George McPherson, Alternate

                                 Bill Scheer, Town Engineer

                                 George Calkins, Sanitarian, Ledge Light Health District

                                 Meg Parulis, Planning Director

ABSENT:                   Sandy Mulholland, Alternate, Robert Kleinhans, Alternate

Pledge of Allegiance

The Pledge was observed.

Public Hearing I

1.       Application of Walnut Hill Chase, LLC for a 25 lot Re-Subdivision of properties located at 40 & 44 Grassy Hill Road and 89 Walnut Hill Road including road construction (Assessor’s Map 52, Lots 57, 57-1 and 123 & 123-1)

Ms. Picarazzi thanked the public for coming and introduced the members of the Commission to the public. She then explained to the public the ‘Public Hearing Guidelines’ stating that public hearings are held on subdivision applications of more than 10 lots and on all re-subdivisions. The Commission’s authority is limited to determining if the proposed subdivision meets the Subdivision Regulations and the Commission may not make a decision based simply on what it believes is in the public’s best interest. Because of the limited scope of the Commission’s authority, public comment should be limited to whether or not the particular proposal fits within the requirements or limitations of existing Town regulations. Members of the public are encouraged to obtain in advance of the public hearing whatever information they may need in order to provide meaningful comments. She then outlined the order of the meeting (Complete copy attached at end of Minutes) and stated that this public hearing would be continued so the public would still be able to comment beyond this evening. She then polled the Commissioners for any conflicts of interest that any of them might have with this application.

Hearing none, she called upon Meg Parulis, Planning Director for a Staff report.

Ms. Parulis, Planning Director said that they still have one (1) outstanding report from the State Archaeological Office and that while it may come in this evening, it is not here now. She then read the list of exhibits (Attached at end of Minutes) noting that the overall application is complete. She indicated that they received revisions on Friday that are still being reviewed however she said that she would say that the road conforms to the subdivision standards. In any event, she said that she is recommending a continuation of the public hearing to get all of this information in order. She said that Bill Scheer, the Town Engineer is also present this evening to speak and answer any questions that they might have as well as George Calkins, Senior Sanitarian with Ledge light Health District who also can answer any questions that they or the public might have.

Ms. Picarazzi said that since this will be continued – if Ms. Parulis could indicate when it would be continued to so that the public will know.

Ms. Parulis said that she would also like to have the information available in her office for review for two weeks so she would suggest the they continue the public hearing until Tuesday March 18, 2008 at 7 PM and that she will verify that they can hold it here again at this same location. (Camp Rell)

Ms. Picarazzi called upon the applicant or their representative for their presentation of this application.

Attorney Theodore Harris, place of business 351 Main Street, Niantic, CT representing the applicant said that this application is for a cluster subdivision of 25 lots and recalled that the prior application was for 35 lots and was denied due to the road connection to Rte. 161. The current plan has two (2) independent connections/ roads in and out. He submitted a picture of the sign posted at the site and the Certificates of Mailing for this public hearing. These were entered into the record as Exhibit UU. He said that the Conservation Commission had approved, on the previous evening their application and submitted copies of the previous permits which were entered into the record as Exhibit VV and Exhibit WW. He continued that as a cluster subdivision that 30% of the area must be allocated to open space. The open space that they have allocated serves the purpose of protecting the resources. Areas of the site have devoted conservation easements that protect the wetland areas; such as those found in the middle of the site. There is also open space that has been designated to the Homeowner’s Association. They have proposed a trail system that allows entrance to the site and the ability to walk through areas that are adjacent to the wetlands. As they have submitted two (2) conventional subdivision designs, they have proven that their cluster design does not exceed the number of lots that would be available in the conventional design. This is a multi-disciplinary process and to that end they have had many specialists on the site who have studied the topography and soil among other things. For example, one requirement was the potential for pesticides and they hired professionals to test the property. Every test that they did was listed in a report and the results were well below any of the regulatory limits. This is an example of one of the many studies that were done on this property.

Attorney Harris continued that the subdivision process is not static and that it continually evolves as they are always seeking to make a better product. Two specific changes were made here. One relates to the intersection of the subdivision to Grassy Hill Road. The subdivision regulations provide for a 90º angle with the road with the purpose of the 90º being that people could easily look to the left and to the right. In doing this, the pavement had to be offset which changes the shoulder area so they worked with the Town Engineer and have submitted a waiver as they have limited access due to the wetland band that runs nearby. The desire is to minimize any fill to that area so they applied for a waiver that would diminish the 90º angle by 15º to 75º. This leaves very little deviation from the perpendicular with no problem seeing 200’ in either direction and without disturbing the site process; and in working with the Town Engineer, he is in agreement with this waiver and the roadway as it allows the room that the Town needs on the shoulder.

Mr. Perron asked what the speed limit was on that road.

Attorney Harris said that it is posted at 25 MPH. He said that the problem that they faced makes this situation relatively unique in that with very few changes, they can meet it. It will not inhibit the public health and safety and in fact promotes environmental harmony by not disturbing the wetland area and maintaining the shoulder area. The POCD is not implicated as this is an engineering deviation and it is the Town Engineer that comments on this and he will do so this evening. This is a safe change that is more than justified under the circumstances. He submitted two sheets showing this intersection alignment alternate of Grassy Hill with Farm Meadow, dated 3/3/08 which was entered into the record as Exhibit XX. Also submitted for the record was Exhibit YY, the Lot 25 Alternate dated 3/8/08

Attorney Harris said that the second change is with respect to what they have all heard about and seen in the newspaper – the Tinker House. With respect to the news that it was going to be torn down – he said that they are not required to keep the house by State or other regulations – however, at great expense; the developer had first decided that the house would be moved and kept intact. The reason why it would have been moved or torn down was due to the nature of Walnut Hill Road and the pavement being so close (6’) to the house. Instead, they discussed with the Town Engineer the issues of the house and of moving it and they agreed to give the Town full rights for shoulder use (rather than a ROW) as an easement. This maintains the current location of the Tinker House as a cultural resource with the Town being granted an easement. He submitted Exhibit ZZ for the record – the draft easement language.

Attorney Harris then introduced Jeff Johnson with BL Companies to explain the site.

Jeff Johnson, BL Companies said that they added a new parcel with the land at 89 Walnut Hill Road and explained the site plan with this addition. He noted that the back of White Hill Trail is made into a teardrop and that they increased the back of the cul-de-sac to 24’ in width for easier movement of larger apparatus. The conservation easement extends beyond the cul-de-sac. There is a 6’ wide wood chip trail system behind lots 15-21 that goes through the trees as they do not want people walking through the wetlands. They also modified some sections of Grassy Hill Road which varies in width from 17’ to 20’. They are reconstructing it to 22’ in width on Walnut Hill to help with the site distance, bus and car movement and drainage. He noted that the DPW has been out many times and that they will fix the culvert pipe by putting in a new one. They have also worked with the DEP on this. They have also revised the plantings in the basin areas as was requested. The development proposed will employ energy efficiency and conservation measures to be in harmony with the area by use of passive solar techniques with the existing vegetation and natural terrain serving as wind barriers. The street trees have been strategically placed to also work in this manner. Mr. Johnson submitted Exhibit AAA for the record – the overall site plan Sheet SP-O dated 11/9/08 and Exhibit BBB the additional conservation easement area adjacent to the revised cul-de-sac dated 3/8/08.

Mr. Dagle asked where the widening of Grassy Hill Road and Walnut Hill Road would be.

Mr. Johnson said that on Walnut Hill Road it would be past the existing bridge for 800 lf., and past the four driveways on Grassy Hill Road for some 400 lf., then it would taper back to the existing roadway.

Mr. Johnson introduced Derrick Cole, BL Companies to present the traffic study.

Derrick Cole, LPE, Director of Transportation, BL Companies said that they conducted traffic counts in October 2007 during the weekday AM and afternoon time frames and found that these counts are consistent with the counts taken in July of 2007 – meaning that there were no changes in the level of service. In and out of the site there were 27 new trips during the AM peak period and 30 new trips during the PM peak period. This roadway network operates at an excellent level of service with the grading system being like those used in the school system – A thru F. For the sites on Grassy Hill and Walnut Hill the overall level of service is A. The signalized Rte. 85 and Grassy Hill Road and Rte. 161 and Walnut Hill Road operates at a level of service B. The intersection of Farm Meadow and Grassy Hill Road provides 390’ of site distance that is good for a travel speed of 35 MPH which is what most vehicles travel there even though the posted speed limit is 25 MPH. The Walnut Hill Road intersection also has a 390’ site distance.

Mr. Perron asked if the 390’ was to the right or to the left and what the total site line distance is looking towards the right.

Mr. Cole said that the site line is 390’ in both directions, to the right and to the left.

Mr. Cole introduced Dave Cicia, Senior Engineer with BL Companies to go over the stormwater design.

David Cicia, Sr. Engineer, LPE with BL Companies said that there are four analysis points at which stormwater exits the site. The first is a detention basin that will be located at a large pocket of wetlands; second a detention basin will be located in the northern area near the intersection of Grassy Hill and Farm Meadow; third, a detention basin for the wetlands along Walnut Hill and fourth they will be decreasing the size of a drainage area and its impact on Walnut Hill in an area of only four homes. They will construct catch basins along the curbs and run-off will be piped to three detention basins based on the stormwater standards. The basins will hold in volume, beyond what a typical detention basin holds. They will have under drains that will also control what can enter. Submitted for the record were: Exhibit CCC – Stormwater Basin Landscape Plan, Sheet LL-6 dated 11/9/07, Exhibit DDD – Energy Efficiency and Conservation Statement dated 2/12/08, Exhibit EEE – Offsite Roadway Plan, Sheet HWY-05, dated 11/9/07 and Exhibit FFF - Farm Meadow Road Roadway Plan, Sheet HWY-06, dated 11/9/07.

Mr. Cole introduced Cathy Labadia of Heritage Consultants to present the cultural resources study.

Cathy Labadia, President of Heritage Consultants, LLC said that they completed a Phase I cultural resources study. Regarding the historical data – there is nothing recorded within a one (1) mile boundary of the area; there were few historic structures that could be traced and a field investigation of over 85 shovel tests uncovered six (6) artifacts around the house however none were historical in nature. They were only of domestic use from the late 1800’s and made of ceramic. It was agreed that the developer could fill the well with clean fill. With the State archaeologist limited excavation was conducted and they had an on-site meeting whereby it was determined that the Tinker House does not meet the eligibility of the historic register preservation standards as while the exterior of the house is to the period the interior has been renovated to modern standards. They would support the moving of the house and find that would be a very generous offer of the developer. There was also talk of creating a permanent easement to the cemetery site.

Mr. Sandford asked if he heard correctly that 85 shovel tests had been done.

Ms. Labadia said yes and added that they dug 30” deep.

Mr. Perron asked if there was any intent for an extensive survey.

Ms. Labadia said no, not at this time.

(Note: 8:20 PM – Ms. Picarazzi called for a 10 minute recess to allow people to utilize the facilities, etc.)

Attorney Harris said that with respect to the cultural resources report that they just heard – and the cemetery, that the property owner has indicated his intent to open it up to the Historical Society so they would extend the wood chip trail area to the cemetery area. He said that this finishes their presentation; however they reserve the right to respond.

Ms. Picarazzi called for anyone from the public who wished to speak regarding this application. She asked that they limit their comments to three (3) to four (4) minutes.

Ellen Georgian, 21 Brookfield Drive said that Brookfield is down from Walnut Hill / Grassy Hill and that their house is dubbed the worst for flooding as they live at the area where it bends. She said that construction up from them has affected this area and that when it rains hard their house is surrounded by 4’ of water.

Ms. Picarazzi asked the applicant to comment on this.

Attorney Harris said that this is the reason why the Town Engineer requested the detention basins.

George Grimes, 3 Walnut Hill Road said that he lives at the bottom of Walnut Hill Road near Cranberry Brook and that there were 12 houses built in Cranberry Lane. They were flooded out during the flood and even the 5’ high culvert was under water. Across the street, the Aces High facility put concrete blocks to divert water from their side and this made a bad situation worse. He asked how much water would come down Walnut Hill Road from this development. He submitted Exhibit GGG – Five (5) 8” x 10” pictures of the water at 3 Walnut Hill Road.

Maureen Bell, 18 Upper Walnut Hill Road said that Section 6-15-1 of the subdivision regulations says that the subdivision is to be laid out to suit the cultural resource map . . . She said that she thinks that it is significant that it states that it is as determined by the Commission as this provides leeway for them to decide. This is a rural area and she said that she does not want 300’ and 400’ of the roads widened so that people can speed up as that is dangerous. She said that she likes the narrow roads and would like them to stay the way that they are for safety.

Betty Murphy, 30 Saunders Drive said that she has a letter from the Historical Society (of which she is the Secretary) to the Commission. It states that although the East Lyme POCD does not specifically preserve historical places that they urge them to save the Tinker House from destruction. They feel that the past needs to be preserved to protect the quality of life. She said that she also has some of her own comments to make. She has lived here for 45 years and worked for the Town for 37 years. She said that she receives many calls where she works at the Police Department regarding accidents and speeding on the country roads in the northern end of Town. Cul-de-sacs need to be wide enough for the fire engines to turn around. Through-streets need to be eliminated as they serve as a cut through to others. The average speed at night of the kids driving on Walnut Hill, Grassy Hill and the like is 45 to 50 MPH even though the posted speed limit is 25 MPH. She submitted the letter from the Historical Society and her comments which were entered into the record as Exhibit HHH.

Ralph Whiting, 673 Vauxhall Street, Waterford, CT said that he is a direct descendent of the Tinkers. He said that they have been here since 1568 and provided them with some of the history of the Tinker family. He said that Amos Tinker stayed around this area and in 1749 went to ‘Pagan Hill’ (not Pigeon Hill) and bought 108 acres of land and built the house that is up there now. He said that he thought that they might like to know some actual history about the Tinker family.

Ed Jutila, State Representative, 37th District said that the people who live in this area have approached him and that he has walked the area with them even though he has no real role in this. He said that he had two main points to make – the first that the Tinker House should be preserved as it is 250 years old and part of our heritage. He noted that Jim Littlefield in his op-ed piece in the newspaper cited reasons and supports the preservation of the Tinker House. Secondly, legitimate reasons have been raised by the people speaking here and in the newspaper. The residents of the area have raised concerns such as the issue of potential flooding. He said that they have told him that they are not against development as long as it is sensitive to the land, area and history of the area. He asked that they explore all opportunities open to them.

Barbara Wingardner, 95 Walnut Hill Road said that where her house is located that they stand to be completely surrounded by this development and that they are concerned by this. The circle of their well goes into the development and she is concerned what will happen with it. She said that they have enjoyed the fields and land that the developer now owns since moving here some five (5) years ago. She said that they are concerned about their driveway as it curves and she cannot imagine getting up it with other homes there. They are concerned over the run-off of water from Cranberry Brook to Latimer Brook and the detention ponds and the mosquitoes that they will bring. The roads there are narrow and if they straighten or widen them they have caution signs posted and hidden drives and stone walls and she questioned what will become of them. She asked that they consider two things – one – that the open space should be to protect the abutters rather than the wetlands and two – plantings should be done now so that they will grow and block the area as it takes them a long time to grow to provide a barrier.

Sarah Alden, 7 Mountain View Road said that Section 8 – Ledge Light Health states that they are aware of the well problems here. She cited the wells in the area that have problems with water and said that Ledge Light Health District is aware of them. She said that it is urban sprawl that affects this and that the use of under drains on the detention ponds will lower the water table. She cited the lots that would be affected by that and noted that it seems to go against the subdivision regulations on groundwater standards. She also noted that Lots 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, 20, and 21 have over-lapping well zones. Pigeon Hill is an important water source and this application has the potential to impact those downstream. With septic systems on site, the wells should be located at the high parts of the premises and three do not appear to be this way. This would contaminate the wells. She asked that they look into this. She submitted her letter which was entered into the record as Exhibit III.  

Nicholas Dombrowski, 103 Walnut Hill Road said that a small area of this development has Lots 8 and 9 abutting him on two sides. He said that the zoning regulation cites that a cluster development has a buffer. He said that he respectfully asked for an additional buffer to be placed between his property and this development. He said that the Town Planner informed them that the plantings would be completed prior to the development of the land. He submitted Exhibit JJJ – his letter and a map dated 2/12/08.

Attorney Robert Avena, with Kepple, Morgan & Avena of Pawcatuck, CT said that he was speaking on behalf of several neighbors who loosely form the Grassy Hill Neighbors and that they will have about an hours’ worth of comments at the next meeting as they are still reviewing the information. He asked that they reserve time for them.

Robert Gadbois, 358 Boston Post Road said that he does not live up there but these are his neighbors and Ed Jutila and Betty Murphy have hit the nail on the head. A lot of houses are being disturbed and the roads are winding up there. Leave the area alone.

Mark Butterfield, 6 Upper Walnut Hill Road said that the regulations and POCD address wetlands and that his main concern is the disruption of the wetlands on the far side and the driveway shown there. He said that he went to the Conservation Commission and that the permit remains to fill in the wetland and to put the road over it from the previous application. He said that it is called a driveway today and that he thinks that it is pretty clear that the intention of the culvert, etc. and the 50’ width is to set the stage for future development. He asked that they take a hard look beyond what is on paper for the application here, and look and say ‘not at this time until the full second part is disclosed’.

Don Barnes, 28 Latimer Drive said that he has lived here since 1992 and that he has watched the brook change over time. It has flooded his home three times and each time it has changed. It is noticeably wider and during last years’ flood from the time that the water reached the edge of the brook to the time it hit his home – it only took 2½ hours. It rises faster and something is happening there. He said that he thinks that they need to find out ‘what’ before authorizing development.

Ms. Picarazzi asked if the Commissioners had any other questions –

Hearing none –

Ms. Picarazzi asked the Town Engineer to comment on the waiver –

Bill Scheer, Town Engineer, said that the original application met the requirements of the regulations however, the problem was that the road shifted in the center of the ROW by 6’ and the Town wants as much of a shoulder as possible. For that reason, they told the developer that it would not be acceptable. He explained that the reason why the regulations say a 90º angle is to take the Engineering – judgment part out of the road angle and to make sure that large vehicles can turn easily. He said that he knows that the DOT allows down to a 60º angle as acceptable but looks for a 75º angle for the elderly. He said that this is a minimal change that the applicant has proposed and it does not impact the intent. What they have proposed for the waiver does meet the intent of the regulations. His letter on this waiver dated 3/4/08 was submitted and entered as Exhibit KKK. (Complete Exhibit list attached at end of Minutes)

Mr. Sandford asked if they are going to get 19 more changes before the next public hearing.

Ms. Parulis said that she has a ban on more changes and is keeping track of all of them. For now there is a freeze on them so they can put them all together. She said that they are also looking at other issues for any change in the details on the plans and will incorporate what they received tonight.

Ms. Picarazzi asked the applicant if they have plans for maintaining the Tinker House.

Bob Landino, Principal, developer, BL Companies said that they have the intention of restoring the house and selling it. If it is beyond restoration then the intent is to improve and sell it as it is on a Lot within the proposed subdivision.

Ms. Schwartz asked about the buffers along Lots 8 and 9 with respect to 103 Walnut Hill Road and if they just were not drawn in on the plans.

Attorney Harris said that they would have no problem that and the buffer.

Ms. Picarazzi said that they would continue this Public Hearing on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 7 PM and that they expect that it would be held here at Camp Rell. She asked that they check the website to make sure of the location.

Ms. Picarazzi adjourned this Public Hearing at 9:25 PM and continued it to March 18, 2008 at 7 PM.

(Note:  a break was taken here prior to the start of the Regular Meeting)

Respectfully submitted,

Karen Zmitruk,

Recording Secretary

REGULAR MEETING   Tuesday, MARCH 4th, 2008

EAST LYME PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

PRESENT:                 Lisa Picarazzi, Chairman, Francine Schwartz, Secretary, Mike Bowers, Paul Dagle, Tom Perron, Christopher Sandford

ALSO PRESENT:       George McPherson, Alternate

                                 Meg Parulis, Planning Director

ABSENT:                   Sandy Mulholland, Alternate, Robert Kleinhans, Alternate

Chairman Picarazzi called this Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 9:40 PM after the previously scheduled Public Hearing.

Pledge of Allegiance

The Pledge was previously observed.

I.    Public Delegations

Public Delegations is the time when members of the public are invited to speak to the Commission about certain matters. Issues or concerns related to approved subdivisions under construction (Item IV.) and in-house proposals or general topics of discussion (Item VII.) are open to comment. Items, referrals, or applications subject to a decision by the Commission, a public hearing, or in litigation may not be discussed. The members of the Commission will not directly answer questions or make comment during delegations.

Ms. Picarazzi called for Public Delegations.

Nicholas Dombrowski, 103 Walnut Hill Road passed out some information to the Commissioners from the American Farmland Trust – Farmland Information Center on: Cost of Community Services Studies. He said that they could read it when they had some time and that he would only recap the gist of it here. It is a study of the cost versus the revenues of land use types that are classified in three ways – working land; residential land and commercial and industrial land. He said that the results of the study show that the median cost per dollar of revenue raised to provide public services for the three types of land uses ranges from .29 for the commercial and industrial to .37 for the working and open land and finally to $1.19 for the residential land. He said that East Lyme tends to fall quite close to these median results and that the property taxes that come with each new house will not cover the cost of educating the children that come from these houses. He said that he thought that this was an interesting study to provide to the Planning Commission for their future consideration.

Mr. Perron asked if he had compared the cost per student.

Mr. Dombrowski said that he had not.

Mr. Bowers asked if the $1.19 includes the cost of education.

Mr. Dombrowski said yes.

II.  Approval of Minutes –  Regular Meeting Minutes of January 15, 2008

                                          Special Meeting Minutes of February 7,2008            

Ms. Picarazzi called for any discussion or corrections to the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of January 15, 2008.

**MOTION (1)

Mr. Bowers moved to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission on January 15, 2008 as presented.

Mr. Sandford seconded the motion.

VOTE:  6 – 0 – 0.  Motion passed.

Ms. Picarazzi called for any discussion or corrections to the Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2008.

Mr. Sandford said that where Ms. Birmingham was speaking in the second paragraph that he thought she used a different word than ‘endorse’ in the second to last line.

Mr. Bowers said that he did not see how they could change someone else’s words, especially when that person was not present to speak. He also noted that ‘endorse’ was a word that had been commonly used throughout the conversation.

Mr. Dagle asked if there was a tape that could be checked. (There wasn’t one.)

It was agreed that it would be stated that Mr. Sandford thought that the word ‘endorse’ may have been ‘recommend’.

**MOTION (2)

Mr. Sandford moved to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission on February 7, 2008 as amended.

Mr. Bowers seconded the motion.

VOTE:  6 – 0 - 0.  Motion passed.

III.   Subdivision Applications

1.    Application of Walnut Hill Chase, LLC for a 25-lot Re-Subdivision of properties located at 40 & 44 Grassy Hill Rd. and 89 Walnut Hill Rd. including road construction (Assessor’s Map 52, Lots 57, 57-1, 123 & 123-1)

Ms. Picarazzi noted that this public hearing has been continued to February 18, 2008 at 7 PM and that they hope to have it here at Camp Rell again.

IV.   Subdivisions (Approved and Under Construction)

(A list of approved subdivisions under construction will be posted on the Town web-site @ www.eltownhall.com under “Planning Commission”. The Active Subdivision List will also be available upon request in the Land Use Office. This agenda item shall be reserved for items requiring administrative action by the Planning Commission for already approved subdivisions.)

¨       Road Acceptance – Orchards Phase I – Plum Hill Rd. & Hickory Court

Ms. Schwartz recused herself from discussion and voting on this item and left the room.

Ms. Parulis explained that this the cul-de-sac that goes to the left and that the Town Engineer has certified in writing that it goes along with the plans. This includes the sewer extension. She said that this does not include the detention basin as there is still some work that they want done on it as it does not operate at the optimum that they want it to. She said that she suggests that they accept the road as garbage trucks, buses and Town road plowing is an issue until the road is accepted.

Mr. Dagle asked why they would accept the road if the detention basin is not working as it should.

Ms. Parulis said that it is working enough, but not totally however, if they do not accept the road, the people living there do not get the services from the Town.

Mr. Bowers asked what the downside is to not accepting this.

Ms. Parulis said that while she believes that the garbage may be picked up that the buses are not going up there and the road is not being plowed by the Town. She added that the developer is working with them to put in a better basin.

Ms. Picarazzi summed that this would help the residents there get services.

Ms. Parulis said yes and added that they still have over $1M in bonds that they are holding.

Mr. Sandford asked how many people live up there now.

Ms. Parulis said that there are 29 lots and that she believes that there are houses on most of them.

**MOTION (3)

Mr. Dagle moved to recommend acceptance of Plum Hill Road and Hickory Court by the Board of Selectmen based on Certification by the Director of Public Works that all required improvements have been satisfactorily completed. The detention basin is located in Open Space “A” is specifically excluded from the acceptance of this phase of the subdivision.

Mr. Sandford seconded the motion.

VOTE:  5 – 0 - 0.  Motion passed.

Ms. Schwartz was seated back at the table.

¨       Release of Guarantee Bond – Hidden Acres – Rocco Drive

Ms. Parulis said that this is not ready yet as they want to review the base of the bridge from last years’ flooding.

¨       Release of Guarantee Bond – Stonington Estates – Old Stone Way

Ms. Parulis said that this is the maintenance bond that has been held for a year.

**MOTION (4)

Mr. Dagle moved to release the Guarantee Bond for Old Stone Way based on the recommendation of the Town Engineer.

Mr. Bowers seconded the motion.

VOTE:  6 – 0 – 0.  Motion passed.

V.   Zoning Referrals (CGS 8-3a)

There were none.

VI.   8-24 Referrals (Municipal Improvements)

There were none.

VII.  Other Business

1.       Update of Subdivision Regulations

Ms. Parulis said that as soon as the Walnut Hill application is completed that she would start getting this done.

2.   Open Space Plan

Ms. Parulis said that Mr. Carlson is still working on this and that she has been on hiatus from this to work on a grant and an Affordable Housing project.

3.   POCD Update – Formation of POCD Committees

            Conservation Issues

            Guiding Appropriate Development

            Addressing Community Needs

Ms. Parulis said that she is still not ready to form these committees yet as she does not have enough people and the open space plan is still being worked on. She said that she would let the people who are interested in serving on these committees know that it is not yet time to form them and that they have not been forgotten.

(The following residents were appointed to the Plan of Conservation and Development Committee focused on Conservation Issues and Strategies. This Committee is charged with completing the Open Space Plan and drafting recommendations to the Planning Commission for the Plan of Conservation and Development update. The members are Art Carlson, Chuck Reluga, Francine Schwartz, Creig Peterson, Tom Kalal, Marvin Schutt and Mark Christensen.)

Ms. Parulis said that she has heard that there would be no money in the upcoming budget for the POCD update as none was passed forward from the Board of Selectmen’s review of the budget.

Ms. Picarazzi asked why this might be.

Ms. Parulis said that she thinks that it is because they did this update in-house before and that it is felt that it can be done that way again.

Mr. Sandford said that it could mean that they would have to prolong the moratorium for a longer period of time if they have to do this.

Mr. Dagle cautioned that they had heard from the Town Attorney that the moratorium should not be long. He suggested that they have some 18 months or more before this is due and that they should keep working on areas of it. He asked when they would see something in writing to review.

Ms. Parulis suggested that they could amend the POCD and incorporate the Open Space Plan that Mr. Carlson has been presenting, as there are all types of important background information that went into that end product. She also said that it might be good to get on a whole new cycle as new census data comes out in 2010 and they have to produce this update for 2009 which means that they are working with nearly 10 year old census data. They have been hearing uprisings from the community and the POCD is the method by which to address some of these issues.

Ms. Picarazzi asked if they have the resources to write the POCD in-house.

Ms. Parulis said no, not to do it by 2009.

Mr. Dagle again said that they had been given legal advice not to lengthen the moratorium period.

Ms. Parulis said that she has also been speaking with UCONN on this to see how they can help and what it might cost.

Mr. Dagle summed that they have a year and eight (8) months to go and that he thinks that it is incumbent upon them to update as much as possible with as many people as possible.

Ms. Parulis also said that they need to keep in mind that they are re-structuring the POCD into four (4) main areas from the current 10 – 12 areas. She said that there is also grant monies available that she will try to tap into and that they might not be available if they were to change the time frame of their update to suit more updated census data.

Mr. Perron asked who approves this document.

Ms. Parulis said that they do – it is a Planning Commission document.

4.  Regional Transportation Plan Update

Ms. Parulis said that she has taken the report that they had received in their packets and updated it noting the projects that had been worked on such as the sidewalks and the projects that were of importance and still a part of the plan.

5.  Schedule Public Meeting for Community Survey Results – March 19, 2008

Ms. Parulis said that in light of the continued Public Hearing that they would have to defer this presentation until sometime in April.

Mr. Bowers asked if there was some information that they could see on the results of the telephone survey.

Ms. Parulis said that she could email them something to look at.

VIII.  Reports

1.       Chairman

Ms. Picarazzi welcomed George McPherson as the new alternate on the Planning Commission.

2.       Zoning Representative

There was no one present from the Zoning Commission.

3.       Regional Planning Commission Representative – Christopher Sandford, Luane Lange, Alternate

There was no meeting and no report.

4.       Rte. 11 Greenway

Ms. Parulis said that the last meeting was cancelled due to the weather.

5.       Ex-Officio – Jack Hogan

Mr. Hogan was not present.

6.       Staff/Communications

Ms. Parulis noted that the State is spending some money on Planning and that there is a Land Use Academy session at the UCONN Avery Point campus on Saturday May 17, from approximately 8:30 AM to 3 PM. If anyone would like to attend she said that she has been told that they would somehow find the $40 fee per person to enable them to go. More information will be provided on this.

Mr. Dagle reported that when he attended the Zoning Commission meeting in January that he got to watch the Gateway presentation over again and that the Public Hearing on the Gateway was continued to this week.

ADJOURNMENT

**MOTION (5)

Mr. Bowers moved to adjourn this Regular Meeting of the East Lyme Planning Commission at 10:30 PM.

Ms. Schwartz seconded the motion.

VOTE:  6 – 0 – 0.   Motion passed.

Respectfully submitted,

Karen Zmitruk,

Recording Secretary