|
EAST LYME PLANNING COMMISSION
Scrolling down or clicking the bookmarks will take you to the minutes for meetings held in October.
|
|
REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, OCTOBER 7th, 2008 EAST LYME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
PRESENT: Francine Schwartz, Acting Chairman, Chris Sandford, Paul Dagle, Mike Bowers, Drew Kenny, Alternate, Sandy Mulholland, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Bill Scheer, Town Engineer Mike Giannattasio, Public Works Director William Mulholland, Acting Planning Director
ABSENT: Lisa Picarazzi, Chairman, Tom Perron, George McPherson, Alternate
Acting Chairman Schwartz called this Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 PM. She noted that she had seated Drew Kenny, Alternate at the table.
Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge was 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. Schwartz called for Public Delegations.
There were none.
II. Approval of Minutes – Regular Meeting Minutes of September 2, 2008 Special Meeting Minutes of September 16, 2008
Ms. Schwartz called for any discussion or corrections to the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of September 2, 2008.
**MOTION (1) Mr. Sandford moved to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission on September 2, 2008 as presented. Mr. Bowers seconded the motion. Vote: 5 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.
Ms. Schwartz called for any discussion or corrections to the Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes of September 16, 2008.
**MOTION (2) Mr. Dagle moved to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission on September 16, 2008 as presented. Mr. Sandford seconded the motion. Vote: 5 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.
Subdivisions (Approved and Under Construction) (A list of approved subdivisions under construction will be posted on the Town web-site 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.)
III. Applications There were none.
IV. Zoning Referrals (CGS 8-3a) There were none.
VI. 8-24 Referrals (Municipal Improvements) There were none.
VII. New Business 1. Chairman’s Comments – Re: Scenic Road Plan Ms. Schwartz noted that they all should have received a copy of the Scenic Road Ordinance for their review and called for discussion. (Copy attached at end of Minutes) She also said that they had Town Counsel present to answer any questions that they might have.
Mr. Bowers asked if there was a difference between the words ‘road’ and ‘highway’. Attorney O’Connell and Mr. Mulholland said that the enabling act interchanges them so they have left this the way that it is.
Mr. Kenny asked about the 20’ width of the road mentioned on Page 3. Attorney O’Connell said that the six criteria are taken word for word from the legislative enabling act.
Mr. Dagle said that he finds that a road would most likely meet some of the other criteria beyond the width.
Mr. Mulholland noted that he has found that sometimes a bit of flexibility allows opportunities for a community. He added that the subcommittee met many times, some of the last times with Town Counsel.
(Note: 7:18 PM – Sandy Mulholland, Alternate arrived and Ms. Schwartz seated her at the table.)
Mr. Bowers asked about the road maintenance. Attorney O’Connell noted that there is already an ordinance (noted in 12. (a)) on the books and that this would be ‘in addition to’. He explained that Item 11. - pertains to the maintenance of a road and Item 12. addresses the improvement or alteration.
Mr. Sandford asked about forms that people would fill out. Mr. Mulholland said that the forms would have to be created.
Mr. Bowers asked about a timeline on this and the use of the word ‘simultaneously’ in Item 5. Attorney O’Connell explained that the use of simultaneously makes it clear that the information has to be in at the same time.
Mr. Sandford asked Mr. Dagle (who was on the subcommittee) what they would do about 10 residents on a road and what if 5 of them say yes and 5 say no – had they thought about what might happen? Mr. Dagle said that it does not matter as it is based on the 51% and that is what matters and one (1) person on the road could own the 51% and everyone would be subject to it.
Attorney O’Connell explained that in a case such as that, that only those who are aggrieved by the decision as the ones who can appeal – and not those who benefit by it.
Mr. Giannattasio noted that as the Public Works Director that they are concerned about some of this as there is a question of liability and safety on a road and it appears that those powers which would ensure that the road is safe, have been taken away and they have not allowed Public Works, Engineering, etc. to weigh in on this ordinance and that all decisions are at the Planning level.
Mr. Scheer added that road improvements, such as in the recent case of Whistletown Road and Upper Pattagansett involve engineers who design specifically for the conditions that have to be met and that he does not find it appropriate to have their hands tied by non-engineers regarding road reconstruction and design.
Mr. Giannattasio added that they are asking for input on the implementation and that this should not be misconstrued as fighting the scenic road issue.
Mr. Sandford suggested that they obtain staff input and thanked the subcommittee and Attorney O’Connell for their work on this. He then asked if a road could be 10 miles long or if only a portion of those 10 miles could be designated as scenic. Mr. Dagle said that they could designate a portion of the road.
Ms. Schwartz suggested that they obtain comments from staff on this and that they discuss it further at their next meeting of the Commission.
Mr. Mulholland said that he would send this out to staff for their comments.
VIII. Other Business 1. Update of Subdivision Regulations – Stormwater Mgnt. – Regulations Review Ms. Schwartz said that they had Mr. Giannattasio and Mr. Scheer present to review this with them so that they could schedule it for Public Hearing.
Mr. Scheer synopsized the changes that they had requested at their last meeting and said that Town Counsel had gone over the regulations again with them and made more changes. The copy that they were looking at reflects the most recent version.
Attorney O’Connell explained that they had redone the purpose as they thought that it should specify who would be the owner which is in line with the subdivision regulations. He said that they had also added items 9 (bonding), 10 (operation, inspection) and 11(legal documents) for more clarity.
Mr. Sandford recalled that in the Walnut Hill subdivision that someone is responsible for reviewing the basins and their operation. Mr. Bowers asked why the monitoring for a three-year period was removed.
Attorney O’Connell explained that the enabling act for a Planning Commission does not go beyond the approval of the subdivision and that they cannot regulate activities beyond that. That is why it was removed – it is outside the realm of their role as Planning Commission.
Mr. Scheer said that they were looking for comments on Item 12. on Page 7 regarding Stormwater management structures being placed in open space area. He said that 25% was chosen for discussion purposes and noted that they have allowed it in the past, finding that it was appropriate based on the project.
Mr. Dagle said that he was not sure of how they came up with the 25% but that he would prefer not to hamstring someone by it although by not allowing it in the open space area at all, they could limit the development as it would have to be placed within the development area.
Mr. Giannattasio suggested that they could leave it without a percentage.
Mr. Sandford asked Attorney O’Connell the definition of open space by State Statute. Attorney O’Connell said that the enabling act allows the Commission to define it and that it is generally thought that 10% might survive a ‘taking challenge’.
Mr. Sandford said that he thought that flexibility would be important here. Attorney O’Connell suggested that they go higher and that they could then reduce it without having to go to another Public Hearing.
Mr. Scheer referred them to copies of Section 10-2 of the subdivision regulations on Open Space which he passed out.
Ms. Schwartz asked if they were ready to send this to Public Hearing for their next meeting.
**MOTION (3) Mr. Sandford moved to set October 21, 2008 at 7 PM as the Public Hearing date for the Stormwater Management Regulations draft presented. Mr. Bowers seconded the motion. Vote: 6 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.
Mr. Bowers said that he still did not like having the 25% allowed in open space.
Mr. Dagle said that he would like to make a motion to change Item (12) on Page 7 to read: Structures constructed as part of the Stormwater Management System shall not be placed within the area designated as open space.
**MOTION (4) Mr. Dagle moved that Item (12) on Page 7 be changed to read: Structures constructed as part of the Stormwater Management System shall not be placed within the area designated as open space. Mr. Kenny seconded the motion. Vote: 6 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.
2. Open Space Plan There was no report.
3. POCD Update Mr. Mulholland reported that the next meeting date of October 23, 2008 has been moved at Mr. Miniutti is in Italy and not able to attend.
IX. Reports 1. Chairman Ms. Schwartz said that she did not have anything further to report.
2. Zoning Representative There was no report.
3. Regional Planning Commission Representative – Christopher Sandford, Luane Lange, Alternate Mr. Sandford reported that Luane Lange had attended the last meeting.
4. Rte. 11 Greenway There was no report.
5. Ex-Officio – Jack Hogan There was no report.
6. Staff/Communications Mr. Mulholland noted that they had hired a Planning Director who would begin on October 27, 2008.
ADJOURNMENT
**MOTION (5) Mr. Dagle moved to adjourn this Regular Meeting of the East Lyme Planning Commission at 8:55 PM. Mr. Bowers seconded the motion. VOTE: 6 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Zmitruk, Recording Secretary
|
|
|
|
SPECIAL MEETING Tuesday, OCTOBER 21st, 2008 EAST LYME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
PRESENT: Lisa Picarazzi, Chairman, Francine Schwartz, Secretary, Chris Sandford, Paul Dagle, Mike Bowers, Drew Kenny, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Bill Scheer, Town Engineer Mike Giannattasio, Public Works Director Edward O’Connell, Town Counsel Sandy Mulholland, Alternate William Mulholland, Acting Planning Director Rose Ann Hardy, Ex-Officio, Board of Selectman
ABSENT: Tom Perron, George McPherson, Alternate
Chairman Picarazzi called this Special Meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:46 PM after the previously scheduled Public Hearing. She noted that she had seated Drew Kenny, Alternate at the table.
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.
Paul Formica, First Selectman said that he had come this evening to introduce and present the new Planner to them – Gary Goeschel who resides in Town; most recently has worked in environmental Planning and has also worked with municipal Planning in the Town of Colchester. He said that Ms. Picarazzi was also on the panel that did the interviewing and that they are looking forward to him starting this coming Monday, October 27, 2008.
II. Approval of Minutes – Regular Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2008
Ms. Picarazzi called for any discussion or corrections to the Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2008.
**MOTION (1) Mr. Sandford moved to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of the Planning Commission on October 7, 2008 as presented. Mr. Dagle seconded the motion. Vote: 5 – 0 – 1. Motion passed. Abstained: Ms. Picarazzi
III. Stormwater Regulations Mr. Mulholland noted that they had just closed the public hearing on this and that they have 65 days in which to make their decision; or they can decide this evening if they feel that they are ready to do so.
Mr. Dagle noted that they do not have 65 days as they would need to decide in time to be able to lift the moratorium.
Mr. Bowers asked Attorney O’Connell if they would have to re-publish with the changes that had been made. Attorney O’Connell said no.
Ms. Picarazzi said that it would be prudent of them to decide this at their next regular meeting of the Commission in November and that she would like them to be emailed a copy reflecting the changes as discussed so that they could see copy in the context that they would be voting on.
IV. Zoning Referrals (CGS 8-3a) There were none.
VI. 8-24 Referrals (Municipal Improvements) There were none.
VII. New Business 1. Chairman’s Comments Ms. Picarazzi asked if they could see a proposed meeting schedule for 2009 at the next meeting.
Mr. Dagle asked that they also set up workshops as they did this year so that they will have the time reserved to work on the POCD. Ms. Picarazzi agreed that should be done and that they would at least have the time reserved and could use it if they needed to.
VIII. Other Business 1. Scenic Roads Ms. Picarazzi noted that they had begun discussion on this at their last meeting and that it involves the preservation of stone walls, mature trees, ponds and the like and that staff had been asked to weigh in on this draft. She said that she understood that the Engineering Department Staff had some comments to make.
Mr. Giannattasio noted that their main concern involved items nos. 11 and 12. He commended them for wanting to do this scenic roads project and said that they had tried to make some suggestions to protect the Town. He said that he had also asked the Town Attorney to review their suggestions and make comments. Their basic concern was that they did not think that item no. 11 was strong enough and they were also concerned with the powers of the Tree Warden which are given to them by the State.
Ms. Picarazzi apologized for not soliciting their input earlier in the process.
Mr. Scheer said that their concern is that once this is finalized that if a road has to be fixed that their hope is that they can go to staff or the Chair of the Commission to have them sign off on the work rather than to hold it up and have to go to public hearing.
Ms. Picarazzi said that they do not want to tie anyone’s hands and that was not the intent of this.
Attorney O’Connell noted that on page 4 of the draft that there were comments that they had inserted under item nos. 11 and 12. He said that regarding the Tree Warden that any limbs, etc. that would need to be removed for the sake of the public safety – falls under no. 11 and they would not want to hinder this work. And – with respect to any underground work such as a trench or highway or utility cut – they would need a permit but not a public hearing.
Ms. Picarazzi noted in no. 12 that in the last part they address the public hearing issue regarding a proposed alteration or improvement. Mr. Dagle said that he recalled from the subcommittee working on this that the public hearing was meant so that the people who live there would have the tight to comment on if they the want changes or not. Ms. Picarazzi said that she understands that but she is just tossing around the logistics.
Mr. Bowers and Mr. Kenny said that the feel that it is within the jurisdiction of the Commission to make the determination of if a public hearing should be held or not.
Attorney O’Connell noted that they would want to decide how they want to handle new single family homes if they change that item. He said that if surface treatment is necessary such as in an icing situation that one would not be holding a public hearing as that is a safety issue.
Mr. Giannattasio suggested that they might want to have some control over the utility companies such as in the recent issue of the power boxes that some of them are looking to install in highly visible places within the Towns.
Ms. Picarazzi asked Attorney O’Connell what his take was on that. Attorney O’Connell said that it is item no. 11 that gives them the power and that item no. 12 relates to everything else. In the case of the utilities they could ask that they come before them for a determination of good cause. He noted that he would also list the other ordinances within this so as to err on the side of caution.
Mr. Bowers asked Mr. Scheer if he was comfortable with this. Mr. Scheer said yes. He then detailed the type of work that is involved with the permitting and construction of a driveway for a single family home and the site lines and the element of caution that they exercise with these site lines to insure safety.
Ms. Picarazzi noted that the next step would be to amend this draft once again and then re-review it in time for the next meeting of the Commission.
Attorney O’Connell said that he would work on the changes and that Mr. Giannattasio and Mr. Scheer can write some specific things for the utilities.
2. Open Space Plan There was no report.
3. POCD Update Mr. Mulholland reported that the next meeting will be held on November 3, 2008 at 4 PM and that they would have some invited guests attending to present a Real Estate and Farming perspective to the group. He noted that anyone who might want to attend should feel free to do so.
IX. Reports 1. Chairman Ms. Picarazzi said that she did not have anything further to report.
2. Zoning Representative Mr. Nickerson, Chairman of the Zoning Commission was present and said that they received approval from the Board of Selectmen to engage Randall Arendt to do a workshop/seminar session on Land Use for and with them on November 24, 2008 possibly starting at 4 PM; either at Camp Rell or the Middle School. The focus would be on smart growth techniques and to encourage better use of the land. He said that this promises to be an exciting event and that they are working to get another Town to join them as well. Everyone is strongly encouraged to attend as from this workshop they will better be able to form and do their subcommittee work and POCD update. He noted that Mr. Peck is working on a specific guest list.
3. Regional Planning Commission Representative – Christopher Sandford, Luane Lange, Alternate Mr. Sandford reported that they have not had a meeting since the last time this Commission met.
4. Rte. 11 Greenway There was no report.
5. Ex-Officio – Jack Hogan Ms. Hardy said that she had agreed to attend this meeting as Mr. Hogan had gone downstairs to attend a Harbor Management meeting. She reported that they had received a $50,000 grant to study potential areas for Affordable Housing in the Town and that while the study would not mandate these areas be so designated, the information that they would gain would also help them in many other ways including the update of their POCD.
6. Staff/Communications Mr. Mulholland reported that 38 Hope Street has seven CO’s in process and that they would probably not be working through the winter months. McDonald’s and CVS are in progress in the Flanders area, the Gateway project is moving along and will have an office in the former Wendy’s building and the regulations for the downtown district will probably have the multi-family taken out of the CB and there will be a push for more mixed use, the feeling being that they have provided plenty of new housing downtown.
ADJOURNMENT
**MOTION (2) Mr. Sandford moved to adjourn this Regular Meeting of the East Lyme Planning Commission at 9:05 PM. Mr. Dagle seconded the motion. VOTE: 6 – 0 – 0. Motion passed.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Zmitruk, Recording Secretary |
|
|
|
PUBLIC HEARING I Tuesday, OCTOBER 21st, 2008 EAST LYME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The East Lyme Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the Planning Commission Stormwater Regulations, on October 21, 2008 at Town Hall, 108 Pennsylvania Ave., Niantic, CT. Chairman Picarazzi opened the Public Hearing and called it to order at 7:05 PM.
PRESENT: Lisa Picarazzi, Chairman, Francine Schwartz, Secretary, Chris Sandford, Paul Dagle, Mike Bowers, Drew Kenny, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Bill Scheer, Town Engineer Mike Giannattasio, Public Works Director Edward O’Connell, Town Counsel Sandy Mulholland, Alternate William Mulholland, Acting Planning Director Rose Ann Hardy, Ex-Officio, Board of Selectman
ABSENT: Tom Perron, George McPherson, Alternate
Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge was observed.
Public Hearing I
Ms. Picarazzi introduced the members of the Commission to the public, noting that she had seated Alternate Member Drew Kenny at the table this evening. She thanked everyone for coming, noted that the Legal Ad had run in the Day on October 10, 2008 and October 17, 2008 and explained that a moratorium on new subdivisions with Town roads had been put in place on November 30, 2007 so that they could work on these stormwater regulations and then incorporate them into the subdivision regulations. She then called upon Town Engineer, Bill Scheer to do a presentation on the regulations and to answer any questions.
Bill Scheer, Town Engineer gave a brief overview of the proposed stormwater regulations noting that the purpose is to protect waters from non-point sources of pollution and flooding via the proper management of stormwater flows. They are basically meant to allow building which does not impact the area and they require that the ‘first flush’ of water is to be treated as it usually carries the most concentration of pollutants. He explained the format that was followed in the creation of the regulations and noted that they had been reviewed a number of times with the Town Attorney and revised to their current format.
Mr. Mulholland noted that one of the issues that came up at the last meeting was with respect to item no. 12 on page 7 – the placement of stormwater management structures on area designated as open space and that they had decided that nothing be placed within such areas. He asked if they would want to leave it that way as there was rather lengthy discussion on it at the last meeting of the Commission. He explained that as it is now worded that it pertains to all open space area above and beyond that which is required. He suggested that they might want to think further on that.
Ms. Picarazzi asked if the Commissioners had any questions at this time – Hearing none – Ms. Picarazzi called for those who wished to speak in favor of the proposed regulations –
Kelvin Cooper, 44 Cardinal Road said that while he was generally in favor of them that he had some suggestions/questions on a few of the items. He thanked them for the opportunity to comment and indicated that he thinks that it is basically a great set of regulations and a step forward. He suggested that in Section 5.7, item nos. 1, 2 & 3 that ‘for the proposed parcel’ be added at the end of the statements. He asked about the use of pervious and impervious area cited on page 4 in 6-16, item d. noting that impervious cannot absorb water anyway. He also suggested that a set of conditions for drought, rain and frozen ground be cited to be able to calculate flow under these circumstances as they would yield different results. On page 5 under 6-16-4 in nos. 3, 7 & 8 he suggested that the 1.5’ (where it appears) should be changed to 3’ and that ‘or bedrock’ should be added to all items. In item no. 6 he suggested that the set of conditions for drought, rain and frozen ground should also be added here.
Mark Christensen, 66 Grassy Hill Road said that he was also speaking for Tom Kalal of Grassy Hill Road who could not attend this evening due to another commitment. He said that Tom Kalal wanted to know how the DEP 10% impervious surface requirement plays into this.
Ms. Picarazzi called three times for those who wished to speak against the proposed regulations – Hearing no one – Ms. Picarazzi called upon Mr. Scheer to respond to the suggestions and questions.
Mr. Scheer said that with respect to the 10% impervious surface requirement, that if it was in the DEP stormwater manual then they have adopted it here and if it was not, then it would not apply here per the DEP. He said that he would be happy to check this out and get back to the Commission on it.
Mr. Scheer said that the suggestion to add ‘for the proposed parcel’ was a good one and that they could add it to the three item nos. as suggested.
Mr. Bowers asked about page 3, item no. 1 and the reference to the storm frequencies of 2, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year storms and the suggestion about the various conditions such as frozen ground. Mr. Scheer said that they received 4” of rain on frozen ground last year and that they still did not achieve anything near the 100 year storm standards and these are standards that engineers utilize all over the world.
Mr. Scheer said that with respect to the question on why impervious surfaces are listed that the goal is to treat service water and if it slopes towards the woods, or other such area that the water runs over a filtration area and in allowing this to happen they are allowing the area to be developed better. If this was not listed there then the developer would not design in the manner that they want – this makes them design for natural filtration which is what they want.
Mr. Sandford asked about the 75’. Mr. Scheer said that the numbers are specific for the calculation so as to not have it become a river that runs through a buffer strip.
Mr. Scheer continued that the 1.5’ above the maximum ground water level is in line with what the DEP allows sewage to be (1.5’ above ground water level) so they felt that they could do the same. If they were to require 3’ above the water table they would be depleting the ability to treat the stormwater. This meets the State health code and they want the sites to work. Mr. Bowers asked if the regulation allows 1.5’ and if the site is flat and we want 3’ – if there should be some leeway there. Mr. Scheer said that they could leave the 1.5’ above the maximum ground water level and add a minimum of 3’ above ledge.
Mr. Dagle asked about item no 12 on page 7 regarding the open space issue. Mr. Scheer explained that he originally put 25% as an allowable amount in open space and that they had discussed it and made the change to what it now states. However, the question now is if there is a difference between required open space and regular open space.
Attorney O’Connell suggested that they could state something to the effect: that structures constructed as part of a stormwater management plan may be allowed in that portion of the land known as open space which is greater than the required open space for said project and that the Commission may also allow the use of open space within a portion of the required open space if the Town Engineer finds it necessary and desirable for the proper function of the stormwater management system. This would also be subject to the discretion of the Commission. Mr. Dagle said that the suggestion just made by Attorney O’Connell addresses his concern from the last meeting regarding not allowing it in any open space which he felt would be a problem. Attorney O’Connell said that he would work on the new language for item no. 12.
Mr. Scheer noted that item no. 5 on page 7 fives them the flexibility to use new and improved methods that re being tested now or that may be up and coming in the future.
Ms. Picarazzi asked if she understood correctly that ‘in situ’ does not allow fill. Mr. Scheer said that was correct and added that they do not, however want to preclude the ability for the use of new things. He then said that he would work on the things that needed to be modified and would get them an updated copy of the regulations by the end of the week.
Ms. Picarazzi asked if there were any other questions or comments – Hearing none –
Ms. Picarazzi closed this Public Hearing at 7:45 PM.
Note: Updated copy of Stormwater Regulations attached at end of Minutes
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Zmitruk, Recording Secretary
|