Regular Meeting No. 954
Present - T. Lentz, Chairman C. Jefferson, ZEO
L. Annino, Jr.
S. Morgan
J. Adametz
P. Stull
D. Gross (seated for E. Hayash)
J. O'Brien (non-voting alternate)
P. McGuinness (seated for P. Stull for end of meeting as noted in these minutes)
1. Call to Order
T. Lentz called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
2. Minutes of Regular Meeting No. 953 Held March 3, 2009
Motion by Stull, second by Gross, to approve March 3, 2009 Minutes amended by adding D. Gross as a non-voting alternate. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. Visitors
Linda Krause and Torrance Downes from Connecticut River Estuary Regional Planning Agency were present. Ms. Krause noted they are making the rounds of the nine towns that are members of the Estuary Regional Planning Agency to talk about the State Plan of Conservation & Development. Their last Plan was 1995. Krause noted this is an interesting time to plan. Their Plan is much more speculative - how is the world changing. They are visiting each community to get feedback as to what the Towns see as their role in the region. She has been asking each Town - if the Town were a house, what room would you consider it to be? Each of the Towns had different views on this question. What is Killingworth's role in the region? Does it have a role? A list of four questions was distributed.
Krause noted there are 15 regions in the State set up by State Statute. Their biggest function is to coordinate work between the various towns. One group that takes up most of their time is the area Board of Selectmen group made up of selectmen from the various towns. They work on such things as Household Hazardous Waste and Electronics Collections, Transportation, Senior Center, etc. The Planning Agency has become much more or an organization driven by the Selectmen.
Krause noted they are guided by the State Plan of Conservation & Development. It is currently up for redoing, but has been postponed for a year. She reviewed the map of the Estuary Region. The Plan is a Smart Growth Plan (put your infrastructure where development already is). Krause noted there is a long list of Bills before the Legislature that Towns should be aware of. She noted all local Plans must be consistent with the State Plan and incorporate policies of the State Plan in the local Plans. Chairman Lentz noted Killingworth's Plan has a whole chapter on the State Plan. Krause noted it is important Towns monitor the State Plan and what is put in there is what the Town wants to be in there. She noted the Regional Plan is based primarily on the Town Plans.
Krause reviewed the various regions and regional planning organizations. She noted they are looking at regionwide aspects. They are reviewing transportation and parking. There are no town boundaries on the transportation network. Krause noted the Amtrak bridge on the Connecticut River stays open all the time except for 37 times a day when the trains pass. One question is how much boat traffic there is and does the bridge have to remain open all year round.
Krause reviewed the two emergency management regions. We are in with the New Haven region. First Selectman Cabral is chairman of the emergency planning team. The DEMHS Emergency Response Map was reviewed.
Krause reviewed communications and technology. What kind of coverage is there in this region - broadband, etc.? There can't be a lot of home occupations if there isn't the right kind of infrastructure.
Chairman Lentz reiterated the Town Plan has a whole chapter on the State Plan. It corresponds very closely to the State Plan and didn't find any discrepancies.
Krause noted they have a lot more graphic resources this time around. They can do a lot with maps that they couldn't do before.
Krause noted Killingworth has a lot of wooded uplands. Is that a sense of what the Town wants to be? Lou Annino noted Killingworth is a bedroom community. People live in Killingworth as a place for peace, quiet and solace. There is not a lot of community activity. Phil Stull noted residents like long driveways. Krause noted it is a retreat space.
Results of the Town survey were briefly reviewed. Rural character was mentioned a lot.
Chairman Lentz noted the Commission has enacted Age Restricted Housing and Timber Cutting Plans to avoid clear cutting.
Krause reviewed infrastructure.
Krause reviewed the four questions for Killingworth she distributed earlier in the meeting.
Chairman Lentz noted the two issues that were emphasized in the Plan were protection of water quality and preservation of Open Space. Several other issues were also identified.
Phil Stull and Chairman Lentz both agreed Killingworth was a bedroom town.
Krause thanked the Commission for their time and asked members to contact her if they had any more thoughts to share.
(a) True Value - discuss possible modifications to existing approved site plan
Tom Cost, Sr., Tom Cost, Jr. and Mike Casella (landscaper) were present. Chairman Lentz noted there was discussion a couple of meetings ago regarding a directory sign. There was also discussion regarding the foundation of building #2. He indicated the Commission has had a chance to think about this and there are a number of unanswered questions. Lentz noted the applicant indicated the foundation was 35" where in fact it was 43" and as much as 50" at the southerly end. The foundation is much larger than originally thought. Lentz further noted the Commission is confused as to why this occurred. There appears to be a discrepancy in the grades. If that was the case, why wasn't the building lowered or the siding extended down over the foundation? D. Gross, who is a structural engineer, noted the foundation wall and the whole building have been raised. The building originally proposed is now sitting on an extended foundation. The Commission's concern is appearance and aesthetics. If that had been on the drawings initially, the Commission would have addressed the issue of the exposed foundation. This was not approved initially and it now needs to be addressed.
Tom Cost, Sr. noted the original plans were conceptual drawings done by the architect. The actual site plans showed the buildings sitting on the property, but the final elevations were not complete at that time. When the engineering was done, it complied with the code for run off on the property. Cost noted they were not aware of any problems. If mistakes were made, they will have to accept responsibility for that. He indicated they never saw the conceptual drawings once they were submitted to Planning & Zoning.
Gross noted if the Commission had known this initially, it would have had input into what the appearance would be. Unfortunately the Commission does not have that option any more, so we need to think about how to address that now.
Lentz noted what had been submitted to the Commission was what the Commission thought it was going to be and it has to look like that. If there were other problems later, that is unfortunate and the applicant's problem. There was discussion regarding conceptual drawings versus architectural drawings. Lentz reiterated what was before us was what the Commission approved. C. Jefferson noted normally architectural renderings take into account the grades. Perhaps the architectural rendering was done before the final site plan was finished.
Lentz noted the question now is how do we fix it. Painting and bushes is probably not adequate.
Cost noted Mr. Harkin has indicated the final elevation on the plan is exactly what is there in terms of the grading around the driveway. Mr. Annino noted the plan that is submitted to the Commission is what it is expected to look like. Lentz noted the Commission would never have approved an exposed foundation.
Mike Cassella reviewed the proposal including the doors and the shrubs. There will be 48 shrubs filling in nicely and layered as the slope comes down. The doors have a true barn look. Cassella noted adjustments can be made to the shrubs and plantings to soften the look if necessary. There is a lot of foundation but it can be addressed and given an appealing look at one approaches the store. He reviewed the area (wood chips, shredded bark mulch, stone edging). All trees would be 15 feet set off the curb.
Chairman Lentz suggested putting flat stone on the 70 feet that is left. Cassella noted that could be done and still have the plantings. It was noted the doors are 10 x 10. Stull suggested a retaining wall and plateau.
Lentz noted there are now three ideas - 1. shrubs, 2. flat stone and 3. retaining wall. Annino noted he didn't have any problem with what they are proposing because all the other options are still available if it doesn't work. There was further discussion regarding the flat stone.
C. Jefferson noted it would be helpful to see the grade and how it comes across.
Cassella suggested laminating the foundation similar to the flat stone. This would be similar to the retaining wall at the present store. Annino asked if there would be plantings in front of it. Cassella replied yes. Landscaping would soften it. They could downsize the amount of plantings and it would be aesthetically pleasing. The foundation would not be visible.
P. Stull left the meeting at this time. P. McGuinness was seated in his place.
Lentz noted he could go with the stone facia and the shrubs. Annino agreed. It was felt the retaining wall would be too much.
Cost, Jr. asked if the doors and the cupola could be done. Commission members agreed they could go ahead with the doors and the cupola so there would be a visual picture of what is there.
Lentz noted the applicant still has to submit an amendment for the directory sign and for this proposal.
The Costs asked if they could do the doors and the cupola. Lentz replied he didn't see why that couldn't be done. Members agreed. C. Jefferson noted the doors could be put up and some of the shrubs planted to get a visual effect.
Cost, Sr. noted they would do the doors, the cupola and a couple of plants and stone for visual effect and then come back before the Commission.
Lentz noted this would have been a lot easier if the applicant came in when it was first noticed there was a problem. Cost, Sr. noted they didn't know there was a problem until someone on the Commission noted there was a problem.
4. Communications and Bills
(1) Memo from First Selectman Cabral to Tom Lentz and John Himmelman dated March 6, 2009 Re Employment Agreement.
(2) Invoice from Howard and McMillan dated 3/6/2009 for legal services in the amount of $62.00.
(3) Invoice from Connecticut Federation of Planning & Zoning Agencies dated March 2, 2009 in the amount of $90.00.
(4) Public Notice Registry Request Form from Michael & Karen Milano.
(5) Letter from R. E. Leighton, Agent for the Health Director, to A&W Sanitation Co., Inc. dated February 28, 2009 Re New Revised Pump-Out Tickets.
(6) Letter from Town of Killingworth Fire Marshal's Office to Dan Colonia dated March 5, 2009 Re Fire Protection Water Source Tank.
(7) Letter from R. E. Leighton, Building Official, to Neighborhood Builders Construction Management dated March 9, 2009 Re True Value Hardware, Fire Protection Concerns.
(8) Letter from R. E. Leighton, Building Official, to Attorney Michael Wells dated March 9, 2009 Re Delay of Demolition Ordinance, Request for Review & Comment.
(9) Letter from Linda M. Dudek, Town Clerk, dated February 18, 2009, Re Record Management.
(10) Health Department Application Rejection dated 3/11/09 for 40 Sugar Hill Road.
(11) Town of Clinton Planning & Zoning Commission Proposed Amendment to Zoning Regulations, Amendment to Section 11.2.5: Required Public Notice.
(12) Town of Clinton Planning & Zoning Commission March 9, 2009 Agenda.
(13) Killingworth Board of Selectmen Minutes from March 9, 2009 Meeting.
5. Old Business
(a) Special Exception #248 - Connecticut Yankee Council, Inc., 101 Paper Mill Road - Map 31, Lot 15 - Improvements to Existing Scout Camp - public hearing scheduled for April 7, 2009
Chairman Lentz reminded everyone there is a public hearing for this application on April 7, 2009. It was noted C. Jefferson and S. Morgan will be unavailable for this meeting.
6. Zoning Enforcement Officer's Report
C. Jefferson noted she called R. Nemergut regarding a forthcoming application for the Outback. Mr. Nemergut noted the site plan is done and he's waiting for the architectural rendering. Everything is on schedule.
It is noted for the record P. Stull left and P. McGuinness will be seated for the remainder of this meeting.
C. Jefferson noted she spoke to Attorney Bill Howard regarding a site plan being worked on for the Bochanis property. Attorney Howard indicated there wasn't any reason why this can't be looked at as a separate item from the pending lawsuit.
C. Jefferson noted she received notice of a bond cancellation as of 4/22/09, when in fact the Commission released the Region 17 School Bond in December of 2007.
7. New Business - none.
8. Report of Officer's and Subcommittees
Chairman Lentz noted he is still working on the sign regulations. C. Jefferson submitted a couple of suggestions which Chairman Lentz will review and incorporate.
9. Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM
L. Annino, Jr.
S. Morgan
J. Adametz
P. Stull
D. Gross (seated for E. Hayash)
J. O'Brien (non-voting alternate)
P. McGuinness (seated for P. Stull for end of meeting as noted in these minutes)
1. Call to Order
T. Lentz called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
2. Minutes of Regular Meeting No. 953 Held March 3, 2009
Motion by Stull, second by Gross, to approve March 3, 2009 Minutes amended by adding D. Gross as a non-voting alternate. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. Visitors
Linda Krause and Torrance Downes from Connecticut River Estuary Regional Planning Agency were present. Ms. Krause noted they are making the rounds of the nine towns that are members of the Estuary Regional Planning Agency to talk about the State Plan of Conservation & Development. Their last Plan was 1995. Krause noted this is an interesting time to plan. Their Plan is much more speculative - how is the world changing. They are visiting each community to get feedback as to what the Towns see as their role in the region. She has been asking each Town - if the Town were a house, what room would you consider it to be? Each of the Towns had different views on this question. What is Killingworth's role in the region? Does it have a role? A list of four questions was distributed.
Krause noted there are 15 regions in the State set up by State Statute. Their biggest function is to coordinate work between the various towns. One group that takes up most of their time is the area Board of Selectmen group made up of selectmen from the various towns. They work on such things as Household Hazardous Waste and Electronics Collections, Transportation, Senior Center, etc. The Planning Agency has become much more or an organization driven by the Selectmen.
Krause noted they are guided by the State Plan of Conservation & Development. It is currently up for redoing, but has been postponed for a year. She reviewed the map of the Estuary Region. The Plan is a Smart Growth Plan (put your infrastructure where development already is). Krause noted there is a long list of Bills before the Legislature that Towns should be aware of. She noted all local Plans must be consistent with the State Plan and incorporate policies of the State Plan in the local Plans. Chairman Lentz noted Killingworth's Plan has a whole chapter on the State Plan. Krause noted it is important Towns monitor the State Plan and what is put in there is what the Town wants to be in there. She noted the Regional Plan is based primarily on the Town Plans.
Krause reviewed the various regions and regional planning organizations. She noted they are looking at regionwide aspects. They are reviewing transportation and parking. There are no town boundaries on the transportation network. Krause noted the Amtrak bridge on the Connecticut River stays open all the time except for 37 times a day when the trains pass. One question is how much boat traffic there is and does the bridge have to remain open all year round.
Krause reviewed the two emergency management regions. We are in with the New Haven region. First Selectman Cabral is chairman of the emergency planning team. The DEMHS Emergency Response Map was reviewed.
Krause reviewed communications and technology. What kind of coverage is there in this region - broadband, etc.? There can't be a lot of home occupations if there isn't the right kind of infrastructure.
Chairman Lentz reiterated the Town Plan has a whole chapter on the State Plan. It corresponds very closely to the State Plan and didn't find any discrepancies.
Krause noted they have a lot more graphic resources this time around. They can do a lot with maps that they couldn't do before.
Krause noted Killingworth has a lot of wooded uplands. Is that a sense of what the Town wants to be? Lou Annino noted Killingworth is a bedroom community. People live in Killingworth as a place for peace, quiet and solace. There is not a lot of community activity. Phil Stull noted residents like long driveways. Krause noted it is a retreat space.
Results of the Town survey were briefly reviewed. Rural character was mentioned a lot.
Chairman Lentz noted the Commission has enacted Age Restricted Housing and Timber Cutting Plans to avoid clear cutting.
Krause reviewed infrastructure.
Krause reviewed the four questions for Killingworth she distributed earlier in the meeting.
Chairman Lentz noted the two issues that were emphasized in the Plan were protection of water quality and preservation of Open Space. Several other issues were also identified.
Phil Stull and Chairman Lentz both agreed Killingworth was a bedroom town.
Krause thanked the Commission for their time and asked members to contact her if they had any more thoughts to share.
(a) True Value - discuss possible modifications to existing approved site plan
Tom Cost, Sr., Tom Cost, Jr. and Mike Casella (landscaper) were present. Chairman Lentz noted there was discussion a couple of meetings ago regarding a directory sign. There was also discussion regarding the foundation of building #2. He indicated the Commission has had a chance to think about this and there are a number of unanswered questions. Lentz noted the applicant indicated the foundation was 35" where in fact it was 43" and as much as 50" at the southerly end. The foundation is much larger than originally thought. Lentz further noted the Commission is confused as to why this occurred. There appears to be a discrepancy in the grades. If that was the case, why wasn't the building lowered or the siding extended down over the foundation? D. Gross, who is a structural engineer, noted the foundation wall and the whole building have been raised. The building originally proposed is now sitting on an extended foundation. The Commission's concern is appearance and aesthetics. If that had been on the drawings initially, the Commission would have addressed the issue of the exposed foundation. This was not approved initially and it now needs to be addressed.
Tom Cost, Sr. noted the original plans were conceptual drawings done by the architect. The actual site plans showed the buildings sitting on the property, but the final elevations were not complete at that time. When the engineering was done, it complied with the code for run off on the property. Cost noted they were not aware of any problems. If mistakes were made, they will have to accept responsibility for that. He indicated they never saw the conceptual drawings once they were submitted to Planning & Zoning.
Gross noted if the Commission had known this initially, it would have had input into what the appearance would be. Unfortunately the Commission does not have that option any more, so we need to think about how to address that now.
Lentz noted what had been submitted to the Commission was what the Commission thought it was going to be and it has to look like that. If there were other problems later, that is unfortunate and the applicant's problem. There was discussion regarding conceptual drawings versus architectural drawings. Lentz reiterated what was before us was what the Commission approved. C. Jefferson noted normally architectural renderings take into account the grades. Perhaps the architectural rendering was done before the final site plan was finished.
Lentz noted the question now is how do we fix it. Painting and bushes is probably not adequate.
Cost noted Mr. Harkin has indicated the final elevation on the plan is exactly what is there in terms of the grading around the driveway. Mr. Annino noted the plan that is submitted to the Commission is what it is expected to look like. Lentz noted the Commission would never have approved an exposed foundation.
Mike Cassella reviewed the proposal including the doors and the shrubs. There will be 48 shrubs filling in nicely and layered as the slope comes down. The doors have a true barn look. Cassella noted adjustments can be made to the shrubs and plantings to soften the look if necessary. There is a lot of foundation but it can be addressed and given an appealing look at one approaches the store. He reviewed the area (wood chips, shredded bark mulch, stone edging). All trees would be 15 feet set off the curb.
Chairman Lentz suggested putting flat stone on the 70 feet that is left. Cassella noted that could be done and still have the plantings. It was noted the doors are 10 x 10. Stull suggested a retaining wall and plateau.
Lentz noted there are now three ideas - 1. shrubs, 2. flat stone and 3. retaining wall. Annino noted he didn't have any problem with what they are proposing because all the other options are still available if it doesn't work. There was further discussion regarding the flat stone.
C. Jefferson noted it would be helpful to see the grade and how it comes across.
Cassella suggested laminating the foundation similar to the flat stone. This would be similar to the retaining wall at the present store. Annino asked if there would be plantings in front of it. Cassella replied yes. Landscaping would soften it. They could downsize the amount of plantings and it would be aesthetically pleasing. The foundation would not be visible.
P. Stull left the meeting at this time. P. McGuinness was seated in his place.
Lentz noted he could go with the stone facia and the shrubs. Annino agreed. It was felt the retaining wall would be too much.
Cost, Jr. asked if the doors and the cupola could be done. Commission members agreed they could go ahead with the doors and the cupola so there would be a visual picture of what is there.
Lentz noted the applicant still has to submit an amendment for the directory sign and for this proposal.
The Costs asked if they could do the doors and the cupola. Lentz replied he didn't see why that couldn't be done. Members agreed. C. Jefferson noted the doors could be put up and some of the shrubs planted to get a visual effect.
Cost, Sr. noted they would do the doors, the cupola and a couple of plants and stone for visual effect and then come back before the Commission.
Lentz noted this would have been a lot easier if the applicant came in when it was first noticed there was a problem. Cost, Sr. noted they didn't know there was a problem until someone on the Commission noted there was a problem.
4. Communications and Bills
(1) Memo from First Selectman Cabral to Tom Lentz and John Himmelman dated March 6, 2009 Re Employment Agreement.
(2) Invoice from Howard and McMillan dated 3/6/2009 for legal services in the amount of $62.00.
(3) Invoice from Connecticut Federation of Planning & Zoning Agencies dated March 2, 2009 in the amount of $90.00.
(4) Public Notice Registry Request Form from Michael & Karen Milano.
(5) Letter from R. E. Leighton, Agent for the Health Director, to A&W Sanitation Co., Inc. dated February 28, 2009 Re New Revised Pump-Out Tickets.
(6) Letter from Town of Killingworth Fire Marshal's Office to Dan Colonia dated March 5, 2009 Re Fire Protection Water Source Tank.
(7) Letter from R. E. Leighton, Building Official, to Neighborhood Builders Construction Management dated March 9, 2009 Re True Value Hardware, Fire Protection Concerns.
(8) Letter from R. E. Leighton, Building Official, to Attorney Michael Wells dated March 9, 2009 Re Delay of Demolition Ordinance, Request for Review & Comment.
(9) Letter from Linda M. Dudek, Town Clerk, dated February 18, 2009, Re Record Management.
(10) Health Department Application Rejection dated 3/11/09 for 40 Sugar Hill Road.
(11) Town of Clinton Planning & Zoning Commission Proposed Amendment to Zoning Regulations, Amendment to Section 11.2.5: Required Public Notice.
(12) Town of Clinton Planning & Zoning Commission March 9, 2009 Agenda.
(13) Killingworth Board of Selectmen Minutes from March 9, 2009 Meeting.
5. Old Business
(a) Special Exception #248 - Connecticut Yankee Council, Inc., 101 Paper Mill Road - Map 31, Lot 15 - Improvements to Existing Scout Camp - public hearing scheduled for April 7, 2009
Chairman Lentz reminded everyone there is a public hearing for this application on April 7, 2009. It was noted C. Jefferson and S. Morgan will be unavailable for this meeting.
6. Zoning Enforcement Officer's Report
C. Jefferson noted she called R. Nemergut regarding a forthcoming application for the Outback. Mr. Nemergut noted the site plan is done and he's waiting for the architectural rendering. Everything is on schedule.
It is noted for the record P. Stull left and P. McGuinness will be seated for the remainder of this meeting.
C. Jefferson noted she spoke to Attorney Bill Howard regarding a site plan being worked on for the Bochanis property. Attorney Howard indicated there wasn't any reason why this can't be looked at as a separate item from the pending lawsuit.
C. Jefferson noted she received notice of a bond cancellation as of 4/22/09, when in fact the Commission released the Region 17 School Bond in December of 2007.
7. New Business - none.
8. Report of Officer's and Subcommittees
Chairman Lentz noted he is still working on the sign regulations. C. Jefferson submitted a couple of suggestions which Chairman Lentz will review and incorporate.
9. Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM
