THE CITY OF GROTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MAY 16, 2006

Transcription

1 THE CITY OF GROTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 MUNICIPAL BUILDING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 PM I. ROLLCALL 7:35 PM Present: Michael Collins, David Rose, Irma Streeter, Debra Jenkins, Ken Jones, David Coleman, Alternate Charles Harrison Staff: Carlton Smith, Building Inspector; Barbara Goodrich, Planning Excused: Marion Orkney Chairman Jenkins seated Harrison for Orkney II. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Jenkins read the public hearing procedure. a. Zoning Regulation Amendment to Article 2.0 Residence and Open Space Zone Regulations, New Section 2.7 Planned Residential Development (Attorney Bernard Pellegrino for Forestland Groton, LLC, Applicant) 7:40 Public Hearing was opened. Jones stated for the record that he had received a phone call from Barbara Lavalley who stated she could not attend the hearing and that she was opposed to the amendment. Jones stated that he was passing on her comments and was not influenced by the call. Staff read legal notice and gave an overview of the proposed regulation amendment. The amendment would allow multi-unit development in the R-8 and R-12 zones of the City on parcels of 8 or more acres. Staff reviewed a map that depicted all areas of the City zoned R-8 and R-12 and existing parcels within those zones of 8 acres or more that could be effected by the proposed regulation amendment. Staff reviewed the two regulation amendments and stated that each would be presented and considered separately as they are two distinct applications. Bernie Pellegrino, attorney with Pellegrino Law Firm of New Haven represented the applicant, Forestland Groton LLC. He introduced the concept behind the Zoning Regulation amendment application that proposes regulations allowing for Planned Residential Developments in the City of Groton. The regulation is designed as an over lay zone and allows multi-unit residential developments in R

2 12 and R-8 zones. He stated the regulation is modeled on similar ones from other towns such as East Lyme, Old Saybrook, and Branford. The regulations include specific design features and allow more flexible multi-unit development vs. traditional single-family subdivisions. Buildings would be clustered to preserve natural resources on each parcel. Pellegrino stated that the proposed regulations require that any project developed as a Planned Residential Development would require a special permit. This allows the Commission to view each project on a case-by-case basis and have more control over the final development than with a traditional subdivision. Pellegrino reviewed the qualifying standards. The density would be the same as the underlying single-family zone. Public water and sewer would be required. The roads within the complex would remain private. Proposed projects would be limited to single family or duplex style buildings, not large multi-unit building. Two parking spaces per unit would be required. He reviewed the open space requirement. The open space at each development would be for use by the residents. Coastal public access would be provided where required. Pellegrino introduced Gary Sharpe, licensed engineer with Angus McDonald and Sharpe Associates. He stated that the regulation is intended to ensure project is compatible with the neighborhood. He stressed that the regulations would provide for architectural integrity with the neighborhood. Sharpe stated that there were limited parcels in the City that the regulation amendment would apply to. He stated it would apply to 2 parcels. He reviewed the protection afforded by the requirement for a special permit. He stated the regulations have been reviewed by staff and revised several times. He presented a sheet comparing Planned Residential Developments (PRD) vs. Standard Subdivision. He stated the PRD will increase open space and encourages village-type design. He showed pictures of a PRD project in Old Saybrook that could be similar to one developed in Groton. Sharpe presented a sketch plan of a hypothetical development of a Groton parcel under current regulations and under the proposed regulations. Collins asked for clarification on the hypothetical development presented by Sharpe. Sharpe stated that one showed a hypothetical parcel developed as a 14-lot single-family subdivision development. The second showed a 30-unit development in 15 buildings on the same hypothetical parcel. The footprints of the buildings in both hypothetical examples were shown as equivalent. Rose asked if the open space is required to be deeded to the city. Pellegrino stated that coastal access is deeded to the City for public use. The open space would be private, for use by residents. Collins asked how this PRD regulation protects natural resources more than a subdivision and questioned the size of the Wetland setbacks. Staff stated that the Conservation Commission would establish wetlands setbacks. Pellegrino stated - 2 -

3 that the regulations allow more flexibility with road construction that would lead to natural resource protection. Staff presented the list of exhibits including: referrals to Town and City Clerks; referrals to SCCOG and the CTDEP; referrals to City departments and the Town Planning Commission. Staff read the response from the CTDEP into the record. Staff stated the Town Planning Commission gave a negative referral stating the amendment was not consistent with the POCD, did not allow for public open space, did not address open space and density requirements, coastal access or design criteria. Staff reviewed the responses from other City Departments. Staff stated that the applicant had received copies of all referral responses and staff comments. She stated the latest proposed regulation amendments had been revised by the applicant to reflect some of the comments received from staff and outside agencies. Staff reviewed the limited parcels that would be affected by the regulation. Staff questioned if this could be considered spot zoning and recommended a request for determination be sent to the City Attorney. Staff reviewed the differences between the existing regulations and the proposed regulations. Staff stated that the City s 1996 POCD does not call for an increase in multi-family housing or denser development in the R-8 or R-12 zones or in coastal areas. Staff stated that the POCD calls for additional protection of Coastal Resources. Staff stated that the language referencing protection of natural resources is very broad and it is not clear as to what resources should be protected or how it would be regulated or considered by the Commission. Public Comments: Chairman Jenkins asked for Public Comments in favor of the proposal: For: a. A. Palmer, 14 Birch Lane, Groton stated he thought the additional level of review afforded by the special permit process was good. The design presented by the applicants was attractive. Chairman Jenkins asked for Public Comments opposed to the proposal: Opposed: a. M. Kane- Jupiter Point Rd., Groton. Should protect coastal access for the public. Feels it would decrease his property value. Only benefits the developer. Concerned with private roads not being maintained and residents petitioning to give them to the City. b. J. Llewellyn- Shore Avenue, Groton. Existing regulations are fine. c. M. Jakan- Shennecossett Rd., Groton. Some positive elements to the proposal. Doesn t like the proposed density

4 d. G. Cerf- 17 Crescent St., Groton. Believes this would have a negative impact and compared it against the Merritt property in the Town of Groton. e. J. Smith Believes public open space is important. f. J. Anderson, 215 Plant St., Groton. Amendments are premature. Should wait for changes until the POCD update is complete. g. R. Westhaver, 809 Shennecossett Rd., Groton. Believes this benefits the developer. The regulations are not in keeping with the existing neighborhood. Applicant knew the regulations when the property was purchased. h. A. Parrella, 790 Eastern Point Rd., Groton. Negative impact on quality of life. Not consistent with wetlands regulations. Traffic impact should be explored. Public open space should be required. POCD does not call for increased density. i. A. Restivo, 763 Shennecossett Rd., Groton. Believes single family homes more in keeping with neighborhood j. D. Spicer Paloski, 224 Shore Ave. Groton. Concerned with PRD s occurring everywhere. Doesn t believe this is in the common good. Concerned with traffic, flooding and evacuation routes. k. S. Ebbin, 51 Jupiter Point Rd., Groton. Does not believe there is special protection afforded by the proposed regulations. Open space should be public. Believes this is spot zoning. Concerned with safety of access to and along Shennecossett Rd. l. A. Restivo, 763 Shennecossett Rd., Groton read a letter into the record. Pellegrino addressed the public comments. He stated that he does not believe the proposal is example of Spot Zoning. He stated that many comments would be addressed at the site plan stage and are not inherent in the regulations amendments. He stressed that the proposal before the Commission is for all R-8 and R-12 zones and should be examined for its value as a zoning and development tool. It is not site specific and concerns about whether it is in keeping with a specific neighborhood are not appropriate. He stated that he believes that the amendment provides for adequate screening. He stated the regulation provides for size, location and clustering of buildings that currently does not exist. Pellegrino stated that the amendment allows for traffic impact to be reviewed by the Commission through special permit application. Sharpe clarified density and the difference between numbers of units vs. number of families. H. Santangelo Tyler Ave., Groton stated he is concerned with buildings being allowed on private roads

5 S. Ebbin, 51 Jupiter Point Rd., Groton questioned dwelling units vs. buildings and stated that no houses can exceed 32 feet in height in airport area. R. Westhaver, 809 Shennecossett Rd., Groton disputed the stated purpose of the amendments. G. Cerf, 17 Crescent St., Groton. Density should be based on different buildable area than is currently represented. A. Parrella, 790 Eastern Point Road, Groton suggested a less comprehensive change. Mr. Pellegrino responded and clarified that the amendments propose removing non-buildable area from the calculations. He restated the difference between buildings and dwelling units. Motion: To continue the public hearing Zoning Regulation Amendment to Article 2.0 Residence and Open Space Zone Regulations, New Section 2.7 Planned Residential Development to June 20, 2006 at 7:30PM in the Municipal Building Council Chambers. Motion: Rose Second: Harrision Decision: (Streeter abstained) Motion: To take a 5 minute recess. Motion: Rose Second: Collins Decision: Unanimous b. Zoning Regulation Amendment to Article 2.0 Residence and Open Space Zone Regulations, New Section 2.8 Planned Residential Development Designed Exclusively for Occupancy to Active Adults (Attorney Bernard Pellegrino for Forestland Groton, LLC, Applicant. Staff read legal notice. Bernie Pellegrino, attorney with Pellegrino Law Firm of New Haven represented the applicant Forestland Groton LLC. He introduced the concept of the proposed Planned Residential Development regulation. He stated it is similar to previous amendment, but includes a section that makes the development specific for Active Adults. It includes age restrictions for residents and certain design features appropriate for older residents. Given the late hour, he requested a continuation of the hearing to the next meeting. Motion: To continue the hearing on Zoning Regulation Amendment to Article 2.0 Residence and Open Space Zone Regulations, New Section

6 Planned Residential Development Designed Exclusively for Occupancy of Active Adults to June 20, 2006 at 7:30 PM, in the Municipal Building, Council Chambers. Motion: Rose Second: Harrison Commission asked for clarification that no extension was needed to hold the hearing open. Staff confirmed Decision: (Streeter abstained) III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: To approve the minutes of the April 18, 2006 meeting Motion: Rose Second: Coleman Decision: (Jenkins, Jones abstained as they did not attend) Motion: Motion: Second: Decision: To amend the agenda and move New Business to next on the Agenda. Rose Streeter Unanimous IV. NEW BUSINESS a. CGS 8-24 Referral Sale of Improved Land, 343 Boston Post Road, Waterford, CT Mayor Popp reviewed the referral by Groton Utilities pertaining to the sale of property formerly owned by Manitock Spring Water Company on Boston Post Road in Waterford. The business was previously sold. This request is a referral for the sale of the land. The land is being purchased for more than the assessed value. The Council declared the land as surplus. Motion: To give a positive referral for the sale of improved land at 343 Boston Post Road, Waterford, CT. Motion: D. Rose. Second: K. Jones Decision: Unanimous b. Special Permit, Site Plan #386, CSPR #236 Site Remediation, 21 Thames Street, 21 Thames St., LLC Applicant) Motion: To set the Public Hearing Date for June 20, 2006, at 6:30 pm. Motion: K. Jones Second: D. Rose Decision: Unanimous - 6 -

7 c. ZBA Referral #454, 64 Benham Road. C. Smith reviewed the request for relief of the newly adopted regulation 4.26 Required Frontage and Access specifically pertaining to the size of rear lots. He reviewed a map of the parcel. It was the consensus of the Commission to send an unfavorable referral response to the ZBA, as the parcel does not meet zoning regulations for the size of rear lots. d. 0 Three Acre Road Subdivision, GS Enterprises, LLC- Request for Bond Release Staff reviewed the purpose and amount of the bond. She stated the public improvement work secured by the $1, bond includes monumentation and curb cuts. The work has been completed and inspected and approved by Highway and the Planner. Motion: To release the bond of $1, held in favor of public improvements at 0 Three Acre Road. Motion: D. Rose Second: I. Streeter Decision: Unanimous V. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS A. Parella, 790 Shennecossett Rd., Groton, commended the commission for approving regulation amendments pertaining to increasing the standards for rear lots. VI. VII. OLD BUSINESS a. Plan of Conservation and Development Update D. Rose reminded the Commission that the public workshop and meeting for the POCD update is scheduled for 7:00 PM, Thursday May 18, REPORT OF COMMISSION Collins asked about the excess signs at Five Corners. He stated that it appears there are too many signs at that location. Commission requested that C. Smith inform property owner of their concerns. I. Streeter welcomed B. Goodrich as full time planner. VIII. REPORT OF STAFF Status of Park Place on Meridian Street and the water run off was reviewed. IX. ADJOURNMENT Motion: D. Rose Second: I. Streeter - 7 -

8 Decision: Unanimous Meeting was adjourned at 10:55 PM Michael Collins, Secretary - 8 -