PLANNING
COMMISSION
P.O.
BOX 308
Thursday,
August 3, 2006
7:00
p.m. Town
Hall
a.
Continuation Subdivision Application #393, 24 lots (Gillette’s Crossing),
180 Battle Street & 7 Eleanor Lane, KRL Builders (09/07)
Chairman
Karl Walton called the public hearing to order at 7:10 p.m. and Mrs. Carson read
the legal notice. Members Mike
Collins, Cliff Bordeaux, Karl Walton, and Alternate Members Greg Genlot (seated
for Brad Pellissier) and Georgeanne Kuzman (seated for Michelle Hayward) were
present and constituted a quorum.
Town Planner Patrice Carson and Engineering Consultant Mervyn Strauss
were also present.
Mr.
Leno explained that due to previous staff comments he and his team tried to
reconfigure the roadway from the initial “z” formation to a more gradual curved
roadway to aid emergency vehicles access, lessen road maintenance, and address
public safety issues.
In
order to reconfigure the roadway, two current landowners, Mr. Rush and Mr.
Dauphin, would need to alter their current property frontage. Mr. Leno mentioned that he offered land
exchange, money, property and improvements in exchange for their cooperation,
but in the end, the landowners were not interested. Mr. Leno spent much of his time
addressing the reconfiguration of the roadway to the subdivision adding that no
attention was given to map changes since most of the changes would need to be
made after any agreements were finalized.
As
for the other open issues, Mr. Leno stated that divvying up the open space would
just be a matter of drawing some lines, dividing it, and adding it to the
abutting lots. Currently there is
an open issue with the names of the roads as well.
There
was also an issue with access to the abutting Lamb property - the different road
configuration would affect that access.
It was difficult to address other issues that would be affected by the
road configuration.
Mrs.
Carson mentioned that the latest plans that the town has on file are dated June
9, 2006, and that the town would need to see updated plans that reflect changes
that have been made due to staff comments since that date. She also mentioned that Mr. Leno
presented her with certified postal receipts which are required by the
regulations. The open space
appraisal has not yet been received.
The Conservation Commission approved the wetlands
application.
Comments
had also been received from the Somers Fire Department who feel that a hydrant
should be placed 45 feet to the west of the corner of proposed Battle Street and
“Brookside”. This issue would need
to be addressed. In addition, the
Fire Department believes that the name “Brookside” is to close to Brookfield
when dispatched over the radio and would not be a good name
choice.
There
will be three lots on Battle Street which will not be serviced by public
water.
The
state reviewed the sight lines in the field both east and west coming out onto
190 and felt there were no issues, but added that because it is a town road
coming onto a state road, if there were any sight line issues, it would be the
town’s responsibility to do the clearing, or whatever needed to be done to
address the issue. Mr. Strauss
mentioned at that time that he thought it would be important for town staff to
investigate a current shrubbery line that may not hinder traffic sight line, but
would pose a safety issue for those pedestrians crossing the area in
question.
Whether
or not sidewalks would be installed was questioned. The Subdivision Regulations only require
the Commission to consider sidewalks if the subdivision is within one (1) mile of any
town school property as measured along the street pattern, so sidewalks were not
required in this subdivision.
Mr.
Walton opened the discussion to those audience members who were in favor of the
subdivision. There were
none.
Mr.
Walton called for those audience members who wished to speak in opposition of
the proposed subdivision.
Gary Godbout, 43 Deerfield Road,
inquired about drainage issues which he felt were currently insufficient
and how it will be dealt with once the subdivision is completed. He mentioned the noise of the
construction trucks, the narrow width of Battle Street and the ability to handle
construction trucks, environmental protection of wetlands.
Mr.
Walton mentioned that all town meetings are posted and open to all. The meetings are posted for all
Commissions such as the Conservation Meetings which address wetland issues and
they are also open to anyone who wishes to attend. He added that Wetlands are flagged by an
independently hired wetlands scientist and verified by the Town’s Soil
Scientists. He also noted that the
Planning Commission is comprised of citizen volunteers of the town which have no
direct involvement with the developers.
Greg
Simmons, 100 Battle Street, inquired whether Battle Street would be
widened, where the three well lots would be located, whether there is a
requirement to see if there is enough water supply to support the three
additional houses, and would there be additional public hearings on this
matter. Merv Strauss replied that
Battle Street would be widened along the full frontage of the subdivision and
there would be drainage added at that time. Sandy Aeschliman indicated where the
Battle street lot wells would be located.
Mrs. Carson stated that wells are not required to be dug prior to
construction, but if a well is dug and there is not an adequate potable source,
then the house could not be occupied.
Ben
Aleks, 159 Turnpike Road, asked about the widening of the road due
to additional traffic flow, how the Open Space would get divided, would the
brooks, wetlands and floodplains be protected, and where is the entry road to
the subdivision located. Mr. Leno
stated that the open space land would be divided between those individuals
purchasing the lots, no activity is taking place in the brooks, wetlands or
floodplains, and the entry into the subdivision would be just south of the
gravel pit road with a retention pond on the left side as you drive
in.
Dick
Borio, 49 Deerfield Road, stated that two of the proposed lots, 16
and 17, will abut his property where there is a substantial tree line – will the
trees be left. Mr. Leno responded
that due to the wetlands and the distance between lots, at least 40 or 50 feet
from the property line, the trees would be left.
Robert
Dwight, 36 Deerfield Drive, stated that when the state widened
Turnpike Road the speeds doubled and safety decreased and this is a concern as
well with the widening of Battle Street.
He also mentioned that the brook has moved over the years so how is the
water table being addressed. Mr.
Aeschliman stated that the water will be routed away from Deerfield Road and
would be directed to the water retention area.
Mike
Bidmead, 111 Battle Street, wanted to know if there is an existing
home across from the proposed subdivision road, and there is an existing home,
but it is further south and not directly across from the road. He also wanted to know if the line of
sight was checked on Battle Street.
Mr. Strauss stated that it was and it meets “AASHTO” requirements. Are there streetlights planned for this
development? The Subdivision
Regulations state that this is not the Planning Commissions decision but would
be that of the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Bidmead stated that he thought sidewalks would be beneficial along
Battle Street which would be off of Mr. Leno’s property, and it was responded
that he should discuss this with the Board of Selectman to have a sidewalk. He also wanted to know how soon after if
the project is approved would construction begin to which Mr. Leno replied
approximately two months.
John
Rush, 22 Bailey Lane, wanted to note that his unwillingness to
have the proposed road go through his front yard was not considered
“uncooperative” on his part.
Nancy
Cook, 16 Bailey Lane, asked if Bailey Lane would be
widened. Mr. Strauss replied there
is no plan to widen Bailey Lane.
She requested that a traffic study be done for Bailey Lane. When she purchased her home 2 years ago,
she bought it for the cul-de-sac feature and feels now that the value of her
home will depreciate due to the street now being a through way. She stated that the current wildlife
will be disturbed, and also wished to note that she felt there were issues
mentioned in Mr. Strauss’ initial December letter that have fallen through the
cracks.
Eric
Young, 15 Rye Hill Circle, stated that his relatives live on Bailey
Lane and he has safety concerns with them backing in and out of their driveway.
He also felt the “Z” road formation
is not acceptable. He stated that
there was information missing from the subdivision plans, including a 15-foot
spruce and a tree line (solid vegetation) on the Rush’s property, which directly
affects the sight line. The Traffic
Study located in the file was dated January 24, 2005, received on June 13, 2006,
and was done for Battle Street, Stebbins Road, and Isabella Lane, not Bailey
Lane. Mr. Young offered a solution
to the “Z” road formation for the Commission to consider, suggesting a
cul-de-sac thereby eliminating the connection to Eleanor Road. Mr. Young questioned whether a sworn
statement as to the beneficiaries of the trust which owns the Legienza property
(which is part of the subdivision) will be filed in accordance with the State
Statutes section regarding “Disclosure of beneficiaries of real property of a
trust”. He also mentioned that he
had some difficulty locating this subdivision file at the Town Hall saying it
was “locked up” while Mrs. Carson was on vacation. Ms. Carson stated that the office
follows the Freedom of Information Requirements and there are no files
locked up – everything is open to the public for viewing. It was unfortunate that she was unaware
of his intended visit. Had she been
made aware of his desire to view the file prior to her leaving for vacation, she
would have informed the appropriate staff individuals and had it readily
available for him.
Lee
Oswell, 127 Battle Street, wished to see exactly where the new road
would be coming out onto Battle Street.
He also mentioned the drainage issue and the potential for
flooding.
Linda
Borio, 49 Deerfield Road, stated that she does not want the
Deerfield Road cul-de-sac opened up.
Norma
Skiliman, 15 Bailey Lane, feels things would change greatly if
this subdivision goes through and does not want Bailey Lane turned into a
thru-street, and she loves the current wildlife.
Charlotte
Stenlake, 30 Deerfield Road, foresees a concern with the brook which
currently runs along her property. She has tried to fix the water situation
on her property in the past spending $2,000 dollars of her own money to fix the
issue to no avail. She is now
receiving monies from the Small Business Association to address the water and
the severe drop on her property.
Mr.
Strauss stated that it was his opinion that staff review Mr. Young’s proposed
resolution to the “Z” road formation as well as any existing traffic studies on
record related to Battle Street or surrounding street/s. In addition, he felt that it is normal
survey practice to locate the tree line or edge of any wooded area and any
select trees, and this should be done on the edge of Eleanor Lane and added to
the plans for staff review.
The
next regularly scheduled Planning meeting to continue the public hearing to is
Thursday, September 14, 2006, which is beyond the statutory 35-day time limit
the Commission has to finish the hearing.
Mr. Leno granted an extension to the Commission until September 14, 2006
in order to continue the public hearing.
A
motion was made by Cliff Bordeaux, seconded by Georgeanne Kuzman, and
unanimously voted to accept the applicant’s extension of time for Subdivision
Application #393, until Thursday, September 14, 2006, and continue the public
hearing for this application to that date beginning at 7:00pm in the Town
Hall.
Mrs.
Carson informed the audience that the town of Somers Website (somersnow.com)
lists all Board and Commission meeting agendas and
minutes.
II.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman
Karl Walton called the regular meeting to order at 8:53 p.m. Members Mike Collins, Cliff Bordeaux,
Karl Walton, and Alternate Members Greg Genlot (seated for Brad Pellissier) and
Georgeanne Kuzman (seated for Michelle Hayward) were present and constituted a
quorum. Town Planner Patrice Carson
and Engineering Consultant Mervyn Strauss were also
present.
A
motion was made by Cliff Bordeaux seconded by Mike Collins, and unanimously
voted to take up NEW BUSINESS before
OLD BUSINESS on the
agenda.
IV. NEW
BUSINESS
a.
Subdivision Application #395, 2 Lots (Eleanor Road Subdivision), 23
Eleanor Road, Eleanor Road, LLC (09/28)
Becky Myers, an associate at
Design Professionals, presented for the applicant. This parcel is located on the north side
of Main Street and is an existing 24.9 acre parcel between Bailey Lane and Wells
Road. Eighteen acres of the parcel
are considered buildable. There is
a large wetland area which has been reflagged since the initial flagging in 1987
and the soil scientist’s signature will be on the final
plans.
A
ZBA variance was granted on July 12, 2006 which allowed for a driveway to pass
over a portion of a property line in order to avoid crossing a wetland. A Wetland Permit was approved on July
11, 2006. The plan is to have two
residential building lots with the remainder of the area as additional land for
the owners.
Lot
#1 has no wetlands. Lot #2 has a
little bit of wetlands on the edge, and the remaining land 22.5 acres will
remain undeveloped. The residential
lots will be served by public water and will have private septic systems. The majority of the drainage will be
dispersed to the pond and brook.
The developers will deed a drainage right of way (30’ x 15’) as shown on
the plans to the existing catch basin.
The
developers did receive a letter from the Fire Department mentioning that they
foresee no issues at this time.
Comments were received from Steve Jacobs back in May of 2006 which were
addressed, and a letter from Mr. Strauss was also presented to the developers
which has also been addressed. Some
staff members have yet to present their comments.
The
Commission unanimously agreed that no public hearing would be held under their
policy due to there being only 2 lots involved in this plan. The Town Planner will notify the
applicant appropriately.
The
applicant agreed to donate a fee in lieu of Open Spaced and the Commission
accepted. The Town Planner will
arrange for the Open Space appraisal.
Ms.
Myers stated that she would present a letter which addresses Staff
questions/concerns as well as modify the existing site plans (omitting Lot #3
verbiage) prior to the next scheduled meeting.
b.
Release of Maintenance Bond, Bittersweet Hill,
Leaska
Mrs. Carson reported that
all the items needed for release of the Maintenance Bond have been taken care
of.
A
motion was made by Mike Collins, seconded by Cliff Bordeaux and unanimously
voted to approve the release of AnneMarie Leaska’s bond of $43,920.00 for
Bittersweet Hill in the Bittersweet Hill Subdivision in accordance with
recommendations from the Town Attorney, Town Engineer and Public Works
Department.
c.
Other
A
motion was made by Greg Genlot, seconded by Mike Collins, and unanimously voted
to add to the agenda under NEW BUSINESS b. Other - Reconfiguration of Lots, 40
Wells Road (Map 06 Block 12) & 744 Main Street (Map 26 Block 05), Town of
Somers & Davis
The
Commission reviewed the map and after a brief discussion, a motion was made by
Greg Genlot, seconded by Cliff Bordeaux and unanimously voted to approve the
reconfiguration of property of the Town of Somers and Donna R. Davies at 40
Wells Road (Map 06 Block 12) & 744 Main Street (Map 26 Block 05), as shown
on map entitled, “Lot Line Reconfiguration Prepared For The Town of Somers, Main
Street – Conn. Route 190, Somers, Connecticut”, dated: 7-25-2006, 1 sheet. This reconfiguration does not constitute
a subdivision because no new lot is created.
III. OLD
BUSINESS
a.
Discussion/Possible Decision:
Subdivision Application #394, 3 Lots (Whitaker Property), Wells Road
& Mountain View Road, Town of Somers (08/03)
The
Conservation Commission approved a Wetlands Permit for this subdivision on
August 2, 2006. All of the staff
concerns have been addressed with one condition about a
monument.
After a brief discussion, a
motion was made by Greg Genlot, seconded by Georgeanne Kuzman, and unanimously
voted to approve the Town of Somers’ 3-lot subdivision, application #394, in
accordance with the plans known as “Subdivision Plan Prepared For The Town of
Somers, Wells Road & Mountain View Road, Somers, Connecticut”, dated: 5-11-2006, revised: through 7-25-2006, 3 sheets, which is
conditional on the following:
1.
The applicant has met the open space requirement by deeding over 10% of
the land in the subdivision to the Northern Connecticut Land Trust to be
protected as Open Space in perpetuity in accordance with the Town Subdivision
Regulations and State Statutes.
2.
A town monument shall be set at the P.C. of the curve 366.53 east of the
Brockway corner, and within 90 days of this approval all iron pins and monuments
shall be set and certified in accordance with the plans and the Town Subdivision
Regulations.
3.
The signatures of the Town Engineer and Town Sanitarian shall be on the
plans signifying their approval of the plans in accordance with Section 213-19
of the Subdivision Regulations.
4.
All appropriate seals and signatures of the design professionals for this
plan shall be on the plans.
The
Planning Commission finds with these conditions the plan meets the requirements
of the Somers Subdivision Regulations.
b.
OTHER
– There was none.
V.
DISCUSSION: PLAN OF CONSERVATION &
DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Carson mentioned
that she would send out an email confirming which date (September
11th or 18th) worked best for all parties
involved.
VI.
STAFF/COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Ms. Carson informed the
Commission that there will be a meeting within the next few weeks which would
discuss the outcome of the engineering that was done to the Mill
floodplain. The bridge does need to
be fixed; DOT states that there are no issues currently, but further
investigations/findings state otherwise.
Mr. Walton asked how it
would be possible to educate the general public as to the role of the Planning
Commission. He went on further to
state that he felt that the Commission was treated as if it was the developer
for the subdivision discussed at tonight’s Public Hearing. He understood the feelings of the
individuals who spoke, but felt the community should understand that the
Commissioners on the Board are citizens of Somers and are volunteers and should
not be accused of some of the things that they have been accused of at various
meetings.
Mrs. Carson asked if he
felt a flyer or a pamphlet should be provided. Would people read it? If information about the Commissions was
broadcast on TV, would people watch it?
The only option would be to open every Commission public hearing with an
explanation of the role of the Commission members and the Commission as a
whole.
VII.
AUDIENCE PATICIPATION
A general comment was
made by an individual who mentioned that he was pleased that the town sent him a
letter which informed him of the public hearing for the subdivision which was
being proposed across from his home.
He added that he does not watch a great deal of TV or subscribe to a
paper and would have not known of the public hearing
otherwise.
VIII.
CORRESPONDENCE AND BILLS
Transfers were made to balance
out last year’s budget.
Mr. Walton stated that it would
be nice if the cell phone fees were in line with what the Planner actually
used.
IX.
MINUTES APPROVAL: July 13, 2006
A motion was made by Greg
Genlot, seconded by Mike Collins, and unanimously voted to approve the minutes
of July 13, 2006 as presented.
A
motion was made by Cliff Bordeaux, seconded by Georgeanne Kuzman, and
unanimously voted to adjourn the August 3, 2006 Planning Commission meeting at
10:05 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Jennifer
Boudreau
Bradley Pellissier
Recording
Secretary
Commission Secretary
MINUTES
ARE NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVAL AT A SUBSEQUENT
MEETING.