PLANNING
COMMISSION
P.O.
BOX 308
Thursday,
September 28, 2006
7:00
p.m. Town
Hall
I.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a.
Continuation: Subdivision
Application #393, 24 Lots (Gillette’s Crossing), 180 Battle Street & 7
Eleanor Lane, KRL Builders (09/28)
Mr.
Walton opened the public hearing at 7:01pm and seated Mr. Iadarola for Mrs.
Hayward. Mr. Walton read a letter
from Mr. Ric Leno (the applicant) and his attorney requesting to withdraw the
above-mentioned application due to modifications being made to the Wetlands
Application which would affect the subdivision application which may take more
time than the state statutes allow.
They ask that the Commission accept their withdrawal without prejudice
and when they reapply, the Commission waive the new application fee and continue
to work off the fee remaining on the original application. A review of the fee was made and the
Staff and Commission feel there is a sufficient amount (approximately $2,700) to
finish a review of the subdivision upon re-application.
A
motion was made by Mr. Pellissier, seconded by Mr. Bordeaux, and unanimously
voted to close the public hearing at 7:05pm.
A
motion was made by Mr. Bordeaux, seconded by Mr. Iadarola, and unanimously voted
to accept the withdrawal of KRL Builders’ Subdivision Application #393 for 24
lots (Gillette’s Crossing) at 180 Battle Street & 7 Eleanor Lane without
prejudice and the fee would be waived on future
application.
Chairman
Karl Walton called the regular meeting to order at 7:06pm. Members Cliff Bordeaux, Mike Collins,
Greg Genlot, and Alternates Joseph Iadarola, Jr. (seated for Michelle Hayward),
and Georgeanne Kuzman were present and constituted a quorum. Engineering Consultant Mervyn Strauss
was also present.
III. OLD
BUSINESS:
a.
Subdivision Application #396, 14 Lots (High Ridge Estates), Hall Hill
Road, High Ridge Estates, LLC (11/16)
Not
all Staff comments have been received to date. Mr. Strauss believes that he would have
something in writing for the Commission by next week. The Open Space Committee will be
reviewing this application on October 4 and the applicant, Mr. Leaska, has been
notified that all information is not in yet.
b.
Other
First
Selectman, Dave Pinney, wished to discuss with the Planning Commission the memo
of December 19, 2003: 8-24
Referral: Discontinuance of Roads
in Town. He wanted to reaffirm by
consensus the discontinuance of those roads listed in the action. It should be made clear that this was
NOT another 8-24 referral; rather a consensus that this list is still
valid. Mr. Walton mentioned that he
felt three of the roads listed on the memo – Bailey Lane and Eleanor, King Road
Extension, and Starr Road should be omitted from the list. He believes that the other streets are
still valid and should be pursued by the Board of
Selectmen.
Mr.
Iadarola inquired what happens when a road is discontinued. Mr. Walton explained that when a road is
discontinued it is spit down the middle and becomes the private property of the
abutters on either side of the town road and easements are given to the property
owners to pass over the former town road.
Mr.
Walton also mentioned that he speaks only for himself but that he thought that
many of these roads had some real liability issues for the town. The initial discussion came about during
the revision of the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development. Some streets may already be discontinued
due to lack of use, being overgrown for over 40 years, and may not even be
listed on a map.
From
the Town Attorney’s point of view, Mr. Pinney stated that where there are
decades of non-involvement, it constitutes abandonment and discontinued. Mr. Pellissier added that if the
Commission and Board of Selectman where to take the Town Attorney’s
point-of-view, the town then occurs little or no expense in abandoning the road
with only the expense of a public notice, but if this view was to be tested, it
could cost a significant amount of money to determine whether the town actually
has a responsibility for that road.
Mr.
Pinney stated that the Town would take actions to discontinue those roads. If this were done formally, the
liability may still be tested, but there would be much less significance of
liability because there were formal actions taken to do so; adding that the
other issue is that some owners may perceive that if their road is discontinued,
their property may be less valuable.
Mr. Strauss then added that there is a difference between the word
“abandonment” and “discontinued.”
These subtle differences may lead to bigger issues. And the Commission needs to reaffirm and
take some positive steps of dealing with this issue. Mr. Walton stated that the Commission’s
position is in favor of supporting those steps which benefit the town as a whole
as opposed to the minor benefits of an individual property owner. Mr. Walton also mentioned that not on
any of the roads listed are there approved subdivisions. Initially, there was a question about
Old Hampden Road having approved building lots, but that was researched and
disproved.
Ms.
Kuzman recalled that when this referral was placed on the agenda in 2003, there
were individuals that attended the meeting and expressed their disagreement with
the idea. She and other Commission
members, as well as Mr. Pinney, thought it would be best to limit the number of
specific streets per town meeting.
IV. NEW
BUSINESS:
a.
Reconfiguration of Lots, 39 Battle Street & 72 Springfield Road (Map
05, Block 61 & Map 08, Block 104A), Schlaf
This
property is on Battle Street next to Woodcrest, extending to Springfield Road
and Stebbins Road. There are two
lots to start and two when the reconfiguration is completed, so no new lot is
created. The remaining land will be
donated to the Northern Connecticut Land Trust. There were three representatives from
the Northern CT Land Trust which stated that approximately 38 acres would be
kept in agriculture. Mr. Walton
mentioned that was very kind of Mr. Schlaf to donate such a beautiful piece of
land to the Trust.
A
motion was made by Mr. Bordeaux, seconded by Mr. Pellissier, and unanimously
voted to approve the reconfiguration of property of Gordon A. Schlaf and Leethie
L. Schlaf at 39 Battle Street (Map 05 Block 61) & 72 Springfield Road (Map
08 Block 104A), as shown on map entitled, “Compilation Plan Prepared For Gordon
Schlaf, Battle Street, Cooley Road & Stebbins Road, Somers, Connecticut”,
dated: 9-6-2006, 1 sheet. This reconfiguration does not constitute
a subdivision because no new lot is created.
b.
Other
– There was no other Old Business.
V.
DISCUSSION: PLAN OF
CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT
– No new date has been set and at this point.
VI. STAFF
/COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Mr. Strauss has been
working on various applications and has had meetings in regards to North View
Farms and Mr. Leaska’s application.
In addition, he has had a job meeting for Jalbert Heights off of Mountain
View Road in an effort to pave this year.
Mr. Iadarola had a
question regarding the Town meeting in which there was discussion about the town
giving land to the Somers Housing Authority to expand the Elderly Housing. He stated that someone mentioned that
the process doesn’t need to go through Planning and Zoning. Mr. Walton stated that it does have to
go through Planning and Zoning and that it had already. When there was a feasibility study done,
the Commission was sent an 8-24 referral and the Commission thought that doing a
study was appropriate and an 8-24 referral approval was given at that time for
the study portion. With that said,
they would still need to come before the Commission again before any
construction, preferably before plans are finalized.
Mr. Collins mentioned
that there was a CRCOG report and movement in the farm area for which Ms. Augur
will be contacting Ms. Carson.
Also, Mr. Smyth, who is a lighting policy individual, has a 10-15 minute
tape that Mr. Collins felt would be beneficial for the Commission to obtain and
view for improving the street lighting.
Mr. Collins presented Mr. Walton with a number in which Ms. Carson could
contact him to obtain the tape.
VII.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION –
There was none.
VIII.
CORRESPONDENCE AND BILLS
– There were none.
IX.
MINUTES APPROVAL:
September 14,
2006
A
motion was made by Mr. Pellissier, seconded by Mr. Genlot, and unanimously voted
to approve the minutes of September 14, 2006 Planning Commisison meeting as
written.
A
motion was made by Mr. Bordeaux, seconded by Mr. Collins, and unanimously voted
to adjourn the September 28, 2006 Planning Commission meeting at
8:04pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Jennifer
Boudreau
Bradley Pellissier
Recording
Secretary
Board Secretary
MINUTES
ARE NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVAL AT A SUBSEQUENT
MEETING.