PLANNING
COMMISSION
P.O.
BOX 308
Thursday,
January 25, 2006
7:00
p.m. Town
Hall
a.
Continuation Subdivision Application #397, 23 lots (Gillette’s Crossing),
180 Battle Street & 7 Eleanor Lane, KRL Builders
(02/08)
Chairman
Karl Walton called the public hearing to order at 7:20 p.m. and the legal notice
was read. Mr. Aeschliman of
Aeschliman Land Surveying, John Martucci (Engineer), and David Spears (Traffic
Engineer) represented Ric Leno and KRL Builders. They discussed the latest design plans
on this application with the Commission.
Mr. Aeschliman responded to the Town Attorney’s opinion letter and his
thoughts on the clearance triangle.
Mr. Aeschliman agreed that there needed to be no modifications made to
this area because neither the applicant nor the town itself has control over
that property. However, if the
property owner gave permission, the applicant would be willing to remove any
trees in question. He also noted
that the minimum 20 MPH speed around the curve has been adjusted and the plans
now reflect a 130-foot radius which is in excess of 20
MPH.
Mr.
Martucci explained that the plans had been changed to address the traffic flow
issue between the existing Bailey Lane and the new portion of the road. He explained that if you now proceed
North on Bailey Lane the motorist would see a stop sign, come to a stop and then
take the right turn. At the curve
there would be small chevron curve signs.
On the South bound side, from new Bailey Lane, there would be a curve
warning sign illustrating a right hand curve and below that an advisory sign of
15 MPH.
He
went on in detail to explain that there are three types of Traffic
Speeds:
1. Engineer Design Speed – which is
designed for wet roadways, night driving, and site distance calculations
etc.
2. Speed Limit – which is the legal limit
suggested to drive under optimal speed conditions.
3. Advisory Speed – which notifies the
motorist that there is a suggestion that they change their speed to X
amount.
Mr.
Martucci also stated that there is adequate site distance from both directions
for 30 MPH.
Mr.
Strauss expressed that he had limited time in which to review the plans since
they were presented to him at 4:00 p.m. that afternoon, but did have some
comments on what he was able to review.
Mr. Strauss informed Mr. Martucci that there is a discrepancy in one of
the cross sections where the plans show 28 feet instead of 24. In addition, the plans still show an
advisory sign which had previously been removed. This advisory sign would need to be
deleted.
Mr.
Strauss questioned the “root protection”.
Would that be left for construction? Should the property owner be involved in
that? Mr. Strauss also asked if
there will be numbers added to the internal/external radius on the plans for the
contractor to follow? Mr. Martucci
responded that there would be. In
addition a new revised bond figure would need to be presented due to there being
changes to the pavement and increased signage on the latest plans as well as
contour lines and pavement illustrations would need to be
altered.
Mr.
Strauss requested a more detailed description of traffic calming be given. Mr. Martucci stated that with the
warning signs (terminology defined in the DOT handbook) there are yellow diamond
shaped signs in conjunction with the advisory sign which slow down a
motorist. The signage alone
increases the driver’s awareness and decreases the reaction
time.
Mr.
Strauss expressed that he needs more time to review the latest plans and the
bond figure; he may after those reviews have additional comments/questions. Chairman Walton acknowledged his
request.
Ms.
Carson then read the Town Attorney’s letter dated January 24, 2007 into the
record. Mr. Strauss then read his
letter dated January 25, 2007 addressed to the Town Planner, Ms. Carson into the
record as well. Note both the
before mentioned letters referred to the latest plans the Commission had in
possession prior to those received on January 25, 2007. Some of the comments made in these
letters are now addressed.
Chairman
Walton then asked for comments from the public. There were none in
favor.
Eric
Young, 15 Rye Hill Circle
inquired if the public would have time to review the latest changes. Mr. Walton noted that at no time was it
stated that the public would not have time in which to respond to the
changes. He stated that he
appreciated that the town attorney’s letter was read into the record. He had some concerns over the use of
stop signs being utilized to regulate speed on a continuous road, stating that
stop signs would not work for traffic calming or safety and noted that both Mr.
Spears and Mr. Aeschliman previously shared this belief.
He
referenced Mr. Strauss’ example in West Hartford CT, which has the same traffic
design and how it works well for that area but not for this applicant’s design
and he thought the comment and example should be withdrawn. To clarify, he presented various maps
and pictures of this example, noting that sidewalks are present on Arden Road
but not Mr. Leno’s current plans for public safety. Also West Hartford has extra pavement
and these roads were designed between the years of 1938-1951. These streets were constructed prior to
current regulations and to utilize these examples is not an adequate
comparison.
John
Rush, 22 Bailey Lane
wished to discuss the discontinuance of Eleanor Road, asking if the markers were
exactly in contrast to the new road?
Eric
Young, 15 Rye Hill Circle
inquired about the fee in lieu of open space. It was explained that this was agreed to
by the applicant at the beginning of the application
process.
Nancy
Cook, 16 Bailey Lane
asked why there was going to be a cul-de-sac on the other end of this
subdivision. If the town is so
opposed to them, why is one being allowed in this application? The Commission explained that this was
reviewed to be a through road in the beginning and it was found that no easement
was left for the connection on to Deerfield Road and the property in question
was now owned by another individual and there was a house on
it.
John
Rush, 22 Bailey Lane
asked what matrixes were being used to calculate safety. There would be no safety issues if the
cul-de-sac was to be left as is.
Ms. Carson stated that there are multiple reasons why a town would favor
thru roads as opposed to cul-de-sacs; easier access from two or more directions,
easier school bus route access, easier and less road maintenance especially for
snow plowing, less vehicle miles traveled, optional points of entry during an
emergency for fire trucks and ambulances, and a reduction in response time
during a fire or medical emergency.
Ric
Leno, applicant, 68 Eaglebrook Drive
stated that the proposed sub-division has been going on for almost 2 years. He explained that it starts with an idea
and two “wish lists”, one from the applicant and one from the town. Once these lists are received, there is
a great deal of discussion and plan changes that are made to meet town
requirements. Revisions need to be
made throughout the process and some wishes need to be abandoned to meet current
regulations.
Mr.
Strauss wished to clarify that his reference to the West Hartford traffic design
was to illustrate simularity in the
maneuvering of vehicles when making a right and left hand turn and that no
engineering report was ever done.
It was only presented as a comparison to comparison example. In addition, studies suggest that stop
signs are suitable and common in navigating vehicles in a 90% intersection and
they are not a good means of traffic control or speed control as explained in
the Pleasant Valley Road example in South Windsor.
David
Spears, the applicant’s traffic engineer, stated that originally, there were to
be four stop signs, but now that there are only two intersecting roads, there
will only be two stop signs. Stop
signs are not recommended if there is no opposing traffic. People get in the habit of simply
rolling through them. But in the
current plans, the individuals are forced to come to complete stops due to the
design of the road.
Mr.
Aeschliman stated that he did make an adjustment to the lot line between Lot 1
and Lot 2, but that the septic systems and their location remain the same and
there are other revisions needed as well as presentation of a revised
bond.
At
8:40 p.m., a motion was made by Mr. Genlot, seconded by Mr. Pellissier, and
unanimously voted to continue the public hearing for KRL Builders’ Subdivision
Application #397 for 23 lots (Gillette’s Crossing) at 180 Battle Street & 7
Eleanor Lane to February 8, 2007 beginning at 7:00 p.m. to allow for staff
review of the new plans.
II. CALL
TO ORDER
Chairman
Karl Walton called the regular meeting to order at 8:45 p.m. Members Karl Walton, Greg Genlot and
Brad Pellissier were present and constituted a quorum. Town Planner Patrice Carson and
Engineering Consultant Mervyn Strauss were also present.
Ms.
Carson began the meeting by informing the Commission that Mr. Genlot has been
appointed as a full member. Ms.
Georgeanne Kuzman and Mr. Michael Collins’ terms have expired and they have
asked not to be reappointed. Mr.
Collins has chosen to retire and Ms. Kuzman will be
moving.
III. OLD
BUSINESS
a.
Discussion/Possible Decision: Subdivision Application #397 ,
23
lots (Gillette’s Crossing), 180 Battle Street & 7 Eleanor Lane, KRL Builders
(02/08)
No
action at this time since public hearing has been
continued.
b.
Subdivision Application #398, 10 Lots (Stone Crossing), 185 Stafford
Road, Mink Farm Associates, LLC (02/08) – Set Public Hearing
Date
Ms.
Carson explained that the original hearing was never advertised because the
applicants were not ready. The
Commission needs to reschedule the hearing date. A motion was made by Mr. Pellissier,
seconded by Mr. Genot, and unanimously voted to re-set the public hearing to
Thursday, February 8, 2007 in the town hall beginning at 7:00
p.m.
c.
Other
– There was no other Old Business.
IV. NEW
BUSINESS:
a.
Subdivision Application #399, 2 Lots (Kasacek Subdivision), 87 Billings
Road, Buck Builders LLC (03/22)
Mr.
Buck, the applicant, presented the plans for a two-lot subdivision on the
northerly side of Billings Road.
The two lots include an existing home on one of the proposed lots. The applicant proposed the Commission
take a fee in lieu of open space.
It was the consensus of the Commission that a public hearing was not
needed and a fee in lieu of open space would be accepted. Ms. Carson was asked to have the Open
Space Committee look at this and also get the appraisal process started. The Commission accepted the plans and
the application will be further discussed at the next Planning meeting. Mr. Strauss has reviewed the plans and
his comments are alreadyon file.
b.
Special Use Permit Application for Age Restricted Housing, Eleanor Rod,
Eleanor Road, LLC (03/22)
Becky Myers, an associate at
Design Professionals, presented for the above-mentioned application. In December 2006 the Wetlands Commission
approved the application. It
consists of 17 units; one bedroom units are 1,260 square feet and the two
bedroom units are 1,780 with a two car garage and full basement. There is a 24-foot private drive leading
to a cul-de-sac and this road will retain the Eleanor Road name. The town does
not need to maintain this road nor do they need to address the drainage. Only the Fire Department would need to
be directly involved with their fire service and they will review the plans as
well.
Ms.
Meyers spoke of drainage and pond filtering. The drainage pipes are designed for the
100-year storm and there currently is a very effective vegetative
buffer.
The
housing will have private water and septic systems. All utilities will be underground. Steve Jacobs has reviewed the plans and
there are some changes that need to be made due to his
comments.
Mr.
Strauss requested that the Eleanor Lane portion of the road which had been
discontinued by the Town be omitted from the design.
Ms.
Carson mentioned that it would be a good idea to meet with Everett Morrill and
Kenny Anderson from Public Works to discuss snow plowing of the existing town
road and how that would impact the entrance to the private road. A traffic report was done and it noted
that there would be no negative effects.
A public hearing is required on this application. Since there are still some reviews and
comments that need to be addressed from Steve Jacobs, Merv Strauss, Patrice
Carson and the state, it was suggested that the applicant and the Commission see
where all parties stand at the next Planning meeting. The Commission accepted the permit
application for Special Use Permit Application for Age Restricted Housing,
Eleanor Rod, Eleanor Road, LLC (03/22)
c.
Reconfiguration of Lots, 785 Springfield Road (Somers MAP 11 Block 64)
& 907 Somers Road (Hampden Map 1501 Lot 5), Punderson &
Hobbs
The
Commission reviewed the plans which include a two properties, both in Somers and
East Longmeadow. A motion was made
by Mr. Pellissier, seconded by Mr. Genlot, and unanimously voted to approve the
reconfiguration of property of Richard H. Punderson at 907 Somers Road (Hampden
Map 1501 Lot 5) & 785 Springfield Road (Somers Map 11 Block 64), as shown on
map entitled, “Lot Line Revision Plan Prepared For Richard H. Punderson, Somers,
CT & East Longmeadow, MA”, dated:
01-22-07, 1 sheet. This
reconfiguration does not constitute a subdivision because no new lot is
created.
d.
2007/2008 Budget
Chairman Walton requested
that the Commission review Ms. Carson’s email in regards to the 2007/2008 budget
noting the provision in regards to the Engineer’s fee and be ready to discuss at
the next meeting.
e.
Other
– There was no other New Business.
V.
DISCUSSION: PLAN OF CONSERVATION &
DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Carson mentioned
that she received a letter from the Deputy Chief of the Somers Fire Department
which stipulates that the required cistern size in subdivisions should be 10,000
gallons when installed.
Chairman Walton asked if
any Commission members were aware that the town of Suffield had passed a
moratorium on permits involving long driveways for 6 months until the town
Committee’s have time to review their regulations for this. It is the town’s opinion that it is a
way for new builders/land owners to “get around” the current regulations for
cul-de-sacs. He will forward the
article to Ms. Carson. In addition
he did voice his opinion that he feels the town of Somers should review this
situation as well.
VI.
STAFF/COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Ms. Carson informed the
Commission that she and Mr. Strauss are working on a number of items one of
which was an STP Urban Grant for state money to fix the Route 190/83
intersection.
VII.
AUDIENCE PATICIPATION
– There was none.
VIII.
CORRESPONDENCE AND BILLS
There was an email sent by Mr.
Pinney to Ms. Carson on January 22, 2007.
The email discussed a Regional Workshop - Conservation Options for CT
Farmland to be held on January 30th in Somers from 6:30 to 8:30
p.m. This Workshop is being
co-hosted by the Town of Somers and the Northern CT Land Trust at the Somers
Town Hall.
A
bill was presented for Ms. Carson’s yearly American Planning Association
dues. A motion was made by Mr.
Pellissier, seconded by Mr. Genlot and unanimously voted to pay the American
Planning Association dues for Ms. Carson in the amount of
$309.00.
Ms. Carson explained to the
Commission that every three years she is required to obtain 60 CEUs – Continuing
Education Units. In order to do
that, she must attend various Conferences.
She requested that it be possible for her to attend the National Planning
Conference this year in Philadelphia.
The total cost of the Conference registration is $660 plus travel; Ms.
Carson would pay for her meals and hotel.
After some discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that both
the Planning and Zoning Committees would work together in order to obtain the
funds necessary to send Ms. Carson, with the Planning Commission paying 2/3rds
of the cost.
A
motion was made by Mr. Pellissier, seconded by Mr. Genlot and unanimously voted
that in accordance with the 2006/07 Training and Conference Plan that was
submitted from the Planning Commission to the Board of Selectman with last
year’s budget, that the Commission agree to pay the registration fee and travel
fee for Ms. Carson to attend the National Planning Conference in Philadelphia
while Ms. Carson would absorb the lodging and meal fees. The Commission will make a transfer of
$150 from the Publications account and $50 from the Copier account to the Dues
and Seminars account which would cover the Planning Commission’s portion of the
cost to send Ms. Carson to the Conference.
The remaining $260 needed to reach the total $660 cost would be paid by
the Zoning Commission.
IX.
MINUTES APPROVAL: November
16, 2006, December 7, 2006, & January 11, 2007
Chairman Walton requested that
Ms. Carson please resend via email all of the above dated minutes to the
Planning Commission. The minutes
approval will be deferred to the next planning meeting.
A
motion was made by Mr. Genlot, seconded by Mr. Pellissier and unanimously voted
to adjourn the January 25, 2007 Planning Commission meeting at 9:37
p.m
Respectfully
submitted,
Jennifer
Boudreau, Recording Secretary
Bradley Pellissier, Commission Secretary
MINUTES
ARE NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVAL AT A SUBSEQUENT
MEETING.