ZONING
COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 308
DECEMBER
10, 2007
I. PUBLIC HEARING
a. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR HORSES FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, SECTION 214-89.A., 20 PINNEY ROAD, LINDY FARMS
Chairman Rob Martin called the public hearing to
order at 7:08 pm. The legal notice was
read.
John Belsky, 100 Maple Street, presented the
application to build a structure at 20 Pinney Road. Mr. Belsky explained that they want to expand their horse farm in
Somers. He displayed a map showing
where the structure would be built.
Ms. Carson stated that the Planning Commission
reviewed the application at their October 15, 2007 meeting and unanimously
voted to recommend approval, citing that the proposed use was in keeping with
the Plan of Conservation and Development and its open space objectives. This would be considered managed open space.
Chairman Martin opened the floor for public comment.
Concetta Jez, 135 Stebbins Road, favored the application
and believes the applicant is single handedly beautifying Somers. She wanted to know how the Commission was
leaning. Mr. Martin explained that the
Commission considers the opinions expressed in the Public Hearing and votes on
the application based upon those opinions and other criteria, but does not come
to the hearing with a predetermined decision.
There was no other public comment on the
application.
A motion was made by Jill Conklin, seconded by Dan
Fraro and unanimously voted to close this portion of the public hearing at 7:14
pm.
b. ZONING COMMISSION’S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
THE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR OUTDOOR WOOD BURNING FURNACES (OWBF)
Chairman Rob Martin explained that the Zoning
Commission has been looking into OWBF’s.
There are four of these furnaces with legal permits in Somers at this
time. The Commission has reviewed DEP
information and regulations from other Town’s regarding these furnaces. Before making a decision the Commission
would like to hear from the public. Mr.
Martin stipulated that this was not about indoor wood stoves or indoor
wood boilers, but only OWBF’s.
At this time Mr. Martin opened the floor to those
who were in favor of the ban.
Concetta Jez, 135 Stebbins Road, asked how the Commission
was leaning and why. Mr. Martin
explained that based on the DEP literature the Commission was considering
banning the furnaces. According to the
DEP, the furnaces are 3,000 to 8,000 times less efficient than a gas furnace
and cause significant environmental and health concerns.
Kellie Turley, 47 Partridge Run, favored the ban but wanted
to hear what people who had the furnaces feel are the benefits other than
saving money. Her concerns are 1. the impact of the smoke on her asthma, 2. whether people intend to use the stoves
year round, 3. the objectionable
aesthetics of a big smokestack, 4.
whether the OWBF’s would be allowed in residential neighborhoods or only on
properties with a minimum of 25 acres.
Robert Owens, 5 Pine Knob Road, spoke for the ban. He stated that his neighbor’s furnace is
costing him money. He explained that
the furnace runs in the summer and creates so much smoke that he must keep his
windows closed and run the air-conditioner.
He presented photos of the smoke from the furnace and showed the
Commission a video of the smoke in the summer on his camcorder. He said that one morning he and his wife
awoke sick with their house full of smoke from the neighbor’s OWBF. Since then the unit was moved 50 feet away
and the stack elevation has been raised but he still sees much smoke emitting
from it. Mr. Owens was frustrated that
the Town could offer him no help because they did not have jurisdiction over
the emissions.
At this time Mr. Martin opened the floor to those
who opposed the ban.
Keith Pettee, 712 Stafford Road, feels that as long as
hardwood is burned in the furnaces they are OK. What is burned in the furnaces should be regulated and if
household garbage is burned the offender should be fined. He believes that no more smoke comes from
the OWBF’s than a regular woodstove and that the emissions are also about the
same. He doesn’t think raising the
stack is a solution because the smoke still comes to the ground when the air is
heavy.
Sam Smith, Grower Direct, Inc., 164 Hamden Road, said that Grower Direct
has just begun looking into alternate sources of energy to heat their
facilities. He asked that at least for
agriculture, the door be left open for them to explore the alternative of a
bio-mass burner. A discussion ensued as
to whether a bio-mass burner would fall under the definition of an OWBF. Mr. Martin read the definition from Conn.
Pub. Act. 05-227 aloud. He said that
what the Commission was talking about tonight is a residential OWBF, which
would not include the use Mr. Smith was describing.
James Cowan, 102 South Road, opposed the ban and was
concerned that once the Commission bans OWBF’s then woodstoves and fireplaces
would be next.
Mical Smith, Grower Direct, Inc., 164 Hamden Road, spoke against the ban on
the grounds that it is an encroachment on personal liberties. She does not feel that the health hazards
are conclusive and does not believe that furnaces should be regulated. People live with personal choices and this
should fall under that. These devices
can save people money and if the Commission is going to ban something that
saves money then they need to provide another way to save money.
Fred Meyer, 681 Main Street, spoke against the
ban. He believes that because one of
the study materials said “pollution from wood burning” that the discussion
cannot be viewed from an OWBF perspective.
He believes therefore that stoves and inside boilers that burn wood will
also be affected. He said the
Commission needs to ban wood. He also
contested the DEP’s claim that compared the furnaces to natural gas, since
natural gas is not available in Somers.
He took issue with the claim that emissions from OWBF’s are worse than
woodstoves. He said he has been in the
boiler business for 40 years and wood burns the same. He stated that the regulation could be written to require the
units to be pollution free.
Christina Clark, 282 Turnpike Road, believes the stoves should
be regulated but not banned. She would
favor restriction in residential areas between houses and a ban on use in
summer. She favors the use of wood as a
renewable resource.
Pasquale Pio, 304 Turnpike Road, uses an OWBF to heat his
barn. He believes the furnaces need to
be regulated but thinks it is an effective way to heat. He had an article from the Journal Inquirer
and introduced the writer of the article to speak.
Dan Griffin, 7 Hemlock Drive, Enfield, (article writer) stated
that there is a particulate problem with burning wood that can aggravate
asthma. He spoke from a global warming
perspective saying that when a tree rots it gives off the same CO2
as when it is burned. However, burning
oil, gas and coal gives off new carbon that would otherwise be locked up
forever. He said that rather than
writing new regulations, the current regulations need to be enforced. Mr. Griffin is a mechanical engineer from
the aerospace industry.
Gary Clark, 282 Turnpike Road, is against the ban but
favors better restrictions.
Concetta Jez, 135 Stebbins Road, favors restrictions not a
ban.
Linda DelGreco, 7 Florida Road, said she is the neighbor
whose furnace caused the complaints.
They installed the stove themselves and asked for DEP assistance. The DEP informed them of the need for a higher
stack and that the furnace needed to be moved.
These modifications were made.
Ms. DelGreco stated that she has asthma which has been unaffected by
their furnace, in fact her health has been improved since using the furnace.
John DelGreco, 7 Florida Road, said that when they
installed the furnace themselves they were uninformed of the regulations on the
devices. Unfortunately, their teenage
boys put brush and leaves into the furnace one day last summer, which caused
much smoke but the boys know not to do this now. The stack is now over 45 feet tall and tied in place by 6 guide wires,
and they no longer see smoke coming from it.
He said that he would be willing to cease using the furnace in the
summer.
David Boomer of the Kowalsky Group LLC, Hartford, a government relations
firm that represents Central Boiler, Inc. of Greenbush, MN, provided written
testimony against the ban, which he summarized. Smoke is the only problem that people have with the
furnaces. He said that when there are
problems there is a mediation process that he urges the Town to use. If contacted, the DEP will come and enforce
their regulations. If a person’s health
continues to be impacted they can take action requiring the furnace to be moved
or shut down. The new OWBF models are
cleaner and meet DEP guidelines. There
are only a few of the 169 towns in Connecticut that have banned OWBF’s.
Donald Guilbert, 666 Main Street, owns a furnace and does
not think a stainless steel chimney and a tin shed are unsightly. His asthma is unaffected by the
furnace. He said that burning thrash in
the furnace will damage the $10,000 to $12,000 investment so people would not
do that. He warned that if the furnaces
are banned wood stoves are next.
Dan Tullock, 179 County Road, is concerned that the
proposed ban is an overreaction. If the
furnaces are controlled and regulated properly that should be enough. He does not think the furnaces should run in
summer. However, he warned that if the
OWBF’s are banned next it will be wood stoves, then fireplaces because it is
the same fuel.
Lucille Sawicki, 126 Stebbins Road, is against having the
furnaces operating in summer. Her
neighbor has a furnace that made her very sick in the summer. She explained that in the summer the smoke
settles rather than dissipating in the air.
Her neighbor corrected the problem as soon as they were notified and the
furnace has not bothered her since. She
is very concerned, however, about what would happen if her neighbor sold his
house to someone less cooperative. She
is concerned about her ability to enjoy her property if it is engulfed in smoke.
Bob McCalligett, 27 Huntington Drive, believes the furnaces
should not be allowed to burn in the summer, but he opposes a complete
ban. He endorsed the safety of the
furnaces which are outside away from things over woodstoves which are indoors.
Roger Pease, 370 Ninth District Road, has an unpermitted OWBF
and opposes a ban, but believes the furnaces should be regulated.
Donald Guilbert, 666 Main Street, approached the Commission
again to say that the previous building inspectors had told some furnace owners
that a permit was not needed for the furnaces.
After losing one house in a fire from an oil burner, he chose to heat
with an OWBF because of their safety.
Bob Pettee, 190 Springfield Road, has had an OWBF since 2003
and opposes the ban. He feels if air
pollution is the concern, then aircraft and the space shuttle should be banned
before Somers Zoning bans OWBF’s. He
believes a ban of the furnaces would infringe on his Constitutional Rights. He ceases operation of the furnace between
April and September and favors regulation.
He presented letters written by his neighbors to the Commission.
Linda DelGreco, 7 Florida Road, said they burn very little
in the summer.
James Wysocki, 62 Eaglebrook Drive, opposes the ban,
questioned each Zoning Commissioner on whether they took an oath to serve on
the Commission, and took issue with Town Planner, Patrice Carson sitting with
the Zoning Commission. Although, he
does not plan to purchase an OWBF, he pointed out that a ban would be an
unlawful decision and he would not need to obey this unlawful law. He explained to the Commission their
obligation to uphold the Constitution.
He stated that everyone at the hearing should be allowed to view Mr.
Owens’ video and insisted that the video be taken as evidence. He explained that he had no facts or data on
OWBF’s and does not understand why the devices are being singled out.
Rob Martin announced that the Commission had
literature on the furnaces that could be provided to anyone who would like to
read it.
Steve Sobaski, 432 Ninth District Road, is against the ban and has
just installed an OWBF and does not plan to burn in the summer.
Scott Bradley, owner of Mainline Heating &
Supply, Inc., 591 Ference Road, Ashford, is opposed to the ban and sells
OWBF’s. He spoke regarding reducing
dependence on foreign oil. He gave the
Commission a booklet that his business distributes and read aloud the pages on
decreasing smoke emissions. Although
his company sells, services and supports the furnaces, they do not install
them. He suggests that the furnaces not
be used in summer.
Ms. Carson gave to the Commission a letter that was
received from the Connecticut Farm Bureau, which advocates allowing OWBF’s for
agriculture. She stated that the
Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the regulation as
it exists. She explained that to
approve the Zoning Commission must approve with four votes rather than just
three.
A motion was made by Dan Fraro, seconded by Jill
Conklin and unanimously voted to close this portion of the public hearing at
8:54 pm.
A brief recess was taken.
II. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Rob Martin called the special meeting of
the Zoning Commission to order at 9:05 pm.
Members Jill Conklin, Ray Hafford, Rob Martin and Alternate Dan Fraro
(seated for Wes Smith) were present and constituted a quorum. Town Planner Patrice Carson was also
present.
III. INTERVIEW DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CANDIDATES
No candidates were
present to be interviewed.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
a. DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE DECISION: SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR HORSES
FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, SECTION 214-89.A., 20 PINNEY ROAD, LINDY FARMS
After some discussion, a motion was made by Jill Conklin, seconded by Ray Hafford and unanimously voted to approve Lindy Farms’ Special Use Permit application for horses for commercial purposes at 20 Pinney Road in accordance with Section 214-89.a. of the Zoning Regulations.
b. DISCUSSION / POSSIBLE DECISION: ZONING COMMISSION’S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
THE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR OUTDOOR WOOD BURNING FURNACES
The Commission discussed going to see an Outdoor Wood Burning Furnace first-hand and possibly talking with a DEP representative. It was agreed that much information had been provided in the public hearing and time was needed to review it all before making a decision.
A motion was made by Dan Fraro, seconded by Ray Hafford and unanimously voted to move the vote on the amendments to the Zoning Regulations for outdoor wood burning furnaces to the January Commission meeting.
c. OTHER – There was no other Old Business.
V. NEW BUSINESS
a. DISCUSSION: STORAGE OF FERTILIZER ON A FARM
Louis Lipton of Pleasant
View Farms on South Road, asked the Commission about whether the Zoning
regulations would allow him to store fertilizer in a covered barn with a
concrete floor on his property. This
would not include flammable or explosive components, but only pelleted
nitrogen, phosphorus, etc., the ingredients of standard 10-10-10 fertilizer. The fertilizer would not be kept for longer
than one month at a time.
Mr. Lipton hopes to
provide a fertilizer spreading service to local farms. Currently, small local farms have limited
choice on where they can purchase their fertilizer because the vendor must also
spread the fertilizer for them.
Lipton’s service would allow the farmers to take advantage of better
fertilizer prices from vendors who don’t spread. The farms would purchase their own fertilizer from an outside
vendor. The vendor would deliver the
purchased fertilizer to Lipton’s Farm where it would be unloaded into the barn
then loaded into Lipton’s spreader to be applied to the farmer’s field. This would also help the farmers because the
vendors who spread fertilizer service their large accounts first. Lipton’s would be able to provide more prompt
service for the small farms.
Mr. Lipton hopes to be
able to offer the service this spring.
Ms. Carson and the Commission will research into any applicable
regulations, i.e., Permitted accessory uses 214-98c. Mr. Lipton said that Decran Ag Service, Inc. in Voluntown, CT
offers this kind of service.
b. OTHER – There was no other New Business.
VI. DISCUSSION: PLAN OF CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT
A. RIDGELINE REGULATIONS
Ms. Carson and Zoning
Enforcement Officer Joy O’Connor had a conference call with Jennifer Lemansky,
the Land-Use Administrator in Kent regarding using and enforcing ridgeline type
regulations.
Kent’s Horizonline
regulations appeared to be closest to what the Commission was talking about for
Somers. Kent has a provision in their regulation
providing for the use of the balloon process, but they have never required
it. The balloon process is very
costly. They prefer to see applications
when leaves are not on the trees so as to get a better idea of what is
involved. They do not require a
latitude but do require a topography.
They require an A-2 survey for all new houses, large additions, barns,
and large out-buildings. They do not
require an A-2 for sheds under a certain size.
Mrs. Carson displayed
Kent’s topography map that has shaded areas designating the Horizonline
District. These Districts were
determined by locating the topography peaks and then measuring down 1,000 feet
along the surface of the ground. Kent’s
Zoning Commission administers their regulation. An applicant whose property is within the Horizonline District
goes before the Zoning Commission rather than to the Zoning Officer.
Kent’s regulation has
been in effect since Septembr 2005.
They will be amending their regulations, so Ms. Carson distributed the
proposed amendments to the Commission.
Ms. O’Connor would like
more definitions in the Somers regulation than what Kent has and is willing to
come to a Zoning Commission meeting if necessary. She and Ms. Carson offered to write a sample regulation as a starting
point for the Zoning Commission. Items
in the regulations for Kent, Suffield, Meriden and Somers old regulations could
be used for the Town’s new regulation.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Jill Conklin, seconded by Dan Fraro and unanimously voted to adjourn the December 10, 2007 Zoning Commission meeting at 9:42 pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Wesley
Smith, Secretary Jeanne
Reed, Recording Secretary
MINUTES ARE NOT OFFICIAL
UNTIL APPROVAL AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING