East Hampton Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting
April 2, 2008
Town Hall Meeting Room
Unapproved Minutes
1. Call to Order and Seating of Alternates: Chairman Philhower called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Chairman Mark Philhower, Vice-Chairman Ray Zatorski, Members Peter Aarrestad, Roy Gauthier, Kevin Reed, Rowland Rux, James Sennett, Alternate Members Michael Brogan, Richard Gosselin, and Darin Hurne. The Building, Planning, and Zoning Administrator, James Carey; Town Planner, David Dodes; Chatham Health District Director, Thad King; and Town Attorney, Janet Brooks were also present.
Absent: All members were present.
2. Approval of Minutes:
· Special Meeting of March 5, 2008:
Mr. Zatorski moved, Mr. Philhower seconded, to approve the March 5, 2008 special meeting minutes as submitted. The motion carried 6-0-1. (Yes votes: Philhower, Aarrestad, Gauthier, Gosselin, Hurne, and Sennett. No votes: None. Abstentions: Rux.)
· Regular Meeting of March 5, 2008:
Mr. Zatorski moved, Mr. Hurne seconded, to approve the March 5, 2008 regular meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried 6-0-1. (Yes votes: Philhower, Aarrestad, Gauthier, Gosselin, Hurne, and Sennett. No votes: None. Abstentions: Rux.)
3. Communications, Liaison Reports, and Public Comments:
Communications: No Communications were offered at this time.
Liaison Report: Mr. Sennett reported that he was not able to attend the March 10, 2008 meeting of the ZBA. He did report on the applications and the minutes of this meeting may be reviewed in the East Hampton Town Clerk’s office.
Mr. Aarrestad reported that he was in attendance at both of the past month’s meetings of the Water Development Task Force which meets every two weeks. He explained that plans were moving forward to address the consent order issues for the Village Center system.
Mr. Gauthier reported that the EDC did not meet in March.
Mr. Zatorski reported that the IWWA report will be covered during the regular course of the meeting as the items come up on the Agenda.
Mr. Brogan reported that the Conservation Commission’s meeting in March was cut short as the applicant, who was to make a presentation, cancelled just before the meeting.
Public Comments: The Chairman opened the meeting to the public for comments on any item not on tonight’s agenda at this time. There being none, the Chairman moved on.
4. Set Public Hearing for May 7, 2008:
a. Zoning Regulation Section 6.1 Amendment – Lot and Building Area and Dimensional Requirements, elimination of sewer density bonus.
b. Application of Peter Marlowe Forest Products LLC, 162 East High Street, Special Permit for a Timber Harvest – M 32/B 85/L 6 & 6B.
Mr. Zatorski moved to schedule the Zoning Regulation Section 6.1 Amendment, Lot and Building Area and Dimensional Requirements, elimination of sewer density bonus and the Application of Peter Marlowe Forest Products LLC, 162 East High Street, Special Permit for a Timber Harvest, M 32/B 85/L 6 & 6B. Mr. Gauthier seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0-1. (Yes votes: Philhower, Aarrestad, Gauthier, Gosselin, Hurne, and Sennett. No votes: None. Abstentions: Rux.)
5. Old Business: None.
6. Legal Notice for Public Hearing: None.
7. Public Hearings for April 2, 2008:
a. Application of Pelletier Development LLC, 37 South Main Street, Belltown Place for an Amendment to Zoning Regulations – continued from March 5, 2008.
b. Application of Pelletier Development, LLC, 37 South Main Street, Belltown Place for a Zone Change from R-2/R-4 to H.O.D. – M 20/B 51/L 27 – continued from March 5, 2008.
c. Application of Pelletier Development, LLC, 37 South Main Street, Belltown Place for Site Plan Approval of a 129 unit HOD – M 20/B 51/L 27 - continued from March 5, 2008.
Mr. Reed reported that he has obtained copies of the recordings for the previous meetings regarding these applications and has reviewed them in their entirety.
Attorney Mark Branse was present to represent the applicant, Pelletier Development Company. He distributed copies of documentation for the record and summarized as the documents were distributed.
Attorney Branse requested that Mr. Dutton present the revisions made to the plans in response to CLA and IWWA comments since the last P&Z meeting. The revision date is March 20, 2008.
James Dutton of Dutton Associates, Glastonbury, Connecticut was present and discussed major revision since the last meeting. They have reduced the total number of units to 127. A submerged gravel wetlands was added to Detention Basin No. 3 located on the northern property line. The storm sewer design has been refined to verify all the pipe sizes, flow lines, and utility conflicts. A revised set of drainage computations, dated April 2, 2008, was submitted. These are the pipe design calculations adjustments that have been made to pipe elevations to resolve utility conflicts. None of these changes have any impact on the health, safety, and welfare of this development. Adjustments were made to Detention Basins Nos. 1 and 2 relative to the level spreader and water
quality accouterments. Mr. Dutton provided Mr. Carey a set of plans that go along with the calculations. The revision date on this set of plans is April 1, 2008. Mr. Dutton apologized because he ran out of paper and will have the additional sets necessary delivered to the Planning Office tomorrow.
Mr. Zatorski questioned the radius of the curves on the roads and would like the issue clarified. Mr. Carey clarified that Fire Marshal Visintainer reviewed the plans pertaining to hydrant locations, cistern locations, and water storage. The actual firefighting operation was reviewed by Chief Stickler which is pending. Mr. Dutton indicated that the road radius has not been revised.
Bruce Hillsone, Traffic Engineering Solutions, reviewed the sight lines on both sides of South Main Street. He explained the standard for measuring sight lines. He reaffirmed the 500 ft. sight line.
Chris Till, Precision Engineering, discussed his experience over the past 15 years which is largely composed of design, operation, and construction of public water systems similar to what is proposed to this project. He reported that he submitted in a recent letter to the Commission a summary of the water demands for the project. The summary includes the DPUC Regulations for the calculation of average daily demand, which is just under 35,000 gallons per day. He explained that it has been his experience that a diversion permit, administered by the DEP, is for withdrawals of water in any 24-hour period that exceed 50,000 gallons of water per day. Based on his experience no need for the diversion permit has been demonstrated. He explained that he has reviewed historical data of
the Connecticut Water Company and determined the average customer in the Connecticut Water Company system used just over 186 gallons per day. Mr. Till speculated that the actual water demand of this project will be approximately 24,000 gallons per day on average.
Mr. Till explained that a three-phase plan will be used. The first phase, well site approval, is to review potential well sites, including the potential for interconnection with existing water systems. The second phase (Phase 1B), water availability, both quality and quantity are reviewed. Once the applicant is able to substantiate that there is adequate quality water the State will entertain the final phase, application to the State for the design of the water system. He believes that the State has written the regulations in such a way to take the burden away from local officials and planning commissions over the availability of water. This is regulated at the state level. The risk associated with the adequate water supply is bourn solely by the applicant, the
developer. If the developer cannot provide adequate water, quantity or quality, than the system will not be approved.
Mr. Till reported that he has reviewed a number of reports written regarding the proposed project site, one of them being a fracture trace analysis of the bedrock geology, which indicated favorably for the development of bedrock well sources for the proposed public water supply. He has reviewed a letter report written by Professor Steinen, of the University of Connecticut, who concluded that the site was suitable for this type of application.
Mr. Carey questioned Mr. Till on the Fracture Trace Analysis Report. He stated that his review of the Report indicated that the area where the applicant was most likely to hit water was not in the area of the wells but quite a bit south of the proposed well locations and in the area of the wetlands.
Mr. Till stated that the State DPUC and the DPH have engineers, geologists, and scientists who have reviewed the application very carefully and rigorously. It is part of the well site review. They look at well head protection to ensure the sites are not subject to pollution. He explained that he submitted in his application to the State 12 potential well sites. They will not all be used. This does show that there are at least 12 locations that could be drilled, meet the public health code, to provide the maximum flexibility and potential for water supply development. Two areas that meet the public health code criteria have been identified. One area is to the north where they have located a number of well sites. Based on the Fracture Trace Analysis this area
is believed to have a potentially higher yield than the other sites identified. The amount of yield and quality of water in bedrock wells are not specific; therefore, the State utilizes the pump testing and water quality testing. Mr. Till’s responsibility as an engineer for the project will be to evaluate during the well drilling process which well sites to develop and in which order. Of the 12 site indicated on the plans for the project, less than half would actually be required to develop the required water. All of the well sites are for yields of less than 10 gallons per minute.
Mr. Carey asked Mr. Till to report on the applicant’s status in the 1A Review process.
Mr. Till responded that they have submitted an application with all of the requirements of the Phase 1A regulations and they have met most of the requirements.
Attorney Branse reported that today the applicant received a letter from the DPH in which additional information was requested of both the developer and the East Hampton WPCA. He distributed this for the record.
Mr. Carey further expressed his concern that the application process has been suspended. Attorney Branse responded that as the State requests information. The information will be provided.
Mr. Till discussed the type of testing that is required accorded to the State regulations regarding Phase B. They require a continuous simultaneous pumping test of all the production wells along with the monitoring of water levels and flow rates to a point of stabilization. This is to document the yield from all the sources, as well as taking into account any inferences between wells. The State may request the valuation of impact on private or adjacent public wells. There is no season specified for the Phase 1B testing. However, other regulations related to pump testing of wells do call for extended pump testing during the dry period. Normally for this type of project, bedrock wells yielding less than 10 gallons per minute, it is not required. The risk is borne
by the developer.
Mr. Zatorski addressed Mr. Till’s letter of March 31, 2008. He explained that, based on his experience with recent developments, he questions the statements that the bedrock aquifers draw a much larger network of interconnected factures which are recharged by 15 square mile area. Mr. Till agreed.
Mr. Zatorski stated his concerns regarding the effects of hydraulic pressure on these wells. Mr. Till stated he had no experience with this condition.
Mr. Carey submitted a letter of today’s date written by himself discussing Mr. Branse’s letter of March 27, 2008 in which Mr. Branse stated the Town of East Hampton has reversed its position on being the owner/operator of the proposed water system for Belltown Place. He further clarified this is not correct and explained that the applicant, to date, has not complied with the requirements of the WPCA and the matter is still under review by DPH and DPUC. Mr. Carey explained that a letter received by the Town of East Hampton on this date, April 2, 2008, from Lori Mathieu of DPH clearly states that the proposed system will be owned and operated by the WPCA under the conditions as they exist today. Exclusive Service Area (ESA) provider and Southeastern Water Utility Coordinating
Committee (SEWUCC) considerations will be taken into account. Mr. Carey explained that the only other ESA provider in East Hampton at the present time is Connecticut Water Company based in Clinton, Connecticut. He spoke with Thomas Marston, Vice President of Connecticut Water Company, on Friday, March 28, 2008, who stated that his company was approached by the applicant to operate the proposed system for Belltown Place and that his company has declined. Mr. Carey submitted both his letter and Ms. Mathieu’s letter for the record.
Mr. Carey further explained that after the close of business a document from Aqua Compliance Specialist was received indicating that they would be willing to own/operate the water system if the Town does not. Mr. Carey clarified that currently there are only two ESA providers in East Hampton. These are the WPCA and the Connecticut Water Company. Mr. Carey does not believe that this company can even come into East Hampton without the WUCC granting them ESA provider privileges.
Attorney Branse responded that Mr. Carey was correct and explained that the only reason the applicant went to the Aqua Compliance Specialist was because the WPCA had withdrawn from the process and was no longer willing to be involved in this application. Mr. Carey explained that it was clear to everyone, including
Ms. Mathieu, that the WPCA was only concerned with deficiencies, or variances, within the system being proposed. The Town of East Hampton never withdrew from the certificate process.
Thad King, Director of Health for the Chatham Health District, discussed his credentials and the role he will have in this application. He distributed his memorandum for the record and summarized its content. He explained that the Commission’s responsibility with this application was the same as his. That is to protect the public health and consider a safe and adequate water supply for this area and this application. He discussed the viability of this system and its dependence upon the available resources for the proposed use. He explained that unless it is proven that the resources are available to provide the necessary water for the project it will be difficult for this Commission to come to the conclusion that this application can be approved.
Mr. King discussed the water demands of this project and explained that it will be necessary for these applicants to obtain a diversion permit and explained in detail why that is the case. He used information readily available to him regarding other local developments to explain his rationale and suggested that it would not be prudent, or reasonable, for the Commission, or Town, to settle for similar conditions as are already present in the area for this project. Mr. King further discussed what will be required of the Town when, and if, it takes over this water system. It will need to produce a water supply plan that will include all the detail, assessment, and evaluation of the water system. It cannot be left to discovery after the fact. It does appear to him that the state
regulations have a gap and that it should not be left undetermined whether a diversion permit is necessary before proceeding with this project. Mr. King discussed the different ways of
calculating peak daily flow. He discussed the sanitation sewer system and its limitations.
Mr. King concluded by summarizing that he believes that it is very clear that a diversion permit is required. He agrees with the March 12th memo from the WPCA that it cannot own/operate the water system as it is now planned. He agrees with the February 26th letter from DPH that indicated that a diversion permit would be necessary. He agrees that a conditional approval of this kind is not appropriate. He finished by stating that 500 residents will soon be living in this area and no one knows whether there is a sustainable and adequate water supply for them.
John Saxton, Independent Environmental Consultants, was contracted by the Town to review this application. Mr. Saxton reviewed his credentials for the Commission. He discussed regulatory permit requirements, adequate water supply, and potential environmental impacts. His biggest concern is regarding adequate water supply. Mr. Saxton summarized his report and indicated that he felt the information obtained during the process of an application for a diversion permit would be extremely useful in formulation of this project. He discussed bedrock wells and yield expectations.
Janet Brooks, Town’s Counsel, submitted preliminary legal guidance to the Commission and read it into the record.
Mr. Carey reported that the latest information received from the State has indicated that a Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience has not been issued.
Mr. Carey questioned the applicant regarding the requested changes to the HOD regulations and how they relate to the site plan application.
Matt Pelletier, applicant, explained that the development would be three-story design, slab on grade, first floor is garage and living space, second floor is main living space, and third floor is the bedroom area. The garage will be fire rated and there will be a two-hour wall between units. Walk outs in the rear of the building could be a fourth story. These are not sprinklered buildings.
Matt Pelletier explained the steps taken for the stipulation on the Royal Oaks development. Phase 1A was complete and Phase 1B was in the process, which the applicant would be happy to do for this Commission.
Mr. Till discussed his experience with developments on satellite systems and explained that none of them had their final Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience prior to approval and none of them had been approved prior to the Phase 1A approval on the project.
Attorney Branse questioned Mr. Saxton about the number of community water systems he had been involved in and his report.
Chairman Philhower recessed the meeting at 9:40 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:45 p.m.
The Chairman opened the meeting to the public at this time.
Keith R. Ainsworth, Attorney with Evens Feldman & Ainsworth, L.L.C., New Haven, was present to represent the Intervenors and Daniel Miller. He distributed briefs for the Commission. Attorney Ainsworth discussed the responsibility of the Commission in considering these applications. He explained that the reason for the intervention is the potential for unreasonable impacts to the natural resources, specifically the water supply. The regulation changes to the HOD regulation are likely to lead to environmental damage because of the intensity that is being requested. The applicant is not entitled to the zone change. It must be compatible with the existing uses around the project site and it clearly is not. The site plan application is the implementation tool
which allows the applicant to conduct all these abuses upon the authority. Each application is flawed and interconnected. He explained his concern that Dr. Steinen did not opine as to volume, capacity, sustainability, or draw-downs in the long term.
Gordon Binkhorst, Hydrogeologist, discussed his credentials and discussed his review of the application. He believes that there is a reasonable likelihood that the pumping of the wells will impact the wetlands on this site. This is based on the fact that the wells are located in close proximity to the wetlands and the wetlands are very close to bedrock surface. There is an interaction between the overburden and the wetlands with the bedrock aquifer. Pumping the bedrock aquifer induces recharge which comes both from fractures and from the overlying overburden. In this case likely from the overburden wetlands. It is his professional opinion that there is a likelihood of negative effect to the wetlands. He further stated that the diversion permit process is
specifically designed to evaluate the effects on wetlands and area water supply wells. Until that process is complete there is no way anyone can say that there will be no significant impact on the wetlands and area supply wells. The same is true with the yield of the well.
Mr. Carey clarified to Attorney Ainsworth and the Commission that included in Mr. Ainsworth’s brief submission to the Commission on behalf of the Intervenor was a copy of a draft report by Mr. Saxton that had been substantially revised before it was released to the Commission. The actual report is a different document that the Intervenors are free to review but the one included in the brief dated March 29, 2008 has been completely superseded by a final report that is dated April 2, 2008 and is in the Commission’s packet for this evening.
Phyllis Martin, 31 South Main Street, expressed her concerns regarding the wells, public health, and the need for a pump test.
Paul Marsh, 65 South Main Street, discussed his concerned about blasting at the site location.
Mike Fuschi, 34 Daniel Street, questioned the fire safety expert’s report and its validity.
Ellen Nosal, 152 Main Street, discussed the proposed changes to the Zoning Regulations.
Attorney Branse questioned Mr. Saxton regarding the recharge of the site. Mr. Saxton stated that the effect of bedrock wells on the wetlands depends on the pumping rate and how close the wetlands are to the wells. He further explained that blasting can affect the disturbance to the wetlands in bedrock wells. A yield of 10 gallons per minute or less would be less of a concern for the wetlands than a larger yielding well.
Steven Doran, 59 South Main Street, discussed his concern for the wetlands and the applicant’s refusal to acknowledge vernal pools on the property.
Jim Burg, 54 Ridgeview Drive, summarized several points made earlier tonight. He discussed the three applications and the HOD regulation in force presently. He believes there should be a recreation area for a development of this size. The applicant should be required to apply for a diversion permit. There should be both Phase 1A and 1B approval granted before the project is approved.
Donna Kochuk, Old Middletown Avenue, granted Mr. Burg her three minutes to continue.
Mr. Burg continued to discuss his concerns with the applicant’s expert testimony.
Dave Anderson, 24 South Main Street, expressed his concern for the narrow road and placing this project on that street. He is also worried about his well running dry.
Don Martin, 32 South Main Street, discuss his concern for the water runoff and erosion and sedimentation control. Storm water management is also of concern to him.
Jackie Reardon, 55 South Main Street, discussed concerns she has regarding plowed snow and snow melt and runoff.
Gail Hamm, 1 Spice Hill, provided updated information on the Phase 1A application for this project and the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. The applicant filed for their Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity with DPUC on November 12, 2007. The DPH received it on December 12, 2007. As of March 26, 2008 there had been some correspondence back and forth between the applicant and the DPH. The DPH has required additional information. On March 26, 2008 the applicant responded to the DPH with that information. For the last week the process has been in DPH’s hands. As of today the DPH is requesting addition information. The DPH is seeking an interconnection between this project and an existing system, which is the whole Village
Center WUCC conversation on the ESA. This will not be resolved quickly. The other significant information being requested is some kind of response from the applicant about the effect that the project will have on nearby wells. She expects that the process to collect this information and formulate a decision as to whether there is adequate water on this site will take approximately four months. She is concerned that the developer wants the Commission to make this decision blindly and asked the Commission to deny this request.
Rob Lazor, 40 South Main Street, discussed the need for drinkable water in the area and his existing problems. He disagrees that the applicant is a water company.
John Valli, 46 South Main, granted Mr. Lazor his three minutes.
Mr. Lazor continued that he has water tests that indicate the types of problems he has suffered. The recharge area outside this project is insufficient to support this project. He further discussed that the wetlands will be cut off from each other. He is worried about the footing drains, blasting, and the retention ponds.
Pat Cichowski, 75 Collie Brook Road, discussed his concerns about the affordability aspect of this application.
Rebecca Tinelle Sawyer, 156 Wopowog Road, gave Pat Cichowski her three minutes.
Donna Fiederlein, 49 South Main Street, discussed here concern regarding the health issues and safety around the problem.
Andy Shelto, 60 South Main Street, discussed the zoning allowed currently and the changes requested. He urged the Commission to reject this application and any application that doesn’t meeting the current zoning regulations.
The Chairman recessed the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 11:40 p.m.
Attorney Branse questioned Mr. Binkhorst. Mr. Binkhorst responded the withdrawal rates for the wells were over 100 gallons per minute in each of the projects. The diversion permits are still pending. Mr. Binkhorst indicated that he lives at 300 Fern Street, West Hartford.
The Chairman reopened the meeting to the public that has not spoken either at last month’s hearing or tonight.
Steve Jeffries, 34 South Main Street, discussed his disappointment in this process here.
Diana Marsh, 65 South Main Street, discussed her concern over the traffic report.
Don Roberts, 91 Daniel Street, expressed his concern for the lack of open space in this project.
Lisa Gravel, 13 South Main Street, discussed the significant public interest of the archeologically significance of the area.
Sue Weintraub, 25 Knowles Road, stated that while she is on the Town Council, she is not representing the Town Council now. She discussed the need to defend the zoning regulations in this Town. She discussed the Plan of Conservation and Development as it relates to the application to change the zoning of the area. Ms. Weintraub is concerned about the documented failure of the individual water supply wells in this area. She stated the application should be denied.
Several members of the audience handed in written statements regarding these applications for the record.
Attorney Branse offered a brief closing statement. He indicated that Mr. Carey has made the Commission aware that the Town is willing to own and operate the system. He further stated that Laurel Ridge was the subdivision that was approved by this Commission without its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. Spice Hill was a new subdivision of single family homes so initially there were new lawns to be watered and it was not owned, operated, installed, or designed by his clients but by Birmingham Water. Birmingham was supposed to drill an additional well as the development grew and they did not do so. It was necessary for them to truck water until the well was drilled. The well has been drilled and no more water is being trucked. Royal Oaks data
referenced by Mr. King was from July. Multi-family developments use a different correction factor because they use a lower rate of water. The erosion and sedimentation plan and storm water plan have been part of the site plan since the beginning. The diversion permit is based on actual usage. It has nothing to do with the testing that is pending. The applicant has no objection to placing fencing around all the detention basins. The applicant believes that the plans and materials submitted this evening address the issues brought up in CLA’s letter of this date. If there are any remaining issues that CLA wants, the applicant will be happy to provide it to them and it may be made a condition of approval. He asked the Commission to approve the applications and asked them to feel free to condition any item they feel applies to the health and safety of the citizens of East Hampton.
There were no further questions at this time.
Mr. Zatorski moved to close the public hearing for a) Application of Pelletier Development LLC, 37 South Main Street, Belltown Place for an Amendment to Zoning Regulations, b) Application of Pelletier Development, LLC, 37 South Main Street, Belltown Place for a Zone Change from R-2/R-4 to H.O.D. - M 20/B 51/L 27, c) Application of Pelletier Development, LLC, 37 South Main Street, Belltown Place for Site Plan Approval of a 129 unit HOD – M 20/B 51/L 27. Mr. Rux seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Zatorski moved to continue a) Application of Pelletier Development LLC, 37 South Main Street, Belltown Place for an Amendment to Zoning Regulations, b) Application of Pelletier Development, LLC, 37 South Main Street, Belltown Place for a Zone Change from R-2/R-4 to H.O.D. - M 20/B 51/L 27, c) Application of Pelletier Development, LLC, 37 South Main Street, Belltown Place for Site Plan Approval of a 129 unit HOD – M 20/B 51/L 27 to the next regularly scheduled meeting on May 7, 2008. Mr. Rux seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
8. New Business: None.
9. Adjournment: Mr. Zatorski moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Rux seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m. on Thursday, May 8, 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
Daphne C. Schaub
Recording Secretary
| 
