East Hampton Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting
July 02, 2008
Town Hall Meeting Room
Approved 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, Members Peter Aarrestad, Roy Gauthier, Rowland Rux,
James Sennett, Alternate Members Richard Gosselin, and Darin Hurne. The Building, Planning,
and Zoning Administrator, James Carey, was also present.
Absent: Vice-Chairman Ray Zatorski, Member Kevin Reed, and Alternate Member Michael Brogan
were not present.
Messrs. Gosselin and Hurne were seated at this time.
2. Approval of Minutes: No minutes were presented for approval at this time.
3. Communications, Liaison Reports, and Public Comments:
Communications: Mr. Carey reported that the Chairman of the Town Council has invited
the Chairmen of the Land Use Boards to attend a meeting to review the P.O.C.D. on July 22,
2008 at 6:30 p.m. in the Town Hall Meeting Room. All members and the public are also welcome
to attend.
Mr. Aarrestad asked the clerk to distribute a document entitled Wastewater Planning Is An
Integral Part of Smart Growth by email.
Liaison Report: Mr. Sennett reported on the June 9, 2008 meeting of the ZBA. The minutes
of this meeting may be reviewed in the East Hampton Town Clerk’s office.
Mr. Aarrestad reported that the Water Development Task Force held a meeting on June 25,
2008. The minutes are available for review in the Town Clerk’s Office
Mr. Gauthier reported that the EDC held a meeting on June 23 2008. The minutes are on file
in the Town Clerk’s Office.
Chairman Philhower requested Mr. Carey inquire of the Town Council whether anyone has
been appointed to the vacant seat on Mid-State Regional Planning Agency.
Public Comments: The Chairman opened the meeting to the public for comments at this
time.
Wayne Rand, Seven Hills Estates Manager, requested that his request for an extension to
the subdivision approval be added to the Agenda.
Mr. Sennett moved to add the extension request for the Seven Hills Subdivision approval
to the Agenda as Item 5.c. Mr. Rux seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Kyle Dostaler, 56 William Drive, questioned the status of the acceptance of High Point Road
as a town road.
Mr. Carey responded that the proposal by the Town Council in 2003 to accept High Point Road
was with a series of conditions. Ultimately the road was not accepted. If it had been accepted,
the deed and easements would be filed in the land records.
There being no further comments, the Chairman closed the Public Comments portion of the
meeting at this time.
4. Set Public Hearing for August 6, 2008:
A. Adoption of Flood Insurance Rate Maps by Participating Communities, numbered
FEMA 495 and dated September 2005.
Mr. Sennett moved to set the public hearing for the Adoption of Flood Insurance
Rate Maps for the meeting on August 6, 2008. Mr. Rux seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
5. Old Business:
A. Discussion – P.O.C.D. Review: Mr. Gosselin reviewed the revisions to the P.O.C.D.,
Implementation Table and the Map to date. The Commission confirmed the revisions
being proposed. *Attachment 1*
Mr. Aarrestad moved that the proposed revisions to the P.O.C.D. be scheduled for
a Public Hearing at the next regular meeting. Mr. Rux seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimously.
B. Discussion - Open Space Subdivision: Mr. Carey discussed his findings on this
Regulation with the Commission. He explained that the most glaring problem with
the Regulation at this point is that it has been placed in the wrong place. It is
currently Section 30 of the Zoning Regulations and as a subdivision regulation it
should be in the Subdivision Regulations. His first suggestion is that it be removed
from the Zoning Regulations and added to the Subdivision Regulations as a special
type of subdivision and reference it through notation in the Zoning Regulations.
Mr. Carey questioned the Commission as to whether or not it is the consensus of the
Commission to take a look at open space subdivisions as the standard method of
subdividing property in town or if it should remain as it is written know as a special
permit use. There is not a huge difference between the two except that if it is handled
by special permit the application is much more at the discretion of the Commission.
Planimetrics had recommended the open space subdivision be the subdivision of right.
They suggested that applicants should look at the subdivision of their property with
the open space subdivision in mind first. If it should turn out that type of subdivision
would not be appropriate, or beneficial, they could fall back on conventional, geometric
zoning. The goal of the open space subdivision is the preservation of resources on
properties being developed. Mr. Carey does not believe it is an effective tool to control
density or setbacks. The purpose of an open space subdivision is not to reduce the
number of lots a property will yield. It is to allow for an equal use with sensitivity toward
saving the natural resources. The special permit regulation could address this by including
the examination of open space subdivision per the subdivision regulations.
The Chairman requested that everyone read through the draft distributed this evening and
be prepared to finalize this in August.
C. Seven Hills Subdivision Phase III Extension Request: Mr. Carey explained that Mr. Rand
is requesting a 90-day extension of the approval period to enable the wetland plants to be
planted in September rather than mid-summer when the weather will not produce good
results. His recommendation would be to grant the extension.
Mr. Sennett moved to grant the 90-day extension request of the Seven Hills Subdivision
Phase III. Mr. Rux seconded the motion.
The Commission discussed the nature of the work taking place to finalize this subdivision.
The Chairman called for the vote. The motion carried unanimously.
6. Read Legal Notice for Public Hearing: None.
7. Public Hearings for July 2, 2008:
A. Application of David Schuler, 160 Bear Swamp Road, for a re-subdivision, M~33/B~88/L~14.
Mr. Schuler was present to discuss his application. He had originally purchased the property
located at 160 Bear Swamp Road, also known as Parcel A. At a later date I purchased Lot 3.
The plans were to combine the two pieces, which was done. Those plans did not work out so
he would like to separate the lots back to the way they were originally. This request will revert
the parcels back to the original subdivision approval.
Mr. Carey reviewed the application and explained that it is compliance with the zoning
regulations as previously approved. He currently has 6 horses on the property. This
will be the maximum amount allowed on Parcel A when it is re-subdivided.
The Chairman opened the meeting to the public at this time. There was no one present
to discuss this application.
Mr. Rux moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Gauthier seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Sennett moved to approve the application of David Schuler, 160 Bear Swamp
Road, for a re-subdivision, M~33/B~88/L~14. Mr. Rux seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimously.
B. Zoning Regulation Section 6.1 Amendment – Lot and Building Area and Dimensional
Requirements, elimination of the sewer density bonus, continued from May 14, 2008.
Mr. Carey reviewed this amendment with the Commission. The interest in this
amendment by the Commission is to avoid creating any incentive to extend the
sewer. The concern is the number and extent of lots in the R-1, and to some degree
the R-2, Zones that will be impacted by the increased non-conformity. One of the
problems that the town has been faced with and has been criticized to some extent
is the number of variances that are necessary to develop property and the R-1 Zone.
Very few lots, except those newly developed, are actually anywhere near the 20,000
sq ft number unless they are a combination of other lots.
Mr. Carey explained that the Assessor has approached this in a unique way, at least
regarding the assessment process. Lots are designated by the zone with an “s” if the
lot is served by sewer. The Assessor is presently billing 364 properties as R_1 and 1570
properties as R-1s. The R-1s properties have zoning of 20,000 sq ft with setbacks of 25ft
front and back and 15ft on each side. In 1990 the setbacks in this zone were 25ft front and
back and 10ft on each side. The R-2 Zone has 1232 properties. The R-2s Zone has 556
properties. The R-3 Zone has 170 properties. The R-3s has 337 properties. The R-4 Zone
has 1637 properties, no sewer. The Commercial, Industrial, Professional Office/Residential,
Design Development, Village Center, and Reserved Land Zones have no sewer designations.
There is a total of 6375 parcels being billed by the Assessor at this time.
Mr. Carey is concerned that when 60,000ft zoning is applied with 50ft front and back
zoning and 25ft side-yard setbacks, and 10% maximum coverage to all the lots in the
R-1s Zone, they will be so grossly non-conforming that anything the property owner
tries to do will force them to the ZBA and devalue the property. He recommended that
the Commission consider the possibility that it could accomplish its goal of eliminating
the planning and zoning incentive to extend the sewer by simply stating the R-1 Zone is
“60,000 sq. ft, 50ft front and back, 25ft side-yard, 10% maximum coverage, 100ft frontage,
and 150ft width *Lots served by public sewer prior to the effective date of ________
will be considered conforming”.
Mr. Carey’s concern is that the vast majority of the lots in the R-1 Zone were created
without the protection afforded when they are created through subdivision. These
lots will become non-conforming, if the proper considerations are not made. He also
believes that any extension of sewer utilities and water utilities must be approved by
the Planning & Zoning Commission before it goes to the WPCA for an 824 Report.
This has not been the protocol. WPCA has been proceeding on these developments,
making developers agreements, without the benefit of the planning commission.
Mr. Carey discussed various mechanisms of the WPCA, Town Council, and PZC
regarding build out of the sewer and the reasons for them.
The Commission discussed the possibility of compromising on this issue and various
ways of doing so. They also discussed the reasons not to compromise.
The Chairman opened the public hearing at this time.
Wayne Rand, Skyline Estates Manager, explained that the Peach Farm Estates lots
have excellent soils and the lots are ¾ acres with septic and well. If the soils are
suitable a house can be placed on less than an acre. He discussed his extensive
research on the water issue. He is also concerned about what eliminating the
sewer density bonus would do to the value of raw land. The PZC should be spending
their time trying to determine how to make lots more affordable for people. Mr. Rand
distributed handouts he prepared indicating the cost of land and development of
the land in various actual subdivisions. He is also concerned that this elimination will
encourage developers to use the affordable housing statutes.
Tom Wells, North Main Street, stated that he believes the move to eliminate the
sewer density bonus is a good move except in the R-1 Zone.
Mary Ann Dostaler, 56 William Drive, discussed that the water problem in East
Hampton would benefit from eliminating the sewer density bonus as would smart
growth. She is also concerned about tax increases and suggested that East
Hampton is the only town in New England with a sewer density bonus.
Mr. Rux moved to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled
meeting in August. Mr. Sennett seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
8. New Business: None
9. Adjournment: Mr. Sennett moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Rux seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Daphne C. Schaub
Recording Secretary
| 
