PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL
MEETING - MINUTES
OCTOBER
7, 2014 – 7:30PM
GOSHEN TOWN HALL – 42 NORTH STREET
PRESENT: Chairman Don
Wilkes, Cynthia Barrett, Stephen Cooney, Russell Hurley, Lu-Ann Zbinden;
Alternates Garret Harlow and Mark Harris; Town Planner and Zoning Enforcement
Officer Martin Connor, AICP.
ABSENT: None.
1. CALL TO
ORDER AND DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATES.
Chairman Don Wilkes
called the meeting to order at 7:30PM. All regular members present were seated
for the evening. The proceedings were recorded digitally, and copies are
available in the Land Use Office.
2. PUBLIC
HEARING:
A. Town of Goshen Planning & Zoning Commission
– Text Amendments to Zoning Regulations: Section 2.2.2 to Add Definition
of “Greenhouse” and Section 3.4.3.3 Pertaining to Maximum
Impervious Surface Coverage for Greenhouses in the RA-5 Zone.
The Recording
Secretary read into the record the legal notice for the public hearing. Mr.
Connor explained that the proposed amendment would permit an increase in maximum
impervious surface coverage up to 30% only for greenhouses and only in the RA-5
Zone. He noted that the impervious surface coverage requirements had only been
added to the regulations in the past few years; prior to that addition, there
would have been nothing in the regulations to prevent impervious coverage of up
to 30%. In addition, Mr. Connor stated that the regulations did not contain a
definition of “greenhouse”; therefore, he recommended the
definition proposed. He informed those present that, to date, the Town had not
received any applications to which this proposed amendment might pertain.
Hearing no
questions from the Commission, Mr. Wilkes opened the floor to public comment.
Dexter Kinsella, 103 West Street,
addressed the Commission to ask how this amendment had been initiated and how
the Commission had decided on the proposed upper limit of 30%. Mr. Connor
explained that he had in contact for several months with a representative of a
company named Growponics, Ltd. interested in setting up a greenhouse here in Goshen. Mr. Kinsella
stated that the proposed amendment appeared to be a direct response to the
company’s business model, and he questioned whether it was common for the
Town to propose changes to the Zoning Regulations for businesses and people who
did not reside in Goshen.
Mr. Connor explained that the Commission initiated this amendment application;
however, the Commission could also not refuse an application based on whether
or not the applicant resided in the Town. Mr. Kinsella stated that, instead of
amending the regulations, the company in question could purchase a larger lot
that would enable them to build what they desire while still meeting the
existing regulations. Noting that it was rumored that the property the company
was considering was located on West
Street, Mr. Kinsella stated that he had several
considerations as an abutting neighbor. Noting that the minutes of the
previous meeting stated that no lights would be used at night, he questioned
what would happen if the company later decided to do so. He also expressed
concern that such a business could fail; greenhouse buildings several thousand
square feet in size would then be left vacant. Mr. Kinsella also noted that
the Agricultural Commission had identified soils of Class I, II, and III
present on the site; such soils were deemed to be worthy of protection. He
also expressed concern about his difficulties obtaining copies of the minutes
of the August 26, 2014 regular P&Z meeting.
Kandace Tingley, 118 West Street,
next addressed the Commission. She questioned what benefits the Town would
derive from the company for which the proposed amendments had been developed.
Mr. Connor again reiterated that no application had been received, but stated
that such a proposal could potentially create additional jobs and generate
increased tax revenue.
P&Z 100714
Minutes
Evelyn Herman, 823 North Street,
addressed the Commission to state that such jobs would not necessarily benefit
residents of the Town of Goshen.
Haworth Barker, 12 Brush Hill Road,
then addressed the Commission to state that he had been a member of the Inland
Wetlands Commission approximately 20-30 years ago and at that time a proposal
had been received for a hydroponic facility on Pie Hill Road. He explained that while
nothing had come from the proposal, the Commission had been concerned about
fertilizers and impact on adjoining wetlands. Mr. Wilkes stated that, during
the Commission’s August 26th discussion with the Growponics,
Ltd. representative, he had asked similar questions and had been assured that
there would be no adverse impact to the wetlands.
Karen Sunderland, 207 West Street,
next addressed the Commission. Ms. Sunderland stated that the definition
proposed was for a greenhouse; however, what appeared to be proposed by
Growponics was more of a factory. She noted that their buildings could be up
to one acre in size, with the potential for lights and noise. Ms. Sunderland
stated that, as she was located downstream of the site proposed she questioned
the potential for runoff. She also was concerned as to whether or not such a
facility would use so much water that it adversely impacted the well on her
property. Ms. Sunderland also expressed concern about truck traffic on West Street. She
stated she was not opposed to such a business in Goshen, but stated that she believed it was
better situated in a vacant industrial building than on farmland in a
residential area.
Rob Maeder, 136 West Street,
addressed the Commission. He stated that he lived across the street from the
potential greenhouse site. Mr. Maeder expressed concerns regarding the impact
to his property value. He also cited concerns with lights from the site, noise
from fans and packaging equipment, and traffic from employees and trucks. He
noted that 30% of a lot the size of 147
West Street would equal 7-1/2 acres of coverage.
Mr. Maeder stated that he managed a factory and considered them important;
however, they should be situated in more appropriate areas away from
residential locations.
Michelle Vetter, 27 West Street,
next addressed the Commission. She stated that she had moved into her home
approximately 3 months ago, and the greenhouse proposal directly contradicts
why she moved into the area in the first place.
Marcia Barker, 12 Brush Hill Road,
then addressed the Commission. She noted that the Conservation Commission
considered it priority to protect scenic vistas in Town. Ms. Barker said that
the view from Route 63 was of rolling farmland; buildings of this size would
destroy the view.
Evelyn Herman, 823 North Street,
again addressed the Commission to state that there were plenty of other
locations in and out of the Town that would be more suitable for such a
proposal.
Seth Breakell, 93 Sandy Beach Road,
then addressed the Commission. He stated that he was the Vice-Chairman of the
Town of Goshen Agricultural Council,
and speaking on behalf of that organization he requested that the Commission
postpone making a decision on this amendment in order to allow the Agricultural
Commission and the Conservation Commission time to meet and discuss the
potential impact of such an amendment.
Kevin Rush, 115 West Street,
next addressed the Commission in opposition to the amendment. He explained
that his property was created as the result of a division of 147 West Street; therefore, he would be
the abutting neighbor if any greenhouses were built onsite. He explained that
his deed limited what he could do on his property in order to ensure he did not
create a nuisance to his neighbors; however, such a use on 147 West Street would adversely impact
him and everyone on the street. He explained that they moved to the Town
because of its rural character; such a development as would potential occur was
what he had moved to get away from.
P&Z 100714
Minutes
Monique Rush, 115 West Street,
also addressed the Commission to concur with her husband. She stated such a
use would ruin the rural character of the neighborhood and would devalue their
newly built home.
Richard Skargensky,
581 Sharon
Turnpike, addressed the Commission. He stated that he had lived in Town since
before zoning regulations had been established. Noting the emphasis the Town
had placed on open space, preservation of agriculture, and protection of
wildlife, he expressed concern that this would undermine all of those efforts.
He also expressed concern about the use of fertilizers onsite and the truck
traffic.
Evelyn Herman, 823 North Street,
again addressed the Commission to question where the workers would come from
for a use such as that proposed.
Ann Orsillo, 90 Brynmoor Court
then addressed the Commission. Ms. Orsillo stated that she moved to Goshen in 1990 and she
too had come to live in the country. She explained that she counted birds on
behalf of the Litchfield Audobon, and the previous owner of 147 West Street let her come onto the
property to study the birds. Ms. Orsillo stated that there has been a loss of
grassland habitats due to development, and the bobolink used grassland areas
for nesting. She stated that the bobolink was listed by the State as a
“species in decline”. Ms. Orsillo stated that she had observed
several nesting on this site, and she asked the Commission to consider the
impact on wildlife of such a proposal.
Ed Wright, 125 Milton Road, next
addressed the Commission. He stated that his family had lived in the Town
since 1740, and he expressed the belief that 10%
impervious surface coverage was more than sufficient for a 20-acre property.
Donald Schaer, 161 West Street,
then addressed the Commission. He explained that his property was located to
the south of 147 West Street.
Mr. Schaer noted that there were requirements for distances from buildings for
the launching fireworks at the Goshen Fairgrounds, and he expressed concern
that such large buildings would be too close and would prevent fireworks
displays from occurring.
Martine Bouton, 312
Sharon
Turnpike, addressed the Commission to question where runoff from greenhouse
roofs would be routed and where parking areas would be located. Mr. Connor
again explained that no application had yet been received.
Dexter Kinsella, 103 West Street,
again addressed the Commission. Mr. Kinsella observed that many residents had
spoken to the Commission and all were in opposition to the amendment. He
questioned what appeals process was available if the Commission were to go
forward with the amendment. Mr. Connor explained that appeals of the decisions
made by Planning and Zoning Commissions were heard by Superior Court.
Donald Schaer, 161 West Street,
again addressed the Commission to state that more people had spoken against
this amendment than had attended recent meetings on the school budget.
Anne Kelly, 32 Middle Street,
addressed the Commission and explained that she was the president of the Goshen
Farmers Market and a member of the Library Friends. She questioned whether or
not the Town wanted to encourage sustainable agriculture. She stated that she
was not opposed to such a use; however, she believed that it would fit other locations
better than the area proposed on West
Street.
Barbara Allen, 48 Old Middle Street,
then addressed the Commission. Ms. Allen stated that increased tax revenue was
purported to be a benefit from such a use; however, taxes are lower on
agricultural property. She also said that most factories are computerized;
therefore, she did not see how such a proposal would significantly increase
jobs in Town. If the company that owned the greenhouses was not located in the
Town, the profits would not actually benefit the Town.
P&Z 100714
Minutes
Dennis Lynn, 219 West Street,
then addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed amendment, citing
concerns with the impact on the rural character of the area.
John Carroll, West Street and Town Hill Road,
then addressed the Commission to state that a property the size of his own
would be permitted a 15-acre building under the proposed amendment. He
expressed the belief that this was excessive.
Martine Bouton, 312
Sharon
Turnpike, again addressed the Commission to question what material the floor of
such a building would be made out of. Mr. Connor again stated that no
application had been submitted; the amendment under discussion was initiated by
the Commission.
Hearing no further
comments or questions from the Commission or the audience:
MOTION Mr. Hurley, second Ms. Zbinden, to close the public
hearing in the matter of Town of Goshen
Planning & Zoning Commission – Text Amendments to Zoning Regulations:
Section 2.2.2 to Add Definition of “Greenhouse” and Section 3.4.3.3
Pertaining to Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage for Greenhouses in the RA-5
Zone at 8:17PM; unanimously approved.
3. OLD
BUSINESS:
A. Town of Goshen Planning & Zoning Commission
– Text Amendments to Zoning Regulations: Section 2.2.2 to Add Definition
of “Greenhouse” and Section 3.4.3.3 Pertaining to Maximum
Impervious Surface Coverage for Greenhouses in the RA-5 Zone.
MOTION Mr. Cooney, second Ms. Zbinden, to NOT ADOPT
the proposed amendments in the matter of Town
of Goshen Planning & Zoning Commission – Text Amendments to Zoning
Regulations: Section 2.2.2 to Add Definition of “Greenhouse” and
Section 3.4.3.3 Pertaining to Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage for
Greenhouses in the RA-5 Zone.
The motion to NOT
ADOPT the proposed amendments was unanimously approved. There will
therefore be no changes to the existing Zoning Regulations.
4. ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION Ms. Zbinden,
second Mr. Cooney, to adjourn at 8:20PM; unanimously approved.
Respectfully
submitted,
Stacey M. Sefcik
Recording Secretary
