Town of
North Stonington, CT
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
|
|
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009 – 7:00 P.M.
New Town Hall
Conference Room
40 Main Street
North Stonington, CT 06359
Draft Minutes
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Chairman Stewart called the Regular Meeting of the North Stonington Planning & Zoning Commission to order on Thursday, June 4, 2009 at 7:05 p.m. at the New Town Hall, Conference Room.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: G. Russell Stewart, III, Chairman, Vilma Gregoropoulos, Secretary, Joe Siner and Alternate Member Duncan Schweitzer
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Louis E. Steinbrecher, Vice-Chairman, Elaine Boissevain and Alternate Members Member Susan Grufstedt and Ann Brown
STAFF PRESENT: Sr. Planner/ZEO Juliet Leeming and Administrative Assistant Cheryl Konsavitch and Consulting Engineer Donald Aubrey (left at 7:20 p.m.)
2. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
MOTION by V. Gregoropoulos, SECOND by J. Siner to amend the agenda to continue the workshop discussion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. WORKSHOP:
The Planning & Zoning Commission requested a workshop with their Consulting Engineer, Donald Aubrey of Towne Engineering to discuss impervious surface.
Mr. Aubrey went over impervious surface with the Commission and will meet with D. Schweitzer and ZEO Leeming to draft regulations.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. SPEC #09-025 (Special Permit) Application of Stonington Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, c/o Ronald Sherman, 135 Liberty Street, Pawcatuck, CT 06379 to construct a 175 person occupancy House of Worship on property located at 530 Providence-New London Turnpike, North Stonington, CT 06359 Tax Map #112, Parcel #7791 (PH opened on 5/07/09 & continued to 6/04/09; Received on
4/09/09 & PH to close on or by 6/10/09)
ZEO Leeming stated the applicant has requested an extension on their application as they are trying to buy more land to meet the impervious surface regulation.
MOTION by V. Gregoropoulos, SECOND by J. Siner to accept the request for an extension on this application up to 65 days. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
B. SPEC #09-032 (Special Permit) Application of Samuel Joslin, 219 Wintechog Hill Road, North Stonington, CT 06359 for the installation of a small wind energy system on property located at 219 Wintechog Hill Road, North Stonington, CT 06359 in an R-80 Zone. Tax Map #92, Parcel #9722. (PH scheduled to open on 6/04/09; Commission received on 5/14/09 & PH must close on or by 7/08/09)
Secretary Gregoropoulos read the application into the record.
Seated: R. Stewart, V. Gregoropoulos, J. Siner, D. Schweitzer seated for E. Boissevain
Mr. Sam Joslin was present for this application.
ZEO Leeming went over the application and waiver requests with the Commission.
The Commission asked questions pertaining to the site on which the wind tower will be placed, landscaping and lighting.
Chairman Stewart asked if there were any questions or comments from the public. There were none.
Chairman Stewart asked if there was anyone from the public speaking against this application. There were none.
Chairman Stewart asked if there was anyone from the public speaking in favor of this application.
Diane Joslin spoke in favor.
MOTION by V. Gregoropoulos, SECOND by J. Siner to close the PH on SPEC #09-032. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. COMMISSION REVIEW: None
6. PENDING APPLICATIONS:
SPEC #09-025 (Special Permit) Application of Stonington Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, c/o Ronald Sherman, 135 Liberty Street, Pawcatuck, CT 06379 to construct a 175 person occupancy House of Worship on property located at 530 Providence-New London Turnpike, North Stonington, CT 06359 Tax Map #112, Parcel #7791 (NO ACTION NEEDED; PH opened on 5/07/09 & continued to 6/04/09; Received on 4/09/09 & PH to close on or by 6/10/09)
SPEC #09-032 (Special Permit) Application of Samuel Joslin, 219 Wintechog Hill Road, North Stonington, CT 06359 for the installation of a small wind energy system on property located at 219 Wintechog Hill Road, North Stonington, CT 06359 in an R-80 Zone. Tax Map #92, Parcel #9722. (PH scheduled to open on 6/04/09; Commission received on 5/14/09 & PH must close on or by 7/08/09)
Seated: R. Stewart, V. Gregoropoulos, J. Siner, D. Schweitzer seated for E. Boissevain
Secretary Gregoropoulos read Section 1704.2, Standard Elements of the Site Plan waiver requests into the record and the Commission stated that items 1704.2 (Z) and 1704.2 (AA) were not applicable.
WAIVERS GRANTED
MOTION by V. Gregoropoulos, SECOND by J. Siner to accept the waiver requests to the following sections with reasons:
Section 1704.1 – The Site Plan does not involve grading, paving, road construction or drainage work. Relevant information required in Section 1704 and all the information requested in Section 1577 can be displayed on a plot plan that is drawn to scale. If a professional assists with the plan, a live signature and seal will be provided.
Section 1704.2(C) – An A-2 is not necessary to show the location of the small turbine. This requirement is more relevant in new construction or development of a site, not for an accessory structure that will be placed within the setbacks that have already been established when the home was built.
Section 1704.2(F) – Some topographical information may be relevant, but there is no proposed grading of the site in conjunction with this project. Again, this is relevant for larger construction or development projects. What would be useful in this application is the elevation at the site of the turbine and the elevations of surrounding structures or general topography of the site as it relates to the visibility of the turbine.
Section 1704.2(I) – There are no proposed drainage facilities associated with this project.
Section 1704.2(J) – This requirement is more relevant for new construction or development of a site, not for an accessory structure that will be placed within the established buildable area that would be free from wetlands. Wind turbines are typically located at high elevations and are not ever likely to be located in or near a wetland. Wetland information for the site will be provided at the same level as is provided for an accessory structure – as the structure is accessory to an existing structure that has gone through a permitting process itself. A person putting up an accessory structure does not have to provide an A-2 Survey with the wetlands delineated again with a fresh signature and seal for the new application for the accessory structure. Even though with this particular
accessory structure (a turbine) requires a Special Permit and Site Plan, remember that most of the requirements for a Special Permit or Site Plan are geared toward new construction of a principal use, not an accessory use.
Section 1704.2(K) – This requirement is geared toward new construction of a principal use, not an accessory use. Landscaping isn’t required for a Single Family Home, nor for any accessory structures associated with the home.
Section 1704.2(L) – The project does not disturb enough soil to require a SE&SC Plan per Section 1715.
Section 1704.2(Q) – The driveway to the site is already permitted and established for the home.
Section 1704.2(R) – This requirement is geared toward new construction of a principal use, not an accessory use. A Lighting Plan isn’t required for a Single Family Home, nor for any accessory structures associated with the home.
Section 1704.2(Y) – The project involves the installation of a small wind turbine, not a home or business where this information would be relevant.
Section 1704.2(BB) – This requirement is not relevant to the project. The installation of the turbine will not disturb enough soil to be of concern. This is not something that is required for an application for a structure that will be accessory to a single family home.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
DECISION
MOTION by V. Gregoropoulos, SECOND by J. Siner to approve SPEC #09-032 with the following notes added to the plan:
1. Project not subject to FAA lighting requirements and
2. Clearing of natural vegetation shall be limited to that which is necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the wind facility. The amount of existing trees and vegetation to be maintained on the parcel shall be sufficient to provide a visual buffer between neighboring parcels.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
FINDINGS
1602.1 that the proposal is adequately served by an appropriately designed and sufficient water supply, and sanitary facilities;
Not applicable to the installation of a wind turbine
1602.2 that the use(s) and/or structure(s) be arranged, constructed, and operated in a manner that protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of North Stonington;
The turbine sits in the middle of an 11+ acre lot. A 101’ fall zone is required. The turbine is 110’ form the home located on the parcel and hundreds of feet away from the nearest neighboring structures. The parcel is bordered by one other residential lot and the Town Dump. The tower is a three legged, self-supporting, lattice design, that tilts down to allow for easier maintenance. The health, safety and welfare of the citizens of North Stonington will not be jeopardized by the installation of this turbine.
1602.3 that transportation services are adequate and no traffic congestion or undue traffic generation will result that would cause a deleterious effect on the local welfare or the safety of the motoring public;
Not applicable to the installation of a wind turbine accessory to an established structure on an established lot. No traffic congestion will be created.
1602.4 that the use and/or structure will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be situated, and that it will not be noxious, offensive, or detrimental to the area by reason of odors, fumes, dust, noise, vibrations, appearance, or other similar reasons.
To quote an article written in the July 2008 edition of Zoning Practice: “The aesthetic impact of turbines is a real concern for many residents, but aesthetics alone do not appear to have a measurable effect on neighboring property values. The impacts of WECs [wind energy conversion systems] should be compared to similar structures that are allowed to create visual impacts…. particularly those associated with power generation and transmission [or I would add – Cell Towers]. Ultimately, each community will need to decide if the benefits of clean, local power generation are valuable enough to justify the visual impact of turbines in some zoning districts.” (emphasis added)
The site is heavily wooded. The home is not visible form the street. The turbine will not be visible from Wintechog Hill Rd. It may be slightly visible from Lantern Hill or portions of Route 2, if a person is really looking for it, but I certainly do not forsee that this turbine will create a visual disturbance for anybody in North Stonington.
With respect to noise and electrical interference: the blades are very narrow – arrow-like in shape (see photo in application package) which reduces the noise generated. Additionally, the blades are made of Glass fiber engineered plastic, not metal, and will therefore be no electromagnetic interference with any signal transmission or reception.
There are no odors, fumes, dust or notable vibrations associated with this wind turbine. Given its isolated location, very few people will even know it is there.
1602.5 that no adverse effect will result to the character of the district, property values, historic features, or prosperity of the immediate neighborhood;
As I indicated before, studies have shown that while there is always some initial concern about decreasing property value, the opposite is generally true. Wind power is often seen as a positive community attitude towards renewable energy. North Stonington has expressed an interest and commitment towards exploring alternative energy options.
Given the remote location of the property, there will be little – if any - effect on neighboring properties.
1602.6 the preservation of the character of the immediate neighborhood in terms of scale, density, intensity of use and architectural character;
Not applicable to the installation of a wind turbine. This is speaking more to buildings and subdivisions etc.
1602.7 that no significant impact on environmental resources will result; and
The NDDB map showed two species of concern in the general vicinity of the project site: the raven and timber rattlesnake. The DEP sent a letter saying that the raven would not be affected by the project. With respect to the rattlesnake, the concern was with the possible disturbance of the habitat (when the snakes are foraging). This turbine is being placed in an existing clearing near the house. The timber rattlesnakes like to nest in rocky wooded areas preferably in existing animal dens. They hide in leaf cover and under rocks. The installation of the turbine will not disturb any such areas. Additionally, this project does not require any DEP or State Permits making any additional site review unnecessary, as confirmed by Dawn McKay of the DEP. The applicant assured me that regardless, care would be taken to minimize
any potential impact on any potential rattlesnake habitat.
No wetlands or other natural resources will be affected by this project. If anything, the generation of wind power verses the continued use of other fossil fuel dependent power supplies will have a positive effect on the environment.
1602.8 that the proposed use and/or structure is consistent with future development as identified and envisioned in these regulations and the North Stonington Plan of Conservation and Development
One of the objectives in the 2003 POCD was to plan for the use of renewable sources of energy. This Commission adopted new regulations in 2008 to allow small and large-scale wind facilities in North Stonington which is certainly consistent with this stated objective.
7. NEW APPLICATIONS:
A. SP #09-033 (Site Plan Modification) Application of Drake Petroleum, Inc., P.O. Box 866, North Grosvenordale, CT 06255 for a modification to an approved site plan to modify the outdoor lighting of the existing site on property located at 226 Norwich-Westerly Road, North Stonington, CT 06359 in the C2 Zone. Tax Map #109, Parcel #3286 (Commission to receive on 6/04/09 & must act on or by
8/06/09)
The Commission set the review of this application for 6/11/09.
B. SP #09-034 (Site Plan Extension) Application of North Stonington Bible Church, 100B Jeremy Hill Road, North Stonington, CT 06359 for an extension of approved site plan #04-158 for a 5 year extension for the expansion of the existing church assembly facility and associated infrastructure on property located at 100B Jeremy Hill Road, North Stonington, CT 06359 in an R-60 Zone. Tax Map #115, Parcel #0343 (Commission to receive on 6/04/09 & must act on or by 8/06/09)
MOTION by V. Gregoropoulos, SECOND by D. Schweitzer to approve the request to extend the approved site plan #04-158 for 5 years. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
C. RC #09-036 (Regulation Change) Application of North Stonington Planning & Zoning Commission, 40 Main Street, North Stonington, CT 06359 to amend Sections: 200, 400, 410, 420, 500, 510, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1300, 1502, 1520, 1530, 1537, 1543, 1546, 1563, 1577, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2000 & Appendix A of the Zoning Regulations and Section 5 of the Subdivision Regulations. (Commission to receive
on 6/04/09 & set for PH as their schedule permits)
The Commission set the Public Hearing on this application for 7/02/09.
8. PLANNING ISSUES & DISCUSSION:
Bucket List – Parking
The Commission went over parking issues and discussed the minimum and maximums needed, radius for emergency services and would like the ZEO to look at other town’s that are comparable to ours and their parking requirements.
9. SENIOR PLANNER & ZONING OFFICIAL’S REPORT/ISSUES:
ZEO Report/May
ZEO Leeming went over her activity report with the Commission for the month of May.
10. NEW BUSINESS:
11. OLD BUSINESS:
12. CORRESPONDENCE:
The Commission went over the correspondence in their packets.
13. REVIEW MINUTES:
Review minutes of Workshop & Regular Meeting of 5/14/09.
MOTION by V. Gregoropoulos, SECOND by J. Siner to approve the workshop and regular meeting minutes of 5/14/09 with the necessary corrections. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
14. ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by V. Gregoropoulos, SECOND by J. Siner to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Respectfully Submitted,
Cheryl Konsavitch
Cheryl Konsavitch, Administrative Assistant
Planning & Zoning Office
| 
