TOWN OF OLD SAYBROOK
Planning Commission
302 Main Street Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475-1741
Telephone (860) 395-3131 FAX (860) 395-3125
MINUTES
Wednesday, November 1, 2006 at 7:30 p.m.
Pasbeshauke Pavilion at Saybrook Point Park
155 College Street Extension
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman, Robert McIntyre, called the regular meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Attendant Members Absent Members
Robert McIntyre, Chairman James Conroy, Alternate Member Judith Gallicchio, Vice Chairman William Voigt, Alternate Member
Richard Tietjen, Regular Member
Salvatore Aresco, Regular Member
Julius Castagno, Regular Member
Janis Esty, Alternate Member
Attendant Staff
Christine Nelson, Town Planner
Katie Beecher, Recording Clerk
III. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. Minutes
Changes to the minutes: page 3
Second paragraph: change the word wetlands in the first sentence to “nitrogen and other chemicals seeping into the Oyster River headwaters” and the word wetlands in the second sentence to “area”.
Third paragraph: Change the second sentence to “She also noted that the maps are in 60 scale not the standard 40 scale and suggested that a site walk take place.
MOTION to approve the minutes of October 18, 2006 as amended. MADE by J. Gallicchio. SECONDED by J. Castagno. VOTED IN FAVOR: R. McIntyre, R. Tietjen, J. Castagno, J. Gallicchio, S. Aresco OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 5-0-0.
Minutes from the Site Walk on October 29, 2006 were reviewed. The day stated on the minutes needs to be changed from Saturday to Sunday. Janis Esty was seated for the vote. Janis, Judy and Bob McIntyre were present.
MOTION to approve the minutes the Site Walk of October 29, 2006 as amended. MADE by J. Gallicchio. SECONDED by J. Esty. VOTED IN FAVOR: R. McIntyre, J. Gallicchio, J. Esty OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 3-0-0.
B. Correspondence
Minutes from the Zoning Commission presented.
C. Committee, Representative & Staff Reports
None
D. Appointment of Representatives
None.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. “Golinowski” Spec’l Exception for Open Space Subd – 8 Lots (21.5 ac)
Bokum Road (Map 61/Lot 13 & 1), Residence AAA District
Applicant: Golinowski, LLC Agent: Maurice Woodworth, L.S.
Report on the Site Walk: Bob McIntyre: Having the cul de sac going all the way through the property would be very difficult because of the steep slope. There are other possible ways of connecting the properties. The drainage seemed to be working
well.
Judy Gallicchio: She agrees with Bob about the cul de sac. Judy observed many stone walls and would like them conserved except for where the roadway comes in and where the drainage is. Bob Woodworth said they can’t be removed by the
residents without permission. She said that plans have not been updated to address Mr. Jacobson’s concerns but Mr. Woodworth stated that the applicant has agreed to all modifications. Judy also suggested a more unique street name for safety and lack of confusion, which the applicant has agreed to.
MOTION to accept the Golinowski Spec’l Exception for Open Space Subd waiver for 60 scale drawings instead of the standard 40 scale.. MADE by R. McIntyre. SECONDED by J. Gallicchio. VOTED IN FAVOR: R. McIntyre, J. Gallicchio, J. Castagno, S. Aresco, R. Tietjen OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 3-0-0.
MOTION to close the public hearing for the Golinowski Spec’l Exception for Open Space Subd. MADE by J. Gallicchio. SECONDED by R. Tietjen. VOTED IN FAVOR: R. McIntyre, J. Gallicchio, J. Castagno, S. Aresco, R. Tietjen OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 3-0-0.
MOTION to approve the Golinowski Spec’l Exception for Open Space Subd with the conditions that the name be changed to something without Ridge and that the items listed in Mr. Jacobson’s report of October 18, 2006 be included. MADE by J. Gallicchio. SECONDED by J. Castagno. VOTED IN FAVOR: R. McIntyre, J. Gallicchio, J. Castagno, S. Aresco, R. Tietjen OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 5-0-0.
B. “Max’s Place” Resubdivision of Land & Coastal Site Plan - Center Road West
Petitioner: Ron Lyman Agent: David M. Royston, Esq.
Portion of Center Road West, Gateway Business B-4 District
Attorney David Royston spoke for the applicant. The Commission received a supplemental information package including traffic and update site plans.
Correspondence in favor of the Max’s Place project was received from:
Arlene and Bruce Soden, 76 Knollwood
Joel Lucas, 55 Cypress
Vincent and Kathryn Ring, 9 South View Circle
Diane Adam and Family, 478 Maple Ave
The following documents were submitted for the record:
1. An updated letter from CT Water Company that they are prepared to provide water service.
2. Re-submitted letter from 2000 from the CT Department of Health approving the suitability for sewage disposal. The current system has been submitted to the DEP.
3. Re-submitted letter from August 21, 2006 from Scott Martinson, Town Health Inspector.
4. Traffic report from Bruce Hillson of Traffic Engineering solutions dated October 31, 2006. Stated that the proposed subdivision will have no significant impact to the traffic flows.
5. A Coastal Area Management Review application was submitted by the applicant even though the property is not in the CAM zone.
6. A report by the CT State Archeologist stating that he wants to look at a few areas on the property before they are developed to determine if artifacts might exist. Applicant has agreed.
7. Administrative & Design Review from the Town Planning Commission dated October 19, 2005.
8. Applicant submitted and extension of time application for the completion of the Public Hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting of November 15.
Comments from the Public:
Attorney Mark Shipman of the Chalker Beach Association spoke about the current flooding situation at Chalker Beach and expressed concern about the effects of Max’s Place on the area.
Roberta Smith of 106 Chalker Beach Road, Vice Chairman of the Chalker Beach Improvement Association presented photos of flooding in Chalker Beach in May 2006. She stated that Geoff Jacobson’s report said that flooding will be increased in duration from the development and that the situation is already dangerous for school children who must walk in the middle of the road to avoid the water. She said that ice in the winter makes the situation even more dangerous. She is also concerned about the already severe mosquito infestation and the worsening effect more standing water will have. She also expressed concern about Long Island Sound development and the depletion of oxygen and traffic problems that already exist along Route 1.
A letter from 22 residents of Chalker Beach supporting Max’s Place was submitted by Attorney Royston. He asked the Commission to refer to the two IWWC permits. He stated that the lots were already approved for use and that traffic and drainage issues will still exist even if the project is not approved but more can be addressed by the applicant of a larger project like Max’s Place.
Intervener Ralph Gometz re-submitted the Jacobson report from October 2, 2006.
The public portion of the hearing was closed and the Commission members asked questions of Mr. Gometz, Attorney Royston and Engineer Dave Ziacks of Hesketh regarding missing pages of a report, auger refusal, sewage, archeological concerns and if the detention pool will help the flooding at Chalker Beach.
Mr. Ziacks responded that the applicant offered to help the residents of Chalker Beach by repairing the flood gate but the DEP rejected the application for permit because they said the repair might harm the environment more than help it. Scott Hesketh discussed traffic counts done on Route 1 on Saturday July 24, 2004 including projections for the future at 1 ½% growth per year.
Judy Gallicchio asked Christine Nelson if Geoff Jacobson could attend the next meeting.
MOTION to continue the Public Hearing on Max’s Place Resubdivision of Land – Center Road West to the November 15, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. MADE by R. Tietjen. SECONDED by J. Castagno. VOTED IN FAVOR: J. Gallicchio, S. Aresco, R. McIntyre, J. Castagno, R. Tietjen; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 5-0-0.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. “Max’s Place” Special Exception for Retail Businesses – 135,000 s.f. (17.68 ac)
Petitioner: Ron Lyman Agent: David M. Royston, Esq.
Attorney Royston and Dave Ziaks, PE spoke for the applicant. Mr. Ziaks submitted the following:
- Zoning Site Plan and Special Exception Application from August 1, 2006 revised October 27, 2006
- Response from Hesketh to Christina Costa and Chrisine Nelson’s reports from October 31, 2006.
- Response to Mr. Gometz’ letters regarding the DEP and NEMO.
The Commission discussed the Special Exception with a focus on phasing, landscaping or other provisions to hide the Big Y parking lot from Spencer Plains Road, the architectural design of the Big Y building.
Sal Aresco said that he is totally uncomfortable with phasing. He wants the developers to listen more to town commissions regarding the character of the town. He suggested that the Big Y store’s architectural features be broken up to suggest a few smaller buildings rather than one big box. Judy Gallicchio and the other Commission members agreed and felt that the design of the building does not fit with the Plan of Conservation and Development.
Attorney Royston responded that the developer has listened to all of the boards and commissions and that the time of the project has been extended because the developer has made modifications in response to the Town’s requests. Max’s Place will be built in no more than three phases but the developer expects to do it in one phase.
The Planning Commission recommends the following modifications to the referenced matter:
· With regard to architecture, we note that the façade of the Big Y building is markedly different and lacking when contrasted against the creative detailing of the other buildings. The applicant should modify the application to blend obvious “branding” of the architecture with features that reflect our local style (i.e. break up the mass of the façade).
· Additionally, the applicant should modify the application to better provide for building design and landscaping at the featureless, utilitarian back of the building.
· With regard to layout and phasing of the construction of the permitted development, we note that the frontage of the properties are entirely within the pedestrian node area of the Gateway Business District, yet there is a gap in along the Spencer Plains Road frontage that fragments the desired effect of locating liner buildings to create a streetscape. The applicant should modify the application to locate an area of landscaping to meet the purposes of breaking the view from the street of the massive façade of the Big Y and its parking lots in a manner that does not deter pedestrians from comfortably reaching the Big Y.
· Additionally, the applicant should modify the application to sequence the construction of liner buildings A and B simultaneous with the Big Y building.
· With regard to access to and from the site, we note a lack of interconnectivity between the parking lots and the existing businesses lining the Boston Post Road. The applicant should modify the development to provide for future access and shared parking from Max’s Place to the businesses along Spencer Plains Road and Boston Post Road.
· Additionally, the applicant should modify the application to cross the driveways with sidewalk material to differentiate from the driveway pavement.
Pursuant to Section 53.4 of the Zoning Regulations, the Planning Commission recommends denial (unanimously) of the referenced matter as a proposed special exception due to these inconsistencies with the Plan of Conservation & Development and the Yale Urban Design Study.
MOTION to make an unfavorable recommendation regarding Max’s Place Special Exception for Retail Business, as it is inconsistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development:
· Encourage quality design of commercial, industrial, and municipal development sites with special regard for landscape and other site amenities, traffic safety and convenience, and functional and visual linkages with adjacent areas. (Town Image policies)
· To promote the small-town character and unique natural resources of the town as a marketable economic commodity, providing an exceptional quality-of-life for residents and a quality experience for visitors. (Economic Development policies)
· To encourage development of commercial and industrial sites that is consistent with Old Saybrook’s small-town character with respect to scale, appearance, and design and with special regard for landscape and other site amenities, traffic safety and convenience, and functional and visual linkages with adjacent areas. (Economic Development policies)
MADE by J. Gallicchio. SECONDED by R. Tietjen. VOTED IN FAVOR: J. Gallicchio, S. Aresco, R. McIntyre, J. Castagno, R. Tietjen; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 5-0-0.
VII. WORKSHOP
None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION to adjourn meeting at 12:30 until the next scheduled meeting on November 15, 2006. MADE by J. Gallicchio. SECONDED by R. McIntyre. VOTED IN FAVOR: J. Gallicchio, S. Aresco, R. McIntyre, J. Castagno, R. Tietjen; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 5-0-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
Katie Beecher
Recording Clerk
|