MINUTES
Wednesday, September 2, 2009 at 7:30 p.m.
1st Floor Conference Room
Town Hall, 302 Main Street
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman, Robert McIntyre, called the regular meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present
Robert McIntyre, Chairman
Janis Esty, Vice Chairman
Salvatore Aresco, Regular Member
Robert Missel, Regular Member
Donald Ranaudo, Regular Member
Kenneth Soudan, Alternate Member
Staff Present
Christine Nelson, Town Planner
Kathleen Noyes, Recording Clerk
III. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. Minutes
MOTION to approve the minutes of August 5, 2009 as written; MADE by D. Ranaudo; SECONDED by R. Missel; VOTED IN FAVOR: R. McIntyre, J. Esty, S. Aresco, D. Ranaudo, R. Missel; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none.; APPROVED: 5-0-0.
B. Correspondence
In their packets, members received copies of 2 memos from C. Nelson to Michael Pace: the first was dated 8/6/09 re: Carry-over into FY ’09-’10, and the second was dated 8/10/09 re: Recommended Updates to Town Code regarding Fees and Regulations for Public Improvements (“Road Regulations”) with attachments Chapter 110. Public Improvements and Chapter 118. Fees.
Members also received a copy of a Declaration of Environmental Land Use Restriction and Grant of Easement dated 8/4/09 re: Grossman Chevrolet between Emma Grey, LLC and the Commissioner of Environmental Protection of the State of CT.
C. Committee, Representative & Staff Reports
Neither Commission members nor C. Nelson had anything new to report at this time.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Petition to Change the Name of “Fourth Avenue Extension” to “Channelside Avenue”
Petitioner: Pat, William & Gary Brink, 8 & 10 Fourth Avenue
In their packets, members received a copy of a letter dated 8/13/09 from Norm Wood, Assessor, re: changing the street numbers and the street name of Fourth Avenue Extension. Also received was a letter dated 8/9/09 from Michael and Linda Sjogren of 10 Fourth Avenue Extension in support of the name change. Also, a letter dated 8/24/09 was received from Eileen Russell of 12 Fourth Avenue Extension in support of the name change with attached correspondence regarding her history of involvement with this issue from 2005 & 2006. A letter date 8/25/09 was received from Nick Sapia of Sapia Builders, a majority property owner on Fourth Avenue in support of the name change. Also included in Commission members’ packets were copies of correspondence from Sharon Wood of 15 Fourth Avenue Extension that she submitted
for the record during the Public Hearing at the last Planning Commission meeting of 8/5/09.
R. McIntyre opened the Public Hearing, and he explained the Public Hearing process to the Public.
R. McIntyre asked R. Missel and D. Ranaudo if they had read all of the materials in their packets pertaining to this matter since neither was in attendance at the August 5, 2009 PC meeting. They both said they had read everything, and that they felt fully prepared to participate.
C. Nelson said that since the Planning Commission’s last meeting of Wednesday, August 5, 2009, a second letter was sent to property owners of Fourth Avenue Extension notifying them of the petition for the street name change and of tonight’s meeting.
Also, C. Nelson reported that today a letter was received from D. Dobson, Fire Marshal in support of the road name change, and a letter was received from Town Attorney, Michael Cronin, which C. Nelson read aloud for the record. In summary, Attorney Cronin stated in his letter that changing the name of the road does not affect the legality of a property owner’s deed or title to their property. The legal description of the property will remain unchanged, but he recommended that notice be filed into the Land Records.
R. McIntyre asked if anyone from the Public wanted to speak, and because no one did, he closed the Public Hearing.
K. Soudan asked C. Nelson about the response from the letter sent to property owners on Fourth Avenue Extension. C. Nelson said that out of the 18 property owners that were notified, 4 responded to the letter with 1 negative response from Sharon Wood. Although S. Wood was not in attendance at tonight’s meeting, the correspondence which she submitted at the August 5, 2009 PC meeting was distributed to Commission members in their packets.
K. Soudan stated concerns that if the Planning Commission voted to approve this, and the road name were changed, might this set a precedent for other streets in town with duplicate names. S. Aresco further illustrated this point by sharing research he had done by looking at town maps. He said there are many streets in town with duplicate names such as Soundview Avenue I, and Soundview Avenue II, and, he noted there is Fenwood Drive, Fenwood Vista, Fenwood Circle, Fenwood Place and Fenwood Road. C. Nelson responded by saying that the Planning Commission should consider this matter on its own, and that in the future, if a neighborhood group should request or petition for a road name change, it should be looked at on a case by case basis, and thus this would not set a precedent.
R. McIntyre saw that someone from the Public entered the meeting, and thus, he reopened the Public Hearing.
Eileen Russell of 12 Fourth Avenue Extension spoke in favor of the road name change, but she requested that instead of “Channelside Avenue”, the road name be changed to “Channelside Drive.”
R. McIntyre again asked if anyone from the Public wished to speak, and as no one did, he closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION to close the Public Hearing for Petition to Change the Name of “Fourth Avenue Extension” to “Channelside Avenue”; Petitioner: Pat, William & Gary Brink, 8 & 10 Fourth Avenue.; MADE by R. Missel; SECONDED by J. Esty; VOTED IN FAVOR: R. McIntyre, J. Esty, D. Ranaudo, R. Missel, S. Aresco; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none.; APPROVED: 5-0-0.
R. McIntyre announced that Commission members would now go into the deliberation process.
S. Aresco said he wished a larger majority of Fourth Avenue Extension property owners had come to voice their opinions on this matter. He also stated that while health and safety issues are the priority, he did not feel that a street name should be changed just because residents had a preference for a different street name.
There was discussion about the duplicate street numbers on Fourth Avenue and Fourth Avenue Extension, and C. Nelson said she would follow up with the Tax Assessor’s office and other Town Hall staff.
R. McIntyre then asked each Commission member for their opinion regarding whether the Planning Commission should leave the street names as they are now, change the name of Fourth Avenue Extension to either Channelside Avenue or Channelside Drive, and/or change the street numbers.
C. Nelson noted that when changing street numbers, residents would have to change the numbers on their houses and mailboxes, and Commission members agreed that they did not want to place burden on the homeowners if this was not necessary, but their concern is for the health and safety of the residents, and that changing the street numbers might eliminate confusion.
Commission members agreed that they would like to change the name of Fourth Avenue Extension to Channelside Drive, and if C. Nelson finds that the house numbers can stay the same without causing more confusion, they should stay the same, but if the house numbers need to be changed, then they should be changed. Also, Commission members requested that new signage be put up as soon as possible.
MOTION to approve the Petition to Change the Name of “Fourth Avenue Extension” to “Channelside Drive” instead of “Channelside Avenue” with the possibility of also changing the street numbers depending on the findings of Town Hall staff; Petitioner: Pat, William & Gary Brink, 8 & 10 Fourth Avenue.; MADE by S. Aresco; SECONDED by D. Ranaudo; VOTED IN FAVOR: R. McIntyre, J. Esty, R. Missel, D. Ranaudo, S. Aresco; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none.; APPROVED: 5-0-0.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Petition to Amend Zoning Regulation
Section 9 Definitions & 58 Gateway Conservation Zone
Petitioner: Zoning Commission
In their packets, Commission members received a memo from the Zoning Commission dated 8/21/09 re: Petition to amend Zoning Regulations – Section 9 Definitions and Section 58, CT River Gateway Conservation Zone; amend definition of height, CT River Gateway Conservation Zone, Riparian Buffer Area & Gateway Conservation Zone Setback with attachments of the proposed draft revised 8/17/09.
C. Costa, ZEO, explained to Commission members exactly what the proposed text changes are and why the Zoning Commission is requesting them. She said that this was a “housekeeping” issue because of textual language that needed correcting particularly regarding the riparian buffer area, the Gateway Zone Setback, and the definition of “height.”
MOTION to send a favorable recommendation to the Zoning Commission for Petition to Amend Zoning Regulation-Section 9 Definitions & 58 Gateway Conservation Zone; Petitioner: Zoning Commission, in that it is not inconsistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development.; MADE by S. Aresco; SECONDED by R. Missel; VOTED IN FAVOR: R. McIntyre, J. Esty, R. Missel, D. Ranaudo, S. Aresco; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none.; APPROVED: 5-0-0.
B. Petition to Amend Zoning Regulation
Section 54.1.3 Incentive Housing Zone
Petitioner: HOPE Partnership, Inc. & Town of Old Saybrook
Agent: David M. Royston, Esquire
In their packets, Commission members received a memo from the Zoning Commission dated 8/18/09 re: Petition to Amend Zoning Regulations, Section 54.1.3 – Ferry Point Incentive Housing Zone – to correct text from Multi-Family MF Subzone to Mixed-Use MU Subzone. Petitioner: HOPE Partnership & Town of Old Saybrook; Agent: Attorney: David M. Royston with the attached Petition for Change in Zoning Regulations dated 8/17/09 and Text of Amendment Petition of HOPE Partnership, Inc., for Change in Zoning Regulations dated 8/17/09.
Attorney David Royston explained to Commission members that the Zoning Commission had approved the Zoning Regulations for the Incentive Housing Zone, and that they approved the Ferry Road Incentive Housing Zone. However, due to an inadvertent error, there was a mistake in the language of the text, and the language of the text needs to be consistent with the map. The text for Section 54.1.3 Ferry Point IHZ should be corrected from Multi-Family MF Subzone to Mixed-Use MU Subzone.
MOTION to approve the Petition to Amend Zoning Regulation-Section 54.1.3 Incentive Housing Zone; Petitioner: HOPE Partnership, Inc. & Town of Old Saybrook; Agent: David M. Royston, Esquire MADE by R. Missel; SECONDED by D. Ranaudo; VOTED IN FAVOR: R. McIntyre, J. Esty, R. Missel, D. Ranaudo, S. Aresco; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none.; APPROVED: 5-0-0.
C. Mixed-Use Incentive Housing Development and Municipal Recreation Field
45 Ferry Road (Map 45 / Lot 3), Residence A Zone, Incentive Housing Zone, Coastal Management Zone
Petitioner: HOPE Partnership, Inc. & Town of Old Saybrook
Agent: David M. Royston, Esquire
In their packets, Commission members received a memo from the Zoning Commission dated 8/20/09 re: Special Exception Use Application/ Coastal Site Plan Review – CZC 09-107 Recreational Field + 16 Unit Incentive Housing Development, 45 Ferry Road, Map 45 / Lot 3, Residence A Zone, Applicant: Town of Old Saybrook + HOPE Partnership, Agent: Attorney David M. Royston with attached Application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance dated 8/17/09, Application for Site Plan or Special Exception Use dated 8/17/09 and Statement of Use dated 8/17/09. Also received were plans dated 8/17/09 from Point One Architects, and an Application Form Municipal Coastal Site Plan Review dated 8/18/09.
David Royston submitted, for the record, and for Commission members, a letter dated 9/2/09 explaining that the ZC approved the IHZ on 7/20/09 and that the Site Plan, Architectural Plans and Landscaping Plans for the Special Exception Application have been developed in consultation with Land Use Staff, the BOS and the Parks & Rec. Commission. He also made reference to the specific areas in which this application fits in with the Plan of Conservation & Development. He also showed Commission members the plans, and he explained that the plans have not yet been fully revised because they are subject to review by many of the boards and commissions. Once these reviews are complete, the plans will be revised accordingly.
Attorney Royston talked about the recreational component of the project. He said the Parks & Rec. expressed a need for fields. There is a multi-use field in this plan which is a U14 field. He discussed the parking area for the field and safety concerns.
Attorney Royston answered Commission members’ questions regarding the bus waiting station and its design, about distance of parking spot location for residents living in the housing units, and about the affordable housing portion of the property being subject to deed restriction, that it must remain affordable housing.
Jill Cartagena, architect from Point One Architects, went over the plans explaining building design, building materials, color palette, lighting, parking, signage, etc.
Commission members were concerned about the lack of storage space for things like bicycles, wagons, grills, etc., and they asked J. Cartagena about the possibility of adding sheds to the plans. J. Cartagena said that this concern has been discussed, and the units will have crawl spaces and bulk heads for storage, but that it is difficult to add additional area for sufficient outdoor storage because of cost concerns and because the affordable housing plan is subject to many specific laws and guidelines.
Maryann Amore, Executive Director of HOPE Partnership, explained that a property manager will be hired and he or she will be enforcing the rules and maintaining the property and grounds. She explained that the property management company will also be handling the selection of residents, and that it is a complicated process involving fair housing laws, funding, etc., but that there will be weighted criteria that will include the following: people currently living in Old Saybrook, people currently working in Old Saybrook, and people with children currently attending the Old Saybrook Public Schools.
S. Aresco requested that once the selection process is complete that there be a demographic analysis to show whether or not the affordable housing has met its intended use and initial goals. M. Amore said she would provide that information once she has it. She is hoping that construction can begin in 18 months, and that people can begin moving into the units in 2 years.
MOTION to send a favorable recommendation to the Zoning Commission for Mixed-Use Incentive Housing Development and Municipal Recreation Field; 45 Ferry Road (Map 45 / Lot 3), Residence A Zone, Incentive Housing Zone, Coastal Management Zone; Petitioner: HOPE Partnership, Inc. & Town of Old Saybrook; Agent: David M. Royston, Esquire in that it is consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development particularly under the following areas under the section Residential Development, “long standing issue of affordability, whether or not younger residents who have grown up in town will be able to afford housing here”, “multi-family housing is an opportunity for more affordable housing,” “the Commission’s desire to provide more alternative housing
alternatives,” and “enable young people to continue to both live and work in town”, “create attainable housing for families at all income levels” and “promote additional multi-family opportunities that do not require owner residence.” MADE by S. Aresco; SECONDED by J. Esty; VOTED IN FAVOR: R. McIntyre, J. Esty, D. Ranaudo, R. Missel, S. Aresco; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none.; APPROVED: 5-0-0.
MOTION to amend the above motion to add, “The only shortfall that the Planning Commission sees is that there appears to be inadequate storage for things such as bicycles, wagons, etc., and the Planning Commission recommends that this be addressed.”, for Mixed-Use Incentive Housing Development and Municipal Recreation Field; 45 Ferry Road (Map 45 / Lot 3), Residence A Zone, Incentive Housing Zone, Coastal Management Zone; Petitioner: HOPE Partnership, Inc. & Town of Old Saybrook; Agent: David M. Royston, Esquire MADE by S. Aresco; SECONDED by J. Esty; VOTED IN FAVOR: R. McIntyre, J. Esty, D. Ranaudo, R. Missel, S. Aresco; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none.; APPROVED: 5-0-0.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:52 p.m. until the next Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for, Wednesday, September 16, 2009 in the 1st Floor Conference Room, Town Hall, 302 Main Street.; MADE by R. Missel; SECONDED by J. Esty; VOTED IN FAVOR: R. McIntyre, J. Esty, D. Ranaudo, R. Missel, S. Aresco; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none.; APPROVED: 5-0-0.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kathleen Noyes
| 
