SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, November 12, 2014 – 7:00 P.M.
Pasbeshauke Pavilion
150 College Street
Saybrook Point
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Members Absent:
Robert Friedmann John Talbot
Marc Delmonico Madeleine Fish
J. Colin Heffernan, seated for Madeleine Fish Geraldine Lewis
Deborah Warren, seated for Geraldine Lewis
Staff Present:
Christina Costa, Zoning Enforcement Officer
Joanne Kegel, Recording Clerk
7 Members of the Public were present.
III. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. “Eastpointe” Incentive Housing Development – 186 units (10.78 ac.)
7 North Main Street (Map 40 /Lots 5 & 6-1 and Map 39 / Lot 9)
Shopping Ctr. Bus. B-2 District, Ped. Node, Incentive Hsg. IH Zone (Multi-Family MF Subzone)
Applicant: Eastpointe, LLC., contract purchaser~ Agent: Edward M. Cassella, Esq
The Chairman corrected the Agenda Item III to read “Deliberation”. The Public Hearing for the “Eastpointe” application was closed at the meeting of November 3, 2014.
Chairman Friedmann opened deliberation by reviewing prepared draft motions for both approval and denial of the application for Site Plan Review for Eastpointe. The motion drafts were prepared by Attorney Mark Branse, of Branse & Willis who was present.
ZEO Chris Costa verified that all referral responses had been received, except for one.
C. Heffernan stated that the Applicant had worked hard with the Zoning Commission, but there were still too many conditions to be met for approval. His largest concern was the emergency access and egress for emergency vehicles and its negative impact to neighboring sites, stating that a high number of emergency calls could be expected because of the density
of the project. Also of concern were the trees impeding emergency vehicles, trees to be preserved and trees marked for removal.
M. Delmonico discussed the affordability plan and lack of garages designated to incentive housing tenants. D. Warren agreed with concerns by C. Heffernan regarding emergency access, and also considered pedestrian access with only one pedestrian way.
Discussion continued about the trees, emergency access, traffic concerns, storage deficiency, signage, the visibility of the rear wall of the garages, open space, and the Commission reviewed all conditions for approval and reasons for denial. Attorney Branse explained that the motions were drafted to weigh items that could be addressed for approval, and explained why some were also reasons for denial.
The motions for approval contained 41 conditions that required modifications for the plan to be accepted. The motion for denial contained 9 items of non-compliance with the regulations. Chairman Friedman summarized that the Site Plan must meet all Zoning regulations, and that there were too many modifications needed to achieve suitable approval to the application. The Commission was concerned about some conditions not being subject to further public hearing because the public hearing had been closed. A full set of final plans were still pending with corrected revision dates. There has been too many extensions of meetings since the application date of July 14, 2014.
Three members leaned for denial due to safety concerns, too many conditions of approval, too many items still needing remediation to comply with regulations, and giving leeway that may not be afforded to other applicants. One member was mixed leaning toward approval if the list of conditions were shorter.
The Commission agreed that the number of conditions for approval were too significant for approval and remediation could result in additional expenses to the Town. Attorney Branse redrafted the Motion for Denial on his laptop computer at the meeting, based on the discussion by the Commission. Attorney Branse read the final redraft of the Motion for Denial to the members.
Motion was made to deny the Application and adopt the final revision of the written Motion of Denial that is appended to these minutes.
MOTION: To deny the application for Site Plan Review for the “Eastpointe” Incentive Housing Development – 186 units (10.78 ac.) 7 North Main Street (Map 40 /Lots 5 & 6-1 and Map 39 / Lot 9) Shopping Ctr. Bus. B-2 District, Ped. Node, Incentive Hsg. IH Zone (Multi-Family MF Subzone) Applicant: Eastpointe, LLC. contract purchaser, Agent: Edward M. Cassella, Esq. The denial is based on the final revision of the Motion for Denial of the Application for Site Plan Review as is appended to these minutes. MADE: R. Friedmann; SECONDED: C. Heffernan; VOTING IN FAVOR: R. Friedmann, C. Heffernan, M. Delmonico; D. Warren; ABSTAINED: None; OPPOSED: None. MOTION TO DENY CARRIED: 4-0-0
IV. ADJOURNMENT
The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:27 p.m.
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting at 9:27 p.m. until the next regular meeting on Monday, November 17, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. to be held at the Town Hall, 1st Floor Conference Room, 302 Main Street, Old Saybrook. MADE: R. Friedmann; SECONDED: C. Heffernan; VOTING IN FAVOR: R. Friedmann, D. Warren, C. Heffernan, M. Delmonico; ABSTAINED: None; OPPOSED: None. APPROVED: 4-0-0
Respectfully Submitted,
Joanne Kegel
Recording Clerk
ADDENDUM:
Zoning Commission of the Town of Old Saybrook
MOTION FOR DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
Application DENIED at the November 12, 2014 Special Meeting
"Eastpointe at Saybrook Junction," 186 Incentive Housing Units on 10.78 acres with appurtenant sewerage treatment facilities, parking, and amenities.
7 North Main Street, Assessor's Map 39/Lot 9 and Assessor's Map 40/Lots 5 and 6-1, Shopping Center. Business. B-2 District, Pedestrian Node, Incentive Housing IH Zone (Multi-Family MF Subzone), Applicant: Eastpointe, LLC, contract purchaser
WHEREAS, the Old Saybrook Zoning Commission ("the Commission") has received from Eastpointe, LLC ("the Applicant") the above-captioned application and following supporting materials ("the Application"):
A site plan with a total of eighteen (18) sheets, consisting of seventeen (17) drawings dated July 11, 2014 and revised August 26, 2014, September 29, 2014, and October 23, 2014 prepared by Stuart J. Fairbank, P.E., of Angus McDonald, Gary Sharpe & Associates, Inc. and an A-2 survey dated July 11, 2014 and revised August 26, 2014 and September 29, 2014 prepared by Angus L. McDonald Jr., L.S., of Angus McDonald, Gary Sharpe & Associates, Inc.;
A landscaping and lighting plan prepared by Bruce Reinheimer, RLA, ASLA, of BHR Landscape Architecture, consisting of Sheets L-1, L-2, L-4 through L-7, and L-9 through L-12, dated October 23, 2014, Sheet L-3 dated October 3, 2014, and Sheet L-8 dated October 8, 2014;
Fire Truck Access Plan (Sheet FT-1) prepared by Scott F. Hesketh, P.E., of F. A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc.;
Architectural plans prepared by Timothy F. Wentz, Licensed Architect, of Gate 17 Architecture, LLC, consisting of sixteen total sheets, six sheets dated September 15, 2014 and ten sheets dated September 5, 2014;
Affordability Plan prepared by Edward M. Cassella, Esq. of Cloutier & Cassella, LLC last revised October 27, 2014;
Statement of Use dated July 14, 2014 and revised September 12, 2014;
Drainage Report dated July 10, 2014, prepared by Stuart J. Fairbank, P.E., of Angus McDonald, Gary Sharpe & Associates, Inc.
Application Form for Site Plan or Special Exception Use
Design Review Application Form
Ground Penetrating Radar Survey Report dated January 2014 and prepared by Admiral Conservation Services II, Inc.;
AND WHEREAS, the Commission has used its own knowledge of the area in addition to reports and comments from the Old Saybrook Land Use Department, its legal counsel Branse & Willis, LLC, its consulting engineer Nathan L. Jacobson & Associates, Inc., and its consulting traffic consultant Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc.;
AND WHEREAS, the Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the Application on September 2, 2014 and November 3, 2014;
AND WHEREAS, the Commission has given due consideration to the statements of the Applicant and its consultants, the Commission's own staff and consultants, the report of the Architectural Review Board, and the comments from the public;
AND WHEREAS, the Commission has considered the provisions of Section 54 of the Old Saybrook Zoning Regulations, the Site Plan Objectives of the Old Saybrook Zoning Regulations, and the General Standards for Special Exception Uses of the Old Saybrook Zoning Regulations;
AND WHEREAS, the Applicant has offered to the Town of Old Saybrook the right to enforce development restrictions on perimeter areas of the property, reducing the developable area of the property to 9.3 acres in accordance with the Old Saybrook Zoning Regulations, such offer being generally acceptable to the Commission but in need of further review by the Commission's attorney;
AND WHEREAS, the Applicant has offered to the Town of Old Saybrook guarantees, in the nature of an easement or dedication, that certain areas of the property shall be reserved in perpetuity as open space recreational areas, such guarantees being generally acceptable to the Commission but in need of further review by the Commission's attorney;
AND WHEREAS, except as noted herein, the Applicant has ultimately submitted all information and fees required by the Old Saybrook Zoning Regulations and necessary for an adequate and timely review of the design or potential impacts of the Application, but the submissions have been filed late, and have been inconsistent, and incomplete submittals have made approval impossible. The Commission finds that the plans and other application materials have been submitted consistently late, have been inconsistent in revision date and content, have been duplicative, and even now do not contain a complete set of full-sized drawings, nor a single set of full-sized drawings carrying the correct revisions dates.
AND WHEREAS, the Applicant has not proposed elevators in any proposed building, and the Commission finds that the addition of elevators to any building shall require the modification of this approval, subject to the same standard of review and level of discretion as accorded to it by law;
AND WHEREAS, the materials submitted by the Applicant indicate noncompliance with certain requirements of the Regulations;
AND WHEREAS, the Commission recognizes that it may be possible to address those items of noncompliance and mitigate significant adverse project impacts by means of conditions and modifications, but finds that such conditions and modifications would have to be so extensive as to fundamentally change the nature and character of the application after the close of the public hearing;
AND WHEREAS, the Commission recognizes that its authority to waive or modify the requirements of the regulations is limited under Conn. Gen. Stats. §8-13n(c) to “dimensional standards contained in the” Regulation, such as “building height, setbacks, lot coverage, parking ratios and road design standards,” and, beyond that limited authority of conferred by Conn. Gen. Stats. §8-13n( c), the Commission cannot waive the requirements of its Regulations in accordance with the case of MacKenzie v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 146 Conn. App. 406 (2013).
WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby denies the Application as presented, for the reasons that, among others, the Application fails to conform to the following:
In accordance with Section 63.5.3 of the Old Saybrook Zoning Regulations, all trees listed as such on Sheet L-2 shall be no less than three and one-half inch (3 1/2") caliper, diameter at breast height ("dbh"), but most are listed as 2 1/2” caliper.
The Commission has considered the trees marked for removal in the plan attached to the Fire Chief's review letter of October 6, 2014, and the Commission finds that the trees in question will unreasonably inhibit emergency access to the third floor of the proposed buildings.
The applicant has failed to indicate trees to be preserved, as required by Section 51.6.4.B.e, and doing so after approval will impose undue discretion and burden on the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
No sign plans have been submitted for the property, as required by Section 51.6.4.B.f and Section 64 of the Old Saybrook Zoning Regulations.
No plans have been submitted for the design and location of mailbox housings, trash receptacles, dumpsters, benches, bicycle racks, and similar street furniture, as required by Section 61.1.4 of the Regulations.
With regard to the rear walls of the proposed garages along the southwesterly side of the site (in front of Building Six and Building Seven, and to the side of Building Four), such walls are not in compliance with Section 68.2.4 of the Old Saybrook Zoning Regulations.
All areas shall be maintained as lawn or groundcover, not gravel, bituminous, or the like, and not as woodchips except as necessary for mulching of landscaping, unless such areas are depicted as occupied by a building, structure, or pavement on Sheet 2 of 18 or as landscaping on Sheet L-1.
The affordability plan fails to reserve garages for apartments designated as incentive housing units as defined in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-13m et seq, in violation of the provision that incentive housing units shall be comparable to market rates units.
Storage has not been provided for each unit as required by Section 64.1.4.4 because not all dwelling units will have garages and no other form of “attached, sheltered secured storage” has been provided, nor has it been shown that such storage is handicapped accessible.
Access into and also out of the site by emergency vehicles would be subject to delays caused by vehicles attempting to enter or leave the site, or vehicles parked or maneuvering within the site during an emergency situation.
A review of the approval motion drafted by the Commission's counsel indicates that items omitted or not in compliance with the Regulations are numerous and would require extensive additional design and review by the Commission and its staff and consultants, and would affect the overall design of the development to such an extent that a new, integrated plan should be provided for the Commission's consideration. The applicant could have addressed the areas of noncompliance identified in this motion when the application was first filed.
The Applicant did not submit to the Old Saybrook Fire Marshal water flow data for all proposed fire hydrants and fire department connections as required by Section 51.6.5.a(2) and the Fire Marshal's report.
Such other violations of the Regulations, omissions, and risks to the public health, safety, and welfare as may of record appear.
This denial is without prejudice to a future application which addresses the reasons for denial stated in this motion.
MOTION MADE: by R. Friedmann. SECONDED: J. Heffernan. VOTING IN FAVOR: R. Friedmann, J. Heffernan, D. Warren and M. Delmonico. OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINING: none, MOTION TO DENY CARRIED: 4-0-0
| 
