OLD LYME PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING
JULY 9, 2009
PRESENT WERE: Chairman Harold Thompson, Vice Chair Robert McCarthy, Steve Ross, Chris Kerr and Alternates Robert Pierson and Stephen Martino.
Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
Robert Pierson will be seated for the meeting.
SUBDIVISION – DAVID AND MARY EKLUND – 312 FERRY ROAD – 9 LOTS
Matthew White of Angus McDonald and Gary Sharpe & Associates and Attorney Peter Sipples were present on behalf of the applicant.
Thompson noted that revised drawings have been submitted to the commission. He noted the representatives for the applicant will be presenting those revisions to the commission.
Matt White stated since the last Public Hearing in June two changes have been made to the e plans which include the Ferry Road street line frontage and the configuration of the open space.
White stated when Ferry Road was originally laid out in the 1700’s it was four rod road approximately 66 feet wide. He noted that they had previously taken the center line computation and offset it 32 feet into the property and considered that to be the basis for the front yard setbacks. He stated it has since been noted that Attorney Cassella and Tom Metcalf, Consulting Engineer had some concerns with that and feel that a resolution to the boundary line of Ferry Road needs to go before the Board of Selectmen. White stated rather than assume that the Board of Selectmen would determine the stonewalls as the boundary (which are less than 66 feet) he revised the plan with a new proposed street line along the 33 foot offset from the centerline which would be the most conservative interpretation of that
street line. He stated this change impacted the area of the lots that have frontage on Ferry Road, therefore Lots 1 through 4 have been reconfigured but still comply with all the zoning regulations.
Page 2 – Minutes
OLPC – 07-09-09
White stated the other revision to the drawings was to the open space. He noted the proposal as presented was so close to satisfying the 15% of open space requirement without the pond they decided to modify the property line of Lot 2 by moving it to the north and put some of the land in the rear of Lots 3 and 4 into open space the proposal now has 15.2 % open space that is non-pond bringing the total open space to more than 40% of the overall parcel.
Attorney Sipples presented a response to the commission with regard to the Notice of Intervention filed by Diana Atwood Johnson. Thompson noted that the intervener was not able to be present due to a boating accident. Sipples stated this was not a complicated subdivision. He stated it consists of nine lots with no new roads proposed. Sipples also noted that the Inland Wetlands Commission has approved the proposal.
Attorney Sipples distributed a memo dated July 9, 2009 to the commission members regarding the 22a-19 Notice of Intervention of Diana Atwood Johnson on the Ferry Road Subdivision application.
Sipples stated the commission first needs to make a determination through counsel as to whether or not this is a valid verified petition or not. He stated the statutes are very specific on how this is to be done in order to be in compliance. Sipples stated that Paragraph 3 subsections (a) through (f) there are six instances in which the intervenor claims that the public trust in the natural resources of the state have been violated. He stated four of these (a,b,c,d) all deal with the fact that a portion of the required open space is going to include part of the pond. Sipples stated that the plan has been revised and there is now 15.2% of open space that is non-pond. Sipples stated that he did not feel that using a portion of the pond as open space was a negative impact on any of the
natural resources; but noted that issue has been eliminated with the additional open space. He further noted that the subdivision regulations clearly state that water can be considered land for open purposes. Sipples stated that subsection (e) deals with the fact that a waiver has been requested for the installation of monuments and this would somehow have a negative impact on the natural resources, however he noted that the only waiver request is for the monuments in the area where those monuments would be under water and he felt by not installing these monuments it would preserve the pond and wetlands area.
Sipples stated that subsection (f) states that this project will have a negative impact on the resources located on the site but does not provide any substantial conclusions or evidence to that fact.
Sipples stated that “Pursuant to General Statutes Section 22a-19, the commission must ‘consider the alleged unreasonable pollution, impairment or destruction of the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the state and no conduct shall be authorized or approved which does, or is reasonably likely to, have such effect as long as, considering all relevant surrounding circumstances and factors, there is a feasible and
Page 3 – Minutes
OLPC – 07-09-09
prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public, health and safety’”.
Sipples stated that first of all there is no unreasonable pollution and requested that the commission make that finding; he stated he believed under the statute the commission is supposed to make a finding as far as that is concerned.
Sipples stated that secondly if there were any unreasonable pollution there really are no feasible and prudent alternatives.
Sipples stated that this project has been designed to be very cognizant of the wetlands and the watercourse on the property and stated that this affidavit does not show any unreasonable pollutant of any of the resources on the property.
Matt White distributed a letter to the commission dated July 7, 2009 in response to item 3f of the Notice of Intervention for this project which alleges that the pond in the open space “has the potential for significant, pollutants to flow toward it”. White presented a recap of the various entities that have reviewed and commented on the plan.
White stated that Tom Metcalf reviewed all the engineering aspects of the plan and made comments regarding footing drains, clearing limits, details on roof water infiltration systems, separating distances between drainage and septic structures, and wells. White stated all of Mr. Metcalf’s comments were addressed on the May 26, 2009 plan revisions.
White stated the proposal received approval from the Inland Wetlands Commission on May 26, 2009 and noted that prior to approval this commission requested that two dwellings be moved further from the pond to allow for construction without disturbance within the 100’ regulated area. White stated this was done and the dwellings were moved to a minimum of 120 feet from the regulated area and as a result of that no disturbance is proposed in the whole subdivision within 100’ of the wetlands.
White stated the plan was reviewed by the DEP as part of the Office of Long Island Sound Programs. He stated they recommended that there be a 100’ non-disturbance buffer around the wetlands. White stated that this has been achieved and is noted in the wetlands approval. Thompson noted that the DEP was not the governing body on this application due to the fact it was non-tidal. White stated the letter was relevant to the fact if it was tidal they recommended a 100’ vegetative buffer. Thompson asked if this was consistent with the wetlands requirements. White indicated that was correct. White stated included in the DEP letter was their fact sheet for vegetative buffers which is very specific about how they are beneficial to reducing pollution. White quoted from DEP
letter dated May 14, 2009 to Harold Thompson, Chairman, Old Lyme Planning
Page 4 – Minutes
OLPC – 07-09-09
Commission “Vegetative buffers have been studied and demonstrated to be effective in controlling non-point sources pollution impacts often associated with residential development (clearing, fertilizer, pesticides, etc).” White submitted the fact sheet as part of the record.
White reported that the DEP also stated in their letter “we are pleased the roof stormwater will be managed by incorporating a roof drainage infiltration system into suitable soils.”
White stated that the plans were also reviewed and approved by the Old Lyme Sanitarian, Ron Rose for compliance with the Public Health Code. Thompson noted that there was also discussion about Lot #2 and #6 requiring an engineered system. White stated that all the systems depicted on the drawings are engineered systems and meet all the design criteria. He also noted at the time of construction a further review would be conducted for each of the individual lots. White also noted that septic systems in order to comply with the public health code require a minimum separation distance of 50’ and all of these are at least 100’ from any inland wetlands so the minimum required setback has been doubled.
White stated in conclusion that all the environmental and engineering review comments have been incorporated into the plan and no disturbance is proposed within 100’ of the wetlands. Erosion controls have been designed in accordance with Connecticut DEP 2002 Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. The DEP and Inland Wetlands Commission have found that the 100’ vegetated buffer is suitable to protect the wetlands from pollution. The minimum separating distance from sewage disposal systems from the wetlands as required by the Connecticut Public Health Code has been more than doubled for this application. White stated that additionally, more than 40% of the total parcel area is protected and proposed for dedication as Open Space, far in excess of the minimum requirement of 15%.
Therefore, the pond and wetlands will be adequately protected from pollution.
Thompson noted that this documentation has been received by the Planning Commission and will be available for review in the Land Use Office.
QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE:
Bill Dunbar – 12 Sandpiper Point Road
Mr. Dunbar stated he believed the commission had received letters from everybody on Sandpiper Point Road. Thompson stated the commission did receive letters but not from everyone on the street. Dunbar stated a couple a people could not attend the meeting this
Page 5 – Minutes
OLPC – 07-09-09
evening due to medical problems. Mr. Dunbar stated he hope the commission would look seriously at this subdivision. He noted that the west side of the subdivision was one acre zoning, but on the south/east side it was 2 acre zoning. Dunbar stated on the south side the houses are nicely landscaped and far apart from each other and we don’t want a development and we don’t feel Old Lyme needs a development. Dunbar stated that he felt nine homes was entirely two much for that acreage. He further stated a number of the existing homes on the street have water problems. He noted that the water comes from an aquifer that the pond is part of it. He stated he is very concerned about the runoff from the driveways, from the cess pools and everything that comes along with a mass
development.
Dunbar further stated that he was a member of the Open Space Committee and Diana Atwood Johnson sent him an email today asking him to stand up and plead with the members of the commission to take another look at this very seriously. Dunbar stated he felt Ms. Johnson made some wonderful points in her Notice of Intervention.
Attorney Michael Cronin on behalf of Mr. Reicheimer.
Attorney Cronin stated that Mr. Reicheimer could not be present this evening because of a medical issue. Cronin stated there are two problems that directly affect Mr. Reicheimer. The first is that he feels that he is being surrounded by this subdivision. Cronin stated there are four proposed lots around his property. Cronin stated on the right side there will be a house with a driveway coming into the cul-de-sac very close to his property line. He further stated on the other side there will be two homes serviced by a common driveway and another driveway will be located a few feet down the roadway. Cronin the increase in intensity of houses around his property will have an adverse effect on the use and utility of his property. Cronin stated this will impact the enjoyment of
his property which is against the purpose of zoning.
Cronin discussed Lots 7 and 8. He stated if you review the actual subdivision map you will find that the area that you can actually build on these lots is about 1/3 the size of all of the other lots in the subdivision. He further stated the close proximity of the homes will have an impact. Cronin stated the town engineer addressed these issues and indicated that these particular lots because of the limited opportunity to develop them….the developing of one to a high degree might adversely affect the ability to develop the other one to its full potential. He stated that this was not good planning or zoning even though it might be technically feasible. Cronin stated it was his recommendation that the commission review these lots and make the determination as to whether or not those
parcels should be combined to a single lot rather than a double lot. He further stated his client does fully recognize the right of the property owner to develop a property but that does not include the right to develop every single last inch to its
Page 6 – Minutes
OLPC – 07-09-09
maximum potential. He asked the commission to take into consideration the effect on the adjacent properties.
Cronin stated there are drainage pipes on Mr. Reicheimer properties which are shown on one of the maps. He reviewed the locations on the plan with the commission. He noted one of the pipes had been there long before he purchased the property in the early 1990’s. He stated it extends approximately 20 ft and would be in the area next to or under the driveway that services the lots. Cronin also demonstrated on the map the locations of other pipes that come off the property and run to the rear. He also noted that there is drainage off site of the property in addition to a pipe that drains the swimming pool. Cronin stated under normal circumstances you cannot create a drainage problem for adjacent properties but if you want to subdivide your property there are regulations that require
this commission to take into consideration the drainage pattern of adjacent properties as well as properties that are involved here as stated in Section 5.9 of the Subdivision Regulations. Cronin read the regulation into the record. Cronin stated the commission has a requirement to look at the drainage system and when the drainage does impact private property adjacent than the commission has an obligation to address that issue.
Steve Ross stated his interpretation of the regulation is that it would require Attorney Cronin’s client not to impact the adjoining property or obtain easements to discharge onto the adjoining property. Cronin stated it was the other way around …..when the discharge is on the private property adjoining the subdivision….. the property easement to discharge rights are secured by the applicant prior to approval of the subdivision. Cronin stated that does not apply here. Ross concurred. Cronin stated the commission has the obligation to take into consideration drainage patterns off of property onto property.
Cronin further stated he felt the drainage rights and the pipe have certainly been there long enough to obtain a prescriptive right to continue, but the first thing that will happen if the property is going to be developed is the issue of drainage and the time to address it is now not when the bulldozer is on site. Cronin stated his client does not want to have a problem after the approval of this subdivision. Cronin stated everyone has been aware of this pipe right from the beginning because it has been shown on the plan and Mr. Metcalf has addressed the issue, therefore he suggested a condition of approval be added that the applicant work with the town engineer and his client’s engineer (Nathan Jacobsen) to address the issue of the offsite drainage. He stated the plan may be to do nothing or just
cut back the pipe, however he would like engineering advice as to how it should be addressed and he would also take our town engineer’s advice on how to handle as a proper disposition of this issue.
Page 7 – Minutes
OLPC – 07-09-09
Thompson stated that if the drawings are changed significantly as a result of this meeting then the applicant will need to withdraw and resubmit. Thompson stated as it stands except for comments by staff with regard to drainage any lot line modifications that were requested or negotiated or changes being made going forward would require the re-submittal of this application.
McCarthy asked what the function was of the first pipe discussed. Cronin stated it drains the backyard area and he believed the driveway area as well and possibly a sump pump. He stated he did not know the technical details but felt it should be resolved now rather than later.
White stated as he indicated last month the pipes are very minimal and they don’t have very much water flowing in them. He stated the largest pipe is 4 inches and the water is very minimal at the site. White also noted that the soils are very permeable so they are very easily dealt with. He also noted that the grading as been designed so that any discharge from those points could continue and not cause a problem with the proposes homes. White stated there are also roof drains and infiltration systems and these would be very similar to that and could be installed on the end of these pipe as well. He stated either way it is addressed it is not a very significant amount of water. White stated that he thought Attorney Cassella stated in his letter that one way to handle this as far as
the subdivision approval goes is to put a note on the land records that shows the encroachments.
Attorney Cassella stated he felt it was good practice to make sure that the people who are purchasing these lots know that there is potentially discharge and the rights of which are not going to be decided by this commission today. He stated it could impact septic systems, house locations and other improvements and when you put that in conjunction with one lot owner maximizing development on their lot it will minimize the ability of the next lot owner. Cassella stated he felt it was in this commission’s best interest and also the best interest of potential purchasers to make sure that they understand there is a problem potentially and it is highlighted for them about these potential encroachments.
Cassella stated if the applicant can work this out obviously the less encroachments offsite in drainage issues the better, but again this commission is not in the position today to make a determination about the drainage rights coming off a 2” PVC pipe onto the subdivision property. Cassella further stated as far as the engineering goes it was his understanding that the potential drainage does not have any impact on the approvals or the ability to approve this proposal. Cassella stated he felt a notation on the land records would be a conservative approach.
Page 8 – Minutes
OLPC – 07-09-09
Attorney Sipples stated he also felt it was a private matter. He also noted that we cannot determine whether there is a right to these encroachments or there is not but the map already shows the encroachments and also felt that putting a statement on the land records to ensure that anyone searching the title would be aware of this situation. He stated if the owner has a right to these encroachments than the applicant does not have the right to adversely affect them they would have to be incorporated into the proposal.
Attorney Sipples stated as far as density is concerned he stated obviously a good portion of this property is the pond but there is more than 18 acres all together and only 9 lots are proposed so that it is 2 acres per lot. He also noted the bottom line is does this application comply with the Old Lyme Subdivision Regulations because if it does it should be approved and if it doesn’t it can’t be approved and the fact that there maybe two or three lots around someone’s house really is not material unless there is something in the regulations to that affect and he doesn’t think there is, so with the exception of the Ferry Road issue he felt this application complies all of the requires of the subdivision regulations.
Cronin read an additional Section 5.9. “A storm water management system shall be designed and constructed for each subdivision to provide for the efficient drainage of the subdivided land and surrounding lands which normally drain across the areas of the proposed subdivision.” Cronin stated that was what he was asking and felt the commission had the authority to do it and he felt it should be addressed now and an accommodation could be made to fix this simple problem to deal with this issue. He stated it is not necessary an encroachment which implies that someone is using land illegally because it has been there over twenty years. Cronin stated he felt it was a prescriptive right.
Ross asked what section was just read. Cronin indicated it was Section 5.9 – Stormwater Management.
White stated the small amount of water coming out of the pipes is accommodated by the proposed grading on the plan and includes house sites with proposed grading that sheets water away from them. White stated there are no effect on these improvements from that water.
Thompson stated that commission will not be holding a meeting in August which will provide the applicant an opportunity to solve the road conflict with the Selectmen.
Harold Thompson made a motion to close the public hearing. Chris Kerr seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 9 – Minutes
OLPC – 07-09-09
REGULAR MEETING
SOUTH LYME ESTATES – RELEASE OF BOND – 392 SHORE ROAD
Thompson reported that the commission has received a letter from Tom Metcalf dated July 8, 2009. Thompson noted that Metcalf visited the site last December and outlined the items to be completed prior to releasing the bond. Thompson stated the applicant has sent a letter to the commission dated June 18, 2009 indicating the issues had been addressed and requesting that the bond be released.
Thompson stated that Metcalf revisited the site and basically all the comments he made in December are very much the same as the ones he made in his letter to the commission dated July 8, 2009. Thompson noted that Kim Groves contacted the applicant and reaffirmed that they had completed all the outstanding issues prior to having Metcalf visit the site again.
Thompson stated it would be his recommendation to deny the request. Ross stated he would rather table the issue to give the applicant the opportunity to address the items raised in Tom Metcalf’s letter. Discussion ensued.
Harold Thompson made a motion to table the release of the bond until the September meeting. Steve Ross seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MARSH SUBDIVISION – REQUEST FOR 180 DAY EXTENSION FOR FILING THE MYLAR – DISCUSSION OF BONDING
Vice Chair McCarthy will chair this agenda item. Harold Thompson and Steve Ross recused themselves from this item and left the meeting room.
Lind Marsh stated she was present at the meeting for two issues. The first is to request an extension of time for filing the mylars. Marsh noted that Bob Doane has not yet connected with Ann Brown to discuss the 50 ft setback.
She stated the second issue is with regard to bonding. She noted she had contacted Tom Metcalf who suggested her attending the Planning Commission meeting to discuss the bonding because he did not feel a bond should be required. Bob Pierson stated the monuments are normally bonded along with the improvements. Marsh reported that the monuments have been set at the site. Marsh stated that Tom Metcalf indicated that this subdivision was an orphan child and did not fit into the regulations. She further stated that Bob Doane indicated that private improvements do not require bonding.
Page 10 – Minutes
OLPC – 07-09-09
Robert McCarthy asked if the wetlands commission required bonding in their approval. It was determined no bonding was required by the IWWC. Marsh stated she contacted Tom Metcalf for a bond amount and he indicated he did not do that and suggested she attend the meeting.
Groves stated the normal process is that the applicant’s engineers submits a bond estimate to the commission which is forwarded to Tom Metcalf for his review and then Mr. Metcalf makes a recommendation to the commission as to the amount of the bond.
Attorney Cassella stated the common driveway is not a private improvement and should be bonded as has been done in the past. Cassella stated the applicant can do the work rather than have to double bond it, so if the work is completed prior to filing the mylars then no bond would be required of that work. Cassella, stated for example the monuments have been set so no bond will be required for the monumentation.
Marsh stated they are not developers and they were not intending on doing this work. She stated this subdivision is for the future and therefore there is no intention of developing it at this time except for one lot.
Cassella suggested that the applicant contact Bob Doane because once the mylars are signed you are free to sell lots and a lot could be sold without the installation of the common driveway. Marsh asked how that could be done. Cassella stated if somebody buys it. Marsh stated she would not allow that to happen. Cassella stated that is what the bonding is for to prevent these situations. Cassella suggested that Metcalf and Doane discuss this issue.
Marsh asked if the commission would be comfortable not bonding the project if Tom Metcalf indicated there was not a need to bond the subdivision. Cassella stated he did not feel that was an accurate representation based on his discussions with Mr. Metcalf. Marsh stated she would not be present tonight if Metcalf had not stated that no bond was necessary.
McCarthy stated if there is a contractor working on the site; whatever work is completed would not have to be bonded at the point the mylars are recorded. Marsh stated they are not financially able at this point in time to complete the improvements.
McCarthy also reported that the commission just past an amendment to their regulations to allow for a “Conditional Approval” which might be the way to go in this particular situation.
Chris Kerr made a motion to grant the 180 day extension for filing the mylars. Bob Pierson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 11 – Minutes
OLPC – 07-09-09
VILLAGE ESTATES – NECK ROAD – DISCUSSION OF COMPLETION OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVMENTS.
EAST SHORE POINTE – OLIVIA LANE – DISCUSSION OF COMPLETION OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS
Thompson stated he would like to discuss these two items together. Thompson stated it has been five years since the subdivision was approved and the commission now has the right to call the bond to complete the improvements.
Thompson stated the commission has received a memo from Attorney Cassella dated July 9, 2009 discussing these issues. He stated in his memo he states that in the Old Lyme Subdivision Regulations there are two provisions regarding the failure of a developer to complete the subdivision improvements. Section 3.11.1 and 3.17 discuss the issue of should a developer be unable to complete the secured site improvements to the satisfactory of the town requirements the security deposit may be used by the town after hearings thereon, to complete all or part of the required site improvements.
Thompson stated there are two subdivisions that still have work remaining that are bonded. Thompson stated the bond should be called by the municipality or the Selectmen. Thompson suggested the commission set a public hearing and notify all the parties involved and make a decision or recommendation to the Selectmen that the bonds be called. He stated when this is presented to the Selectmen it must include a list of all the improvements that need to be completed and a list of estimated costs so that the Selectmen can make a decision on who will do the work and when it will be done.
Groves stated she has met with Tom Metcalf and he is in the process of putting together a list of the outstanding improvements to be completed.
Thompson also outlined the timeframes for the commission and suggested a Special Meeting be held in an effort to complete these improvements prior to the end of the year.
Tony Hendriks was present for the meeting. Mr. Hendriks noted that his office was associated with the design of the project and stated he has done all the as-built work and monumentation associated with the project. He stated he has not issued his final certification indicating the work has been completed because he has not been paid. Therefore, Mr. Hendriks asked the commission if they would consider paying him for the work out of the bond money in exchange for providing all of the information to the town to assist in the process of completing the improvements. The approximate bond amount is $34,000.00.
Page 12 – Minutes
OLPC – 07-09-09
Ross asked Mr. Hendrik’s if he was saying that everything that needs to be completed would be completed with the submission of the documents that he has not submitted due to non-payment. Hendriks stated that was correct. Ross asked Hendriks for the amount due for the portion of work associated with this commission that Mr. DiPinto owes? Hendriks stated the base amount for monumentation and as-built work for the road is $9,371.75. Hendriks also noted that Mr. DiPinto has accrued interest.
Ross asked if those documents were submitted tomorrow everything would be completed to accept this road as a town road? Hendriks stated that would work. Kerr stated so there is no physical work to be done at the site. Hendriks stated no land surveying or engineering work. He further stated he understood there are a few issues such as the guard rails and basins that need to be cleaned and are not working properly.
Thompson noted that bond money would also be used to reimburse the town as well for outstanding fees for which it has not been paid.
Attorney Cassella stated the Board of Selectmen will be making the decision as to how to disperse the money.
Harold Thompson made a motion to hold a Special Meeting for two Public Hearing to discuss calling the bond for Village Estates and East Shore Point Subdivision on August 13th, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. Robert McCarthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ORIGINAL DIVISION – JULIA B. MAYNARD – 16 WHIPPOORWILL ROAD
Harold Thompson made a motion to receive the application. Chris Kerr seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PRCD REGULATIONS – (12.9.1 PRCD DENSITY INCENTIVE)
Thompson stated the commission had a presentation on this proposal last month. He stated he felt the current PRCD regulations have a certain amount of density and did not feel the additional density was beneficial to the town.
Pierson stated he felt the current PRCD was adequate and this was just a request for more.
Kerr stated he also felt the current PRCD’s were dense enough and didn’t want to see it get any denser than it is. Kerr stated that the examples shown to the commission last month could be made even denser with the proposed setbacks than what was even shown.
Page 13 – Minutes
OLPC – 7-9-09
Ross stated he agreed with the points discussed. Ross stated he felt the points that were raised sounded attractive but they were marketing oriented and very limited in application. He stated that he felt the proposal was far to liberal in terms of the setbacks and the number of credits. Ross stated he felt they were asking for far more reduction in setbacks and credits for additional lots than are justified by the proposal. He stated pretty much everything they are proposing can be done under the existing PRCD regulation. He also added that the statement that the incentive to be able to do what they want to do requires the increased density is not a justification for changing zoning regulations. Ross stating it is an interesting plan, but they are asking far too much in terms in
reducing setbacks and credits for open space versus additional density which is counterproductive.
Martino stated the proposal is very site specific.
McCarthy stated he concurred with all the statements.
Steve Ross made a motion to inform the Zoning Commission that the Planning Commission is not in favor of the proposed amendment to the PRCD regulations and the highlights are listed above. Chris Kerr seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
SCHAEFFER SUBDIVISION – REQUEST FOR 90 EXTENSION OF FILING THE MYLARS
Harold Thompson made a motion to grant the 90 day extension for filing the mylar. Robert McCarthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
READING AND APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 11, 2009 MINUTE
Steve Ross made a motion to waive the reading of the minutes and approve them as submitted. Chris Kerr seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
