OLD LYME PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 8, 2010
PRESENT WERE: Harold Thompson, Robert McCarthy, Steven Ross, Don Willis and Stephen Martino.
Thompson called the meeting to order and seated Alternates Don Willis and Stephen Martino for Members Chris Kerr and Connie Kastelowitz.
LOT LINE MODIFICATION – WILLIAM AND DEBRA LACEY – 34 & 35 SHORE ACRES ROAD.
The agent for the applicant, Tony Hendriks, submitted a letter formally withdrawing the application.
LOT LINE MODIFICATION – RICHARD AND DONNA BATTALINO – 160 MILE CREEK ROAD.
The agent for the applicant, Tony Hendriks, submitted a letter formally withdrawing the application.
LOT LINE MODIFICATION – ROBERT ROSS – 20 & 21 LIEUTENANT RIVER LANE.
The agent for the applicant, Tony Hendriks, submitted a letter granting the commission a 65 day extension to act on the application.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION – SHORT HILLS PROPERTIES, LLC.
Thompson stated the Planning Commission was vindicated and noted it was nice to receive verification from the legal system that how the commission acted was right, correct and within its jurisdiction. Thompson expressed his thanks to the commission members as well as Attorney Cassella, Tom Metcalf and the Town Hall staff.
DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL REGULATION CHANGES TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Thompson stated there has been discussion in town hall on how the commission addresses different enhancements (such as decorative monuments) on town property.
Page 2 – Planning Commission
Minutes – April 8, 2010
Thompson stated that frequently a developer will present as part of his application a decorative monument to be constructed on either side of the entrance into the subdivision. He stated in the past the town has taken responsibility for those monuments but stated that often due to the location of the monuments they are easily damage by snowplows. Thompson also added that from time to time these decorative structures require maintenance or rebuilding by the town and can be viewed as an unnecessary expenditure. Ross noted that curbing and roads are also expensive to maintain.
Thompson stated that there has also been discussion about private roads, and other miscellaneous items and therefore, he felt the commission could discuss some of these items when they met to work on the rewrite of the Town Plan of Conservation and Development. He further stated if the commission felt the need for any regulation changes as of result of their discussions they could be done after the Plan of Conservation and Development was completed.
Willis stated that there is also a liability concern with the monuments. He noted that the State of Connecticut required the local garden club to remove their flower pots from the state right of ways.
Ross stated in order to hit the monuments it would require the vehicle to be off the road. Willis stated that didn’t matter the town could still be subject to the liability. Ross stated you could still sue but they wouldn’t necessarily win because the vehicle was off the road. Willis stated he disagreed.
Ross stated he felt the monuments were an enhancement to the town. McCarthy stated if the town is required to repair a special monument why can it not be replaced with a standard road sign. He stated he did not feel it was right for the town to give some areas special monuments and other areas standard road signs. McCarthy stated if that is what a development wants then their association should fund the monument.
Ross stated the initial cost was born by the developer or property owners not by the town so a solution might be to allow them to be built but the town does not have to accept them or maintain them. Ross stated the commission could also request that they be placed off the right of way rather than prohibit them. He stated he felt the appearance of them enhanced the town.
Thompson stated he felt this should be further discussed at the workshop for the Plan of Conservation and Development.
The commission agreed to schedule a workshop for Thursday, April 29th, 2010 at 5:00 p.m.
Page 3 – Planning Commission
Regular Meeting – April 8, 2010
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE REVISIONS TO THE OPEN SPACE REGULATIONS
Thompson stated the members have received a copy of a proposed draft for revisions to the open space regulations. Thompson also noted if the commission chose to amend the regulations a public hearing would be required. .
Willis stated he was not supportive of the Open Space Committee becoming a Commission. He stated he felt the Inland Wetlands Commission also acquires open space through buffers and setbacks. Therefore, he feels that it is not necessary to put the developer through another commission and another set of regulations.
Thompson stated if the Open Space Committee does become a commission they would still only make recommendations. He further noted that all the members were not present this evening and therefore would like to wait one more month to give them an opportunity to comment on the revised draft language.
Ross stated he did not have an objection to the committee becoming a commission but was not strongly in favor of their being one. He stated he felt the benefit of having an Open Space Commission would be consistency, integrity and the communication would be clearer. He stated on the other hand he felt it was more regulations and layering. He further stated he thought more good would come of it and therefore doesn’t object but was not going to be a cheerleader for the proposal.
Ross stated with regard to the proposed regulations he stated he would like to rewrite the entire paragraph. He stated the first sentence was not grammatically correct. He stated it states “the commission shall be further guided by but not limited to a minimum of fifty percent of the land set aside for open space”, therefore he felt if a developer comes in with 23 percent open space he does not want to see the commission be guided by fifty percent of the open space being useable land. Ross stated he would insert “fifty percent of the fifteen percent minimum of land area”. He also stated it should be “to be useable land” to make the sentence more grammatically correct. He stated he
would like to see everything underlined removed. He also noted he felt it was too definitive. He also suggested using the term “upland” instead of “useable”.
Ross summarized by stating he does not care for the underlined wording (5.10.1) because of its grammatical construction, its inaccuracies in terms of detail, and that it’s too rigid. Therefore if such wording is going to be included he felt it should be further modified and volunteered to assist in the rewrite process. Ross also stated he felt the current regulation was adequate.
Page 4 – Planning Commission
Regular Meeting – April 8, 2010
Ross also stated that this town has a lot of walking trails available and did not feel that every neighborhood needs walking trails. He also noted that most people use the streets for walking.
Harold Thompson made a motion to table any action on this item until next month. Steven Ross seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
VILLAGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION – REMAINING WORK – COST ESTIMATE
Thompson stated the commission received a memo from Thomas E. Metcalf dated March 18, 2010 providing a cost estimate for the remaining work to be done at Village Estates Subdivision.
Thompson noted that on the first page of the memo Metcalf estimated the cost to complete the improvements at $39,480.00 and noted the remaining bond amount being held by the Town of Old Lyme is $35,500.00. It was noted for the record the town is not holding a Soil and Erosion Bond. It was noted that a portion of the cost to complete the improvements would have been covered by a Soil and Erosion Bond.
Ross stated in reviewing the estimate there is an item for $7,500 for the as-built survey. He stated in a prior memo it was indicated that the drawings already submitted were sufficient for an as-built if they were just made into a mylar therefore the $7,500 could be reduced.
There was also discussion of the fence. McCarthy noted that the drawings do show a 48” white picket vinyl fence.
Thompson stated this cost estimate will be forwarded to the Board of Selectmen who will send out a Request For Proposal to do the work.
Ross stated he felt the sight line was adequate. McCarthy stated there was also a note on the plan that states “clear and maintain sight lines in accordance with the town requirements”. Ross stated he felt this was already done.
Ross stated he felt the issue of the as-built needed to be clarified and the issue of the site line should be revisited. McCarthy also noted the cleaning of catch basins is also included in that line item.
Steve Ross made a motion that the Planning Commission forward the recommendation for RFP’s to the Selectman’s Office based on Tom Metcalf’s March 18, 2010 letter regarding Village Estates after determining with Tom Metcalf if Item #3 – Clearing the
Page 5 – Planning Commission
Regular Meeting – April 8, 2010
sight lines is necessary and if Item #5 can be eliminated from the RFP. Robert McCarthy seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
READING AND APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES DATED MARCH 11, 2010.
Steven Ross made a motion to waive the reading of the minutes and approve them as submitted. Don Willis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Kim Groves
Land Use Administrator
| 
