TOWN OF WILLINGTON
PLANING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 16, 2001
R. TULIS CALLED A MEETING OF THE WILLINGTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 7:33 P.M. JANUARY 16, 2001 AT THE TOWN OFFICE BUILDING, 40 OLD FARMS ROAD, WILLINGTON.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
R. Tulis W. Goodale, alt.
A. St. Louis S. Kneeland
E. Kalbac D. Cushman
D. Lytwynn, alt.
S. Trueb, alt.
L. Dion (arr. 7:47 p.m.)
S. Yorgensen, zoning agent
L. Decker, recording clerk
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. File #2000-49-Application for a 5-lot subdivision located off Michalec Road (Map 55, Lot 1C, 28.37 acres). Joseph Mihaliak owner/applicant. (Received on 10/3/00, hearing on 12/05/00, extension requested and approved, continued to 01/16/01, decision by 03/20/01).
Russell Heintz spoke on behalf of the applicant.
R. Heintz said the hearing was continued because the commission had not done the sitewalk, and because the applicant was still awaiting comments from the town engineer in reference to the responses made to the engineer’s original comments. The only real issue Karl has was curtailing the runoff. They have enlarged the level spreaders. There are no real septic issues. The applicant is proposing a conservation easement in lieu of open space for the subdivision. All questions appeared to have been answered at the sitewalk. He asked if the commission had yet heard from Karl.
S. Yorgensen said she had not yet received a memo. She asked if the conservation easement was in lieu of the streambelt easement.
R. Heintz said that was correct. The limits of the easement are at the top of the ravine where the land is not suitable for building or anything other than passive recreation.
E. Kalbac said Wes Beebe had had concerns about the runoff and asked about the design.
R. Heintz said a the end of each driveway, the water will be directed into the level spreader and/or a plunge pool. Karl had asked that the 3 front lots be made to disperse more in a sheet flow fashion. He said nothing in response to Wes’ letter and the applicant feels all the town engineer’s questions have been answered.
E. Kalbac asked if there would then be a total of 5 level spreaders.
R. Heintz said it would be 3 level spreaders and 2 plunge pools, each of which must be built to their specifications.
R. Tulis asked if there were any questions from the public.
There were none.
S. Yorgensen asked who would be responsible for maintaining the level spreaders.
R. Heintz said he must assume it would be the individual homeowners. Once built, the only problem would likely be debris and branches.
R. Tulis said if they are built properly, it should not have a big affect.
S. Yorgensen said there may be need for some maintenance down the road.
S. Yorgensen said the commission will probably not act on this tonight because they have yet to hear from Karl, but his comments can be considered as part of the decision process.
S. TRUEB MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FILE #2000-49-APPLICATION FOR A 5-LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED OFF MICHALEC ROAD (MAP 55, LOT 1C, 28.37 ACRES). JOSEPH MIHALIAK OWNER/APPLICANT. (RECEIVED ON 10/3/00, HEARING ON 12/05/00, EXTENSION REQUESTED AND APPROVED, CONTINUED TO 01/16/01, DECISION BY 03/20/01).
SECONDED BY D. LYTWYNN. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2. File #2000-57-Amendments to zoning regulations of the town of Willington to include wireless telecommunications facilities in Sections 3, 5 and 11 and clarification of verbiage in various other sections. Town of Willington, applicant. (Public hearing on 01/16/01).
R. Tulis said the current regulations became effective in August 1996 after essentially being rewritten. Some clarification is now necessary due to issues that have come up since that time. In addition, the town has been backed into a corner over wireless telecommunications facilities and that needs to be addressed as well.
A. St. Louis said items the subcommittee had addressed regarding driveway regulations are not included in the draft of regulations that got sent out, to members specifically Section 4.21.07.
S. Yorgensen read the proposed amendments from the file.
A. St. Louis said what was read is not included in the draft, and the hearing might have to be left open. The street classifications were also left out.
R. Tulis said he does not think the commission did anything with that.
A. St. Louis said ZBA, accessory building and residential auto garage changes were also left out of the draft.
S. Yorgensen reviewed the proposed amendments and read the proposed changes into the record. She asked if anything else was not in the draft.
A. St. Louis said verbiage regarding 12.03.02.01 and 12.03.01 is not in. Section 3 items are in there but not Section 12. There are also some grammatical errors and omissions. He said he would forward a list of the items to the zoning office. The section 11 tower regulations have a bunch of stuff as well. Also, the use table in section 5.04 should have the headings repeated at the top of each page.
L. Dion said the title blocks are there on the first page but are missing on subsequent pages.
R. Tulis asked about comments from the region.
S. Yorgensen said they must be read into the record. They apparently had some confusion regarding special exception renewals and the letters say something about dog kennels.
She read the letters from the Windham Regional Council of Governments into the record.
R. Tulis asked where the definition of landscaping was put.
S. Yorgensen said it was in 3.78.
R. Tulis asked if it was in the draft.
S. Yorgensen said it should be.
R. Tulis said in 3.78 there is a reference to a dog kennel, which is probably where WRCG got it. Landscaping is not included in the draft under definitions. He asked if there were any comments from the public.
Steve Amedy said they should put revision numbers and dates in as they go.
Bob Francis of Cordless Data Transfer said he has comments about the Siting Council overriding the authority of the PZC regarding telecommunications facilities. Just because they have taken over authority does not mean that the commission should not go ahead and continue to pass regulations about where they want towers to be installed. Towers and wireless communications facilities are different things. It would benefit the town to pursue regulating where they want towers located. In most cases, the people who build the towers are not the wireless communications carriers. The carriers lease space. The DPUC and Siting Council does have authority over the cellular companies and they can say where they can and cannot put antennas, but they can’t stop us from putting a tower where it is appropriate. If a town has no
tower, and the cellular company says they want one, they can put it wherever the Siting Council says. This has happened in other towns. All the cellular companies now have standing before the Siting Council. If the regulations allow them to build where the town suggests, when the company goes before the Siting Council, the council is dually bound to say “put it where there is already a tower.” It is accurate that they do have jurisdiction, but the town having its own regulations can still be useful in making some attempt at doing what it can to build the towers appropriately within the confines of the town Plan of Development.
R. Tulis asked if the Siting Council dealt with all physical aspects around the tower.
S. Yorgensen said they cover it all.
R. Tulis asked if they had to consider fall zones and the town regulations.
S. Yorgensen said they are not required to do so, but according to them they will consider it. Supposedly a town gets notified at least 30 days in advance about applications to the Siting Council, however, she has never found that to happen. However, in the few times Willington has had to call the Siting Council they were very cooperative and incorporated into their approvals the town’s concerns about site issues, including plantings.
R. Tulis noted the regulations revisions started long before the Siting Council took away the town’s power.
S. Yorgensen said Attorney Branse also recommended they go forth with drafting the regulations.
A. St. Louis asked if the Siting Council was a state function.
S. Yorgensen said it is a state function based on the Federal Communications Act.
B. Francis said the Siting Council has been in existence a long time, and the DPUC always had control. In 1996 the law was passed saying towns must make provisions and the town can’t make a telephone company prove need. They also set standards for electromagnetic radiation that comes from the tower. As long as the radiation stays below the levels they set, health cannot be considered an issue.
Mark Lacount of Cordless Data Transfer said he spoke last week to the Siting Council about the letters that are out there to towns about the summary judgement regarding authority. It is not final yet, as appeals are pending.
R. Tulis said he thinks the town should definitely have its requirements in the regulations. It is in the town’s best interests, and the judgement may not stand pending the appeals.
B. Francis said regarding the town’s draft, he wrote a letter to the PZC chair about two issues which have not yet been addressed and/or changed. First, the regulations say an application to construct and operate a tower must be made by a carrier who is licensed by the FCC. Most towers built in Connecticut and the U.S. are not built by carriers, but by a company whose sole purpose is to build and lease space on a tower. Previously, you would find a tower on each side of the highway, one built by SNET & one by Bell Atlantic. What is most common now is a tower company builds and the carrier rents space. In light of the DPUC saying it has sole jurisdiction, the town’s draft regulation would be moot because those people will not have standing with the PZC, only the DPUC. This was probably written this
way to eliminate the possibility of someone building a tower on pure speculation.
The commission agreed.
A. St. Louis asked who is responsible for the tower.
B. Francis said whoever built it is.
A. St. Louis asked whose responsibility abandonment was.
B. Francis said it’s the builder’s.
S. Trueb said the regulations can say that someone who applies to build must have a lease with a carrier.
M. Lacount said they usually get a letter of intent for use of the structure.
S. Yorgensen said the draft wording was based on discussion with the attorney. It is not just to make sure there is a carrier, but also so the commission can look at proof that the tower is necessary to build a seamless web.
B. Francis said it is basically the same thing. The letter of intent to use the tower would mean it is needed. The companies would not spend that much money unless it was needed.
S. Yorgensen said the commission does not want to see a tower every mile.
B. Francis said there would not be one every mile unless it was necessary to build the seamless web.
L. Dion said carriers could be asked to include a justification statement in their letter of intent.
B. Francis said right now the carriers are not allowed to apply under the regulations. Therefore they would go to the DPUC instead.
S. Yorgensen said no one has used the new ruling yet.
B. Francis said the second thing he wanted to address was the structural standards saying that all facilities must be monopoles, unless specifically approved by the commission. A monopole is not necessarily the best design in all cases.
E. Kalbac asked if Mr. Francis’ company builds monopoles.
B. Francis said it is not a good design. A monopole practically eliminates the potential for use by a town carrier such as a fire or police department, because it is difficult to work on a monopole and a crane is needed for change. Monopoles are expensive to install and operate and the structural loading is always worse than a self-supporting tower. A guide tower can more easily be increased from a 3-carrier to a 5-carrier, and entities such as police can add on easier. To add them to a monopole is difficult because all the cable work is inside and it is a huge expense compared to a self-supporting tower. Owners of a monopole would usually rather rent to a big money carrier rather than give away the available space to a police or fire department. Once all the equipment is outside a monopole, it is not much more
aesthetically pleasing than a tower.
L. Dion asked Mr. Francis if he had any suggested verbiage to accommodate his concerns.
B. Francis said he will be happy to provide suggested language.
R. Tulis asked if there were any other questions from the public.
There were none.
A. St. Louis said regarding 11.13.07.01, if you look at the language, anything over 100 feet is in a sensitive area and must have ZBA approval. Under section 4 it goes to special exception. It should be clarified by saying special permit rather than special exception.
S. Yorgensen said that change would make it more consistent with the existing regs.
A. St. Louis said there are also a few words left out, as well as spelling mistakes. He asked Mr. Francis if he had a preference to dealing with the Siting Council or a town.
B. Francis said he has no standing to go before the Siting Council.
A. St. Louis asked Mr. Francis if the regulations became moot as discussed earlier, would his company be out of business because it is not a carrier?
B. Francis said they would have to change the way they were doing business.
M. Lacount said he believes they can go before the council with affiliation with a carrier. The reality is that any town that wants a tower where they feel is appropriate would prefer to permit it themselves rather than have the DPUC do it. A lot of this was facilitated by a Sprint lawsuit 3 years ago. They got done building towers where it was easy to do so. They ran into problems in attempts to be like SNET & Bell Atlantic, and when they had no recourse left, they went to preempt the towns.
A. St. Louis said regarding survey requirements in the regs, he has been hearing a lot about people having to spend more money than the cost of a shed, doing surveys so they can put up the sheds.
S. Yorgensen said the commission discussed that often and opted to leave the regs as they were.
R. Tulis said the problem with the issue of surveys is the applicants don’t ask for the right kind of survey needed. It may be a simple boundary survey done to A2 standards, but not a full A2 survey.
S. Yorgensen said no one wants to follow any regulations at all. The regs allow for a partial survey. Where there was no survey at all, the commission thought it was important to get one. Many smaller lots have a hard time because they have never had a survey.
S. Trueb said a lot of people just do what they want.
The commission discussed the option of waivers.
Hank Torcellini of Gardner & Petersen said the survey standards have changed and there is a big difference in what must be done on surveys. Surveyors' hands are tied on what they can do as governed by state regulations. These changes have made it all expensive. Some towns sign off with no survey if there are recent as-builts. There is some leeway, and some people do not care if a shed ends up 26 feet away instead of 25.
R. Tulis said he agrees with that in concept, but problems do come up.
H. Torcellini said no one person can afford a survey on a lot in a huge subdivision.
Bob Wiecenski asked if an A2 survey already exists, does it have to be done again? He just had to pay $970 to put up 4 pins, and he has an A2 from 4 years ago.
S. Yorgensen said he is right. That is what the regulations say.
B. Wiecenski said he was told he had to do this.
S. Yorgensen said the regulations do allow for waivers in certain circumstances. But the regulations do require you submit a plan from a surveyor to show where the shed is going, up to A2 standards.
B. Wiecenski said if he must do this, everyone in town must do this. If there is no existing A2, how do you get the lines on it?
S. Yorgensen said he has not been singled out and everyone must follow the regulations. The town is equally mean to everyone.
B. Wiecenski said when you buy land, you should know where your boundaries are.
M. Lacount asked if there was anyway to clarify exactly what the town wants and to limit the work put into the survey.
R. Tulis said there are varying degrees of accuracy. The problem is to apply them uniformly. Fifty years ago a deed with a written description was enough. Now everyone is closer together.
S. Amedy said to get a survey is quite expensive, and it seems ridiculous to need it for a shed. The property owner should sign off on a document, and if they put it up wrong, make them take it down.
B. Wiecenski asked what size shed can be put up without an A2.
R. Tulis said it is a structure, so none.
B. Wiecenski asked if a doghouse was a structure.
S. Yorgensen said no one comes in for doghouse permits but if he wants a permit for a doghouse he can apply.
B. Wiecenski suggested calling his shed a doghouse.
The commission said he would need to get a dog.
A. St. Louis said the other problem he is hearing is somebody with a 4-H project can’t have rabbits, chickens or goats without having at least 5 acres.
S. Yorgensen said there are not a lot of 4-H projects going on in town, and what he is really hearing is people with less than 5 acres who want animals.
R. Tulis said people used to use common sense, but that is no longer the case.
S. Yorgensen said she has had complaints about people who do have 5 acres and have chickens.
R. Tulis asked if there were any questions from the public.
B. Wiecenski said he thinks all property owners and voters should be given a copy of the town regulations so they know what they are getting into.
R. Tulis said they wouldn’t read it if they had it.
L. Dion said they can come to the zoning office and ask.
S. Yorgensen said a lot of people do call now before they build – 10 years ago that was not the case.
B. Wiecenski said contractors seem to be hassled, and they get facts piecemeal. They are supposed to follow the town’s example. If the town doesn’t have to get a permit to do its work, why should the residents?
S. Yorgensen said she agreed.
B. Wiecenski asked how the town is getting away with having the school busses illegally parked in back.
S. Yorgensen said there is a Notice of Violation on that.
B. Wiecenski said if the town can do it, so can he.
R. Tulis said we all have choices to make. The majority of people don’t ask because they are afraid of hearing No. If you don’t ask, you don’t know.
A. ST. LOUIS MOVED TO CONTINUE UNTIL MARCH 6, 2001 THE PUBLIC HEARING ON FILE #2000-57-AMENDMENTS TO ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE TOWN OF WILLINGTON TO INCLUDE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN SECTIONS 3, 5 AND 11 AND CLARIFICATION OF VERBIAGE IN VARIOUS OTHER SECTIONS. TOWN OF WILLINGTON, APPLICANT. (PUBLIC HEARING ON 01/16/01).
SECONDED BY L. DION. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
A 10-minute recess was called.
R. Tulis called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at 9:18 p.m.
Same members seated as above.
PREAPPLICATION:
1. Informal discussion regarding a zone change on 90 acres located at 48 River Road (former Benton property) to DER for development of 60-80 condominium dwellings designed for an adult community. Steve Amedy.
The commission reviewed a map of the parcel.
S. Amedy said this is in the area across from Franc’s Motors. They are looking to change the zone to DER and build 70-80 condos for the elderly. This is just conceptual at this point and they are nowhere near architectural stages.
H. Torcellini said he is reviewing this and there will be a lot of work to get septic up and running. The entrance would be on Baxter Road, not Route 32. This would be a DEP-sized project for approval.
S. Amedy says he would also be looking to lower the required age level to 55 & over. The regs now define elderly as 62 & over. The homes would be single family dwellings, or maybe buildings with 2 units together. They are reviewing several possibilities.
R. Tulis asked if they were looking to do basement or slab.
S. Amedy said that is up in the air right now. He will be conducting outreach meetings to get information of what residents would prefer.
S. Trueb asked if they were working with the Willington Housing Authority.
S. Amedy said there are big differences in the projects, but he does have a lot of the data gathered by the town. These units would be designed for active adults, and basements may be requested for hobby space.
R. Tulis asked if it would be assisted living.
S. Amedy said No, it is market housing, sold in the open market. It falls right under the DER requirements. It is a win/win situation for all, and there is a tremendous demand. From the town’s perspective, it is a $10-12 million job, so it is tax-positive.
L. Dion asked if there would be any amenities for users.
S. Amedy said that information will come out of the focus group. In theory now, they would have 20-25 acres of housing, and the other 70-75 acres would be open space with areas such as walking trails. Focus groups will help determine if buyers would want things such as pools and tennis courts and if they would be willing to pay the condo fees to support them. The space for those things would likely be set aside in case it is requested later.
E. Kalbac asked for more specifics on the lot.
H. Torcellini reviewed the map.
E. Kalbac asked if it would end up about 80% woods.
H. Torcellini said maybe even 90%.
S. Trueb asked if this would fall under a subdivision.
H. Torcellini said No, it is one piece of property owned by the association.
R. Tulis asked if they had info on the density requirements.
H. Torcellini said not yet. They are doing soil testing to determine what can get approved. 70-80 units would fit the requirements in a DER.
S. Amedy said the mapping and regulations are in harmony.
A. St. Louis said there is a definite need for this. He asked about unit size.
S. Amedy said square footage has not been determined. The next step after a nod of approval here is soil testing to get a better sense of what they can do with floor plans. It will likely be a 1-2-bedroom mix, but they are leaning more toward 2-bedroom. They imagine porches built so residents can go in and out without a step. This is not for geriatrics, but the units would be readily adaptable for a person’s changing needs. There would be deed restrictions for the elderly.
R. Tulis asked if they were planning any other services such as medical things.
S. Amedy said No, the focus is active adults.
R. Tulis said this is more like a condo with an age restriction.
S. Amedy said that is correct. It is designed for that user group.
E. Kalbac asked if that was discrimination.
S. Amedy said the zoning regs call for age 62, but the federal regulations say you can go to age 55. Under federal guidelines it’s legal discrimination.
R. Tulis asked about any planned support services for the elderly.
S. Amedy said this is designed to accommodate a user group of active adults more than a convalescent-type group.
H. Torcellini said his in-laws live in Florida in a 2400-home subdivision. There is a clubhouse, but no amenities for medical care. It is designed as a subdivision with a club and golf course, but no other amenities.
R. Tulis asked if it was built in a DER zone.
H. Torcellini said he was not sure.
R. Tulis said he was concerned it is just a big condo project and concerned with who will actually end up living there.
S. Amedy said “People like me.”
Dotty Torcellini said her parents housing has a large common area with a stage, and they often have shows at affordable prices. There is a Bacci court, and they hold card tournaments and women’s aerobics. It is ideal because you can do as much or as little as you want.
S. Amedy said that is the goal here.
L. Dion asked if they had an anticipated cost range.
S. Amedy said in just pulling numbers out of the air he might think $150-200 thousand, but it is too early to tell without any focus group information. They need to determine the required/requested level of quality.
S. Trueb asked if it would be restricted to Willington residents or open to all.
S. Amedy said there would be no restriction unless the town buys units and places restrictions.
L. Dion asked if it would be done in phases.
S. Amedy said Yes. It will be front-end heavy because of the septic, and may have a series of smaller systems. But a system must be up and running to manage the first unit.
R. Tulis asked why this is not being considered under a DCR zone.
S. Amedy said because it is in the interests of an adult community. That is where the market is.
R. Tulis asked about the intent of dropping the age to 55.
S. Amedy said the federal guidelines say 55 & older is elderly. He prefers to drop “elderly,” and remember it is “active adult community.”
R. Tulis said it could be a DCR instead of DER.
S. Amedy said that depends on the definition of elderly. Not all are geriatric and wheelchair-bound. He will take the suggestion and look at the other regulations for DCR as well.
R. Tulis said especially with lowering the age, it should be looked at.
A. St. Louis said he feels “elderly” can be 55 along with federal guidelines.
S. Yorgensen said if they come in with it proposed as DER, it must meet DER regulations. If they propose DCR, it should meet DCR, as long as it meets the regs.
S. Amedy said they are not even tapping into the density regulations under DER. The DER allows for higher density and more units, but that does not fit with what they really want to do.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. File #2001-03-Request pursuant to CGS 8-24 by the Friends of Mary D. Edward Library to build a sidewalk at 11 Common Road (Town Hall). Cheryl Brown & Margaret Gankoskie applicants/Town of Willington owners.
The commission reviewed the file.
S. Yorgensen said the request is to put in a brick sidewalk.
R. Tulis said it would go from the main door under the steeple to Common Road.
S. Trueb said he sees no problem.
A. St. Louis asked why the library was requesting it.
S. Yorgensen said it is a fundraiser, and they will sell bricks.
R. Tulis said the plan enables the sale of 1701 bricks.
S. TRUEB MOVED TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED FILE #2001-03-REQUEST PURSUANT TO CGS 8-24 BY THE FRIENDS OF MARY D. EDWARD LIBRARY TO BUILD A SIDEWALK AT 11 COMMON ROAD (TOWN HALL). CHERYL BROWN & MARGARET GANKOSKIE APPLICANTS/TOWN OF WILLINGTON OWNERS.
SECONDED BY D. LYTWYNN. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2. File #2000-59-Application for a special permit for a truckwash located at Truckstops of America, 327 Ruby Road (DC zone). George Gigurere owner/applicant. (Received on 12/05/00, public hearing by 02/06/01, decision by 04/03/01).
R. Tulis and S. Trueb recused themselves from this file.
The commission reviewed the file.
The commission noted that this is a new application and the proposal as presented has not gone before wetlands and several required and pertinent items are needed in order to review it adequately, including feedback from the IWWC, are not included.
A. ST. LOUIS MOVED TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE FILE #2000-59-APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A TRUCKWASH LOCATED AT TRUCKSTOPS OF AMERICA, 327 RUBY ROAD (DC ZONE). GEORGE GIGURERE OWNER/APPLICANT. (RECEIVED ON 12/05/00, PUBLIC HEARING BY 02/06/01, DECISION BY 04/03/01), FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1) The application as presented has not gone before the wetlands commission for review and approval or report
2) The required application fee has not been paid
3) Information required under Section 13 of the regulations has not been submitted
4) The application is incomplete
SECONDED BY D. LYTWYNN.
YES: L. Dion, A. St. Louis, E. Kalbac, D. Lytwynn
RECUSED: R. Tulis, S. Trueb
The commission agreed to review File #2001-01 & File #2001-02 simultaneously. (R. Tulis and S. Trueb were reseated).
S. Yorgensen said one file is requesting to change the regulations-defined age for elderly, and the other is to change the setback requirements.
L. DION MOVED TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF MARCH 6, 2001 FOR FILE #2001-01-REQUEST FOR A REGULATION CHANGE TO SECTIONS 5.07.03.01 & 5.08.03.01. STEPHAN AMEDY/APPLICANT (RECEIVED ON 01/16/01, HEARING BY 03/20/01, DECISION BY 05/15/01), AND FILE #2001-02-REQUEST FOR A REGULATION CHANGE TO SECTION 5.08.05.02.02 & 5.08.06.03.02. STEPHAN AMEDY/APPLICANT (RECEIVED ON 01/16/01, HEARING BY 03/20/01, DECISION BY 05/15/01).
SECONDED BY D. LYTWYNN. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. File #2000-43-Application for a special permit for a gravel excavation located off Trask Road and Route 32 on 5.62 acres. (Map 29, Lot 4, 31 acres). Joseph Mihaliak owner/applicant. (Received on 09/05/00, 65-day extension requested and approved, hearing on 11/21/00, continued to 12/05/01, decision by 02/06/01).
S. Yorgensen said she received a memo from the town engineer on this file. She read the memo into the record.
The commission noted that a lot of items from earlier memos which the applicant received prior to the close of the public hearing, were still not addressed.
S. Yorgensen said the applicant did call prior to the close of the hearing looking for this newest memo.
S. Trueb said some of the items on the memo were referring to the initial bigger project from 1999.
S. Yorgensen said another memo was done in November, which was based on the newer, smaller plan. Several of the items still pertain, such as the fact there is no PE stamp on the grading drawings.
The commission deferred further discussion.
MINUTES:
Deferred.
CORRESPONDENCE:
1. Jan. 16 letter from Springwich Cellular Limited Partnership, re: requested elevation/special permit condition change for the Willington Fire Dept. #1 monopole
2. CC Dec. 4 letter from Anita Dutton, broker to town Building Dept., re: Nipmuck Road listing
3. Listing, PZC member terms
4. CC Jan. 3 letter to W. Goodale from J. Patton, re: re-appointment
5. Jan. 4 listing of things needed, re: Clover Springs
6. CC Dec. 13 letter to E. Shekleton, re: amateur radio tower
7. Dec. 5 letter from E. Shekleton, re: amateur radio tower
8. October 2000 Land Use Law & Zoning Digest article, re: telecommunications
9. CC Letter to Northeast Utilities, re: request for removal of illegally installed traffic light
10. Jan. 4 letter from WRCG, re: regulation changes, landscaping definition
11. Jan. 4 letter from WRCG, re: regulation changes, driveway standards
12. Jan. 4 letter from WRCG, re: regulation changes, special exception renewals
DISCUSSION & STAFF REPORT:
The Cease & Desist order regarding the Buccino’s illegal parking lots; they are now going before ZBA.
Regarding the letter about the fire department’s tower, the proposal now does not meet one condition of the special permit which is that it be no higher than 642 feet in elevation. They moved the platform & pole around and changed the final grade elevation from the original plan, and it is now 21” too high and above 642. They were requesting agent approval of the change, but that is not possible because removal or change of a special permit condition is not considered a minor modification.
R. Tulis said the commission used elevation instead of tower height so it would not be increased.
R. Tulis said it should remain at 642 as approved. Height was determined from grade, not the monopole.
The commission concurred the elevation is a condition of the permit and to change it is not a minor modification. If the applicants want it changed they must come back before the commission, but it must remain at 642.
PLAN OF CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT:
The board of finance will be hearing a presentation regarding the plan and required funding at its meeting Thursday. The commission noted they must look at the money being spent in relation to the fact that this is a plan that will be used over the course of a 10-year period; it is not just a one-year expense. Several other town expenditures have much greater costs and are only there or only used for one year until the next budget season.
L. Dion said the existing plan is not used a lot now because it is so outdated, and is no longer a good tool for making decisions as to whether or not proposals fit in with the town plan.
S. Yorgensen said under state statute, penalties may be assessed to the town for its failure to have a plan, such as the town would no longer be able to qualify for some state aid programs.
R. Tulis stated that “election of officers” needs to be added to the next agenda.
L. DION MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:24 P.M.
SECONDED BY E. KALBAC. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
| 
