TOWN OF WILLINGTON
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 27, 2001
SPECIAL MEETING
R. TULIS CALLED A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE WILLINGTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ORDER AT 7:32 P.M. MARCH 27, 2001 AT THE TOWN OFFICE BUILDING, 40 OLD FARMS ROAD, WILLINGTON.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
R. Tulis S. Kneeland
L. Dion D. Cushman
A. St. Louis B. Begansky
E. Kalbac
D. Lytwynn, alt.
B. Goodale, alt.
S. Trueb, alt.
S. Yorgensen, Planning-Zoning/agent
L. Decker, recording clerk
The commission seated D. Lytwynn for B. Begansky, B. Goodale for S. Kneeland and S. Trueb for D. Cushman.
R. Tulis reviewed public hearing procedures and protocol.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. File #2001-01-Request for a regulation change to Sections 5.07.03.01 & 5.08.03.01. Stephen Amedy, applicant. (Received on 01/16/01, 14-day extension requested and approved, hearing on 03/27/01, decision by 05/01/01).
E. Kalbac recused himself from this application.
Stephen Amedy, 48 Brookmore Road, Tolland spoke on behalf of the Willington River Corporation. He asked that the commission consider reducing the 200-foot buffer requirements in Designed Elderly Residential zones down to 100 feet. The 200-foot buffer takes up a tremendous amount of land. In looking at his client’s property, there are 8800 perimeter feet on the 90-acre parcel. In effect, the buffer takes away 40 acres before the property is even used. That is a lot of land just for that purpose.
R. Tulis asked about the DCR zone as well.
S. Amedy said he is specifically looking for DER, but is applying for both.
R. Tulis asked how the requested change would benefit the town overall.
S. Amedy said in the case of DER, it might encourage other landowners to use their properties for this purpose.
R. Tulis asked the same question for DCR.
S. Amedy said the same logic would apply. From a land use perspective, in his opinion, this is a very large buffer and the land can be better used.
S. Yorgensen said the DER buffer is the largest. In other town zones, it is 100 feet, including DCR, Industrial, & Commercial. The town has no 200-foot buffer for anything but elderly.
The commission reviewed Section 5.07.03.01.
L. Dion said that is the only place it shows up.
S. Yorgensen said in the table, it is 100 for DCR.
R. Tulis said there is a discrepancy in the regulations & the table.
A. St. Louis said he reads it to interpret that 100 feet would apply.
R. Tulis said the wording in 5.07.03.01 could use some help. This should be looked at to see what makes the most sense and the discrepancy between the regs and the table should be fixed.
S. Trueb said under 5.08.03.01 it does say the commission can reduce the setbacks to 50 feet.
S. Yorgensen said there are stipulations that go along with that that may or may not apply but in most cases, it would not.
R. Tulis asked if there were any questions or comments from the public.
Mark Bilodeau asked for clarification on the proposed change.
R. Tulis said the proposal is to reduce the setback regulations for two zones.
M. Bilodeau said he is against it being reduced to 100 feet. It goes against and would endanger the character of the town.
Don Berg asked if it included parking lots or other such improvements.
R. Tulis said it clearly says “no building or structure.”
D. Berg asked about parking lots going right up to the property line.
S. Yorgensen said that is addressed under a different regulation.
M. Bilodeau said back when the town was looking at designs for the elderly housing on Old Farms Road, one reason he did not go against it was because they were able to get the 200-foot setback. That would not affect his property as much, and he was happy with that. He was told one thing, and now they are proposing to change it. It is not fair to people in town that have supported the senior housing for that reason. They are being sold short.
Christopher Deskes, 56 Old Farms Road, asked what property this was being proposed for.
S. Yorgensen said there was not specific property at this point, but it would be changed for all properties that are DER.
C. Deskes said he would be very disappointed as a property owner on Old Farms Road and he hopes they stick with the 200 feet. With the initial elderly housing plans, it was closer than 50 feet to his property line. He & others attended a series of meetings with the architects, they adhered to the 200 feet, and he supported that and still does. But he would not support it being less than 200 feet.
A. ST. LOUIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FILE #2001-01-REQUEST FOR A REGULATION CHANGE TO SECTIONS 5.07.03.01 & 5.08.03.01. STEPHEN AMEDY, APPLICANT. (RECEIVED ON 01/16/01, 14-DAY EXTENSION REQUESTED AND APPROVED, HEARING ON 03/27/01, DECISION BY 05/01/01).
SECONDED BY L. DION.
YES: R. Tulis, L. Dion, A. St. Louis, D. Lytwynn, B. Goodale, S. Trueb
ABSTAIN: E. Kalbac (recused)
Motion passes.
2. File #2001-02-Request for a regulation change to Section 5.08.05.02.02 & 5.08.06.03.02. Stephen Amedy, applicant. (Received on 01/16/01, 14-day extension requested and approved, hearing on 03/27/01, decision by 05/01/01).
E. Kalbac recused himself from this file.
R. Tulis said this proposed change is again for DER zones and is relevant to occupants of the dwellings.
S. Amedy said the regulations require people in DER to be 62, and he would like to see it changed to 55 years of age. He believes it was just an arbitrary decision to make it 62. Age 55 would be in sync with federal housing laws.
R. Tulis said again, how would this benefit the town?
S. Amedy said he is finding there are a lot of people in the community at his age, who are now looking to downsize. This would make it easier, and would allow people who need to downsize to stay in the community they have paid taxes in all their lives.
R. Tulis said the real intent of Section 5.08 is for higher density housing. He reviewed the regulations.
A. St. Louis said there might be concern in that section 5.08.05.02.02; the age requirement for the other occupant is no less than 50.
S. Amedy said if he has to choose one thing, he would choose the drop to age 55. In a perfect world, why would there be an age limit on the spouse? Most people are similar in age. On the other side, it says the family can’t live there.
R. Tulis asked if there were any questions from the public.
M. Bilodeau asked if the age decrease would in any way affect government funding.
S. Amedy said not that he is aware of. Age 55 is what both the federal and state governments recognize.
The commission discussed the spousal age requirements.
R. Tulis asked Sue if there were any questions.
S. Yorgensen said she has no problem with the proposed change.
A. ST. LOUIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FILE #2001-02-APPLICATION FOR A REGULATION CHANGE TO SECTIONS 5.08.05.02.02 & 5.08.06.03.02. STEPHEN AMEDY, APPLICANT. (RECEIVED ON 01/16/01, 14-DAY EXTENSION REQUESTED AND APPROVED, HEARING ON 03/27/01, DECISION BY 05/01/01).
SECONDED BY L. DION.
YES: R. Tulis, L. Dion, A. St. Louis, D. Lytwynn, B. Goodale, S. Trueb
ABSTAIN: E. Kalbac (recused)
Motion passes.
(E. Kalbac was re-seated).
3. File #2000-57-Amendments to zoning regulations of the Town of Willington to include wireless telecommunications facilities in Section 3, 5 and 11, and clarification of verbiage in various other sections. Town of Willington, applicant. (Public hearing on 01/16/01, continued to 03/27/01).
R. Tulis said the current regulations were adopted in 1996 and became effective 8/1/96. They have been tweaked a little and they have been trying since then to find mistakes, and to fix and clarify things as best they can. The wireless communications information needs to be addressed so the town has some type of input as to where they go. The state says the town can have no input on the siting, but the town can have a say on how they are built and what the buffers will be.
S. Yorgensen gave a summary of proposed changes under this file:
Addition of tower regulations
Changes to definitions in Section 3 including landscaping and structures
Changes to Section 4 including driveway regulations
Section 5 including bus parking
Revisions to Section 7 regarding special exception renewals
Revisions to Section 12 (Clerical changes)
Section 20 including A2 survey requirements
Changes to Daycare Centers
S. Yorgensen said the commission has also received submittals since the start of the public hearing in relation to wireless communications, suggestions for changing A2 survey requirements, suggestions to torque the recent changes for bus parking, and the recently made changes regarding Daycare Centers.
R. Tulis said he wanted to start with a comment on A2 surveys in general. The purpose behind asking for a survey was intended to benefit the landowners and be sure that improvements on property are consistent with the zoning regulations. When an owner goes to refinance, or get a mortgage, etc., the lenders require a Certificate of Compliance with the zoning regulations. If the building is not in compliance and the lender refused, the person is stuck. Regarding A2, it used to be a label as to the scope of the survey. When the mapping standards in the state were refined, CALS got involved and listed a bunch of survey scopes. Part of the problem now with this regulation is people ask for an A2 and the surveyor sees it as a property boundary survey to A2 standards.
Karl Acimovic, town engineer, said A2 is the methodology and level of research methods for setting pins. A Class D survey is not as refined.
R. Tulis said there used to be other levels of survey requirements.
K. Acimovic said he thinks they are gone now. It is all one standard. He noted the copy of state regulations for surveys and maps.
R. Tulis said the intent of the commission was never to ask everyone to have an A2 survey done on their property every time they wanted to plant a tree or put a pool on their property. The intent was to know the legal boundaries, and do research so things could be built within the appropriate setbacks.
Richard Desloge said if a person is putting up a shed, he should know his boundaries. To repeat Ralph’s question, “How does this (current regulation) benefit me?” The regulations are supposed to benefit the town.
R. Tulis said he was just laying background on the issue. The commission is trying to fix this so it is reasonable from the perspective of the person who owns one acre and the person who owns 100 acres with a house right in the middle of it. They have to tweak the regs to work for everybody & still satisfy the goals.
K. Acimovic read information regarding “appropriate research” as defined by the state regs. No surveyor will put his certification on any survey unless the standards of research have been met. They cannot certify that a baseline location survey has been done to a level of A2 standards without doing all the research.
R. Tulis said a person could rely on the location of a boundary if his neighbor has had an A2 done. K. Acimovic said that is correct, but if you do your own lot, the surveyor would still need to recount the other surveyor’s work to be sure it is correct, or else he himself will not certify it. S. Yorgensen said not all surveyors do things exactly the same.
A. St. Louis asked about the possibility of leaving some of these issues up to the discretion of the zoning agent.
The commission reviewed the options.
A. St. Louis said there are situations when the A2 is definitely not needed, such as when someone with 200 acres wants to put a shed in the middle of their property. When it is much narrower acreage, then discretion could be used.
S. Yorgensen said maybe torquing the waivers section might help.
R. Tulis asked about the next level down from the A2s.
K. Acimovic said it is the Class D survey. That would call for a sketch based on whatever records are available, along with basic field measurements. It is not necessarily to A2 accuracy. It is literally just a sketch. The Class D is one step down, but lenders do not take it seriously. S. Trueb said lenders mostly want A2 accuracy.
K. Acimovic said that is correct. There is a zoning location survey, but that also requires a level of accuracy in the matrix of an A2. R. Tulis said the driving cost behind the A2 is the legal research.
K. Acimovic said there is legal research, and also work in the field. It is not just locating your 4 corners, but making sure the neighbors’ boundaries have been done correctly, and then making necessary adjustments.
Mitzi Horowitz, 34 Pinecrest Road, asked what was there before 1996, and what are other towns around Willington doing to resolve these issues.
R. Tulis said this is more of a fact-finding mission rather than answering questions on surveys. He cannot say what other towns are doing. He suggested calling those towns.
Maureen Parsell, 56 Schofield Road, said she called the other towns. She came in wanting to get a pool on her property, and was outright told she needed an A2 survey. Gary did not want to even look at the property. She was just told she needed the A2. This has been law since 1996 but it was only enforced since last year. Others have put up pools, and sheds, and did not need the survey. Gary said it was being enforced since last spring. After calling other bigger towns in the area, she found that no one is enforcing this. She called Ellington, Colchester, Ashford, Stafford, Windham, and not one town was requiring an A2. They said the regulation is there, but they do not enforce it. She also called surveyors, and was basically told what Karl has said. She does not understand why, if you have a property, and you know your
boundaries, and what you are doing will not hurt anything, what is the purpose of this survey? It has been in the regulations since 1996. Why is it only enforced since last spring? Something must have happened.
R. Tulis said he thinks the problems led to a change of perspective. It was not ever the intent of the commission to always require a complete A2. The problem is in what surveyors are now required to do. The commission wants to find a middle ground to be sure setbacks are maintained to a reasonable degree to prevent future zoning violations.
Ed Webb, 99 Village Hill, said you can’t even put a deck on a pool that is already there and has been there for along time, without the A2.
A. St. Louis asked why other towns said they were not enforcing it.
M. Parsell said they said they were not enforcing it because it was ridiculous. She was told there was no reason to have it if you just want a pool or deck. If it is a new property, or an in-ground pool, then they want it. But otherwise, it is not requested. A. St. Louis said they are requiring it, but not enforcing it. M. Parsell said for something such as a shed permit, they are not.
M. Bilodeau said it is not as big an issue in towns like Manchester because they do not have septic like Willington. If someone's pool liner blows out and the chlorine goes to the stream, it will destroy the stream, and the fish and animals in the pond. But if the pool is already there, why can’t you just put a deck on it with a permit?
D. Berg said he has given the commission a proposed change for the regulation. He was given a letter from Mark Branse tonight, and noted an error in it. Some homeowners do not want to be protected. It is their money. If they put up a structure too close to a boundary and can’t sell their property, it is their problem, not the commissions. The A2 should not be there to protect people from themselves.
L. Dion thanked Mr. Berg for the time he spent drafting the proposal.
Walter Parsell, 56 Schofield Road, said his wife talked with other towns, the most important thing was having property lines defined, and most towns accept a mortgage survey for that. Some towns accept hand drawings. It depends on the magnitude of the work. For a small project, the A2 really straps the budget.
L. Dion asked Mr. Acimovic about the mortgage surveys.
K. Acimovic said they do not really exist anymore. He used to do mortgage surveys, and the purpose was to give confirmation to the bank that the house was not in violation of regulations – it did not really set boundaries.
L. Dion asked Mr. Amedy if he, as a realtor, had any input on this.
S. Amedy said the expression “ignorance is bliss” kicks in very nicely. Lenders used to require the mortgage surveys, but that went by the wayside to title insurance, unless it is new construction. By in large, most people accept what the seller is representing and are satisfied. However, there are 2 scenarios that he has seen happen as a realtor. One seller said he had 28 acres, and it was surveyed after it was bought, and the buyer found out he only had 5 acres. Another person bought a 400-acre parcel, and later discovered he actually had 800 acres. In a perfect world, all property should be pinned. He reviewed options where it is necessary to have the survey.
B. Goodale asked if the Class D came from the deed.
K. Acimovic said it comes from deeds and plans on record in the town office. This is how the research is started, first through the assessor’s maps, and then the abutters’ deeds. Then a sketch is put together from the info. You then go to the field, and add new data to the maps. But the minute it says Class D, is it not necessarily accurate.
B. Goodale asked if it shows where the boundaries are. K. Acimovic said yes. R. Tulis said or where they should be. He has seen older properties that just have abutters’ names.
S. Amedy said some properties he gets that have A2 surveys, he is still told they must re-certify. R. Tulis said it depends on the age of the A2.
K. Acimovic said it depends on when it was done, but even if he can rely on it, it is still his responsibility as a surveyor to check it. There is a problem now doing one in the St. Moritz Circle area. There is a problem with where things are supposed to be and where pins are in the field. It is a problem within 1½ foot – 3 feet. R. Tulis said, as lots get smaller, 3 feet becomes more & more important.
Brian Semprebon, 1 Lucerne Drive, said he is the first person this was enforced upon. The zoning agent said it should be about $800 for the survey. He called Gardner & Petersen and was quoted $3500, and they are the ones who did the original. It is about $800 a day just to have the crew out there, and to put on a $1400 deck he was looking at about $4000. He said he thought the commission should admit this requirement was an error in judgement, and the cost of a piece of paper to keep a bank or a mortgage company happy and to satisfy a regulation should not be 300 times the cost of the proposed project. This is limiting any growth in the tax base.
R. Tulis said the entire St. Moritz subdivision shouldn’t have been built without being pinned.
Joe Fillipi said regarding the fees, the problem is creating a full map with topography. Some relief might be given to the regulations whereby a property line could be staked and a letter from a surveyor should suffice. Some towns he has worked in require only that.
R. Desloge said the middle ground might be to require a notarized statement. They are really just looking for setbacks. It would take 2 minutes to see a 200-foot setback on his property.
R. Tulis said the degree of permits is relevant.
A. St. Louis asked if there was any liability for the town, and if a landowner can come back and say they were inspected and were told, it was not needed.
S. Yorgensen said possibly, yes. There certainly is if it is required in the regulations and we ignored it. If someone built too close or on the neighbors property. Then the town could get sued. She also said that now, without the mortgage surveys, the town is getting calls from attorneys and banks asking for a letter stating there are no zoning violations on the property. So, in some instances, it can be done easily. In others, it cannot.
The town must enforce the regulations. If it is not a good regulation, it must be changed. Changing the regulation and waiver requirement might be a good way to explore dealing with this.
The commission discussed possible options.
M. Parsell said she was also told when she came for a pool permit that if she knows she is going to do future improvements, she should put them in the A2 now to avoid having to have the survey changed and going through this all over again.
Dave Gabree, 64 Blair Road, said the regulations are causing a severe financial burden. There should be different ways to have the property surveyed for someone who just wants a garden shed. What benefit does this have to the town? It is understandable to require an A2 for a new house, but to require it for a garden shed is ridiculous.
Linda Worthington, 224 Village Hill Road, said she is getting well estimates for drilling and now they are hearing they need an A2. They have 2 stonewalls and know their property lines. S. Yorgensen said if an A2 is required for that it is not the zoning commission that is requiring the A2 for that. She should speak to the health department who governs those issues.
Mark Legald, of Tolland, said if an error is made that is easily corrected that is less that the cost of the survey, the zoning officer should have discretion for common sense decisions. Surveyors are putting their licenses on the line and want stuff qualified. The question is who is responsible, the homeowner or the person buying it. It’s their problem at that time, not the commissions.
D. Berg said people wanting pools this May are not going to be able to get them until next year. In the proposed change, up to 950 square feet would not require a survey unless you can’t make sense of the documents.
K. Acimovic said if he does the original A2 it is easy and not that expensive to update it. If he relies on someone else’s survey, then he takes the brunt of problems.
The commission discussed using surveys that already exist.
K. Acimovic said neighbors can establish property line agreements through an attorney if lines are not clear.
S. Amedy said it would be important to seek legal help on that, because someone may unintentionally inherit a piece of a mortgage.
R. Tulis said they might need a release from the bank, which may still be cheaper than an A2.
Richard Coyle, 60 Schofield Road, said when he moved into his property he checked into the boundaries with his own calculations and measurements and all were within a couple inches of what had been determined. There is a base for this information in the assessor's office, and people should not have to spend $4000 to build a shed. Property values will stagnate and people will not build. The building official should look at it, back it up 30-40 feet from what the assessor’s maps show, and someone from there should make a decision from that point that it is not in the buffer.
M. Legald said the magnitude of the permit seems to be the issue. If you deliver any document, even if you doodle on a napkin, you are the responsible entity. If the bank finds out there is a problem, you have to fix it. You can measure it with a coat hanger if you want, but you are responsible. If it is a large project or something that cannot be easily moved, yes, you need an A2. But for little things that can be moved, it is not necessary.
J. Fillipi said he has gotten calls from people claiming neighbors are building on their land. It is their dispute, and the sojourner is burdened with the cost of proof.
C. Deskes said he agreed, and when a higher level of expertise is required, those people must accept responsibility.
R. Tulis said he understood the point.
D. Berg reviewed the order of permits required and said you can’t remodel your bathroom without an A2.
W. Parsell said this regulation hurts the town more than it helps. There will be a lot more illegal decks and sheds. (He noted he was not speaking for himself).
Don Buchan, Tinkerville Road, said the town has an Ariel survey and when people put up structures without a permit, they should know. S. Yorgensen said the Ariel survey the assessor has was actually done back in 1970. D. Buchan asked if it had been updated. S. Yorgensen said it would be in the foreseeable future.
D. Buchan said the Ariel surveys are usually very accurate. S. Yorgensen said they do not help much with boundaries.
D. Buchan said he feels the A2 is not necessary in most cases. If you are stuck in a little subdivision, it may be another matter. You can be on your neighbor’s property pretty quickly.
R. Tulis said the commission has a lot of work to do on this, and they do understand the issues.
E. Webb said if everyone here is not building because of this, the town is losing a lot of money. He understands needing the A2 for a new house, but not this piddly little stuff.
A. St. Louis reminded the commission there were other issues on this file besides A2s.
S. Amedy asked if it was possible to suspend needing the A2s until this was resolved. S. Yorgensen said that would not be legal.
R. Tulis asked if there were public questions or comments on the other issues.
Deb Cebula, Old Farms Road, asked the commission’s planned course of action from here. R. Tulis said they want the regulation written so it makes much more sense and an A2 is not needed in every circumstance, but it is impossible to determine a timetable. D. Cebula asked if it would be this summer. R. Tulis said he hopes so.
R. Desloge asked about getting variances until that time. S. Yorgensen said that is a ZBA issue.
B. Semprebon asked why, if the regs were written in 1996, were they ignored until the spring of 2000. Where was the line drawn?
R. Tulis said the commission needs to fix the regulations, and that is why they are here.
R. Tulis called a brief recess at 9:23 p.m.
The public hearing was reconvened at 9:32 p.m.
Steve Levine, real estate consultant for Cingular Wireless submitted documentation to address telecommunications issues independent of the siting council, as it is not known where the current ruling is going. The siting council regulates SNET & CINGULAR anyway. They come to the commission for permits, but everything else is primarily the council. Regarding capacity, in general, the proposed regs are quite workable.
In the preamble to the regs, it discusses recent advances and the near future. That is good for now, but the near future will soon be the distant past. Regarding the definition in 11.13.4.13, he suggested they firm up the area of “other.” Regarding “historic” issues, it mentions any existing or future. It is impossible to know what will be designated “historic” in 5 years from now. He said it should be tied into timing on the application. If it is a regulation at the time of the application, so be it. If it is not, you can’t guess.
Also, the definition of historic area actually enlarges the area by 250 feet; this does also not cover Non-carrier tower builders, and it treats tower developers differently and discriminates in favor of non-tower builders. Regarding the term of their permit, it is now limited to 10 years, whereas leases for tower sites are 20-30 years in general. This can be kind of burdensome to have to come back every 10 years, and could impact the economic expectations of the parties. Also, the town should bear the responsibility of telling the parties their renewal is coming up. It should not be the burden of the carrier.
In 11.13.06.02.03 regarding fall zones, they have 2 fixes for the same area. In one, you already have a 250-foot setback to sensitive areas. He read the regulations. On the top, you add 2-3 feet to height of the tower and get up to 700 feet with a visible tower. The two together are excessive. In section 11.13.06.03.05 & 6.3-10, there is a conflict in the number of co-locators. In section 11.13.06.03.06 regarding the size of the panel antenna, it is common today that the panel antennas are more than 6 feet. SNET commonly uses an 8-foot. Without a basis for the 6-foot limitation, it should be revised. It should have limits, but it should be rationally based.
The commission thanked Mr. Levine for his observations and input.
Bob Frances, of Cordless Data Transfer, said he has been here a year now and the commission is still looking at the same draft, and there has been no action.
S. Yorgensen said the commission couldn't act to change these until the public hearing is closed.
B. Frances reminded the commission of previous data he had submitted, and said his main concern is still that the applicant must be a cellular carrier. If the siting council ruling is upheld, the rest of the regulations will not matter because carriers cannot apply to the town. He suggested the applicant must be a landowner or owner of the tower.
S. Levine said to make it the landowner might be burdensome. It might be easy if it is just one person, but if there is more than one, or if the land is subdivided, it could be a problem. Also, the landowner need not be an applicant, since that info is already expressed in the lease itself.
R. Tulis asked if there were any further questions or comments from the public. None heard.
S. TRUEB MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FILE #2000-57-AMENDMENTS TO ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE TOWN OF WILLINGTON TO INCLUDE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN SECTION 3, 5 AND 11, AND CLARIFICATION OF VERBIAGE IN VARIOUS OTHER SECTIONS. TOWN OF WILLINGTON, APPLICANT. (PUBLIC HEARING ON 01/16/01, CONTINUED TO 03/27/01).
SECONDED BY L. DION.
Discussion:
A. St. Louis asked if the commission had received a copy of Mark’s response to comments on the A2s.
S. Yorgensen said all correspondence is in the file, and added that commission can ask for clarification regarding the material from staff after the hearing is closed.
R. Tulis asked if they could do workshops with surveyors. S. Yorgensen said they could have a workshop with staff, but not with public participation, once the hearing is closed.
E. Kalbac commented there was an excellent turnout for the hearings and the commission will work hard to address concerns.
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
4. File #2001-14-Application for a special permit for municipal school bus parking off Ruby Road (Map 42, Lot 49, 36.2 acres). Town of Willington owners/applicants. (Received on 02/06/01, hearing on 02/20/01, continued to 03/27/01, decision by 04/17/01).
K. Acimovic reviewed info submitted at the previous session.
L. Dion asked if they had gotten actual speeds for Ruby Road. First Selectman John Patton said southbound it is 38mph, and it is less coming northbound through the curve. D. Lytwynn asked if those were the averages. J. Patton said it is the 85th percentile. 85% are going that speed or lower.
S. Trueb asked about the site lines. K. Acimovic read the state proposals.
R. Tulis asked how they were working it for the visual buffer and if they would preserve the overhang. K. Acimovic said cut to required sightline and yes to overhang, as the stems and roots basically emanate from the roadside.
L. Dion asked about proposed lighting. K. Acimovic said it is on the revised plans.
J. Patton said due to the height of the busses, the light should be 25 feet above elevation, and the regs allow up to 30. He reviewed the lighting statistics and noted the lights all aim to the center of the lot to eliminate light pollution. At night, it will be brought down to 30%, versus when there is activity. In a winter afternoon, they will have full brightness. There will also be sensors, so if someone goes on the property the lighting will go to full.
S. Trueb asked if the new gate was on the plans. J. Patton said they would replace the existing gate that is there.
R. Tulis asked if the gate was the only obstruction to someone getting on the site.
J. Patton said there is other fencing there. It is a 60 acre lot and it is hard to fence it all in, mostly because of slope. The slope will provide a natural buffer.
A. St. Louis asked about additional signing on the road. J. Patton said it is no problem, but they need DOT permission.
The commission reviewed the plan.
K. Acimovic showed the areas slated to be moved to address state and local siteline concerns.
The commission reviewed the maps and sitelines.
J. Patton thanked the commission for its forbearing with the busses being parked at the town office building illegally. He recognizes the importance of zoning regulations and is trying to fulfill those regulations with this plan.
A. St. Louis asked about snow removal. J. Patton said they would bring a loader up there. A. St. Louis asked if it would be dumped on top. J. Patton said there is an area in back where they can push it to if it is a really bad winter. Most snow will be put on the 3-1 slope on the east side.
L. Dion said the sitewalk was very helpful.
R. Tulis asked if there were any questions or comments from the public.
M. Bilodeau distributed for the record a letter dated 3/6/01. L. Dion suggested Mr. Bilodeau initial and date a strikeout contained in the letter.
M. Bilodeau read the letter into the record and distributed a 2-year traffic study. On Route 320, there were approximately 58 accidents. To be fair in presenting accurate numbers for the area in question, the accidents involving the truckstop were eliminated. He reviewed the numbers and data distributed, noting the busses and staff cars would create a 9% increase in traffic.
The commission reviewed the numbers.
A. St. Louis asked how the calculations were based.
M. Bilodeau said the data is from the State Police Public Safety Division, and noted Dave Ennis had given it to him.
L. Dion asked if the data included accidents from the intersection with Route 32.
M. Bilodeau said the data was narrowed down to be reflective of the area being discussed.
A. St. Louis asked if the Willington Hill section was included in this. M. Bilodeau said No.
R. Tulis said the data shows some 2-car accidents, but mostly single-car. There appear to be a lot of inept drivers going down Ruby Road.
S. Trueb asked if these were mainly bad weather-related accidents. M. Bilodeau said he was not sure.
A. St. Louis asked where the counter was put. M. Bilodeau said it was across from the Federated Church.
J. Patton described the breakup of the road for traffic studies, but said the data he received had disappeared. He had never even opened it. He said that Mark is, however, reading from that data. Mr. Bilodeau said that he received the information from Mr. Ennis. S. Yorgensen said that she had the borrowed the information and that the disk was on her desk.
M. Bilodeau said the main purpose he is here for is safety. The bus drivers are Moms and wives, and they should not be put in jeopardy. There are other places in town that must be suitable that would not put people in danger.
J. Patton reviewed the accident data. He said (as a member of the fire department), he was at a lot of those accidents referenced, and a lot of them were due to bad weather. The others were mainly because of speeding. The average is about 5-6 accidents a year and most are single-car. He has spoken to the state DOT, they do not consider this road abnormally unsafe, and it is not a problem to them. That is a problem the town ends up having, because when they try to get state money to help fix it, DOT says the road is not a problem, and they give no money.
M. Bilodeau asked if it was in writing that the state said it is no problem. J. Patton said he could ask them to do that. Most of the accidents were because of drivers driving an unsafe manner. There have been many accidents on many other roads in town, some fatal, and that is the unfortunate nature of driving. Personally, he feels the road is no more dangerous than any other road in town.
M. Bilodeau suggested asking the plow drivers about safety, since one must pull over for the other to go by on 320. It is very narrow, and if you put a school bus and a tractor-trailer on there at the same time, something is going to happen.
L. Dion asked how wide the road is. J. Patton said 320 is 22-23 feet going through the S-curve.
L. Dion noted that in front of the town office building, where the busses are now parked, the road is only 18 feet wide, and it is a much worse condition.
Peter Latincsics, 97 Trask Road, said he has serious concerns with the general safety of this site, and has a number of questions. Regarding the use of the property, it is now used for sand & gravel. Will that use go away, and what will be the impact if they decide to subdivide it in the future? Has the wetlands approved this property for this activity, seeing as there are visible streams? He asked the board to consider the fact this site was rejected by 2 school building search committees, and one reason was the unsafe aspects of the site. He would submit this applies to a school bus depot as well. He asked the plan be reviewed with the BOE, since Mike Eldredge, BOE safety subcommittee chairman, has concerns. He asked it be reviewed with the current vendor, Laidlaw. It is his understanding Laidlaw has
some reservations about the site. He asked the commission to consider the haste with which the application was presented. You spoke eloquently of the need for future planning, but it seems there are a wide range of issues affecting this. We do not know who the future vendor will be. He asked if the old Smythe site was available.
L. Dion asked if at the time this site was previously rejected, if they considered the proposed improvements to the site as they are being specifically presented today.
P. Latincsics said yes, they were told then what it would be based on state recommendations. He also recalls issues of substantial cost in bringing power into the site, which made the location unattractive.
J. Lewis reminded the board of a quick list of roads that are more narrow than 320. There was a rollover right in front of his house just recently, and you can’t avoid that. The board cannot look at personal opinion, but must look at the rules and determine if this application fits in with the regulations. To look at all the other issues being brought up is not the job of the zoning board. That has already been done at other town meetings.
M. Bilodeau asked about the accessory use/gravel issue. R. Tulis said the application is specifically for school bus parking as a primary use.
M. Bilodeau asked if the property would be used as a gravel pit any longer. J. Patton said it is probably big enough to be subdivided, and it may be possible to do both, but you also cannot create a non-conforming lot.
M. Bilodeau asked about the frontage. J. Patton said it is about 1000 feet.
L. Worthington said some of the busses coming out, going in both directions, are flat-nose busses. Will any have to cross the line to turn? K. Acimovic said the turning radius to the north is sufficient to remain in the lane, and to the south, the state has asked for an increase. That modification is shown on the plans as requested. The busses will be able to make the turns.
The commission discussed turning radius.
R. Tulis asked if it is later found the radius is not satisfactory, does the town have their wherewithal to improve it. K. Acimovic said yes.
The commission discussed the sitelines and planned improvements as per the plans and DOT requests.
D. Berg asked about the area of ledge that sticks out and remembers the town wanted it fixed. He asked if it was a money issue to not fix it.
J. Patton said the idea originally was to put the busses at the public works facility, take the rent money & take down the hill. Some of the people who are now complaining about safety issues are the very same people that fought to not take the hill down.
D. Berg said it would be nice if that hunk of ledge were not there. He asked about possible security cameras. M. Bilodeau said then people could watch the crimes afterwards. D. Berg said at least it would put to rest quickly the issue of who it was.
L. Worthington said some drivers do charter runs and get in as late as 11 p.m. She asked about having someone there.
J. Patton said there is not any current proposal to have someone there, and that is an operational aspect, and therefore up to the bus company, not the town. If they want to pay for a security guard, they can.
L. Dion asked what the difference is between what was done previously and what is being proposed. L. Worthington said at least the town hall has lights around it.
J. Lewis said he has driven school busses before, and the women were quite concerned with safety when using the previous site on 32. They would park their cars right next to the bus so they could quickly go from one to the other. Smythe busses never had anyone around for security at the old site, and there is no fencing at all. People could just walk right in. L. Dion said in other towns such as Vernon, the bus depot is right off the exit and no one is around.
R. Tulis said the bus company is a private contractor, and safety is also their issue. J. Patton agreed. P. Latincsics said the town leasing the facility brings responsibility. J. Lewis said the situation would be no different than it was on Route 32.
The commission discussed leasing.
J. Patton said the town’s relationship with the bus company would be no different; we are simply providing an option for Laidlaw to park there.
A. St. Louis asked staff if there had been anything submitted for the record by Laidlaw regarding safety concerns. S. Yorgensen said No.
A. St. Louis asked if there were any letters from either the board of education or the superintendent of schools regarding this issue. He noted that no one from the BOE or superintendent’s office was present at the hearing. M. Bilodeau said they did not see the site until Friday.
S. Yorgensen said the only thing in the record is a copy of BOE Safety Committee minutes dated July 31, 2000. Mike Eldredge presented the set of minutes at the previous hearing. L. Dion said those comments were made long before this plan. S. Yorgensen said yes, before this plan was drawn.
J. Patton said Mr. Bilodeau is correct that the Northeast District Manager came to the site on Friday. He was concerned with the siteline, but once he reviewed the DOT recommendations he thought, it was fine.
B. Goodale said whether we continue with Laidlaw or change companies, it is still the town’s bus depot. J. Patton said things will depend on how the BOE structures its next bus contract, and whether or not the company is allowed to choose where it wants to park. Contractors generally take the easiest way out. The fuel is close by, and all those items get put into the contractor’s equation.
S. Trueb asked Mr. Patton if this site was his first choice. J. Patton said No; his first choice was the public works facility. S. Trueb asked what the problems were there. J. Patton said he would rather not go into it.
A. St. Louis said the fact that strikes him the most is that the BOE is supposedly so concerned with the site, and the only person the PZC has seen is Mike Eldredge. There is absolutely nothing from the superintendent in writing, and she deals specifically with Laidlaw. The PZC is hearing all this second-hand. Since they are responsible for the safety, they should have at least put something in writing, even if they could not attend tonight’s meeting.
J. Patton said they have not even seen the plans. L. Dion said the plans have been available for 3 months. J. Patton said that is correct.
J. Lewis said he thinks the BOE discussed it, then passed it on. J. Patton said they have been back & forth, and wanted to add it to the agenda tonight.
R. Tulis said the PZC must act on this application based on the info that is submitted by the applicant at the public hearing. To speculate on the rest is fruitless.
He asked if there were any additional comments from the public.
There were none.
A. ST. LOUIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FILE #2001-14-APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR MUNICIPAL SCHOOL BUS PARKING OFF RUBY ROAD (MAP 42, LOT 49, 36.2 ACRES). TOWN OF WILLINGTON OWNERS/APPLICANTS. (RECEIVED ON 02/06/01, HEARING ON 02/20/01, CONTINUED TO 03/27/01, DECISION BY 04/17/01).
SECONDED BY S. TRUEB. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
R. Tulis called the meeting to order at 10:58 p.m.
Same members seated as above.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. File #2000-49-Application for a 5-lot subdivision located off Michalec Road (Map 55, Lot 1C, 28.37 acres). Joseph E. Mihaliak owner/applicant. (Received on 10/03/00, hearing on 12/05/00, extension requested and approved, continued to 01/16/01, extension requested, decision by 03/27/01).
R. Tulis noted that the members eligible to vote on this file were E. Kalbac, D. Lytwynn, S. Trueb, A. St. Louis, and himself.
A. St. Louis said he thinks everything was submitted.
R. Tulis said the only thing missing was road improvements. Their proposal for open space was a conservation easement in the area the regulations required a stream belt preservation easement.
S. Yorgensen said yes the regs require a stream belt easement, and they did a conservation easement instead of that, and she believed they wanted the easement to count toward open space.
S. Trueb asked if there was a problem with that. R. Tulis said the question is what is best for the town.
The commission discussed the open space issue.
R. Tulis said the commission could require fee-in-lieu-of open space. S. Trueb said the land slopes off pretty steep back there. R. Tulis said for this proposal, it is probably the way to go.
The commission reviewed potential conditions, discussed easements, and road improvements.
A. ST. LOUIS MOVED TO APPROVE FILE #2000-49-APPLICATION FOR A 5-LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED OFF MICHALEC ROAD (MAP 55, LOT 1C, 28.37 ACRES). JOSEPH E. MIHALIAK OWNER/APPLICANT. (RECEIVED ON 10/03/00, HEARING ON 12/05/00, EXTENSION REQUESTED AND APPROVED, CONTINUED TO 01/16/01, EXTENSION REQUESTED, DECISION BY 03/27/01), WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1) Applicant to submit engineer’s itemized estimate of the cost to improve the road pursuant to Chapter VI, Section 2 of the Willington subdivision regulations
2) Applicant shall file with the town an amount equal to the approved amount, to be placed in the road fund pursuant to Chapter VI, Section 2 of the Willington subdivision regulations
3) Town engineer and staff technical revisions to be included in final plans (plans to be revised and submitted to staff for review within 30 days)
4) Applicant to submit drainage maintenance agreement for driveways for review to the town staff (within 30 days). To be approved by the commission.
5) Applicant to submit stream belt reservation document for area required by the regulations pursuant to Chapter VI, Section 6, to town staff for review (within 30 days).
6) Commission shall require fee-in-lieu of open space per Chapter VIII, Section 11. Applicant to submit Appraiser’s report within 30 days.
SECONDED BY S. TRUEB.
Discussion:
R. Tulis said he was disappointed that the PZC often winds up conditioning too much and finishing the applicant’s application. It should be complete at the point it comes in.
YES: E. Kalbac, D. Lytwynn, S. Trueb, A. St. Louis
NO: R. Tulis
ABSTAIN: L. Dion, B. Goodale
Motion passes.
2. File #2001-01-Request for a regulation change to Sections 5.07.03.01 & 5.08.03.01. Stephen Amedy, applicant. (Received on 01/16/01, 14-day extension requested and approved, hearing on 03/27/01, decision by 05/01/01).
Discussion tabled.
3. File #2001-02-Request for a regulation change to Section 5.08.05.02.02 & 5.08.06.03.02. Stephen Amedy, applicant. (Received on 01/16/01, 14-day extension requested and approved, hearing on 03/27/01, decision by 05/01/01).
Discussion tabled.
4. File #2001-14-Application for a special permit for municipal school bus parking off Ruby Road (Map 42, Lot 49, 36.2 acres). Town of Willington owners/applicants. (Received on 02/06/01, hearing on 02/20/01, continued to 03/27/01, decision by 04/17/01).
L. Dion said there were a number of concerns about safety, and the commission can only speak to what was presented, not what was not presented. There will be safety concerns at any spot looked at for bus parking. The applicant appropriately addressed Lighting and siteline issues. Recommendations were made by DOT to address traffic issues and they were followed. There was a lot of proactive effort to address concerns that would have come up in any situation. He is a little disappointed with the BOE’s lack of comments. To only have minutes in the file dated July 2000; with nothing, commenting on the site as it is proposed today with improvements and details is disappointing. A lot of positive things have been done on this plan.
D. Lytwynn said there was a comment by Sue in the previous minutes about a semi-pervious surface in terms of spills. He would feel better with blacktop or concrete.
The commission discussed surfacing options.
E. Kalbac said he had had concerns about the sitelines, but feels they were addressed at the sitewalk. S. Trueb said any place they look at for this will have pros and cons.
S. Yorgensen said the commission must figure out if this application meets the regulations.
R. Tulis said whether or not there are other lots out there is irrelevant to this application.
A. St. Louis said he heard of lot of comments saying it was unsafe but there is no evidence to prove that other than the traffic study submitted by Mr. Bilodeau, and it still appears that this road is no more or less dangerous than any other place in town.
He would like to se signage conditioned. He asked about the censors.
The commission reviewed the lighting plan.
The commission reviewed possible conditions.
A. St. Louis said he feels the application meets the requirements and is complete. It is not ours to determine if another site is better. R. Tulis said he concurs that the application is consistent with the regulations.
S. TRUEB MOVED TO APPROVE FILE #2001-14-APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR MUNICIPAL SCHOOL BUS PARKING OFF RUBY ROAD (MAP 42, LOT 49, 36.2 ACRES). TOWN OF WILLINGTON OWNERS/APPLICANTS. (RECEIVED ON 02/06/01, HEARING ON 02/20/01, CONTINUED TO 03/27/01, DECISION BY 04/17/01), WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1) Plans shall be revised to show the maximum radius requirements as allowed by DOT
2) Increased siteline requirements shall be reflected on the plans
3) Snow removal plan shall be added
4) The oil/water separator shall be added to the plan
5) Pavement shall be an impervious surface
6) Applicant shall request from DOT approval for warning signs along both directions of Route 320
SECONDED BY A. ST. LOUIS. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
DISCUSSION:
None.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
R. TULIS MOVED TO ELECT A. ST. LOUIS AS COMMISSION CHAIRMAN AND E. KALBAC AS COMMISSION SECRETARY, EFFECTIVE APRIL 17, 2001.
SECONDED BY L. DION. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
L. DION MOVED TO ELECT R. TULIS AS COMMISSION VICE-CHAIRMAN, EFFECTIVE APRIL 17, 2001.
SECONDED BY E. KALBAC. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
B. GOODALE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:45 P.M.
SECONDED BY D. LYTWYNN. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
| 
