TOWN OF WILLINGTON
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MARCH 19, 2002 REGULAR MEETING
St. Louis called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. at the Town Office Building, 40 Old Farms Road, Willington, CT.
Members Present: A. St. Louis, Chairman
R. Tulis, Vice-Chairman
S. Trueb, Secretary
D. Lytwynn
P. Nevers
T. Radell
Members Absent: R. Begansky
M. Ellis (alt.)
W. Goodale (alt.)
D. Palumbo (alt.)
Also Present: Gary Jones, Assistant Planning-Zoning Agent
Sue Nimerowski, Recording Clerk
PUBLIC HEARING
1. File #2002-6 – Request for a Zone Change at 61 Turnpike Road from Designed Industrial to Residential 80 and a Preliminary Site Development Plan (Map 45, Lot 6, 12.5 acres). Richard Dezso applicant, Mary Drew owner. (Received on 02/05/02, Hearing on 03/19/02, Decision by 05/21/02.)
St. Louis noted that according to the regulations under Chapter 12, the Commission can amend zone districts for the Town of Willington, or an applicant can request a change in the zone districts. He said this is the first request we have had of an applicant requesting that land revert back to Residential 80 from Designed Industrial. He said the applicant had a pre-application conference review. He said the applicant has to prove that his request will not affect the underlying zone, DI. St. Louis said a site walk was done on March 17 at 9:00 a.m. with Radell, Nevers, and himself present, and that Trueb has also walked the perimeter. He said Tulis is familiar with the area. He said the applicant will present information and then, one-by-one, commission members may ask the applicant
questions.
The applicant identified himself as Richard Dezso of 595 Tolland Turnpike, Manchester, CT. He presented return receipt slips to prove he has contacted the adjacent landowners. He said there are six abutting lots but two are owned by one person and two by another person. Mr. Dezso handed out a packet for each Commission member and one for the file. The applicant said the zone change map prepared by Datum Engineering shows the proposed house, driveway, location and boundary of property. He said his proposal was to change Lot 6 to an R80 zone. He first responded to several items in a February 8 memo from Gary Jones. He said the $25 fee had been paid prior to the date of the memo. He said that concerning the fact that no open space has been proposed, at this time the
property is not under his ownership – Mary Drew is still the owner. He said the open space requirements are for sub-divisions, and he didn’t think it was a major issue with residential property in town. He said the town’s POD is to promote the best utilization of land, and the best use for Lot 6 is to have an R80 zone applied to it. He said that concerning the boundary survey and abutters, the zone change map notes the abutting properties and the town hall map will be changed to show the abutters. The applicant named the owners of the abutting properties. He said an A-2 boundary survey was on file, handed in with the application. He said he would like the Board to approve the zone change map boundary information that he has without spending $2,000-$3,000 for another survey, since an A-2 is already on file. The applicant said he has contacted the First Selectman and Wes Beebe confirmed verbally that Turnpike Road Extension
is a town-owned and maintained road; he has asked them to submit this information in writing. He said the soil types are now listed. He said one of the effects the proposed change would have is concerning setbacks, with abutting properties requiring a different setback than at present. He said the properties on the NE side of Turnpike Road Extension would not be affected, but that 3 lots – 5, 6, and 26 – would be affected. He said that on Lot 5, there would have to be a 200 ft. distance between a driveway there and Lot 6; however, a brook runs for 300 ft. in the front of Lot 5, and where it ends would be a more desirable driveway location anyway. The applicant said that Ed Pelletier of Datum Engineering marked out 200 and 300 feet distances and the fact that a brook passes under Turnpike Road Extension is not an issue. He said that Section 4.04.02 regulates buildable area required for a lot, and because of the size of Lot 5, it would
no longer be a conforming lot. He said that on the other lots, there is still quite a bit of buildable area even within the proposed setbacks. The applicant addressed Section 4.14.01, buffers and landscaping, saying that at the discretion of the Commision, the landscaped buffer can be existing trees and bushes. He said that concerning sound pressure levels, an R80 designation for Lot 6 would require a slightly lower level for abutting properties; the maximum level would decrease from 79 to 72. He said the abutting properties would basically have to be quieter. The applicant said that concerning access roads, converting Lot 6 to R80 would restrict industrial access, but the road is designated a minor local street and so can’t be used for industrial access anyway, so this is not a hardship on Lot 5. He said that concerning signs, lots 5 and 26 could not have signs facing the R-80 zone -- Lot 6. He said that concerning future use of
surrounding areas including R80 and DI uses, he didn’t find anything that would affect the surrounding R80 properties.
St. Louis asked him why he would want to put a house near I-84.
Mr. Dezso answered that the proposed house site follows the contour of the land, he could have a walk-out basement, and the land provides enough area to plant a buffer of conifers to block out some of the sound. He added that there is not a significant amount of noise coming from the highway.
Mr. Dezso said only one power line crosses I-84 and it’s at this location. He said there are no houses on the other side of the highway, just woods.
Tulis complimented the applicant on his presentation, and then gave the history of the lots in the area of Turnpike Road Extension. He commented that the Town has not been hard-core in acquiring open space land. Tulis noted that the boundary survey was done in 1966, and since then State of Connecticut survey requirements have changed substantially; it would be in the applicant’s interests to have an updated A-2 survey done.
Radell said that concerning the requirement that a sign can’t face a residential lot, this would have to be checked out more thoroughly. He reminded the applicant that if and when a business starts making noise nearby, the applicant would have no recourse. He said that from walking the property, he couldn’t see how it originally ended up being Designed Industrial since there’s so much wetland and therefore so little buildable area.
St. Louis said that Turnpike Road was used as a demarcation line for zone lines.
Trueb said that on the subject of buildable area, he felt the applicant should only have to show 40,000 sq ft. of area on the existing DI lots. He said the proposed changes are affecting two properties and as long as the change doesn’t reduce the buildable areas, he would be agreeable to the zone change.
Nevers said he didn’t have any questions.
Lytwynn asked if Lot 4 was also DI, and the applicant replied yes, it’s not affected by the zone change request.
Radell said that due to the fact that there is a lot of wetland, the town wouldn’t want the property as open land.
St. Louis asked Mr. Jones if it would be acceptable to change a setback on someone else’s parcel. Mr. Jones replied that setbacks would change because the applicant is proposing to, in essence turning existing lot setbacks into zone setbacks which are more restrictive.
St. Louis recognized Herb Klei of 76 Turnpike Road, Lot 25 on the map.
Mr. Klei spoke of his concerns about the proposed change from DI to R80 for Lot 6. He said that when the DI was originally done, the Commission thought it would be a contiguous industrial zone. He said that a house would impact the development of the neighboring DI zone. For the sake of one building lot, Mr. Klei continued, we are “sticking a thumb” that will change the boundaries of adjoining properties and affect setbacks. He said another concern he had was that once a house is built, whoever lives there could object to the development of the industrial land. He said nice boundaries exist now, but changes in zoning would take away the “square-ness” of the area. Sometimes people have been interested in taking our house for industrial development, he said, and
the change would impact our property. He said he is very concerned about this. He asked if Zoning could “grandfather” setbacks in.
Gary Jones replied that the setback would be from the property line back.
St. Louis commented that when walking the site, he did notice the sight line from Turnpike Road Extension is no more than 200 ft. He said there is a very poor sight line when exiting Turnpike Road, inadequate for the speed of traffic.
Mr. Klei said his concern was that once you change Lot 6 to R80, another complication is in process. He said there’s not much DI land now, and now we’re going to take some away. He repeated his thought about the possibility of “grandfathering” setbacks in.
Richard LaBelle of 27 Fermier Road, Willington, said he didn’t see how the property could be used industrially. He said if it could be used for a home, in his opinion it was fine.
Trueb asked Mr. Dezso the size of the lot, and he answered 12.5 acres, approximately ¾ of which would be undeveloped due to wetlands.
St. Louis asked the applicant if he wanted to keep the public hearing open. He asked if there was anything further the applicant wanted to submit, and reminded the applicant that he could have no more input once the public hearing was closed. St. Louis said that with respect to comments from Mr. Klei, if it is possible to grandfather in setbacks for Mr. Klei’s property, he would be agreeable. .
Mr. Dezso reiterated his opinion that R80 is the best use for this property, and that having a tax base for a single residence is better than having a vacant lot there. He said he didn’t think an industrial facility could ever be put there.
Tulis asked Gary Jones if a zone boundary has to follow a property line. Mr. Jones responded that a property can have a zone line run through it but the most restrictive zone regulates the whole lot as far as uses go (Section 4.06).
Tulis said the applicant’s taxable area would be decreased if the wetland areas on the property would be permanently deeded to Willington for open space purposes.
The applicant replied that he would lose his garage in that case.
Mr. Jones said the applicant still might want to think about that option.
St. Louis said the Commission has a lot of information to review, and a decision won’t be made for another meeting or two. The applicant has to decide whether to close the public meeting tonight or keep it open.
The applicant said he would check with the assessor’s office to see if his taxable area would be decreased if the wetland areas on his property were permanently deeded to Willington for open space, and get it in writing if that was so.
Gary Jones said a conservation easement could be done. He told St. Louis that it would be in everyone’s best interest to keep the public hearing open.
Mr. Deszso said he would like the public hearing to be continued until April 2.
MOTION: To keep public hearing open until April 2.
By: Trueb Seconded: Lytwynn
Result: Motion passes unanimously.
The Commission had a break between 9:00 p.m. and 9:13 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
A. Call to Order
Chairman St. Louis called the Regular Meeting to order at 9:13 p.m.
B. & C. The same members were seated; the same members were in attendance.
D. Preapplication
Requesting a preliminary meeting to discuss a proposed subdivision. Rainbow Lakes, LLC.
No one was present to speak. Gary said he didn’t call Mr. Messier for tonight’s meeting.
Gary will notify him and put him on the Agenda for the next meeting.
E. New Business
1. File #2002-15 – Application for a Home Occupation located at 91 Luchon Road for a Massage Therapy Practice for Women (Map 18, Lot 10 & 10A, 1.9 acres). Carol Springer owner/applicant. (Received on 03/05/02, Hearing on 04/16/02, Decision by 06/18/02.)
There will be a Public Hearing on April 16 on this application.
F. Old Business
1. File #2002-1 – Application for a 2 Lot Subdivision located off of Potter School Road (Map 49, Lot 1A, 31.52 Acres). Leo A. Passardi Jr. and Roberta S. Passardi owners/Jeffrey R. Passardi applicant. (Received on 01/15/02, Hearing on 02/19/02, cont. to 03/05/02, Decision by 05/07/02.)
St. Louis said this application was continued and is now closed. The decision will be made by May 7. The final plans have to be stamped and sealed. The applicant has to come up with a stream belt or conservation easement. The parcel has to be deeded to the family.
Mr. Jones said the signed and stamped plans won’t come in until the mylars are done.
St. Louis noted the applicant has received Inland Wetland & Watercourses approval. He said the only question is the location of reserve. The applicant has received approval of the Health Department.
MOTION: To approve File #2002-1 – Application for a 2 Lot Subdivision located
off of Potter School Road (Map 29, Lot 1A, 31.52 Acres). Leo A.
Passardi Jr. and Roberta S. Passardi owners/Jeffrey R. Passardi
applicant plans entitled “Subdivision – Property of Leo A. Passardi
Jr. and Roberta S. Passardi, 5 sheets, Dated March 21, 2000 revised to December 26, 2001 with the following conditions:
· Final Plans and Mylars be stamped by a Connecticut Licensed
Surveyor and Connecticut Licensed Engineer
· Streambelt Reservation Easement or Conservation Easement approved by staff to be filed in the Town Clerk’s office.
· In accordance with Chapter 8, Section 12 a) of the Town of
Willington Subdivision regulations, the requirement for open space is waived provided the transfer of this property be to family members for no consideration and evidence of such provided to the Commission. Should the transfer be otherwise, the Commission shall void the Subdivision as allowed by Chapter 8, Section 12 a) of the Subdivision Regulations.
By: Trueb Seconded: Lytwynn
Result: Motion passes unanimously.
2. File #2002-6 – Request for a Zone Change at 61 Turnpike Road from Designed Industrial to Residential 80 and a Preliminary Site Development Plan (Map 45, Lot 6, 12.5 acres). Richard Dezso applicant, Mary Drew owner. (Received on 02/05/02, Hearing on 03/19/02, Decision by 05/21/02.)
The Public Hearing for this request is still open.
G. Minutes
Sue Nimerowski, Recording Clerk, offered these changes to the March 5, 2002 meeting: on pages 4 and 5, add the line “Result: Motion passes unanimously” after the motions. Tulis noted that on page 2, second to the last paragraph, “code-complaint” should be “code-compliant.”
MOTION: To accept minutes of March 5, 2002 meeting as amended.
By: Nevers Seconded: Radell
Result: Motion passes unanimously.
H. Correspondence
Gary Jones reviewed the correspondence.
I. Discussion
Tulis reported on the March 11 Action Forum, saying both the turnout and input were good. The next Plan of Conservation and Development (PoCD) meeting will be on March 26 with a workshop on April 3.
J. Staff Report
No staff report was given by Gary Jones.
St. Louis asked if Commission members felt ongoing study circles about Planning and Zoning concerns would be useful.
Gary Jones thought that would be something to address after the PoCD is completed.
Tulis suggested an open forum for land use issues.
K. Adjournment
MOTION: To adjourn the meeting at 9:44 p.m.
By: Nevers Seconded: Radell
Result: Motion passes unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Susan S. Nimerowski
Recording Clerk
.
| 
