PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 2008
Present: Regular members Anne Kosciusko, Dave Colbert, Lynn Cheney, Chris Hopkins, Rick Lynn and Alternates Heidi Kearns and James LaPorta and commission staff Karen Griswold Nelson.
Absent: Pat Hare and alternate Emilie Pryor.
Chairman Anne Kosciusko called the meeting to order at 7:45 P.M. All regular members were seated and alternate members allowed to participate in all of the proceedings.
PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED:
App # 208 - Harry R. DePolo applicant/owner - Special exception for the location of a new structure and septic outside of any buildable area on a pre-existing lot of record as per Article IV, paragraph 4 – corner of Route 128 and Dibble Hill Road.
The entire proceedings were recorded on audio tape and are available in Town Hall.
October 12, 2008 correspondence from Northeast Consulting was made part of the record.
Attorney Manasse addressed concerns as to the request by the commission for review of erosion and sedimentation controls (E&S) by the commission’s consulting engineer, Richard Calkins from Northeast Consulting, stating his belief that the commission did not have purview over the E&S control plan for the subject lot. In support, Mr. Manasse referenced State Statute 22A-329 which empowers Planning & Zoning commissions as to their general purview over Erosion and Sedimentation (E&S) controls and Section 7 of the Cornwall Zoning regulations that precludes the commission from purview over E&S controls plans for a single family residence (7.2) and areas of disturbance less than ½ acre (7.3). Mr. Manasse suggested that his client’s concerns were related to the cost of the review fee for the E&S control plan that the commission did not have the authority to require, the possibility of putting the applicant in a position of requiring additional permitting by the Inland wetland commission and/or being in violation of the Inland wetlands commission approval. Mr. Manasse stated his applicant’s wishes not to be in a jurisdictional “conflict” between the Inland wetlands commission and the Planning & Zoning commission.
In response to questions raised as to possible “conflict”. Mr. Manasse addressed those areas that he felt were additional “boiler plate” language that Mr. Calkins suggested be added.
In response to comments from Ms. Griswold Nelson as to the P&Z commission’s purview over E&S controls in general based on the status of the application as a “special permit”, Mr Manasse expressed his disagreement, pointing out that his interpretation of the Section 4 was that the lack of specific language in that particular article of the regulations as to compliance with general and specific standards for all special permits was planned. Mr. Manasse suggested that the language in Section 4.2 and 4.4 showed that the reason for the special permit status of the application was solely related to determination that there was no buildable area and that the area chosen for the site development most closely conformed to the buildable area requirements.
Mr. Manasse addressed comments in the Northeast Consulting letter that raised questions regarding the flood overlay zone with confirmation that such information had been made part of the record (dated July 25) with supporting information resubmitted for commission review. Mr. Manasse suggested that the Route 125 end and intersection of Dibble Hill Road was much lower than the record site and that therefore issues of flooding were negated by the location of the road. There was clarification of the physical boundary of Mill Brook being the southerly boundary line of the actual property and the coding of the brook and its physical dimensions (10 feet wide??) on the plans.
Mrs. Kosciusko addressed language in the regulations that supported her belief that the application was a “special permit” and that the commission was correct in its request for information and review of the E&S controls and its right to set conditions for the plan of the site. Mrs. Kosciusko cited language from the Article 8.5 subsection 2 of the regulations that state that “for all special permit applications, “the Commission shall take into consideration the protection of public health, safety, welfare and property values”. In response, Mr. Manasse maintained his stance that the lack of specific language incorporated into Section 4 of the regulations did not support the commission’s right to address the general standards for all special permits. Mr. Manasse suggested that many of the standards were not all appropriate to this application and addressed other sections of the regulations relating to the special permit that he felt supported his findings.
Mr. Manasse, addressing the erosion and sedimentation control plan supplied, suggested that the Northeast Consulting review overall showed that the plan as supplied was not entirely inadequate but that the plan lacked language that he found should be included. Reiterating that the application had wetlands approval, with proper noticing, Mr. Manasse addressed his concerns with conflict between the Planning & Zoning commission and the Inland wetlands commission and the burden upon the applicant to return to the Inland wetlands agency for additional permitting.
Returning to the issue of “conflict” between the land use agencies, and with reiteration from Mr. Lynn that the application was for a “difficult lot in a highly sensitive area” (“and a highly visible are”- Kosciusko) and that the commission was appropriate in having concerns regarding water quality protection, Mr. Manasse addressed certain comments in the review including maintenance of grass height at 4 to 6 inches, removal of sediments etc that he felt might be areas of conflict. It was suggested by staff that the Inland wetlands commission had paid closer attention to the area of the site between the house and the stream and that the review was more comprehensive in addressing the entire site. In response to questions, it was stated that the reasoning behind the “buildable area” regulations was related to hillsides, sensitive areas and land disturbance and not density.
Mr. Manasse and the commission reviewed other details of the plans and the Northeast Consulting review including the construction of the home over a tree stump as approved by the building Official, the installation of erosion and control blankets for disturbed areas, and modifications to the culvert at the road edge, etc. Final agreement between staff, the commission and Mr. Manasse was that many of the areas of perceived conflict were not issues as the supervision of the site during construction allowed changes in the field to address site conditions at the recommendation of either the design engineer or the Zoning/Inland wetlands enforcement officer, all changes allowed without returning to the Inland wetlands Commission for approval. It was also agreed that the connection to the town road was under the purview of the highway department and the Board of Selectmen, that appropriate changes could be made in the field under their supervision and with agreement from the Land Use Office and that the request for the curb cut prior to wetlands approval was a procedural issue relating to past issues with driveways.
With basic agreements that concerns had been satisfied, the floor was opened to the public. No one from the public spoke in favor or in opposition to the application.
By action of the presiding chairman, Mrs. Kosciusko, the hearing was closed at 8:45PM.
By unanimous approval, the order of business was changed to address Agenda item 4A prior to all other business.
App # 208 - Harry R. DePolo applicant/owner - Special exception for the location of a new structure and septic outside of any buildable area on a pre-existing lot of record as per Article IV, paragraph 4 – corner of Route 128 and Dibble Hill Road.
The commission opened discussion of the application with direction given to staff that a draft motion of approval be written and that a special meeting be scheduled for 7PM and prior to the October 28th workshop meetings.
REGULAR MEETING:
1. APPLICATIONS FOR ZONING PERMITS.
#765- Suzanne & Joseph Di Rocco – additions and interior modifications to an existing house including the addition of one new bedroom – 197 Town Street
#766 – Sam Waterston - Construction of a 16’ x 60’ single story animal run-in shed, no water service, with electric solar collectors on the roof- 92 Great Hollow Road. Permit approved.
#767 – Pierce Kearney applicant/Phillip Taafe owner – Relocation of a driveway to an existing single family residence – 66 Cogswell Road.
#768 – Mary Daley applicant/owner – Construction of a garden/storage shed – River Road. Permit approved.
#769 – Noushin Ehsan - accessory apartment attached to an existing single family residence – Day Road. Special permit granted and permit approved.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. June 24th regular meeting, July 8th and July 22nd regular meeting, August 7th special meeting, September 9th regular meeting.
Motion Mr. Colbert, second Mr. LaPorta to approve the minutes of the June 24th regular meeting as presented: approved Mrs. Kosciusko, Mr.’s Colbert, Lynn and. LaPorta.
Motion Mr. Colbert, second Mr. Lynn, to approve the minutes of the July 22 regular meeting as presented: approved Mrs. Kosciusko, Cheney and Kearns, Mr.’s Colbert, Hopkins, Lynn and LaPorta.
Motion Mr. Colbert, second Mrs. Cheney to approve the minutes of the August 7th meeting as presented: unanimously approved.
Motion Mr. Colbert, second Mrs. Cheney to approve the minutes of the September 9th meeting with corrections: including regular meeting agenda item 2, approval of the May 27 meeting to include Mrs. Kosciusko and Mr. LaPorta as being in attendance and show approval of the minutes by Mrs. Kosciusko and Mrs. Kearns and Mr.’s Colbert, Hare, Hopkins and LaPorta, to state “none” after agenda 3, New Applications and to show DePolo application continued to October 14, after Agenda item 4B; unanimous approved.
3. NEW APPLICATIONS: None.
4. PENDING APPLICATIONS:
App # 208 - Harry R. DePolo applicant/owner - Special exception for the location of a new structure and septic outside of any buildable area on a pre-existing lot of record as per Article IV, paragraph 4 – corner of Route 128 and Dibble Hill Road.
Discussed after closing of continued public hearing. Deliberations and decision scheduled for a special meeting on October 28, 2008
5. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED.
OTHER BUSINESS.
After discussion, Mr. Colbert was charged with addressing the word “more”, as found in the newly adopted open space regulations, with town planner Tom McGowan.
Ms. Griswold Nelson advised the commission that review of the Leahy driveway was moving ahead.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by unanimous vote to adjourn at 9:35PM; unanimously approved.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Griswold Nelson