PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 10, 2011

Present: Regular members Pat Hare, David Colbert, Heidi Kearns, James LaPorta, alternate Josh
Tyson, commission staff Karen Griswold Nelson and commission planning consultant Tom McGowan.
Absent: Regular member Chris Hopkins, Emily Pryor and alternate member Buddy Hurlburt.

PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED:
App#214 – Allied Engineering Associates applicant/Stephen Hart property owner – Special exception for the siting of a single family resident outside of the buildable area on a flag lot created by the combination of a pre-existing non-conforming lot (with frontage on Railroad Street) and a rear parcel (with no frontage) with driveway access from Railroad Street – Article IV- paragraph 4.4 - Assessors Map H03 – Block 3 – Lots 10 and 20 – Railroad Street.
Chairman Pat Hare called the public hearing to order at 7:05 P.M. in Cornwall Library with a quorum established. Mr. Tyson was seated for the proceedings. Mr. Hare, referencing written communications from staff, stated that the following had been part of the record:
Revised plans submitted to the Land Use office on May 9th, 2011
May 10th “review correspondence and comments from Lenard Engineering
Mr. Hare addressed the continuation of the hearing at the April 12th regular meeting to the May meeting by the Commission in the form of a motion, therefore negating any requirements to re-publish a legal notice or re-notice abutting property owners. Mr. Hare addressed staff’s request that the hearing be opened and continued so as to allow input from the applicant and public comment. Mr. Hare addressed the submission of additional information required by the Commission as part of their consideration including but not limited to a report from the Inland wetlands commission and additional information requested by Lenard prior to a final review being rendered. In response to a request for the continuation to be submitted in writing, property owner Stephen Hart submitted a written request for the continuation to staff.
George Johannesen, PE and principle from Allied Engineering Associates and representative for Mr. Hart, addressed the proposed revised plans submitted to construct a single family residence on the 10.08 acre site, clarifying shaded areas shown with grades of less than 25%. After giving a brief overview of the progress of the application, from the original application to the revised plans submitted, Mr. Johannesen pointed out information on the new mapping supplied in response to concerns expressed by the Commission regarding the amount of disturbance on the original plans being “too much”. Noting that the town’s consulting engineer, Lenard Engineering, had previously expressed concerns regarding “global stability” of the slope on the site, Mr. Johannesen addressed soil testing on the site showing good granular soil but observations of water weeping out of bank when the banks were cut into. Mr. Johannesen addressed the new revised plans showing the house site moved down the site by 200 feet Mr. Johannesen addressed components of the revised site design, including the construction of retaining walls (16 feet high in areas), a rip rapped swale on the uphill side of the driveway and a modified design for water management including a modified underground detention system to address the interception and handling of ground water run-off. Mr. Johannesen stated that the modified plans would result in less water going downhill. In response to questions from Railroad Street abutting neighbor Nick Xatzis (from the audience) as to the amount and impact of water ultimately going into the railroad culvert, Mr. Johannesen gave an overview of the investigation of drainage patterns on the site and the revised plans designed to intercept, slow down and ease water going down the hill towards downhill residences and the road. In response to questions from Mr. Xatzis, Mr. Johannesen outlined the types of information used in the design of the overall water management system including peak run-off flows and bell curves.
Mr. Johannesen addressed the pros and cons of the proposed design, pros being the reduction of overall disturbance and better water management from the proposed swale in the driveway and cons being the new home now looking down on two residences and the amount of fill needed for the construction of the retaining wall and the reduction in areas to use the fill from that process. Stating that he was seeking the Commission’s thoughts and directions, Mr. Johannesen expressed his wishes to keep part of the revised plan (lower part of the water management system), move the home site back up the hill so as to reduce visual impact to the surrounding neighbors (“maintain privacy”) and redesign the driveway, giving an overview of the re-design of the site and the driveway including the retaining walls for the upper location.
In response to questions from Mr. Colbert as to lack of review by the town’s engineering consultant for the current plans and the new plans being proposed, Mr. Johannesen suggested that the details of any revised plans could be worked out between engineers.
In response to the revised plans, Mr. Hare questioned if the revised plans, shown with a detention basin capturing any increased portion of the run-off, answered his concerns as to the reduction of risk to the downhill neighbors. Mr. Johannesen suggested that any revised plans would provide the same safeguards, giving an overview of the design.
Mr. Tyson raised questions regarding the information for the size of the proposed detention basin with response from Mr. Johannesen as to the type of technical information used, including an extensive drainage report submitted for review to support his design.
Mr. McGowan, addressing all of the options posed, asked for clarification that Mr. Johannesen was supporting the move back up to the upper site based on visual impact tied to the retention of vegetation as well as the reduction in disturbance to the site. In response to questions regarding the topographical difference between the location of the house on the original and the upper site re-proposed, – Mr. Johannesen, stating that the difference, 35 feet higher, would result in better screening and preservation of existing vegetation and trees. Mr. McGowan, noting that trees could be cut, suggested that to ensure the preservation of trees, that it should be considered a condition of approval. In response to Mr. Johannesen’s summary of areas of preservation, Mr. McGowan, suggested that Commission was dealing with a trade-off based on the presumption that the screening could be saved. Mr. McGowan addressed the lower site, in his opinion, as proposing “less disturbance” (Section 4.6) and addressed the language in the regulations, (Section 4.4) that addresses “most closely conforms to the buildable area requirements”. In response, Mr. Johannesen pointed out that the new site would be include the small area of land less than 25% slope as shown on the plans. Mr. McGowan re-addressed language in Section 4.6 that addresses “less grading and “other disturbance to the natural environment”
Mr. McGowan stated the Commission could clearly see that the site proposed closer to the road proposed less grading and less disturbance. Mr. McGowan questioned if the house located further up the slope protected a natural feature or scenic vista, both also shown in 4.6b as criteria for consideration. Mr. McGowan re-addressed the Commission’s purview and need to use the criteria as stated in both 4.4 and 4.6 in their consideration.
In response to the information being considered, Mr. Hare directed Mr. Johannesen to provide information on sight lines and profiles for the next meeting, with note made by Mr. McGowan that the information should show both with and without vegetation, noting the propensity of owners of “big houses” to remove trees to get the best view that they can achieve. Mr. McGowan suggested that any consideration was contingent upon the commission’s engineer agreeing to the re-design of the driveway.
Mr. Colbert addressed Mr. Johannesen as to whether he agreed with Mr. McGowan assessment that the house being located farther back proposed more disturbances. In response, Mr. Johannesen suggested that he was not in total agreement, deeming the two sites as close
Mr. Colbert questioned if the commission’s consulting engineer should be part of the process in the consideration of the matters being discussed and questioned whether the preservation of a scenic view applied in this case.
Mr. Tyson addressed the details of the site development in terms of the amount of material to be used or removed from the site for the construction of the retaining walls and accessway, with discussion of the 300 cubic yard threshold relating to both plans.
In response to comments made, Mr. McGowan suggested that the location on the upper site with a longer driveway would result in more water coming down the swale and being delivered to the detention basin. Mr. Johannesen disputed Mr. McGowan’s point with Mr. McGowan raising concerns as to Mr. Johannesen’s assessment of the site conditions, citing issues as to the increase in the amount of impervious surface impacting the amount of water on the site. Mr. McGowan noted that Lenard Engineering was still questioning the matter of infiltration on the site as shown in the latest review document.
Mr. LaPorta posed questions as to whether the downsizing of the eight bedroom house and the location and re-sizing of the septic system was being considered. In response to Mr. Johannesen’s note that the septic system as shown was approved, Mr. McGowan suggested that if the special permit was approved with the septic system as shown, that any changes would require a modification of the special permit and the site plan.
Mr. Hare suggested that both Mr. Johannesen and Mr. Hart were seeking a sense of direction this evening. Noting an email from Lenard Engineering to Griswold Nelson and forwarded to the Commission giving an overall assessment of the current status of the application, Mr. Hare suggested that final plans and reviews be available one week before the meeting.
Mrs. Kearns addressed the size and approval of a site plan for an eight bedroom house “with a gigantic footprint” and whether that was a factor of consideration.
In response to questions as to the status of the application, Griswold Nelson addressed conversations with Mr. Hart regarding the need for additional review money and the understanding between the Land Use Office and Mr. Hart that the money was forthcoming quickly.
In response to the overall application, Mr. Colbert stated that he would be more favorable towards a scenario that proposed a smaller disturbance to the natural environment.
Mr. LaPorta addressed a more conservative approach, noting that both plans proposed an eight bedroom house. Stating that he had walked the site that day, Mr. LaPorta commented on the steepness of the slope and the “global impact” being discussed by the Commission’s consulting engineer not just related to drainage but to the steepness of the slope and the amount of disturbance. Mr. LaPorta addressed the amount of traffic needed to construct the eight bedroom house as having impact to the neighborhood, suggesting that the option of a smaller house and smaller footprint should have been the first consideration. Mr. Johannesen addressed the reasoning behind the larger house. Mr. LaPorta, in an overview, re-expressed his wishes for the consideration of a smaller overall footprint including a smaller house and septic, adding the “less that you go up there, the less impact”.
Mr. Hare stated, from a neighbor viewpoint, that he would have concerns as to the amount of construction vehicles needed to develop the site and construct any house and septic.
In response to the continuation of the hearing, Mr. Hare requested that the site be staked one week on advance of the June P&Z meeting.
Griswold Nelson addressed May 10 correspondence to Mr. Hart showing her belief that the site was basically stable but requesting that no additional traffic be on the site. (Letter made part of the file)

Mr. McGowan addressed several points to be considered as part of the consideration of the higher site: 1. The applicant and his engineer had to be entirely confident that the more remote location being proposed would result in less grading and 2. The natural vegetation would remain to shield the neighbors and that a condition of approval would be in place to ensure that the natural vegetation remain. Addressing the language of Sections 4.4 and 4.6, Mr. McGowan stated that if such factors could not be assured, that the Commission could not entertain the more remote location as it would not comply with the criteria as stated. Mr. McGowan pointed out that the applicant was suggesting that the higher location would satisfy all of the criteria stated and that it was the Commission’s call as to the determination of compliance with the language. Mr. McGowan stated that while conceptually he could see the Mr. Johannesen’s reasoning that he had still had issues with it.
Mr. Hare addressed additional information that he felt was necessary as part of any approval, including a landscaping plan, sight lines showing the neighbors downhill and plans for the preservation of trees to protect the view. Mr. Hare addressed the direction of the Commission and the determination by Commission members as to “less grading” in conflict with Mr. Johannesen’s assertions. Mr. McGowan and Mr. Hare addressed the work to be done by the applicant and his engineer to address the open issues including the determination of “less grading”.
The floor was opened to the public for comment
Joe Gwazdauskas, Railroad Street addressed the limited nature of Railroad Street (“barely holds a pick-up truck”) and the location of septic systems in the area.
Josh Tyson, in response to comments from Mr. Gwazdauskas, based on personal knowledge of the area, addressed the septic system under and near the road and any issues associated with passage over those systems. There were questions and clarification as to where Railroad Street was considered public and/or private, and a discontinued town owned right of way and the history of the three lots of record as part of the application.
Ruth Ellen Griffin, Railroad Street, urged the Commission to take their time in the matter.
Mr. Hare summarized the additional information needed for the continued hearing, listing the following: 1. Landscaping conditions to show areas of tree cover or replanted areas to ensure that existing houses were visually being shielded and protected, 2. Sight lines from neighboring homes, 3.Information to show difference between the disturbance of natural areas between the two proposals and 4. Consideration of smaller footprint house reflecting smaller septic and construction footprint. Mr. Hare suggested that construction traffic and other “good neighbors” issues should be considered. Mr. Hare stated that in addition, one week prior to the meeting, the plans were to be in the hands of both engineers and both proposed sites were to be staked out as well as the areas of the septic. Mr. Hare raised the concerns expressed by Mr. Tyson as to protection of the septic systems in the neighborhood with suggestions by Mr. Tyson and Mr. Hare as to the consideration of protective measures.
Nicholas Xatzis addressed the amount of time and money that Mr. Hart had invested in the application and the saleable attributes that Mr. Hart had considered in his site development. Mr. Xatzis, noting concerns regarding impact to his house, questioned how enforceable conditions of approval were.
In response, Mr. McGowan re-addressed Section 4.4 and 4.6 as those factors that the Commission had to consider in their approval of the application, addressing his belief that the Commission had limitations in conditioning the application unless they used the language of 4.6 that allowed the Commission to consider other factors in the siting of the house and septic outside of the buildable area. Mr. McGowan addressed various solutions for ensuring the protection of trees, including easements held by a third party with the right to enforce. Mr. McGowan noted that deed restrictions, unless enforceable by a third party, are useless in they are void after 23 years and require court action by neighbors to enforce.
Discussion ensued between Mr. Hare and Mr. Stephen Hart (in the audience) regarding the consideration of a third party (the Cornwall Conservation Trust) holding the easement.
Mr. Stephen Hart addressed his ownership and development of the site over recent years, his lifelong residency in and around Cornwall, and the costliness of the process to construct his home and develop the balance of the site.
Mr. Johannesen re-addressed the Commission for direction, questioning if the consideration of a smaller footprint home (4 bedroom house) was more easily approvable with direction from Mr. Hare that the Commission had given clear direction for consideration and that any final options were between the applicant/owner and his own engineering representative.
Motion made by Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mrs. Kearns, to continue the hearing to the June 14th regularly scheduled meeting: unanimously approved.

Based on the attendance of a representative in the audience for agenda item 5A, the agenda item was moved prior to all other business.
5. A. Lot line adjustment – Adam and Charlotte Van Doren Property/Bradford Road.
Information made part of the record included a map prepared by Russell J. Moresi, P.L.S. #12667, entitled “Boundary Line Adjustment Map G11 Block 4, Lot 10 prepared for John and Mira VanDoren, dated April 11, 2011, “Affidavit in re Survey Town of Cornwall” and draft of “Boundary Agreement between John VanDoren and Mira VanDoren and Adam and Charlotte VanDoren”.
Attorney Christopher Dakin, legal representative for the VanDoren’s was in attendance to represent the matter. Attorney Dakin reviewed the information as referenced with commission members and staff with agreement that the information submitted, including the sealed affidavit, was appropriate and that the Mylar should be filed on the Land records.

ZONING MEETING:
1. APPLICATIONS FOR ZONING PERMITS.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. March and April, 2011.
Deferred until after Correspondence and Communications.

3. NEW APPLICATIONS:
A. App. #215 Strobel Enterprises applicant/owner– Special Exception for a change of use on Route 7 from manufacturing of cabinetry, millwork and furniture to manufacturing of steam shower units– Sec 15.8 – “Nonconforming Uses Located on Route 7”– 240 Kent Road.
Griswold Nelson advised the Commission that the complete file for Special exception App. #212 approved for James Batterton Sr. applicant/Strobel Enterprises owner for a change of use on Route 7 from millwork to motorcycle repair and conversion as per Sec 15.8 – “Nonconforming Uses Located on Route 7”, same address, 240 Kent Road, was being made part of the new application by staff.
Motion made by Mrs. Kearns, seconded by Mr. Tyson, to set App#215 for hearing at the June 14th regular meeting: unanimously approved.

B. App. #216 Dermot Woods applicant/owner – Special Exception for an attached accessory apartment – 370 Kent Road.
Motion made by Mrs. Kearns, seconded by Mr. LaPorta to set App#216 for hearing at the June 14th regular meeting: unanimously approved.

4. PENDING APPLICATIONS.
A. App#214 – Allied Engineering Associates applicant/Stephen Hart property owner – Special exception for the siting of a single family resident outside of the buildable area on a flag lot created by the combination of a pre-existing non-conforming lot (with frontage on Railroad Street) and a rear parcel (with no frontage) with driveway access from Railroad Street – Article IV- paragraph 4.4 - Assessors Map H03 – Block 3 – Lots 10 and 20 – Railroad Street.
No discussion.

5. OTHER BUSINESS PROPER TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
A. Lot line adjustment – Adam and Charlotte Van Doren Property/Bradford Road.
See above.
B. Meeting attendance and consideration of bylaw changes.
Mr. Hare addressed the recent discussion of poor meeting attendance and its impact on applications, such as the Hart application, that required action by a quorum of members in attendance at multiple meetings. Mr. Hare advised the Commission that Chris Hopkins, regular member and commission secretary and regular member Emilie Pryor had advised him of their intent to resign, based on their inability to be in attendance at meetings. Stating his wishes to amend the bylaws to better address attendance, discussion ensued as to bylaw language that would encourage commission members to resign if they could not attend 50% of all meetings. The Commission discussed procedures for emails to all commission members one week before meetings, the courtesy of response and record keeping of meeting attendance. Based on the any amendment to the bylaws requiring a two thirds vote of the entire voting membership of the Commission after the proposed change being read and discussed at a previous regular meeting, the bylaw amendments were to be revisited and acted on at the June meeting. It was also noted that Article V, Section 1 that provides that regular meetings are to be held on the second Monday of every month at 8PM at the Town Offices should also be amended to show meetings on the second Tuesday of the month at 7PM in the Cornwall Library.

Futerer correspondence for Zoning permit submitted by Karen Casey.
Mr. Hare provided draft correspondence prepared in response to the Futerer discussion at the April meeting. Commission consensus was that the letter reflected the findings of the Commission and should forwarded to Mrs. Casey and or Kelly Futerer by staff on commission letterhead.

C. Election of vice chairman and secretary.
With note made by staff that until original resignation letters were received by the Town Clerk, both Mrs. Pryor and Mr. Hopkins remained Commission members in good standing:
Motion made by Mrs. Kearns, seconded by Mr. Colbert, to nominate Mr. LaPorta as vice chairman to replace Mrs. Cheney. Hearing no other nominations, Mr. LaPorta, by unanimous vote, was appointed vice chairman.
Election of commission secretary deferred.

Referring to May 9th email correspondence to Commission members and the Land Use office, Mr. Hare addressed his request for conference funds from the Land Use budget “education and mileage fund” to attend an invitation from Rails to Trail to attend an invitation only "Urban Pathways Conference" in Cleveland. Mr. Hare stated that the request for $224.00 will cover the balance of the cost of the conference, meals, and a place to stay and $300 in travel expenses. Griswold Nelson advised the Commission that the Land Use funds allocated for education and travel expenses were shared by all Land Use boards, including the ZBA and the Inland wetlands Commission, and staff and that the request would be forwarded to the ZBA and Inland wetlands agency chairman for their consideration.
Motion made by Mrs. Kearns, seconded by Mr. LaPorta to recommend that $224.00 from the Land Use education and mileage fund be paid to chairman Hare for his attendance at the Urban Pathways Conference: unanimously approved.

6. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED.

Approval of minutes.

Motion made by Mr. LaPorta, seconded by Mr. Tyson, to approve the minutes of the January 11th, 2011 special meeting with the correction of the last section of agenda item 5A to read “ it was agreed that the Commission referred to Special Permit 123 for definition as to the permitted uses for the property. The Commission acknowledges an undated correspondence between Cornwall’s land use office and attorney Herbst which confuses rather than clarifies the matter. Accordingly, Land Use staff was to prepare a draft letter showing the Commission’s findings, conditions and sign-off for the uses as acknowledged.” unanimously approved.

Motion made by Mrs. Kearns, seconded by Mr. Tyson, to approve the minutes of the February 8th special meeting with typos corrected by staff: unanimously approved.

Motion made by Mr. Kearns, seconded by Mr. Tyson to approve the minutes of the March 8th special meeting as presented; unanimously approved.

Motion made by Mrs. Kearns, seconded by Mr. Colbert to approve the minutes of the April 12th regular meeting with corrections agreed upon by staff and Mr. Hare: unanimously approved.

Griswold Nelson gave an overview of recent Outdoor wood burning furnace issues in Cornwall Village and in particular on the Ted and Donna Larson property.

PLANNING MEETING
Workshop meeting to include but not be limited to discussion of the following with commission members: Residential housing options and Accessory apartments (review of amendments proposed and consideration of setting amendments for public hearing.
Chairman Hare addressed the consideration of moving forward on residential housing option regulations similar to those discussed by Granby, CT town planner Fran Armentano last summer. Mr. Hare suggested that a Request for Proposal be prepared and published and that a chosen 3 finalists be paid $200.00 each to come and discuss their proposals with the Commission. The matter was to be revisited with questions raised by staff as to the method being proposed.

7. ADJOURNMENT.
Motion by action of the chairman to adjourn at 9:30PM; unanimously approved.

Respectfully submitted,
Karen Griswold Nelson