PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 12, 2010
Present: Regular members Pat Hare, Lynn Cheney, David Colbert, Heidi Kearns,
James LaPorta, Alternate Emilie Pryor, commission staff Karen Griswold Nelson
and commission planning consultant Tom McGowan.
Absent: Chris Hopkins, Buddy Hurlburt and Josh Tyson
Chairman Pat Hare called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. in the Cornwall Library with a quorum established. Alternate Emilie Pryor was seated for regular member Chris Hopkins.
PUBLIC HEARING:
App. #212 – James Batterton Sr. applicant/Strobel Enterprises owner
– Special Exception for a change of use on Route 7 from millwork to
motorcycle repair and conversion – Sec 15.8 – “Nonconforming
Uses Located on Route 7”– 240 Kent Road
The entire proceedings were recorded on audio digital recorders and are available
in Cornwall Town Hall.
The legal notice for the public hearing as published in the Waterbury Republican
on September 30th and October 7, 2010 and the list of the following exhibits
was read into the file by Ms. Griswold Nelson
Draft letter sent to abutting neighbors
Site Plan entitled “Property of Strobel Enterprises LLC, 240 Kent Road,
Lot 1 – Existing Site Plan as noted, dated 11/7/1997 revised to 2/17/2009
with additional information showing floor plans and site particulars of the
Strobel properties not under consideration as part of the application
Floor plans “lower level 1 and lower level 2 – marked “Area
subject to change of use”
Detail of zoning map showing Aquifer protection boundary relating to 240 Kent
Road Route 7
State of Connecticut DEP Bureau of Materials Management – “Used
Oil Fact sheet #7”
Information showing “Double wall waste oil tank”
Information showing “Bio-solv” Acetone replacement
State of Connecticut DEP Bureau of Materials Management – “Used
Oil Fact sheet #3”
Copy of Section 14.54 b of the Connecticut General Statutes, and pertinent
sections of the Zoning regulations, Section 15.8 “Non-conforming uses
located on Route 7”, Section 16 definition of “hazardous material”,
Section 6- “Site plan requirements” and Section 8. 5 – “General
Standards” for special exceptions”.
The floor was opened to the applicant, Mr. James Batterton Jr., and his representatives.
Attorney Peter Ebersol Jr., legal representative for Mr. Batterton, submitted
notice of receipts of certified mailings to abutting neighbors, a “Statement
of Use” and a “Consent of Landlord” into the record. Mr.
Ebersol gave an overview of the application, referring to site plans on file
showing the proposed use to be located in the southerly lower half of the
exiting building on the 2.3 acre site. Mr. Ebersol stated that the proposed
space, accessible only from the rear, had a concrete floor and no drains,
both pieces of information relevant to the protection of spills from the vehicles
to be converted. Mr. Ebersol stated that the proposed operation would result
in no changes to the exterior of the existing building with no outside display
of vehicles. Mr. Ebersol read the “Statement of Use” into the
record, adding to the information as stated in the document and referencing
additional information relating to the disposal of oil and hazardous material
by a licensed disposal agency, all information made part of the file. Mr.
Ebersol clarified that the Zoning map and research by Land Use staff showed
that the building was outside of the Aquifer Protection Zone.
Kenneth Hrica, PE and licensed land surveyor with an office in Litchfield,
and engineering representative for the applicant, addressed the environmental
impact of the proposed application, citing his extensive experience in automotive
related applications, including Center Subaru in Torrington. Mr. Hrica addressed
the differences between the application under consideration and other applications
requiring additional DEP permitting due to waste water disposal i.e. car washing
and outside parking. Mr. Hrica submitted “Pit Stops facts sheet”
prepared by the DEP as a guidance document for best management practices in
this and similar applications relating to the vehicle service industry. Mr.
Hrica, referencing DEP references to DMV requirements and “unannounced”
inspections, addressed the application, in his opinion, as being suitable
to be in an aquifer protection zone even though he acknowledged that this
is not the case in this application. Mr. Hrica addressed the controls in this
application based on its location within a building with all waste being hauled
away by a state licensed waste hauler.
Mr. Ebersol re-addressed inspections by the DMV, noting the lack of supervision
in other facilities with similar practices such as farms. Mr. Ebersol submitted
a landscaping plan for the record and then addressed the application overall
as relating to and satisfying the general standards of all special exception
applications as stated in Section 8.5 – “General Standards”
(for all Special Exceptions) of the Cornwall Zoning Regulation. Mr. Ebersol
stated that as part of the approval process, the commission would have to
make a finding to the effect that, “citing wording in Section 8.5 paragraph
6, “A use involving the storage, use or disposal of hazardous materials
shall be permitted only where the commission has determined that the proposed
use will not pose a threat to ground water quality, nor cause or result in
air pollution. Such determination shall consider the type of use, the amount
and type of hazardous materials involved and the adequacy of plans submitted
by the applicant for hazardous material use, storage and disposal”.
Mr. Ebersol stated that signage for the application would comply with all
regulations but was asking that the issue be revisited as part of a separate
application for signage on the site.
The floor was opened to the Commission for comments. In response to question
from Mrs. Cheney as to how he road tested his trykes, Mr. Batterton clarified
that test drives were not short drives up and down Route 7 but a 150 to 200
mile extended drive. In response to questions and concerns from Mr. Colbert,
there was extended discussion as to the definition and interpretation of “Hazardous
materials” as defined in Article XVI, based on the wording ‘substance
or combinations of substances which because of quantity, concentration or
physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, poses a significant present
or potential hazard to water supplies or to human health if disposed into
or on any land or water, including groundwater, in the town” and “
Hazardous Materials also include, but are not limited to; under General listing
–Petroleum products, including fuels and waste oils.” With input
from Mr. Hare as to his wishes to have the town’s consulting engineer
address the matter, and with a request from Mr. Ebersol that planning consultant
McGowan address the matter, the matter was discussed with Mr. McGowan interpreting
the determination of a substance as a “hazardous material” as
relating to “quantity”. Mrs. Kearns used her PDA to access the
State of CT. DEP website and read from their regulations that motor oil is
not, per se, a hazardous material.
Mr. McGowan, noting that the area was not part of the Aquifer Protection zone
and that the Commission had been supplied a statement of use and other specifics
and information relating to the matter of waste oil management and petroleum
products being used, addressed factors to be considered, including the number
of vehicles, the fact that the operation was not a franchise, that there was
to be no refinishing or repainting of vehicles and no channeling of waste
oil or cleaning materials into a sink or a septic system. Mr. McGowan suggested
that conditions to address any areas of concern could be considered as part
of any Special Exception approval.
The floor was opened to the audience. No one from the audience spoke for or
against the matter.
Prior to the closing of the public hearing, there was clarification by staff
that the Commission would have to address the application in compliance with
all applicable sections of the regulations, including compliance with Site
Plan Criteria (as prescribed in Article 6), General standards for all special
exception (as prescribed in Article 8.5 - “General Standards”)
and Article 15.8 – “Nonconforming Uses Located on Route 7.”
Motion by action of the Chairman to close the public hearing at 8:25 PM.
REGULAR ZONING MEETING:
1. APPLICATIONS FOR ZONING PERMITS.
#836 – Nauneet Kathuria – 17’ x 20’ screened porch
with entry to basement – 38 Flat Rocks Road.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. August and September meetings.
Motion made by Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. LaPorta to approve the minutes
of the August meeting(s) as presented; unanimously approved.
Motion made by Mr. LaPorta, seconded by Mrs. Cheney, to approve the minutes
of the September
meeting with correction “Charles “Duke” and Elizabeth “Lolly”
Besozzi were in attendance to address the matter” on page 3 to be removed:
approved Messrs. Hare and LaPorta and Mrs.’s Cheney and Kearns.
3. NEW APPLICATIONS:
A. Cornwall Housing Corporation – Amendments to Section 8.25.1.c., “Town
or Non-Profit Sponsored Affordable Multi-Family Housing” to change limit
from six units to ten units per single building.
Motion made by Mrs. Kearns, seconded by Mrs. Cheney to set Amendments to Section
8.25.1.c., “Town or Non-Profit Sponsored Affordable Multi-Family Housing”
to change limit from six units to ten units per single building for public
hearing at the December 14, 2010 regular meeting: unanimously approved. There
was clarification as to the amendments requiring a 35 time period to be reviewed
by the municipal planning agency as the application constituted a request
for changes to the Zoning regulations and not a specific application.
4. PENDING APPLICATIONS.
A. App. #212 – James Batterton Sr. applicant/Strobel Enterprises owner
– Special Exception for a change of use on Route 7 from millwork to
motorcycle repair and conversion – Sec 15.8 – “Nonconforming
Uses Located on Route 7”– 240 Kent Road.
After polling by the Commission as to the wishes by Commission members to
act on the application that evening or delay action until the November meeting,
Mr. Ebersol and Mr. McGowan worked on a draft motion for approval to be considered
by the Commission that evening.
5. OTHER BUSINESS PROPER TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
A. Re-Review of “Statement of Past Uses” – 131 Kent Road
The matter was to be re-visited based on the request of staff.
B. Sign issues – Cornwall Bridge.
Mr. Hare addressed complaints received by Mr. Ron Hummel, Swifts Bridge Road,
Cornwall Bridge as to signage in Cornwall Bridge and the matter under the
investigation of Land use staff and the Office of the Selectmen. Griswold
Nelson, noting communications received from the Northwestern Connecticut Regional
Planning Collaborative for an annual “Pie and Planning meeting”
on October 25th in Falls Village, pointed out that information entitled “Village
Center Vitality – Zoning Strategies for Cornwall” listed the #1
Short term strategy as “Revise signage regulations to encourage coordinated
signage in Cornwall Bridge and West Cornwall” and Village Center Vitality
– Zoning Strategies for All Towns” listed the #1 Short term strategy
as “Evaluate and revise signage standards … including “allow
temporary sandwich signs”. Members were encouraged to attend the meeting
with the matter to be revisited.
6. CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED.
See agenda item 5.
PLANNING MEETING
Workshop meeting to include but not be limited to discussion of the following
with commission members
1. Planning priorities. (Colbert, Tyson, Hurlburt and Pryor.)
Document prepared by Chairman Hare entitled “Setting priorities for
PZC Planning Work – Direction from the Town Plan” dated October
12, 2010 was made part of the record.
Mr. Colbert, in response to his planning priorities, addressed his wishes
to move forward on Village District regulations. Mrs. Pryor addressed her
wishes to promote the creation of a list and mapping to establish priority
open space areas and baseline data, to encourage an annual town meeting as
stated in the Plan of C&D and encourage cross walks in village centers.
The Commission reviewed Mr. Hare’s document as prepared. As relating
to “Housing – establish a zoning fee for new house construction”,
it was suggested by Mrs. Kearns that $400,000 be considered with the overall
document to be revisited at the next meeting.
2. Discussion of proposed changes to the Zoning regulations for a. Accessory
apartments, residential conversion of older homes or structures and apartments
within business buildings and b. 1% funding for the affordable housing fund.
The agenda items were to be revisited.
The Commission amended the order of business to return to discussion of
PENDING APPLICATIONS.
A. App. #212 – James Batterton Sr. applicant/Strobel Enterprises owner
– Special Exception for a change of use on Route 7 from millwork to
motorcycle repair and conversion – Sec 15.8 – “Nonconforming
Uses Located on Route 7”– 240 Kent Road.
The Commission opened discussion on the application, with all information
as listed and made part of the record included in the consideration of the
application. It was agreed that the Statement of Use was to be modified to
read under “Limited Secondary Use” – “There will be
some sales of used and converted “trykes”.
Conditions of approval, as drafted and reviewed by Mr. McGowan and Attorney
Ebersol were made part of the consideration of approval with input as to changes
and additions. With note made that Commission members were or were not willing
to agree that used motor oil and other petroleum products are not being considered
hazardous materials because they were being properly managed based on the
amended “Statement of Use” and the record overall as presented
Motion made by Mrs. Kearns, seconded by Mr. LaPorta, to approve App. #212
– James Batterton Sr. applicant/Strobel Enterprises owner – Special
Exception for a change of use on Route 7 from millwork to motorcycle repair
and conversion – Sec 15.8 – “Nonconforming Uses Located
on Route 7”– 240 Kent Road” as the Commission has determined
that the Special Exception Application as presented complies with all the
criteria as stated for a change of use on Route 7 from millwork to motorcycle
repair and conversion as stated in Sec 15.8 – “Nonconforming Uses
Located on Route 7”, satisfies the Site Plan Criteria as prescribed
in Article VI and the General standards for all special exception (as prescribed
in Article VIII, subsection .5 “General Standards” with the following
conditions:
1. There will be no hazardous materials as currently defined by the State
of CT used at the premises.
2. No sale of new two wheeled motor vehicles. Sales of new and used trykes
and used motorcycles are permitted.
3. Any washing of tools and parts shall take place in a self contained unit
designed for environmentally safe cleaning.
4. No water or liquids shall be piped from the shop premise to a septic system.
5. The Planning & Zoning Commission shall be entitled to receive any reports
from the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles dealing with the premises.
6. No finishing (and or refinishing) or repainting of any vehicles.
7. The owner shall notify the P&Z of the current licensed environmental
disposal contractor and any changes to the contractor.
8. There shall be no “franchise” motorcycle dealership.
9. There shall be no outdoor washing of any vehicles.
10. The Use shall be conducted in accordance with the description and limitations
as specified in the “Statement of Uses” dated September 14, 2010
as submitted by the applicant and as modified by the above conditions.
As part of the approval, as stated in paragraph 6 of Section 8.5 – “General
Standards” (for all Special Exceptions) of the Cornwall Zoning Regulations,
the Commission has determined that the application as being approved according
to the site plan presented and the conditions as listed, does not pose a threat
to ground water quality, nor cause or result in air pollution.
Motion approved Mrs. Cheney, Kearns and Pryor and Mr. LaPorta. Mr. Colbert
abstained. Mr. Hare voted against the application based on his belief that
the application should have been reviewed by the Commission’s engineering
consultant prior to consideration. Motion approved by a majority vote.
The Commission returned to the Planning Workshop agenda.
Village District.
Document prepared by Tom McGowan entitled “Information on Village District
Zoning Regulations” dated October 11, 2010 was made part of the record.
Discussion ensued as to the information contained in the document. Questions
and concerns were raised with the agenda item to be revisited at the November
meeting.
3. Abandoned and discontinued roads.
The agenda item was to be addressed when Mr. Tyson was in attendance.
7. ADJOURNMENT.
Motion by action of the chairman to adjourn at 9:50PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Griswold Nelson. Land Use Administrator