Wednesday, May 26, 2010

ANNUAL TOWN MEETING & ANNUAL BUDGET MEETING
MAY 17, 2010

First Selectwoman Derrylyn Gorski called the Annual Town Meeting & Annual Budget Meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. There were approximately 100 in attendance. First Selectwoman Gorski began the meeting by having everyone stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

The First Selectwoman called for nominations from the floor for a Moderator. There was a motion by Carol Goldberg, duly seconded by Stephen Squinto to nominate Bill Blake. There were no further nominations. Unanimous approval.

Janet Brunwin, Chairwoman of the Board of Finance was introduced by Moderator Blake. She then introduced the Board members. Chairwoman Brunwin gave an overview of the proposed budget. The recommended budget is less than a 1 percent increase. The Board is recommending a 2 per cent increase in the mill rate or .55. To balance the budget there will be a $100,000 transfer from the General Fund. Going into the current year, we have a zero increase in real estate – little to no building is being done. Overall revenues after the property tax is built in came to a .6 per cent increase year to year. Capital expenditures have been kept to a minimum. Roads are very costly to repair. We will take our time and fully analyze the condition of the roads. The top ten worst roads could cost several million dollars to repair. We could bond, increase future budgets. Right now we have increased the budget for road materials in order to invest and maintain what we have.

We will be limiting new capital projects. $25,000 will be placed in the Land Acquisition.
For the last few years we have been using money from the general fund to balance our budget – not something that can be done for a long period. The average tax increase per household will be $132 – many will be more, many less. That is the average. The state deficit affects all of our towns and could affect us next year. In lieu of potential reduced funding from the state, both school districts have initiated ways to cut back. The Board of Finance along with the Board of Selectmen and Highway Foreman will continue to work on a plan to improve the condition of the roads. Costs can only be reduced so much. It is important to increase the revenue line. But the rest needs to come from economic development and finding other sources such as grants.

Craig Stahl, 285 Wooding Hill Rd – I still believe the major roads have been under funded by $300,000 for the past 6 -7 years and the current budget is short by at least $300,000 - $350,000 in order to keep the roads in good condition. We are probably about $1,000,000 short. Bonding is a short term solution but that line item needs to be increased. Also, $51,000 has been reserved for negotiations for union employees. Last year the town employees took a zero increase. Of the nonunion town hall employees, is each getting an equal percentage increase to that of the union employees?

First Selectwoman Gorski – The medical plan is changing and the employees are being asked to make contributions. Depending on what happens with the union negotiations will depend on what happens with the nonunion employees.

Mr. Stahl asked again if every nonunion employee would get the same percentage increase and was told “yes” by Town Counsel and First Selectwoman Gorski.

John Paul Garcia, 153 Fairwood Rd – Thanked Chairwoman Brunwin and the Board of Finance for their hard work on the budget. If student enrollment has gone down 18 - 20% in the last few years it seems the costs have not gone down accordingly. Who is looking into this and when can we expect some report?

Chairwoman Brunwin – We have no say in what the Board of Ed presents to us. We only have the right to say yea or nay.

Betsey Thornquist, 25 Oak Ridge Dr – That decrease in the number of students from 600 to 449 was not all in one year. Could you explain why the special education costs have risen?

Superintendant Connellan – This is due in part because the Federal Government was supposed to have provided 40% of excess costs for Special Education and the support has never risen above 11%. Costs have continued to increase and grants have declined. The number of students with disabilities has also increased – it tends to go in cycles. The cost for special education is higher than for general education.

Art Slicer, 70 Lacey Rd – worked in Special Ed. Towns put out monies first and then they get reimbursed. The school needs to work it out.

Allene Kelly, 208 Schaffer Rd – The state has legislated 18% on late tax payments. It is a problem when there are people who cannot pay their taxes. They don’t have the money to pay their taxes and then they are faced with the double burden of paying high interest on their taxes.

Dick Van Horn, 86 Crestwood Rd – Park & Rec has an out of pocket cost of $52,000. I thought it was a practice of the Bd. of Finance in the past to hold the out of pocket cost to below $45,000.

Chairwoman Brunwin- We do try but this year we have increased the minimum wage for the camp counselors and that is a big part of it.

Patricia Winer, 7 Carrington Rd – I see on the revenue side there is no state contribution listed for Special Ed in the current year or next year. Does that account for part of the increase?

Chairwoman Brunwin - That is an accounting thing. We used to include it in our revenue and then give it to the Bd. of Ed but going forward to make it simpler we are just including it in the Bd. of Ed budget.

Bob Boynton, 15 Rolling Green Rd – I support the statement made earlier that the road resurfacing budget needs to double. Right now you are funding about one mile of road per year. We have 70 miles of road which means we need to do 2 to 3 miles per year but you propose a budget that only has money for 1 mile. This is a bond issue. There are two parts to the road repair - drainage and road surfacing. If you bond 8 miles worth of road repair you will contract out both the drainage and road surfacing. Basically 6 or 7 years of neglect means we will pay $400,000 to $500,000 needlessly because you will not bond. How do you justify that?

Stephen Squinto, 16 Coachmans La – Bd. of Finance member – Asked who in the room tonight would support putting $350,000 into this budget for roads. Approximately half the people in the room raised their hand. If the town supports it, we will do it. What does that mean to the per cent increase to the budget?

Chairwoman Brunwin - $300,000 is about 5 mills. So that would be roughly 20%.

Gerard Osgood, 270 Sperry Rd – I suggest patching to keep the costs down.

Richard Barnes, 534 Bethmour Rd – We should hold back on costs. Repairs should be done properly as well as to the drains. Complained about the way repairs are being done.

The chairwoman stated that repairs should be done properly but the meeting is to vote on the budget.

B. Thornquist – If union workers are going to get an increase and the town hall employees will begin to pay into their healthcare then they will not get a raise but will take a reduction in salary and that is unfair.

Chairwoman Brunwin agreed and stated that the town hall nonunion employees did not get any raises last year.

A. Kelly commented that this is our A.T.M and each of us has the opportunity to have our voices heard.

Sharon Huxley, 340 Old Mill Rd – Town hall employees work extremely hard. We cannot afford to lose these people and that is what will happen if we pretend that they’re not as valuable to us as any other human resource that works in this town. There is someone there to answer your questions and they know what they are talking about.

Stuart Morgenstern, 17 Fairwood Rd - Can’t we cut spending instead of increasing taxes? Come back with a 5% cut in the budget. I urge everyone here to vote no and have the finance committee come back with a lower budget

Jim Gugliotti, 18 Beacon Rd - We get quite a deal for our money. Cutting back will be a shortfall down the road. The Board does a tremendous job. We need a highway dept., services in the building and education for our children. Services aren’t free.

Brendon Rieger, 25 Old Fairwood Rd – Are we actually generating less waste in this town? Is it down because people are recycling more?

First Selectwoman Gorski -We are delivering less tonnage to CRRA. The percentage of recycling is actually down. The conventional wisdom is that people generate less trash in a recession because they are not buying as much.

Marsha Sawdon, 164 Hilldale Rd - Why put money into the Land Acquisition this year? At the budget hearing it was said that maybe we would put $10,000 in this year rather than $25,000.

Chairwoman Brunwin -We have been funding the Land Acquisition Fund. I think $100,000 was put in the fund over the last two years. At the budget hearing there was a lot of concern about not putting anything in. At a town meeting there can be a vote to decrease but not increase – that was the rationale in putting $25,000 into the Land fund.

Item (1) on call – RESOLVED: That the recommendations of the Board of Finance upon the Budget for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010 amounting to $20,333,029 be, and hereby are accepted and approved.

S. Squinto – The funding for the road has been mentioned by several as inadequate. By a show of hands, it seems to me that a majority is favoring an increase. The Bd. of Finance needs to at least consider this but I’m not sure how to go about it.

Town Counsel McSherry – C.G.S. discusses how the budget needs to be prepared. It can be decreased but not increased. A special item like this can be increased in several ways. The budget can be voted down tonight and come back with another proposed budget that could bring an increase. The Bd. of Finance could ask for a Special Meeting to address a specific item - the roads, for example, put a specific number on the resolution and at a Special Town Meeting vote on that one item. You could propose borrowing the money, bonding or a special tax. No one wants a tax.

G. Osgood – What percentage will be allocated for repairs to the roads? It’s the cheapest preventative way to keep our roads in good condition.

B. Boynton - I will commit to voting for the budget if the road issue is separated out to be voted on at a special meeting.

First Selectwoman Gorski stated that she has consistently tried to put $400,000 - $450,000 into the budget for road repairs. Everyone agrees at the beginning of the budget process but in the end we try not to increase taxes – it is a big item. I have asked the Bd. of Finance along with the Highway Foreman to take a road trip down the top ten roads that need repairs. It is all a process and we will be doing this in a week or two. We will discuss it with our financial advisors as far as what is the best way to finance this. It will then go to a Special Town Meeting with options on how it can be done.

There were no further comments. The motion was called and duly seconded. Overwhelming yeas. Passed.

Item (2) on call – RESOLVED: that the Selectmen be, and hereby are authorized to expend from the Reserve Fund for Capital and Non-recurring Expenditures an amount up to the sum of $57,370 for the second of a three-year lease purchase of a dump truck by the Board of Selectmen for the Highway Department.

A.Kelly – wanted to know the size and type of the dump truck.

Highway Forman Green – stated that that information was given last year – the first year of the lease purchase.

There were no further comments. There was a motion to call the resolution to a vote. Overwhelming yeas. Passed.

Item (3) on call – RESOLVED: that the Selectmen be, and hereby are authorized to expend from the Reserve Fund for Capital and Non-recurring Expenditures an amount up to the sum of $62,800 for the fifth of five payments of a five-year lease purchase of a fire tanker truck and related equipment for use by the Bethany Volunteer Firemen’s Association.

A. Kelly – When will the town receive the deed to the small firehouse on Amity Road?

First Selectwoman Gorski stated that it will happen soon.

A. Green answered a question about the number of calls the fire department responds to. He said that there were approximately 450 calls per year - 25% fire calls, the other 75% medical calls.

B. Thornquist - keep conversation to the items we are discussing. If something else needs to be discussed it should be at the end – other items proper to come before the meeting.

There was no further discussion. A motion was made to call the resolution to a vote. Overwhelming yeas. Passed.

Item (4) on call – RESOLVED: that the Selectmen be, and hereby are authorized to expend from the Reserve Fund for Capital and Non-recurring Expenditures an amount up to the sum of $100,062 for the third of five payments of a five-year lease purchase of a fire pumper truck and related equipment for use by the Bethany Volunteer Firemen’s Association.

Dick Foley, 41 Pleasant Dr – Why vote down a lease agreement? We would be in default. The truck would be repossessed.

A motion was made to call the resolution. Overwhelming yeas. Passed.

Item (5) on call – RESOLVED: that the Selectmen be, and hereby are authorized to expend from the Reserve Fund for Capital and Non-recurring Expenditures an amount up to the sum of $59,879 for the second of three payments for breathing apparatus for use by the Bethany Volunteer Firemen’s Association.

There was no discussion. A motion to accept the resolution was made and duly seconded. Overwhelming yeas. Passed.

Item (6) on call – RESOLVED: that the Selectmen be, and hereby are authorized to expend from the Reserve Fund for Capital and Non-recurring Expenditures an amount up to the sum of $20,000 to replace smoke heads in Bethany Community School by the Board of Education.

A. Kelly – this item should have been in the Bd. of Ed budget not a separate line item.

There were no further comments. A motion was made and duly seconded to call the resolution to a vote. Overwhelming yeas. Passed.

Item (7) on call – RESOLVED: that the Selectmen be, and hereby are authorized to expend from the Reserve Fund for Capital and Non-recurring Expenditures an amount up to the sum of $5,000 for chimney repair to the Bethany Town Hall by the Board of Selectmen.

There was no discussion. A motion was made and duly seconded to call the resolution to a vote. Unanimous. Passed.

Item (8) on call – RESOLVED: that the Selectmen be, and hereby are authorized to expend from the Reserve Fund for Capital and Non-recurring Expenditures an amount up to the sum of $10,000 for Town Hall security system by the Board of Selectmen.

Carol Goldberg, 5 No. Humiston Dr – encouraged everyone not to let the resolution pass. Maybe we should wait another year to pass.

S. Huxley – Haven’t we paid for this more than once in our taxes?

Chairwoman Brunwin stated that there is a balance in the capital fund that this $10,000 will be added to.

First Selectwoman Gorski – Certain doors will be keyed. We will have a little more control over who is coming in and out of town hall rather than an alarm system because too many people would have to know how to operate it.

S. Huxley commented that her point was that we have already paid for a system in the past and why are we doing it again.

D. Van Horn – How can you use a previous appropriation and apply it for something else? Chairwoman Brunwin said it is still being used for town hall security.

A. Slicer – it was appropriated for security and didn’t get spent. The insurance will be renegotiating when you put the alarm system in and the insurance should decrease substantially.

S. Sqinto – this system is a little less about burglary and more about who is in the building at a certain time – a different level of security.

Mike Okrent, 11 Prince Dr – I have been organizing Earth Day for the past four years and every year there are tables missing. The town replaces the tables but they are not always returned.

First Selectwoman Gorski stated that the building is open from 9:00 a.m. – 11:00 p.m. On the weekends the building is used for many events. This will give us an indication of who is in the building and who might be using the tables as well. It is for when the building is closed. It is a way to provide some security.

There was no further discussion. A motion was made and duly seconded to call the resolution to a vote. Overwhelming yeas. Passed

Item (9) on call – RESOLVED: that the Selectmen be, and hereby are authorized to transfer $25,000 from the General Fund to the Land Acquisition Fund.

M. Sawdon – I think that we should consider lowering the amount from $25,000. It is a little excessive to put into the Land Acquisition this year given the poor economy.

Chairwoman Brunwin pointed out that it would be coming out of the General Fund not this year’s budget so it would not affect the mill rate.

A. Kelly – Might need to level off the spending since we may need to tap it next year.

M. Sawdon – made a motion to amend the amount for Land Acquisition from $25,000 to $10,000.

J. Foley – asked if it would result in a tax savings. No.

S. Wade, Litchfield Tpke – Our rural beauty is so important. I support the $25,000.

Bruce Loomis, 11 Sabrina Dr – I support as much money as we can put into the fund. We need to be ready whenever an opportunity to pick up land comes along so we can act on it.

A motion was made and duly seconded to reduce the amount to be transferred from the General Fund from $25,000 to $10,000.

Brian Eitzer, 11 Carriage Dr – also in favor of the $25,000 amount.

D. Van Horn asked how much is in the fund now. $400,000.

The motion was called and duly seconded to amend the amount to the Land Acquisition Fund from $25,000 to $10,000. Overwhelming nays. Defeated.

The original motion to transfer $25,000 into the Land Acquisition Fund was called and duly seconded. Overwhelming yeas. Passed.

Item (10) on call - RESOLVED: that the Selectmen be, and hereby are authorized and empowered to enter into agreements on behalf and in the name of the Town of Bethany with the Department of Transportation of the State of Connecticut for the expenditure of funds available to the Town of Bethany during the 2009-10 fiscal year for the maintenance, repair and the building of roads.

A motion was made and duly seconded to amend the resolution to read 2010 – 2011. The motion was called. Overwhelming yeas.

The Moderator called the motion as amended. The motion to call the resolution to a vote was duly made and seconded. Overwhelming yeas. Passed.

Item (11) on call - RESOLVED: that the reports of the Town Officers, Boards and Commissions for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008 as contained in the printed 2008-09 Annual Town Report to be accepted and ordered filed.

There was a motion made and duly accepted to approve the resolution. The motion was called. Overwhelming yeas. Passed.

Chairman Brunwin Commented that she would like to make a correction on additional expenses to the mill rate that she had made earlier. The additional expenses of $60,800 is equivalent to a .1 increase in the mill rate not 5 mills.

A. Kelly – the condition of the main stair case at town hall is a hazard. Made a motion that the special meeting called to report on the condition of the roads also include the cost of repairs to the stairs at town hall.

First Selectwoman Gorski stated that it is already scheduled to be repaired.

Item (12) on call – Other matters proper to come before the meeting.

There was no further discussion. There was a motion, duly seconded to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



Nancy A. McCarthy
Town Clerk
Special Town Meeting
Airport Study Committee – Project funding
April 26, 2010

First Selectwoman Derrylyn Gorski called the Special Town Meeting to order at 7:18
p. m. There were approximately 125 in attendance.

The First Selectwoman called for nominations from the floor for a Moderator. There was a motion by Pat Martin, duly seconded by Madeline Slicer to nominate Steven Thornquist. There were no further nominations.

The Moderator read the notice of the meeting. He then introduced Ruth Beardsley to give the details of the December meeting and the questions that were asked that will be addressed tonight.

Ruth Beardsley stated that she had been a member of the Airport Steering Committee that met in the fall of 2005 and the spring of 2008. Following are the questions from the December 2009 meeting:

Why renovate the airport hangar? Short answer – we need more space. There are many times that planned activities in the gym must be displaced because of meetings. There are many groups and activities that need additional space, especially indoor recreational space. Per First Selectwoman Gorski, the population of the town has increased ten per cent over the past ten years. We have increasing demands for use of facilities by all user groups and some groups that would like to be users but are not.

What is the capacity of the proposed building? It will fit approximately the same number as the town hall gym.

What is the estimated annual revenue? Revenue breakdown is – cell tower, $22,000; rentals, $3,600; additional future programs - $14,390. Total projected revenue is $39,990.

What are the estimated operating costs? Operating costs breakdown is – heating, ventilation, AC, $5,500; electric, $5,700; telephone, cable, alarm, $1,500; fire extinguisher inspections, $600; well and septic maintenance, $500; cleaning supplies, $1,000; pest control, $300, custodial, $15,600. Total estimated operating costs is $30,700.

Is there a place to display art and memorabilia? Yes, a small gallery in the foyer, as well as the facility being used for temporary shows.

Could the building be increased in size to accommodate other sports, i.e. volleyball, basketball? The architects stated that the building may be lengthened by 15 ft which would add
approximately $240,000 to the overall cost. The sidewalls may be raised by 3 ft increasing the height across the span of the room for approximately an additional $40,000.

Aileen Magda, 28 Deerfield Lane – What has been done with the cell tower revenue to date?

R. Beardsley – the money was placed in a “sinking fund” for the airport through 2007. It was then placed in the general fund but could again be placed into a “sinking fund”.

A question was asked as to where the numbers came from for the Stats on the number of persons attending events. Numbers were for people who registered for Park & Rec programs. Has there been a change in the numbers of repeaters? The number hasn’t changed but there has been an increase in new attendees.

Ann McDonnell, 5 Rowe Ct.- What is a sinking fund? A fund that money was put into and set aside.

Craig Stahl, 285 Wooding Hill Rd – Will the $14,390 under revenue be counted as Park & Rec income and if so what Park & Rec expenses will go against that? It’s good to show the income but also to show where the money is going. How much is going to the airport, how much to Park & Rec and what would be Park & Rec’s expenses?

Dawn Brinton, Park & Rec Director – I put in what the program expenses would be - $8,255.
The $14,390 is a net number.

Melissa Spear, 350 Amity Rd – Isn’t twelve days low for the rental income?

D. Brinton – This building is so overused that we have to turn people away. We are not expecting to charge town organizations to use the hangar. The twelve days – one per month – is for individuals. We don’t know how much that will be so we estimated on the low side.

Alex Hutchinson, 76 Luke Hill Rd – What percentage of the time do you think the building will be used for town programs?

D. Brinton – Right now I estimate about 30% by Park & Rec and 20% by other civic organizations.

Sharon Huxley, 340 Old Mill Rd – The way I see it the $22,000 is already being used and if it is taken out of the general fund then the tax payers will have to put it back in. So it should not be counted right now.

D. Brinton – I know that the $22,000 is already being used for things at the airport. We will still continue to do that. We are not trying to take that $22,000 away from maintenance and other expenses at the airport.

George McDonnell, 5 Rowe Ct – If the $22,000 is in the general fund and you take it out what money is going to go in to make up for this projected revenue? Where will it come from to make up for the short fall in the budget?

First Selectwoman Gorski – The purpose of the revenue from the cell tower was to offset the cost of maintaining the airport property. We do not need to use that money. We can take it off and then it will be a cost of roughly $17,000 to operate the facility. Lake View Lodge currently costs the town approximately $20,000 to run the facility because we do not charge fees to many of the organizations who use it on a regular basis - Lyons Club, VFW, etc. This will be another facility where they can meet and it will cost a little less than Lake View Lodge. Lake View Lodge does not have a revenue producer whereas the airport has the cell tower. That money until 2007 had been intended to be spent on maintaining the airport property. For example, the horse rings and viewing stand could be repaired with that money.

Dick Van Horn, 186 Crestwood Rd -You are always going to have the cell tower revenue and it is not realistic to put it in on the revenue side. Whether we build the structure or not we will still get the $22,000.

Bob Grosso, 39 Farm View Rd – How much does it cost to maintain the current hangar? Why are you comparing costs to Lake View Lodge?

D. Gorski – The current hangar isn’t costing us anything. We were trying to compare this building which will not be occupied all the time to Lake View Lodge which is empty unless someone requests its use to give a realistic number. We rent Lake View Lodge to private individuals roughly (mainly town residents) 2 – 3 days per month and the cost to the town is approximately $20,000. This facility will actually have more flexible uses and I think Dawn was just being conservative in her numbers.

Madeline Slicer, 70 Lacey Rd – When the cell tower was approved I remember that the revenue was supposed to be used to maintain the airport property and somehow it has gone from the airport to the general fund.

Tom Hunt, 809 Carrington Rd – Is Lakeview Lodge self sufficient right now? D. Gorski - No, it cost the town roughly $20,000. T. Hunt - If some of the expenses are offset there then they can be offset at the hangar, as well.

C. Stahl, 285 Wooding Hill Rd – I notice that for horse show revenue you are showing $1,200. Does that mean that nonprofit groups that are currently using the airport for no charge are now going to have to pay?

D. Brinton –The $1,200 is for two Park & Rec sponsored horse shows - Harvest Festival and one other that we always talked about doing in July. We are not trying to compete with other nonprofits in town. The kitchen facilities will also be available to nonprofit groups at no charge.

C. Stahl – We are currently in a situation where we cannot maintain our roads. I question whether in five, ten fifteen years the town will be able to afford to maintain another building.

Russ von Beren, 134 Wooding Hill Rd – When the cell tower was built, the estimated revenue was $5,200. Basically at that time the only thing the money was being used for port a potties. Another transmitter was put up later on and so the revenue has increased to $22,000. Why keep letting the money build up when it is not requested to be used (for the airport)? $1,800 per year was put aside for port a potty use and the rest was placed in the general fund.

Richard Barnes, 534 Bethmour Rd – I think this building may have a negative effect on the Lake View Lodge activities, attendance and usage.

Betsey Thornquist, 25 Oak Ridge Dr - When does the operating cost kick in and if we don’t do this how much will it cost to demolish the structure?

First Selectwoman Gorski -If we are approved tonight, we will be giving the committee approval to seek funding to raise $2,000,000. We do have the Steap Grant from the state and we have five years to spend that and so five years to raise the $2,000,000. If we do not use it in five years we will lose the money. The $200,000 Steap Grant is last money so it cannot be used to start the project but can be used for leverage in terms of appeal and the fact that it has garnered state funding. To demolish the existing hangar would cost between $56,000 and $80,000. There are chemicals, etc. that would have to be taken care of in an environmentally safe way. If the project is not approved that will come up next year.

Audrey Eisenstadt, 35 Rainbow Rd – We are talking about demolishing and building a new building yet the title is renovation and restoration? They are two entirely different things.

First Selectwoman Gorski - We are keeping the slab and foundation walls and the restoration part is just the feel of the hangar building.

Shelly Losty, 24 Gaylord Mountain Rd – People without children will want to know what the building will have for them. What about other revenue? This is an expensive proposition. Some city halls have movies, events and charge for these. There is nothing being referenced for our older residents.

D. Brinton – we are trying to add on to what we already offer to the town. It would free up the town hall for other organizations to use the building. It is not part of the revenue but is already in the Park & Rec budget. Most is adult oriented such as Bethany Play House.

S. Losty – Park & Rec usage is 30% and other organizations 20%. What about the other 50%? I think we need to work out other ways to bring in revenue for the other 50%. Dawn stated that the town is open to suggestions.

Pat Martin, 107 Cheshire Rd – it’s always good to underestimate any revenue. The building is very attractive and unique and because of that a lot of groups will want to use the building. It would be hard to predict what the revenue might be but it is part of our history and to lose it would be a very sad thing. It is a modest cost and I think it would be a mistake to let it go. There’s a good possibility that the revenue will be strong.
Paul Manger, 43 Bethmour Rd - How is it proposed to raise the $2,000,000 and what happens if we can’t?

First Selectwoman Gorski - The committee interviewed two different fundraising organizations and talked about doing a capital funds drive. They would work with the committee within the town to identify individual donors as well as foundations. First they would do a feasibility study to determine whether it can or can’t be raised before moving forward.

A. Slicer – We are moving toward the building being restored and that is the permission that we are asking the town to give. We have had two major fundraisers come into the town to give presentations and based on preliminary studies the group feels that $2.2 million is not going to be a problem even in these poor economic times. They will not go forward unless they are assured that they will be able to raise the money. They look for large donors in the town and feel that 10% of the people will give 60 - 80% of the project – professional businesses, corporations and individuals. The next area will be business and industries and then they will go to foundations and grants and then public events. There is a multitude of ways to raise the funds. If they believe they cannot make the money within a reasonable amount of time they will stop the project.

Marc Adelberg, 29 Mesa Dr - What are the dimensions of the main room? 30’ X 70’. With an additional 15’, 30’ X 85’. Ceiling height is 29’ in the middle. Volleyball court size can fit into that. Basketball could be for fun but too small for a game.

Alex Smith, 355 Downs Rd – What is the shell coated with? I think that it has a 30 year warranty. You can not repaint it or remove the corrosion. The shell is only guaranteed for 30 years and then you will have to throw it away.

A. Slicer – The actual extension of the building will be 16’ and will be raised on a 3’ higher foundation. The steel building that is going up states 62’ wide, 24’ high and 86’ in length. The cost for construction of that part of the building is $123,980. The building has been up for over 50 years. It is not true that it will need to be thrown away after 30.

Randy Raddatz, 22 Bethridge Rd – I see kitchen revenue listed for $3,600 but the kitchen itself is not in the recommended budget. The numbers would be more like 2.6 million rather than 2.1 or 2.4 million. If you are going to put the kitchen in, put the expenses for the kitchen in and if you are not going to recommend the kitchen, take the revenue for the kitchen out. Do we retain all rights to anything of that airport? For example, we would not as fundraising sell off the facade to Bradley Airfield Museum?

A. Slicer - We retain that. Nothing would be given over for some of the potential funding either for a museum or for a corporate. Town Counsel stated that it would have to go to a contract and therefore a town meeting. So the answer is no.

Stuart Morgenstern, 17 Old Fairwood Rd – Between revenue and expenses I see a loss to the town every year between $12,000 and $13,000 – the cost to run this facility. It seems to be the worst economic time to be doing this project. It seems we are spending money frivolously. We should use what we have and return the $200,000 to the state. Let’s lead by example.

Shakaut Khan, 15 Rainbow Rd – just a clarification. The revenue is $39,000, costs $30,700. We expect that there will not be additional taxes?

Bruce Hescock, 160 Humiston Dr- When does the clock start on the grant? It started January 1. So we have less than five years. What about paving? Art stated that is all included along with landscaping.

Country Maron, 61 Russell Rd – This is watershed property. What kind of accommodations are there for containing waste from going into ground water?

Liz Smith, 355 Downs Rd – One comment about my husband. He has been a design engineer for Sikorsky for twenty-eight years. He knows what he is talking about. Are there any other paid personnel besides the custodian? No.

A. Magda – How much will the new pavilion at Veteran’s Park cost and will it have a kitchen?

First Selectwoman Gorski – The pavilion at Veteran’s Park is an open pavilion, not a closed facility. The kitchen would support any activities on the field. No kitchen will be installed until we raise money to do so. Basically it will supply shade and there will be lavatories, as well. That project was done through the same grant program but a different project. The Steap Grant was for $400,000 and $94,000 was used from the LOCIP fund (local capital improvement program) which again is grant money. No town money was used.

Nancy Tellgmann, 21 Ridge Rd – Have we projected the cost to maintain the building? Have the costs for cleanup been factored in?

D. Brinton – the custodial costs are for twenty hours a week. And that is for organizations other then Park & Rec. Park & Rec has cleaned up before and will do so at this building also.

S. Huxley – You are talking about the kitchen, 15’ extension and sidewalls being optional. Who is going to make a decision about whether these are done? Who is going to manage the fund? Who is going to manage the project? The people of the town are not always involved when grant money is being spent.

A. Slicer – Whether to amend or add on to the project will go to a Town Meeting. There will be a fundraising committee but all the money will come to the town.

First Selectwoman Gorski - We have an Accountant that comes in monthly and looks over the books and we have an auditor that will follow the whole project. A separate account will be established, the Bd. of Finance will review it. It will come in as a designated fund and go out as a capital expenditure. As far as the project manager, we are not ready to build it yet. If we raise the money, at another town meeting, we will come back with all of the particulars and options and we will go through this process again. There is enough interest in the town to go forward and seek funding so that we are not using Bethany taxpayer dollars.

John Boyce, 103 Peck Rd – The structure is long overdue for replacement. There is nothing about the present structure that is historic. The Bethany Airport is historic – it had the distinction of being the oldest airport in Connecticut until it closed in 1965.

A Slicer – The quansat hut is not historical but it is representative of the airport so that if we want to we can preserve the building on a landmark site. There is historical value and there will be opportunity to display items.

R. vonBeren – There are so many priorities that should be done before this project. There are roads and guard rails that need be done. The Central Firehouse? The Town Hall?

Moderator Thornquist – This money cannot be used for roads. It is a different fund entirely.

Lucy Painter, 40 No Humiston Dr – Why wouldn’t we be delighted to take advantage of an opportunity to acquire much needed space for the town? Why do we dwell on the economic situation today when it is all private money, and not town money?

June Riley, 32 Tuttle Ct- Our local parish has raised half a million dollars to restore and work on Christ Episcopal Church and that was only among church people. I don’t think it is impossible to raise the money.

Robert Grosso, 39 Farm View Rd – Has the town checked into taking out an annuity to increase the donations that the town might receive?

A. Slicer – that would not have been a part of our charge. We just felt that the town was growing in need for more facilities, not only for children but for adults as well.

Irma Nesson, 50 Oak Ridge Dr – The town is growing and we are all doing better. We have hard working committees who have done their homework and we can do this project and offer more to all of the townspeople. What is the problem?

B. Thornquist – If we don’t seek funding (and that will not cost us money), then we will just tear the building down (and that will cost us money). Before moving forward, will there be a town meeting to decide? Yes.

Don Shea – made a motion to vote by written ballot, duly seconded.

S Losty, Gaylord Mtn Rd – In favor of project. The town needs to engage people of all ages and to preserve a piece of history.

There was a motion by Shelly Losty, duly seconded to put the question to a paper ballot. In favor - 64 Against – 60. Passed.

There was no further discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



Nancy A. McCarthy, CMC
Town Clerk
Board of Selectmen
May 24, 2010
Page 1 of 2

Attendance: First Selectwoman Derrylyn Gorski, Selectman Steven Thornquist, Selectman Donald Shea
First Selectwoman Gorski called the meeting of the Board of Selectmen to order at 7:40 p.m. The meeting was held in the Conference Room of the Bethany Town Hall. Check signing was the first order of business. First Selectwoman Gorski asked all to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

AMEND AGENDA
First Selectwoman Gorski called for a motion to amend the agenda by changing approval of minutes of the meeting of April 26, 2010 to approval of the minutes of the meeting of May 10, 2010. The motion was moved by Selectman Thornquist and seconded by Selectman Shea. The vote taken was unanimous.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 10, 2010 was moved by Selectman Thornquist and seconded by Selectman Shea. The motion was called. The vote taken was unanimous.

AMEND LOCAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FIVE YEAR PLAN
Selectman Shea moved to amend the Local Capital Improvement Five Year Plan to list the Pavilion at Veterans’ Memorial Park for the years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 and to authorize First Selectwoman Derrylyn Gorski to provide any and all documents required for the Office of Policy and Management for the Town to seek reimbursement for the $140,600.00 grant for the Pavilion. Selectman Thornquist seconded the motion. The vote taken was unanimous.

TAX REFUND
Selectman Thornquist moved to refund to East Coast Lawn Service the sum of $2.32 and to William Phillie the sum of $2.94 all for overpayment of taxes. Selectman Shea seconded the motion. The vote taken was unanimous.

CORRESPONDENCE
The Selectmen received correspondence from the Bethany Planning and Zoning Commission. In a letter dated April 12, 2010 regarding the proposed amendments to Bethany Floodplain Management Regulations the letter states in accordance with the Connecticut General Statutes, the letter is to serve as notification that the Bethany Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing pertaining to the proposed amendments to the Bethany Zoning Regulations pertaining to the Floodplain Management Regulations, as required by the State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection for compliance. A draft copy was included of the amendments to be made. Selectman Shea also a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission gave a brief report about the hearing.

STOP SIGN REQUEST
Due to a recent accident involving Roseann Polydys’ husband and son, Roseann is requesting that the Board of Selectmen look into the possibility of placing a stop sign on Bethmour Road going westerly where it intersects with Pole Hill Road. The Board of Selectmen will turn this request over to Resident Trooper Merriam for further study of this location, with his recommendation to improve safety at this location.




ADJOURNMENT
Adjournment was called at 8:15 p.m. after a motion was moved by Selectman Thornquist and seconded by Selectman Shea. The vote taken was unanimous.


Respectfully submitted,


June G. Riley
Secretary, Board of Selectmen
Attendance: First Selectwoman Derrylyn Gorski, Selectman Steven Thornquist, Selectman Donald Shea
Guests: Robert Brinton Jr., Janet Brunwin, Alan Green
The special meeting of the Board of Selectmen was called to order at 4:00 p.m. The purpose of this meeting was to inspect town roads and evaluate their condition. The group boarded the Senior Bus driven by Alan Green, Highway Foreman for this inspection trip.

With the information gathered from this trip a report will be prepared and estimated costs of repair will be calculated

The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,


First Selectwoman Derrylyn Gorski

Monday, May 24, 2010

MINUTES OF THE BETHANY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR
MEETING OF MONDAY, MAY 10, 2010 Page 1 of 6

The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order at 8:26 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the Bethany Town Hall, 40 Peck Road, Bethany, Connecticut.

The following Board Members were present:
Carol Goldberg, Chair
Ruth Beardsley, Vice Chair
Steven Massey, Member
James Gugliotti, Member
Bradford Buchta, Alternate Member, seated as a member
Michael Hendrick, Alternate Member
Ben Rosenbloom, Alternate Member

Also present were:
Isabel Kearns, Zoning Enforcement Officer
Karen Walton, Assistant Zoning Enforcement Officer


MINUTES

It was moved by Gugliotti and seconded by Massey to approve, as submitted, the minutes of the April 12, 2010, Regular Meeting.
Voting for: Goldberg, Massey, Gugliotti, Buchta.
Unanimous approval.


BILLS

It was moved by Gugliotti and seconded by Beardsley to approve the payment of a bill for $95.00, dated May 10, 2010, from Anne Sohon (Court Stenographer) for recording services for the public hearings (29 Hop Brook Road, 5 Hatfield Hill Road).
Voting for: Goldberg, Massey, Gugliotti, Buchta.
Unanimous approval.


PUBLIC HEARING – 5 HATFIELD HILL ROAD

Chair Goldberg opened the public hearing continuation for 5 Hatfield Hill Road at 8:29 p.m. The hearing originally opened on April 12, 2010.

Chair Goldberg read the notice of the public hearing continuation pertaining to the application submitted by Elizabeth Garcia for her property located at 5 Hatfield Hill Road for a 9.15’ variance of the front yard setback to allow a 30.85’ front yard setback for the construction of stairs.

Chair Goldberg reviewed the procedure that would be followed to conduct the public hearing.

Chair Goldberg stated the hearing was continued due to a missing green return receipt card.

Present to speak on behalf of the application, representing the applicant and owner of record, Elizabeth Garcia, was Mr. John Paul Garcia, P.E./L.S.

Chair Goldberg noted that the Board received the following items relative to the subject application. Exhibit identification was assigned as noted:
a) Exhibit 1F – Unclaimed letter to Kathleen Ross of 32 Hatfield Hill Road.
b) Exhibit 1G – Unclaimed letter to Francis and Clare Blatchley of 77 Carrington Road.
c) Exhibit 1H – Unclaimed letter to Candice Emerson of 27 Hatfield Hill Road.
d) Exhibit 1”I” – Unclaimed letter to Andrew and Nancy Liveton of 66 Carrington Road.
e) Exhibit 1J – As-Built Plot Plan, Lot No. 3, 27 Hatfield Hill Road, dated October 2, 1997, revised to December 10, 1997, prepared by John Paul Garcia, Bethany, Connecticut.
f) Exhibit 1K – Photograph of house located at 27 Hatfield Hill Road.
g) Exhibit 1L – Photograph of house located at Corner of Hatfield Hill Road and Sperry Road.
h) Exhibit 1M – Photograph of house located at 73 Hatfield Hill Road.
i) Exhibit 1N – Photograph of house located at 62 Hatfield Hill Road.
j) Exhibit 1”O” – Map entitled, “Proposed Site Plan, Lot No 2, 5 Hatfield Hill Rd, Bethany, CT”, dated May 13, 2004, revised to November 15, 2009, prepared by John Garcia & Associates, Bethany, Connecticut.
k) Exhibit 1P – Eight pages of building plans of the house built on 5 Hatfield Hill Road, dated October 5, 2009, prepared by DonMar Development Corp.
l) Exhibit 1Q – Page 101 from the International Building Code Book 2003, with highlighted Section R311.4.2 – Door type and size.
m) Exhibit 1R – Copy of “Provisional Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Building Certificate of Use and Occupancy for 5 Hatfield Hill Road which expires in 60 days from date of issuance on April 21, 2010.
n) Exhibit 1S – Copy of building permit application for 5 Hatfield Hill Road, dated October 9, 2009, which states in remarks “No decks or porches included in this permit. Need additional permits.”

The following Board Members stated for the record that they visited the site: Goldberg, Beardsley, Massey, Gugliotti, Buchta.






Mr. Garcia noted the following:
That this lot is predominately wetlands.
That in 2004, the applicant obtained a variance of ten feet for the front setback to build the house.
That the applicant is asking for minimal construction for the wooden stairs.
That the hardship is the fact that the lot is predominately wetlands.

In discussion, Commission members noted:
· That the house could not have been built back further due to low water table.
· That when the ten foot variance was approved, the house was proposed to be facing toward the front.
· That the applicant has three other doors that can be used to get in and out of the house.
· That the applicant’s argument is that the hardship is because the property is mostly wetlands, mostly flat and a low water table.

Present to speak at the public hearing was Robert Walsh, Town of Bethany Building Official. Mr. Walsh stated that it is not required to have a front door and if the ZBA does not approve the variance, the applicant will have to take the door out and put up a wall or window. Also, Mr. Walsh agreed with Mr. Garcia about not being able to push the house back due to bad soil conditions.

Chair Goldberg asked if there were any public members who would like to speak in favor of the application. There were none.

Chair Goldberg asked if there were any public members who would like to speak in opposition of this application. There were no comments.

There being no further discussion, at 9:46 p.m. Chair Goldberg closed the public hearing on the subject application.


PUBLIC HEARING – 29 HOP BROOK ROAD

Chair Goldberg opened the public hearing for 29 Hop Brook Road at 9:47 p.m.

Chair Goldberg read the legal notice pertaining to the public hearing for the application submitted by Wolodymyr and Natalie Iwaniew for their property located at 29 Hop Brook Road for a 44.2 foot variance to allow a 5.8 foot rear yard setback and for a 45.2 foot variance to allow a 4.8 foot side yard setback to locate a shed.

Chair Goldberg reviewed the procedure that would be followed to conduct the public hearing.


Chair Goldberg stated that the Zoning Regulations state that certified notification is required to the surrounding property owners within 100 feet of the application and that the applicant needs to provide evidence at the time of the public hearing by submitting the green return receipt cards.

Present to speak on behalf of the application was Natalie Iwaniew, applicant and owner of record. Mrs. Iwaniew noted the following:
That the lot is undersized.
That the hardship is the outcroppings of ledge and topography of land.
That she took the photographs submitted as exhibits.

Chair Goldberg noted that the Board received the following items relative to the subject application. Exhibit identification was assigned as noted:
a) Exhibit 1A – Submitted by Natalie Iwaniew, six Green Certified Mail Return Receipt Cards from Town of Bethany, 4 Hop Brook Road, 35 Hop Brook Road, 40 Hop Brook Road, 15 Hop Brook Road, 25 Hop Brook Road.
b) Exhibit 1B – Submitted by Natalie Iwaniew, eight U.S. Postal Service Certified Mail Receipts, dated April 23, 2010.
c) Exhibit 1C – Two letters acknowledging receipt of the notice for the public hearing; one signed by Man K. & Pui Y. Wong of 43 Hop Brook Road and one signed by Daniel F. Etels Merriam of 30 Hop Brook Road.
d) Exhibit 1D – One photograph of the side yard showing a slope next to Kibbee property.
e) Exhibit 1E – One photograph of the side yard next to the Kibbee property showing the septic area.
f) Exhibit 1F – One photograph of the side yard next to the Kibbee property showing a steep slope and the applicant trying to grow grass with a hay covering.
g) Exhibit 1G – One photograph of the front yard showing how the front yard slopes down to the road.
h) Exhibit 1H – One photograph of the side yard near the proposed Shed B which is next to the Marino Holdings property and also shows ledge cropping through the property.
i) Exhibit 1”I” – One photograph of the children’s play area where gas is being stored underneath.
j) Exhibit 1J – One photograph of the applicant’s basement.
k) Exhibit 1K – One photograph of the lawn mower under the deck.
l) Exhibit 1L – One photograph of the children’s play area with a large white storage container in the front.
m) Exhibit 1M – Copy of the drawing of the shed prepared by Walsh Country Store.

The following Board Members stated for the record that they visited the site: Goldberg, Beardsley, Massey, Gugliotti, Buchta.

In discussion, Commission members noted:
· That the shed will have a gravel base.
· That there is ledge cropping under children’s play area.
· That the property has steep slopes.

Chair Goldberg asked if there were any public members who would like to speak in favor of the application. There were none.

Chair Goldberg asked if there were any public members who would like to speak in opposition of this application. There were no comments.

There being no further discussion, at 10:13 p.m. Chair Goldberg closed the public hearing on the subject application.


DELIBERATION AND DECISION MAKING SESSION

Board members further discussed the application and proceeded to deliberate.

5 Hatfield Hill Road – It was moved by Goldberg and seconded by Gugliotti to grant the approval of the application submitted by Elizabeth Garcia for her property located at 5 Hatfield Hill Road and shown on Assessor’s Map #124, Lot #38-2, requesting a variance of Sections 3.4 and 4.1.B of the Bethany Zoning Regulations, specifically to grant a 4.15 foot variance of the front yard setback to allow a 35.85 foot front yard setback for the construction of stairs.

The variance is granted subject to the following conditions:
1) The variance shall not be effective until a copy of it, certified by the Chairman or the Secretary of the Board, and containing a legal description of the subject property, and specifying the nature of the variance (including the Section of the Zoning Regulations being varied) is filed with the Bethany Town Clerk for recording on the Bethany Land Records by the applicant or owner. A copy of the recorded document shall also be filed with the Zoning Enforcement Officer.

Based upon the evidence presented at the public hearing and the facts revealed by the Board’s general acquaintance with the Town and with the general locality of the subject property, the Board makes the following findings:
1. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are unique to the subject property and which do not affect generally the district to which it is situated. These conditions and circumstances are the wetlands and water table on the property.
2. A strict and literal interpretation of the Zoning Regulations would deprive the property owner of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district.
Vote 5 to 0.
Voting for: Goldberg, Beardsley, Massey, Gugliotti, Buchta.
Unanimous approval.

29 Hop Brook Road – It was moved by Beardsley and seconded by Gugliotti to grant the approval of the application submitted by Wolodymyr and Natalie Iwaniw for their property located at 29 Hop Brook Road and shown on Assessor’s Map #102, Lot #60, requesting a variance of Sections 3.4 and 4.1.C of the Bethany Zoning Regulations, specifically to grant a 44.2’ variance of the rear yard setback to allow a 5.8’ rear yard setback and for a 45.2’ variance of the side yard setback to allow a 4.8’ side yard setback to locate a shed.

The variance is granted subject to the following conditions:
1) The variance shall not be effective until a copy of it, certified by the Chairman or the Secretary of the Board, and containing a legal description of the subject property, and specifying the nature of the variance (including the Section of the Zoning Regulations being varied) is filed with the Bethany Town Clerk for recording on the Bethany Land Records by the applicant or owner. A copy of the recorded document shall also be filed with the Zoning Enforcement Officer.

Based upon the evidence presented at the public hearing and the facts revealed by the Board’s general acquaintance with the Town and with the general locality of the subject property, the Board makes the following findings:
1) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are unique to the subject property and which do not affect generally the district to which it is situated. These conditions and circumstances are the topography of the land, the small lot size, and the steep slopes.
2) A strict and literal interpretation of the Zoning Regulations would deprive the property owner of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district.
3) These special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant of the property owner.
Vote 5 to 0.
Voting for: Goldberg, Beardsley, Massey, Gugliotti, Buchta.
Unanimous approval.


ADJOURNMENT

It was moved by Gugliotti and seconded by Beardsley to adjourn the regular meeting at 10:47 p.m. Unanimous approval.

Respectfully submitted,


Antonia R. Marek, Clerk
For the Zoning Board of Appeals
BOARD OF FINANCE
SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 18, 2010
Page 1 of 2

Attendance: Chairman Janet Brunwin, Sally Huyser, Stephen Squinto, Chip Spear, John Grabowski, Robert Brinton Jr., First Selectwoman Derrylyn Gorski

Chairman Brunwin called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. The meeting was held in the Conference Room of the Bethany Town Hall.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Brunwin moved a motion of approval for the minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2010. Stephen Squinto seconded the motion. The minutes were then approved on a unanimous vote without change.

Chairman Brunwin called for a motion of approval for the minutes of the special meeting of April 19, 2010. The motion of approval was moved by Stephen Squinto and seconded by Chip Spear. The minutes were then approved on a unanimous vote without change.

REPORT OF CHAIRMAN
Chairman Brunwin reported on her attendance at the Amity Financial Advisory Board meeting. Janet indicated that the vote passed to retain the $190,000 surplus for the OPEB Trust, instead of returning each town its portion of this surplus. Discussion followed.

SETTING OF MILL RATE
Chairman Brunwin called for a motion to set the mill rate for fiscal year 2010-11. Chip Spear moved to set the mill rate at 27.55 mills. John Grabowski seconded the motion. The vote was called. The vote taken was unanimous.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL REPORT
John Grabowski reported on his attendance at the Bethany Board of Education meeting. John reported that discussion was held regarding changing the titles of Head Masters to Principal and Assistant Principal. Finalization will be discussed at future meetings on this change.

REPORT OF FIRST SELECTWOMAN
First Selectwoman Gorski is working with Alan Green, Highway Foreman on a road plan for Bethany. A date will be set for members of the Board of Selectmen and Board of Finance to take a tour of town roads. When the plan is complete, methods of financing will be studied, for a presentation to the town.

First Selectwoman Gorski reported that progress on the pavilion at Veterans Park is going well and should be completed by next week.

REVIEW OF FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009-10
The Board reviewed the financial reports for fiscal year 2009-10. No trouble areas were noted at this time.



ADJOURNMENT
Adjournment was called at 7:50 p.m. after a motion was moved by Chip Spear and seconded by Sally Huyser. The vote taken was unanimous.


Respectfully submitted,


June G. Riley
Clerk, Board of Finance

Friday, May 14, 2010

MINUTES OF THE BETHANY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2010 Page 1 of 10

The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the Bethany Town Hall, 40 Peck Road, Bethany, Connecticut.

The following Commission members were present:
Sharon Huxley, Chairman
Melissa Spear, Vice-Chairman,
John Ford IV, Member
Mary Shurtleff, Member
Patricia Winer, Member
Marc Adelberg, Alternate Member
Donald Shea Jr., Alternate Member
Nellie Rabinowitz, Alternate Member, seated as a voting member, as needed.

Also present were:
Isabel Kearns, Zoning Enforcement Officer
Karen Walton, Assistant Enforcement Officer
Hiram Peck, Planning Consultant


APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. It was moved by Ford and seconded by Winer to approve, as submitted, the minutes of the March 31, 2010, Special Meeting.
Voting for: Huxley, Spear, Ford, Shurtleff, Winer.
Unanimous approval.

2. It was moved by Winer and seconded by Shurtleff to approve the minutes of the April 7, 2010, Regular Meeting, with the following correction:
· Page 4, Last Paragraph, Last Sentence – Reads “Maps in table of context not consistent and need to be fixed.” Change to “Maps in table of contents not consistent and need to be fixed.”
Voting for: Huxley, Spear, Ford, Shurtleff, Winer.
Unanimous approval.


GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE

1. Letter from John Paul Garcia, dated May 4, 2010, Re: 443 and 447 Fairwood Road, requesting postponement of public hearing for 30 days.
2. Letter from John Paul Garcia, dated April 29, 2010, Re: 443 Fairwood Road, Response to request of potential uses of the property.
3. Copy of Inland Wetlands Permit #1134 for 437 and 443 Fairwood Road for the site development, approved on April 26, 2010.


4. Letter from Inland Wetlands Commission, dated April 29, 2010, Re: 860 Carrington Road, No Inland Wetlands Commission action required.
5. Letter from Quinnipiack Valley Health District, dated May 3, 2010, Re: Comments from review of proposal for 860 Carrington Road, Aqua Turf Irrigation with four attachments: QVHD letter dated April 30, 2010, Aqua Turf letter dated May 3, 2010, QVHD letter dated April 23, 2010, Water Analysis Report dated April 8, 2010.
6. List submitted by Marc D’Andrea, Re: Equipment List owned by Aqua Turf Irrigation for 860 Carrington Road.
7. Letter from South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority, dated May 4, 2010, Re: Comments from review of Application 2010-008 and 2010-009, 860 Carrington Road.
8. Email from Eugene Livshits of SCRCOG, dated April 19, 2010, Re: RPC will review proposed amendments at the RPC meeting on May 13, 2010.
9. Email from Diane Ifkovic, DEP, dated April 21, 2010, Re: Review comments from notice of draft changes to the floodplain management regulations.
10. Email from Diane Ifkovic, DEP, dated April 28, 2010, Re: FEMA Flood Maps, revised effective date.
11. Letter from Isabel Kearns, ZEO, dated May 3, 2010, Re: 3 Northrop Road, fees collected and expended.
12. Letter from Isabel Kearns, ZEO, to First Selectman, dated April 12, 2010, Re: Town Sign at Airport property.
13. Letter from Ilber Ramadani dated April 28, 2010, Re: New owner of Bethany Restaurant and Pizza of 696 Amity Road.
14. Letter from RPC to Town of Beacon Falls, dated April 12, 2010, Re: Review comments on Town of Beacon Falls proposed zoning regulation amendments.
15. Email from Eugene Livshits of SCRCOG, dated April 20, 2010, Re: Town of Cheshire proposed amendments to Town’s Zoning Code with attachment from Town of Cheshire.


BILLS

1. It was moved by Shurtleff and seconded by Spear to approve the payment of $1,000.00 (monthly pro rata basis), for services rendered for April 2010, by Hiram W. Peck III, AICP, Planning Consultant.
Unanimous approval.

2. It was moved by Shurtleff and seconded by Winer to approve the payment of a bill for $95.00, dated April 7, 2010, from John McLeod (Court Stenographer) for recording services for public hearings (draft Town Plan of Conservation and Development, 443 Fairwood Road, 63 Downs Road).
Unanimous approval.





ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER’S REPORT AND APPROPRIATE COMMISSION ACTION


Isabel Kearns, ZEO, reported on the following:

185 Beacon Road, Cusano – Working with Cusano’s attorney to rectify violations and Cusano’s will not comply. The ZEO distributed a draft of the Cease and Desist order to be issued for the Commission to review.


It was moved by Shurtleff and seconded by Ford to move to the items of New Business.
Unanimous approval.


NEW BUSINESS

1. 3 Northrop Road, Application #2010-010 submitted by Nadia Fainstein for a Special Exception Permit for an Accessory Apartment – Present to speak on behalf of this application was Isabel Kearns, ZEO, who prepared a letter to the Commission, dated May 3, 2010, pertaining to the application fees that were collected and expended from previous applications that were withdrawn. It was moved by Spear and seconded by Winer to approve the following ZEO recommendation:

With regard to recent applications for an accessory apartment at 3 Northrop Road, the Commission agrees with the ZEO’s determination that $247.06 should be refunded for the unused portion of Planning and Zoning Application #2009-032. Furthermore, the Commission agrees that the $360.00 Zoning Board of Appeals Application Fee be applied to the Planning and Zoning Application #2010-010, which is currently before the Commission. Unanimous approval.

It was moved by Shurtleff and seconded by Spear to schedule a public hearing date of Wednesday, June 2, 2010, for Application #2010-010 submitted by Nadia Fainstein for a Special Exception Permit for an Accessory Apartment. Unanimous approval.


PUBLIC HEARINGS

· 443 Fairwood Road, Application #2010-005 for a Special Exception Permit to locate a Commercial Auto Repair Facility, Application #2010-006 for a Site Plan for a Commercial Auto Repair Facility and Signage, Application #2010-007 for a Special Exception Permit for Outside Storage submitted by EMG Properties LLC/Nino Auto Service LLC –


At 8:02 p.m., Chairman Huxley called to order the continuation of the public hearing. The call for the public hearing was read. The hearing was opened on April 7, 2010.

Chairman Huxley then noted that the Commission has received the following items relative to the subject application. Exhibit identification was assigned as noted:
Exhibit 2A – Letter from John Paul Garcia, dated April 29, 2010, Re: 443 Fairwood Road, Response to request for an explanation of potential uses of the property.
Exhibit 2B - Copy of Inland Wetlands Permit #1134 for 437 and 443 Fairwood Road for the site development, approved on April 26, 2010.
Exhibit 2C - Letter from John Paul Garcia, dated May 4, 2010, Re: 443 and 447 Fairwood Road, requesting postponement of public hearing for 30 days.

John Paul Garcia, P.E./L.S., representing the applicant, was not present for the public hearing continuation. Mr. Garcia submitted a letter, dated May 4, 2010, requesting a 30-day postponement of the public hearing so that the legal notice could be amended to include 437 Fairwood Road.

At 7:37 p.m., it was moved by Winer and seconded by Spear to recess the public hearing on the subject application and continue it to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, June 2, 2010, in the Commission Meeting Room of the Bethany Town Hall. Unanimous.


· 860 Carrington Road, Application #2010-008 submitted by Marc D’Andrea (Aqua Turf Irrigation) for a Special Exception Permit for Outside Storage –

At 7:39 p.m., Chairman Huxley called to order the public hearing on Application #2010-008 for a Special Exception Permit for Outside Storage. The call for the public hearing was read. Chairman Huxley reviewed the complete contents of the application file.

Chairman Huxley then noted that the Commission has received the following items relative to the subject application. Exhibit identification was assigned as noted:
Exhibit 1A - Letter from Inland Wetlands Commission, dated April 29, 2010, Re: 860 Carrington Road, No Inland Wetlands Commission action required.
Exhibit 1B - Letter from Quinnipiack Valley Health District, dated May 3, 2010, Re: Comments from review of proposal for 860 Carrington Road, Aqua Turf Irrigation with four attachments: QVHD letter dated April 30, 2010, Aqua Turf letter dated May 3, 2010, QVHD letter dated April 23, 2010, Water Analysis Report dated April 8, 2010.
Exhibit 1C – List submitted by Marc D’Andrea, Re: Equipment List owned by Aqua Turf Irrigation for 860 Carrington Road, with dotted items proposed to be stored outside.
Exhibit 1D - Letter from South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority, dated May 4, 2010, Re: Comments from review of Application 2010-008 and 2010-009, 860 Carrington Road.

Exhibit 1E – Submitted by Tom Cavaliere, who was representing the applicant, one aerial photograph of the subject property, 860 Carrington Road.

Present to speak on behalf of the applicant was Mr. Tom Cavaliere of 27 Virginia Rail Drive. Mr. Cavaliere stated the applicant, Marc D’Andrea, is out of state and Mr. D’Andrea instructed Mr. Cavaliere to call him if there are any questions from the Commission.

In discussion, Commission members noted:
That the applicant will be adding arborvitaes and mesh screening.
That the Quinnipiack Valley Health District is concerned about the bacteria in the well (Exhibit 1B).
That the two portable garages are not on the site plan and therefore, will not be allowed.
That the existing metal type building will not be altered (Exhibit 1E).
That the Commission will allow outside storage from the setback to the outside of the building, which is a larger area than requested.

Chairman Huxley then asked if there were any comments from the public. There were no comments.

At 8:05 p.m., Chairman Huxley closed the public hearing on the subject application.


· Proposed amendments to the Bethany Zoning Regulations to Section 1.2-Definitions and various changes in Section 18–Floodplain Management Regulations.

At 8:06 p.m., Chairman Huxley called to order the public hearing on the proposed amendments to Section 1.2 – Definitions and various changes in Section 18 – Floodplain Management Regulations. The call for the public hearing was read. Chairman Huxley reviewed the complete contents of the application file.

Chairman Huxley then noted that the Commission has received the following items relative to the subject application. Exhibit identification was assigned as noted:
Exhibit 1A – Email from Diane Ifkovic, DEP, dated April 21, 2010, Re: Review comments from notice of draft changes to the floodplain management regulations.
Exhibit 1B - Email from Diane Ifkovic, DEP, dated April 28, 2010, Re: FEMA Flood Maps, revised effective date.
Exhibit 1C – Email from Eugene Livshits of SCRCOG, dated April 19, 2010, Re: RPC will review proposed amendments at the RPC meeting on May 13, 2010.

In discussion, Commission members noted:
The SCC Regional Planning Commission asked if the Commission would leave the hearing record opened for their review comments. RPC Meeting scheduled for May 13, 2010.


Chairman Huxley then asked if there were any comments from the public. There were no comments.

At 8:12 p.m., Chairman Huxley recessed the public hearing on the subject application and continued it to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, June 2, 2010, in the Commission Meeting Room of the Bethany Town Hall.


OLD BUSINESS

1. 443 Fairwood Road, Application #2010-005 submitted by EMG Properties, LLC for a Special Exception Permit to locate a Commercial Auto Repair Facility – Public hearing continued to June 2, 2010. Tabled.

2. 443 Fairwood Road, Application #2010-006 submitted by EMG Properties, LLC for a Site Plan for Commercial Auto Repair Facility and Signage – Public hearing continued to June 2, 2010. Tabled.

3. 443 Fairwood Road, Application #2010-007 submitted by EMG Properties, LLC for a Special Exception Permit for Outside Storage – Public hearing continued to June 2, 2010. Tabled.


4. 860 Carrington Road, Application #2010-008 submitted by Marc D’Andrea for a Special Exception Permit for Outside Storage – Isabel Kearns, ZEO, prepared a draft resolution. Commission members reviewed and proceeded to deliberate. It was moved by Spear and seconded by Shurtleff to approve the following resolution for Application #2010-008:

Whereas, Marc D’Andrea applied on April 7, 2010, to the Bethany Planning and Zoning Commission for a Special Exception Permit for Outside Storage to operate Aqua Turf Irrigation at 860 Carrington Road;

Whereas, David Francesconi, owner of 860 Carrington Road, in a letter dated April 5, 2010, authorized Marc D’Andrea to apply to the Planning and Zoning Commission to operate Aqua Turf Irrigation from the subject property;

Whereas, the Commission opened a public hearing on this application on May 5, 2010, and the hearing was subsequently closed at the conclusion of testimony that same evening;





Whereas, the Commission, at its regular meeting of May 5, 2010, considered the application information, testimony and other pertinent information relating to a request for the Special Exception Permit for Outside Storage to operate Aqua Turf Irrigation at 860 Carrington Road;

Whereas, the Commission finds the subject application in essential compliance with the applicable regulations;

Now Therefore, the Commission makes the following findings of fact:

1) Lynn Fox of Quinnipiack Valley Health District signed off on the back of the application form on May 3, 2010, indicating approval.
2) Rod White, Fire Marshal, signed off on the back of the application form on May 3, 2010, indicating his approval.
3) The Commission received a letter from Ronald Walters of the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority, dated May 4, 2010, in which he states 1) underground fuel storage tanks and piping should be
prohibited and fuel stored on site should be kept in secondary containment and be sheltered from precipitation; 2) all vehicle and equipment servicing should be conducted indoors on an impervious surface with no discharges of fluids or chemicals to the environment; 3) harmful chemicals should be stored indoors; 4) Regional Water Authority Inspectors should be granted access during the annual inspection program.
4) The Commission received a letter dated April 29, 2010, from Patricia McGregor, Chairman for the Inland Wetlands Commission, which states that the outside storage and change of use does not pose any adverse impacts to the environment. Therefore, no Inland Wetlands Commission action is required.

Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that pursuant to Section 5.1.B of the Bethany Zoning Regulations, amended to April 7, 2010, the Bethany Planning and Zoning Commission approves the Special Exception Permit for Outside Storage to operate Aqua Turf Irrigation at 860 Carrington Road based on the submitted plan entitled “Subsurface Sewage Disposal System and Site Plan” dated January 1986 prepared by Robert L. Jones & Associates, with hand drawn revisions prepared by the applicant and submitted April 7, 2010, and as modified by the Commission to allow a greater area of outside storage. The area for outside storage shall be the area from the south side of the driveway to the southerly building line, as shown on Exhibit 1E (aerial photograph). This approval is also based on the following conditions:
No outside storage shall be placed within the 70-foot front-yard setback area.
Screening of the outside storage, as per above-referenced map, shall be in place prior to on-site outdoor storage of equipment.
Vote: 5 to 0.
Voting for: Huxley, Spear, Ford, Shurtleff, Winer.
Unanimous approval.

5. 860 Carrington Road, Application #2010-009 submitted by Marc D’Andrea for a Change of Use Permit – sports field and golf industry/turf construction and renovation – Isabel Kearns, ZEO, prepared a draft resolution. Commission members reviewed and proceeded to deliberate. It was moved by Ford and seconded by Shurtleff to approve the following resolution for Application #2010-009:

Whereas, Marc D’Andrea applied on April 7, 2010, to the Bethany Planning and Zoning Commission for a Change of Use Permit to operate Aqua Turf Irrigation, sports field and golf industry/turf construction and renovation, at 860 Carrington Road;

Whereas, David Francesconi, owner of 860 Carrington Road, in a letter dated April 5, 2010, authorized Marc D’Andrea to apply to the Planning and Zoning Commission to operate Aqua Turf Irrigation from the subject property;

Whereas, the Commission, at its regular meeting of May 5, 2010, considered the application information, statement of use dated April 6, 2010, testimony and other pertinent information relating to a request for the Change of Use Permit to operate Aqua Turf Irrigation at 860 Carrington Road;

Whereas, the Commission finds the subject application in essential compliance with the applicable regulations;

Now Therefore, the Commission makes the following findings of fact:

1) Lynn Fox of Quinnipiack Valley Health District signed off on the back of the application form on May 3, 2010, indicating approval.
2) Rod White, Fire Marshal, signed off on the back of the application form on May 3, 2010, indicating his approval.
3) The Commission received a letter from Ronald Walters of the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority, dated May 4, 2010, in which he states 1) underground fuel storage tanks and piping should be
prohibited and fuel stored on site should be kept in secondary containment and be sheltered from precipitation; 2) all vehicle and equipment servicing should be conducted indoors on an impervious surface with no discharges of fluids or chemicals to the environment; 3) harmful chemicals should be stored indoors; 4) Regional Water Authority Inspectors should be granted access during the annual inspection program.
4) The Commission received a letter dated April 29, 2010, from Patricia McGregor, Chairman for the Inland Wetlands Commission, which states that the outside storage and change of use does not pose any adverse impacts to the environment. Therefore, no Inland Wetlands Commission action is required.





Now Therefore Be It Resolved that pursuant to Section 5.5.A of the Bethany Zoning Regulations, amended to April 7, 2010, the Bethany Planning and Zoning Commission
approves the Change of Use Permit to operate Aqua Turf Irrigation at 860 Carrington Road with the following conditions:

1) A building permit for an interior fit up must be approved by the Building Official prior to any renovations to or occupancy of the building.
2) The Fire Marshal must sign off prior to a certificate of occupancy.
Vote: 5 to 0.
Voting for: Huxley, Spear, Ford, Shurtleff, Winer.
Unanimous approval.



6. Proposed amendments to the Bethany Zoning Regulations to Section 1.2-Definitions and various changes in Section 18-Floodplain Management Regulations – Public hearing continued to June 2, 2010. Tabled.


7. Proposed amendment to the Bethany Zoning Regulations to add Section 5A – Permitting, Construction, Operation, Maintenance and Abandonment of Small Wind Energy Systems – Hiram Peck, Planning Consultant, to contact Mike Okrent of the Clean Energy Committee. Tabled.


8. Revised Draft of the Town Plan of Conservation and Development – Hiram Peck, Planning Consultant, will consult with a company in Hartford on layout and also, Mr. Peck will bring in at the next regular meeting some final photographs.


9. Discuss increasing application fees – Chairman Huxley stated the fees should be based on the Town’s cost to recapture expenses. Karen Walton, Assistant ZEO, to obtain information for the next regular meeting. Tabled.


10. Bethany Volunteer Fire Department revised Water Source Specifications – Tabled.


11. Discuss Architectural Reviews – Draft forwarded to the Board of Selectmen. Tabled.


12. Proposed Town of Bethany Noise Control Ordinance – Draft forwarded to the Town Attorney. Tabled.



13. Update on Halter Estates – Tabled.



It was moved by Spear and seconded by Shurtleff to adjourn the regular meeting at 8:30 p.m. Unanimous approval.

Respectfully submitted,



Antonia R. Marek, Clerk
For the Planning and Zoning Commission
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
APRIL 12, 2010
Page 1 of 2

Attendance: First Selectwoman Derrylyn Gorski, Selectman Donald Shea, Selectman Steven Thornquist
Visitors: Attorney Kevin McSherry, Patrick Geoghagan, Rhoda Geoghagan, Randy Raddatz, John Lish, Arthur Slicer, Carol Goldberg.

First Selectwoman Gorski called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. The meeting was held in the Conference Room of the Bethany Town Hall. The first order of business was signing of account payable checks. First Selectwoman Gorski asked all to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
First Selectwoman Gorski called for a motion of approval for the minutes of the previous meeting of March 22, 2010. The motion of approval was moved by Selectman Shea and seconded by Selectman Thornquist. The vote was called. The minutes were accepted on a unanimous vote without change.

TAX REFUNDS
Selectman Thornquist moved to refund to Clementina and John Mordecai, Sr. the sum of $121.39, to Francis Benedetto the sum of $35.91, to Judity Riosenkrantz the sum of $4.83, to Laurence and Amalya Brownstein the sum of $7.83, to Theodore Antonellis the sum of $30.85, to Toyota Motor Credit Corp the sum of $254.47 and to VW Credit Leasing the sum of $317.03 all for overpayment of taxes. Selectman Shea seconded the motion. The vote taken was unanimous.

LATICRETE NIEGHBORS UPDATE
The Laticrete neighbors were present to give an update on meetings they have had with Laticrete management. Progress has been made on the noise problem. The group inquired about progress on the noise ordinance. Attorney McSherry indicated that the information was still with the DEP for review. Randy Raddatz spoke for the group regarding their disapproval of the Laticrete sign on the silo of the building. Raddatz indicated that Laticrete would take the sign down if someone else would pay for its removal. First Selectwoman Gorski said she would taken his suggestion under advisement.

SPECIAL TOWN MEETING
Discussion was opened regarding the setting of a date for a special Town Meeting to further discuss renovations, maintenance, revenues and for the Airport Study Committee to seek funding for the Airport Hanger. Selectman Shea moved to set the date for a special Town Meeting to April 26, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. Selectman Thornquist seconded the motion. The vote taken was unanimous.

CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence was received from the Bethany Nursery Group requesting waiving of the fee for use of the gym on May 2, 2010 for a Breakfast for Dinner PJ Hop. Selectman Thornquist moved to waive the rental fee for the Town Hall gym for the Bethany Nursery Group for May 2, 2010 and that they pay only the custodial fee for his time to the Town of Bethany. Selectman Shea seconded the motion. The vote taken was unanimous.




BUDGET 2010-11
First Selectwoman Gorski updated the Selectmen on progress of the budget for fiscal year 2010-11. First Selectwoman Groski indicated that it is a bare bone budget. The mill rate increase is half a mill if approved as prepared for the Budget Hearing.

ADJOURNMENT
Adjournment was called at 8:45 p.m. after a motion was moved by Selectman Thornquist and seconded by Selectman Shea. The vote taken was unanimous.

Respectfully submitted,


June G. Riley
Secretary, Board of Selectmen
MINUTES OF THE BETHANY INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2010 Page 1 of 9

The regular meeting of the Inland Wetlands Commission was called to order at 7:36 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the Bethany Town Hall, 40 Peck Road, Bethany, Connecticut.

The following members of the Commission were present:
Patricia McGregor, Chairman
Alexandra Breslin, Vice-Chairman
Brian Smith, Alternate Member, seated as a voting member.
Kristine Sullivan, Alternate Member, seated as a voting member.

The following members of the Commission were absent or excused:
Jack Ellison, Member
Jon Painter, Member
John Kane, Member

Also present were:
Isabel Kearns, Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer
Karen Walton, Assistant Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer


APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. It was moved by Sullivan and seconded by Smith to approve, the minutes of the March 22, 2010, Regular Meeting as corrected:
Page 2, Under Public Hearing, First Paragraph, First Sentence – Reads “At 8:15 p.m., Chairman McGregor called to order the public hearing on the revised regulations.” Change to “At 8:15 p.m., Chairman McGregor called to order the public hearing on the subject application.”
Voting for: McGregor, Sullivan, Breslin.
Unanimous approval.


BILLS

1. It was moved by Smith and seconded by Breslin to approve the payment of a bill for $95.00, dated April 26, 2010, from Anne Sohon (Court Stenographer) for recording services for the public hearing (437 and 443 Fairwood Road).
Unanimous approval.

2. It was moved by Smith and seconded by Breslin to approve the payment of a bill for $45.00, dated April 26, 2010, from Anne Sohon (Court Stenographer) for duplicating tapes of the Inland Wetlands Meeting on April 26, 2010.
Unanimous approval.



GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE

1. Letter from Diversified Technology Consultants, dated April 24, 2010, Re: Comments from review of revised plans and materials for 437 and 443 Fairwood Road.
2. Letter from Planning and Zoning Commission, dated April 22, 2010, Re: Proposed amendments to Bethany Floodplain Management Regulations.
3. Copy of letter from Regional Water Authority to PZC, dated April 6, 2010, Re: Review of revised Town Plan of Conservation and Development.
4. Letter from Land-Tech Consultants, Inc., dated March 18, 2010, Re: Erosion and Sediment Control of Stormwater Management Monitoring.


PUBLICATIONS AND WORKSHOPS

1. Land Use Academy Basic Training, May 22, UConn Storrs Campus.
2. Booklet “Backyard Stream and Pond Buffers”.
3. Connecticut Wildlife, March/April 2010.
4. The Habitat, A newsletter of the Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions, Inc., Spring 2010.


PUBLIC HEARING

· 437 and 443 Fairwood Road, Application 1134 submitted by EMG Properties for an IW Permit for the construction of a new industrial building, septic system, well, driveway, parking and stormwater management system -

At 8:07 p.m., Chairman McGregor called to order the public hearing continuation on the subject application. The hearing was opened on March 22, 2010. The notice for the public hearing continuation was read.

Isabel Kearns, IWEO, stated the Diversified Technology Consultants submitted a letter dated February 22, 2010, in which Mr. John Paul Garcia, P.E./L.S., representing the applicants, addressed their concerns and now Diversified Technology Consultants resubmitted a letter dated April 24, 2010, in response to the changes that were on the plans in front of the Commission this evening. Ms. Kearns stated her concerns as follows: pollution of the bog from car leakage, this application is not for Lot 12A, the stormwater management system should be the first order of construction and the lot line revision is to be filed on the Land Records.

Chairman McGregor noted that the Commission has received the following item relative to the subject application. Exhibit identification was assigned as noted:
Exhibit 2A – Letter from Diversified Technology Consultants, dated April 24, 2010, Re: Comments on revised plans for 437 and 443 Fairwood Road.


Present to speak on behalf of this application was John Paul Garcia, P.E./L.S., representing the owner of record who was also present, William Grieger.

Mr. Garcia reviewed with the Commission the letter from Diversified Technology Consultants, dated April 24, 2010.

In discussion, Commission members noted:
That a condition of approval shall be to locate Conservation Area Signs.
That the full cutoff lighting should be directed away from the wetlands.
That a bond estimate should be provided for erosion controls and for the stormwater management system.
That the Commission would like the Inland Wetlands Enforcement Officer to be present when the test hole is dug prior to the basin construction as mentioned in Item #11 of the Diversified Technology Consultant letter, dated April 24, 2010.

Chairman McGregor then asked if there were any comments from the public. There were no comments.

At 8:43 p.m., it was moved by Smith and seconded by Sullivan to close the public hearing on the subject application. Unanimous approval.


NEW BUSINESS

1. 245 Beacon Road, Application #1145 submitted by Erik Scott, Life Scout, Troop 59 for an IW Permit for the placement of 4 benches at Veterans Memorial Park (Eagle Project)

Present to speak on behalf of the application was Erik Scott, Life Scout, Troop 59. Mr. Scott submitted a letter requesting a waiver of the fees for the proposed project. It was moved by Sullivan and seconded by Smith to waive the fees pursuant to the Code of the Town of Bethany, Connecticut, Chapter 129-3, since this is a Boy Scout Eagle Project that will benefit the Town of Bethany. Unanimous approval.

Commission members briefly discussed the proposed project and proceeded to deliberate. It was moved Sullivan and seconded by Breslin that the Inland Wetlands Commission delegate to its duly authorized agent, Isabel Kearns, the authority to approve Application #1145 submitted by Erik Scott for an Inland Wetlands Permit for the placement of 4 benches at the Veterans Memorial Park, 245 Beacon Road, which will result in no greater than a minimal impact on any wetlands or watercourses. Unanimous approval.






2. 21 Hinman Road, Application #1146 submitted by David Sembiante for an IW Permit for the construction of a 20’ X 20’ garage addition

The Commission formally received the application. Present to speak on behalf of the application was David Sembiante, Applicant and Owner of Record.

Commission members reviewed the plan submitted noting the location of the proposed garage and the wetlands, which are approximately 80 to 100 feet away from the proposed activity.

Mr. Sembiante reviewed the proposed project noting:
· That the roof drainage will be drained into the surface and that the property slopes to a gentle grade.

Further discussion and appropriate action on the application was deferred until the Commission’s next regular meeting on Monday, May 24, 2010. Tabled.


OLD BUSINESS

1. 11 Split Rock Road, Application #1144 submitted by John M. Lightfoot for an IW Permit to construct an Addition 3 Season Room –

No one was present to speak on behalf of the application. Commission members briefly discussed the proposed project and proceeded to deliberate.

It was moved by Sullivan and seconded by Smith to approve Application #1144 submitted by John M. Lightfoot for an Inland Wetlands Permit to construct a 14’ by 16’ Three Season Room Addition located at 11 Split Rock Road, in accordance with the submitted plan entitled, “Maude Residence, 11 Split Rock, Bethany” submitted March 19, 2010, with hand drawn revisions prepared by the applicant and this approval is subject to the standard conditions found on the Land Records Volume 93, Page 802 and 803. The Commission’s decision was based on the fact that the use of the Techno Post System shall cause none or minimal impact on the wetlands. Unanimous approval.


2. 437 and 443 Fairwood Road, Application #1134 submitted by EMG Properties, William Grieger for an IW Permit for the construction of a new building, septic, well, driveway, parking and drainage system – The Commission discussed and proceeded to deliberate.

It was moved by Sullivan and seconded by Smith to approve Application #1134 submitted by EMG Properties for an Inland Wetlands Permit for the construction of a new building, septic, well, driveway, parking and stormwater management system in


accordance with the following submitted plans prepared by John Paul Garcia & Associates, Bethany, Connecticut:
1. “Existing Conditions Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-1.
2. “Lot Line Revision Plan”, dated December 12, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-2.
3. “Site Development Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-3.
4. “Site Development Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-4.
5. “Typical Details”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-6.
6. “Typical Details”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-7.
7. “Typical Details”, dated February 3, 2010, with no revisions, Drawing No. C-8.

And is subject to the following conditions including the standard conditions found on the Land Records Volume 93, Page 802 and Page 803:
(A) This approval is solely as it relates to the development of Lots 13B and 13A. The development of Lot 12A will require a separate Permit from the Inland Wetlands Commission for its development.
(B) In accordance with the recommendation of the Commission’s Consulting Engineering Firm, Diversified Technology Consultants, in a letter to the Commission dated April 24, 2010, the approved plans shall be revised to include:
· A typical cross section of the proposed detention basin berm, which shall include an impermeable core, and
· An anti-seep collar for the outlet pipe penetrating the berm.
(C) In accordance with the recommendation of the Commission’s Consulting Engineering Firm, Diversified Technology Consultants, in a letter to the Commission dated April 24, 2010; a minimum of one test hole must be done prior to the construction of the detention basin to verify the groundwater depth at the basin location. The Commission’s Enforcement Officer shall be notified in advance of when the test hole(s) will be dug, so that she can be present when the test hole(s) are dug. A copy of the test hole results shall be provided to the Commission for its records. If, based on the test hole results, groundwater breakout is anticipated, provisions for managing the groundwater must be considered prior to construction of the basin, and furnished to the Commission for appropriate review and action. It is recommended that construction of the detention basin occur during the summer months to minimize the potential issues of groundwater breakout.




(D) The mylar of the lot line revision plan, Drawing # C-2, shall be filed on the Land Records of the Town of Bethany and shall be revised to include a note stating:
The proposed detention basin on Lot # 13B has been sized to accommodate potential future development of Lot 12A. Any future development plans for Lot 12A shall be consistent with the design assumptions presented for with Bethany Inland Wetlands Commission Permit # 1134.
(E) The Permittee shall submit a bond estimate for review and approval by the Commission’s Consulting Engineering firm for the storm water drainage construction, maintenance of sediment and erosion controls and establishment of permanent vegetative cover for the site. A bond in the approved amount shall be posted with the Commission prior to any site work being done under this permit to insure compliance with all provisions of the Town of Bethany Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations and the terms, conditions and limitations established in this permit. The bond shall remain in effect until permanent vegetative cover has been established to the satisfaction of the Agency, and it has been demonstrated that storm water drainage system is functioning as designed. The bond shall be furnished in the form of a bank check.
(F) The Permittee shall submit language to the Commission for review an approval by Town Counsel, for the storm water cross easements and Maintenance Agreements. Said language shall incorporate the notes for same found on Drawing # C-7 of the Record Maps.
(G) As offered by the permittee, Conservation Area Signs shall be placed along the boundary of the wetlands at a distance of 50 to 75 feet.
(H) Exterior lighting for lots #13 A and #13 B shall conform with the locations and full cutoff lighting shown on Drawings #C-5 and #C-6.
(I) The detention basin shall be roughed in prior to construction.

This approval is being made because, as provided by the applicant, a feasible and prudent alternative to the original wetlands document as proposed has been provided so that there is no longer a wetlands crossing for the driveway; and therefore, based on the best
Engineering practices, which has been used on this plan and has been reviewed by our consulting engineer, be approved. Unanimous approval.


3. 190 Russell Road, Application #1135 submitted by the Town of Bethany, D.P.W. for an IW Permit for a cross pipe replacement – Present to speak on behalf of this application was Alan Green, Public Works Director for the Town of Bethany. Commission members discussed and proceeded to deliberate.

It was moved by Breslin and seconded by Smith to approve Application #1135 submitted by the Town of Bethany, Department of Public Works, for an Inland Wetlands Permit for a cross pipe replacement located at 190 Russell Road as

presented by the Public Works Director and other pertinent application information submitted and is subject to the standard conditions found on the Land Records Volume 93, Page 802 and 803. The Commission’s decision was based on the fact that this is a necessary improvement to maintain Town roads. Unanimous approval.


4. Between 265 and 270 Wooding Hill Road, Application #1136 submitted by the Town of Bethany, D.P.W. for an IW Permit for 100 feet of new drainage on east side – Present to speak on behalf of this application was Alan Green, Public Works Director for the Town of Bethany. Commission members discussed and proceeded to deliberate.

It was moved by Breslin and seconded by Smith to approve Application #1136 submitted by the Town of Bethany, Department of Public Works, for an Inland Wetlands Permit for the installation of 100 feet of new drainage on the east side of the road between 265 and 270 Wooding Hill Road as presented by the Public Works Director, and other pertinent application information submitted including the comments from the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority as stated in the letter dated March 22, 2010, and is subject to the standard conditions found on the Land Records Volume 93, Page 802 and 803. The Commission’s decision was based on the fact that this is a necessary improvement to maintain Town roads. Unanimous approval.


5. 30 Gaylord Mountain Road, Application #1137 submitted by the Town of Bethany, D.P.W. for an IW Permit for a cross pipe replacement – Present to speak on behalf of this application was Alan Green, Public Works Director for the Town of Bethany. Commission members discussed and proceeded to deliberate.

It was moved by Smith and seconded by Sullivan to approve Application #1137 submitted by the Town of Bethany, Department of Public Works, for an Inland Wetlands Permit for a cross pipe replacement located at 30 Gaylord Mountain Road as presented by the Public Works Director, and other pertinent application information submitted including the comments from the South Central Connecticut

Regional Water Authority as stated in the letter dated March 22, 2010, and is subject to the standard conditions found on the Land Records Volume 93, Page 802 and 803. The Commission’s decision was based on the fact that this is a necessary improvement to maintain Town roads. Unanimous approval.


6. 205 Bear Hill Road, Application #1138 submitted by the Town of Bethany, D.P.W. for an IW Permit for a cross pipe replacement – Present to speak on behalf of this application was Alan Green, Public Works Director for the Town of Bethany. Commission members discussed and proceeded to deliberate.

It was moved by Smith and seconded by Sullivan to approve Application #1138 submitted by the Town of Bethany, Department of Public Works, for an Inland Wetlands Permit for a cross pipe replacement located at 205 Bear Hill Road as presented by the Public Works Director and other pertinent application information submitted, and is subject to the standard conditions found on the Land Records Volume 93, Page 802 and 803. The Commission’s decision was based on the fact that this is a necessary improvement to maintain Town roads. Unanimous approval.


7. Between 94 and 108 Schaffer Road, Application #1139 submitted by the Town of Bethany, D.P.W. for an IW Permit for 200 feet upgrade pipe and catch basin – Present to speak on behalf of this application was Alan Green, Public Works Director for the Town of Bethany. Commission members discussed and proceeded to deliberate.

It was moved by Sullivan and seconded by Smith to approve Application #1139 submitted by the Town of Bethany, Department of Public Works, for an Inland Wetlands Permit for the installation of 200 feet upgrade pipe and catch basin located between 94 and 108 Schaffer Road as presented by the Public Works Director, and other pertinent application information submitted including the comments from the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority as stated in the letter dated March 22, 2010, and is subject to the standard conditions found on the Land Records Volume 93, Page 802 and 803. The Commission’s decision was based on the fact that this is a necessary improvement to maintain Town roads. Unanimous approval.


8. Carrington Road, south of Schilf, Application #1140 submitted by the Town of Bethany, D.P.W. for an IW Permit for 400 feet replacement pipe – Present to speak on behalf of this application was Alan Green, Public Works Director for the Town of Bethany. Commission members discussed and proceeded to deliberate.

It was moved by Sullivan and seconded by Smith to approve Application #1140 submitted by the Town of Bethany, Department of Public Works, for an Inland Wetlands Permit for the installation of 400 feet replacement pipe located at Carrington Road, south of Schilf as presented by the Public Works Director, and

other pertinent application information submitted including the comments from the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority as stated in the letter dated March 22, 2010, and is subject to the standard conditions found on the Land Records Volume 93, Page 802 and 803. The Commission’s decision was based on the fact that this is a necessary improvement to maintain Town roads. Unanimous approval.


WETLANDS ENFORCEMENT OFFICER’S REPORT

It was moved by Sullivan and seconded by Breslin to amend the April 26, 2010, Agenda to discuss the proposed activity at 860 Carrington Road. The Commission previously discussed the proposed new use for outside storage for a turf/landscaping business at the March 22, 2010, regular meeting. Isabel Kearns, IWEO, submitted a list from Marc D’Andrea, which listed equipment he is proposing to store outside. The Commission reviewed and directed the IWEO to prepare a letter on the Commission’s behalf to the Planning and Zoning Commission that there is no Inland Wetlands Commission action required.


It was moved by Sullivan and seconded by Smith to adjourn the regular meeting at 9:13 p.m.
Unanimous approval.

Respectfully submitted,



Antonia R. Marek, Clerk
for the Inland Wetlands Commission