Wednesday, June 11, 2014


MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, MINUTES OF THE BETHANY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR 2014                                                    Page 1 of 26


The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:06 p.m. in the Commission Room of the Bethany Town Hall, 40 Peck Road, Bethany, Connecticut.

 

The following Commission Members were present:

            Kimberly McClure Brinton, Chairman

            Salvatore Amadeo, Vice-Chairman

            Michael Calhoun, Member

            Douglas Goldner, Member

            Michael Sullivan, Member

            Donna Shea, Alternate Member

            Bradford Buchta, Alternate Member

 

The following Commission Member was absent:

            James Gugliotti, Alternate Member

 

Also present was:

            Hiram Peck, Planning Consultant

            Isabel Kearns, Zoning Enforcement Officer

            Peter Olson, Special Counsel

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

1.      It was moved by Sullivan and seconded by Calhoun to approve, as submitted, the minutes of the May 7, 2014, Regular Meeting.

      Voting for:  Brinton, Amadeo, Calhoun, Sullivan, Goldner.

      Unanimous approval.

 

 

BILLS

 

1.      It was moved by Calhoun and seconded by Goldner to approve the payment of $1,000.00 (monthly pro rata basis), for services rendered for May 2014, by Hiram W. Peck III, AICP, Planning Consultant.

      Voting for:  Brinton, Amadeo, Calhoun, Sullivan, Goldner.

Unanimous approval.

 

 

GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE

 

1.      Letter from Isabel Kearns, ZEO, dated May 8, 2014, to Mr. Mrs. Ralph Scinto of                 48 Northrop Road, Re:  Installation of fence – case closed.

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLICATIONS AND WORKSHOPS

 

  1. Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies Quarterly Newsletter, Spring 2014.
  2. CLEAR, A Newsletter of the Center of Land Use Education and Research at the University of Connecticut, Spring 2014.




ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER’S REPORT AND APPROPRIATE COMMISSION ACTION

 

Isabel Kearns, ZEO, reported on the following.

·         Will email report on building permits for the month of May.

 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

 

1.      378 Bethmour Road, Application #2014-020 submitted by Donald Parrott for a Special Exception Permit for one rear lot

 

The Commission formally received the application.  Present to speak on behalf of this application was John Paul Garcia, P.E./L.S. representing the applicant.

 

Mr. Garcia noted the following:

·         Applicant would like to split parcel into two lots.

·         Two houses exist on one lot.

·         The split would make one lot a rear lot.

·         Need advice from Commission if this is a resubdivision.

 

Mr. Peck stated that if property was previously subdivided, this would be a 2-lot Resubdivision.  If the applicant is agreeable, he can submit application for 2-lot Resubdivision tonight.

 

It was moved by Calhoun and seconded by Sullivan to table application so that Mr. Garcia can fill out a resubdivision application.  Unanimous approval.

 

Mr. Garcia completed an application for a 2-lot Resubdivision to the Commission.

 

It was moved by Calhoun and seconded by Goldner to accept the application for a Two-lot Resubdivision submitted by Donald Parrott for property located at 378 Bethmour Road.

Voting for:  Brinton, Amadeo, Calhoun, Sullivan, Goldner.

Unanimous approval.

 

 

 

It was moved by Calhoun and seconded by Amadeo to schedule a public hearing date of July 2, 2014, at 7:15 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room for Application #2014-020 for a Special Exception One Rear Lot and for the Application   #2014-022 for a Two-lot Resubdivision submitted by Donald Parrott for property located at 378 Bethmour Road.

Voting for:  Brinton, Amadeo, Calhoun, Sullivan, Goldner.

Unanimous approval.

 

 

2.      63 Sargent Drive, Application #2014-021 submitted by Bill and Wendy Grieger for a Site Plan for storage building

 

The Commission formally received the application.  Present to speak on behalf of this application was Bill Grieger, applicant and owner of record.

 

Mr. Grieger noted the following:

·         Recently purchased the property.

·         The property was approved by the Inland Wetlands Commission for a warehouse

·         Proposing to construct a 9,000 square foot storage building.

·         Will be submitting a site plan at the next regular meeting on July 2, 2014.

 

Isabel Kearns, ZEO, stated the Inland Wetlands Commission has not made a decision at this time. 

 

Isabel Kearns submitted a letter dated April 16, 2012, in regard to her review of the proposed project previously submitted but withdrawn, which is similar to this proposed project.

 

Further discussion and appropriate action on the application was deferred until the Commission’s next regular meeting on Wednesday, July 2, 2014.  Tabled.

 

 

3.      Discussion with MaryEllen Unger regarding Community Garden at Pole Hill Road

 

MaryEllen Unger, Chair of the Community Garden Club made a presentation to the Commission on the proposed Community Garden at the Pole Hill Dog Park Site.  Ms. Unger distributed an    11 page packet, dated June 3, 2014, and reviewed with the Commission.

 

Isabel Kearns, ZEO, stated Ms. Unger is trying to get feedback from the Commission so that the Community Garden Club can move forward and submit the necessary application to get approval. 

 

The Commission had no concerns.

 

Ms. Unger will return in the near future to the Commission with a Site Plan and application for a Section 8-24 review.

 

 

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

1.  4 Peck Road, Application #2014-002 submitted by James Sakonchick to 1. Amend the

      Bethany Zoning Regulations to add Section 4.3.K – Set-aside Development and

      2. Obtain approval of “Set-aside Development” for new construction of 3-Unit Multi-

      Family Dwelling in accordance with CGS Section 8-30g for property located at 4 Peck

      Road

 

Member Amadeo recused himself.  Member Buchta was seated as a voting member.

 

Hiram Peck, Planning Consultant, submitted a draft resolution.  Commission members reviewed and discussed.

 

Special Counsel Peter Olson reviewed the proposed draft and made some amendments to the proposed draft.

 

The Commission proceeded to deliberate:

 

Re: Application #2014-002 submitted by James Sakonchick for property at 4 Peck Road, Bethany, CT to:

1.      Amend the Bethany Zoning Regulations to add Section 4.3.K – Set-aside development and,

2.      Obtain approval of a “Set-aside Development” for new construction of a 3 unit multifamily dwelling in accordance with CGS Section 8-30g.

 

I (Member Calhoun) hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the above referenced Application based on the following facts and findings:

1.      The submitted Application was received by the Commission at its meeting on January 8, 2014.

2.      The Commission opened a public hearing on the Application on March 5, 2014 and continued the hearing until April 2, 2014. During these public hearings the Commission took all testimony as required by law. Testimony on this application was given by the applicant, the public and the Commission’s retained consultants.

3.      The Commission finds that the Application proposes a four (4) unit housing development on the subject property at 4 Peck Road, and proposes to place a deed restriction on one (1) of the four housing units, restricting it as affordable housing.

4.      The Commission finds that the Application does not propose a set-aside development as defined in Connecticut General Statutes 8-30g (a) (6) in that it proposes that only one (1) unit of the four, or 25% of the dwelling units are proposed to made subject to deed restrictions rather than the 30% as required by said statute.

 

5.      Additionally, the Commission finds the one (1) unit which is proposed to be set-aside, although that designation has not been made known at this time, but is not the existing single family dwelling located at 4 Peck Road, does also not comply as it is not of “essentially similar size, character, type and finish of the other units on the property.

6.      The Commission further finds that the Application does not propose “assisted housing” as defined in Connecticut General Statutes 8-30g (a) (3).

7.      Accordingly, the Commission finds that the Application does not propose an “affordable housing development” nor is it an “affordable housing application” as defined in General Statutes 8-30g (a) (1) or Connecticut General Statutes 8-30g (a) (2), respectively.

Therefore, the Commission finds the proposed development as shown in the subject Application not in compliance with Connecticut General Statutes 8-30g as stated above and under which Section this application was submitted.

Furthermore;

The Commission finds the Application unacceptable for the following reasons. These deficiencies as found in the submitted affordability plan are as follows:

1.      Wording inconsistencies exist in the document which may cause confusion as to:

a.       The 40-year period onset date is unclear and needs to be clarified.

b.      Which unit or “units” (page4 of the Affordability Plan) are the Hotchkiss Opportunity Unit(s) (HOU)? This unit is unspecified thus making comparison with size, character and type standards impossible to determine.

c.       The “Administrator” is proposed to be the owner, of the HOU unit. Despite repeated questions regarding this matter during the public hearing the applicant declined to agree to retain competent personnel to perform important administrative tasks and functions for the proposed development. The administrator needs to be qualified to perform these administrative duties in order to assure the affordability for the entire 40-year period. The Administrator should be required to certify to the Town that each transaction complies with the provisions of the Affordable Housing Act. The Commission finds the applicant’s position on this matter deficient. The administration of any affordable unit should be required to be done by a professional outside the ownership of the unit(s) or development. This would ensure objectivity and proper administration of any affordable unit(s).

d.      The rental calculation method and rates were not presented in a way the Commission could determine acceptability. A person with specific expertise in the review of these documents in Connecticut General Statutes 8-30g applications so as to ensure the legal accuracy of the process going forward is required but was not presented or agreed to by the applicant.

e.       The term “principal residence” should be clearly defined so as to eliminate any confusion as to what the term means. Simply receiving mail at an address does not qualify as the principal residence. This aspect of the affordability plan is found deficient.

f.       The enforceability of any tenant of the affordability plan should be clearly spelled out in the document to the satisfaction of the Commission and its legal advisor in this matter. The section on page 7 on “Qualifying Status” leaves many items unclear. For example what does the administrator do if an “Owner” of a unit (not a renter) no longer qualifies to reside there?

g.      The term “release” should be clarified.

h.      The term “resale” should be clarified and rectified so as to not be confused with the term lease in this matter.

i.        The section on enforcement should be clarified as to violations of the affordability plan. This section is deficient and leaves the Commission with little or no recourse in the case of a clear violation.

j.        Deed restrictions and lease terms seem to conflict or at least potentially conflict. These should be clarified so that these restrictions are made clear.

k.      Typical in various locations is the potential for confusion between “for lease” and “for sale” units. This should be explained and clarified throughout to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney or Commission’s Special Counsel.

l.        Applicant should explain how such documents are to be made available to Town Staff or to an objective administrator so that proper verification of income status is able to be completed so the Town can verify income qualifications (and thus compliance with Connecticut General Statutes 8-30g) without either (a) access to these records or (b) certification by an objective professionally qualified outside administrator? The Commission finds the applicant’s reluctance to appoint a qualified professional to accomplish these tasks a significant deficiency.

m.    The affordability plan proposes to establish these units as leased units rather than units which are for sale. This sets out from the onset the fact that the HOU unit may not be separately purchased for at least the initial 40 year period without a revision to the affordability plan. This aspect is unclear and needs to be resolved.

Therefore, the Commission also finds the proposed development as shown in the subject Application not in compliance with Connecticut General Statutes 8-30g as stated above with regard to the required affordability plan and under which Section this application was submitted.

 

 

 

With regard to the proposed text amendment I (Member Calhoun) move that the Planning and Zoning Commission find the following:

The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Bethany deny Application #2014-002 for a text amendment for the following reasons:

1.      The text amendment as drafted may be applied to “any property within 1,000 feet of Town Hall and fronting on a State Highway.” However all other applicable Zoning requirements of these (Bethany Zoning) Regulations shall apply to any proposal. Several aspects of the current Zoning Regulations are violated by the proposed site plan. The site plan shows more than one residential structure on a single residential lot. The site plan itself violates the proposed regulation.

2.      The text amendment is not in keeping with many of the Housing Goals as found in the Bethany 2010 Plan of Conservation and Development as follows:

a.       Housing Goal 2 (page 26): “To provide for the development of new housing without compromising Bethany’s rural character.” The very high visibility of this out of character development has significant impact on the rural character of this highly visible area.

b.      Goal 3: No housing is being proposed for senior residents.

c.       Goal 5: No evidence regarding sustainable development has been submitted. Nor is any evidence of sustainable development found in the application hearing record.

3.      The text amendment is not in keeping with the Housing Policies as found on page 27 in the Bethany 2010 Plan of Conservation and Development as follows:

a.       Housing Policy (page 27): Dependency on non-renewable resources. No material has been submitted to support this policy as part of this application.

b.      No sustainable development information has been submitted as part of this application

4.      The text amendment is not in keeping with the Housing measures as found on page 27 in the Bethany 2010 Plan of Conservation and Development as follows:

a.       No coordination between any groups involved with senior housing has been discussed or submitted.

b.      No information with regard to carrying capacity of the site has been submitted as the measure for density increase requests.

 

 

 

c.       No information regarding LEED/Green Globe or other similar organizations has been submitted with regard to the proposed text amendment or site plan. No aspects, as opposed to all aspects, of sustainability have been examined,  considered and submitted as part of this text amendment or the site plan.

The Commission finds that the proposed text amendment does not address many of the applicable goals, policies and measures requested in the Bethany 2010 Plan of Conservation and Development for the following reasons:

1.      It fails to take into account the housing goals, polices and measures as stated above.

2.      The text amendment leads to, causes or leaves unanswered all the issues cited above with regard to site plan deficiencies.

3.      The text amendment is poorly drafted so as to be too vague in areas and leave several important aspects of determination of acceptability unable to be determined by the Commission or its staff.

I (Member Calhoun) move the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the text amendment for the above stated reasons:

1.      The Commission also finds the proposed Site Plan does not comply with the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Bethany for the following reasons:

SITE PLAN REVIEW ISSUES:

 

The site plan for the development was reviewed by Town Staff and its consultants.

Included among remaining concerns are:

a.       The site plan does not qualify as a Connecticut General Statutes 8-30g in that it violates the uniformity provisions of Connecticut General Statutes 8-2 in that it provides for different uses on different properties throughout the zoning district and is therefore illegal.

b.      Safe vehicular access to the proposed dwelling units in regard to the short distance to the corner of Peck Road and Amity Road. Despite repeated request for traffic safety, information during the public hearing the applicant refused to provide this critically important information.

c.       Adequate safe sightline distances to all existing and proposed driveways remains unverified based upon applicant’s refusal to provide information during the public hearing.

d.      Proof of adequacy of available potable water supply for the 4 dwelling units from on-site well(s).

e.       Proof of adequate on-site sewage disposal for the 4 dwelling units on a single small lot with some significant slopes.

 

 

 

f.       The site design and layout is particularly glaring with its complete lack of respect to the existing historic structure on the property. The siting of the new structure will deprive all residents of any privacy due to proposed expanded and unnecessary parking lots.

g.      The site design is particularly poor with regard to the siting of the new structure in relation to the existing historic structure. No respect is paid the existing structure and its historical role at this site.

h.      The street views of the proposed structure are particularly un-aesthetic as they relate to both the existing structure and the public roadway.

i.        A garage which previously existed on the site has been removed. The setbacks which were previously non-conforming may have been lost as the structure has been removed and not replaced to date.

 

Based on the evidence and testimony presented during the public hearings, and based on the foregoing Findings, Application #2014-002 for the site plan is hereby denied for the following reasons:

1.      Does not comply with regulations as stated above.

 

Based on the evidence and testimony presented during the public hearings, and based on the foregoing Findings, Application #2014-002 for the text amendment is hereby denied for the following reasons:

1.      Same reasons as above.

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS

The Commission is aware that the Applicant has claimed that the application does indeed propose a “set-aside development” as defined in Connecticut General Statutes 8-30g (a) (6), in that 1/3 of the new units, excluding the existing unit, are proposed as deed restricted affordable units.  The Commission disagrees with this interpretation of statutes, and as such, has not analyzed nor decided this application based upon the heightened standard provided in Connecticut General Statutes 8-30g (g).  However, in anticipation that this claim might be litigated, the Commission makes the following additional findings:

 

1.      Health and Safety: Traffic safety at this particular busy intersection is of high concern to the Commission. Based on the applicants reluctance to adequately respond to the Commission and staff information requested during the public hearing the critical concern remains unanswered and subsequently places the safety of the residents of the proposed development as well as the general public at great risk. It should also be noted that Peck Road and Amity Road at this intersection is the main route that a significant majority of school busses and parents bringing children to school via private passenger vehicle use every single school day. This causes this concern for public safety to be heightened n this location.

2.      Were the Commission to have approved the application, it would have required the changes to the affordability plan as stated above on pages 2 and 3, items a. through m.

3.    Text amendment still should be denied, for the reasons stated above, plus the significant fact that the text amendment cannot be properly modified without a complete revision. A simple modification of the proposed, unclear, unenforceable and unworkable document is not possible.

 

Moved by: Commissioner Calhoun

Seconded by: Commissioner Sullivan

Vote to deny the application: 5-0

Voting:  Brinton, Calhoun, Sullivan, Goldner, Buchta.

 

 

2.      4 and 21 Meyers Road, Application #2014-006 submitted by Green Haven Inc.  for zoning text amendments to the Bethany Zoning Regulations to amend the title of the existing Section 9A by adding “Age Restricted” and to create a new Section 9B - “Housing Opportunity Development” (HOD) District

 

 

3.      4 and 21 Meyers Road, Application #2014-007 submitted by Green Haven Inc. to change the zone district designation of 4 Meyers Rd (Assessor’s Map 119,       Lot 7) & 21 Meyers Rd (Assessor’s Map 119, Lot 4), Bethany, Connecticut from HOD (Section 9A)            to new proposed Section 9B (HOD)

 

4.      4 and 21 Meyers Road, Application #2014-008 submitted by Green Haven Inc. to obtain a site plan approval for new construction of 30 homes and related improvements for a housing development to be named Rocky Corner, at 4 Meyers Rd (Assessor’s Map 119, Lot 7) & 21 Meyers Rd (Assessor’s Map 119, Lot 4), Bethany, Connecticut

 

 

Special Counsel Peter Olson prepared a draft resolution and reviewed with the Commission members.

 

Commission members discussed and proceeded to deliberate. 

 

It was moved by Calhoun and seconded by Sullivan to approve the following motion for the applications listed below and incorporate the findings and reasons contained within this draft motion. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION

I hereby move that the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Bethany (the “Commission”) approve the following applications submitted by Green Haven Inc. (the “Applicant”):

1.       Application 2014-006 for an amendment to the text of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Bethany (the “Regulations”) to add a new Section 9B, “Housing Opportunity Development” (the “Text Amendment Application”);

2.      Application 2014-007 for an amendment to the Zoning Map of the Town of Bethany (the “Zoning Map”) to apply the new Section 9B to property located at 4 and 21 Meyers Road, Assessor’s Map 119, Lots 4 and 7, consisting of 32.98 acres (the “Property”) (the “Map Amendment Application”); and

3.      Application 2014-008 for site plan approval for the construction of a 30 unit housing development and related structures and site improvements on the Property (the “Site Plan Application”).

FINDINGS

The Commission hereby finds as follows:

2.      The Text Amendment Application, Map Amendment Application and Site Plan Application (collectively, the “Applications”) were submitted by the Applicant on January 7, 2014, and were received by the Commission at its meeting of January 8, 2014.

3.      The Commission opened a public hearing on the Applications on February 12, 2014, continuing thereafter on February 26, 2014, March 19, 2014 and April 16, 2014, whereupon, the Commission closed the public hearing.

4.      During the public hearings, the Commission heard testimony from the applicant and its consultants, from the public, from representatives of departments of the Town of Bethany and the Regional Water Authority, and from the Commission’s retained consultants.

5.      The Applications propose a “set-aside development” as defined in General Statutes 8-30g (a) (6), in that it proposes that 9 units of the 30 total proposed units will be conveyed subject to deed restrictions preserving those units as affordable housing.

6.      The Application proposes an “affordable housing development” and is therefore an “affordable housing application” as defined in General Statutes 8-30g (a) (1) or General Statutes 8-30g (a) (2), respectively.

 

 

7.      Pursuant to a decision of the Connecticut Superior Court on May 3, 2007 in a case entitled Halter Estates Senior Community, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Bethany, judicial district of New Britain, docket no. HNB CV 06 4010191 S (the “Decision”), and further by action of the Commission on December 5, 2007, the Property is currently in the Housing Opportunity Development zoning district, set forth in Section 9A of the Regulations.

8.      Section 9A permits common interest communities, comprised of individual associations with no more than 16 units and governed by a master association with no more than 52 units as a permitted use in the zoning district.

9.      The Decision was rendered by the Court in an affordable housing appeal from a denial by the Commission of a prior affordable housing application.

10.  In addition to ordering the Commission to change the zoning district of the Property to the new Section 9A, the Court ordered the approval of a 52 unit housing development on the Property.

11.  As previously determined by the Commission, the development of the Property in accordance with the court-ordered approval would be substantially detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the people of Bethany as a result of direct impacts to Lake Chamberlain.

12.  Development of the Property in accordance with the Court-ordered approval would result in a residential housing density which would be a substantial change in the historic, rural, character of the Town of Bethany.

13.  This change would be to the detriment of all of the people of Bethany, many of whom choose to live in Bethany due to this character, and would be an irreversible change.

14.  In rendering this decision and in imposing the conditions of approval contained herein, the Commission is mindful of these principles, and believes that approval of these applications is the best way to maintain the character of the Town in the face of the mandates of the affordable housing appeals statute.

15.  The Applicant has demonstrated that the development as proposed does not impact any substantial public interests in health or safety, in that:

a.       The Quinnipiac Valley Health District is satisfied with the matters of public health which are in its jurisdiction, including provision for septic and water;

b.      The Regional Water Authority is satisfied that the development will not have any impact on Lake Chamberlain, a public drinking water supply;

c.       The Office of the Fire Marshal of the Town of Bethany and the Bethany Volunteer Fire Department and Ambulance Corps are satisfied with the provisions made for fire protection and access to the buildings;

d.      The Commission’s retained civil engineers, Nafis & Young Engineers, Inc. are satisfied with the provisions made for drainage and traffic issues;

16.  The approval of this application may have a detrimental long-term effect on the historic, rural character of the Town of Bethany, but that the development as proposed is a far better alternative to the court ordered approved development plan as to all of the issues identified in Finding No. 14 above.

17.  The approval rendered herein is specifically contingent upon the Applicant’s stated commitments that it does not intend to further develop the Property for additional residential units at any time.  Accordingly, the Commission has imposed a number of conditions to ensure that this commitment is implemented and the legal rights the Applicant may claim for any future development are terminated with finality.  These conditions are integral to this approval, and any attempt to circumvent them should be considered to be a violation of the conditions of this approval, and therefore of the Regulations, subject to enforcement and termination of the right to occupy the units.

 

APPROVAL – TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION

The Text Amendment Application is hereby approved, and the Regulations are hereby amended to add a new section 9B, Housing Opportunity Development zoning district, as modified pursuant to the attached final text.

 

With regard to the modified language, the Commission finds that:

1.       It is important to maintain the discretion that the Commission may exercise with regard to large developments, and as such, a simple site plan application without special exception requirement is not sufficient for developments authorized by this zoning district;

2.      The provisions of Section 8 of the Regulations pertaining to and requiring special exceptions for excavation and fill activities are designed to protect the public health, safety and welfare.  Accordingly, it is not appropriate to exempt any application from those provisions.

3.      The Applicant did not submit formal applications for special exception pursuant to Section 4.4 or for an excavation and fill special exception pursuant to Section 8 because its proposed text amendment did not require such.

4.      The Application did, however, comply with all criteria for the submission of applications for such special exceptions, and for the issuance thereof, and as such, the Commission finds that the application requirements of Section 4.4 and Section 8, as required by the modified text amendment, have been satisfied.

 

 

Reasons for Approval:

1.      The modified text amendment, as applied through the proposed development set forth in the Site Plan application, does not impact any substantial public interests in health or safety which outweigh the need for affordable housing;

2.      The modified text amendment is consistent with the plan of development as found in the current zoning regulations and development patterns in the Town of Bethany, in that it allows development consistent with, but less dense than, the current zoning regulations;

3.      The modified text amendment is consistent with the Plan of Conservation of Development in that it is found to be in keeping with the following sections of the 2010 Plan of Conservation and Development:

a.       Chapter 1: Guiding Principles, including sustainable development.

b.      Chapter 2: Findings and recommendations, including Land Use Policies, Open Space recommendations Open Space Goals regarding agricultural heritage, and open space Policies and Open Space Measures. The use of LID measures as part of the proposed development and Road and transportation measures.

c.       Section 4: Housing. Housing goals, 1-5. Housing Policies, 1-5 and Housing Measures, number 2.

d.      In addition, it is found that the proposed development will be in accordance with the recommendation of the Conservations Commission’s recommendation for an extension of the trail system through the property.

 

The Commission further finds that the Petition submitted pursuant to General Statutes § 8-3 (b) did not comply with the provisions thereof, and does not alter the majority vote requirement for this application.

 

The Text Amendment shall be effective as of July 1, 2014.

 

APPROVAL – MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION

The Map Amendment Application is hereby approved, and the Zoning Map is hereby modified to apply the new section 9B, Housing Opportunity Development zoning district, to the Property.

 

Reasons for Approval:

1.      The map amendment, as applied through the proposed development set forth in the Site Plan application, does not impact any substantial public interests in health or safety which outweigh the need for affordable housing;

2.      The map amendment is consistent with the plan of development as found in the current zoning regulations and development patterns in the Town of Bethany, in that it allows development of the Property consistent with, but less dense than, the current zoning regulations;

3.      The map amendment is consistent with the Plan of Conservation of Development for the same reasons stated above for the text amendment.

The Commission further finds that the Petition submitted pursuant to General Statutes § 8-3 (b) did not comply with the provisions thereof, and does not alter the majority vote requirement for this application.

 

The Map Amendment shall be effective as of July 1, 2014.

 

APPROVAL – SITE PLAN APPLICATION

The Site Plan Application is hereby approved, and Special Exception, Site Plan and Excavation and Fill Permit approvals are hereby issued.

 

Reasons for Approval:

 

1.      The proposed development does not impact any substantial public interests in health or safety which outweigh the need for affordable housing;

Conditions of Approval:

 

The Commission hereby finds that the following conditions of approval are integral to its approval of the Site Plan Application, and that the failure to comply with any of the conditions shall render the approval null and void.

 

1.      The development shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the following final plans submitted by the Applicant, as they may be revised as provided herein:

a.       Title Sheet, “Rocky Corner, Old Amity Road and 4 & 21 Meyers Road, Bethany Connecticut, October 25, 2013, last revised April 2, 2014.”

b.      “Existing Conditions”, dated October 25, 2013, revised to December 11, 2013, Sheet 01.

c.       “Overall Site Plan/Index Plan”, dated October 25, 2013, revised to April 2, 2014, Sheet 02.

d.      “Site Development Plan”, dated October 25, 2013, revised to April 2, 2014, Sheet 03.

e.       “Site Development Plan”, dated October 25, 2013, revised to April 2, 2014, Sheet 04.

f.       “Site Development Plan”, dated October 25, 2013, revised to April 2, 2014, Sheet 05.

g.      “Sediment and Erosion Control Plan”, dated October 25, 2013, revised to April 2, 2014, Sheet 06.

h.      “Site Details”, dated October 25, 2013, revised to April 2, 2014, Sheet 07.

i.        “Site Details”, dated October 25, 2013, revised to April 2, 2014, Sheet 08.

j.        “Site Details”, dated October 25, 2013, revised to January 7, 2014, Sheet 09.

k.      “Soil Data/Septic Design Information”, dated October 25, 2013, revised to February 28, 2014, Sheet 10.

2.      Any changes to the approved development plans must be submitted to the Commission for review and may be approved administratively.  Any substantial changes to the approved development plans, including new buildings or engineering structures, or the significant relocation of buildings or engineering structures may, in the Commission’s discretion, require a revised site plan approval.

3.      Within thirty (30) days of the date hereof, the Applicant shall submit any new or revised plans required pursuant to these conditions of approval.

4.      Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant and Owner of the Property shall submit a letter to the Commission formally relinquishing any and all rights to the approvals issued pursuant to the court Decision.

5.      The Applicant shall comply with all recommendations contained in the following final reports:

a.       Office of the Fire Marshal, April 15, 2014;

b.      Bethany Volunteer Fire Department and Ambulance Corps, April 14, 2014;

c.       Quinnipiac Valley Health District, April 16, 2014;

d.      Regional Water Authority, April 16, 2014;

e.       Nafis & Young Engineers, Inc., dated February 4, 2014, or later email or report;

f.       Conservation Commission, dated February 10, 2014;

g.      Inland Wetlands Commission, dated May 27, 2014.

6.      In the event that any of the reports identified in Condition No. 5 require additional submissions or approvals, the Applicant shall submit such additional information or obtain such approvals prior to removal of any vegetation on the Property, commencement of site disturbance, or issuance of a building permit.

7.      The Applicant shall revise all of the site development plans to remove any references to dwelling units on Lots 1 ad 4.  Prior to issuance of building permits, all residential occupancy of Lots 1 and 4 shall terminate, and thereafter, no residential use of Lots 1 and 4 shall be permitted, whether permanent or temporary, for guest or transient occupancy.

8.      Hours of Operation.  No site, building or excavation work shall be conducted except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on non-holiday Mondays through Fridays, or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on Saturdays.

9.      Signage.  The roadway surrounding the exterior of the housing development shall be posted with “No Parking” signs except where parking is specifically permitted.  The roadway traversing the interior of the housing development shall be (a) posted at both ends with signage indicating that parking is prohibited except for temporary loading and unloading and (b) posted at intervals with the same signage.  All signs shall be submitted to the Commission for review and approval.

10.  Septic Approval.  This approval is specifically conditioned upon approval of the septic system for the Property by the appropriate regulatory authority, whether that is the local health director, state Department of Public Heath (“DPH”), or state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (“DEEP”).  Such approval shall be submitted to the Commission prior to removal of any vegetation on the Property, commencement of site disturbance, or issuance of a building permit.  Zoning staff is hereby directed to inquire of DEEP and DPH as to which agency has jurisdiction over the septic approval.

11.  All fire suppression structures, such as fire tanks, shall be installed, tested and operational before commencement of vertical construction.  The property owner shall permit the Bethany Firemen’s Association to enter the Property and test the fire suppression structures on a regular basis, with at least twenty-four hours notice, and accompanied by a representative of the property owner.

12.  The access to Meyers Road from Lot 1 shall be for emergency access and farming vehicle access only.  A gate shall be installed, which shall remain closed and locked except for such purposes.  A lockbox shall be provided, with the access codes available to Town emergency personnel.

13.  The applicant shall designate areas of land to be reserved for fifteen (15) deferred parking spaces, to be provided in addition to those already shown on the development plans.  The Applicant shall lay out these areas on a revised Site Plan and submit the revised Site Plan to the Commission.  The Applicant shall demonstrate that the deferred parking can be constructed and operated in a safe manner, and the additional impervious coverage can be accommodated by the proposed site drainage facilities.  The deferred parking shall not be constructed unless the Commission determines, at a future date, that the provided parking is insufficient to meet the demands of the site development.  No additional applications will be required for construction of the deferred parking so long as it is constructed in accordance with the revised Site Plan.  This condition is imposed as a modification to the proposed development because the Commission believes that the lack of parking could present an issue impacting substantial interests in the public health and safety.

14.  Common Interest Community documentation.

This approval is specifically conditioned upon the implementation of the common interest community structure proposed by the Applicant:

a.       A common interest community shall be declared, covering Lot 2, containing 15 housing units.

b.      A common interest community shall be declared, covering Lot 3, containing 15 housing units.

c.       A master association shall be declared, covering Lot 2 and Lot 3, encompassing both of the individual lot common interest communities.

d.      The common areas on Lot 2 shall be owned by the common interest community covering Lot 2, and the common areas on Lot 3 shall be owned by the common interest community covering Lot 3.

e.       Lots 1 and 4 shall be owned by the master association and may be considered common elements to the individual lot associations.

f.       There shall be no unit owner associations for Lots 1 or 4.

 

The common interest community Declarations shall contain the following provisions:

a.       The master association shall be responsible for the repair, maintenance and replacement of all septic systems, roads, drainage structures, fire suppression structures and other site improvements, whether located on Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3 or Lot 4, with the exception of the structures containing dwelling units.  The Declarations may provide for the recovery of expenses incurred for repair, maintenance or replacement from the individual lot common interest communities or the unit owners, but the master association shall be principally responsible to carry out such repairs, maintenance or replacement.

b.      The Declarations for the master association and the individual lot common interest communities shall not reserve any development rights.

c.       The Declarations for the master association and the individual lot common interest communities shall provide that no portion of any of the lots may be developed for residential uses other than provided for in this Site Plan Approval, namely, 30 residential dwelling units combined on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, and that the Declarations shall not be amended to permit such additional development.

The Applicant shall submit all common interest community documents to the Commission for review and approval by its counsel prior to recording in the land records.

15.   Conservation Easements

The Applicant has proposed to grant certain Conservation, Agricultural and Access easements on the Property, and based on the Applicant’s proposals, the Commission makes the grant of the following easements a condition of approval of this application:

a.       The Applicant shall grant a permanent easement for public access for pedestrian and horseback riding purposes access across Lots 1 and 2 to reach the Spykman Preserve and the Regional Water Authority property.

b.      The Applicant shall grant permanent conservation and agricultural easements across those areas of Lot 2 and Lot 3 as shown on a plan submitted to the Commission entitled Agricultural Deed Restriction Areas, Rocky Corner, April 2014. Such easements shall not permit the construction of any structures on such areas, but may permit the construction of certain structures necessary for storage of agricultural equipment, supplies or produce without provision for water supply.

c.       The Applicant shall grant a permanent conservation and agricultural easement across Lot 1 and 4.  Such easement shall permit the construction and maintenance of all structures shown on the Site Plan, and the use thereof by residents for meeting and gathering space. Such easement shall also permit the construction of additional structures for agricultural purposes, such as for storage of agricultural equipment, supplies or produce, or for housing of farm animals.

d.      The Applicant shall grant a restrictive covenant over Lot 1 and 4 which shall prohibit the construction of any residential dwelling units, and shall prohibit the occupancy of any structure on Lot 1 and 4 for residential purposes, including temporary, guest or transient occupancy.  Said restrictive covenant shall specifically be referenced in the Declaration for the master association.

Each of the easements and covenants specified herein shall be granted to third parties not related to Green Haven, Inc. or the common interest community associations, and shall be set forth in documents to be submitted to the Commission for review and approval prior to recording in the Land Records.  All easements and covenants shall be executed by Green Haven, Inc., its successors or assigns, and shall be recorded in the land records prior to recording of the Declarations.

16.   Affordability Plan

The Affordability Plan shall be revised to provide that:

a.       The Master Association shall be responsible for compliance with all requirements of the Affordable Housing Appeals Act and regulations adopted pursuant thereto.

b.      The Master Association shall engage a qualified third party to act as Administrator of the Affordability Plan.

c.       The Administrator shall review each transfer of an affordable unit to ensure compliance with the Affordability Plan, and shall certify to the Town that the requirements are met at the time of the transfer of each unit.

d.      The Commission shall have the right to approve the Administrator proposed by the Master Association.

e.       The Administrator shall provide an annual report to the Commission and the Zoning Enforcement Officer.

f.       The sales price calculations shall be updated to the date of recording of the Affordability Plan.

g.      The size of the affordable units shall be at least 70% of the average size of all of the market rate units in the development containing the same number of bedrooms.

The Affordability Plan shall be submitted to the Commission for review and approval prior to recording in the Land Records.

17.  The pro rata construction requirements stated in the Affordability Plan are hereby a    condition of this approval.

EXPIRATION

The improvements proposed in the Site Plan, Special Permit and Excavation & Fill Permit issued pursuant to this approval shall be completed within the time periods provided by the General Statutes, as they may be amended.

 

In the event that the Site Plan, Special Permit and Excavation & Fill Permit expire as provided in the General Statutes, then the Zone Text Amendment and Map Amendment shall also expire.  In such event, the Commission may take action to acknowledge such expiration, and upon such action, (1) Section 9B of the Regulations shall be deleted and be of no effect, (2) the zoning district applicable to the Property shall revert to the zoning district in effect as of the date the application was received, or if such zoning district is no longer in effect or has been modified, to the R-65 or R-130 Zoning District, as applicable.

 

BONDING

 

The Applicant shall, prior to issuance of building permits, post a bond, in conformance with the General Statutes, to cover the following items:

a.  Landscaping;

b.  Road Improvements;

c.  Fire Suppression structures;

d.  Septic and water improvements, to be held for at least one (1) year from completion to ensure full operation.

 

The amount of the bonds shall be initially calculated by the Applicant’s engineer, and reviewed and agreed upon by the Commission’s engineer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, the following is the text amendment adopted by the Commission which is to be effective July 1, 2014:

 

SECTION 9B:  HOUSING OPPORTUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

 

9B.1    Intent and Purpose:

 

            This Housing Opportunity Development ("HOD") District is intended to increase in the Town of Bethany the supply of housing that is within the economic means of moderate income households.  The HOD District is a separate and independent zoning district, and shall replace, not supplement, the existing zoning district of any property to which it is applied.

 

9B.2    Permitted Uses:

 

The following uses shall be permitted on all properties existing within an HOD District, subject to issuance of a Site Development Plan as provided in Section 10, and a Special Exception as provided in Section 4.4:

 

(a)                Residential homes, with a maximum of three dwelling units per building, as part of a Housing Opportunity Development as defined herein.

                                                                                                                             

The following uses shall be permitted as accessory uses to the principal uses stated in section (a) above:

 

(a)    Accessory buildings, structures and uses.

 

(b)   Agricultural or farming uses.       

 

(c)    Common or community buildings to be utilized by residents of the development and their guests and invitees, but not to be used for residential purposes or for temporary or transient residential occupancy or guests.

 

            Such accessory uses may be principal uses on lots without any residential homes.

 

9B.3    Eligible Areas:

 

            The HOD may only be applied to properties that meet the following criteria:

 

(a)    The total combined property shall be at least (30) acres in size;

 

(b)   The combined property shall have frontage on Old Amity Road and Meyers Road; and

 

(c)    The combined property shall have been owned by the same person or entity for at least three (3) years prior to application.

 

9B.4    Bulk, Area, Dimensional, and Open Space Requirements:

 

The following requirements shall govern an HOD development:

 

(a)        Minimum front yard setback (exterior of                   50 feet

            combined lot boundaries)

 

            Minimum front yard setback (interior                         10 feet

            lot boundaries)

 

(b)        Minimum side yard setback (exterior of                     50 feet

            combined lot boundaries)

 

            Minimum side yard setback (interior                          10 feet

            lot boundaries)

 

(c)        Minimum rear yard setback (exterior of                     50 feet

            combined lot boundaries)

 

            Minimum rear yard setback (interior                           10 feet

            lot boundaries)

 

(d)       Maximum building height                                           35 feet or 2 ½ stories

 

                        (e)        Maximum building coverage per lot                           10% of gross lot area

 

                        (f)        Maximum ground coverage per lot                             20% of gross lot area

 

9B.5    Other Standards:

 

                        (a)        Private roads:

                                    Where private roads are proposed, they shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the following minimum standards:  All roads shall provide safe access for emergency vehicles.  Main access roads shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width.  Perimeter drives shall be a minimum of 15 feet in width.  Surface materials may include gravel, bituminous concrete, or chip seal.

 

                        (b)        Parking:

                                    There shall be a minimum of 2.0 parking spaces per home.

 

 

 

9B.6    Maximum Density:

 

The maximum allowable density within an HOD District shall be one residential home per gross acre of the combined lot area.  The maximum allowable density for a lot within an HOD District shall be two residential homes per gross acre.

 

9B.7    Traffic Study:

 

A traffic study shall be prepared and submitted to the Commission with regard to the existing and proposed traffic conditions and circumstances.

 

9B.8    Application Requirements:

 

(a)        Petition to re-zone the property to the HOD;

(b)        Application for site development plan, as provided by Section 10 of these Zoning Regulations.

(c)        Application for Earth Grading/Excavation activities Special Exception if required by Section 8 of these Zoning Regulations

An application for more than one parcel of land as part of a combined development shall require only one application.

9B.9    Definitions:

 

(a)        A "Housing Opportunity Development" is a housing development in which not less than thirty percent (30%) of the dwelling units will be held or conveyed by deeds containing covenants or restrictions which shall require, for a period of at least forty (40) years, that such dwelling units be rented and sold at, or below, prices which will preserve the units as affordable housing as defined in
Section 8-30g of the Connecticut General Statutes, as amended.

 

(b)        "HOD Home" means a dwelling unit within a Housing Opportunity Development that is subject to long-term price restrictions that comply with Section 8-30g of the Connecticut General Statutes, as amended.

 

9B.10  Requirements for HOD Homes:

 

            The following requirements shall apply to HOD Homes:

 

(a)        HOD Homes shall be of a construction quality that is comparable to market-rate units within the development.

 

(b)        HOD Homes shall be dispersed throughout the development and built on a pro rata basis as construction proceeds.

 

(c)        In conjunction with an application for approval of a site plan for an HOD development, the applicant shall submit a "Compliance Plan," as required by Section 8-30g of the Connecticut General Statutes, which shall describe how the regulations regarding affordability will be administered.  The Plan shall include provisions for administration of and compliance with this Section; notice procedures to the general public of the availability of HOD Homes; identification of the method for designating HOD Homes; and compliance with affordability requirements.

 

(d)       A violation of the regulations contained in this Section 9B shall not result in a forfeiture or reversion of title, but the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Bethany or its designated agent shall otherwise retain all enforcement powers granted by the Connecticut General Statutes, including Section 8-12.

 

Vote 4 to 1.

Voting for:  Brinton, Calhoun, Sullivan, Goldner.

Opposed:  Amadeo.

Approved.

 

 

5.      Discussion with Marc D’Andrea    regarding outside storage at 860 Carrington Road

 

No one was present for this discussion.  Isabel Kearns, ZEO, will contact Mr. D’Andrea.  Tabled.

 

 

6.      Continue discussion and possible action to set public hearing date regarding proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations on accessory buildings, signage for larger parcels, home occupation permits, etc. – Tabled.

 

 

7.      Continue discussion on Village Districts – Tabled.

 

 

OTHER BUSINESS

 

Complaint against 48 Northrop Road – Ron and Cheryl Vernik of 44 Northrop Road voiced their complaint about their neighbors at 48 Northrop Road stating they have approximately 8 unregistered vehicles on their property and the storage of horse manure on property smells and draws flies which is coming from their property (48 Northrop Road) due to poor management of the horses they have.  The Vernik’s expressed their concern with well water contamination from unregistered vehicles and the storage of the horse manure on the property instead of being placed in dumpster and hauled away. 

 

The Zoning Enforcement Officer will investigate further.  Tabled.

 

Revision of Land Use Fees – Hiram Peck, Planning Consultant, prepared a memo to be added to the resolution for the Town Meeting for the approval of the Land Use Fees regarding “fees for outside consultants”.   Isabel will email to Commission members.

 

 

There being no further business to come before the Commission, it was moved by Sullivan and seconded by Amadeo to adjourn the regular meeting at 10:10 p.m.  Unanimous approval.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Antonia R. Marek, Clerk

For the Planning and Zoning Commission