MINUTES OF THE BETHANY PLANNNG AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 2010 Page 1 of 24

The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:04 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
John Ford IV, Member
Mary Shurtleff, Member
Donald Shea Jr., Alternate Member, seated as a voting member.
Marc Adelberg, Alternate Member, seated as a voting member.
Nellie Rabinowitz, Alternate Member

The following Commission members were excused or absent:
Melissa Spear, Vice-Chairman
Patricia Winer, Member

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 Shurtleff and seconded by Shea to approve, as submitted, the minutes of the May 5, 2010, Regular Meeting.
Voting for: Huxley, Shurtleff, Shea, Adelberg.
Unanimous approval.


GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE

1. Letter from South Central CT Regional Planning Commission, dated May 13, 2010, Re: Review comments on proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments to Bethany Floodplain Management Regulations.
2. Letter from John Paul Garcia, dated May 28, 2010, Re: Special Exception Application for 116 Sperry Road.
3. Email from Eugene Livshits of SCC RPC, dated May 11, 2010, Re: Town of Woodbridge submittal of proposed Zoning Amendments to Sign and Artificial Lighting Regulations and Flood Hazard Area Regulations.
4. Letter from South Central CT Regional Planning Commission, dated May 13, 2010, Re: Review comments on proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments to Woodbridge Revisions to the Flood Hazard Area Regulations.
5. Letter from South Central CT Regional Planning Commission, dated May 13, 2010, Re: Review comments on proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments to Woodbridge Revisions to the Signs and Artificial Lighting Regulations.


6. Copy of referral from Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, dated May 10, 2010, Re: Review comments on proposed Beacon Falls Zoning Regulation Amendments.
7. Notice of public hearing from the Town of Beacon Falls, submitted May 11, 2010, Re: Public hearing on June 9, 2010, on proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments to Beacon Falls Aquifer Protection Area Regulations.


PUBLICATIONS AND WORKSHOPS

1. Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies Quarterly Newsletter, Spring 2010.


BILLS

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

2. It was moved by Shurtleff and seconded by Shea to approve the payment of a bill for $95.00, dated May 5, 2010, from John McLeod (Court Stenographer) for recording services for public hearings (443 Fairwood Road, 860 Carrington Road, Zoning Amendments).
Unanimous approval.


ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER’S REPORT AND APPROPRIATE COMMISSION ACTION

Isabel Kearns, ZEO, reported on the following:

185 Beacon Road – Ms. Kearns stated she sent out a Cease and Desist Order, dated May 5, 2010, and that the property owner has not been parking the tractor trailers at the subject property and is working towards compliance with the Zoning Regulations.

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









NEW BUSINESS

1) 437 and 443 Fairwood Road, Application #2010-011 submitted by EMG Properties LLC for an Administrative Earth Removal, Excavation, Filling, Stockpiling & Grading Permit – The Commission formally received the application. Chairman Huxley stated this application will be discussed during the public hearing with the other applications for 437 and 443 Fairwood Road.

The following resolution was acted on after the public hearing for 437 and 443 Fairwood Road was closed.

Isabel Kearns, ZEO, prepared a draft resolution. Commission members discussed and proceeded to deliberate. It was moved by Shea and seconded by Shurtleff to approve the following resolution for Application #2010-011:

Whereas, the owner of the property, EMG Properties, LLC, applied on June 2, 2010, to the Bethany Planning and Zoning Commission for an Administrative Earth Removal, Excavation, Filling, Stockpiling and Grading Permit for site work associated with the development of 437 and 443 Fairwood Road;

Whereas, the applicant proposes to remove 4,700 cubic yards of earth material and fill 3,045 cubic yards of material in the development of these two sites;

Whereas, the Commission at its regular meeting of June 2, 2010, considered the plans, testimony and other pertinent application information associated with this Administrative Earth Removal, Excavation, Filling, Stockpiling and Grading Application for the site development of 437 and 443 Fairwood Road;

Now Therefore, the Commission makes the following findings of fact and decision regarding this application:

1) The property is not located within a Public Water Supply Watershed Area.
2) Roderick White, Fire Marshal, submitted a letter to the Commission dated March 31, 2010, in which he states that he sees no reason not to grant the approval at this time and that other concerns that he may have can be addressed during a plan review at a later date.
3) The Commission received Inlands Wetlands Permit #1134 for approval of a new building, septic, well, driveway, parking and drainage system at 437 and 443 Fairwood Road, which included the operation of a commercial vehicle repair facility at 443 Fairwood Road;
4) The Commission received a review letter dated March 30, 2010, from Lynn Fox and Leslie Balch of Quinnipiack Valley Health District. John Laudano of Quinnipiack Valley Health District representative signed off on the back of the application form on May 28, 2010, indicating his approval.

Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that pursuant to Section 8 of the Bethany Zoning Regulations, amended to April 7, 2010, the Bethany Planning and Zoning Commission approves the Administrative Earth Removal, Excavation, Filling, Stockpiling and Grading Permit for the development of 437 and 443 Fairwood Road, as presented in the application, statement of use, testimony, and in accordance with the following submitted plans prepared by John Paul Garcia & Associates, Bethany, Connecticut:
“Existing Conditions Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-1.
“Lot Line Revision Plan”, dated December 12, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-2.
“Site Development Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-3.
“Site Development Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-4.
“Site Landscaping and Erosion Control Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to May 18, 2010, Drawing No. C-5.
“Typical Details”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-6.
“Typical Details”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-7.
“Typical Details”, dated February 3, 2010, with no revisions, Drawing No. C-8.

And with the following conditions:
1) The mylar of the lot-line revision plan, Drawing #C-2, shall be filed on the Land Records of the Town of Bethany in order for this permit to be valid.
2) A bond in an amount acceptable to the Town Engineer and in a form acceptable to Town Counsel must be received prior to the commencement of any work. Bonds shall be received for the storm water drainage construction, maintenance of sediment and erosion controls, and establishment of permanent vegetative cover, including plantings as per map of record.
3) Grading changes of two feet or more shall be reviewed by both the Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Town Engineer.
4) Prior to the commencement of work, the Zoning Enforcement Officer shall inspect and approve ALL erosion control measures.
Vote: 5 to 0.
Voting for: Huxley, Ford, Shurtleff, Shea, Adelberg.
Unanimous approval.


2) 185 Beacon Road, Application #2010-012 submitted by Daniel Cusano/Amity Excavation & Construction for a Home Occupation Permit to operate a home office -
The Commission formally received the application. No one was present to speak on behalf of this application. Isabel Kearns, ZEO, briefly reviewed the application and stated the owner is taking steps forward to rectify the Cease and Desist Order issued on May 5, 2010.


Isabel Kearns, ZEO, prepared a draft resolution. Commission members discussed and proceeded to deliberate. It was moved by Shurtleff and seconded by Shea to approve the following resolution for Application #2010-012:

Whereas, Daniel Cusano owner of 185 Beacon Road, applied to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a Home Occupation Permit to operate a home office only for Amity Excavation & Construction from the premises;

Whereas, the Zoning Enforcement Officer continues to work with the applicant to bring the property into compliance with the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Bethany;

Whereas, the Commission at its regular meeting of June 2, 2010, considered the statement of use, narrative, testimony and other pertinent application information relating to this home office application;

Now Therefore, the Commission makes the following findings of fact and decision regarding this application:

1) The property is not located within a public water supply watershed area.
2) John Laudano, Quinnipiack Valley Health District Representative, signed off on the back of the application form on May 28, 2010, indicating his approval.
3) Roderick White, Fire Marshal, signed off on the back of the application form on June 1, 2010, indicating his approval.

Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that pursuant to Section 4.3.D.4(b) of the Town of Bethany Zoning Regulations, amended to April 7, 2010, the Bethany Planning and Zoning Commission approves the application of Daniel Cusano for a Home Occupation Permit to operate a home office only for Amity Excavation & Construction located at 185 Beacon Road as outlined in the Statement of Use dated May 17, 2010, and with the following conditions:
1) This approval does not include any signage.
2) There shall be no outside storage of or maintenance on equipment, vehicles, tractor trailers or trailers.
Vote: 5 to 0.
Voting for: Huxley, Ford, Shurtleff, Shea, Adelberg.
Unanimous approval.


3) 116 Sperry Road, Application #2010-013 submitted by Claire Wiseman for a Special Exception Permit for an Indoor Riding Ring, Addition to Barn, Paddocks -
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 Claire Wiseman, who was also present.

Mr. Garcia reviewed the proposed project noting:
· That the applicant is proposing to construct an 84-foot by 24-foot indoor riding arena.

· That we have submitted an application to the Inland Wetlands Commission and to Quinnipiack Valley Health District.
· That the Inland Wetlands Commission recommended one driveway instead of two and the plans will be modified for this change.

It was moved by Shea and seconded by Shurtleff to schedule a public hearing date of Wednesday, July 7, 2010, at the next regular meeting in the Commission Meeting Room of the Bethany Town Hall. Unanimous approval.
Tabled.


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 7:35 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 and continued to May 5, 2010, and June 2, 2010. Chairman Huxley stated the Commission will discuss Application #2010-011 because it is related to site development plan being heard.

Chairman Huxley then noted that the Commission has received the following items relative to the subject application. Exhibit identification was assigned as noted:
Exhibit 3A – Submitted plans prepared by John Paul Garcia & Associates, Bethany, Connecticut, entitled as follows:
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. “Site Landscaping and Erosion Control Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to May 18, 2010, Drawing No. C-5.
6. “Typical Details”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-6.
7. “Typical Details”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-7.
8. “Typical Details”, dated February 3, 2010, with no revisions, Drawing No. C-8.
Exhibit 3B – Submitted by William Grieger, three sheets of photographs of before and after of the existing building located at 443 Fairwood Road.

Exhibit 3C – Submitted by John Paul Garcia, five pages of an architectural floor plan.

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

Mr. Garcia reviewed the proposed project noting:
· That the application has been modified to include the site development of the rear lot, which is related to the site development of the front lot.
· That the lot lines have been modified to create three lots instead of four lots.
· That the applicant has received approval from the Inland Wetlands Commission.

The Commission reviewed the conditions of approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, approved on December 14, 2009.

In discussion, Commission members noted:
· That the fence will not go behind the building. The fence will screen from the street side and the east side.
· That the applicant stated this will not be a junk yard.

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

At 8:11 p.m., Chairman Huxley closed the public hearing on the subject applications.


· 3 Northrop Road, Application #2010-010 submitted by Nadia Fainstein for a Special Exception Permit for an Accessory Apartment –

At 8:13 p.m., Chairman Huxley called to order the public hearing on Application #2010-010 for a Special Exception Permit for an Accessory Apartment. The call for the public hearing was read. Chairman Huxley reviewed the complete contents of the application file.

Present to speak on behalf of the applicant was Nadia Fainstein, applicant and owner of record.

Mrs. Fainstein reviewed the proposed project noting:
· That originally the apartment was for her daughter and now she would like to have her mother live in the apartment.
· That the apartment has existed for 10 years.
· That originally the apartment was approved as an addition to the house.

In discussion, Commission members noted:
· That the lot is undersized
· That there will be no change to the exterior.


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

At 8:22 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 8:23 p.m., Chairman Huxley called to order the public hearing continuation on the proposed amendments to Section 1.2 – Definitions and various changes in Section 18 – Floodplain Management Regulations. The call for the public hearing continuation was read. The hearing was opened on May 5, 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 – A letter from the South Central Connecticut Regional Planning Commission, dated May 13, 2010, Re: Review comments on the proposed amendments.

In discussion, Commission members noted:
· That the Commission held the hearing record open for the comments from the South Central Connecticut Regional Planning Commission.

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

At 8:26 p.m., Chairman Huxley closed the public hearing on the proposed amendments.


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 –

It was moved by Ford and seconded by Shurtleff to approve the following resolution for the certification of the soil erosion and sedimentation control plan for the 437 and 443 Fairwood Road:

CERTIFICATION OF SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL

This is to certify that the soil erosion and sedimentation control plan shown on the plans entitled:

Sheet C-5 – Site Landscaping and Erosion Control Plan
dated December 16, 2009, revised to May 18, 2010, Drawing No. C-5.


Prepared by: John Paul Garcia and Associates, 190 Fairwood Road, Bethany, CT

For: An Administrative Earth Removal Permit to create a new commercial building and
associated site work, including stormwater management system.

At: 437 and 443 Fairwood Road

Submitted by: EMG Properties, LLC (William Grieger)

Complies with the requirements and objectives of Section 11 – Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regulations, having been certified by the Bethany Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of June 2, 2010.
Vote: 5 to 0.
Voting for: Huxley, Ford, Shurtleff, Shea, Adelberg.
Unanimous approval.


Isabel Kearns, ZEO, prepared a draft resolution. Commission members discussed and proceeded to deliberate. It was moved by Shea and seconded by Shurtleff to approve the following resolution for Application #2010-005:

Whereas, the owner of the property, EMG Properties, LLC, applied on March 3, 2010, to the Bethany Planning and Zoning Commission for a Special Exception Permit to locate a commercial repair facility at 443 Fairwood Road (#2010-005);

Whereas, the existing structure located east of the primary structure is being used for storage and will continue to be used for storage and is not a part of this application;

Whereas, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the following variances on December 14, 2009: 1) granted a variance of 256.1 feet to allow a commercial garage to be located 243.9 feet from the northern residential boundary line and 2) granted a variance of 139.2 feet to allow a commercial garage to be located 360.8 feet from the western residential boundary line;

Whereas, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a Certificate of Approval for locating a motor vehicle dealer or motor vehicle repairer located at 443 Fairwood Road on December 14, 2009;

Whereas, the Commission held a public hearing on June 2, 2010, on this Special Exception Change of Use to operate a commercial car repair facility at 443 Fairwood Road (#2010-005). Said hearing was held in conjunction with hearings for the site plan approval for a commercial repair facility and sign located at 443 Fairwood Road and a new commercial building, associated site work and sign located at 437 Fairwood Road (#2010-006) and the special exception for outside storage of equipment and vehicles located at 443 Fairwood Road (#2010-007);

Whereas, the public hearing was closed at the conclusion of testimony that same evening;


Whereas, the Commission also at its regular meeting of June 2, 2010, considered the plans, testimony and other pertinent application information relating to this Special Exception Change of Use to operate a commercial car repair facility at 443 Fairwood Road;

Now Therefore, the Commission makes the following findings of fact and decision regarding this application:
1) The Zoning Board of Appeals granted two variances on December 14, 2009, to allow the commercial garage to be located 243.9 feet from the northern residential boundary line and 360.8 feet from the western residential boundary line.
2) The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a Certificate of Approval for locating a motor vehicle dealer or motor vehicle repairer located at 443 Fairwood Road on December 14, 2009.
3) The property is not located with a Public Water Supply Watershed Area.
4) Roderick White, Fire Marshal, submitted a letter to the Commission dated March 31, 2010, in which he states that he sees no reason not to grant the approval at this time and that other concerns that he may have can be addressed during a plan review at a later date.
5) The Commission received Inland Wetlands Permit #1134 for approval of a new building, septic, well, driveway, parking and drainage system located at 437 and 443 Fairwood Road, which included the operation of a commercial vehicle repair facility located at 443 Fairwood Road.
6) The Commission received a review letter dated March 30, 2010, from Lynn Fox and Leslie Balch of Quinnipiack Valley Health District. John Laudano, Quinnipiack Valley Health District representative signed off on the back of the application form on May 28, 2010, indicating his approval.

Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that pursuant to Section 5.2B.1 of the Bethany Zoning Regulations, amended to April 7, 2010, the Bethany Planning and Zoning Commission approves the Special Exception Change of Use to operate a commercial car repair facility located at 443 Fairwood Road (#2010-005), as presented in the application, statement of use, testimony, and in accordance with the following submitted plans prepared by John Paul Garcia & Associates, Bethany, Connecticut:
“Existing Conditions Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-1.
“Lot Line Revision Plan”, dated December 12, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-2.
“Site Development Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-3.
“Site Development Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-4.
“Site Landscaping and Erosion Control Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to May 18, 2010, Drawing No. C-5.
“Typical Details”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-6.


“Typical Details”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-7.
“Typical Details”, dated February 3, 2010, with no revisions, Drawing No. C-8.

And with the following conditions:
1) The commercial repair facility shall not expand into the existing structure located to the rear of the property.
2) A bond in an amount acceptable to the Town Engineer and in a form acceptable to Town Counsel must be received prior to the issuance of a building permit or the occupancy of the building or the commencement of site work, whichever comes first. Bonds shall be received for the storm water drainage construction, maintenance of sediment and erosion controls, and the establishment of a permanent vegetative cover, including plantings as per the map of record.
3) Prior to commencement of any work, the Zoning Enforcement Officer shall inspect and approve ALL erosion control measures.
4) This approval is for motor vehicles per the Connecticut State Statutes, Title 14.
5) All vehicles being stored for repair shall be located in the area designated as “proposed automobile storage area”, as per the map of record.
6) The commercial repair facility shall not expand into the existing structure located to the rear of the property.
7) Hours of operation shall be Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Vote: 5 to 0.
Voting for: Huxley, Ford, Shurtleff, Shea, Adelberg.
Unanimous approval.


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

Isabel Kearns, ZEO, prepared a draft resolution. Commission members discussed and proceeded to deliberate. It was moved by Shea and seconded by Adelberg to approve the following resolution for Application #2010-006:

Whereas, the owner of the property, EMG Properties, LLC, applied on March 3, 2010, to the Bethany Planning and Zoning Commission for a Site Plan Approval for a commercial repair facility and a sign located at 443 Fairwood Road (#2010-006) and whereby the owner of the property, EMG Properties, LLC, amended the application at the regular meeting of May 5, 2010, to include a Site Plan Approval for a new commercial building, associated site work and a sign located at 437 Fairwood Road;

Whereas, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the following variances on December 14, 2009, for property known as 443 Fairwood Road: 1) granted a variance of 256.1 feet to allow a commercial garage to be located 243.9 feet from the northern residential boundary line and



2) granted a variance of 139.2 feet to allow a commercial garage to be located 360.8 feet from the western residential boundary line.

Whereas, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a Certificate of Approval for locating a motor vehicle dealer or motor vehicle repairer located at 443 Fairwood Road on December 14, 2009;

Whereas, the Commission held a public hearing on June 2, 2010, for a Site Plan Approval for a commercial repair facility and a sign located at 443 Fairwood Road and for a Site Plan Approval for a new commercial building, associated site work and a sign located at 437 Fairwood Road. Said hearing was held in conjunction with public hearings for a change of use to operate a commercial repair facility located at 443 Fairwood Road (#2010-005) and a special exception for outside storage of equipment and vehicles located at 443 Fairwood Road (#2010-007);

Whereas, the public hearings were closed at the conclusion of testimony on June 2, 2010;

Whereas, the Commission also at its regular meeting of June 2, 2010, considered the plans, testimony and other pertinent application information (including two separate statement of uses – one for each property) relating to this Site Plan Approval for a commercial repair facility and a sign located at 443 Fairwood Road and for a Site Plan Approval for a new commercial building, associated site work and sign located at 437 Fairwood Road;

Whereas, the detention system as proposed has been sized to accommodate the potential future development of Lot 12A;

Now Therefore, the Commission makes the following findings of fact and decision regarding this application:
1) The Zoning Board of Appeals granted two variances for property known at 443 Fairwood Road on December 14, 2009 to allow a commercial garage to be located 243.9 feet from the northern residential boundary line and 360.8 feet from the western residential boundary line.
2) The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a Certificate of Approval for locating a motor vehicle dealer or motor vehicle repairer located at 443 Fairwood Road on December 14, 2009.
3) The property is not located with a Public Water Supply Watershed Area.
4) Roderick White, Fire Marshal, submitted a letter to the Commission dated March 31, 2010, in which he states that he sees no reason not to grant the approval at this time and that other concerns that he may have can be addressed during a plan review at a later date.
5) The Commission received Inlands Wetlands Permit #1134 for approval of a new building, septic, well, driveway, parking and drainage system located at 437 and 443 Fairwood Road, which included the operation of a commercial vehicle repair facility located at 443 Fairwood Road;
6) The Commission received a review letter dated March 30, 2010, from Lynn Fox and Leslie Balch of Quinnipiack Valley Health District. John Laudano, Quinnipiack Valley Health District representative signed off on the back of the application form on May 28, 2010, indicating his approval.

Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that pursuant to Section 5.2A of the Bethany Zoning Regulations, amended to April 7, 2010, the Bethany Planning and Zoning Commission approves the Site Plan for a commercial repair facility and a sign located at 443 Fairwood Road and Site Plan for a new commercial building, associated site work and a sign located at 437 Fairwood Road, as presented in the applications, statements of use, testimony, and in accordance with the following submitted plans prepared by John Paul Garcia & Associates, Bethany, Connecticut:
“Existing Conditions Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-1.
“Lot Line Revision Plan”, dated December 12, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-2.
“Site Development Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-3.
“Site Development Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-4.
“Site Landscaping and Erosion Control Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to May 18, 2010, Drawing No. C-5.
“Typical Details”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-6.
“Typical Details”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-7.
“Typical Details”, dated February 3, 2010, with no revisions, Drawing No. C-8.

And with the following conditions:
1) The mylar of the lot-line revision plan, Drawing #C-2, shall be filed on the Land Records of the Town of Bethany in order for this permit to be valid.
2) All easements must be approved by Town Counsel prior and must be filed at the time the lot line revision map is filed.
3) A bond in an amount acceptable to the Town Engineer and in a form acceptable to Town Counsel must be received prior to the issuance of a building permit or the occupancy of the building or the commencement of site work, whichever comes first. Bonds shall be received for the storm water drainage construction, maintenance of sediment and erosion controls and establishment of permanent vegetative cover for the site, including plantings as per the map of record.
4) This approval shall not be construed to include any uses or buildings on Lot 12A.
5) Grading changes of two feet or more shall be reviewed by both the Zoning Enforcement Officer and Town Engineer.
6) A six-foot privacy fence shall be installed from the northeast corner of the existing 6.160 square foot building to the southwest corner of the existing metal storage shed.
Vote: 5 to 0.
Voting for: Huxley, Ford, Shurtleff, Shea, Adelberg.
Unanimous approval.





3. 443 Fairwood Road, Application #2010-007 submitted by EMG Properties, LLC for a Special Exception Permit for Outside Storage –

Isabel Kearns, ZEO, prepared a draft resolution. Commission members discussed and proceeded to deliberate. It was moved by Shea and seconded by Adelberg to approve the following resolution for Application #2010-007:

Whereas, the owner of the property, EMG Properties, LLC, applied on March 3, 2010, to the Bethany Planning and Zoning Commission for a Special Exception for Outside Storage of equipment and vehicles located at 443 Fairwood Road (#2010-007);

Whereas, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the following variances for property known as 443 Fairwood Road on December 14, 2009: 1) granted a variance of 256.1 feet to allow a commercial garage to be located 243.9 feet from the northern residential boundary line and 2) granted a variance of 139.2 feet to allow a commercial garage to be located 360.8 feet from the western residential boundary line.

Whereas, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a Certificate of Approval for locating a motor vehicle dealer or motor vehicle repairer located at 443 Fairwood Road on December 14, 2009;

Whereas, the Commission held a hearing on June 2, 2010, on this Special Exception for Outside Storage of equipment and vehicles at the commercial repair facility on property know as 443 Fairwood Road (#2010-007). Said hearing was held in conjunction with public hearings for a Special Exception Change of Use to operate a commercial repair facility located at 443 Fairwood Road (#2010-005) and a Site Plan Approval for a commercial repair facility and a sign located at 443 Fairwood Road and a Site Plan Approval for a new commercial building, associated site work and a sign located at 437 Fairwood Road (#2010-006);

Whereas, the public hearings were closed at the conclusion of testimony on June 2, 2010;

Whereas, the Commission also at its regular meeting of June 2, 2010, considered the plans, testimony and other pertinent application information relating to the Special Exception for Outside Storage of equipment and vehicles at the commercial repair facility known as 443 Fairwood Road;

Now Therefore, the Commission makes the following findings of fact and decision regarding this application:
1) The Zoning Board of Appeals granted two variances on December 14, 2009, to allow a commercial garage to be located 243.9 feet from the northern residential boundary line and 360.8 feet from the western residential boundary line.
2) The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a Certificate of Approval for locating a motor vehicle dealer or motor vehicle repairer located at 443 Fairwood Road on December 14, 2009.
3) The property is not located with a Public Water Supply Watershed Area.


4) Roderick White, Fire Marshal, submitted a letter to the Commission dated March 31, 2010, in which he states that he sees no reason not to grant the approval at this time and that other concerns that he may have can be addressed during a plan review at a later date.
5) The Commission received Inland Wetlands Permit #1134 for approval of a new building, septic well, driveway, parking and drainage system located at 437 and 443 Fairwood Road, which included the operation of a commercial vehicle repair facility located at 443 Fairwood Road.
6) The Commission received a review letter dated March 30, 2010, from Lynn Fox and Leslie Balch of Quinnipiack Valley Health District. John Laudano, Quinnipiack Valley Health District representative signed off on the back of the application form on May 28, 2010, indicating his approval.

Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that pursuant to Section 5.3H of the Bethany Zoning Regulations, amended to April 7, 2010, the Bethany Planning and Zoning Commission approves the Special Exception of Outside Storage of equipment and vehicles located at 443 Fairwood Road (#2010-007), as presented in the application, statement of use, testimony, and in accordance with the following submitted plans prepared by John Paul Garcia & Associates, Bethany, Connecticut:
“Existing Conditions Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-1.
“Lot Line Revision Plan”, dated December 12, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-2.
“Site Development Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-3.
“Site Development Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-4.
“Site Landscaping and Erosion Control Plan”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to May 18, 2010, Drawing No. C-5.
“Typical Details”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-6.
“Typical Details”, dated December 16, 2009, revised to February 17, 2010, Drawing No. C-7.
“Typical Details”, dated February 3, 2010, with no revisions, Drawing No. C-8.

And with the following conditions:
1) The mylar of the lot-line revision plan, Drawing #C-2, shall be filed on the Land Records of the Town of Bethany in order for this permit to be valid.
2) A bond in an amount acceptable to the Town Engineer and in a form acceptable to Town Counsel must be received prior to the occupancy of the building or the commencement of outside storage.
3) The outside storage associated with this permit is only for the storage of motor vehicles and shall only be stored in the area designated as “proposed automobile storage area”, as shown on the map of record.
4) The commercial repair facility shall not expand into the existing structure located to the rear of the property.

5) A six foot privacy fence shall be installed from the northeast corner of the existing 6,160 square foot building to the southwest corner of the existing metal storage shed.
Vote: 5 to 0.
Voting for: Huxley, Ford, Shurtleff, Shea, Adelberg.
Unanimous approval.


4. 3 Northrop Road, Application #2010-010 submitted by Nadia Fainstein for a Special Exception Permit for an Accessory Apartment –

Isabel Kearns, ZEO, prepared a draft resolution. Commission members discussed and proceeded to deliberate. It was moved by Shurtleff and seconded by Adelberg to approve the following resolution for Application #2010-010:

Whereas, Nadia Fainstein, owner of 3 Northrop Road, applied for a Special Exception Permit for an Accessory Apartment (#2010-010) to be located within the existing home. Said application was received by the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 5, 2010;

Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a public hearing on the application on June 2, 2010, which hearing was closed at the conclusion of testimony that same evening;

Now Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Commission makes the following findings of fact and decisions regarding the application:
1) As the accessory apartment is wholly contained within the existing home, no action from the Inland Wetlands Commission is required.
2) Lynn Fox, Representative of Quinnipiack Valley Health District, signed off on the back of the application form indicating her approval on May 3, 2010.
3) Roderick White, Fire Marshal, signed off on the back of the application form indicating his approval on June 1, 2010.
4) The Commission received a letter dated December 1, 2009, from Ronald Walters of the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority, stating that they have no comment.
5) The initial application, Statement of Use and letter dated April 21, 2010, demonstrated that the proposed accessory apartment would contain less than 700 square feet of living space.
6) Robert Walsh, Building Official, signed off on the back of the application form on May 26, 2010, indicating his approval and stated that they will need a building permit for the apartment.
7) The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the Special Exception Permit Application for an Accessory Apartment located at 3 Northrop Road complies with Section 4.4J of the Bethany Zoning Regulations and satisfies the intent of the Regulations, as the scale and character of the resulting dwelling will blend in with the surrounding residences.




Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that pursuant to Section 4.4J of the Bethany Zoning Regulations, amended to April 7, 2010, the Bethany Planning and Zoning Commission approves the Special Exception Permit for an Accessory Apartment located at 3 Northrop Road under 700 square feet (#2010-010) as shown on the floor plan, untitled, submitted April 21, 2010, by the applicant and as per the statement of use dated April 21, 2010.

And with the following conditions:
1) The owner of the property shall provide to the Commission an annual affidavit, due prior to occupancy of the apartment and during the month of January each year, to the effect that the accessory apartment continues to be in full compliance with Section 4.4J of the Bethany Zoning Regulations.
2) The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit for the accessory apartment prior to occupancy of the accessory apartment.
Vote: 5 to 0.
Voting for: Huxley, Ford, Shurtleff, Shea, Adelberg.
Unanimous approval.


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

Isabel Kearns, ZEO, prepared a draft resolution. Commission members discussed and proceeded to deliberate. It was moved by Shurtleff and seconded by Ford to approve the following resolution for the proposed zoning amendments:

Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Bethany proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments as follows:

Add or change to Section 1.2 – Definitions
(Add) Aboveground Storage Tanks. Above-ground storage tanks (oil, propane, etc.) which are located outside or inside of the structure must either be elevated above the base flood elevation (BFE) on a concrete pad, or be securely anchored with tie-down straps to prevent flotation or lateral movement, have the top of the fill pipe extend above the BFE, and have a screw fill cap that does not allow for the infiltration of flood water.

(Change) Building. A walled and roofed building which is principally above ground, including a manufactured home, a gas or liquid storage tank, or other man-made facilities or infrastructures.Any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls, which may rest on a foundation and is intended for the shelter, housing or enclosure of persons, animals or materials.

Add or change to Section 18 – Floodplain Management Regulations
(Change)
18.2 Area of Applicability. This regulation is applicable to the “Special Flood Hazard Areas” (SFHA) designated as Zone A and AE , as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in its Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for New Haven County, Connecticut dated

December 17, 2010, accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), dated December 17, 2010, and other supporting data applicable to the Town of Bethany, and any subsequent revisions thereto, are adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this regulation. Since mapping is legally adopted by reference into this regulation it must take precedence when more restrictive until such time as a mop amendment or map revision is obtained from FEMA. The SFHA includes any area shown on the FIRM as Zones A and AE, including areas designated as floodway on a FIRM. SFHAs are determined utilizing the base flood elevations (BFE) provided on the flood profiles in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for a community. BFEs provided on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) are only approximate (rounded up or down) and should be verified with the BFEs published in the FIS for a specific location. The FIRM and FIS are on file in the office of the Bethany Town Clerk.
This regulation is applicable to the “Special Flood Hazard Areas” designated as A Zones on the Town of Bethany Flood Insurance Rate Maps, (FIRM) and the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, as published on December 2, 1980 by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, (FEMA) which are on file in the Office of the Bethany Town Clerk. These maps, the Town of Bethany Flood Insurance Study and other supporting data, and any revision thereto are adopted by reference and declared to be a part of these Regulations.

18.4 Definitions.

3. (Delete) Area of Shallow Flooding. A designated A0 or V0 Zone on the referenced FIRM with base flood depths from one to three feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist, where the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate, and where velocity flow may be evident.


4. (Change)Base Flood Elevation (BFE). The elevation of the crest of the base flood or 100-year flood. The height in relation to mean sea level expected to be reached by the waters of the base flood at pertinent points in the floodplains of coastal and riverine areas. The particular elevation of the base flood as specified on the FIRM for A Zones

7. (Add) Building. A walled and roofed building which is principally above ground, including a manufactured home, a gas or liquid storage tank, or other man-made facilities or infrastructures.

8. (Change) Development. Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures; the construction of additions, alterations or substantial improvements to building or structures; the placement of buildings or structures; mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, drilling operations, or the storage of equipment or materials; the storage, deposition, or extraction of materials; and the installation, repair or removal of public or private sewage disposal systems or water supply facilities.




10.(Add) Existing Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision. A manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured home are to be affixed (including, as a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is complete, before August 23, 1977, the effective date of the flood plain management regulations adopted by a community.

11. (Add) Expansion to an Existing Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision. The preparation of additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufacturing homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads).

12. (Add) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The federal agency that administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

11. (Remove) Flood Boundary and Floodway Map. The official map on which FEMA has delineated the boundaries of the Floodway.

18. (Change) Floodway. The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land area that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than 1.0 feet anywhere in town. The regulated floodway is delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)Boundary and Floodway Map, which is part of this regulation.

20. (Add) Functionally Dependent Use or Facility. A use or facility that cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is located or carried out in close proximity to water. The term includes only docking facilities, port facilities that are necessary for the loading and unloading of cargo or passengers, and ship building and ship repair facilities. The term does not include seafood processing facilities, long-term storage, manufacturing, sales or service facilities.

23. (Add) Historic Structure. Any structure that is: (a) Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the Department of the Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register; (b) Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historic significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district; (c) Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservations programs which have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior; or (d) Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic preservation programs that have been certified either; (1) By an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior or (2) Directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states without approved programs.



24. (Add) Manufactured Homes. A structure, transportable in one (1) or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term also includes park trailers, travel trailers, recreational vehicles and other similar vehicles or transportable structures placed on a site for one hundred and eighty (180) consecutive days or longer and intended to be improved property.

25. (Add) Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision. A parcel or contiguous parcel of land divided into two (2) or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale.

26. (Add) Market Value. The market value of the structure shall be determined by the Cost Approach to Value Method, the Segregated Cost Method or the Square Food Method (certified appraised value) prior to the start of the initial repair or improvement, or in the case of damage, the certified value of the structure prior to the damage occurring.

27. (Change) Mean Sea Level (MSL). For purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program, (NFIP), the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) of 1988 National Geodetic Vertical Datum, (NGVD) of 1929 or other subsequent datum which become the standard to which base flood elevations on a community FIRM are referenced.

28. (Change) New Construction. Structures for which the start of construction commenced on or after the effective date of the Town’s entrance into the NFIP, August 23, 1977, and includes any subsequent improvement to such structures.

29. (Add) New Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision. A manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after, August 23, 1977, the effective date of the floodplain management regulations adopted by the community.

30. (Add) Recreational Vehicle. A vehicle which is: (a) built on a single chassis; (b) four hundred (400) square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection; (c) designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and (d) designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as a temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use.

31. (Add) Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The land in the floodplain within a community subject to a one (1) percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. SFHA’s are determined utilizing the base flood elevations (BFE) provided on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) are only approximate (rounded up or down) and should be verified with the BFIs published in the FIS for specific location. SFHA’s include, but are not necessarily limited to, the land shown as Zones A, AE, on a Firm. The SFHA is also called the Area of Special Flood Hazard.


33. (Add) Structure. A walled and roofed building which is principally above ground, including a manufactured home, a gas or liquid storage tank, or other man-made facilities or infrastructures.

34. (Add) Substantial Damage. Damage of any origin sustained by a structure, whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its pre-damaged condition would equal or exceed fifty percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.

37. (Add) Violation. Failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant with the community’s floodplain management regulations. A structure or other development without required permits, lowest floor elevation documentation, flood-proofing certificates or required floodway encroachment calculations is resumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation is provided.

38. (Change) Water Surface Elevations. The height, in relation to the NGVD 29 North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) of 1988 or other datum as may be adopted by FEMA for NFIP purposes, of floods of various magnitudes and frequencies in various flood prone, flood hazard areas.

18.5 Standards
A. General.
(Add)
5. Compensatory Storage and Equal Conveyance
a. Compensatory Storage. The water holding capacity of the floodplain, except those areas which are tidally influenced, shall not be reduced. Any reduction caused by filling, new construction or substantial improvements involving an increase in footprint to the structure, shall be compensated for by deepening and/or widening the floodplain. Storage shall be provided on-site, unless easements have been gained from adjacent property owners; it shall be provided within the same hydraulic reach and a volume not previously used for flood storage; it shall be hydraulically comparable and incrementally equal to the theoretical volume of flood water at each elevation, up to and including the 100-year flood elevation, which would be displaced by the proposed project. Such
compensatory volume shall have an unrestricted hydraulic connection to the same waterway or water body. Compensatory storage can be provided off-site if approved by the municipality.
b. Equal Conveyance. Within the floodplain, except those areas which are tidally influenced, as designated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the community, encroachments resulting from filling, new construction or substantial improvements involving an increase in footprint of the structure, are prohibited unless the applicant provides certification by a registered professional engineer demonstrating, with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice, that such encroachments shall not result in any (0.00 feet) increase in flood levels (base flood elevation). Work within the floodplain and the land adjacent to the floodplain, including work to provide compensatory storage shall not be constructed in such a way so as to cause and increase in flood stage or flood velocity.
c. Aboveground Storage Tanks. Above-ground storage tanks (oil, propane, etc.) which are located outside or inside of the structure must either be elevated above the base flood elevation (BFE) on a concrete pad, or be securely anchored with tie-down straps to prevent flotation or lateral movement, have the top of the fill pipe extended above the BFE, and have a screw fill cap that does not allow for infiltration of flood water.
d. Portion of Structure in Flood Zone. If any portion of a structure lies within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the entire structure is considered to be in the SFHA. The entire structure must meet the construction requirements of the flood zone. The structure includes any attached additions, garages, decks, sunrooms, or any other structure attached to the main structure. Decks or porches that extend into a more restrictive flood zone will require the entire structure to meet the standards of the more restrictive zone.
e. Structures in Two Flood Zones. If a structure lies within two or more flood zones, the construction standards of the most restrictive zone apply to the entire structure (i.e. V zone is more restrictive than A zone; structure must be built to the highest BFE). The structure includes any attached additions, garages, decks sunrooms or any other structure attached to the main structure. (Decks or porches that extend into a more restrictive zone will require the entire structure to meet the requirements of the more restrictive zone.)
f. No Structures Entirely or Partially Over Water. New construction, substantial improvement and repair to structures that have sustained substantial damage cannot be constructed or located entirely or partially over water unless it is functionally dependent use or facility.
B. Specific Standards.
(Change)
1. Floodways. Located within the special flood hazard areas are areas designated as floodways on the community’s Flood Insurance Rate Boundary and Floodway Map or as may be determined by competent professional. Floodways are extremely hazardous areas due to the potential velocity of flood waters which cause erosion and may carry debris and projectiles. The following additional standards are applicable to development in relation to floodways:
a. There shall be no encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, repairs to substantially damaged structures and other developments shall be permitted or other development in any floodway unless certification, with supporting technical data, by a registered professional engineer or architect is provided demonstrating, through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practices, that encroachments shall not will not result in any (0.00 feet) increase in flood levels during occurrence of the base flood discharge. Fences in the floodway must be aligned with the flow and be of an open design.




(Change/Add)
2. Manufactured Homes and Recreational Vehicles (RV’s). Required to be properly anchored.
In all Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), any manufactured (mobile) homes to be newly placed, undergoing substantial improvement or repaired as a result of substantial damage, shall be elevated so that the bottom of the lowest floor is at two feet above the base flood elevation (BFE). The manufactured home must also meet all the construction standards per Section 18.5 A. This includes SFHA’s outside a manufactured home park or subdivision, in a new manufactured home park or subdivision, in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision, in an expansion to an existing manufactured home as incurred substantial damage as a result of a flood.
a. All manufactured homes within a SFHA shall be placed on a permanent foundation which itself is securely anchored and to which the structure is securely anchored so that it will resist flotation, lateral movement and hydrostatic pressures. Anchoring may include, but not be limited to, the use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors.
b. All manufactured homes within a SFHA shall be installed using methods and practices which minimize flood damage. Adequate access and drainage should be provided. Elevation construction standards include piling foundations placed no more than ten (10) feet apart, and reinforcement is provided for piers more than six (6) feet above ground level.
c. Recreational vehicles placed on sites within a SFHA shall either (i) be on the site for fewer than 18- consecutive days, and (ii) be fully licensed and ready for highway use, OR (iii) meet all the general standards of Section 18.5 A. and the elevation and anchoring requirement of Section 18.5 B.2.a.,b.,c. A recreational vehicle is ready for highway use if it is on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and has no permanently attached additions.

18.6 Administration.
A. (Change)
2. c. Elevations in NGVD 29 NAVD88 datum, of the lowest floor, including
basement of all structures; and
18.7 C. (Change)
1. Obtain and record the actual elevation, in NAVD88 NGVD 29, of the lowest floor, including basement of all new or substantially improved structures;


Whereas, advertisement for the public hearing was duly noticed and copies of the Zoning Regulation Amendments were on file in the Town Clerk’s Office as per Connecticut General Statutes;

Whereas, the Commission opened a public hearing to discuss the proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments on May 5, 2010, and recessed the public hearing until June 2, 2010. The public hearing was subsequently closed at the conclusion of testimony on June 2, 2010;

Whereas, the Commission at its regular meeting of June 2, 2010, considered the proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments and testimony relating to same;

Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that pursuant to Section 15 of the Town of Bethany Zoning Regulations and the Connecticut General Statutes, the Planning and Zoning Commission adopts the proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments for Floodplain Management, as presented. They shall become effective on December 17, 2010.
Vote: 5 to 0.
Voting for: Huxley, Ford, Shurtleff, Shea, Adelberg.
Unanimous approval.


6. 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.

7. Revised Draft of the Town Plan of Conservation and Development – Hiram Peck, Planning Consultant, stated that he contacted a graphic firm that he has previously used pertaining for the completion of the revised Town Plan for formatting and cleaning up and is requesting the Commission’s approval for the cost. Mr. Peck is recommending this firm to the Commission and stated when he gets the final draft, he will submit the draft to the Commission for review. It was moved by Shurtleff and seconded by Shea to approve the expenditure of approximately $500.00 to cover the costs to complete the graphics for the revised Town Plan of Conservation and Development. Unanimous approval. Tabled.

8. Discuss increasing application fees – Tabled.

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

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

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

12. Update on Halter Estates – Tabled.

It was moved by Shurtleff and seconded by Adelberg to adjourn the regular meeting at 9:15 p.m. Unanimous approval.

Respectfully submitted,


Antonia R. Marek, Clerk
For the Planning and Zoning Commission

BOARD OF FINANCE
JUNE 8, 2010
Page 1 of 2

Attendance: Chairman Janet Brunwin, Stephen Squinto, Chip Spear, Robert Brinton Jr., Sally Huyser joined the meeting at 7:20 p.m., John Grabowski joined the meeting at 7:25 p.m., First Selectwoman Derrylyn Gorski

Chairman Brunwin called the meeting of the Board of Finance to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Conference Room of the Bethany Town Hall.

ADDITION TO AGENDA
Chairman Brunwin called for a motion to add approval of the minutes of April 20, 2010 to the agenda of this meeting. The motion was moved by Stephen Squinto and seconded by Chip Spear. The motion received a unanimous vote of approval.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Brunwin called for a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of April 20, 2010. The motion was moved by Robert Brinton Jr. and seconded the Chip Spear. The vote was called. There were three votes of approval and one abstention that of Stephen Squinto, as he was absent from that meeting.

Chairman Brunwin called for a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 18, 2010. The motion of approval was moved by Stephen Squinto and seconded by Chip Spear. There were not changes to the minutes. The minutes were then accepted on a unanimous vote.

CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Brunwin relayed the information she had received from Moody’s, where a re-calculation of the bond rating for Bethany has been done. The rating has now been raised to a double A2 rating from a double A rating.

ELEMENTRY SCHOOL
In the absence of John Grabowski, Chairman Brunwin reported that Head Master Mary Frederico has resigned, to take a principal position in North Haven. Discussion was opened regarding not filling this position. All Board of Finance members present agreed they would communicate with Board of Education members, encouraging them not to fill this position until a real need has been established.

REPORT OF FIRST SELECTWOMAN GORSKI
First Selectwoman Gorski reported that the Town employee medical plan change is moving ahead with the HSA and HRA employee sign ups.

First Selectwoman Gorski reported that a $400 assessment for the MERS retirement plan for the Highway Department Union employees was requested from the Town in a letter dated June 1, 2010 from the State of Connecticut . This letter also indicated that the Town’s contribution will be increased from 7.5% of gross salary to 9.5% of gross salary. The percentage of 2.25% that the employee pays has not been increased.

Chip Spear has been formulating into a spread sheet, the information gathered from the trip taken by Board of Finance and Board of Selectmen members for road inspection. From this spread sheet a calculation will be done to determine total cost of repair. The Town will then consider bonding for the total cost of road repair, with pay back to be spread out over either a seven or ten year period. A Public Hearing will be held to discuss feasibility and length of bonding.

BUDGET REPORT 2009-10
The Board reviewed the financial report for the 2009-10 fiscal year. No trouble areas were noted at this time.

SUMMER MEETING SCHEDULE
Board members determined that a July meeting of the Board of Finance will be held, however unless there is something of importance to discuss the August meeting will be canceled as several of the members will be away.

ADJOURNMENT
Adjournment was called at 7:45 p.m. after a motion was moved by Robert Brinton Jr. and seconded by Chip Spear.


Respectfully submitted,


June G. Riley
Clerk, Board of Finance

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