Town Planning Board Meeting
Notes taken by a resident on May 29, 2019
New Business:
Iaia & Cornerstone Condominiums, Site Accessories. Route 50 & Pine Grove Rd.
The original plan was approved in 2007 and Scott Lansing returned to request approval for amenities without changing the number of units. The amenities include benches, mailbox cluster location, gazebo, dog park, sidewalk, landscape screening and additional parking spaces. Analysis showed no impact to pervious water system, more than adequate, verified by CT Male and Kathryn Serra.
Ms. Mathias commented on the position of one of the benches, which was clarified to be facing outward. A question was directed to Atty. Chauvin regarding the dog park. Since it will be restricted to the property residents and not open to the public, it will not require an additional level of analysis. He reminded Mr. Lansing to be sure signage on the walking is present reminding residents to pick up after their dog. Mr. Dipasquale asked about the additional parking request – it is for overflow and is the responsibility of the condo association to maintain it. The location of the mailbox cluster has been approved by the US Postal Service. There were no comments made during the public hearing. A motion was made to reaffirm the determination from 2007 which passed unanimously. There was unanimous approval of the improvements requested.
Stevenson Site Plan, 1451 Route 50, construction of two 8-unit condominium buildings and one 12 stall garage on a 1.18 acre parcel.
Stevenson Site Plan, 1451 Route 50, construction of two 8-unit condominium buildings and one 12 stall garage on a 1.18 acre parcel.
Laura Muschott and John Van Vorst recused. Scott Lansing noted a revised concept site plan has been created following the October 18, 2018 presentation. On the 1.18 acres is an existing structure which will be removed. Residential structures are north and south of the site. There are no wetlands. Each of the 8-unit buildings are 2-story structures. The property will be privately owned, operated and maintained. Sixteen garage spaces and 27 exterior spaces are planned, averaging 2.4 spaces for each unit. A sidewalk is planned from the project to the Route 50 sidewalks, and there is 40% green space. This is located in a residential and commercial area.
PB members commented that at the October 2018 presentation, several suggestions were made following questions by the board that have not been taken into consideration, which were addressed this time by Mr. Lansing:
1) an interconnection into the development next to the proposed site – the best that can be done is possibly to extend the sidewalk, as there is a retaining wall on the south side that is part of the adjacent development ,
2) whether the parking spots will be reserved – not for the open spots, but yes for the garage parking and this will be handled by the condo association,
3) satisfactory handling of snow removal – the front part off to the side is where snow can be pushed from impervious areas, and
4) vegetation/trees on the northern side of the property to shield from close neighbors – Mr. Lansing answered that they will work to come up with something.
Dalia Garcia, Planner, noted that per CT male a 10 foot setback is needed, and the site rule is 12 units per acre, therefore a maximum of 14 units is allowed, not 16 as proposed.
Ms. Mathias noted that question #14 of the analysis was not answered.
Mr. Shorey noted that the site statistics contain an error, saying 1.19 acres but should be 1.18.
Mr. Dipasquale noted that it should be clarified that the parking in the garage and the open space directly behind it are both for the same unit.
Ms. Mathias noted the following: 1) there should be something proposed to extend the sidewalk for the safety of the residents in answer to the lack of connectivity and grading issues, 2) snow removal on the south side needs to be addressed, and 3) screening on the north side, discussed last October, needs to be addressed, and 4) the County requirement of a maximum of 14 units needs to be addressed.
Public Hearing followed after Ms. Mathias read the rules of conduct:
Fred Whittredge, 2nd property to the north of the site asked if the driveway would be angled in to the site, asked if the building in the front was going to be far enough back. He spoke for his neighbor who is the person who lives next to the north side and said that nothing short of a 10 foot wooden solid fence with vegetation will be acceptable to him, and that “some time” would not be good enough for when to address the concern. He asked, “Is there no way to slow down apartments and condominiums? I’ve been watching it grow and grow.”
Peter Solberg, Charlton Rd noted he was on the PB when this project was initially proposed and had the following concerns:
1. Setbacks – if under 5 feet, no windows are allowed and therefore no egress, and would not meet the fire code
2. Emergency vehicles do not have access to the back of the front building – perhaps it could be made smaller
3. Much impervious surface and excessive storm water runoff
4. No screen on the north side driveway
5. Fire hydrants are not noted on the plan
6. Crosswalks should be considered
7. How will the rest of the area be accessed?
8. There are a lot of apartments – the PB might consider asking the developer to think about funds toward a crosswalk, as the taxpayers would need to pay for it if DOT doesn’t
9. Handicap ramps should be provided, but based on the plan this doesn’t look feasible
Frank Rossi Jr. – Saratoga Avenue stated the questions regarding connectivity, roads, etc are being addressed by the Church Avenue crosswalk going in as part of the Hannaford project and shouldn’t be thrown in to this project discussion.
· Scott Lansing addressed the concerns raised:
· The driveway lines up with driveway across the street.
· The front building location is 80 feet back from the road.
· He will work with the PB on the specifics for a high fence on the northern boundary.
· The site is fire code compliant – 70 feet in and 70 feet over, with sprinklers, more than adequate overlap
· Storm water solution will be addressed in the final proposal
· A hydrant will be addressed.
· ADA accessibility will be addressed with signage/markings.
Mr. Maher noted that this is currently a preliminary concept design, just as a reminder and not to discount any comments made during the public hearing.
Ms. Mathias noted the privacy on the northern end is important, as is meeting the maximum number of units and storm water mitigation.
PB members commented that at the October 2018 presentation, several suggestions were made following questions by the board that have not been taken into consideration, which were addressed this time by Mr. Lansing:
1) an interconnection into the development next to the proposed site – the best that can be done is possibly to extend the sidewalk, as there is a retaining wall on the south side that is part of the adjacent development ,
2) whether the parking spots will be reserved – not for the open spots, but yes for the garage parking and this will be handled by the condo association,
3) satisfactory handling of snow removal – the front part off to the side is where snow can be pushed from impervious areas, and
4) vegetation/trees on the northern side of the property to shield from close neighbors – Mr. Lansing answered that they will work to come up with something.
Dalia Garcia, Planner, noted that per CT male a 10 foot setback is needed, and the site rule is 12 units per acre, therefore a maximum of 14 units is allowed, not 16 as proposed.
Ms. Mathias noted that question #14 of the analysis was not answered.
Mr. Shorey noted that the site statistics contain an error, saying 1.19 acres but should be 1.18.
Mr. Dipasquale noted that it should be clarified that the parking in the garage and the open space directly behind it are both for the same unit.
Ms. Mathias noted the following: 1) there should be something proposed to extend the sidewalk for the safety of the residents in answer to the lack of connectivity and grading issues, 2) snow removal on the south side needs to be addressed, and 3) screening on the north side, discussed last October, needs to be addressed, and 4) the County requirement of a maximum of 14 units needs to be addressed.
Public Hearing followed after Ms. Mathias read the rules of conduct:
Fred Whittredge, 2nd property to the north of the site asked if the driveway would be angled in to the site, asked if the building in the front was going to be far enough back. He spoke for his neighbor who is the person who lives next to the north side and said that nothing short of a 10 foot wooden solid fence with vegetation will be acceptable to him, and that “some time” would not be good enough for when to address the concern. He asked, “Is there no way to slow down apartments and condominiums? I’ve been watching it grow and grow.”
Peter Solberg, Charlton Rd noted he was on the PB when this project was initially proposed and had the following concerns:
1. Setbacks – if under 5 feet, no windows are allowed and therefore no egress, and would not meet the fire code
2. Emergency vehicles do not have access to the back of the front building – perhaps it could be made smaller
3. Much impervious surface and excessive storm water runoff
4. No screen on the north side driveway
5. Fire hydrants are not noted on the plan
6. Crosswalks should be considered
7. How will the rest of the area be accessed?
8. There are a lot of apartments – the PB might consider asking the developer to think about funds toward a crosswalk, as the taxpayers would need to pay for it if DOT doesn’t
9. Handicap ramps should be provided, but based on the plan this doesn’t look feasible
Frank Rossi Jr. – Saratoga Avenue stated the questions regarding connectivity, roads, etc are being addressed by the Church Avenue crosswalk going in as part of the Hannaford project and shouldn’t be thrown in to this project discussion.
· Scott Lansing addressed the concerns raised:
· The driveway lines up with driveway across the street.
· The front building location is 80 feet back from the road.
· He will work with the PB on the specifics for a high fence on the northern boundary.
· The site is fire code compliant – 70 feet in and 70 feet over, with sprinklers, more than adequate overlap
· Storm water solution will be addressed in the final proposal
· A hydrant will be addressed.
· ADA accessibility will be addressed with signage/markings.
Mr. Maher noted that this is currently a preliminary concept design, just as a reminder and not to discount any comments made during the public hearing.
Ms. Mathias noted the privacy on the northern end is important, as is meeting the maximum number of units and storm water mitigation.
Mr. Dipasquale requested additional information in the next meeting with a proposal from Mr. Lansing and to see what the neighbor’s input is, the one who lives on the northern boundary.
A motion was made to table. A preliminary plan will be brought to a future meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm.
A motion was made to table. A preliminary plan will be brought to a future meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm.
No comments:
Post a Comment