Planning & Zoning Commission
54 East Main Street
Clinton, Connecticut 06413
Planning Committee Meeting
April 20, 2015
7:00 p.m. – Rose Room
Amended Minutes
Call Meeting to Order
C.Goupil called the Planning Committee Meeting to order at 7:05 PM in the Rose Room of the William
Stanton Andrews Memorial Town Hall.
Present: Christine Goupil, Alan Kravitz, and Mary Ellen Dahlgren
Guests: David Radka, Tim Guerra and Omar Francis
Planning Committee
1. Review minutes from 03-16-2016:
The group discussed the net zero runoff motion that was made at the previous Planning Meeting.
C.Goupil was told the regulation already exists and thought it may be worth having Inland Wetlands
write a memo to P&Z for inclusion in the PoCD. D.Radka explained there is a state law not to
increase runoff from a property. Current regulations are by percent ground coverage, but varies by
location. The group agreed the current zoning regulations should be examined and refined to reflect
soil type, topography limitations, and pervious pavers. This should be added to the PoCD.
C.Goupil moved to look at the feasibility of adding soil based zoning to the Plan of Conservation and
Development. Tim Guerra seconded the motion. Voting in favor: C.Goupil, A.Kravitz, T.Guerra,
D.Radka, O.Francis and M.Dahlgren.
The group discussed the Marine District and zoning. Research is needed on what could be
developed in the area. Future encroachment of marsh in this area was addressed at the resiliency
meeting and is a concern for future development. A.Kravitz would like to delegate the technical
research to CME and the River Cog.
C.Goupil moved to add to the agenda of planning and zoning discussion of the need to address the
Marine District in advance of the finalized Plan of Conservation and Development. Tim Guerra
seconded the motion. Voting in favor: C.Goupil, A.Kravitz, T. Guerra, D.Radka, O.Francis and
M.Dahlgren.
2. Review Regional Transportation Plan:
Planning Committee
April 20, 2015
A.Kravitz discussed the findings of the Regional Transportation Plan. A.Kravitz pointed out Clinton
had the lowest per capita income of the surrounding towns, the largest employer is listed as
Unilever (which had not been updated), and employment trends are down in the area. Additional
bridges should be added to the eligible bridges list (Table 3.5). The CT Plan of Conservation and
Development Map (Map 4.1) is inaccurate as to where development areas are, this needs to be
corrected, and not what was provided to the state. On page 66, Municipal Transportation Priorities,
the River Cog had asked for municipal priorities and this list should be reviewed by town officials.
This is how state funding will be prioritized. A response to the plan is needed back by April 23rd.
A.Kravitz and C.Goupil will schedule a meeting on Wednesday with CME to respond to the River Cog.
They would like inclusion of safe routes to school, transit oriented development and sidewalks along
Route 1 as part of the priorities.
A.Kravitz moved to draft a response to the River Cog’s Long Range Regional Transportation Plan
based on the draft Plan of Conservation and Development. C.Goupil seconded the motion. Voting in
favor: C.Goupil, A.Kravitz, T.Guerra, D.Radka, O.Francis and M.Dahlgren.
3. Discussion creating a fee in lieu structure for Open Space:
C.Goupil discussed the need for a fee in lieu for open space, dedicated land is often land locked or
undevelopable land is set aside. The group discussed the need for establishing guidelines and the
administration of funds.
4. Discussion design and location of Accessory Apartments
Concern was discussed regarding accessory apartments and keeping relatives in the apartment,
currently 2 year documentation is required. A.Kravitz would like to see better standards and
oversight in place. Discussed establishing criteria for certain areas of town and exclude accessory
apartments in specific areas; such a hazard zones or WPCC areas of concern. The regulation
committee should look at excluding accessory apartments from receiving a variance and special
exception for locational characteristics.
5. Brief summary of Coastal Resiliency Workshop:
The meeting was a success with much input from a diverse group of citizens. Broad conclusions
were found and included: Better communication is needed during emergency situations, specifically
there are language barriers and not everyone has cell phones or computers. It was suggested to
move shelters to higher ground.
Plan of Conservation and Development
1. FOCUS AREAS: Master planning:
Planning is a 2 stage process. It was suggested that the Development Areas plan is not detailed
enough and a set of goals and performance standards are needed. A master plan is needed for the
Downtown and the Waterfront. C.Goupil discussed the need for sidewalks for the new High School,
she will speak with Art Linaris, Route 81 is a state road, and requires state contractors.
2. HOUSING: Create matrix
Creating a matrix for the PoCD. A.Kravitz explained for affordable housing the existing small housing
is not what people are looking for, and the Mobile Home Parks cannot be tied into affordable
housing. The town continues to allow more density, and A.Kravitz thinks greater density will have a
negative effect and may drive down the housing costs. A thorough assessment should be done of
2
Planning Committee
April 20, 2015
the different zones, look at the broader questions, and look at the issues in each zone. The group
looked at the zoning map and looked at why each area was zoned as it is. A.Kravitz suggested
restructuring the Planning and Zoning Commission into 2 separate commissions, so the planning
aspects could be addressed and not just zoning. The Town Plan of Conservation and Development
should direct what takes place.
Old Business
New Business
Adjournment
C.Goupil moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 PM. All voted in favor.
The next regular meeting of the Planning Committee is 2015.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirley Mickens
3