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
© Copyright 2024