Planning & Zoning Commission - Minutes - 03/26/2024

Planning and Zoning Commission
March 26, 2024
p. lof4
ECEIVEDE c
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REC r ED FOR RE pono
MEETING MINUTES
2004 APR-21P 3: 28
Planning & Zoning Commission March 26, 2024
Town Hall attest: GROOM Zia
TOWN CLERK
Members Present: Chairman Greg Massad, Tim Conderino and Victor Ebersole
Members Absent: Karen Barnett, Tim Bleasdale
Alternates Present: Bertrand Chenard
Alternates Absent: Doris Crum, Joseph DiBuono
Staff Present: Jonathan Mullen, Planning Director, Mark Wujtewicz, Planner,
Katrina Kotfer, Recording Secretary
1. CALL TO ORDER AND APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
G. Massad called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. B. Chenard was seated for T. Bleasdale.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Motion made by B. Chenard, seconded by T. Conderino, to approve the
February 27, 2024 meeting minutes.
VOTE: 4-0
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPLICATION RECEIPT
#PL-24-5 — Request of East Lyme Tree Service, owner & applicant for a Site Plan/Special Permit
approval for Storage of Trucks & Equipment at 1122 & 1124 Hartford Turnpike, IP-3 zone, in
accordance with Sections 15.2.1 and 23 of the Zoning Regulations and as shown on plans entitled
"East Lyme Tree Services, 122 & 1124 Hartford Turnpike, Waterford, CT Rev. March 6, 2024".
PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED BY: 5/16/2024
APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED: 3/12/2024
Chairman Massad noted that application PL-24-5 was submitted for receipt at the March 12, 2024
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. The March 12, 2024 meeting was cancelled, however
the application was still officially received in accordance with State Statute and that it will be
scheduled for a public hearing within the required statutory period.
5. APPLICATION REVIEW
48 Great Neck Road — Planning & Zoning Commission determination of material or substantial
change for the proposed changes to Ivy Hill PDD.
Chairman Massad briefly informed the Commission the reason for this item appearing on the
agenda. The developer had implemented changes to the project that were not consistent with
the original plan that was approved by the Commission. In accordance with the Zoning
Regulations that govern approved plans under the PDD Section 19 of the Zoning Regulations,
the Commission is now tasked with determining whether the changes implemented are
considered material and substantial changes.
T. Conderino recused himself from the discussion of this item.

Planning and Zoning Commission
March 26, 2024
DK p.2 of 4
|
}
Brian Florek, LS, Florek Surveying LLC reviewed with the Commission the modifications
that have been made in the field to date. He identified on the plan the location of the existing
buildings and foundations. He also identified on the plan the approved building locations as
shown on the approved site plan. There were also duplex buildings approved on the site plan
that were changed to two separate single-family units. He stated that he felt there was no
substantial change to the impervious surfaces or the roof areas of the buildings than what was
previously approved. The driveways and sidewalks remain as was previously approved.
B. Florek stated that the separation distances between buildings is consistent with IRC
Building Code requirements.
G. Massad inquired as to whether any of the construction is closer to a property line than
previously approved. B. Florek stated that all the buildings conform to the minimum required
setback but some buildings are located closer to property line and street line. G. Massad stated
that zoning regulation section 19.2.2 specifically states that any building closer to a an
adjacent property or street line constitutes a substantial change and shall be subject to the
same review and public hearing procedures as the original zone change.
He stated that the regulation restriction on locating a building closer to a property or street line
that that which was approved in the site plan does not afford the Commission any flexibility in
determining whether the relocated buildings constitutes a substantial change or not.
J. Mullen recommended that identifying a box on the revised site plan for each building in
place of a specific building footprint will afford the developer some latitude in selecting and
locating buildings with various footprints as long as they are confined to the building box
identified on the plan. M. FitzGerald, Env Planner requested that the as built location of the
sedimentation basins be shown on the revised site plan.
G. Massad noted that the regulations dictate the path forward and the Commission is willing to
work with the developer in moving the public hearing process forward in an expedient and
efficient manner that will be beneficial to both the applicant and the Town.
MOTION: Motion made by G. Massad, seconded by B. Chenard, to find that in
accordance with Section 19.2.2, there has been a substantial or material
change to the Master Design Plan for Planned Design District-2, 48 Great
Neck Road by locating the buildings closer to adjacent property and street
lines than that which was approved and as a result the application must be
subject to the same review and public hearing procedures as the original zone
change.
VOTE: 3-0
6. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW
Pre-application review pursuant to CGS Section 7-159b and Section 22a.5 of the Waterford
Zoning Regulations of a potential application for a site plan at 145 Boston Post Road.

Planning and Zoning Commission
March 26, 2024
“Hy p. 3 of 4
|: Bernard Donihee of WR Realty presented a proposal to the Commission regarding property he
owns at 145 Boston Post Road. He stated that he would like to place two small residential
units on the first floor of the existing garage structure that has historically been used as
commercial space. He presented two options to the Commission that have two residential units
on the first floor of the garage and another option with one residential unit and a commercial
space. Options were suggested by both the property owner and the Commission as to
redeveloping and/or repurposing the garage structure on the property.
7. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
e Appointment to the Regional Planning Commission of SECCOG
The Southeast Connecticut Council of Governments is requesting that Waterford appoint a
representative from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the Regional Planning
Commission of the Council of Governments. G. Massad suggested that Tim Bleasdale be
nominated to the appointment. He stated that Tim is aware of the vacancy and has expressed
interest in representing Waterford on the Committee.
MOTION: Motion by B. Chenard, Seconded by G. Massad to appoint Tim Bleasdale as
the Waterford Representative to the Regional Planning Commission of the
Council of Governments.
VOTE: 4-0
e Report from Planning Staff on the Town of Waterford’s Application to the Commissioner
of the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development for a
Certificate of Affordable Housing Completion in accordance with CGS§ 8-30g (1)(4)(B)
for a 4-year moratorium on the applicability of the affordable housing appeals procedure
to certain affordable housing applications.
J. Mullen presented the process and provided an overview to the Commission regarding the
potential for Waterford to apply for a 4-year moratorium on applications presented to the
Planning and Zoning Commission under the CGS 8-30g affordable housing appeals
procedure. He stated that a Town may be exempt from such applications if 10% of its housing
stock is comprised of affordable housing units as defined by State Statute. A second option is
for the Town to apply for a 4-year moratorium on 8-30g applications which may be achieved
through a housing equivalency unit point program. This option will provide a temporary
moratorium for a period of four years on 8-30g applications. He stated that the moratorium is
not on accepting affordable housing proposals but applies to affordable housing applications
being submitted under the CGS 8-30g appeals procedure. The 8-30g appeals procedure allows
a developer to override local zoning regulations in the application process to the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
He stated that the application is currently under review by the Town legal counsel.
8. CORRESPONDENCE
No correspondence was received.

Planning and Zoning Commission
March 26, 2024
p.40f4
9. COMMISSION BUSINESS
Staff reviewed with the Commission the status of ongoing and potential upcoming projects.
10. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Motion made by T. Conderino, seconded by V. Ebersole to adjourn the
meeting at 7:52 PM.
VOTE: 4-0
Respegtful jes
ark Wujtewi
Planner