Regional Planning Commission Agenda Packet - November 2013scrcog.org/wp-content/uploads/RPC/2013/11_RPC_Nov13.pdf · The Town of Seymour has proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments

SOUTH CENTRAL CONNECTICUT Regional Planning Commission

127 Washington Avenue, 4th Floor West, North Haven, CT 06473

www.scrcog.org T (203) 234-7555 F (203) 234-9850 [email protected]

AGENDA To: Regional Planning Commission From: Eugene Livshits, Regional Planner Subject: Agenda for Thursday, November 14, 2013 RPC Meeting, 5:15pm @ SCRCOG

Offices: 127 Washington Avenue, North Haven, CT 06473 1. Administration

1.1. Minutes of the September 12, 2013 RPC Meeting

1.2. Minutes of the October 10, 2013 RPC Meeting

2. Statutory Referrals – November Action Items

2.1. Town of Seymour: Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments regarding Garden Apartments, Town Houses, and Two-Family Dwellings. Submitted by: Town of Seymour. Received: October 23, 2013. Public Hearing: December 12, 2013.

2.2. City of New Haven: Proposed Zoning Map Amendment. Submitted by: City of

New Haven. Received: October 23, 2013. Public Hearing: November 20, 2013.

2.3. Town of Madison: Proposed Amendments to Section 3.4 and Section 19. Submitted by: Town of Madison. Received: October 28, 2013. Public Hearing: November 21, 2013.

2.4. Town of North Haven: Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendment to Section

5.1.1.32. Submitted by: Private Applicant. Received: November 04, 2013. Public Hearing: December 2, 2013.

3. Other Business

3.1. 2014 Meeting Schedule

3.2. Nominating Committee

3.3. RPC Annual Dinner

RPC Representatives Bethany: Michael Calhoun Branford: Charles Andres East Haven: Vacant Guilford: Peter Goletz Hamden: Richard Szczypek Madison: Christopher Traugh (Chair) Meriden: David White Milford: Mark Bender New Haven: Kevin DiAdamo (Vice Chair) North Branford: Douglas Combs North Haven: James Giulietti Orange: Paul Kaplan Wallingford: Vacant West Haven: Christopher Suggs Woodbridge: Peggy Rubens-Duhl

1 3 5 9 63 68 73




DRAFT - Not yet approved by the Commission MEETING MINUTES To: Regional Planning Commission From: Eugene Livshits, Regional Planner Subject: Minutes for Thursday, September 12, 2013 Meeting Present: Christopher Traugh, Kevin DiAdamo, Charles Andres, Mark Bender, Peggy Rubens-Duhl, Douglas Combs, James Giulietti, Michael Calhoun, Eugene Livshits 1 Administration

1.1 Minutes of the August 8, 2013 RPC meeting.

Motion to accept the minutes as presented: Mark Bender. Second: Charles Andres. Vote: Unanimous. Abstain: Peggy Rubens-Duhl

2 Statutory Referrals

2.1 Town of Clinton: Proposed Zoning Regulation and Map Amendment

By resolution, the RPC has determined that the Proposed Zoning Regulation and Map Amendment does not appear to cause any negative inter-municipal impacts to the towns in the South Central Region nor do there appear to be any impacts to the habitat or ecosystem of the Long Island Sound. Motion: Mark Bender. Second: Peggy Rubens-Duhl. Vote: Unanimous. Abstain: Kevin DiAdamo

2.2 Town of Guilford: Proposed Amendments to Table 5 (permitted uses in non-residential districts)

of the Zoning Regulations By resolution, the RPC has determined that the Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments do not appear to cause any negative inter-municipal impacts to the towns in the South Central Region nor do there appear to be any impacts to the habitat or ecosystem of the Long Island Sound. Motion: Kevin DiAdamo. Second: Michael Calhoun. Vote: Unanimous.

1




2.3 City of Derby: Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments to Article XI (Electronic Message Display Sign in P Zone and Article VIII (Flag Lots)

By resolution, the RPC has determined that the Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments do not appear to cause any negative inter-municipal impacts to the towns in the South Central Region nor do there appear to be any impacts to the habitat or ecosystem of the Long Island Sound. Motion: Kevin DiAdamo. Second: Mark Bender. Vote: Unanimous.

2.4 Town of Stratford: Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendment to repeal Section 4.1.6.16 (Active Adult Housing Small Development) By resolution, the RPC has determined that the Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendment does not appear to cause any negative inter-municipal impacts to the towns in the South Central Region nor do there appear to be any impacts to the habitat or ecosystem of the Long Island Sound. Motion: Charles Andres. Second: Douglas Combs. Vote: Unanimous.

2.5 Town of Madison: Proposed Plan of Conservation and Development

By resolution, the RPC has determined that the Proposed Plan of Conservation and Development appears to be consistent with the policy and statements of both the Regional and State Plan of Conservation and Development. Motion: Mark Bender. Second: Kevin DiAdamo. Vote: Unanimous.

Motion to add Madison Referral regarding a Moratorium on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and Producers to the RPC Agenda: Mark Bender. Second: James Giulietti

2.6 Town of Madison: Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendment for a Medical Marijuana

Moratorium By resolution, the RPC has determined that the Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendment does not appear to cause any negative inter-municipal impacts to the towns in the South Central Region nor do there appear to be any impacts to the habitat or ecosystem of the Long Island Sound. Motion: Charles Andres. Second: Kevin DiAdamo. Vote: Unanimous.

Motion to Adjourn: Mark Bender. Second: Christopher Traugh. Vote: Unanimous.

2




DRAFT - Not yet approved by the Commission MEETING MINUTES To: Regional Planning Commission From: Eugene Livshits, Regional Planner Subject: Minutes for Thursday, October 10, 2013 Meeting Present: Christopher Traugh, Kevin DiAdamo, Charles Andres, Richard Szczypek, Ed Meade, Peter Goletz, Douglas Combs, James Giulietti, Eugene Livshits 1 Administration

1.1 Minutes of the September 12, 2013 RPC meeting.

Due to not having a quorum when the RPC meeting started, the September minutes were tabled to the October 10, 2013 meeting.

2 Statutory Referrals

2.1 Town of Orange: Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendment to add Section 383-20 (Moratorium

on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and Producers) By resolution, the RPC has determined that the Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendment does not appear to cause any negative inter-municipal impacts to the towns in the South Central Region nor do there appear to be any impacts to the habitat or ecosystem of the Long Island Sound. Motion: Charles Andres. Second: Peter Goletz. Vote: Unanimous.

2.2 Town of Cheshire: Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendment to Section 45A.1.2 (Special Adaptive Reuse Development District) By resolution, the RPC has determined that the Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendment does not appear to cause any negative inter-municipal impacts to the towns in the South Central Region nor do there appear to be any impacts to the habitat or ecosystem of the Long Island Sound. Motion: Charles Andres. Second: Peter Goletz. Vote: Unanimous. Abstain: Kevin DiAdamo

3




2.3 City of New Haven: Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments By resolution, the RPC has determined that the Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments do not appear to cause any negative inter-municipal impacts to the towns in the South Central Region n or do there appear to be any impacts to the habitat or ecosystem of the Long Island Sound. Motion: Peter Goletz. Second: Richard Szczypek. Vote: Unanimous.

2.4 City of Milford: Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendment to add Section 2.7.10 (Moratorium on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and Producers) By resolution, the RPC has determined that the Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendment does not appear to cause any negative inter-municipal impacts to the towns in the South Central Region nor do there appear to be any impacts to the habitat or ecosystem of the Long Island Sound. Motion: Peter Goletz. Second: Richard Szczypek. Vote: Unanimous.

2.5 City of Milford: Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments to Article VI, Section 6.2 (Non-

Conforming Uses), Section 6.3 (Non-Conforming Structures) and Article VIII, Section 11.2 (Definitions) By resolution, the RPC has determined that the Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments do not appear to cause any negative inter-municipal impacts to the towns in the South Central Region nor do there appear to be any impacts to the habitat or ecosystem of the Long Island Sound. Motion: Richard Szczypek. Second: Peter Goletz. Vote: Unanimous.

Motion to add North Branford Referral regarding a Moratorium on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and Producers to the RPC Agenda: Peter Goletz. Second: Charles Andres. Vote: Unanimous.

2.6 Town of North Branford: Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendment to add Section 23.2.7

(Moratorium on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and Producers) By resolution, the RPC has determined that the Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendment does not appear to cause any negative inter-municipal impacts to the towns in the South Central Region nor do there appear to be any impacts to the habitat or ecosystem of the Long Island Sound. Motion: Christopher Traugh. Second: Peter Goletz. Vote: Unanimous.

Motion to Adjourn: Richard Szczypek. Second: Peter Goletz. Vote: Unanimous.

4

Referral 2.1: Town of Seymour

Subject:

Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments regarding Garden Apartments, Town Houses, and

Two-Family Dwellings.

Staff Recommendation:

Staff Recommendation will be presented at the November 14, 2013 meeting.

Background:

The Town of Seymour has proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments regarding Garden

Apartments. The proposed lot area for Garden Apartment Units is 5,500 square feet on parcels of

five acres or less and 7,000 square feet for parcels of more than 5 acres. The current regulations

require a lot area of 16,000 square feet no matter the size of the parcel. Coverage for buildings

and impervious surfaces is proposed to be increased from 18% to 33%. The twelve units per

building requirement would be eliminated by this amendment. Garden apartments are allowed,

by special permit, in the Multi-Family (MF) District.

The density requirement for Town Houses is proposed to be reduced from 16,000 square feet per

unit to 12,000 square feet per unit. Town Houses are allowed, by special permit, in the Multi-

Family (MF) District.

The minimum lot area for a two family dwelling in the R-18 District will be reduced from 40,000

square feet to 20,000 square feet.

The Town of Seymour is adjacent to the following municipalities in the South Central Region:

Bethany and Woodbridge. The MF District is adjacent to the R-65 District in Bethany. The R-18

District in Seymour is adjacent to the R-65 District in Bethany.

Communication: In researching this proposal, I notified the adjacent municipalities in the South

Central Region.

5

6

7

8

Referral 2.2: City of New Haven

Subject:

Proposed Zoning Map Amendment


The Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments do not appear to cause any negative inter-

municipal impacts to the towns in the South Central Region nor do there appear to be any

impacts to the habitat or ecosystem of the Long Island Sound.

Background:

The Housing Authority of New Haven is requesting a zoning change from RM-1 to a Planned

Development District (PDD) to enable the redevelopment of the existing Ribicoff Cottages in the

West Rock area of New Haven. Currently the Ribicoff Cottage site contains 100 public housing

units for the elderly and disabled. The proposed project will involve the demolition of the current

units and the construction of 106 affordable and senior units, 8 homeownership units, three new

public streets with sidewalks, two community gardens and a community center.

Maps of the 8.09 acre lot located at 200 Brookside Avenue, Zoning Information and

redevelopment plans can be found in your agenda packet. The current redevelopment plan does

not adhere to the existing RM-1 zoning regulations in the following areas: parking, minimum lot

area, maximum building coverage, minimum yards, and accessory uses. The eight

homeownership units and two new roads are proposed to have connections from the PDD to

Woodin Street, which is located in Hamden. Approval of the application is dependent upon

permitting/approval from the Town of Hamden.

The development plan satisfies all the requirements for a PDD under section 65 of the New

Haven Zoning Ordinance. Section 65 is included in the background section of the agenda packet.


Central Region.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Section 1

28

29

30

Section 2

31

32

Section 3

33

34

35

36

Section 4

37

38

39

40

41

42

Section 5

43

44

45

46

47

Section 6

48

49

50

51

52

53

Section 7

54

55

56

57

Section 65. Planned developments. (a)

Objectives. The provisions of this section are to be applied in instances where tracts of land of considerable size are developed, redeveloped or renewed as integrated and harmonious units, and where the overall design of such units is so outstanding as to warrant modification of the standards contained elsewhere in this ordinance. A planned development, to be eligible under this section, must be:

(1)

In accordance with the comprehensive plans of the city, including all plans for redevelopment and renewal;

(2)

Composed of such uses, and in such proportions, as are most appropriate and necessary for the integrated functioning of the planned development and for the city;

(3)

So designed in its space allocation, orientation, texture, materials, landscaping and other features as to produce an environment of stable and desirable character, complementing the design and values of the surrounding neighborhood, and showing such unusual merit as to reflect credit upon the developer and upon the city; and

(4)

So arranged as to provide a minimum of 250 square feet of usable open space per dwelling unit on the tract, except 125 square feet in the case of elderly housing units, subject to the specific minimum standards enumerated in section 15(a)(1)g. of this ordinance.

(b)

Tract. The tract for which application is made must have the following minimum and maximum areas:

(1)

For a Planned Development Unit under paragraph (d)(1) below, between one-half and two acres in the case of dwellings only, and between one and two acres in all other cases.

(2)

For a Planned Development District under paragraph (d)(2) below, over one acre in the case of dwellings only, and over two acres in all other cases.

(c)

Who may apply. An application may be filed by (1) the owner or owners or lessee or lessees of all land and structures included within the tract, or (2) any governmental agency including the New Haven Redevelopment Agency. The holder of a written

58

http://library.municode.com/HTML/19969/level2/ZOOR_ARIIREDIDIRE.html#ZOOR_ARIIREDIDIRE_S15DISPHIDE

option or contract to purchase or lease land and/or structures shall, for purposes of such Application, be deemed the owner or lessee of the land and/or structures covered by such option or contract.

(d)

Application and general plans. Each application shall state the proposed modifications of existing zoning, and shall be accompanied by general plans, including contoured site plans. The general plans shall show the improvements to be erected upon the tract, the open spaces to be provided, the nature and location of the proposed use or uses, the relationship of the proposed development to surrounding properties, and other pertinent information.

Traffic impact study. All applications filed pursuant to this section shall be referred to the Department of Traffic and Parking for an advisory report on the traffic impact. The traffic impact study shall show the amount and direction of traffic to be generated by the proposed development and shall estimate the effect of such traffic on the roadway capacity and safety.

The Application and General Plans shall be sufficient in scope and character to determine that the objectives stated in subsection (a) above will be met. Any proposed division of the tract into separately owned and operated units shall be indicated. The Application and General Plans shall be filed and acted upon in the following manner:

(1)

Where the proposed modifications of existing zoning concern only the bulk and placement of structures and the size and shape of lots (regulation of lot area, average lot width, distance between buildings, size of courts, yards, gross floor area, building height, and/or building coverage), or involve a reduction of lot area per dwelling unit of no more than 33%, such Application and General Plans shall be filed with the Board of Zoning Appeals and acted upon as a special exception under subsection 63(d) of this ordinance. If such Application and General Plans are approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, upon specific findings that each of the objectives stated in subsection (a) above will be met, such approval shall be construed to modify provisions contained elsewhere in this ordinance insofar (and only insofar) as specific deletions, additions and changes are made which are related to land and structures in the tract, and the tract shall be designated a Planned Development Unit within the existing zoning district, provided that the requirements of subsection (e) below are met.

(2)

In any other case, the Application and General Plans shall be filed with the Board of Aldermen and acted upon as a proposed amendment to this ordinance. If such application and General Plans are approved by the Board of Aldermen, following a favorable recommendation by the City Plan Commission and after an advisory report from the Department of Traffic and

59

http://library.municode.com/HTML/19969/level2/ZOOR_ARTVIIAD.html#ZOOR_ARTVIIAD_S63BOZOAP

Parking regarding the traffic impact study, upon specific findings that each of the objectives stated in subsection 65(a) above will be met, such approval shall be construed to amend this ordinance insofar (and only insofar) as specific deletions, additions and changes are made which are related to the land and structures in the tract, and the tract shall be designated as a separate Planned Development District provided that the requirements of subsection 65(e) below are met.

(3)

All applications filed under this section may be referred by the Board of Zoning Appeals in the case of Planned Development Units, and by the Board of Aldermen in the case of Planned Development Districts, to any Neighborhood Planning Agency (NPA) of jurisdiction as defined in section 1 of this ordinance, which may issue an advisory report on the proposed zoning designation to the Board of Zoning Appeals or Board of Aldermen, as appropriate, prior to final action by these boards. Nothing in the npa review shall be construed so as to delay the review process or to constrain the sound discretion of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City Plan Commission or Board of Aldermen.

(e)

Subsequent performance. All official zoning maps shall carry a notation of the location and boundaries of any planned development approved as above, giving a reference to a file in which full information concerning the provisions applying to the same may be found.

(1)

After the approval of the Application and General Plans, the applicant shall file detailed plans for review by the City Plan Commission, showing the details of the proposed development as fully as possible and including elevations and perspectives of proposed construction. If the applicant later wishes to change any of the details of the proposed development, further detailed plans shall be filed for review by the City Plan Commission. No building permit for the proposed development or any part thereof shall be issued until the City Plan Commission has determined that the pertinent Detailed Plans are in accordance with the Application and General Plans as approved and with the objectives stated in subsection (a) above. If any Detailed Plans are not acted upon by the City Plan Commission within 60 days after they are submitted to it, they shall be deemed to be approved.

(2)

Within three months after the approval of the Application and General Plans, a certified copy of such Application and General Plans shall be filed by the applicant at their own expense in the office of the city/town clerk.

60

http://library.municode.com/HTML/19969/level2/ZOOR_ARI.DE.html#ZOOR_ARI.DE_S1DE

(3)

If construction of improvements is not begun and diligently prosecuted to completion within a reasonable time established by the City Plan Commission at the time of approval of detailed plans, and if an extension of time is not given by the City Plan Commission for good cause shown, then the modifications or amendments of this ordinance provided for in subsection 65(d) above shall become null and void, and the tract shall revert to all the requirements of its previous zoning. No certificate of occupancy (C of O) shall be issued until a detailed report is submitted by the applicant to the City Plan Commission showing the outcome of construction and the City Plan Commission certifies that all the requirements of this section 65 relating to planned developments have been met.

(4)

Parking Plan amendments to a planned development. Any amendment of 20 or more parking spaces to an Overall Parking Plan which covers an area including a planned development must be submitted for approval to the body that approved the original planned development: the Board of Alderman for a PDD; the Board of Zoning Appeals for a PDU. If an Overall Parking Plan covers an area that includes both a PDD and PDU, then changes shall be submitted to the Board of Aldermen for review and approval, provided, however, that the Board of Aldermen may elect to refer such amendment to the Board of Zoning Appeals for action. If an Overall Parking Plan covers an area of 150 or more acres, then (a) changes involving 100 or more parking spaces shall be submitted for review and approval to the Board of Aldermen, and (b) changes of less than 100 spaces shall be submitted for administrative review by the City Plan Department. Any request to change the borders of the area covered by an Overall Parking Plan must be submitted to the Board of Aldermen for review and approval, provided however that no parking plan shall cover two or more non-contiguous areas, excepting satellite lots that may service the primary area. Increased parking demand generated by employees working on temporary construction projects shall not require an application to amend an Overall Parking Plan, but shall be included in the application for city approval of the project. The proposed parking plan amendment shall include an account of all available parking and its use; an account of all parking fees charged and revenues collected; an account of current demand management efforts such as public transit subsidies, car pools, bicycle storage, satellite parking lots with shuttle service and others; a census of potential parkers, per section 12(b), with five-year and ten-year projections based on the applicant's expansion plans, if any; a detailed study of the utilization of on-street parking in the surrounding area; and such other information as the Board of Aldermen deems necessary. Any Overall Parking

61

http://library.municode.com/HTML/19969/level2/ZOOR_ARTVIIAD.html#ZOOR_ARTVIIAD_S65PLDE

http://library.municode.com/HTML/19969/level2/ZOOR_ARIIREDIDIRE.html#ZOOR_ARIIREDIDIRE_S12DIGESIMI

Plan that is or becomes out of compliance with conditions required by a city board or commission shall be updated and submitted for review/approval within 30 days of the effective date of this ordinance or within 30 days of the date of non-compliance.

(Ord. No. 1358, §§ 1, 2, 9-7-04)

62

Referral 2.3: Town of Madison

Subject:

Proposed Amendments to Section 3.4 and Section 19


The Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments do not appear to cause any negative inter-



Background:

The Town of Madison has submitted proposed zoning regulation amendments to Section 3.4

(Special Exceptions) and Section 19 (Definitions) regarding Boarding Schools. The proposal

allows Boarding Schools, either for-profit or not-for-profit, as along as “the lot size

encompassing such use is a minimum of ten acres and the maximum building coverage is 15%.

The proposed amendment also adds a definition for Boarding Schools.

The Town of Madison is adjacent to the following municipality in the South Central Region:

Guilford.


Central Region.

63

64

65

66

67

Referral 2.4: Town of North Haven

Subject:

Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendment to Section 5.1.1.32


The Proposed Zoning Regulation Amendment does not appear to cause any negative inter-



Background:

A private applicant in the Town of North Haven has submitted a Proposed Zoning Regulation

Amendment to Section 5.1.1.32 regarding indoor gymnastics training facilities with locker and

lounge facilities. The proposed amendment would add indoor gymnastics training facilities with

locker and lounge facilities to the list of permitted uses in a Light Industrial District. This use

would be added to Section 5.1.1.32, which includes indoor tennis courts with locker and lounge

facilities and indoor baseball training facilities with locker and lounge facilities.

The Town of North Haven is adjacent to the following municipalities in the South Central

Region: East Haven, Hamden, New Haven, North Branford, and Wallingford. Light Industrial

Districts are adjacent to New Haven and Wallingford.


Central Region.

68

69

70

71

72

2014 MEETING SCHEDULE

The South Central Connecticut Regional Planning Commission meets monthly at the offices of the South Central Regional Council of Governments, 127 Washington Avenue,

4th Floor West, North Haven, CT at 5:15 PM, unless notified otherwise.

**January 9, 2014 July 10, 2014 February 13, 2014 August 14, 2014 March 13, 2014 September 11, 2014 April 10, 2014 October 9, 2014 May 8, 2014 November 13, 2014 June 12, 2014 December 11, 2014 **January 8, 2015

* RPC Annual Dinner

73

Documents

Regional Planning Commission Agenda Packet - November 2013scrcog.org/wp-content/uploads/RPC/2013/11_RPC_Nov13.pdf · The Town of Seymour has proposed Zoning Regulation Amendments