Beacon City Planning Board

August 14, 2007

A Planning Board meeting was held on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 in the courtroom of the Municipal Center. The meeting commenced at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman Jay Hibbs; Members Jay Sheers and Anne Rapalje, Alternate Members Jim Svetz and Liz Strianese; City Engineer John Russo (in for Art Tully); City Planner Chan Timmis (in for David Stolman); City Attorney Gerard Pisanelli and Deputy Building Inspector Dave Buckley. Members John Gunn, Spring Attaway, Mike Lanari, Randall Williams were excused.

Mr. Hibbs asked for corrections/additions to the minutes of the July 10, 2007 meeting or a motion to approve as circulated. Mr. Sheers recalled at the end of the last item on the agenda, Clark Gebman specifically requested special treatment with regard to his application, and the Board declined to treat him any differently than any other applicant. Mr. Sheers asked for that comment to be added to the minutes for the record. Ms. Rapalje made a motion to include that statement in the minutes, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Sheers made a motion to accept the remainder of the July meeting minutes as presented, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 1 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION (TWO

RESIDENTIAL LOTS), SUBMITTED BY DAVID VERDILE, 19 CRESCENT

DRIVE

Peter Catazone, Hudson Land Design, presented his client’s proposal for a two lot subdivision at 19 Crescent Drive, a .35 acre parcel with an existing single family house. Mr. Catazone explained it is basically reestablishing a lot line that was previously abandoned and the two lots were combined. The property is located in an R1-7.5 zoning district and each lot will be just over the minimum requirement of 7,500 sq. ft. per unit. The proposal meets the City’s bulk requirements with the exception of a side yard setback for the existing dwelling. It is shown as 8 ft. from the proposed property line house which requires two variances: one for the actual 8 ft. side yard where 10 ft. is required; and second for a total of 18.5 ft. for both side yards where 20 ft. is required. Mr. Catazone already received comments from the planner and engineer which will be addressed.

Mr. Hibbs advised the applicant to return to the September meeting with changes as requested, however felt it appropriate to set a public hearing for October subject to variances being granted.

Mr. Buckley noted the driveway turnaround area is less than 5 ft. feet from the property line. Mr. Catazone noted that was one of the engineer’s comments and it will be reconfigured appropriately rather than seek relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The applicant will return to the September meeting with a revised plan.

ITEM NO. 2 REVIEW APPLICATION TO AMEND EXISTING SPECIAL USE

PERMIT, REMOVE REQUIREMENT FOR FENCING, SUBMITTED BY

CHARLES & MARY SUE KELLY, 12 ALDRIDGE PLACE

Charles Kelly provided pictures of his back yard to depict the view from his driveway to support his request to amend the requirement for a shield fence in the parking area. The lots most affected are properties along Victor Road that back up to his house on Aldridge Place. Mr. Kelly explained Victor Road is a curved road, the houses are centered on the lots, and the rear elevations sit at an angle. Therefore, when a vehicle pulls into his driveway it is not perpendicular to the adjacent houses. Also a neighbor’s fence, shed and other vegetation shields their property. Mr. Kelly felt the fence required on the original site plan to block light from shining onto neighboring properties unnecessary because ample blockage exists between his parking area and adjacent property. He believed the fence requirement was added as an afterthought when going through final site plan approval when no one understood what the consequences would be. Mr. Kelly expressed concerns about the cost of the fence which is over $1,000 and that it would block off the green area. In summary, Mr. Kelly requested relief from the fence requirement because it is unnecessary and unattractive. It will also allow him to maximize the green area of the lawn. Mr. Kelly added that even if the neighbor’s shed and fence were removed, the driveway would face a two car garage. The building is not yet completed but a new landscaper will be hired to enhance the quality.

Mr. Hibbs noted the existing vegetation is deciduous and asked Mr. Kelly if he would consider planting evergreens. Mr. Kelly said he would but wanted to maximize the green area and create more privacy on the property. He said there is quite a distance between his house and the property line; Mr. Timmis confirmed that approximately 35 ft. exists between the driveway and rear property line.

After some discussion, all members agreed that some type of evergreen hedge should be planted closer to the property line so vegetation lasts throughout the winter. Mr. Kelly said he considered installing a fence similar to his neighbor’s until he looked into the cost and found it too expensive. Additionally, no one in the area has fencing around their property.

Mr. Timmis asked that the location, quantity, sizes and species of plantings be added to the plan, and recommended they be 3-4 ft. in height. He suggested staggering plantings for a more natural appearance. They can be planted on the other side of the swale closer to the property line.

Mr. Kelly asked if some type of vegetation could be planted in the swale area to enhance water absorption. Mr. Russo said such planting exists but advised caution because it could also prevent water flow and create a problem.

Ms. Rapalje made a motion to grant the requested site plan amendment to remove the fence requirement, subject to the submission of revised drawings to the consultants for their review and approval, seconded by Ms. Strianese. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 3 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL,

RESTAURANT, SUBMITTED BY ATLANTIC HORIZON INTERNATIONAL,

301-303 MAIN STREET

Raul Arquello introduced his partner John Arquello and described their proposal to open a full restaurant in the former fish market at 301-303 Main Street. The fish market only occupied one side of the building but they want to expand to the adjacent store front. The restaurant would have a similar concept but with a full restaurant. Mr. Arquello reported they are leasing both storefronts now with the intention of combining the spaces. They were aware of the requirement for off-street parking and that they would need to apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance.

Mr. Hibbs announced the draft comprehensive plan yet to be adopted suggests that parking requirements be revised for Main Street because the in-lieu of parking fee charged for lack of off-street parking is quite expensive. A previous applicant is paying that fee in phases with the hope that the comprehensive plan is approved and the remainder of his fee waived. The board supports restaurants opening on Main Street without penalizing business owners with a parking fee.

Mr. Arquello pointed out the building they are in was at formerly one parcel however the owner split them for rental purposes. They will now go through the process of combining the two parcels into one in order to create a larger space.

Mr. Timmis provided the applicant with a copy of his comments which were minor in nature. The proposed sign is larger than permitted therefore Mr. Arquello said they would reduce the size of the sign. He also noted they will contract with a garbage hauler to remove trash on a daily basis so a dumpster is not needed.

After some consideration, Ms. Rapalje made a motion to send a favorable recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the required parking variance, seconded by Mr. Sheers. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Sheers made a motion to set a public hearing for the month of October, subject to the applicant being granted the required variance, seconded by Ms. Rapalje. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Architectural Review: 24 DeSoto Avenue – Single Family House

Members reviewed revised elevation drawings and proposed colors for a new single family house on 24 Union Street submitted by Paul Bernasconi and prepared by Joel Trace, Architect. Mr. Buckley provided photos of surrounding homes to provide an overview of the neighboring housing stock. After considering the proposal, Ms. Rapalje made a motion to approve the proposed single family house subject to elimination of the side cantilevers, center the middle window at the front gable and add windows on the second floor – right side elevation, seconded by Mr. Svetz. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

There was no further business to discuss and Ms. Rapalje made a motion to close the meeting, seconded by Ms. Strianese. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.