Memo regarding the history of 39 Sams Road

asi11/2011

17:27

2035305883

PLANNING

PAGE

02/05

MEMORANDUM

TO;

Plmming commiSSiO~

FROM:

PImming Staff(DJC

DATE:

May 6, 2011

SUBJECT:

Summerhill LLC Application foJ" Amendment of Meriden Zoning Map and/or the Ridgeline Setback zoning map

,. .. "

I. Proposal: The petition is to change the zone/designation of the 13Âąacre hill on the east side of Sam's Road (39 Sam's Road). Currently, the zone of the property is PDD (Planned Development District) with a "Ridgeline and Ridgeline Protection setback" designation. It is this Ridgeline Protection Zone that the applicant is seeking to eliminate the subject property.

The Ridgeline Protection Zone is defined by Section 213-40 of the Zoning Regulations and is applicable to certain Ridgelines as enabled by the Statutes (p.A. 95-239) and further defmed by the geological makeup and slope. As determined by the City and per State Statutes, the subject property is. part of the protected "Cathole" Ridgeline and therefore is restricted to uses per Section 213-40 "Ridgeline Protection Zone" of the Meriden Zoning Regulations.

II. ;Parcel: (see attached map: "Cathole MOWltai.n - 39 Sam's Rd.) The parcel is a 13 Âą acre site characterized by a hill occupying about 80% of the site. Said hill goes from an elevation of 160/180' along Sam's Road to 270+ and is, therefore, 90' high. Along the eastern face the hill is even higher (100' +). Also, there are wetlands on the southeast comer of the site.

The parcel's boundaries are: Eastern bOWldary;

Sam's Road;

Southern boundary:

Parallel to Kensington from 160' ~ 250' northerly of Kensington Avenue;

Western bOmldary:

Cornwall Street and the rear of properties fronting on Bailey Avenue;

Northero boundary:

Sununitwood Development

05/11/2011

17:27

2035305883

PLANNING

PAGE

03/05

III. History:

A. Ridgetop Protection Zone History: The City Council is the zoning authority, therefore it is the body that must approve both: Amendments to the zoning text; and Amendments to the zoning map (zone change) Both of these actions require recommendations by the Planning Commission and Public Hearing by the Council's ...Zoning Conunittee. The legislative history of designating the subject property as Ridgeline Protection includes: July 7, 1. 997: City COllllCil adopts the "Ridgeline Protection Zone" as au amendment to the Zoning Regulations; {st""tl. ~(::fd..crr5'") October. 1998: City Council amended zoning map to regulate the subject and other properties per the Ridgeline Protection Zone.

B. Application/judicial History There have been numerous applications to grade/excavate, develop, zone the site.

Subsequently, there have been numerous court cases re: the denial of these applications: February 1995 (prior to the designation of Ridgeline Protection Zone) The Planning Commission denied a C.A. application for approximately 36 residential units and eliminating the hill completely. The reasons for the denial were that the plan did not comply with the following three sections of the Planned Development District: 1. Section 213-26.5B(2) - "Application of creative design techniques to foster

attractive functionally efficient and well planned developments which will be aesthetically integrated with adjacent areas". The proposed plan with its elimination of a major natural feature certainly does not comply with the requirement for an application to include "creative design techniques" to integrate the proposed development with adjacent areas; 2. Section 213-26.5C(c) - "Earth and rock excavation and removal and/or rock crushing - for the preparation of land for pennitted uses accessways and utilities". The proposal to mine and excavate the entire 100' high hill certainly cannot be considered an necessory use per this Section of the zoning regulations; 3. Section 213-26.5D(3)(d) - "All structures and roads shall be pl~ed to accommodate existing natural features, including topography and Inland Wetlands and Watercourses"; The removal of this natural topographical feature cannot be considered a plan to accommodate said feature.

The Court upheld this denial on June 16, 1996.

2

05/11/2011

17:27

2035305883

PLANNING

PAGE

04/05

November 1998 '~ Mainville, et al vs. City of Meriden Zoning Commission. A few abutters (not ~f 'tii Carabetta) fil~d .suit against zone ~hange to Ridgeline Prote~tion. J~!y~09 court > ' ~ .;) /J ruled plamtlffs were not aggrIeved and therefore ruled In favor of the City:V vVV"/ ') •_ _ _that _

,\-t"--L/

f

June 2000 (property is zoned Ridgeline Protection) C.A. application for 96 units and again the leveling of the hill. The Planning 9!~sion approve~the application ~the RI~i.I1KS!~ff's_' -'. ,"­ recommendation to deny for the same reasons the Commission stated in its 1995 -(kniaI:prus two (2) additional reasons; a. The Earth Excavation Zoning Regulations adopted in December 1998 does not allow an excavation operation of this scale in this zone. The reason for noncompliance of this Section (213-36) are that the proposal is not to develop the site in a manner that would maintain current topography, nor has a site plan or development been approved on this site that would require excavation as proposed; and b. The proposed construction, cutting of timber, etc. is in opposition of Section 213-26.6 Ridgeline Protection Ordinance. he City sued the Planning Commission and the Court overtlU11ed the Commission's decision.

T,,'-

[

September 22, 2003 Attorn.ey Shea requested mling by ZEO that Carabetta can excavate trap rock as a non.-conforming use. ZEO disagreed with this interpretation and on October 31, 2003 drafted a letter finding that excavation was not allowed on the site. The ZEO never sent letter and Carabetta filed for mandamus to have the ZEO issue a ruling. Case was consolidated with the following case against the ZBA and on October 14, 2009 this mandamus claim was denied by the Court.

February 4,2004 Carabetta appealed ZEO's "infonnal" decision to the ZBA. April 2, the ZBA denied Carabetta's appeal. Carabetta appealed this decision to the Court. This case was consolidated with the above mandamus case and was dismissed by the Court on October 14, 2009.

~

March 10, 2008 Dr. Gray's Geological Report for Carabetta was submitted. Basically saying that the Carabetta "Knoll" is not part of Cathole MOlUltain and, therefore, not protected. This is disputed by lelle Deboer, a geologist that testified as to the validity of the "Knoll" as being part of Cathole and th,e statutory protections. He disagrees with Dr. Gray's conclusion.

3

05/11/2011

17:27

2036305883

IV. Plan of Conservation and Development

PLANNING

PAGE

05/06

Jr

The 2009 Plan of Conservation and Development designates ~?,~S..~ Road as "Ridgeline Protection Area". This designation is to protect Meriden'S dd짜lli.\ID.Thatural feature and to preserve the community character of the City.

As noted in the Plan of Conservation and Development, the undeveloped "woodland areas combined with steep terrain and rapid changes in topography help maintain a rugged enviromnent even within a heavily developed commlUlity that further defines the City's character". Also, such areas are tied into large regional systems of ridgelines and are, therefore, protected by the State.

v.

St9ff's Analysis and Recommendation The staff is anxious to see and review the "newly acquired infonnation disclosing the actual location of the ridgeline as determined by qualified technical professionals" as noted in Summerhill's Request for Amendment. Summerhill's representatives have not submitted anything that would dispute the designation of the subject property as within the Ridgeline Protection Zone.

Considering court decisions and that an eminently qualified geclo.EiSl.continues to testify that the subject property is part of Cathole Mountain and therefore should remantprotected, and the Plan of Conservation and Development, any evidence to the contrary must be clear and irrefutable. Lacking such evidence the staffrecominends denial for the following reasons: 1. Preservation of the aesthetic beauty and natural environment of the City of Meriden ("the City") is essential to protect the general welfare of the City, and to protect the cultural and historic setting of the City; 2. Development is highly visible on or about the ridgeline areas of the City for great distances and detracts from the overall beauty of the natural envirornnent and adversely impacts the aesthetics of the ridgeline vistas as seen from the City; 3. Land within or adjacent to the ridgeline areas is environmentally sensitive due to the presence of steep slopes, shallow soils, unique flora and fauna and other enviromnentaI attributes; 4. It is in the interest and welfare of the people of the City to restrict development in the overlay district to preserve the aesthetic beauty and natural environment of the ridgeline areas, and to protect the scenic basalt ridgeline views available within the City to the extent possible; 5. It is unsafe and detrimental to develop this area due to irregular and difficult character of the land (shallow soils, steep slopes, rocky outcrops).

6. Proposal does not comply with the Plan of Conservation and Development.

4

'/11/2011 - -...-.-

i

17:27

2035305883

1.. . .lJl.JIJL(\(\""~~~~

Yty

C~thole Mountain ~ 39 Sam's Road

1_ .

I

PLANNING

PAGE

05/05