HomeMy WebLinkAboutMotion with limitations of lots 1-10-08Draft Motion with limitations of lots
After giving due consideration to all relevant factors including Section 22a-41 of the Connecticut General Statutes and Sections 4 and 10 of the Montville Inland Wetlands and Watercourses
Regulations, I move to approve the application with the following limitations and conditions:
207 IWC 30 9R Burlake Rd, LLC: An application for Subdivision review with regulated activities on the property located at 120 Gay Hill Road, Montville, Ct. As shown on Assessor’s Map
23 Lot 3 as depicted on the plans titled “Gay Hill Road Subdivision 120 Gay Hill Road Montville, Connecticut 06382 Property of 9R Burlake Rd, LLC 567 Vauxhall Street Ext Waterford, Ct
Prepared by Martinez Couch & Associates LLC 98 South Turnpike Rd Walllingford Ct. revised to 12-13-07 and the application and narrative revised to November 30, 2007.
This is a limited and conditional approval. Each and every limitation and conditions is an integral part of the Commission decision. Should any of the limitations or conditions, on
appeal from this decision, be found to be void or of no legal effect then this limited and conditional approval is likewise void. Should any of the limitations or conditions be exceeded
by the applicant within the specified permit time period, then this limited and conditional approval shall be void.
Limitations of approval are as follows:
This approval excludes Lots #5 and #16.
Conditions of approval are as follows:
The comments of the Town Engineer in his January 9, 2007 letter need to be addressed. If these revisions require work within a regulated area then the plans must be submitted back to
the Inland Wetlands Commission for review
Reasons for limitations:
1. Examination of the plans submitted with the application reveal that Lots #5 and #16 contain significant areas of regulated wetlands and watercourse area and severely limited area
upon which to conduct the residential use proposed.
2 The residential development of Lots #5 and #16 would have an adverse environmental impact on the adjacent inland wetlands and watercourses capacity to prevent flooding, to supply
and protect surface and groundwater, to control sediment, to facilitate drainage, to control pollution, and to promote public health and safety.
3. Prior experience of the Commission and the Commission’s staff with approval of lots with severely limited area for residential use has been that a
degrading of the utility as recited in Paragraph 2 of the adjacent wetlands or watercourse has occurred through the conduct of the residential activity.
4. Throughout the application process the Commission and the Commission staff have recommended combining of lots.
5. Based upon its experience with similarly restricted lots, the Commission has concluded that, if Lots #5 and #16 were approved, there is a substantial likelihood that the there would
be future degradation of the adjacent watercourses and wetlands.
Reasons for approval of the remaining lots:
1. The environmental impact of the proposed project, excluding Lots #5 and #16, does not have a significant impact on the inland wetland’s and watercourse’s capacity to support fish
and wildlife, to prevent flooding, to supply and protect surface and groundwater, to control sediment, to facilitate drainage, to control pollution, to support recreation activities,
and to promote public health and safety.
2. The Commission has determined that, as limited, the relationship between the short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity will
have no impact on the surrounding wetlands and watercourses.
3. The proposed activity, as limited, will not have an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.
4. The proposed activity, as limited, is suitable to the area.