Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Adjoining property owner asks Hamden to order independent wetlands review for Sherman Avenue project
Summary
An attorney for an adjoining property owner asked the commission to require a site walk and an independent wetlands review under the commission's Rule 10.8 for 1605 Sherman Avenue; staff said section 10.8 allows the commission to deem an application complex and require the applicant to pay for independent review, though such a review does not automatically pause hearing deadlines.
An attorney representing an adjoining property owner asked the Town of Hamden Planning Commission to require a site walk and an independent wetlands review at the applicant's expense for an application affecting 1605 Sherman Avenue.
"We'd request an independent at the cost of the applicant," said attorney Ken Vodrey, who said he was appearing on behalf of adjoining owner Kurt Boutnick and filling in for another attorney. Vodrey asked that the commission hold a site walk in the current season so observers can see conditions that may be more apparent outside the off-season.
The chair acknowledged the request and the commission discussed whether to hold a site inspection before the applicant appears. Town staff advised the commission that section 10.8 of the town's regulations authorizes the commission to deem an application "complex" and require an independent review at the applicant's expense. Staff also warned that invoking a third-party review does not automatically pause the statutory deadlines for completing a public hearing; the commission would need to request a hearing extension from the applicant if more time were required.
Commissioners said it would be appropriate to consider the request during the public hearing. The commission recorded motions to table related applications for the public hearing and to schedule a site inspection; the timetable and whether the independent review would be requested were to be decided at the public hearing.
The commission's discussion preserved the option to order an outside review but left formal determination to the public hearing process. Commissioners noted that if a review was ordered under section 10.8 it would be at the applicant's expense and that the commission must balance the need for outside expertise with the hearing's deadlines and the applicant's willingness to extend time.
The meeting concluded with routine business and the commission's scheduling of site walks and the approval of minutes.
