North Stonington panel approves six-lot 8-30g subdivision with site conditions

The North Stonington Planning & Zoning Commission closed a public hearing June 11 and approved Resubmission 26-026830G, a six‑lot subdivision under Connecticut General Statute 8-30g, with conditions that the applicant add a FEMA 100‑year flood‑hazard notation to the map, submit driveway plans to the state Department of Transportation after local approval, and provide sight-line and driveway-apron improvements.

Peter Gardner, speaking for the property owner, described the project’s technical materials, including percolation tests and an erosion‑control plan, and said the site’s soils tested well: “Their test holes were great,” he said, noting the health department witnessed the percolation work. Gardner said a single curb cut onto Route 2 will serve five lots and that state permitting for the curb cut will follow any local approval.

Susan C. Cullen, the town’s planning, development and zoning official, told the commission it can request additional plan detail for administrative review but has limited authority to deny an 8-30g application if state thresholds are met. Cullen read the draft motions and corrected an administrative wording error, saying driveway permits go to the state Department of Transportation rather than the state traffic commission for projects that are not classified as major traffic generators.

The commission’s approved motions require the map to include the notation: “This lot does not include land areas within the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 100‑year flood hazard area.” The commission also required that the applicant submit the application to DOT after local approval, add sight-line information and appropriate grading and landscaping to maintain safe egress from the private shared driveway, and add a paved driveway apron detail.

The application packet identifies the project as a six‑lot re-subdivision on approximately 1.81 acres; the applicant said two of the six lots are being set aside as affordable under 8-30g. The commission voted in favor of the motion to accept the application and the read conditions; the transcript records a second and a vote in favor but does not include a numeric roll call in the recording.

The town staff noted that DOT review, state health‑department signoff on septic/percolation, and any required state permits remain outstanding steps before construction. The commission closed the hearing June 11; the record shows the conditions the commission imposed as part of its local approval.

The commission’s action was procedural approval with conditions; the transcript does not record any appeals or subsequent deadlines tied to this motion.