Hampden Planning Board approves church lot merger, sports dome site plan

[0:13] Matthew LaChance: We're gonna bring the October 14th Hamden Planning Board meeting to order. I Guess we've got some administrative items. We have minutes from the last regular meeting. [0:29] Speaker B (unidentified): Motion to approve minutes of Wednesday, August 12th 2026 regular meeting. Any discussion? [0:40] Matthew LaChance: Seeing none, start on my far left. Yes,, chair vote yes. Moving on to minutes of the workshop meeting for september 16th. [0:53] Speaker B (unidentified): Motion to approve minutes september 16 2026 workshop meeting. Second. Any discussion? I [1:04] Speaker C (unidentified): don't know if she can make a motion if she was not present. Oh, because [1:10] Speaker B (unidentified): she wasn't at the workshop. I wasn't. I [1:14] Speaker C (unidentified): mean, well, I don't know how she can approve them if she wasn't there [1:18] Matthew LaChance: to know. Well, she could abstain to the voting, right? She can abstain at voting. [1:22] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, okay, she can't make them. I was at the August 12th one. Make a motion to [1:34] Speaker D (unidentified): approve the minutes is presented from the September 16th workshop. Any [1:43] Matthew LaChance: discussion? Seeing none, far left. Yes, yeah, I will vote yes. Seeing no old business on the agenda, we do have a couple of new business items on the agenda, so the way this works, if in case anybody's not familiar, is we will have the proposed or developer come up and then we will have staff comments and then we will open for the public comment portion. Have all the notice requirements been met for item one? [Speaker B (unidentified): Yes, they have.] We have the developer come up. Hi, [2:44] Alexandria Truergy: I'm Alexandria Truergy. I am a parishioner of Discover Church. And we came in front of the town council on, I think it was July 13, to see if they would be willing to consider selling us the open space between right next to abutting the property that the church exists on. Sundays we have an overflow of cars, I have to park on the street, it technically it's legal, but it creates a safety hazard. On top of that, we are trying to find ways to like mitigate the problems that we have, but we need more pervious space, so we are proposing if the town is willing to and what we're here in front of you today for is a minor subdivision amendment, and our goal is to add the lot right next to us into our lot, but to leave it alone. Sorry, I don't know if you have the map in front of you, but there is a stormwater system right in the middle of the lot, so we put in a few deed restrictions if this amendment is approved, where the town would have the right to inspect, maintain, expand, do whatever they need to over that stormwater system. And then in the back of it, the block kind of makes a T, so we're proposing to put a 30-foot buffer in the back. That way it will give the properties that are there the same privacy that they have. And there's a swing set in there right now. We don't want to encourage anyone to have to move that, so with a 30-foot buffer, an easement to maintain the storm water system, we are requesting a minor subdivision change to make that lot part of our lot. Okay. [4:37] Speaker C (unidentified): Staff comments, it's just a very small thing that we hung up on. It is a major subdivision amendment, but it's following the minor subdivision provisions because it's just a lot change and not anything else than that. But to Ali's point, we did meet with the town council, and they said that if you go through the planning process and request those easements and restrictions on the property, do not affect the stormwater feature, have the 30-foot buffer, and allow the town a forever easement to the stormwater feature, that they would, and that you go through the planning board process, that they would then consider selling it to discover. So that's why we're here today. They have provided a draft deed with those restrictions and easements in it. I have yet to send it to legal. I wanted to wait until after today, but that is a condition of approval, that we send those to legal and have that back before presenting to council. I should have added [5:42] Alexandria Truergy: to, we recently purchased the lot that is right next to the open space on the other side, so our goal is to combine all the lots that will increase our per piece allowance and allow us to add extra parking spaces. You know, I don't want to commit necessarily to any project. There was talk of building a smaller parking lot on that third lot and then just having like a walkway that would connect the two, but we haven't really gotten that far with it. The one thing we can say is that we aren't going to develop the middle lot, the one we're requesting, because of that stormwater system. Yeah. [6:28] Speaker C (unidentified): So the overall intent is to increase their impervious service allowance and but not using the open space for that impervious service. Looking [6:42] Matthew LaChance: at the public, is there anyone here to speak for? So open the public hearing. Is there anybody here that would like to speak for this proposal? Is there anybody who'd like to speak against it? Is there anybody who'd like to speak neither for nor against? [Alexandria Truergy: If] You just come up and say your name and you can ask your question. That's kind of what this is for. No, it has to be on this. Yeah, I'm sorry, it has to be on the microphone. [7:36] Nancy Elwood: Okay, I'm Nancy Elwood, I live at [address], so we're right across from what we're talking about. And my concern is, you know, we've been, I was telling me a little bit PTSD from Chickadee behind us, because we were told when they were going to develop that basically was going to leave the trees, they were going to leave some, not built up above us, and all of that did not happen. So my concern going forward, so we, they left one tree out of that whole street. And so my concern going forward was that I can see that area, you know, we can still see all of that, and there's trees and there's greenery and there's all that. My, what I'm, I'm concerned about is that's going to become a big old parking lot, so all of that area. And I, and that's not really something that I am in favor of. I understand that they did get that, you know, the Farrell house, in my understanding initially that was going to be part of that parking solution, but and then now we're kind of encroaching a little bit farther on, so that's concerning for me, if that's just going to keep developing farther than that, so [8:56] Matthew LaChance: do you have any response for that? I [9:04] Alexandria Truergy: would only say is I think they get the application, I submit it to you, so in the application you'll see the church lot and then the parking lot that I think that she's referring to, and then there's the pathway that connects them. That would be, I think, the maximum possible allowance of development on that open space would be that pathway, mostly again because of that stormwater system, like with that easement, like we cannot negatively affect the stormwater system, that's for part of that subdivision. So in terms of development on this middle lot, I don't, I don't think that's a risk at all. I can't imagine how it would be. We have hired someone to do a wetland delineation just to be safe and to take all those things into account. I think right now, and again I don't want to speak for where we're going, but our goal is to create the least amount of parking area possible while also getting all the cars off of the road along Daisy on Sunday. Right now we can't do, we can't do anything because we've Completely maxed out our impervious allowance. So by adding the green space, we will be able to increase our impervious allowance a little bit, but we wouldn't be able to do anything even without that third lot. So it's all three lots together is what we need to make one big lot to be able to do anything, but we would still be limited on that. [10:36] Speaker G (unidentified): Middle ground. So can I ask, so basically I'm understanding this right, the open space that you're trying to get from the town basically is not going to be developed, it's going to give you impervious to offset so you can put a parking lot on a different lot that you already own, correct? So I don't have a map in front of me, so I don't know whether this woman is located if you Compared to binder. [11:17] Speaker D (unidentified): Are you on Daisy Lane? [11:23] Speaker G (unidentified): So you've got the road between already between you and now. [11:39] Alexandria Truergy: Yeah, it's dangerous, you can't see around cars, people zoom in and out, I mean they're my brothers. [11:45] Speaker C (unidentified): And sisters, to reassure maybe the public, the council essentially is declaring this a non-developable lot by this agreement, so they can't develop anything, they can't, if anything maybe they could plant some trees, but it's going to remain green space, perhaps maybe a walkway that she spoke of up closer to the road, but there will be no development on that lot. What would be the purpose of mine? So each, so in our zoning ordinance there's a maximum impervious surface allowed on each lot, which impervious. Surfaces are typically things that rain water cannot, it can't absorb rain water, so your parking lots, your buildings, things like that. And because they don't have enough land on their existing lot to increase their parking, they've now purchased another lot and potentially this lot, so that they have one large lot, let's say that's five acres, and now they can, they can add parking not to this green space but to the entire lot as a whole, so it could be on the second lot they bought or even add some on. The first lot they originally had, it just helps. So let's say impervious surface is 50% max, if they have five acres, two and a half acres can be parking lots and buildings, but right now they are maxed out on there. Let's say, I'm just throwing them, they have a one acre lot, they've already used half of that, eight half of that lot, so they're just buying lots to increase their overall lot size to just add a little bit more parking, but again there will be no parking on this green space, it's not allowed. For the town council, I hope that helps clarify any question. Are there any more comments from. [13:28] Matthew LaChance: The public. Good [13:41] Charles Weeks: evening. I'm Charles Weeks. I own 3 Horsham Lane on the corner. Okay. And I agree with the desirability of getting cars off the road on Sunday mornings. I see it as a safety hazard too. My concern is between my lot and the church parking lot is green space that belongs to the town. It's part of the drainage system. And I prefer to have it kept as that. I don't want parking coming closer to my property. The other thing is my house and number five, the next one, both have solid drains that are atmospheric and they go out into the what I always heard called the 25-year pond which is that big depression where the town mows it every August or September and then the part of its covered with cat 9 tails but all the stormwater that comes off like Daisy Lane or Horseshoe Lane or such goes out beyond through a big pipe just beyond number seven Daisy Lane and goes into that stormwater thing but I'm concerned because my solid drain goes there and I don't have a sump pump there's no way to get one and the house was built in 98 that was put in when I bought it in 89 this drains was already there and I believe the same was true of number five that when they built the house they put the drain in and they are atmospheric going into that area those were my only concerns otherwise I can see the need for them having more parking space thank [15:48] Matthew LaChance: you can I yeah so I [15:56] Alexandria Truergy: I did speak with Charles and his wife to try to talk about this beforehand I think the 30-foot buffer so if you I don't know if you guys can see it but the this highlighted yellow that's a 30-foot buffer and he is right here on the corner but you if you also look a little bit closer you can actually see it says four inch PVC and a two inch and I think don't quote me but I think that four inch is coming from his house so I think in terms of privacy we've covered the his need with a 30-foot buffer and then again we're not touching that stormwater system so that should not negatively affect any of those houses [16:42] Speaker G (unidentified): back there can I ask you what the buffer is gonna be well so I don't know if you [16:48] Alexandria Truergy: Have any pictures of what it looks like? So right now it's this tea part, this top part right here, and there's some trees here, there's a swing set that belongs to this person, and just grass right now. I was talking to the church earlier this morning, and I was kind of talking about planting some more of these, I don't know what they are, evergreen bushes back here to kind of create an additional barrier, and we do that right on the line, like not in the 30 foot buffer, so worst case it stays how it is. Which is trees and grass. Best case they get a little more privacy with some additional planting. [17:32] Matthew LaChance: Any other public commentary before we close? I'm. [17:42] Farah Perry: Farah Perry. I am actually a member at Discover Church, and I'll just speak to, I'm there usually three, all three services on Sunday mornings, and it's become an increasing problem that we're parking more and more cars on the street. And so the heart behind asking for this and doing this is to be better neighbors, especially to those on Daisy Lane, because we understand it's a frustration. It's also a safety issue. We have a ton of young families in our church, and so for them to be unloading their kids. Onto the street while other cars are trying to maneuver around when we're parked on the street, it's hard for two-way traffic to happen. If people who live on [street] want to have a birthday party on Sunday morning, sometimes that makes it really difficult. And so we just, the heart behind it really is to be better neighbors to those that we're neighboring with, so hopefully that is seen as a benefit to the community that we're part of. [18:36] Matthew LaChance: Thank you. If there's no other commentary, I'm going to close the public comment part of this. Is there questions or comments from the board members? Jacob, I see you have joined. I. [18:56] Speaker B (unidentified): Do have a question. I live across the street and I used to live on [street], and I'm very familiar with that area, and on Thursdays coming home from work there is a line of vehicles. I believe there's a food on Monday, yes, yep, food, and they go right down Route 1A, they do, and is that going to eliminate that traffic? So I, from 1A, yeah. [19:28] Alexandria Truergy: So I happen to be the manager of the food pantry, and I know a hundred percent what you're talking about. Sometimes I need to talk with the cars, and then I'm walking on Main Road trying to get to each of the cars. My goal is to figure out a way to reconfigure how they come in and leave, so that they're coming in off of Daisy Lane, and then if we, you know, had a little bit more space, then they could go out. I mean, eventually, if we do that walkway in the other parking lot, then it could be set up. I mean, we could really set it up differently so they're leaving out the exit of the third property and coming in, or vice versa. So I haven't figured out how to do it yet, but it's [20:10] Speaker B (unidentified): definitely in like the forefront of my mind for sure, because that is pretty dangerous also, especially in the winter. It's, yeah, it definitely is, and especially when it's five o'clock and everybody wants to get home, right, and it's dark. Yeah, you're, you're absolutely right. [20:32] Matthew LaChance: Jacob, have you joined us? I think you might be trying. It's not working. I have [20:45] Speaker D (unidentified): a question. So by purchasing this parcel, how much more, I guess, parking area are [20:58] Alexandria Truergy: you able to develop? Do you know? Well, I mean, we kind of know our maximum, which I think, Nick, correct me if I'm wrong, this would be the maximum. Do you agree? Okay, so on the picture where you have, like, that's the church, this exists here, you know, the walkway. So that would be the maximum. Like I said, we're talking right now, like, we're trying to figure out what the best path forward is. So I'm not guaranteeing that is exactly what we're going to do. It could be smaller. But that is kind of the goal, just to have a pathway and then extra parking over there. There, to be honest with you, we have to go, if we do that route, we have to go in front of to you, probably actually for a site plan, is it them? Yeah, so we'd have to come back in front of you for a site plan and all that jazz. But I anticipate we'll have to take down one of the houses that's on that third lot to maximize this parking lot that you see. Does that make sense here? Yeah, so I [22:01] Farah Perry: I've got a quick question. Jacob just emailed and said that he is trying to step [22:14] Matthew LaChance: it up. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you. [22:22] Speaker G (unidentified): Go ahead. You're going. Keep going. Open [22:34] Speaker J (unidentified): space away from the development that was previously approved, so the Daisy Lane or Hershey Lane development? [22:43] Speaker C (unidentified): It is, but they were over there. At the time it was created, the open space requirements, they were over it, so they haven't. It's not making it, what's the word, non-conforming. Okay, so this is, this would still be conforming even with the transfer of this land. Yes, from my understanding of the subdivision from the 80s, this really wasn't a designated open space. It was called open space for the stormwater feature. A lot of the open spaces in the back at the end of Daisy Lane, and they had way more than enough back there. Yeah. [23:55] Alexandria Truergy: That could be a requirement, a major site. [24:11] Speaker C (unidentified): Plan, or now, I mean, we already have it in the deed is there's a 30-foot buffer. It wasn't a vegetative buffer, it was just don't put anything 30 feet from the line. So that could be now or it could be at the major site plan. Yeah, they could require that at major site plan. Yep, so. [24:34] Speaker G (unidentified): As far as the gentleman in the back, his concerns, I don't think that's going to change anything for him. That space is all going to stay the same. The, is there more parking going to go between the road, weather park now and the existing parking lot? So this woman's view isn't going to change until you build a parking lot on the other side. Correct. I think if we were able to get. [25:08] Alexandria Truergy: Any more parking spaces on our original lot, it would have to be towards the open space side. I don't think, based off your ordinance, we can go closer to the road. So basically what she sees now. [25:21] Speaker G (unidentified): Isn't really going to change a whole lot. Yeah, unless you stand in the driveway and look across. [25:27] Alexandria Truergy: Yeah, yes, is. [25:36] Matthew LaChance: There other questions or comments from the board? Jacob, anything else on your end? Is there a motion to be made? I'd. [26:05] Speaker B (unidentified): Like to make a motion to approve the minor subdivision lot change to an existing major subdivision on Main Road North, parcel 23A001G, and it's an amendment to that. [26:44] Matthew LaChance: Is there a second to that motion? [26:49] Speaker C (unidentified): There's conditions tied to it, too. No, it's my planning board order. So on page three of the planning board order there's conditions listed. [27:24] Speaker B (unidentified): I'd like to make a motion to approve the final major subdivision amendment for the purchase of open space lot of the Westbrook Terrace subdivision, tax map lot 23A001G, located in the residential A district, with the conditions below. One, legal review and approval of the proposed deed to town council approved selling the open space parcel to Discover Church. Second. [28:03] Speaker D (unidentified): Is there any. [28:06] Matthew LaChance: Other discussion or questions? If there is none, start on my left. Yes. Yes. Jacob? Chair votes yes. We're going to move on to B, the Cork Sportsplex. Thank you, Amanda. Are our notice requirements getting met on this as well, Wanda? [28:50] Speaker B (unidentified): Yes. This gets a battery done. Excellent. Is it true there's no outlet up in here? And it won't reach. [29:05] Matthew LaChance: so i'm going to open oh i did well everybody left i'll open the public hearing on this requirements have been met i'll open the floor to you thank [29:26] Drew Holoski: you good evening drew holoski with hailey ward reverse hunting the applicant river city athletics we see tonight seeking site plan approval for a proposed sports complex development located at the intersection of Colbert Road and Harold Bouchard Way. So this project was reviewed by the town I believe it was about a year and a half ago. For a variety of reasons construction has paused on the project and in that time we have looked to reorient our site layout. So just to quickly go over the changes that we've made, this was included in your packets in the drawing set. You can see in red we provided the previously approved layout. So you can see before we had a parking area along St. Colbert Road, and then a large outdoor turf sports field further east into the site. And then we also have the proposed development overlay on this plan. It's kind of hard to see, but you can see we are proposing a new sports dome, which is right here, and then an associated parking area, again, further east within the site. Just to quickly take a look at the new layout, again, you can see here we have the proposed, the proposed dome and associated parking for the site. So just to quickly go over the site element, it's a fairly straightforward layout. You can see the dome here is approximately two acres in size, about 80,000 square feet. The dome is about 75 feet tall. Within the zoning district, the max height is only 50 feet, and because of that, we did have to increase setbacks per one foot, for every foot over that height of overage, so we haven't met that standard of that calculation actually show on the plans regarding parking. The town no longer has a minimum parking requirement, so we did go ahead and provide approximately 60 spaces, which is what River City is saying they need to support this facility. Within the dome itself, we do have one turf plane surface for indoor sports use. We also have a mezzanine building structure within the dome, which is intended to house bathrooms and locker rooms, as well as spectator seating areas. So jumping back to the site layout again, there's not too much else to this site. We have provided utilities for the dome, including water, sewer, and power. Those are provided via the existing public systems off of Carol Bouchard Way. Regarding stormwater management, we have proposed a wet pond feature which is located down here, which is intended to capture essentially all stormwater runoff generated by our site. We did have to go ahead and submit a DEP site law amendment for the department that we already received last year for the project, so that's in process currently. We did also prepare a full landscaping plan, which wasn't provided with the previous application, but we did go ahead and throw them together now, so that's including that well. Regarding traffic, with only one sports fields, we are expecting to generate enough traffic that will warrant local or state study, so that hasn't been included yet, but it will be included with the future phases of the project. Just to speak to that briefly, this is essentially phase one of the project, and then the future pages will include two additional sports fields. Those will be located further east into the site, and we will be returning with another site plan application for those when the time comes for that. But yeah, again, I think the layout is fairly straightforward. We provided a robust complete application, so I'd be happy to hear any comments that the board might have for us, staff. [33:11] Speaker C (unidentified): Yep, so in the report again, we staff reviewed the site plan and felt comfortable with them addressing wooded and currents comments, which they did submit last Friday. Just as reassurance, the public works director does want valves on sewer connections, and another note was made that maybe the sign dimensions, let us know ahead of time to make sure it's applicable, it's allowed, but other than that, they've, they've met all the standards. So is [33:48] Matthew LaChance: there anyone here that would like to speak for the project? Against the project? Or neither for nor against? Seeing none, we will close the public comment section. [34:09] Speaker B (unidentified): Board members? Questions? Comments? I have a question. I'm just curious. Is this, I've heard it's going to be a soccer field. or it's for playing soccer primarily, okay, I was just curious thing. I have two [34:28] Drew Holoski: questions. The first one is, why did you change the layout? So I'll pause you. [34:47] Speaker D (unidentified): Sorry. So originally the parking was going to be along Colbrook Road, and now it's further in east. The Dome will be closer. This is kind of a two-part question. So why the change in orientation? [35:03] Drew Holoski: Again, we took a look at the site as a whole, the full build. And doing this just allowed it to be a more comprehensive site. Again, we're going to have more fields over here, so we thought it made more sense to have the parking lot in the middle. Sure. So this parking lot will be expanding in the future as well. And it just made sense to keep it there versus having it kind of out on its own up on the road. [35:26] Speaker D (unidentified): Yep. Yeah, and that makes sense. So my second question is, that, is there any, I guess, potential hazard with, like, water runoff from the dome, like, into either, like, streets or the roads, or it's going to be fine? [35:44] Drew Holoski: So if you take a look at our grading plan, it's basically directed all the way down here, directed over here, and all that does go to the wet pond. So that is sized poorly on as well. [36:12] Matthew LaChance: Jacob, anything on your end? [36:20] Speaker J (unidentified): Today is a day to talk about... I was trying to look up directions. I don't have a compass in front of me. But the site closest to the Penobscot or 202, one of the things back when we went through the original planning process that I kind of thought of after the fact was, as I was driving by, there's not really much of an educated buffer between the residents that abuts this proposed project and the current layout. And I appreciate you putting together the buffer and the vegetative plan, that definitely is very helpful. But I noticed it's down along the bottom edge here looking at the plan, there's really nothing depicted down along the bottom edge. I wanted to get your thoughts or reasoning on why there's no vegetation plan for that bottom edge. [37:34] Drew Holoski: Sure, so the primary reason for that is because there is a large wetland complex to the south of us, so it is difficult to provide landscaping in those wetland areas. And again, if you take a look at our grading plan, we do have storm water ditches along that southern side. But again, later on up to that wet pond, all of those things make it difficult to have landscaping in those areas. I know there are a few stands of trees there which we want to be disturbing. But if that's something the board didn't want to see, I think we'd be happy to see what we could do to add a bit more in that area. I think that would be possible. But again, it was really just the wetlands in that location that made it a challenge. Yeah, [38:14] Speaker J (unidentified): sure. Yeah, okay. I think from my perspective, I would like to see if anybody knows what directional compass that is, I can be more specific, but down along the bottom edge along [38:31] Drew Holoski: the plan. It's planned south, so just bring it down here. [38:36] Speaker J (unidentified): That's all, yeah. It's a little bit south of the edge. [38:38] Drew Holoski: Yeah, we'd be happy to see if we can do that, some more buffering there, just no problem. [38:46] Speaker J (unidentified): Anything else, Jacob? it no like i said today is the day of buffers okay [38:55] Charles Weeks: if there's no other questions is there a motion [39:08] Alexandria Truergy: based [39:26] Speaker G (unidentified): on the findings and information presented we're supposed to approve the major site plan for construction of an outdoor recreation facility at arrow bush headway in the interchange zone, tax map blot 09-0-035, 09-0-035-A, 09-0-036-02, with the following conditions. Condition one, obtain utility connection permits and complete Hamden's post-construction stormwater ordinance and a buffer on the east side, correct? South side. South side, sorry. [40:15] Matthew LaChance: Is there a second? Second. Sorry. Any more discussion? I guess my only thought is I'm all in favor of a buffer as long as it doesn't disturb the wetland. That doesn't seem like it's an even tradeoff, so do what you can. Any other commentary? If not? on my left yes chair votes yes thank you thank you amy [41:05] Speaker C (unidentified): yes okay i had notes here there it is so code had provided me with a memo in regards to the Board of Appeals, a meeting that was on October 8th and that was given to you tonight. Secondly, we are gonna have a workshop next week. We will be addressing the data centers and then council has tasked us with discussion on Board of Appeals jurisdiction over subdivision appeals and whether we think that's applicable. applicable we probably will not be discussing LD 2173 next week it's really hard to understand it's still not final and we still have plenty of time so we'll just keep it to the two agenda items for next week unless Ford feels otherwise but that's all from me awesome real quick Amy can [42:10] Speaker J (unidentified): Can you send that memo note to me via e-mail? Yes. You're welcome. [42:21] Matthew LaChance: If there's nothing else, please. [42:27] Speaker G (unidentified): I make a motion to adjourn. Second. [42:31] Charles Weeks: All those in favor? Yes. Aye. Yes. Good night. Thanks, everybody. Good night.