DRAFT MINUTES
Thursday, August 12, 2010 – 7:00 p.m.
MEETING ROOM #133 –
TOWN HALL,
1.
Convene
Meeting
Present: Chairman S. Parker, Vice Chairman R. Blessey, Secretary C. Lynch, F. Weisman, W. Mercer, Alternate R. Amorossi, Alternate F. Lollie and Alternate M. Grimes (arrived at 7:04 p.m., and Voting Member where indicated)
Absent: None.
Also Present: Zoning Enforcement Officer W. Schappert, Wetlands Enforcement Officer/Land Use Office Manager K. Daniel
a. Review
Minutes of Previous Meetings: 7/22/10
– Chairman Parker noted the following correction: Page 1, re:
2. Land
Use Enforcement
a. Enforcement Officer’s Report:
Requests for Voluntary Compliance
1 Twin
Cease and Desist Orders
Town Counsel Action
The following matters remain
pending:
Signs
ZEO Schappert reported that the sites with illegal signs are being cleared up.
Secretary Lynch inquired regarding
the status of
Commissioner Grimes recommended
sending a letter to the heads of the political Town Committees prior to the
November election regarding sign regulations.
Commissioner Amorossi inquired regarding the signs for Mr. DeFeo. ZEO Schappert stated that he sent a Cease and
Desist to the property owner with the violating sign, and today was the
deadline for removing the sign. Commissioner
Amorossi noted the importance of the zoning regulations regarding these
signs. Chairman Parker indicated that in
conversation with Mr. DeFeo a couple of weeks, he promised that the signs would
come down. After careful review of the file and the regulations, Commissioner
Amorossi moved to issue a Citation if the sign for Mr. DeFeo is still up tomorrow. Commissioner Weisman seconded the motion, and
it carried unanimously.
b. Pending Enforcement Correspondence
Miscellaneous Enforcement
Vice Chairman Blessey noted
problems with banners being installed underneath the approved signs at Rocco’s (
Additionally, it was noted that at
the deli at
Miscellaneous
Chairman Parker requested of the Land Use Office Manager that when “Continued Public Hearings: are put on the agenda, that no time be listed.
Commissioner Grimes moved to go to Agenda Item 6.c. Commissioner Mercer seconded the motion, and
it carried unanimously.
6. NEW BUSINESS
Item 6.c.,
Commissioner Grimes moved to go to Agenda Item 5c. Commissioner Weisman seconded the motion, and
it carried unanimously.
5.
OLD BUSINESS
Item 5.c.,
With regard to the
remainder of the site plan modification, Mr. VanZanten referenced his
memo. The first change involves the
relocation of the handicapped parking from the side to the front, to comply
with Americans with Disabilities Act.
Additionally, the number of parking spaces has been reduced from 14 to
12 to allow for more landscaped islands.
The minimum requirement for this site is 11 spaces. Further, a 30,000-gallon fire tank has been
removed due to the availability of municipal water. Water for fire protection is present, and Mr.
VanZanten explained that when the use of the property is determined, the applicant
will work with Brookfield Water Company to determine the sizing for the
necessary pipe for other service. He
further reviewed the landscaping, sidewalk, new lighting and the presence of a
1 to 5 foot retaining wall at the northern portion of the property.
Chairman Parker noted that in the past, he
has recused himself from discussions regarding this site, but is not doing it
now because the conflict does not exist anymore.
Mr. VanZanten
continued that another 1 to 5 foot retaining wall is being proposed in the
corner of the parking area due to a “steep drop off”. Additionally, a loading space and refuse area
will be provided. Also, a 1500-gallon
grease trap is shown on the revised plans per Water Pollution Control Authority
regulations, should a restaurant occupy the site. Mr.
VanZanten noted that a previous contractor did not get approval for the retaining
wall. That is an enclosure for air conditioning
units and a mounting for electrical panels, which will be 10 feet tall on the
back side of the building. He is also
working with Connecticut Light and Power to review these plans to make sure it
is acceptable.
Additionally, drainage
calculations for the new system were provided.
Further, details sheets for all of the proposed improvements were
provided. A turning template diagram was
provided to show turning radii, as well as a maintenance plan for the storm
water system.
Chairman Parker
noted that the original approval included Hardy Plank material for construction,
but vinyl was installed instead.
Chairman Parker was pleased with the appearance of the vinyl, and requested
that this be added to the plans.
Commissioner
Amorossi asked for details regarding the grease trap and whether the WPCA has
approved it. Mr. VanZanten indicated he
has not been to that Authority yet, as the original approval had lapsed. Commissioner Amorossi inquired how this would
effect the Commission’s decision, and Chairman Parker indicated it would be
stipulated in any Zoning Commission approval.
Vice Chairman
Blessey inquired regarding the retaining wall near the parking area, and if it
would have a guard rail. After
discussion, Mr. VanZanten indicated he would add one to the plans and provide
details regarding its material and construction.
Commissioner Mercer
inquired regarding the difference between another application at the last
meeting, where there was a requirement for an additional handicapped spot, and
there was discussion regarding its relation to use. Chairman Parker requested that another
handicapped spot be added to this site, and Mr. VanZanten agreed to do, but
noted that it will result in the loss of a parking space at the site. He was advised to consult the State statute
regarding the requirements and dimensions for handicapped parking.
Commissioner Weisman
inquired if the Fire Department has approved the single entrance. Mr. VanZanten indicated that it was approved
in 2003, however, he has not submitted the revised plans to the Fire Department
yet. Chairman Parker indicated that the
Fire Department information was in the file.
Lastly, the Chairman
advised Mr. VanZanten that if there were questions regarding the outstanding
information, he should call the ZEO.
5. OLD
BUSINESS (continued) :
Item 5.a., Proposed Regulation Change –
Incentive Housing #201000437: Section
242-404K – Chairman Parker referenced Attorney Marcus’s letter sent by
email today regarding this matter.
There was brief discussion regarding how density is handled within the
draft of the regulation. Commissioner Grimes moved to set a Public
Hearing re: Proposed Regulation Change Incentive Housing #201000437, Section
242-404K for September 16, 2010 (no scheduled time until agenda is set). Vice Chairman Blessey seconded the motion, and
it carried unanimously.
Item 5.b., Proposed Regulation Amendment: Add
a new subsection to 242-501, Commercial and Industrial Districts – This item
will be discussed at the next meeting.
Item 5.d.,
6.
NEW BUSINESS (continued):
Item 6.a.,
Item 6.b.,
There was general
discussion regarding the need for public hearings for elderly conversions. After
discussing this issue with the Town Attorney, Chairman Parker stated that Connecticut
General Statutes Section 8-2 states that the Commission “may” hold a public
hearing, not that it “shall”. He
suggested that a regulation change be made to eliminate the need for a public
hearing for these applications.
Commissioner Grimes stated that, at times, there are concerns by
neighbors, and Vice Chairman Blessey agreed.
There was discussion regarding having the applicant come to the
Commission, without a public hearing. At
present, the neighbors are not directly notified, however, a legal notice of
the public hearing is published in the newspaper. Chairman Parker suggested that these
applications be treated like Customary Home Occupation applications. ZEO Schappert explained how the Zoning Board
of Appeals notifies neighboring property owners via letter for its public
hearings. Vice Chairman Blessey inquired
of the LUOM what procedure requires more work by the office staff: sending the letters or posting the legal
notice. WEO/LUOM Daniel indicated that
they are “about the same”. Vice Chairman
Blessey suggested sending the neighboring property owners a letter about the
pending application. It was noted that
the legal notice procedure is quite costly, between $300 and $500 per
hearing. There was discussion regarding allowing the
applicant to notify the neighbors, and then certifying that he/she has done
so. Chairman Parker suggested that a
public hearing be held to discuss the change to this regulation, and allow the
public to bring up its concerns. WEO/LUOM
Daniel suggested that the staff draft a proposal for a regulation change, so
that there is a draft to discuss prior to the public hearing. Chairman Parker stated it would be in the
next packet, prior to the hearing. Commissioner
Blessey moved to set a Public Hearing for a change to the regulation governing
elderly conversions for September 23, 2010 (no time set until agenda is
complete). Secretary Lynch seconded the
motion, and it carried unanimously.
Commissioner
Grimes moved to add Agenda Item 6.d., 5 Woodcreek Rd. Commissioner Mercer seconded the motion, and
it carried unanimously.
Item 6.d., 5 Woodcreek
Rd., - No one present.
Commissioner Amorossi stated that he felt the application was
incomplete, noting it does not list that the number of commercial vehicles
parked overnight. Vice Chairman
Blessey moved to approve the Customary Home Occupation for “Clock Doctor” Property
ID 03777000 for a horologist, at
4. CONTINUED PUBLIC
HEARING 8:00 PM:
a.
Proposed Regulation Amendment #201000439
– Section 242-202 – Definitions:
“Drive-Through Food and Beverage Facility” and “Restaurant”
WEO/LUOM Daniel pointed out that the Town Attorney has not commented on either of the regulation changes. It was noted that this matter was last discussed at the initial public hearing on July 8, 2010. Chairman Parker read the discussion contained in the Minutes of that meeting. WEO/LUOM Daniel noted that the Planning Commission responded to the definition amendment. Secretary Lynch read its memo dated July 16, 2010, in which that Commission indicates that it prefers wording of the restaurant definition to state “a public eating place, at which meals are prepared and served to customers with appropriate facilities for consumption, on the premises, either through a wait staff or a central pick-up location (Panera Bread or Starbucks)”. The Planning Commission also questioned why the Zoning Commission objects to a drive-through option, such as Applebee’s; and requested that the term, “drive-through” be spelled the same consistently throughout the proposed regulation. Chairman Parker re-read the proposed definition for “Drive-Through Food and Beverage Facility” at Commissioner Amorossi’s request.
The Commissioners had no further comment.
No one from the general public was present to comment in favor or in
opposition to the application.
Commissioner Weisman moved to close the Public Hearing re: Proposed
Regulation Amendment #201000349 – Section 242-202 Definitions “Drive-Through
Food and Beverage Facility” and “Restaurant”.
Secretary Lynch seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
Vice Chairman Blessey moved to approve the Proposed Regulation
Amendment #201000349 – Section 242-202 Definitions “Drive-Through Food and
Beverage Facility” and “Restaurant”.
Commissioner Weisman seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
b.
Proposed
Regulation Amendment #201000465 – Section 242-501 – Table of
Permitted Uses: “Drive-Through Food and Beverage Facility” and “Restaurant”
Vice Chairman Blessey recused himself from
this matter and left the table at 8:18 p.m.
Commissioner Grimes was appointed a Voting Member.
Chairman Parker reviewed
the discussion during the meeting of July 8, 2010 as reflected in the Minutes
of that meeting. ZEO Schappert pointed
out that since the definition of “drive-through
facility” was changed in the discussion above, the wordage of this proposed
regulation should be change to reflect what was done in the prior change. Commissioner Mercer stated that the proposed
change should not fall under “restaurants and taverns” in the Table of Uses
anymore. He indicated that he is
generally opposed to allowing drive-through facilities in the Town Center
District, and feels that a general allowance of drive-throughs in the TCD would
be “foolish”. Commissioner Grimes agreed.
There were no questions of
clarification. No one was present to
speak in favor of the application, nor was anyone present to speak in
opposition.
ZEO Schappert
reiterated that the regulation on the table discusses “drive-through
restaurants”, and needs to be changed to “drive-through facilities” to be
consistent.
Commissioner Weisman moved to close the Public Hearing
re: Proposed Regulation Amendment #201000465 – Section 242-501 – Table of
Permitted Uses: “Drive-Through Food and Beverage Facility” and “Restaurant”
Secretary Lynch seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
Commissioner Weisman
stated that he felt that approval of the proposed amendment would be “more
inclusive” and “good for business, good for the Town”.
Commissioner Grimes
made a point of order and inquired if there was a motion on the floor to
discuss, and was advised by the Chairman that there was not.
Commissioner Weisman moved to moved to accept the Table
of Permitted Uses #201000465, with the definitions applying to the zones
listed. Secretary Lynch seconded the
motion. The motion failed, 2-3, with Commissioner
Weisman and Secretary Lynch voting in favor, and Commissioner Mercers and
Grimes, and Chairman Parker voting in opposition.
ZEO Schappert
requested clarification that in the TCD a drive through facility will not be
allowed. He noted that by definition,
there is a conflict. Commissioner
Amorossi requested an opportunity to comment.
He stated that this change would make pre-existing, nonconforming uses
in the area. Commissioner Mercer stated
that the only thing that was accomplished tonight is that the definitions were
amended. He continued that drive-through
restaurants are now undefined; there is now a definition for “drive-through
facilities” in Section 242-202, and drive-through restaurants are still
permitted in ILC80, SE, IRC80/40, RC41, and nowhere else. Additionally, there is no allowance for
drive-through restaurants because it is now undefined, and the motion to amend
the Table of Uses failed.
ZEO Schappert stated
that “drive through facilities” in the TCD allows banks and pharmacies, but
does not allow restaurants.
Commissioner
Amorossi requested clarification if a fast food facility (McDonald’s Wendy’s,
Dunkin Donuts) allowed, and the Commissioner Mercer indicated it is not. He did note, however, that it could be argued,
that by extension of the definition, some drive-through facilities are
permitted. Commissioner Amorossi
inquired further if the Dunkin Donuts is allowed a drive-through window. It stated that the Table of Uses has not been
amended to allow it. Secretary Lynch noted
that, by definition, Dunkin Donuts is not a restaurant. Commissioner Mercer noted that if a facility
at the other end of that building wanted to install a drive-through window now,
regardless if it is a bank, etc., it would not be allowed because drive-through
facilities are no longer allowed in the TCD per the Table of Uses. Commissioner Weisman noted that the motion he
put forth, including drive-through facilities in the zones discussed previously
on July 8, 2010, failed. ZEO Schappert
pointed out that in the initial drafting of the proposed amendments to the
definitions; he offered different definitions for banks and facilities, and
restaurants. Commissioner Amorossi
inquired if a fast food facility is included as a facility, and ZEO Schappert reiterated
this was his reasoning for offering separate definitions and distinctions.
3.
Review Correspondence & Project Status Reports
a. Minutes of Other Boards & Commissions: Inland Wetlands Commission 7/26/10;
b. Letter from David A.
Sawicki, State Traffic Commission, to Roy Young – cc: Zoning Commission dated
7/22/10 re:
c. Building Permits
Law Bulletin – August 2010
Issue
No discussion/no motions.
7. Tabled
Items:
None.
8. Informal Discussion:
None.
9.
Comments
of Commissioners:
Commissioner Weisman commented that the Commission
should “get back on track and approve the uses of the definitions”. He hoped the Commission would reconsider, as
it is “nowhere now”. ZEO Schappert
stated that the current businesses can continue as pre-existing, nonconforming
uses, but no new banks, etc. can go into the district because “drive-through
facilities” are not listed on the Table of Uses.
Vice Chairman Blessey stated that, in general, the
Table of Uses no longer corresponds with the definitions, and that needs to be
corrected.
10. Adjourn
Commissioner
Grimes moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:39 p.m. Commissioner Mercer seconded the motion, and
it carried unanimously.
**Next Regular Meeting Scheduled for August 26, 2010**