Page 1 of 4
Borough of Newtown
Zoning Board of Appeals
Newtown, Connecticut
THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE BOROUGH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
Minutes of Special Meeting of August 26, 2009
Minutes of the special meeting of the Borough of Newtown Zoning Board of Appeals on August 26, 2009, at Borough Room, Town Hall South, 3 Main Street, Newtown. Chairman John Madzula called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: John Madzula, Janet Woycik, Bea Gellert, Robert Taylor and Kathy Geckle.
Absent: None.
Application B09-01: Application of Newtown Hook & Ladder Co. No. 1, Inc. for a variance to Section 5.01 of the Borough zoning regulations so as to permit a 20 foot front yard setback. The property is located at 12 Sugar Street in an R-1 and a B-½ zone in the Borough of Newtown.
Chairman Madzula opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. He stated that the following members would be voting on this application: John Madzula, Janet Woycik, Bea Gellert, Robert Taylor and Kathy Geckle. Mrs. Gellert read the legal notice. Richard Contois of L. Edwards Associates, LLC of 227 Stepney Road, Easton, presented the application on behalf of the applicant, Newtown Hook & Ladder. Mr. Contois read to the Commission the explanation that was submitted with the application. He said they are requesting a variance to Section 5.01 to reduce the front yard setback to 20’ from the required 50’. He said that the building that was in the Newtown Bee was a conceptual plan. He said the applicant is not proceeding with the design of the building until a variance is granted,
if granted. He said they need to move the building forward because of the wetlands on the property. He said if the building was in the back area it would require a longer driveway. He said that the bay areas would be in the back of the building. The front of the building would have windows. Parking would also be in the back. Mrs. Geckle asked if the building that is shown on the plan would be the approximate size of their final design. Mr. Contois said it would not be bigger because they are constrained by the site. Mr. Taylor asked if the location of the proposed building is depicted on the combined lots. Mr. Contois said yes. Chairman Madzula said that normally an applicant submits architectural drawings with the application. Mr. Contois said that the applicant did not want to spend the money. Mr. Bill McCarthy of 8 Topside Lane spoke. Chairman Madzula said that the applicant is asking the Commission to
approve an application and it has to be in harmony with the neighborhood but yet there are no architectural drawings. Mr. McCarthy said that it is the Firehouse’s intent to make it in harmony. It is their intent to keep it in a colonial style. He said the bays would be in the rear. He said they did not want to spend $80,000 - $90,000 for architectural drawings. He said they worked hard with the Wetlands Dept. to get a footprint. He said they are not the typical commercial developer.
Chairman Madzula said it is difficult to realize this building with homes down the street that are 35’ to 50’ long while the façade of this building is 120’ long and 20’ feet from the street and 35’ feet in height. It would be a large façade sitting close to the property line.
Mrs. Geckle asked about access to major highway and getting out at commuter time. Mr. Contois said that the lights would have to be synchronized. Mr. McCarthy said that the lights were already synchronized. He said that this location would be 100% improvement from their current location. It would be a great improvement with traffic. He said they have the movie theater to deal with and at the Town Hall there is no traffic light.
Chairman Madzula asked if there was any one who would like to speak in favor of the application.
Michael Burton of 107 Glen Road spoke. He said he was on the Fire Commission Board but that he was speaking for himself. He said he is in favor of granting the variance. He said the Fire Commission Board has concerns with the existing building. He said they asked for $1.5 million in the CIP for repairs and the Board of Selectmen were not happy with the request.
There was no one else to speak in favor of the application.
Chairman Madzula asked if there was any one who would like to speak against the application.
Karen Banks of 43 West Street said that while she has empathy for the Hook & Ladder she said that the location is too close to the road and that the property is primarily wetlands. She asked why can’t they go to Fairfield Hills.
Maria Gargliardi of 14 Sugar Street said she does not want it to happen.
Ellen Parella of 15 Roosevelt Drive said she thinks it should be on solid ground. She also said she has a problem with the 20’ setback.
Robert Olah of 34 Sugar Street objects to the variance because he feels the site is wrong for the intended use. He said it would not be in keeping with the rural character and would be an eyesore. He also said that the location is not good because of traffic. He said traffic backs up on Sugar Street and how would the fire trucks get out.
Ellen Parella of 15 Roosevelt Drive said that fire trucks are too heavy for the land.
Mr. Olah continued to say that he objects to the variance for the reasons he stated.
Attorney Catherine Cuggino of Chipman, Mazzucco, Land & Pennarola, 30 Main Street, Danbury said she represented Francois and Nathalie Debrantes of 13 Sugar Street. She said while wetlands can be a hardship there has to be reasonable use and minimal variance. She submitted a plan with a building sketched on it with approximately a 2,000 square foot footprint which could be built with a 50’ setback and outside of wetlands area. She said the variance requires harmony within the neighborhood and the other neighbors already spoke and urged the Commission to deny.
Katherine Summ of 25 Sugar Street asked if any consideration had been given to pedestrian traffic. She said there are bicyclists on Sugar Street, children who walk to and from school, mothers with strollers, etc.
Ellen Parella of 15 Roosevelt Drive asked what about future widening of roads.
Michael Burton of 107 Glen Road said he understands that the Commission has concerns with harmony but has not seen the proposal submitted by Attorney Cuggino. He said if the building was to be pushed back to have a 50’ setback then the bay doors would have to be in the front.
Mr. Contois said that the wetlands were delineated by a soil scientist and that test borings were compatible to support trucks and foundation.
Chairman Madzula closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.
Discussion took place regarding the fee for a variance and the ZBA regulations within the zoning regulations. Mr. Taylor made a motion to increase the variance fee to $150 (plus additional cost of $30 to DEP), seconded by Mrs. Gellert and unanimously approved. It was agreed that a draft to the zoning regulations regarding the Zoning Board of Appeals would be done and circulated among the members.
Discussion took place regarding the application (B09-01) of the Newtown Hook & Ladder. It was raised that traffic would be an issue despite the fact that there are synchronized lights. Mrs. Geckle made a motion to deny the application of Newtown Hook & Ladder Co. No. 1, Inc. for a variance to Section 5.01 of the Borough zoning regulations so as to permit a 20 foot front yard setback for property located at 12 Sugar Street because:
(a) it is not in harmony with the general neighborhood;
(b) creates traffic hazard on existing streets; and
(c) impairs property values within the neighborhood.
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Gellert. Further discussion took place. Chairman Madzula stated that how can you dress up the façade of a building that is 120’ long 35’ tall and 20’ back from the road and keep it in harmony with the neighborhood. Mrs. Geckle said 20’ is not far from the road. Chairman Madzula said that they do not know what the building looks like so how do they know if it will be in harmony with the neighborhood.
The Commission voted unanimously (5-0) in favor of the motion and the voting was as follows:
Bea Gellert …… Yes
John Madzula …… Yes
Robert Taylor …… Yes
Janet Woycik …… Yes
Kathy Geckle ………….. Yes
There being no further business to come before the meeting, the meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 8:00 p.m.
________________________________
Bea Gellert, Secretary
| 
