Borough of Newtown
Zoning Commission
Newtown, Connecticut
THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE BOROUGH OF NEWTOWN ZONING COMMISSION
Minutes of Public Hearing and Special Meeting of December 13, 2010
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Borough of Newtown Zoning Commission on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at the Conference Room, Town Hall South, 3 Main Street, Newtown, Connecticut. Acting Chairman Douglas Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:16 p.m.
Commission Members Present: Douglas Nelson, David Francis, Brid Craddock and Lucy Sullivan.
Commission Members Absent: Linda Shepard and Alternate Palmer Chiappetta.
Staff Present: Jean St. Jean, Borough Zoning Enforcement Officer, Donald Mitchell, Borough Attorney, and Maureen Crick Owen, Clerk.
Continuation of Public Hearing:
Application of Newtown Hook and Ladder Company, No. 1, Incorporated for site development plan approval for construction of a two and one-half story fire station building on property located at 4 Sugar Street and 12 Sugar Street, Newtown, CT.
Mr. Francis read into the record the following:
- Letter from Borough Conservation Official Rob Sibley dated December 13, 2010; and
- Letter from Dawn Handschuh, 36 West Street, dated November 1, 2010 stating that she opposed the Sugar Street firehouse proposal.
Attorney Chris Smith of Shipman & Goodwin, Hartford, Connecticut, representing the Newtown Hook and Ladder Company No. 1, Incorporated, addressed the Commission and referenced the revisions to the site plan dated 11.05.2010 from the prior version. Attorney Smith stated that in the big picture they were not substantial or material changes. He mentioned the denial the applicant received from the Inland Wetlands Commission. Attorney Smith asked the Commission to render a decision on the merits of the application and to not just deny it because they did not receive inland wetlands approval.
He discussed parking within the side yard setback. While he said historically parking has not been prohibited from being within the side yard setback, they have modified the site plan and moved the parking. The net loss is 4 parking spaces and parking is still adequate. Attorney Smith stated that if the Commission had concerns about the parking, the applicant would have no objection to a stipulation that there would be no more people at a training program than the number of parking spaces.
Attorney Smith submitted an 8.5” x 11” version of the Alternative Parking Layout (Ex. #1) dated 10.25.2010. He submitted the plan in addition to the existing to the parking plan previously submitted. He said if there was an appeal it might be determined that the Alternate Parking Layout would satisfy the zoning regulations.
Chris DeAngelis, Professional Engineer of Cabezas and DeAngelis, submitted the larger version of the Alternate Parking Layout (Ex. 2). He also went through the revisions to the drawings dated November 5, 2010 as outlined in a Memorandum from Mr. DeAngelis to Mr. George Benson, Director of Planning and Land Use of Newtown, dated November 10, 2010. Mr. DeAngelis submitted a letter from Souhegan Valley Engineering, Inc. dated October 21, 2010 (Ex. #3) regarding the retaining wall which letter stated that “this application is appropriate for this site”. He also submitted a letter dated November 8, 2010 from Dr. Clarence Welti, P.E., P.C. (Ex. #4) regarding the applicability of the geotechnical study of October 1, 2008 by Dr. Welti.
Mr. DeAngelis stated that the lighting is dark sky compliant. He made reference to Borough Engineer Ronald Bolmer’s email of 10.19.2010 wherein Mr. Bolmer stated the application is in compliance with the zoning regulations.
Mr. DeAngelis submitted a few photos of the retaining wall at Eichler’s Cove in Newtown (Ex. #5). He also submitted 8 photos of examples of retaining walls (Ex. #6). He said one could see the maximum height of the retaining wall (approximately 11.5’) if hiking in the woods. And, that someone would see about 3.5’ of the retaining wall if driving down Sugar Street. He said they would stain that part of the retaining wall so that it would look more natural.
Ms. Craddock asked about the maximum height of the building. Mr. DeAngelis said the height of the building meets zoning regulations. He said that the site has such a drop off that on the right side of the building (if facing building) would be 2’ above street level and on the left side it would be 2’ below street level.
Attorney Smith submitted a letter from the Fire Marshal Bill Halstead dated 12.13.2010 (Ex. #7) that after review of the plans and Alternate Parking Layout find the travel distance around the structure is adequate. Mr. Smith referenced a comment made by Alan Shepard at the previous public hearing regarding a 50’ buffer. He said that applies to a commercial use next to a residential use. He stated this is a residential zone and a permitted use.
Rob Manna, 100 Glen Road, said that the Botsford, Dodgingtown and Sandy Hook firehouses are in very populated areas and in single family residential areas. He said what the Hook and Ladder is proposing is not unique and certainly acceptable.
Attorney Smith referenced Paul Scalzo’s letter of 10.18.2010. He said that Mr. Scalzo stated in his professional opinion the firehouse would not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood nor the property values.
Michael Galante of Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. traffic engineer for the applicant, said that there would be adequate time for the traffic to clear out in the event the fire trucks were leaving the site to go to a fire.
Attorney Smith stated that this ended the applicant’s presentation of their application.
Alan Shepard, 1 Glover Avenue, clarified that Linda Shepard had recused herself from this application. He also identified himself as a professional engineer. He stated that he felt there needed to be more details and analysis regarding the retaining wall. Mr. Shepard also addressed the turning radii of the fire trucks and that it is problematic. He submitted drawings to support his statement (Ex. #8). He stated that the site is too small for intended crossing lanes and getting out onto Sugar Street.
Mr. DeAngelis referred to Drawing C-1. He stated that it is tight but it does work. Attorney Smith said that the template that they used was more conservative and that it took into consideration of the rear driving of the ladder truck (ladder truck can be steered from the rear of the truck). Mr. Smith also stated that the CT Department of Transportation wanted 30’ – 35’ for the driveway openings but they have 45’ openings. Mr. Shepard stated that CT DOT does not care what happens on the property – only on the roadway. Mr. Galante said that CT DOT would review the entire plan. Mr. DeAngelis said that in reality it will work much easier than it looks.
Curt Riebling, 21 Sugar Street, stated that the Commission should vote to reject the application. He submitted a petition which opposed the proposed fire house (Ex. #10). He also submitted four letters from Newtown real estate agents all of which stated that building of the fire house on the proposed location could have the potential of adversely affecting property values. The letters are from:
- John Klopfenstein of Coldwell Banker Residential dated 11.16.2010;
- Cathy Masi of Flagpole Realty, Inc. dated 11.14.2010;
- Bob Maurer of William Raveis dated 11.16.2010; and
Carol A. French of Coldwell Banker Residential dated 12.8.2010.
Mr. Riebling also submitted two photographs of traffic on Sugar Street (Ex. #12). Mr. Riebling said that the proposal is completely unsuitable for the site and asked the Commission to reject the application.
Robert Olah, 34 Sugar Street, submitted two maps (Ex. #13) relative to the location of Hawleyville Fire Department to the northern section of Newtown (Hanover Road). He discussed distance and response time. He disputed the times and distances that the applicant submitted. He spoke about the other fire departments and how Dodgingtown, Hawleyville, Sandy Hook, Botsford and the current location of the Hook and Ladder are all in heavily commercial areas. He said there is no commercial activity near the proposed site on Sugar Street. He spoke to the width of Sugar Street, site and design, parking and the retaining wall. He asked the Commission to decline the application.
Edward Terry, 18 Lincoln Road, said that this fire house does not belong at this site.
Eugene Orlowski, 20 Sugar Street, stated he was opposed to the application.
Ann Kutka, 22 Sugar Street, asked if whether the presence ice and snow on the property would create problems for the fire trucks maneuvering on the property.
Joe Sullivan, 13 Lincoln Road, said he is opposed to the location. He said the neighbors on Lincoln Road and Roosevelt Drive would see the back side of the building and believes that this does not fit into the neighborhood. He also said the proposed fire house would hurt the property values.
Catherine Cuggino, Attorney with Chipman, Mazzuco, representing Francois and Nathalie deBrantes of 13 Sugar Street, submitted a letter to the Commission dated 12.13.2010 (Ex. #14) which stated that the application does not comply with the Borough zoning regulations and should deny the application.
Francois deBrantes, 13 Sugar Street, submitted photographs (Ex. #15) showing how the fire house at the proposed location would change Newtown’s viewscape. He said the trees in the Pleasance would need to be cut for the line of site. He said this building is not in keeping with the neighborhood. He raised the issue about the Borough Land Trust and that their mission is to preserve land, wetlands and open space. By the Borough Land Trust deeding land to the applicant runs counter to their mission. He urged the Commission to reject this application.
Jason Rivera, 16 Narragansett Trail, is the fire chief of Newtown Hook and Ladder. He addressed the issue of response time and distances that were raised earlier in the hearing. He said Pond Brook Road and Butterfield Road were unacceptable response routes because they were a dirt road and a windy road, respectively. He said the response times on Mr. Olah’s submission were not accurate. He stated that Newtown Hook and Ladder has 40 active members. While it is recommended, he said all members are not required to attend all training sessions and meetings. If there were to be a training session and more members were attending than there were parking sites, he said they could car pool or park off site.
Mr. Galante stated that pursuant to the traffic study traffic will increase from a D to E at the the stop sign at the intersection of Elm Drive and Sugar Street.
Attorney Smith stated that the IWC never said this was not an appropriate site. He also read into the record the letter from Dr. Welti. As to issues with the Borough Land Trust, he said that this is not within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Commission. Reference had been made earlier by a neighbor about the CIP. Mr. Smith said that this is not relevant to the application. He said that they had favorable reports from Souhegan Valley Engineering, Inc., Dr. Welti, Mr. DeAngelis and Mr. Bolmer. He said this is a permitted use subject to site plan review and consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development and Borough zoning regulations. He also said the applicant received approval from the Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission, the Borough’s planning agency.
Attorney Smith submitted two pictures (Ex. #16) (originally was part of Francois deBrantes’ submission) which show the driveway for the Police Station and Town Hall South and the watercourse crossing.
Attorney Smith respectfully requested that the Commission approve the application and that it satisfies Section 10 of the zoning regulations.
Mr. Francis inquired about the line of site. Mr. DeAngelis said that they can meet sight line requirements by trimming and removing trees. Mr. Galante said they might have to trim branches up to 3.5’ above grade and that there is a standard the State uses.
Edward Terry, 18 Lincoln Road, said it is clear that traffic is a problem.
Francois deBrantes, 13 Sugar Street, stated that this permissible use does not fit because it will: (a) negatively impact property values; (b) is not in keeping with the neighborhood; and (c) will adversely impact traffic. He urged the Commission to reject the application.
Alan Shepard, 1 Glover Avenue, said that the letter from Dr. Welti does refer to the building but not clearly state for the retaining wall. He does not believe that it is a 6’ water table. He said that the Town Engineer is a volunteer fireman for the Dodgingtown Fire House.
Joe Sullivan, 13 Lincoln Road, said that from his home he would have a clear shot of looking at the building especially in the fall when there are no leaves.
Ms. Craddock asked about noise. Mr. Manna said that they run the trucks inside the bays. He also said the air condition unit is on the roof. Mr. Manna said to the best of his knowledge there would be no noise from the site onto adjoining properties.
Curt Riebling, 21 Sugar Street, said that Mr. DeAngelis said several times that it was a “very tight fit”. He said this speaks to the unsuitability of the site.
Attorney Smith stated that the air condition units were residential only.
Acting Chairman Nelson closed the hearing at 10:30 p.m.
Special Meeting:
New Business:
Alan Shepard, Professional Engineer, on behalf of his client, Burgaritaville, discussed with the Commission his client’s proposed intention of their property. He wanted to know if what they were proposing at this time would require Village District approval. No decision was made by the Commission.
There being no other business to transact the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for January 12, 2011.
Respectfully submitted,
David Francis, Secretary
| 
