Borough of Newtown
Zoning Commission
Newtown, Connecticut
THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE BOROUGH OF NEWTOWN ZONING COMMISSION
Minutes of Special Meeting of February 7, 2011
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Borough of Newtown Zoning Commission on Monday, February 7, 2011 at the Old Courtroom, Edmond Town Hall, 45 Main Street, Newtown, Connecticut. Vice Chairman Douglas Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.
Commission Members Present: Douglas Nelson, David Francis, Brid Craddock and Lucy Sullivan.
Commission Members Absent: Linda Shepard and Palmer Chiappetta.
Staff Present: Donald Mitchell, Borough Attorney and Maureen Crick Owen, Clerk.
Staff Absent: Jean St. Jean, Borough Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Public Present: Members of the Newtown Hook and Ladder Fire Department, Press, Members of the Board of Fire Commissioners, members of the public. Note: This was a special meeting and not a public hearing so there was no public participation.
Discussion took place regarding Alan Shepard, P.C., on behalf of his client, Burgaritaville, request for a clarification from the Commission regarding if his client was to expand the smaller building (which currently is vacant) by approximately 400 square feet so that the total square feet of the building would be about 900 square feet would it trigger site plan, special exception and village district application. The Commission discussed this and after discussion agreed that further discussion would take place at their next meeting.
Discussion took place regarding the 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. Discussion took place on administrative aspect of voting on findings as a whole and on each finding.
The Commission discussed each finding under Paragraph 5 of the Site Development Plan Findings as follows:
a. Discussion points:
- Idea that the building would tower over the neighborhood because of the ground elevation.
- During the public hearings, the public expressed concern of the size and look of the retaining wall.
- Nothing in the neighborhood that looks in harmony with the proposed building if you use 302 as the neighborhood. If you include Main Street as part of the neighborhood then it could be compared to the Town Hall South/Police Station.
- Does not look like a house.
- With regard to protecting property values, there were opinions that the proposed building would and would not affect property values. It was noted that they what was submitted were only opinions.
- Attorney Mitchell stated that the Borough ZBA denied the applicant’s application for a variance and one of their reasons for denying the application was that the presence of a firehouse at this location would adversely affect property values.
- Comment was made impact of values on properties in the future deepens the question.
- Scale of building is clearly bigger than anything else in the neighborhood.
[F = Finds; DNF = Does Not Find]
Paragraph 5a was voted on as to “harmonize with the neighborhood” and a separate vote on “protect the property values”. The vote was as follows:
Harmonize:
Douglas Nelson DNF
David Francis DNF
Brid Craddock DNF
Lucy Sullivan DNF
Property Values:
Douglas Nelson DNF
David Francis DNF
Brid Craddock DNF
Lucy Sullivan DNF
b. Discussion points:
- Police commission approved the traffic study as presented by the applicant.
- Traffic study was done using 2 trucks as the example, however, the proposed building had 6 bays.
- The traffic engineer said that with the construction of the fire station, traffic would go from a D to E at a particular time of the day.
- The traffic study did not show the impact of traffic if 6 fire trucks left the site at the same time.
- Site would certainly be overcrowded.
- There is not adequate parking on the site.
- Discussion took place on what the requirements are for an assembly area. Based on the assembly area and what is required by the zoning regulations, there is not enough parking spaces on the site. The site is one parking space short of what is required.
- Information was not presented how the department would handle the biggest piece of equipment at the site. Parking spaces had to be taken away because of the buffer. Parking is considered part of the structure.
The vote on 5b was as follows:
Douglas Nelson F
David Francis DNF
Brid Craddock DNF
Lucy Sullivan DNF
c. Discussion points:
- Not bound by Inland/Wetlands Commission’s decision.
- Site line but it was stated that CT DOT will instruct the applicant on that issue.
- Applicant used only 1 acre of a total of 9 acres.
The vote on 5c was as follows:
Douglas Nelson F
David Francis F
Brid Craddock F
Lucy Sullivan F
d. Discussion points:
- The applicant answered the question of noise.
- The air-conditioning units are residential in size.
- Siren will be off site.
- No outside lighting.
The vote on 5d was as follows:
Douglas Nelson F
David Francis F
Brid Craddock F
Lucy Sullivan F
e. Discussion points:
- Discussion took place about Article 1 of the zoning regulations and how that article is the root of the zoning regulations.
- The article encourages the most appropriate use of land within the Borough.
- Use is not the issue but health and safety of the population is an issue.
- Harmonize, safety and preserving property values are an issue.
- Given the area where the proposed building would be located the area is congested.
The vote on 5e was as follows:
Douglas Nelson DNF
David Francis F
Brid Craddock DNF
Lucy Sullivan DNF
f. Discussion points:
- Agreed this was a straight forward finds/does not find finding.
The vote on 5f was as follows:
Douglas Nelson F
David Francis F
Brid Craddock F
Lucy Sullivan F
g. Discussion points:
- Concerns about vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
- Said it was a tight site.
The vote on 5g was as follows:
Douglas Nelson DNF
David Francis DNF
Brid Craddock DNF
Lucy Sullivan DNF
h. Discussion points:
- Inland/Wetlands Commission did not approve the application.
- Parking is not adequate per the calculation of the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
- Height of building above pad.
The vote on 5h was as follows:
Douglas Nelson DNF
David Francis DNF
Brid Craddock DNF
Lucy Sullivan DNF
Under Paragraph 6 of the Site Development Plan Findings the commission did not approve the application and the vote was as follows:
Douglas Nelson DNF
David Francis DNF
Brid Craddock DNF
Lucy Sullivan DNF
The reasons for said action are as follows: Reference is made to subparagraphs a, b, e, g and h of Paragraph 5 as described above.
Mrs. Sullivan made a motion to deny the 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, for the reasons previously stated, seconded by Mr. Nelson and unanimously approved. The vote was:
Douglas Nelson Yes
David Francis Yes
Brid Craddock Yes
Lucy Sullivan Yes
Mr. Francis made a motion to approve the minutes of January 24, 2011, seconded by Mrs. Sullivan and unanimously approved.
Discussion took place regarding a “housekeeping” list for addressing possible changes to the zoning regulations.
There being no other business to transact the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next regular meeting scheduled for March 9, 2011.
Respectfully submitted,
David Francis, Secretary
| 
