Monday, December 18, 2006 at 7:30 p.m.
Pasbeshauke Pavilion
Saybrook Point Park
155 College Street Extension
I. CALL TO ORDERThe Chairman called the regular meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Attendant Members Absent Members
Robert Friedmann, Chairman Charles Sohl, Alternate Member Elizabeth Steffen, Vice Chairman
Walter Harris, Secretary
Madeleine Fish, Regular Member
Paula Stuart, Regular Member
Geraldine Lewis, Alternate Member
Kathy Edgar, Alternate Member
Attendant Staff
Christina Costa, Enforcement Officer
Marc Branse, Consulting Legal Counsel
Geoff Jacobson, Town Engineer
Kati Drzewianowski, Engineer w/Jacobson& Assoc.
Maura Farbotka, Recording Clerk
III. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. Minutes
Corrections on 12/04/06 minutes: On page 1, under roll call, Charles Sohl and Kathy Edgar should be listed as Alternate Members, not Regular Members. On page 7, spelling correction for Carisma Carwash.
MOTION to approve the minutes of December 4, 2006, as amended; MADE by M. Fish; SECONDED by E. Steffen. No discussion on the motion. VOTING IN FAVOR: R. Friedmann, E. Steffen, W. Harris, M. Fish, P. Stuart; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINED: none; APPROVED: 5-0-0.
B. Correspondence
MOTION to pay Branse and Willis invoice # 14083 for $116.00, # 14084 for $623.50, # 14090 for $29.00, 14091 for $290.00, and #14092 for 304.50, for a total of $1363.00; MADE: by E. Steffen; SECONDED: by P. Stuart; VOTING IN FAVOR: R. Friedmann, E. Steffen, W. Harris, M. Fish, P. Stuart; OPPOSED: none; ABSTAINING: none; APPROVED: 5-0-0.
Holiday cards received from Nathan Jacobson and Assoc, and Law Firm of Branse and Willis.
IV. OLD BUSINESS:
B. SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE – CZC 06-204
63,400 S.F. one-story Big Y grocery store; six additional one-story retail buildings
consisting of a total of 72,500 S.F. – Boston Post Road/Spencer Plain Road,
Map 25/Lots 28, 29, 30, 32, 32-1 & Map 26/Lots 2, 6-10, 6-11, 6-12 & 6-16,
B-4 Zone
Applicant: Max’s Place, LLC Agent: Attorney David M. Royston
C. COASTAL SITE PLAN
Boston Post Road/Spencer Plain Road, Map 25/Lots 28, 29, 30, 32, 32-1 and
Map 26/Lots 2, 6-10, 6-11, 6-12 & 6-16, Gateway Business B-4 District
Applicant: Max’s Place, LLC Agent: Attorney David M. Royston
Chairman Friedmann raised questions regarding parking calculations. Per the Zoning table on the plans dated 10/27/06, based on the total floor area, there should be 777 total spaces required. Only 746 were counted.
Parking regulations under section 62.3.2 D states there should be one parking space for every 175 square feet.
Kati Drzewianowski of Nathan Jacobson and Associates stated she had also counted the spaces, based on the most recent plans (dated 11/17/06), and counted 771 spaces. During the meeting, Ms. Drzewianowski recounted the spaces, and confirmed there are 771. (527 non-employee, 92 employee, 127 reserve non-employee, and 25 reserve employee). It was noted she did not count the carriage corrals.
Chairman Friedmann pointed out that per zoning regulations, parking spaces should measure 9x18. He noted several spaces at only 15 feet long. Question from Commission
And ZEO, that possibly these spaces were for compact cars. Per regulations, not more than 10% of parking can be for compact cars.
M. Fish stated to R. Friedmann that she realized parking is a point of contention, and suggested making parking numbers compliant and a condition if application is approved.
It was noted the loading spaces are sufficiently positioned to be adjacent to the building.
P. Stuart raised concern with ground water calculations using the previous Home Depot Study. G. Jacobson stated that while additional testing could never hurt, the study used for the past is considered adequate, especially because the conditions of the site remain the same.
Discussion held on storm water data. G. Jacobson noted the rate of run off would be moderated, with no increase in rate.
Per G. Jacobson, water figures calculated on 10,25, 50 and 100 year storms. The data provided includes all scenarios. G. Jacobson advised the commission to be sure that the two year storm is fully attenuated at the route 1 culvert, (which is the bulk of the site’s drainage).
P. Stuart again raised traffic concerns. E. Steffen stated there are serious year round traffic issues, and noted health and safety issues tied in with traffic. (emergency vehicle access).
Noted there are 4 traffic signals proposed. Discussed previous requests for traffic lights denied by D.O.T. Commission noted traffic signals would help, but could not control volume of traffic site would bring to area. Stipulations/conditions for approval was suggested.
With regards to signage, ZEO Costa confirmed applicant would come back for modification of SPEX.
Confirmed Landscape plan is in compliance with the regulations.
G. Jacobson stated plans are reviewed using pre-development and post-development models.
M. Fish reviewed the IWWC approval. Confirmed approval was based basically on same plans that are now being reviewed (w/ some modifications).
E. Steffen questioned Attorney Branse about inclusion of “Clerk of the Works” in motion. He pointed out it is under section X. Attorney Branse stated the “clerk” does not have to be at the site full time, but would be the main contact person to ensure project is progressing correctly.
Attorney Branse noted he added section Z , and removed section P.
Attorney Branse noted additions made under the Denial Draft Motion:
#13: “Mr. Jacobson has indicated the applicant has not addressed attenuation of the 2 year storm. While the applicant attempted to obtain permission to repair the tide gate at Chalker Beach, it has failed to obtain such permission. As noted by the Commission’s consulting engineer, all storm water projections are subject to a margin of error while the Chalker Beach area is already experiencing flooding and has no margin of error left”.
#5: “Commission members are personally familiar with traffic volumes on Route 1 during all seasons of the year, and know that additional major traffic generators cannot be accommodated even with the traffic light and other modifications that the applicant has proposed. It is a simple matter of total volume of traffic on the road. Additionally the proposed development of this site will create potential emergency hazards for people in the Chalker Beach community who may not be able to exit their street in a timely matter in the event of an emergency”.
#7: The required parking of 777 as per section 62.3.2.d.6 is not provided in the plans.
R. Friedmann made notation that he has confirmed with ZEO Costa that the site plans did not include the mezzanine and freezer into the square footage calculations. This raises the amounts as follows:
Supermarket: 67,693 s.f.
Other retail: 75,500 s.f.
Total s.f. equals 143,193
Calculating one space for every 175 s.f., would bring the total number of parking spaces needed to 818, 46 more than is shown on the site plan. The earlier square footage number did not include the mezzanine or the freezer.
Noted confusion may have arisen from the Phasing with the Shopping Center being done first.
MOTION for denial of application for SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE for Max’s Place CZC# 06-204 Big Y supermarket and 6 additional retail buildings, Boston Post Road/Spencer Plains Road, Map 25/Lots 28, 29, 30, 32, 32-1 & Map 26/Lots 2, 6-10, 6-11, 6-12 & 6-16, B-4 Zone; see attached Motion for Denial.
MADE by P. Stuart; SECONDED: by E. Steffen; DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION:
Chairman Friedmann discussed situation that parking calculations and parking on the site are the fatal flaw, in the sense that it is in the regulations and as such with a single application for the entire site and the requisite parking calculations, along with other issues raised. The applicant is to be commended in terms of all the accommodations made and all the architectural adjustments and style, but there are certain features in the situation and the development of this location that require something other than what we have before us.
VOTING IN FAVOR: R. Friedmann, E. Steffen, P. Stuart; OPPOSED: W. Harris, M. Fish; ABSTAINING: none; APPROVED: 3-2-0. DENIAL CARRIED 3-2.
MOTION for denial of COASTAL SITE PLAN; Boston Post Road/Spencer Plain Road, Map 25/Lots 28, 29, 30, 32, 32-1 and Map 26/Lots 2, 6-10, 6-11, 6-12 & 6-16, Gateway Business B-4 District MADE by P. Stuart; SECONDED: by E. Steffen; no discussion on the motion; VOTING IN FAVOR: R. Friedmann, E. Steffen, M. Fish, P. Stuart; OPPOSED: W. Harris; ABSTAINING: none; APPROVED: 4-1-0. DENIAL CARRIED: 4-1-0.
V. COMMITTEE, REPRESENTATIVE & STAFF REPORTS
-Cuckoos Nest Restaurant would like to add a seasonal canvas covering on front of building. Chris Costa provided the Commission with a picture of the plans. Commission gave okay to handle administratively, noting there should be no lettering/signage on the canvas.
-Angela Pertesis would like to open a 1,176 s.f. used furniture store with local art, only on first floor of the old Recycled Furniture Store located at25 Stage Road. This is a use to use. Commission stated ok to handle administratively.
-Saybrook Point Inn would like to swap hotel room #108 with the room directly above, currently being used as a yoga exercise room. Commission gave approval.
-Mike’s quality meats and fine deli. Zoning Enforcement Officer read letter from Attorney Christina Burnham, dated 12/13/06, who is now representing the applicant. Discussion held at length with commission and Attorney Branse. It would not be a restaurant, no seating provided. Commission authorized to handle administratively, making sure parking is adequate.
-Alex Tighe/King Building on Old Boston Post Road. Would like to convert barn to rental residence. Discussion held re: pre-existing non-conformity. Barn is an accessory, possibly acting as an expansion of non-conformity. It was suggested that the applicants bring this to the commission.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Friedmann adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. until the next regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. at the First Floor Conference Room, Old Saybrook Town Hall, 302 Main Street.
Respectively submitted:
Maura Farbotka
Recording Clerk
Zoning Commission of the Town of Old Saybrook
RESOLUTION FOR DENIAL
OF THE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION
AND COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
“Max’s Place” CZC #06-204, Big Y grocery store, six additional retail buildings
Applicant: Max’s Place, LLC
Boston Post Road & Spencer Plain Road
Assessor’s Map 25 / Lots 28, 29, 30, 32 and 32-1,
Map 26 / Lots 2, 6-10, 6-11, 6-12 and, 6-16
General Business B-4 District
WHEREAS, the Old Saybrook Zoning Commission (“Commission”) received at its Regular Meeting of August 1, 2006, from Max's Place, LLC (“Applicant”) an Application for Approval of a Special Exception use (“Application”). The accompanying Statement of Use, as amended through November 6, 2006, describes a proposed “Big Y” grocery store with building contractors’ business and storage yards, and lumber and building materials businesses. Other Application materials, including a site plan, depict a proposed 135,900 square foot single-story structure with six hundred twenty-five (625) parking spaces (plus one hundred and forty-six (146) parking spaces to be provided for in reserve), landscaping, and other improvements, such as signage,
utilities, architectural treatments, and off-site improvements to the surrounding road network.
WHEREAS, the Commission received a modification to the Application, as depicted and described by the public record of the administrative proceedings of the Application;
WHEREAS, the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Old Saybrook, Connecticut and Title 8, Chapter 124 of the Connecticut General Statutes authorizes the Commission to act upon an Application;
WHEREAS, the Commission held Public Hearings of the Application on September 18, 2006, October 3, 2006, October 16, 2006, and, with the consent of the Applicant, held additional Public Hearings on November 6, 2006, November 13, 2006, and November 20, 2006;
WHEREAS, during such public hearings, the Commission conferred with and received information from the Applicant and/or representatives and the public, and the Commission received technical and legal review from its staff and other Town agencies, and the Commission had the opportunity to ask questions and evaluate the Application at duly noticed Public Hearings and public meetings;
WHEREAS, the Commission has heard evidence regarding the consistency of the Application with the Coastal Management Act, Conn. Gen. Stats. § 22a-90 to 22a-112, and Section 59 of the Regulations.
Motion to Deny
Application of Max’s Place, LLC
for Big Y grocery store and six additional retain buildings
Boston Post Road and Spencer Plain Road
The Zoning Commission of the Town of Old Saybrook (the “Commission”) makes the following findings based on the record before it:
1. The Commission has received a special permit and site plan application from the Applicant, which has stated it owns 19.76 acres in the B-4 General Business District.
2. The Application remained substantially incomplete until the night of the final public hearing, at which time the Applicant produced many new survey sheets and a redesigned anchor store without allowing the Commission or the public adequate time to review them. As a result the Commission was not able to review the material and information required by under these Regulations to reach the findings necessary for approval. (Section 51.5.1)
3. The proposed uses and structures are out of scale with the neighborhood and will be detrimental to the neighborhood or adjacent property, specifically Chalker Beach, whose residents will be affected disproportionate to the benefits received. (Sections 51.5.2 and 52.6.4)
4. The proposed Site Plan is not in general conformance with the Town Plan of Development. Additionally, the Big Y remains inadequately screened from Spencer Plain Road. (Section 51.5.3)
5. The proposed buildings, structures, uses, equipment and materials are not readily accessible for fire, police and emergency medical services in that they will create large amounts of traffic on two state highways which are already overburdened. Commission members are personally familiar with the traffic volumes on Route 1 during all seasons of the year, and know that additional major traffic generators cannot be accommodated, even with the traffic lights and other modifications that the applicant has proposed. It is a simple matter of total volume of traffic on the road. Additionally, the proposed development of this site will create potential emergency hazards for people in
the Chalker Beach community, who may not be able to exit their street in a timely manner in the event of an emergency. (Section 51.5.4)
6. As the Commission can in no way count on the State Traffic Commission to permit the proposed traffic signals at the entrance on Spencer Plain Road, and at the intersection of Center Road and Boston Post Road, the proposed traffic access ways have a high likelihood of creating traffic hazards and are not adequate in width, grade, alignment and visibility; and that the capacity of adjacent and feeder streets will not be adequate to accommodate peak and average traffic volume. (Sections 51.5.5 and 52.6.3)
7. The Application’s configuration of parking will likely result in many delivery vehicles parked in locations which will not facilitate the flow of traffic. The required parking of 818, per Section 62.3.2.D.6 is not provided on the plans, which show only 771 spaces Additionally, sidewalks have not been placed along the entire length of Spencer Plain Road, instead requiring pedestrians to cross over a busy state highway to continue walking. (Section 51.5.6)
8. The landscaping and screening of the site does not comply with the intent and purpose of the Regulations. The parking areas and service areas have not been suitably screened and buffered through all seasons of the year from adjacent public streets, particularly on the Center Road West side of the site. (Section 51.5.7)
9. The glare from the installation of outdoor lighting and illuminated signs may or may not be properly shielded from the view of adjacent property and public streets, but because no sign application was filed, no evaluation of this section can be properly made. (Section 51.5.8)
10. The Chalker Beach residents have legitimate concerns that this proposal will worsen the flooding in their neighborhood which have not been adequately addressed by the materials provided, particularly since the final numbers were not given to Commission’s consulting engineer until immediately before the final public hearing. (Section 51.5.9)
11. The development of the site will permanently develop a large parcel in a very sensitive location, leaving only the wetlands in the northeasterly corner of the property. (Section 51.5.10)
12. The location, size, scale and overall architectural character of the proposes uses, buildings and structures, as well as the nature and intensity of operations involved in or conducted therein will be inconsistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate how the architecture at this location is similar to any other architecture in the neighborhood, Old Saybrook or even shoreline Connecticut. (Sections 51.5.11, 52.6.1 and 52.6.5)
13. The Commission has received a written traffic report which addresses the plan’s compliance with Section 62 of the Regulations concerning on-site and off-site traffic. Said report was reviewed by the Commission’s consultant, Bruce Hillson. The report is highly conditional, based on the assumption that traffic signals will be provided at key locations. The Commission does not accept this assumption, and so questions the validity of the study. (Section 51.6.5 (A)(3))
14. The Applicant has provided a mapped and written description of all of the storm drainage measures prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Connecticut. This report was not provided to Nathan L. Jacobson and Associates, the Commission’s consulting engineer, until extremely late in the process, and the Commission is not certain Geoff Jacobson’s comments have been addressed satisfactorily. Mr. Jacobson has indicated that the applicant has not addressed attenuation of the two year design storm. While the applicant attempted to obtain permission to repair the tide gate at Chalker Beach, it has failed to obtain such permission. As noted by the
Commission’s consulting engineer, all stormwater projections are subject a margin of error while the Chalker Beach area is already experiencing flooding and has no margin of error left. (Section 51.6.5 (A)(4))
15. The Planning Commission has issued an unfavorable recommendation on the Application.
16. The potential adverse impacts on both coastal resources and future water-dependent development are unacceptable, due to the increase in impervious surface area set forth in this application. The Application is not consistent with the legislative goals and policies set forth in Conn. Gen. Stats. § 22a-92 in that it has the effect of unreasonably polluting, impairing or destroying the public trust in the public resources of the State of Connecticut, specifically, it presents a significant impairment of the coastal resources of the State of Connecticut.
Specifically based on the findings set forth above, the Commission DENIES this Application.
Dated at Old Saybrook, Connecticut, this 18th day of December, 2006.
OLD SAYBROOK
ZONING COMMISSION
By:
(Secretary/Chairman)
| 
