Click here to view DECEMBER 12, 2001 minutes
Click here to view JANUARY 16, 2002 minutes
Click here to view FEBRUARY 20, 2002 minutes
Click here to view FEBRUARY 28, 2002 minutes
Click here to view MARCH 20, 2002 minutes

CALL TO ORDER

Ms. Light read the Legal Notices/Actions to the assembly and Mr. DesRochers stated the rules of Public Hearings.

STAFF: Michael Wrinn; Cheryl Vallerie

PUBLIC HEARING

a) #7-02CAM/#02SP – J and D Kozar – Betts Island – Construction of Single Family Dwelling

Mr. Bill Andriopoulos, Architect, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained that the application met all the requirements and a waiver of the traffic study had been requested. He stated that the owner had stressed the importance to meet all regulations and requirements and he urged the Members to approve the application.

Mr. DesRochers asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to this application. Being there was no one present who wished to speak, Mr. DesRochers closed the Public Hearing.

REPORT OF PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE

JOSEPH SANTO, CHAIRMAN

Action on Item III. (a)

a) #7-02CAM/#02SP – J and D Kozar – Betts Island – Construction of Single Family Dwelling

1. THAT ALL REQUIRED EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROLS BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE SITE; AND
2. ALL REQUIRED CEAC SIGNOFFS BE SUBMITTED;
3. THAT ANY CHANGE TO THE PLANS REQUIRE PRIOR APPROVAL; AND

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT A CERTIFICATE OF SPECIAL PERMIT BE PLACED ON THE NORWALK LAND RECORDS; AND

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PROPOSAL COMPLIES WITH THE APPLICABLE COASTAL RESOURCE AND USE POLICES: AND

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE DECEMBER 21, 2001.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

Ms. Light recused herself from voting on this item due to a conflicting professional relationship.

1. THAT A SURETY, IN AN AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY STAFF, BE SUBMITTED TO GUARANTEE THE INSTALLATION OF REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS; AND
2. THAT ALL SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROLS BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY OR SITE WORK; AND
3. THAT ANY ADDITIONAL SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROLS, DEEMED NECESSARY BY STAFF, BE INSTALLED AT THE DIRECTION OF STAFF; AND
4. THAT ANY GRAFFITI ON THE SITE, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE, BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED.
5. THAT THE STAFF REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN BE INCORPORATED INTO THIS APPROVAL.
6. THAT ANY SITE LIGHTING BE ADEQUATELY SHIELDED.
7. THAT AS OFFERED AT THE APRIL 11, 2002 PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING, $5,000 BE CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS ALONG ROUTE 1 IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT; AND
8. THAT A CONNECTICUT LICENSED ENGINEER CERTIFY THAT THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED TO CITY STANDARDS.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PROPOSAL COMPLIES WITH THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE BUILDING ZONE REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF NORWALK, CT.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE APRIL 26, 2002.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

#03-02SPR – NORDEN PLACE, LLC – NORDEN PLACE – PROPOSED GROUND SIGN AND WALL SIGN FOR NORDEN PARK INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PARK – REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION.

1. THAT LIGHTING FOR THE PROPOSED SIGNS BE SUBMITTED FOR FINAL REVIEW BY STAFF, AND
2. THAT ANY ADDITIONAL SIGNS BE SUBMITTED TO THE ZONING COMMISSION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE APPLICATION COMPLIES WITH THE NORWALK BUILDING ZONE REGULATIONS, INCLUDING SECTIONS 118-711 RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL ZONE AND 118-1451, SITE PLAN REVIEW.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACTION BE APRIL 26, 2002.

** MR. WHITE SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

#15-01sp/#31-01 CAM – NORWALK INN AND CONFERENCE CENTER – 93-99 EAST AVENUE – ADDITION OF 45 ROOMS – REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Mr. Lyons announced that he had a statement to make for the benefit of neighbors and members of the Historic District Alliance. He stated that the Zoning Commission was not an agency with the type of discretion that the Common Council had. He explained that the Common Council was the elected Legislative Body of the City and when it voted on an item it had the plenary discretion to vote for or against an item for any reason. He further explained that when the Zoning Commission acted in a legislative manner it had some discretion but when it was acting as an Administrative Body they were strongly constrained by State Statute and their own regulations. He stated that essentially they had to approve an application if it met regulations whether or not they personally wanted to see it move forward.

Mr. Lyons remarked that when people came to a Zoning Commission Hearing they wanted the Commission to do what was best for the community but the Commission did not have the authority to do that. He stressed that they had to look at the information and then they act based on the application’s compliance with the regulations.

Mr. Lyons informed the assembly that another area of constraint was when the application dealt with a nonconforming use. He explained that when the Zoning Board of Appeals allowed a variance the Zoning Commission was bound by that decision unless the court overturned it. He added that the same held true for an existing use and he gave an example of an application where an existing use had been granted a variance.

Mr. Lyons stated that when the Commission evaluated the parking for this project all they could legally review was if there was enough parking being added for the construction of this project. He added that they found that there was. He remarked that he felt the Commission bent over backwards in its evaluation of the application to ensure that everyone who had an issue had a chance (and in some cases 2-3 chances) to be heard.

Mr. Lyons said that the fact was that the Resolution Mr. Santo was moving was exactly what the Commission should be doing and he stressed that the information had not been rubber stamped. He mentioned the conditions of the approval that were attached to the Resolution and noted that the applicant had agreed to make it a condition that compliance with the Declaration signed in 1990 (the private covenant) would be in the hands of the Zoning Commission. He advised the assembly that the Commission would now have the authority to enforce all of the provisions in the private covenant. He stated that the Commission had done the best job it could with the legal constraints it were working under. He remarked that the staff had done an outstanding job and he pointed out that they had done a lot of work evaluating all the statements that people had made. He pointed out that the staff had investigated every charge that was made and if any of them proved true the staff addressed it. He commented that there were many signoffs and studies that validated that the project met all the required codes. He explained that the Commission had asked for a close review of this project from the Fire Marshall, who reviewed and approved the project as being in compliance with the State Fire Code.

Mr. Lyons stated that there were historic issues beyond zoning requirements and the Commission had requested an opinion from Corporation Counsel. He went on to state that Corporation Counsel had determined that under regulations and statutes the Zoning Commission did not have the legal authority to evaluate historic factors or regulate the demolition of a historic structure. He noted that the State Historical Commission had that authority and they would act on the application for the demolition of the building. He pointed out that if they refused to allow the demolition of the building the owner was back to square one but if they approved it the owner could proceed.

Mr. Lyons commented that in his own research of this issue he found that the Zoning Commission did not have any authority to regulate a historic structure or its demolition however there were a couple of State Environmental Statutes that allowed the Commission to deal with the historic factor. He explained that the property was within the CAM Zone and under CAM Statutes the impact on historic resources had to be considered. He further explained that the Commission had the power for enacting mitigation measures and could require a substantial redesign of the building under the CAM Statute. He informed the assembly that another statute could have been used to the advantage of the people but was not utilized in this case. He explained that there was a statute that allowed any person who felt that a historic structure of the State was being endangered to file an intervention. He further explained that evidence would have to be presented that there were alternates to the demolition and then the Zoning Commission could become involved. He added that no such evidence had been submitted in this case and the information in the record was that the house was a historic structure and the Commission would not have the grounds to proceed against the application on that basis alone.

Mr. Lyons closed by stating that based on the evidence in front of the Commission the application was in compliance and the Commission had taken mitigating steps in this case. He added that no evidence required under State Statute had been received by the Commission to permit their intervention for historical reasons. He commented that there was a myriad of conditions attached to the Resolution and with them the application fully complied with the Commission’s obligation under the law.

Mr. Santo commented that in his 10 years on the Commission this was the first case where the Commission had been asked to act on behalf of historic reasons. He stressed that the Commission had gone out of its way to act on it. He cited one other case where historical intervention had been requested of the Commission and mentioned that no one from the community had gotten involved. He commended the people who presented to the Commission and added that they had done an excellent job.

Mr. Santo remarked that people come to the Commission and expect them to act as if they were a political body but the Commission was not a political body. He noted that even if the Commissioners objected to a project they could not react that way. He stated that when a person came in with an application the staff could not say that they didn’t like it. He went on to state that once an application was received and the process went through there was an obligation to process the application.

Mr. Santo said that the Commission had to act in a very ethical way so if there were anyone in the assembly that acted on the State Board they would have to recuse themselves from this item. He stressed that none of the Commissioners went into caucus on an item; they did not trade votes or meet in a political manner. He noted that if 4 or more Commissioners should meet that would constitute a quorum and would be considered a public meeting.

Mr. Santo closed by advising the assembly that the time for any opposition was at the time of the variance. He explained that once the variance was granted it was too late. He noted that they could only wait and see what happened when this application went to the State. He offered his congratulations to the applicant and remarked that he felt the application should be approved.

Mr. DesRochers thanked the Members for the hard work they put into this application. He remarked that the work the historical groups and neighbors had done was excellent. He commented that he appreciated all of the work Mr. Lyons had done on this case and the research he conducted in order to try to determine a way how the Commission’s approval or denial of this application would reflect State Law and Zoning Regulations in order to give a proper rendering.

Mr. Hempstead thanked the staff and complimented the groups that had presented. He encouraged the groups to stay focused and active on projects of this nature. He relayed how the hotel had been an extreme liability to the City and he commended the owners for doing such a terrific job in bringing it back to being a respectable establishment.

Mr. Hempstead pointed out that the owners had not balked about the conditions to the application and he added that the Commission appreciated the landscaping they had done. He expressed his disappointment that there hadn’t been a stronger effort to preserve at least a part of the structure in front of the hotel. He added that it would have helped to preserve some of the character in the neighborhood and mend some fences. He also said that he felt the owners could have made it smaller out front.

Mr. Hempstead asked his fellow Commissioners to be diligent in zoning violations and he noted that some of the violations of the Inn had not been satisfied. He pointed out that if this applicant had to make any particular changes they would have to return to the Commission. He noted that the plan the Commission was approving tonight was the site plan and unfortunately even though he was disappointed in the plan he was bound to vote in favor of an application that met the regulations because that was what he was charged to do.

1. THAT A SURETY, (IN AN AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY STAFF), BE SUBMITTED TO GUARANTEE THE INSTALLATION OF REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS; AND
2. THAT THE REQUIRED CERTIFICATE OF SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN BE FILED ON THE NORWALK LAND RECORDS; AND
3. THAT ANY GRAFFITI ON THE SITE, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE, BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED;
4. THAT AS OFFERED AT THE HEARING BY THE APPLICANTS, THAT THEY SHALL COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF A DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT DATED SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 AND RECORDED IN VOLUME 2518, PAGE 70 OF THE NORWALK LAND RECORDS WITHIN A SIX MONTH TIME PERIOD OF THIS APPROVAL; AND A SEPARATE SURETY (IN AN AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY STAFF) BE SUBMITTED TO GUARANTEE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT; AND
5. THAT ALL REQUIRED CODE ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE (CEAC) SIGNOFFS BE SUBMITTED; AND
6. THAT ALL LIGHTING BE SHIELDED TO PREVENT LIGHTING FROM SPILLING OVER TO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES; AND
7. THAT NO NEW OUTDOOR STORAGE OF ANY KIND BE ALLOWED (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED STORAGE CONTAINER EXISTING AT THE NE CORNER OF THE BUILDING); AND
8. THAT NO ROOF TOP HVAC UNITS ON THE NEW ADDITION ARE ALLOWED; AND
9. THAT THE PARKING LOT BE MODIFIED TO PROVIDE VEHICULAR CIRCULATION AS SHOWN ON PLAN ENTITLED: "REVISED PARKING PLAN AS MODIFIED BY STAFF, DATED APRIL 11, 2002"; AND THAT AS A RESULT OF THIS MODIFICATION TO IMPROVE THE CIRCULATION ONE (1) PARKING SPACE IS LOST AND THEREFORE THE ROOM COUNT BE REDUCED BY ONE (1) IN ORDER TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS; AND
10. THAT THE BUILDING MATERIALS BE AS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, (DRAWING A-4, ADA ARCHITECTS, REVISED DATE TO 01-10-02), SPECIFICALLY A RED BRICK VENEER, WOOD CLAPBOARDS, ARCHITECTURAL GRADE ASPHALT ROOFING SHINGLES, ALONG WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT WINDOW GRILL DIVIDERS BE ADDED TO THE PLAN; AND
11. THAT THE LANDSCAPING BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PLAN ENTITLED "LANDSCAPING PLAN AS MODIFIED BY STAFF, DATED APRIL 11, 2002"; AND

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THERE ARE NO UNACCEPTABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON COASTAL RESOURCES; AND

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THIS PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE BUILDING ZONE REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY SECTION 118-1450 SPECIAL PERMITS, SECTION 118-500 RESTRICTED BUSINESS, AND APPLICABLE COASTAL RESOURCE AND USE POLICIES; AND

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE APRIL 26, 2002.

** MR. WHITE SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY ROLL CALL VOTE.

WAL*MART (FORMER BRADLEES) – CONNECTICUT AVENUE/RICHARDS AVENUE – REUSE OF BUILDING FOR RETAIL – REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

** MR. SANTO MOVED APPROVAL THAT IT BE RESOLVED THAT THE PROPOSAL TO REOCCUPY #680 CONNECTICUT AVENUE BY WAL*MART, 88,299 SQ. FT. OF RETAIL SALES SPACE, (WHICH INCLUDES A NEW 3,967 OF OUTDOOR GARDEN CENTER), AS SHOWN ON PLANS BY BOHLER ENGINEERING, PC, MELVILLE, NY, DATED 09-24-01, REVISED APRIL 1, 2002 AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS BY PBA ARCHITECTS, ROGERS, ARKANSAS, DATED 02-14-02 BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

1. THAT ALL REQUIRED EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROLS ARE IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE SITE; AND
2. THAT ANY GRAFFITI ON THE SITE BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY; AND
3. THAT THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS APPROVAL AND FAILURE TO RECEIVE THE REQUIRED PERMITS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AS SHOWN MAKE THIS APPROVAL NULL AND VOID; AND
4. ALL REQUIRED CEAC SIGNOFFS ARE SUBMITTED; AND
5. THAT A SURETY (IN AN AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY STAFF), BE SUBMITTED TO GUARANTEE THE INSTALLATION OF THE REQUIRED SITE IMPROVEMENTS, CONSISTING OF LANDSCAPING, PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS, ETC.; AND
6. THAT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN BE REVISED TO THAT ENTITLED "LANDSCAPING PLAN AS REVISED BY STAFF, DATED MARCH 14, 2002"; AND
7. THAT NO OUTDOOR STORAGE IS ALLOWED ON THE SITE, TO INCLUDE ANY RETAIL GOODS, DONATION CONTAINERS, VEHICLES FOR SALE. OR OVERNIGHT TRUCK PARKING; AND
8. THAT ANY PROPOSED SIGNAGE BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE ZONING OFFICER; AND
9. THAT ANY CHANGE TO THE PROPOSED PLANS REQUIRE COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL; AND

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE APRIL 26, 2002.

Mr. White stated that he was concerned about the windows and he noted that they had been tagged a while ago. He also commented on the status of the removal of the poles. The applicant’s representative stated that they had been told a long time ago that they would be moved. Mr. White remarked that it was a long time. Mr. Hempstead suggested that the applicant request that they be removed once more and advise the owner that if they were not removed in 2 hours they would be hauled away. The representative stated that they were not certain who owned all of them and Mr. Wrinn advised that nonetheless they were on the applicant’s property. Mr. Wrinn also advised that the applicant be told that they have 2 weeks to remove them or they could not get the permit.

** MR. WHITE SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

DEP/AC – Connecticut DOT – I-95 General Permit for Median Reconstruction and Resurfacing and Related Drainage – Report and Recommendation

THAT WE HAVE NO COMMENTS.

** MR. WHITE SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

MARCH 20, 2002

** MR. WHITE SECONDED.

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

COMMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

Mr. Wrinn stated that there would be a Planning Review meeting next Thursday. He noted that there were some new items to be discussed at the meeting and the documents were in the Commissioner’s packets.

COMMENTS OF THE COMMISSIONERS

Mr. DesRochers thanked Mr. Lyons and Mr. Wrinn for all the work they had done on the Norwalk Inn and Conference Center case.

ADJOURNMENT

** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE.

The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

FUTURE MEETINGS

Plan Review Committee: Thursday, April 25, 2002 – 7:30 p.m.

Zoning Committee: Thursday, April 25, 2002 – 8:00 p.m.

Plan Review Committee: Thursday, May 9, 2002 – 7:30 p.m.

Zoning Committee: Thursday, May 9, 2002 – 8:00 p.m.

Zoning Commission: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 – 7:30 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Ann Marie DeLuca

Telesco Secretarial Services

Back to Previous Page	Back to Home Page