 |  |  |
| | |
| ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES |
CITY OF NORWALK
ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2008
As revised to July 30, 2008
Ms. Lightfield called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Mr. Greene took the roll call.
PRESENT: Jackie Lightfield, Chair; Larry Bentley; Karen Spencer; Andrea Light; John Tobin; James White
STAFF: Mike Greene, P&Z Director; Dori Wilson, Senior Planner
OTHERS: Andy Glazer; Bruce Beinfield; Robert Griffith; Fleming Heilman; Julie Burton; Azure Dee Sleicher; Brandon Jones; Atty. Jane Freeman; Henry Luciano; Tom Rider; Ken Olson; Peter Olson; Jan Goldfluss; Bill Crosskey; Henry Ditman; Susan Kisken; Lee Lazarus; Urban Mulvehill; Andrew Kydes; Atty. Robert Fuller; Pat Harris; Dean Martin; Lisa Sadler; Bob Ready; Nancy Heath; Attorney John Milici; Lynelle Jones; John Keefe; Marianne McNulty; Atty. Frank Zullo; Doug Bora, Jr.
Ms. Lightfield went over the ground rules of a public hearing.
Ms. Lightfield opened the public hearing. Ms. Light read the legal notice. The Commission agreed to consider items a) and b) together. Ms. Light read a referral from Marcy Balint stating that Coastal Management did not support the proposal.
Mr. Andy Glazer discussed the details of the proposal and showed a rendering of the proposed site. He explained that his design was inspired by the oyster house that was once on the site. He said that the project was unique in that it provided public access to the water while circumventing the building. Mr. Glazer discussed the various features of the project, such as the creation of landscaping on an area where cranes and other equipment are currently being stored, as well as plans to fix up and maintain a town dock. He addressed Coastal Area Management’s concerns with regard to public access at the site. Mr. Glazer called the project an example of “good development.”
Mr. Bruce Beinfield showed the site plan and discussed the underground parking. He emphasized that the proposal seeks to put landscaping where there is currently asphalt. He addressed the concern of neighbors with regard to their views from the existing buildings, explaining that the project would provide new view potential by removing tall trees that obscure the view currently. Mr. Beinfield also discussed the zoning requirement with regard to how stories are measured; he explained that the applicant does not want the underground parking level to be considered a story. He discussed the application’s compliance with zoning requirements. Ms. Lightfield asked what the total height of the proposed building was. Mr. Beinfield said that it was 34 feet to the midpoint of the roof, virtually the same as the existing structure.
Mr. Robert Griffith, 19 Crooked Trail, expressed support for the proposal.
Mr. David Smarlin, a local resident, stated his support for the proposal.
Mr. Fleming Heilman, Rowayton Avenue, also supported the proposal.
Ms. Julie Burton, 14 Sunwich Road, expressed concern about the requirement of a public hearing. Mr. Greene addressed her concerns.
This item was considered together with item III a.
Ms. Lightfield opened the public hearing. Ms. Azure Dee Sleicher, acting as an agent for the applicant, discussed the structure, disputing that this was a “sea wall.” The Commission asked Ms. Sleicher to explain details about the age of the wall. Ms. Lightfield asked if the applicant had provided any proof about the threat of erosion at the site. Ms. Sleicher discussed erosion as a threat, albeit not an imminent one. Mr. Greene said that the staff did not think there was an imminent threat from erosion and also that staff disputed the age of the wall.
Mr. Brandon Jones, a landscape designer and contractor, stated that the main intention of the application was to create a retaining wall that was consistent with area properties. Mr. White asked the applicant why she had not just waited and reapplied, as staff had recommended. Ms. Lightfield stated that the Commission was receiving conflicting information about erosion, which was a significant concern since the property was in a flood zone.
There was a discussion about the letter received by staff on July 16, 2008 from Marcy Balint of Coastal Area Management. Ms. Sleicher said that she had not seen the letter.
Ms. Lightfield closed the public hearing.
Ms. Lightfield opened the public hearing. Atty. Jane Freeman, representing the applicant, passed out a binder of exhibits. She said that the repair of the wall had been done without a CAM permit, because the homeowner had relied on the advice of the contractor. Atty. Freeman said that when the homeowner realized that she needed the CAM permit, she sought one immediately. Atty. Freeman discussed a letter from Roberge engineering, as well as issues regarding jurisdiction. She referred to Marcy Balint’s letter from Coastal Area Management as an “off-the-shelf,” letter, stating that she believed that Ms. Balint had not visited the site.
Atty. Freeman introduced Mr. Henry Luciano, a mason and contractor. She asked him about zoning permits and the conditions of the wall at the site. Mr. Luciano said that the property essentially ended up with a smaller wall, after his work.
Atty. Freeman introduced Mr. Tom Rider of Landtech Consultants and asked him to evaluate the impact of the project on coastal resources. There was a discussion of circulation conditions of the waterway.
Atty. Freeman presented a video interview between Mr. John Roberge and herself, held at the property on June 26, 2008 (Mr. Roberge was abroad at the time of the public hearing). The video interview contained a discussion of the background of the application and the conditions of the site. It also contained a discussion of whether or not this was a pre-CAM wall.
Ms. Lightfield closed the public hearing.
Ms. Lightfield opened the public hearing. The Commission agreed to consider this item together with item III f. Ms. Light read a referral from the Planning Commission supporting the proposal. She also read a referral from Marcy Balint of the State of CT CAM office indicating that the proposed amendments were consistent with the CCMA.
Atty. Peter Olson, representing POKO, presented a 3-D model of the site and explained that this application involved Phase 1 of the proposal.
Mr. Ken Olson discussed the redevelopment plan as a way to re-create a downtown and generate commerce in the area. He described the proximity to the train station and the pedestrian-friendly nature of the development, as well as the applicant’s plans to use environmentally conscious technology.
Mr. Jan Goldfluss discussed the nature of the site, explaining that the applicant wanted to break it up into manageable urban blocks. He discussed vehicular and pedestrian circulation, as well as the aesthetics and safety of the site. He explained that the proposed on-street parking encourages a feeling of safety.
Mr. Bill Crosskey presented a ground floor plan and discussed the size of the units, as well as parking. He described how the architectural techniques and building materials allow the development to easily blend in with the surrounding area. Ms. Lightfield asked about an item on the site plan, which contained a discrepancy with regard to window treatments. She also asked about the size of the parking sign. Mr. Ken Olson discussed signage for the parking area noting that the proposed ground sign was located in the public ROW.
Mr. Henry Ditman, a traffic consultant with Barkan & Mess, described the site as a low traffic volume generator. He discussed the pedestrian-friendly atmosphere of the development, as well as plans for angle parking. Ms. Lightfield asked if angle parking had been discussed with the Norwalk Traffic Authority. Mr. Ditman said that it had not yet been discussed. There was a discussion of the traffic count and the level of service in the area. Ms. Lightfield asked about the impact of the removal of the Leonard Street lot. Mr. Ken Olson confirmed that he had discussed the traffic impact with the theatre owner on the adjacent property. He also said that the applicant had made plans to inform the public of parking changes at the site.
Mr. Tobin asked if any additional traffic was anticipated with the new commercial space. Mr. Ditman said that the proposal would involve a mix of daytime and nighttime use, as well as some walk-in traffic. He said that the expected increase of 15 to 20 trips per day would not be a significant change. He also said that the applicant expected the shopping at the site to be primarily neighborhood-oriented. Mr. Tobin asked why there was a proposal for on-street angle parking. Mr. Ditman said it was because growth was anticipated in the area. There was a discussion of a signoff regarding angle parking.
Ms. Susan Kisken discussed civil engineering issues at the site, stating that drainage would be improved and that there was no environmental impact on coastal resources.
Mr. Ken Olson described the automated parking facility, emphasizing that Westphalia is located in Pennsylvania, facilitating any necessary maintenance or mechanical assistance. He described the safety advantages to cars and drivers and discussed the “pay-on-foot” system.
Atty. Peter Olson discussed the Affordability Plan, explaining that the application vastly exceeds the minimum requirement of 10% workforce housing. He also discussed the text amendments to define automated parking and its standards, as well as amendments regarding changeable copy wall signs.
Mr. White asked what parking provisions are in place for when the old Norwalk Theatre comes back into place. Mr. Greene said that the theatre owners are not grandfathered into the minimum parking spaces. Atty. Peter Olson said that the easement itself made no reference to parking spaces for anybody. Mr. Greene said that he would ask Corporation Counsel to confirm the details.
There was a brief discussion of the demolition notice regarding the site.
Mr. Urban Mulvehill expressed concern about the automated parking facility, particularly with regard to cost and maintenance.
Mr. Andrew Kydes opposed the automated parking aspect of the proposal and submitted a petition in opposition to the applications.
Mr. Ken Olson answered questions from the Commission about the plans for cost and maintenance of the automated parking facility.
Ms. Lightfield closed the public hearing.
At this time, Ms. Lightfield announced that the Planning Commission had approved the resolution for #3-08R from public hearing III a. Ms Light read the resolution into the record. Ms. Lightfield closed public hearing III a.
This item was considered together with item III e.
Ms. Lightfield opened the public hearing. Atty. Robert Fuller explained that the proposal seeks to expand the building footprint and that a septic tank only—not a whole system—would be moved. He said that the operations of the club are covered under a current permit and that the club had agreed to cap membership at its current level. He described the proposed addition as minor and said that traffic at the site is minimal and would not impact wetlands or watercourses.
Mr. Pat Harris, the Commodore of the Norwalk Yacht Club, said that although this was a new application, it is very similar to the one submitted in 2005. He said that the club members wished to maintain the size and simplicity of the club. He added that the club has ample parking. He described the scope of the Junior Sailing Program, indicating that it involves 130 junior sailors.
Mr. Dean Martin, an engineer, discussed the septic system design and drainage at the site.
Ms. Lisa Sadler, an architect, discussed the change of dormers and the handicap ramp. She showed the floor plan, indicating additional office space, restroom improvements and handicap access, as well as the apartment and bookkeeping area upstairs.
Mr. Bob Ready, of the Wilson Point Property Owners Association, said that he was now in full support of the proposal, explaining that his initial objection was only that the club was not holding to its commitment to limit its membership.
Mr. Arthur Port-Draper, 9 Nathan Hale Drive, supported the application.
Ms. Nancy Heath, 11 Nathan Hale Drive, supported the application, calling the club an asset to the area.
Attorney John Milici, representing John Barker, opposed the application, disputing the claim that the impact would be minimal. He expressed concern with the number of non-member events planned at the site. He discussed surge parking and dangerous road conditions, as well as what he called an inadequate septic system at the site.
Ms. Lynelle Jones, 10 Point Road, opposed the application. She said that the applicant had ignored a Cease and Desist order and had cancelled one earlier public hearing. She stated that the club was continuing to expand and needed to be held to AAA residential standards. She also cited a controversy regarding a spill of “toxic paint chips” into the water at the site.
Mr. John Keefe, 16 Point Road, supported the application. He refuted Ms. Jones’ claim that the club was a bastion of privilege and described the maintenance activities of the club as environmentally pure. He also emphasized that the club is using EPA-approved paints.
Mr. Harris also disputed allegations about the paint chips spill, emphasizing that the incident was resolved without any violations. He also addressed concerns about the Cease and Desist order and surge parking concerns at the club. There was a discussion of how many cars use the lot at the club.
Mr. Martin rebutted concerns about the adequacy of the septic system.
Atty. Fuller stated that the application involves only very minor changes and that the septic system conforms to the public health code. He also said that there was no evidence of traffic congestion in the area.
There was a discussion of the maximum number of individuals associated with membership at the club.
Ms. Lightfield closed the public hearing.
Ms. Lightfield opened the public hearing. Ms. Light read two referrals, one from Marcy Balint of the State CAM office, expressing support for the proposal and one from the Planning Commission, opposing the proposed amendments. Mr. Greene said that the Planning Commission could not find a compelling reason to eliminate the current regulations.
Ms. Marianne McNulty opposed the application, saying that the current limitations on the number of stores help small business owners.
Atty. Frank Zullo expressed support for the proposal, stating that the current regulation is in restraint of trade.
Mr. Doug Bora Jr. opposed the proposal, saying that there is common sense behind the current regulation.
Ms. Lightfield closed the public hearing.
c) #13-08CAM—Watkins—5 Plant Court
** MR. WHITE MOVED: RESOLVED that application #13-08 CAM, construction of an erosion control structure for single family residence for the property 5 Plant Court, as shown on the plan entitled, “Plot Plan of Property Prepared For Christine W. Watkins, Norwalk, Connecticut”, Scale 1”=10’, Dated: December 12, 2005, and certified substantially correct by Wayne Arcamone, CT Land Surveyor License #15773, and as shown in site plan and noted in reports by Ocean and Coastal Consultants, Inc, Trumbull, CT, BE DENIED subject to the following conditions:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this proposal does not comply with all applicable coastal resource and use policies.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the effective date of this denial shall be July 25, 2008.
** MS. SPENCER SECONDED.
** MOTION TO DENY WAS APPROVED 4 IN FAVOR, 2 OPPOSED.
d) #4-08CAM—Cosell—25 McKinley St
** MR. WHITE MOVED: RESOLVED that application #4-08 CAM, construction of an erosion control structure for single-family residence for the property 25 McKinley Street, as shown on the plan entitled, “Location and Topographic Survey prepared for Ms. Hilary Cosell, Norwalk, Connecticut”, Scale 1”=10’, Dated: January 14, 2008, and certified substantially correct by Vinton A. Peterkin, CT Land Surveyor License #70021, and as shown in reports by Land Tech Consultants, Inc. and Roberge Associates, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this proposal complies with all applicable coastal resource and use policies.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the effective date of this approval shall be July 25, 2008.
** MS. LIGHT SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
g) #6-08SP/15-08CAM—Norwalk Yacht Club
The Commission agreed to send the item back to Committee for further review.
** MR. WHITE MOVED: RESOLVED that Coastal Area Management application #9-04, submitted by Friedman, for the construction of a single family dwelling at 9 Shorehaven Road, as shown on various plans by J.A. Jamieson, Architects, Weston, CT be granted a one-year extension of the approval time; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the new deadline is August 27, 2009.
** MR. BENTLEY SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
** MR. WHITE MOVED: RESOLVED that application #7-08SPR/8-08 CAM, submitted by 333 Wilson Avenue, LLC for a 45,000 sq. ft. one-story high bay warehouse with associated retail and office space at 355 Wilson Avenue, as shown on various plans by Waldo and Associates, LLC, Guilford, CT, Engineers and Planners and Borghesi Building and Engineering Co., Inc, Torrington, CT be approved with the following conditions:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposal complies with the applicable coastal resource and use policies; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the effective date of this approval shall be July 25, 2008.
** MS. LIGHT SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
** MR. WHITE MOVED: RESOLVED that the proposed modifications to application #10-02 SPR/ #38-02 CAM, AvalonBay Communities, for a mixed use development on 24 Belden Avenue as outlined in a letter request dated May 21, 2008 from Attorney David F. Waters, be approved, with the following conditions:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the modifications to the approved plan comply with the applicable Coastal resource and use policies; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the effective date of these approvals shall be July 25, 2008.
** MR. BENTLEY SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
MR. WHITE MOVED: RESOLVED that the staff be directed to contact the Connecticut DEP and Army Corp if Engineers with the following comments regarding #200203996-KZ—Calf Pasture Island—Permit to reduce the size of the existing floating dock and install three (3) new timber piles:
That the Commission supports water-dependent uses, such as the construction and reconstruction of docks and piles in tidal, coastal, or navigable waters of the state.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, whenever possible, docks should be shared by tow or more owners in an effort to protect coastal resources; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the construction of these docks be mindful of other users in tidal waters, such as kayakers; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this proposal is consistent with coastal resource and use policies.
** MR. BENTLEY SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
** MS. LIGHTFIELD MOVED: RESOLVED that the proposed amendment to the Building Zone Regulations as shown on a certain document entitled "#3-08R - Glazer Construction - Proposed amendment to Section 118-530 Rowayton Avenue Village District to amend public access requirements, FAR and number of stories" and dated June 12, 2008, be approved;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reason for this action is:
1) To implement the Plan of Conservation & Development goal to "Maintain & expand Village Districts to preserve the character of the districts, to improve the design of buildings and their relationship to the streetscape, and to protect resources of historical and architectural significance..." (F.4.1.5 p. 43); and
2) To implement the Plan of Conservation & Development goal to "Encourage public walkways as part of developments along the Norwalk and Five Mile Rivers and their harbors, consistent with Connecticut Coastal Management Act water-dependent use criteria" (C.1.1.1, p. 24); and
3) To encourage new development that maintains the unique character of the Rowayton Avenue Village District; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the effective date of this action be July 25, 2008.
** MR. WHITE SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
** MS. LIGHTFIELD MOVED: RESOLVED that Coastal Site Plan #11-08CAM; Glazer Construction - 65 Rowayton Avenue - Proposed 4 unit multifamily development with public access as on a set of plans entitled "65 Rowayton Avenue Rowayton, CT." by Beinfield Architecture, PC, Environmental Land Solutions, and Grumman Engineering Associates and dated April 15, 2008 as revised to July 1, 2008 be approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the revised site landscape plan dated July 1, 2008, showing a fifteen foot public accessway along the entire waterfront, including Unit 2 portion, be made a part of this approval; and
2. That a fee for the encroachment in the public access easement and the work described in a document entitled "Description of work to be done on Town Dock Park" (Community Beach) dated July 8, 2008 be made a part of this approval and such fee be submitted prior to the start of any construction or site work; and
3. That an easement be filed on the Norwalk Land Records to permanently protect the twenty-five (25) foot view corridor located on the south side of the property and that such easement be made a part of this approval; and
4. That a revised soil and erosion control plan, showing silt sacks at all existing and proposed catch basins, designating a stockpile area and providing a schedule for construction, be submitted for staff review and approval prior to the start of any construction or site work; and
5. That notice of this action in the form of a Village District certificate be filed on the Norwalk Land Records; and
6. That a licensed Connecticut engineer certify that the development as constructed complies with all relevant Federal flood regulations, and that such certification be submitted prior to the issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance; and
7. That any graffiti on the site, now or in the future, be immediately removed; and
8. That any modifications to the approved plans be submitted to the Zoning Commission for review and that all CEAC signoffs be submitted prior to the start of construction; and
9. That a surety (in an amount to be determined by staff) be submitted to guarantee the installation of required improvements and that a Connecticut licensed engineer certify that the required improvements were installed to City standards; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reason for this action is that this application complies with the Connecticut General Statutes Section 8-2j Village Districts and with applicable coastal resource and use policies; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this application complies Section 118-530 Rowayton Avenue Village District and with the applicable sections of the Building Zone Regulations for the City of Norwalk, as amended.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the effective date of this action be July 25, 2008.
** MR. WHITE SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The Commission agreed to send the item back to Committee for further review.
The Commission agreed to send the item back to Committee for further review.
** MS. LIGHT MOVED: RESOLVED that the proposed amendment to the Building Zone Regulations as shown on a certain document entitled "#5-08R - Zoning Commission - Proposed amendments to Article 100 regarding distance between package stores and related technical amendments" and dated June 12, 2008, be approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this action are:
1) To implement the Plan of Conservation and Development goal to "Encourage subsequent retail and service sector growth along Routes 1 and 7 where the infrastructure system can adequately support development ..." (A.4.1.2 p. 13); and
2) To update the zoning regulations as they pertain to the location of package liquor stores; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the effective date of this action be July 25, 2008.
** MR. WHITE SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
** MS. LIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM MAY 21, 2008 AS PRESENTED.
** MR. WHITE SECONDED.
** MR. BENTLEY ABSTAINED.
** MOTION PASSED.
** MS. LIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM MAY 29, 2008 AS PRESENTED.
** MR. BENTLEY SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
** MR. BENTLEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM JUNE 18, 2008 AS PRESENTED.
** MR. WHITE SECONDED.
** MS. LIGHT ABSTAINED.
** MOTION PASSED.
There were none tonight.
There were none tonight.
** MS. LIGHT MOVED TO ADJOURN.
** MR. WHITE SECONDED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:57 am.
Respectfully submitted by Charlene Smith
 |
 |