Planning Commission

g CITY OF DANBURY 155 DEER HILL AVENUE DANBURY, CONNECTICUT 06810 PLANNING COMMISSION (203) 797-4525 www.danbury-ct.gov (203) 797-4586 (FAX) MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2021 The web based meeting hosted on Zoom was called to order by Chairman Arnold Finaldi at 7:30 PM. Present were Robert Chiocchio, Helen Hoffstaetter, Perry Salvagne, Joel Urice, and Arnold Finaldi Jr. Also present were Deputy Planning Director Jennifer Emminger and Planning Director Sharon Calitro. Absent were Alternates Kevin Haas and Gary Renz. Mrs. Hoffstaetter made a motion to accept the February 3, 2021 minutes. Mr. Salvagne seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously by voice vote with five ayes. Chairman Finaldi said he felt a voice vote is adequate for the acceptance of the minutes, but all other votes would be taken by roll call. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: JAR Associates LLC/D & B Wellness LLC – Application for Special Exception/Revised Site Plan Approval for a Medical Marijuana Dispensing Facility in the CA-80 Zone – 105 Mill Plain Road (C14063) – SE #779. Attorney Neil Marcus said they have addressed all of the outstanding comments and asked Stephen Hambrecht to describe the revisions made to the site plan. Mr. Hambrecht said the revised site plan does not include the church-owned property at the rear of the site. He added that they removed the curbing and the canopy where the former drive-thru window was located. He said the sixteen parking spaces (15 regular plus 1 h/c) are identified and they relocated the trash and labeled the loading zone. Mr. Urice questioned if there is adequate space for garbage pick-up and Mr. Hambrecht said there is enough space around the dumpster so the garbage truck can back into the area. Attorney Marcus said they have not yet spoken to Oak Ridge (the trash company they will be using) but he knows they have various size vehicles and they always use the appropriately sized vehicle for the situation. Mr. Urice also asked if there is any reliance on the previous approvals this site has received. Mrs. Emminger said the site plan complies with the Regulations. Mr. Urice Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2021 Virtual Meeting Hosted on Zoom Page 2 questioned if the location of the handicapped access into the building had been approved. Mrs. Emminger said Building Inspector David Newland did the review for the handicapped parking and building entrance. Once they apply for a building permit then the building interior would be reviewed for compliance. Attorney Marcus said Civil Engineer Ralph Gallagher had submitted his response to the Engineering Department and gotten approval from them. Attorney Marcus said regarding the rear church owned site, the church is due to approve the sale of the site tomorrow. He added that until the sale is complete, the applicant has contracted to provide off-site parking for their employees. Mr. Urice said as long as the site plan complies with the Regulations, it is up to the applicant as to whether they provide additional parking for the employees. The property owner, Tony Rizzo Jr., then said they thought they bought the church property over forty years ago. He said they maintained it and the cemetery for years, and when he finally tracked down a representative of the church, they did not know they still owned the property. Mr. Rizzo said once the church board of directors approves the purchase of the small piece of the property, an easement will be granted to allow them to access the cemetery. Attorney Marcus said once the purchase of the property is completed, they will submit a revised site plan which will include the use of the rear site for additional parking. Mrs. Emminger then asked Attorney Marcus to address the City Traffic Engineer's (Abdul Mohammed) comments. Attorney Marcus said Mr. Mohammed had requested some off- site improvements which they do not feel are their responsibility. He cited some case law that says a municipality cannot require off-site improvements. He also said that if someone wants to cross the street on foot to access their site, there is an existing traffic signal with a walk light. Chairman Finaldi asked if there was anyone to speak in opposition to this application and there was no one. Mrs. Emminger then said she had reviewed the revised plans and all of the City departments final comments have been received, so they can close the public hearing. Mr. Urice made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Salvagne seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously by roll call vote with ayes from Mr. Chiocchio, Mrs. Hoffstaetter, Mr. Salvagne, Mr. Urice and Chairman Finaldi. Mr. Urice made a motion to move this item to Old Business so they can give Mrs. Emminger guidance to prepare a resolution. Mrs. Hoffstaetter seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously by roll call vote with ayes from Mr. Chiocchio, Mrs. Hoffstaetter, Mr. Salvagne, Mr. Urice and Chairman Finaldi. Newtown Road LLC/Maria & Manuel Andre, Manuel Neves Gouveia Marques, & Antonio Mendes Gouveia Marques – Application for Special Exception/Site Plan Approval for Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2021 Virtual Meeting Hosted on Zoom Page 3 Child Day Care Center in the CG-20/RA-8 Zone – 36 Newtown Road, 40 & 42 Newtown Road, Whitney Avenue (K13188, K13190 & K12255, & K12254) – SE 780. Chairman Finaldi said they had received a letter from Attorney Neill Marcus requesting that this hearing be continued and tabled for the maximum time allowable. Chairman Finaldi added that no testimony would be given based upon this request. Mr. Urice made a motion to continue the public hearing. Mr. Chiocchio seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously by roll call vote with ayes from Mr. Chiocchio, Mrs. Hoffstaetter, Mr. Salvagne, Mr. Urice and Chairman Finaldi. OLD BUSINESS FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: JAR Associates LLC/D & B Wellness LLC – Application for Special Exception/Revised Site Plan Approval for a Medical Marijuana Dispensing Facility in the CA-80 Zone – 105 Mill Plain Road (C14063) – SE #779. Chairman Finaldi asked the Commission members for comments on this application. Mr. Urice said this has become pretty straightforward at this point. He added that he is satisfied with the site plan as presented and thinks this should be approved with the usual terms and conditions. Mr. Salvagne said he agreed with Mr. Urice and thinks this should be approved. Mrs. Hoffstaetter said she also agreed that they have responded to the original objections and she agreed with Mr. Urice and Mr. Salvagne. Lastly Mr. Chiocchio and Chairman Finaldi said they also feel the issues have been addressed and they both recommend approval of this application. REFERRAL: 8-3a Referral - Petition of BRT Sconset LLC to Amend Section 4.A.6. of the Zoning Regulations. (Add Active Adult Cluster Development to the RA-20 & RA-40 Zones.) Zoning Commission public hearing scheduled for February 23, 2021. Planning Director Sharon Calitro reviewed her staff report dated February 11, 2021. She said the reason given by the petitioner for this amendment is misleading as it refers to this proposal as the "Active Adult Residential Floating Zone". This proposal is not for a floating zone, as it would amend cluster developments in the RA-20 & RA-40 zones to allow a density bonus for the proposed active adult development. This would be done by adding two and three-family dwellings to the list of permitted uses in a cluster development providing the units are age-restricted and 10% of the units are designated as affordable housing. She added that age-restricted developments do not require municipal approval, it is the density bonus that requires approval. She said the applicants interest in this petition was provided in the attached June 2020 staff report on their previous petition that was withdrawn. Although the petition would impact all RA-20& RA-40 zones throughout the Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2021 Virtual Meeting Hosted on Zoom Page 4 City, the applicant does own land on 113-115 Clapboard Ridge Road which was approved for a single-family cluster development. The applicant has indicated that if this amendment is approved, they would seek to apply the new regulations to this site. Also the applicant claims that this proposed floating zone is an example of smart growth and that multi-family projects are fiscally superior to single-family projects. The applicant also claims that “a study of towns and cities in the region indicates that almost every town or small city, other than Danbury, has a regulation which allows density bonuses for the construction of age restricted housing particularly in areas which had been traditional single-family housing zones.” They do not provide any back-up to this claim. Danbury's Zoning Regulations already provide for a multitude of housing options at varying densities and various price points for senior residents who wish to remain in the City. Higher density housing is already permitted in areas where existing infrastructure supports it, where the other principles of smart growth can also be met, and where there is no disruption of the zoning scheme. She added that the Commission might want to look at whether a density bonus for age-restricted housing outweighs the potential impact on the neighborhood character as well as the probable incompatibility of these multi-family units if they are permitted to be located in low density single-family neighborhoods. She then spoke about the specific language of the proposed amendments compared to the existing language in the regulations. The Plan of Conservation & Development (POCD) does provide that land use regulations should be periodically reviewed and amended to remain current with evolving development patterns and City needs. It is questionable, whether the proposed format is responsive to City needs and would be compatible with existing development patterns. She pointed out the sections of the POCD that need to be complied with and explained in detail why the petition is inconsistent with the POCD. In closing she said this petition may not be the appropriate strategy to provide for the proposed units and could disrupt the character of the single-family neighborhoods, which could result in unacceptable unintended consequences throughout the City. Mr. Urice said he appreciated this summary of the application and he feels this amendment would make all of the RA-20 & RA-40 zones into multi-family zones. He said we do not need this as we already have regulations that allow these kind of structures and he does not see any justification for this change. Lastly he said this petition does not do what it was intended to do and he cannot recommend approval. Mrs. Hoffstaetter then said she also wanted to thank Mrs. Calitro for the detailed analysis of this proposal. It seems there is some confusion around the proposed language and she also fears it could result in unintended consequences. She added that the POCD does not support this as the need is already being addressed in the existing zones. She also said this proposal seems premature as they are already in preparing to do a study of housing needs as part of the pending update to the POCD. Chairman Finaldi also thanked Mrs. Calitro for all of the hard work it took to produce this staff report.. He added that he agrees with Mr. Urice and Mrs. Hoffstaetter that this proposal is not compatible with the POCD. He added that they will be looking at housing throughout the City as part of the preparation for 2023 POCD update and the City is also required to Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2021 Virtual Meeting Hosted on Zoom Page 5 prepare an affordable housing plan so that is something they will be working on. He also said he is concerned about interjecting multi-family development into the RA-20 & RA-40 zones and the unintended consequences it could cause. Lastly he said smart growth is not just about density and there is no way to guarantee that Danbury senior citizens would take advantage of this if it were to be implemented. He asked if there were any other comments from the Commission members and there were none. Mr. Urice then made a motion to give this a negative recommendation for the following reasons: 1) This petition is inconsistent with many of the goals, policies, and recommendations of the Plan of Conservation & Development including, but not limited to: A) The growth management policy and recommendation to concentrate future medium and high-density residential development in the Urban Development Areas; B) The policy and recommendation to limit development in suburban areas to predominately low-density residential neighborhoods; C) The policy and recommendation for residential neighborhoods that states that Zoning Regulations should be amended where necessary to protect residential neighborhoods; and D) The policies and recommendations in terms of the Housing Plan favor expanding the supply of affordable housing, including the continuation of density bonuses in selected multi-family districts for affordable housing. 2) An amendment to the cluster regulations that introduces two and three-family dwellings is not the appropriate strategy to provide for age-restricted units and will result in unacceptable unintended consequences throughout the City’s established low-density single-family neighborhoods that will disrupt and fail to protect the character of the neighborhood. 3) Residential uses are already permitted in more than one-half of Danbury’s 21 zoning districts, including higher density housing in areas where existing infrastructure supports it, where the other principles of smart growth can be met, and where there is not a disruption of the zoning scheme. 4) The language of the proposed petition is not consistent with Danbury’s zoning scheme in terms of lot size, density, and site design standards, and the language detailing the construction of the affordable units is unacceptable. 5) The consideration of age-restricted units in specific locations with appropriate restrictions needs to be further studied within the framework of the 2023 Plan of Conservation and Development to best determine the needs of the City. Mrs. Hoffstaetter seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously by roll call vote with ayes from Mrs. Chiocchio, Mrs. Hoffstaetter, Mr. Salvagne, Mr. Urice and Chairman Finaldi. NEW BUSINESS: Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 2021 Virtual Meeting Hosted on Zoom Page 6 Real Time Capital Properties LLC – Application for Special Exception/Revised Site Plan for expansion of existing self-storage facility (“Safe & Sound Storage”) in the IL-40 Zone – 18 Great Pasture Rd. (L15008-009 & L16007) – SE #769. Public hearing date has not been set. Real Time Capital Properties LLC − Application for Revised Floodplain Permit for “Safe & Sound Storage”, 18 Great Pasture Rd. (L15008-009 & L16007) − SE #769. Nejame Plaza LLC – Application for Special Exception/Revised Site Plan Approval to permit Storage of Concrete Aggregates or Manufacture of Concrete & Concrete Products, Storage of Bituminous Product, Storage or Sale of Building Materials, & Storage of Construction Equipment (Nejame Pool Industrial Site) in the IG-80 Zone - 44 Payne Road (N12004) - SE #776. Public hearing date has not been set. Chairman Finaldi said these are both applications that were withdrawn to allow the applicant to address outstanding issues. He added that these would be on file in the Planning & Zoning office and the public hearing dates would be announced on the next agenda. Chairman Finaldi noted that there was nothing under Correspondence and one floodplain permit listed under For Reference Only. He asked if there was anything to discuss under Other Matters and there was nothing. At 8:51 PM, Mr. Chiocchio made a motion to adjourn. Mrs. Hoffstaetter seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously by voice vote with five ayes. Respectfully submitted JoAnne V. Read Planning Assistant