=====================================================
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM by Chairman Jack H. Knapp Jr.
Present were Theresa Buzaid, Christine Cuhsnick, Theodore Haddad Jr., Richard P. Jowdy, Jack Knapp Jr., Dr. Joseph Mooney, Lenny Silva Jr. and Alternates Donald Kennedy and Helen Hoffstaetter. Also present was Planning Director Dennis Elpern.
Absent were Kevin Hearty, Patrick Johnston and Alternate Jean Anderson.
Mr. Silva led the Commission in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Silva made a motion that the minutes of April 13, 2004, April 27, 2004 and May 11, 2004 be accepted and placed on file. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cuhsnick and passed unanimously.
Chairman Knapp asked Ms. Hoffstaetter to take Mr. Hearty’s place and Mr. Kennedy to take Mr. Johnston’s place for the items on tonight’s agenda.
===================================================
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7:30 PM - Petition of the City of Danbury by Dennis I. Elpern, Planning Director to Amend Sec. 10.B.1. of the Zoning Regulations (Exemptions from Zoning Permits).
Mr. Silva read the legal notice and Chairman Knapp read the Planning Commission recommendation, which was positive.
Planning Director Dennis Elpern spoke in favor of this petition. He said it has become very common during the summer for different groups to hold carnivals (lasting up to a week), an annual circus at the Mall (for an entire month) and live performance shows on the Danbury Green (several times during the week). Lately there have been some enforcement issues and questions have arisen as to how long they are allowed to go on and should we limit these activities if they are located in residential zones. In the past, we have addressed these issues without requiring zoning permits. They still have been required to get all other applicable permits (e.g.: food service, electrical) This new language puts time limits on activities in residential zones. “Long-running” events cannot be located in residential zones and if they are located within 500 ft. of residential neighborhoods, they have limited hours of operation. Chairman Knapp asked if this would limit the churches from having their fund raising events. Mr. Elpern said it would not. Mr. Jowdy asked about the various festivals that occur in parking lots. Mr. Elpern said this regulation covers that. Mrs. Cuhsnick suggested that most church carnivals are only one week. Mr. Elpern said the length of time has been increasing gradually and some are held for 9-12 days. There was no other discussion.
Chairman Knapp asked if there was anyone to speak in opposition to this petition and there was no one.
Mrs. Cuhsnick made a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Dr. Mooney and passed unanimously. Mrs. Cuhsnick then made a motion to move this petition to item number one under For Consideration and Possible Action. The motion was seconded by Mr. Silva and passed unanimously.
============================================
7:45 PM - Petition of the City of Danbury by Dennis I. Elpern, Planning Director to Amend Sec. 4.A.4.b. of the Zoning Regulations (Amend Use Regulations for Nursery, Kindergarten, Elementary or Secondary Schools).
Mr. Elpern spoke in favor of this petition. He said this specifically applies to schools in the single-family residential zones. It is currently prohibited so the abutting property owners won’t have to look at them, mostly for aesthetic reasons. Some properties have development constraints that make it difficult to design the parking in the rear. This addresses the front yard parking situation but requires a buffer to hide the parking, which still has to be outside of the front yard setback area. Mrs. Cuhsnick asked if this would force the plans for the Magnet School to change. Mr. Elpern said it would allow them to modify what had been approved. Ms. Hoffstaetter asked him to explain what is meant by the front yard setback area. Mr. Elpern explained that means that area between building and the street. He gave examples of schools that couldn’t meet the current regulations due to their parking being in the front setback: Danbury High School, Park Ave., King St., and Broadview. Chairman Knapp mentioned that this is not a site specific application. Mrs. Cuhsnick asked if this would affect any of the plans that are being done for various pending school renovations. Mr. Elpern said to clarify this: all this means is that if you put in parking between the building and the street, it has to be screened. Mr. Haddad asked if this applies only to the RA zones. Mr. Elpern said this petition only affects the RA zones, but all of the other zones already had a provision for screening.
Chairman Knapp asked if there was anyone to speak in opposition to this petition and one person came forward.
Attorney Marnie Rubin, Cohen & Wolf PC, said she again represents Brian Lynch and other neighbors who are opposed to the magnet school. This amendment will have a direct effect on these people. This will allow a parking lot to be placed between the school and the road. She said this amendment is specifically tailored for this situation. It is just one more attempt by the City to do what they have to in order to get this school built. ZBA had granted variance for this exact situation and the court overruled it since there was no hardship. Next the City petitioned to have that property exempted from local Zoning Regulations. This is not a proper use of the process. If the City wants to build the school, they should do so in accordance with Regulations or not at all. It is inappropriate to specifically fine-tune the regulations in order to get this one school built. She distributed copies of an 8-24 referral from Planning Commission regarding the sale of Roberts Avenue School. She said this would have a detrimental affect on the neighborhood. Chairman Knapp reminded the Commission again that this is not a site specific application. Attorney Rubin cited other regulations that prohibit parking in the front yard and suggested they challenge the applicant as to why a school should be different from the other uses. This is a tailored and pre-meditated amendment and not good for the entire City. The screening requirement is a heavy burden especially for a school to adhere to. She said this will not force changes to the magnet school site plan, it specifically is for the magnet school site plan. Mrs. Cuhsnick listed the City schools that have parking lots in the front with no buffers, saying of the seventeen public schools, why is this situation different from those. All have single family homes in the immediate area and they didn’t have these kinds of problems getting built. Attorney Rubin then again brought up the 8-24 referral, saying it was not a good idea. She suggested that the regulations were changed because of problems with those schools. Mr. Haddad then said the majority of those schools were built in the 1950’s and the abutting neighborhoods did not exist at that time. He said this seems to be a site specific situation and that is the difference between building a school in 2004 versus 1954. At this point, Chairman Knapp reminded the Commission again that this is not a site specific application.
Mr. Elpern spoke in rebuttal to Attorney Rubin’s comments. He said the magnet school is included in the Plan of Conservation & Development. This is not an abuse of the process, this is the process of amending the Zoning Regulations. The 8-24 referral that Attorney Rubin presented has to do with the sale of the Roberts Avenue school property. Nothing in it references the parking so it should not be a consideration. He said it is contrary to the regulations it is because it is an amendment and it will change the existing language. Saying it will impact property values is saying that all properties that abut schools everywhere in the city will be affected. He said we also could remove the other restrictions on uses regarding the parking that Attorney Rubin mentioned. In response to her vague reference to traffic and safety issues, this is about a parking lot. He said this amendment was pre meditated, because yes we thought about it before we put it together. He said this whole issue with the magnet school has been a highly charged one. The crux of the argument by the residents has been based on aesthetics; they want all of the parking in rear so they don’t have to look at it. So as a compromise, we propose putting it in the front behind the setback and surrounding it with shrubbery and trees so no one really has to look at it. He said one could argue that schools are detrimental but this whole thing is about screening a parking lot. There have been revisions made during the review and approval process to try to appease these neighbors, but none has satisfied them yet. At this point Mr. Haddad asked if they aren’t supposed to consider the 8-24 letter, why couldn’t they push the building closer to the road. Mr. Elpern said there is also slope and wetlands and the City might lose our State funding if we can’t come up with a design that meets all applicable regulations. Mrs. Buzaid asked about the wetlands. Mr. Elpern said they really cannot get too deeply into site plan issues, as this is an amendment to the Regulations. Mr. Haddad questioned why they can’t flip the plan around since there is enough space. He then said even if this amendment is denied the school can still be built. Mrs. Cuhsnick asked that the 8-24 referral letter Attorney Rubin submitted be stricken from the record since it is over two years old, much has happened since it was written and it doesn’t specifically address this issue. Chairman Knapp said they have to keep it in the file since Attorney Rubin submitted it. Mr. Elpern asked what reference there is in that letter to the parking issues. There were no other questions.
Mrs. Cuhsnick made a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Silva and passed unanimously. Mrs. Cuhsnick then made a motion to move this petition to item number two under For Consideration and Possible Action. The motion was seconded by Mr. Silva and passed unanimously.
8:00 PM - Petition of the City of Danbury by Dennis I. Elpern, Planning Director to Amend Secs. 2.B. & 8.C.4. and Add Sec. 5.G. to the Zoning Regulations (Create “Campus Research Park” Zone).
Mr. Silva read legal notice and Chairman Knapp read the Planning Commission recommendation, which was negative because they want language added that says the location of the CRP must be consistent with Plan of Conservation & Development.
Mr. Elpern spoke in favor of this petition. He said this is a new zoning district, which is designed to provide for the integrated design of a mixed-use campus research park. It will offer education, job training, and/or research and development in basic and applied science, including related housing and ancillary services intended for the use of colleges or universities and students, faculty and employees of businesses affiliated with the research park. This will be special exception use requiring review by the Planning Commission. The proposal has broad support from university officials and the business community as a means of improving the City’s business profile.As envisioned, the Park would provide a place where people can live while receiving education and training, or participating in research and development programs. Several new definitions are added as they are terms used in this section, but not found elsewhere (except auditorium) in the Regulations. Parking requirements are spelled out and shared parking is allowed among uses within each phase of development. Recreational facilities would be provided and services would be coordinated with colleges and businesses affiliated with the park. This is not a rezoning petition, they are here tonight to create this district. Once the regulation is in place, a petition would have to be filed for a re-zoning to this designation. The parcel would have to meet the criteria as spelled out in the regulation. The CRP Zoning District shall have a minimum gross area of 10 acres that may consist of one parcel or several contiguous parcels, which are contiguous to a college or university and under single ownership and control. It also must include a minimum of two uses as specified in the regulation to ensure mixed-use development. It must comply with Sec. 8.B.2. of the Zoning Regulations that prohibits crossing residential zones to get to a commercial or industrial zone. The CRP is considered a commercial zoning district. Mr. Haddad asked if the Planning Commission’s concern would be addressed by Sec. 5.G.6.b.(2). Mr. Elpern said not really cause the Planning Commission wants a statement saying this kind of development must comply with the Plan of Conservation & Development. We really cannot do that because we were not planning this when that was written. Additionally case law says that Plan of Conservation & Development is advisory only and to put that kind of language into this regulation would put the Commission into a bad position. There were no other questions.
Chairman Knapp asked if there was anyone else to speak in favor of this and one person came forward.
Gary Wilson, Wilson Bio Science Consulting, said a few months ago he was invited to a meeting to discuss this concept. He distributed a brief booklet titled “A Case for a Danbury Campus Research Park” as evidence that this is a wise amendment. He said BioScience would provide a “high-tech” image for the area. It is a good industry that provides high paying jobs and attracts other high tech industries and professionals to the area. Connecticut is already an internationally recognized center for bioscience research and development. He then spouted all kinds of numbers regarding the growth of the industry in Connecticut. He said the residential component is important as the people involved in this will move here. He referred to a November 2002 meeting of Danbury community leaders and said they strongly endorsed the concept and the need for a Campus Research Park. In closing he said Danbury has what is needed for a bioscience research park: developed laboratory facilities, available land near a university campus, a bioscience friendly business environment, a trained technical workforce, proximity to venture capital sources and a relationship to academia, pharmaceutical and bioscience companies. Chairman Knapp asked if there are any research parks in New York or New Jersey. Mr. Wilson said New York is trying to build one now. The biggest one is in North Carolina, but both Boston & Seattle have one too. He said Danbury’s competition would come from Boston or either of the CT locations (two in New Haven and one in Storrs). There is not one in New Jersey, but Pennsylvania is also a hot area. Mrs. Buzaid said she works at WCSU and they are building a science building but don’t have the science students to fill it. Mr. Wilson said it may sound trite, but “if you build it they will come”. He said once this starts, the word will spread and the people will flock here to be a part of it. There were no other questions.
Mr. Jowdy made a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Silva and passed unanimously. Mr. Haddad then made a motion to move this petition to item number three under For Consideration and Possible Action. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Buzaid and passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS FOR CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION:
1)Petition of the City of Danbury by Dennis I. Elpern, Planning Director to Amend Sec. 10.B.1. of the Zoning Regulations (Exemptions from Zoning Permits).
Chairman Knapp said they had heard this petition earlier this evening and closed the public hearing. He asked for discussion and/or comments.
Mrs. Cuhsnick made a motion to approve this for the following reasons:
The motion was seconded by Mr. Silva. Chairman Knapp asked if there was any other discussion and there was none. He then called a roll call vote and the motion to approve was passed unanimously with nine AYES.
2)Petition of the City of Danbury by Dennis I. Elpern, Planning Director to Amend Sec. 4.A.4.b. of the Zoning Regulations (Amend Use Regulations for Nursery, Kindergarten, Elementary or Secondary Schools).
Mr. Cuhsnick made a motion to approve this petition for the following reasons:
·They will still be prohibiting parking in the front yard setback and a provision for screening has been added.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Kennedy. Chairman Knapp asked if there was any other discussion and there was none. He then called a roll call vote and the motion to approve was passed with six AYES (from Mrs. Cuhsnick, Dr. Mooney, Mr. Silva, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Hoffstaetter and Chairman Knapp) and three NAYS (from Mrs. Buzaid, Mr. Haddad and Mr. Jowdy).
3)Petition of the City of Danbury by Dennis I. Elpern, Planning Director to Amend Secs. 2.B. & 8.C.4. and Add Sec. 5.G. to the Zoning Regulations (Create “Campus Research Park” Zone).
Ms. Hoffstaetter made a motion to approve this petition for the following reasons:
·This will promote economic development opportunity for the City.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Mooney. Chairman Knapp asked if there was any other discussion and there was none. He then called a roll call vote and the motion to approve was passed unanimously with nine AYES.
====================================================
Chairman Knapp read the Correspondence, which consisted of six Cease & Desist Orders. He then read the For Reference Only listing the public hearings scheduled for June 22, 2004. He added that since there is nothing scheduled for June 8, 2004, the meeting could be cancelled. The secretary said she would post notice of cancellation.
At 10:00 PM with no further business, Dr. Mooney made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Jowdy.