ZONING COMMISSION(203) 797-4525(203) 797-4586 (FAX)
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jack Knapp Jr. at 7:35 PM.
Present were Theresa Buzaid, Christine Cuhsnick, Theodore Haddad Jr., Kevin Hearty, Patrick Johnston, Richard P. Jowdy, Jack Knapp Jr., Joseph Mooney, Lenny Silva Jr., and Alternates Jean Anderson, Donald Kennedy and Helen Hoeffstaetter. Also present was Planning Director Dennis Elpern.
Mr. Silva led the Commission in the Pledge of Allegiance.
========================================
PUBLIC HEARING:
7:30 PM - Petition of Danbury 6 Associates LLC to Amend Sec. 7.C.3.a.(1)(e) of the Zoning Regulations. (Automotive uses in the Public Water Supply Watershed districts).
Mr. Silva read the legal notice. Ms. Cuhsnick read the Planning Dept. Staff Report. Chairman Knapp read the letter from the Planning Commission requesting the hearing be continued pending their receipt. Mr. Haddad asked how many days the Planning Commission had this referral. The secretary responded that the 35 day time period had passed but they did not receive the Planning Dept. report until the afternoon of their meeting last week.
Attorney Neil Marcus spoke in favor of this petition. He referred to the previous petition saying this is the outcome of that one. When they were before this Commission last year they had several versions of the language and could not agree on which one should be approved. That petition was denied without prejudice with the suggestion that they come back with one version of the language. He then said that most of the City is included in some watershed zone. Refer to map. Asked Wayne Skelly for interpretation of these regulations and was told that Jack Kozuchowski is the person to interpret them since he wrote them. This petition is about environmental remediation of a site that has been used as a gas station. They want to relocate it to another parcel but since this use is prohibited under the pwsw regs that would not be allowed. He said he is in favor of the modifications as proposed by the Planning Dept. If this regulation is passed then they will abandon the existing station and remediate the property to the satisfaction of the CT DEP. They will then relocate right next store on the Danbury 6 property, building the same size building and equipment but up to the latest standards so there will be no contamination. Two benefits are clean up the site like they did at truck stop property and build a facility that is state of the art as required. Once the contamination is cleaned up they will put the parking lot there so essentially they are swapping the two sites. But there is a benefit because the gas station site will be remediated. Has no problem with waiting for the Planning Commission recommendation but does not think it is necessary to wait. They have the Planning Dept staff report which says it all.
Chairman Knapp asked if there was anyone else to speak in favor of this. Mr. Elpern came forward and distributed a revised report with some minor corrections. Designate Exhibit A. He explained to the Commission that he was in favor of this with some revisions which are contained in this Exhibit A. this is a special treatment of a non-conforming use which is why they can relocate but cannot expand. Do not want this to be abused so tried to word it carefully. If they are already contaminating soils why don’t we just require them to clean it up. For that reason Jack K is here to respond to that.
Jack Kozuchowski, Coordinator of Environmental Services, said environmentally contaminated properties can fall into several categories depending on the amount of discharges. There is a gray area which contains brownfields, not so grossly discharging contaminants so that State will step in. not affecting ground or service waters. Like sleeping giants the could potentially get bad. Then there is the third category like this one, n/c uses like gas stations that aren’t contaminating but will. This is the gray area that this petition addresses. Ie a site that does not have state of the art systems to protect the site, because they are grandfathered there is no requirement that they upgrade their tanks or systems once they are in place. This regulation will allow for the remediation of the potentially contaminated and also force them to install the state of the art equipment on the new site. This means this is a positive thing. They have worked out standards that will protect the. CC asked why they just don’t require them to clean it up. JK said because it is not contaminating now, it is a gray area it meets dep storage regs, but it does not have the newest technology to prevent any contamination. JK said they are encouraging older facilities to relocate and clean up their property. No regulatory authority says a gas station must do remediation and clean up the site. PJ asked about penalties for not upgrading, JK said there are strict penalties if it is discovered that a tank is leaking. There are state federal regs that will require it be taken care of. Standards in these regulations are more strict than EPA standards. This will allow a gas station to be built in the pwsw but not in an environmentally sensitive area. JK spoke about environmental transfer act which will require someone taking over an existing site to meet the current standards even though it already was a gas station. CC said this is not site specific yet Attorney Marcus has noted this one site. She asked if we had any idea how many gas stations etc are in Danbury. DE said we do not have that info available but reminded them that these watershed districts are all specific in nature and not many gas stations are located within them. PJ asked how many other places are they allowing to move onto a site that prohibits them. DE said this is not carte blanche and there are not many gas stations located in these watershed districts. TH suggested they incorporate the previous hearings and testimony into the record since it included the number and location of existing gas stations that would be affected by this. After brief discussion, it was determined that there is no list of gas stations, NRM said he thought they had just quickly moved around the City verbally listing some of the sites that would be affected.
JA asked why they would want to encourage an existing station to relocate and possibly contaminate a new site. JK said they don’t know the extent of the contamination until they start to remediate a site. The advantage would be that the new location would have to meet the current standards to prevent any contamination from happening at the new site. PJ asked if we willl limit where these relocated stations will be put. DE said no where that one wouldn’t be allowed by the Zoning Regulations.
Opposition
Paul Leone said if you already have one contaminated site and you move next door, you are not solving the problem. You are just spreading the contamination. He added that they never get these sites really clean, no matter what they say. PJ asked if they will be limited to one relocation. DE said a remediation plan must be submitted for the site that is being abandoned. Prior to c of c ZEO needs to find that existing site has been cleaned up or remediated. Requirement is that you clean the site as you go. HH asked if they will be able to leave the building and the pumps. NRM said once you give up the site, you lose the non-conformity. All of this requires site plan approval. NRM said they want to have as many old stations do remediation as possible. In this case it would be advantageous for this Exxon to move to other lot because they have poor circulation as they are located at the light. He then said the truck stop parcel was remediated but this portion was not done. This is preventive maintenance because it encourages people to upgrade their site. Actual proposal will be to swap a parking lot for a gas station. Purpose of relocation has to be to remediate the former site. TH questioned if NRM said they need not continue cause it will not make any difference since the 35 days has passed.
Chairman Knapp asked if there was anyone to speak in opposition.
and there was no one else.
Staff Comments DE said when this proposal first came in they thought it was a crazy idea but it is not. It is complicated and taking a risk but it is regulated. He asked that they continue this as a courtesy to the Planning Commission. It will eventually end up before them so they should have the right to comment.
CC LS motion to close hearing. No discussion. Chairman Knapp said they should consider keeping this open until the next meeting. KH asked if it will change anything if they wait. Chairman said they will only make suggestions. DE suggest if they continue make it specific for receipt of Planning Commission recommendation. Chairman Knapp called a roll call vote
Buzaid - yesCuhsnick- nay Haddad yesHearty nay Johnston yes Jowdy yesMooney yes Silva yesKnapp no
Public hearing closed six nays /three ayes
Chairman Knapp reviewed the Correspondence consisting of four Cease & Desist Orders and the meeting schedule for 2004 and the For Reference Only listing the public hearings scheduled for February 24, 2004.
At 9:05 PM, Mr. Silva made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Johnston and passed unanimously by voice vote.