Loading...
2021-04-30 Special Meeting PZC Special Meeting 4-30-2021 Page 1 of 4 Berlin Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting Minutes of April 30, 2021 The Berlin Planning and Zoning Commission held a special meeting on Friday, April 30, 2021 at 3:30 P.M. by remote Zoom Conference. The public was able to access the meeting by video or telephone as provided on the agenda with the posted access information. Chairman Veley called the meeting to order at 3:34 P.M. She explained access, posting and information about the meeting and noted the purpose of the meeting to provide guidance to the Zoning Enforcement Official regarding issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for a new industrial structure at 166 Old Brickyard Lane. Acting Town Planner Maureen Giusti called the role: In attendance: Chairman Veley, Commissioners Timothy Zigmont, Steve Wollman, Peter Zarabozo, Alternate, Andrew Legnani, Alternate Commissioner Diane Jorsey joined the meeting at approximately 3:47 p.m. Commissioners excused: George Millerd, Brian Rogan, Jon Michael O’Brien, and Steve Biella, Jr., alternate. Staff in attendance: Maureen Giusti, AICP, Acting Town Planner/ZEO Chairman Veley called upon Ms. Giusti to summarize and explain the zoning concerns. Ms. Giusti read from her prepared summary: Thank you for accommodating this special meeting request. I also ask for your patience as we have moved to Zoom I need to learn navigation, screen sharing on this platform and host responsibilities such as muting and identifying participants. I am going to speak for a few minutes to provide a summary of the project and reason we have requested your guidance on the CO request: The developer/property owner is seeking the certificate of occupancy for a newly constructed industrial style building at 166 Old Brickyard Lane. A tenant is lined up that will be relocating their Building Materials Warehouse with Executive Offices to Berlin. The building was approved to be built on vacant land at the southerly end of a combined parcel that was previously four lots. At the time of the approval, May 2017, four separate lots included vacant land where the new building (#166) is constructed, a non-conforming 2-family residence (#196) immediately adjacent moving north, another non-conforming 2-family (#204), and the last lot (#212) contained the now vacant Grady auto garage and a building used as office space. PZC Special Meeting 4-30-2021 Page 2 of 4 As all the lots were non-conforming to size and in the same ownership, they were combined to create a single parcel to allow the new industrial building. The combined parcel is now identified as Lot 85-1 The application has been described by the developer as phase one of redevelopment of the parcel for a new industrial complex. The approved plan included extinguishment of the non-conforming residential uses. This was to be accomplished by demolition of the two-family house at #204 and conversion of the two family (196) immediately adjacent to the new building into a conforming caretaker unit for the property and conversion of the other unit into the industrial use office space. While in my opinion, the CO request was made prematurely and before the site was ready, and required documentation was prepared to the satisfaction of the Town, the developer has since completed much of the site work, Engineering has calculated a site bond for remaining improvements, the new building construction has been completed and as I understand passed code inspections, as built plot plan work related to the new building has been submitted, and a certification has been received that the caretakers unit is occupied in compliance with the regulations as recommended by the planner at the time of the approval. I am working on review of the lighting plan which was received at the beginning of the week. In consultation with the building official, yesterday, the only outstanding issue that appears to remain prior to his issuing the certificate of occupancy for the new building is zoning officer approval for the CO request. As zoning official, I am asking for commission guidance with regard to zoning compliance. The dwelling unit at #196, adjacent to the new warehouse, which was to be converted to office space remains occupied by a residential tenant in addition to the caretaker unit. The property owner has commenced eviction proceedings through the courts, to which the tenant has answered, and mediation is scheduled for next month. It is unknown if tenancy will be resolved at that time. In the meantime, the property owner has a contract with the new industrial tenant that is under deadline to expire without issuance of a CO. The question to the commission is whether or not you are opposed to granting zoning sign off for occupancy of the new building. I will note sign off could be: -conditional with a deadline for compliance perhaps relating to resolution of the eviction timing or -be a sign off for the new building and compliance be pursued as an enforcement issue after the civil eviction matter has been resolved. -generally the zoning and official has some discretion with regard to pending issues at the time of CO request, and matters such as the owner working towards removal of unauthorized storage of vehicles and equipment at the northerly end of the site (#212) in the area of the now vacant Grady Garage, might be handled as an enforcement matter allowing for issuance of a CO. however given the complexity of the issues including that residential uses were considered during the approval process, in consultation with corporation council we determined it was appropriate to bring the policy decision to the commission. PZC Special Meeting 4-30-2021 Page 3 of 4 In summary we are asking if the commission is comfortable with authorizing the zoning official to sign off on zoning compliance for a CO on the new industrial building which would allow the new tenant to locate to Berlin. The developer’s attorney had a conversation with Attorney Coppola and I, indicating that the contract with the industrial tenant is time sensitive, thus the request for this special meeting. It is unknown by me if it would be affected by issuance of a conditional, rather than full CO. I believe Attorney Coppola and interested parties, including the developer and/or his attorney and the residential tenant may also be in attendance, should you want to allow them to speak. I’ll look at the participant log to see if anyone else is in remote attendance. Thank you. As the summary was read and the property was described Ms. Giusti presented the GIS 2019 aerial and planimetric map of the area, as well as the approved site plan. Chairman Veley asked Ms. Giusti to repeat the options she presented regarding the CO. Commissioner Zigmont questioned if there were other zoning issues besides the one tenant including if the nonconforming dwellings at 204 existed and any other violations. Ms. Giusti explained that the residential structure at 204 had been demolished, a garage remained which she understood from other officials was being used for storage, and that the area around the former Grady garage at 212 Old Brickyard Lane has unauthorized storage of vehicles and equipment. Commissioner Zigmont summarized there are two noncompliance matters: vehicles and the dwelling unit with residential tenant that is also a civil matter relating to eviction. He expressed that zoning violations should be resolved prior to zoning signoff for occupancy as it is one lot. Commissioner Wollman noted that the eviction process is complicated by the status of Executive Orders and the current court constraints. He indicated his opinion that the new business coming into Town should not be punished for what could be a lengthy legal delay, noting that tenants have been taking advantage of the Executive Orders dealing with evictions. Chairman Veley inquired if we knew if the new building was being sold or leased. Ms. Giusti responded that the 4 lots had been combined into a single parcel, and therefore the property would be one, but did not know if the building would be held as a condo or tenant space. Commissioner Wollman noted that the CO should not be issued until the property was in compliance except for the resident which is subject to civil. He inquired if we knew it was a court matter? Ms. Giusti confirmed that Attorney Coppola, our counsel, had checked the court record and found the eviction was filed, and answered by the tenant and a mediation date was indicated for mid-May. Commissioner Wollman gave his opinion that vehicles should be removed, then the CO could be issued. Commissioners Zarabozo stated he was in agreement with Commissioners Zigmont and Wollman and that once the property is cleaned up the CO can be issued. PZC Special Meeting 4-30-2021 Page 4 of 4 Commissioner Legnani agreeing with others added concern that the Town not be vulnerable in the civil matter. Commissioner Jorsey indicated her opinion that the lot condition be resolved prior to CO, and not involve in the court matter. Chainman Veley questioned, what if the Town allows the CO and the eviction action went away; what assurances does the town have that eviction will move forward or will the owner discontinue eviction once the CO is issued? What vehicle is available to the town for total compliance? Then, how would the Town get occupancy compliance? Ms. Giusti responded that it would be a Zoning Enforcement issue. Commissioner Wollman added that the developer could be fined. He added that the new tenant should not be punished due to courts and Enforcement could handle if the tenant occupancy is not handled by the court. With no objection from the commissioners, Chairman Veley stated the discussion has indicated consensus among the commissioners that once the unauthorized storage is removed from the property and any required bonding is in place, then the Zoning Official could signoff on the Certificate of Occupancy, adding that enforcement action would be taken at the appropriate time should the unapproved residence remain after the court issue is resolved. Steve Wollman made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Legnani. With no objection the meeting adjourned at 4:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Maureen K. Giusti, Acting Town Planner/ZEO