Loading...
1987/02/11Febraury 11, 1987 A meeting of the Berlin Zoning Commission was held on February 11, 1987. Chairman Ferraguto called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Commissioners Ferraguto, Harris, Baumann, Corrigan, & Suranna Alternate Meigs Town Planner Voelker Item 1 Minutes of the Commission meeting of February 4, 1987 were unanimously approved. Item 2 Adjustment to the Agenda to read under Roman numeral VIII 1. Berlin Zoning Commission on its own initiative move to amend the regulations to include Planned Shopping Zone 3 whose permitted principal uses would be Shopping Centers and/or Office Parks. ae The major portion of the parcel of land commonly referred to as the "Triangle", bordered by Middletown Road, Route 15 and route 72. This included all of and/or a portion of Lot Nos. 2, 3, 6A, 7A, 21, 22, 22A, 23, 23A, 24, 24B. The major portion of the parcel of land commonly referred to as the "Berlin Drive-In site", bordered by Route 15, Deming Road, and Selden St., Lot No. 6, Block 121. Moved by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Corrigan, unanimously approved. *Vote of 5-0 in favor. 7:12 P.M. Meeting was moved to upper chamber due to size of a.udience. 7:18 Meeting was reconvened. Discussion ensued on regulations (Memo dated 2/3/87, Proposed Planned Shopping Zone 3, Final draft 6) revolving around changes, interpretations and deletions. Attorney Ms. Lida Barry interrupted discussion to make mention on behalf of RAM (Residents Against the Mall) that an objection be recorded due to the extensive amount of amendments. Commissioner Baumann made a motion to pass the amendments to the regulations and also changes as amended on 2/11/87 which inClude new sections 7.01, 5.10 and revised sections 11.70, 2.00, with the deletion of the words "Shopping Centers and/or" under section 7.01.01 entitled Permitted Principal Uses. With no second, Commissioner Baumann requested this motion be noted in the minutes. Commissioner Harris made a motion to amend the Town's Zoning Regulations to include the new sections 7.01 and 5.01 and amend sections 11.70 and 2.00 as amended 2/11/87. Seconded by Commissioner Corrigan Motion was carried 4 to 1 - Commissioner Baumann opposing. Formal dissenting opinion from Commissioner Baumann follows these minutes. Also following is rationale for approval of Planned Shopping Zone 3 as amended to Berlin Zoning Regulations. Note: Legal notice to be published one (1) week from this meeting on February 18, 1987. February 4, 1987 A meeting of the Berlin Zoning Commission was held on February 4, 1987. Chairman Ferraguto called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. Present: Commissioners Ferraguto, Harris, Suranna, & Baumann Alternates Meigs & Edelson Building Inspector Chirico Town Planner Voelker Item 1 The following officers were elected for the next year beginning 2/1/87. Motion made by Chairman Ferraguto Baumann Harris Commissioner Seconded Vice-Chairman Harris Suranna Baumann Secretary Suranna Harris Baumann Item 2 Minutes of the Commision meeting on January 14, 1987 were unanimously approved. Item 3 New Applications: Nadeau Brothers, 605 Norton Road, Berlin, CT 06037 - Zone change from General Commercial (GC) to Light Industry (LI), Lot Nos. 12A, 12B, and 12C Block No.83 located on the south side of Deming Road. e Richard Laflamme, 374 Norton Road, Berlin, CT 06037 - Zone change from R-43 to R-21, Lot Nos. 6,7,8,6A,7A,8A, Block No. 71 located on the south side of Norton Road, 1,026 feet east from the intersection of Norton Road and Cole Lane. Public Hearing will be scheduled for March 25, 1987 at Town Hall, 7:00 p.m. Item 4 ZBA cases were reviewed Item 5 Motion made by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Suranna, it was unanimously voted to appoint William Voelker as the appointed officer for the Zoning Commission. It was also noted that Mr. Voelker will appoint Roger Gaudio as his representative for all Zoning matters. Item 6 Existing zoning violations were reviewed. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Robert A. Baumann Item 3 Motion by Commissioner Harris, seconded by Commissioner Corrigan to include subsection A under item VIII of the agenda (2/11/87). Motion carried 4 - 1, Commissioner Baumann opposing. There being no further business, meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M. REASONS FOR APPROVING PLANNED SHOPPING ZONE 3 REGULATIONS AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE BERLIN ZONING REGULATIONS Said regulation is in conformance with the Plan of Development for the Routes 15 and 72 Corridor Study Areas approved and adopted by the Berlin Planning Commission on July 23, 1985. In the above-referred Plan of Development, it states: "Shopping Center/Office Park is the category proposed for what are considered to be two of the prime sites in the Study Area. Efforts should be made to attract major development in these locations, which can have a beneficial spin-off effect on the entire corridor." In the above-referenced Plan of Development, it states: "Procedure - ... The Zoning Commission can now proceed With revising the Zoning Regulations to encourage and implement the various elements of the Plan." Under the terms of this mandate, the Zoning Commission has spent more than one year developing such regulations with advice from two special consultants, the Town Attorney, the Planning Commission, the Economic Development Commission and the general public. We have gone through at least six draft revisions to the regulations on this subject trying to incorporate the concerns of all parties, including our own, and now feel that we have produced a regulation that is truly comprehensive in nature; will not unduly impact upon existing and proposed infrastructure; offers maximum protection to the natural environment; and establishes definitive guide- lines and controls for attractive development. Dissenting Opinion Re: Zone Change - PS-3 Berlin Zoning Commission The following is a dissenting opinion written by Commissioner Baumann with regard to the proposed zone change (PS-3) for the two parcels of land commonly referred to as "the Golden Triangle" and the "Berlin Drive-In site". The Commission's vote on 1/7/87 (4 to 1) to approve the motion: Agree in principle to the concept of PS-3 and in general with the conclusins of the Corridor Study and we concur with the Planning Commission's acceptance of the study. as well as its vote on 2/11/87 (4 to 1) to approve the regulations regarding the zone change proposal were in my opinion improper, based on the facts presented in the case and the improper procedures followed by the Commission. These two areas are discussed below: 1. Facts The facts as presented prior to and at the Public Hearing on November 17, 1986 in my opinion do not support the Commission's decisions. The bulk of the information presented for the record overwhelmingly supported denial of the motion made on 1/7/87 and the regulations approved on 2/11/87. The following briefly summarizes the key facts that were seemingly ignored by the other Commission members in making their decisions on the motions (see section II - Improper procedures). Exhibit 3 - 4/14/86 letter from Jelle Zeilinga de Boer. This letter highlights the following detrimental impacts that a proposed shopping mall could have in the "triangle piece of land" noted previously. Significant points are noted below: "If buildings and paved parkings are built on a segment of this ridge, no recharge will occur." This area is the "principal recharge area of the Hampden basalt aquifier". In addition "possible reduction of ground water yields in wells of residences east of the area" could occur. be "Excavations (of the area) will lead to oxidation of the pyrite" which would cause a chemical reaction that would result in the creation of "sulfuric acid". "This reaction leads to increased iron content and increased acidity of ground and surface waters. The acidic water would probably infiltrate the Hampden basal aquifier". "An increase in acidity will cause the water to pick up increasing amounts of iron, copper, and manganese from the basalt and will have a negative impact on organisims in surface water. The wetlands as such will cease to exist." "There is little doubt that wetlands and streams on the east side of the property are going to be affected by run off (siltation) and by the local increase in acidity which may last a number of years." de The author also notes additional concerns that remain unanswered such as sewage treatment and drainage and their effect on the local Lamentation Brook. Exhibit 4 - Applied Ecology Research Institute (AERI) report prepared by Michael A. Au/relia dated 1/4/86. This report highlights the following: "Wetland and water course losses are significant and in direct conflict with the purpose of the Inland Wetland and Water Courses Act: "The Act states: "to protect the citizens of the state by making provisions for the protection, preservation, maintenance and use of inland wetlands and watercourses by minimizing their disturbance and pollution... and forever guarantee to the people of the state, the safety of such resources for their benefit and enjoyment and for the benefit and enjoyment of generations yet unborn." Exhibit 10 - Hartford Courant Article dates 10/27/86. This article titled "Development Ruining State Wetlands Despite Law" describes bo "Connecticut is destroying more of these (wetlands) environmentally critical areas than all other New England states combined, Federal officials say." The two page article also illustrates the serious continuing detrimental impact develop- ment i~ creating and points out the ecological importance of wetlands. Two exhibits were presented that illustrated the massive increas~ in traffic that would be created by a mall and its major impact on local residential roads. (Exhibit 14 &15) o There were also many other revelant facts that were presented at the public hearing by individual speakers. These facts also support denial of the 1/7/87 proposal and the proposed regulations~ Numbers in parenthesis refer to the speaker number at the public hearing. All speakers are not listed for brevity. These briefly were as follows: a. Heavy weekend traffic (4,8,15) b. Creation of clerical jobs only (4) c. Increase in crime in areas with major malls (4, 39) d. Permanent damage to wildlife (numerous) e. Property values dropping (numerous) f. Dividing the town in half - destroying the character of the town and quality of life (61) g. Air pollution (Health Director Chotkowski) Carbon Monoxide pollution (CO), lead and Hydrocarbon poisoning h. Noise pollution (numErous) i. Disruption and destruction of quiet community life~ as protected by the Preamble of the town statues (numerous) j. Local business decline (33) k. Enforcement question - a continuing problem of the town (7,38) 1. Increased burden on local streets (15) m. Non compatible uses - office vs. shopping would possibly be put together (10,18) n. Inadequacy of the regulations (10,35,52) 6.A town wide referendum was also made part of the record (speaker 11 and 15) which questioned if a major regional mall was wanted in Berlin. 46% of the townspeople voted and a majority (52%) voted no. In addition, it was apparent that there was over- whelming opposition for a mall at the Public Hearing and Commission deliberations. II. Improper Procedures The deliberations process which began on 1/7/87 was in my opinion uncharacteristic of the Commission, one-sided and improper; to the extent that none of the four Commissioners who voted to approve the initial motion felt it was necessary to discuss any of the exhibits presented into evidence prior to this vote. (See Part I - Facts) At the beginning of the deliberations on 1/7/87 Commissioner Ferraguto asked if there was any interest in reviewing exhibits and all four of the Commissioners replied in the negative. One could assume, that an issue of this magnitude, if properly addressed by the Commission, would at the very least contain considerable open dialogue on the evidence in question during deliberations. This did not happen and a prejudging of the case in my opinion was apparent. e At the beginning of the deliberations on 1/7/87 Commissioner Harris made the statement that (paraphrased): He certainly did not want to turn %his zone change down because we (the Commission) would have to go through this entire process again. Such an opening statement from the Commissioner is totally inappropriate and illustrates that his decision was at least in part based upon the fact he didn't want any additional work. i 36 Instead, it appeared he just wanted to get the vote over with , using the least path of resistance, rather than using the evidence presented in the case. At the end of the Commission's deliberations on 1/14/87, the Commission began to discuss a detailed 3,700 word document titled "Connecticut Environmental Policy Act". This document had been given to the Commission that evening by Jeffrey Cugno (Economic Development Director). Upon quick examination, it became apparent that parts of the document could possibly be used by the Commission in formulating Environmental Impact Study (EIS) guidelines to incorporate into the proposed regulations. However, it was just as apparent that parts of the document were totally irrevelant and should not be included in any EIS. Because of time constraints, the late- ness of the hour and the detail of this document it was obvious this document would take careful consideration and review before applicable parts were incorporated into our proposed regulations. Again, Commission Harris made the Statement (paraphrased): He was ready to vote on the regulations as they stood and incorporate whatever parts of the Act that was applicable. Again, such a statement by the Commissioner is inappropiate and illustrates the Commissioner's unwillingness to give due time and consideration to all the facts before him. This casual disregard for the facts again illustrates the inappropiate and unacceptible procedures that were followed during the deliberations. At the beginning of the deliberations on 1/7/87, Commissioner Ferraguto made a statement that (paraphrased): He found nothing in the evidence presented that would cause him to change his feelings one way or the other on the current zone change proposal. I find this statement to be especially inappropriate and disapproving as Commissioner Ferraguto seems to indicate that he had reviewed all of the facts. However, as Secretary to the Commission I am aware that Commissioner Ferraguto did not review all the exhibits presented at the Public Hearing prior to the 1/7/87 vote and I regretfully must include this fact in my dissenting opinion. I feel the Chairman's actions were extremely inappropriate and would indicate his decision was made without review of all the evidence submitted. These specific exhibits are as follows: Exhibits #3,4,14,15,18, & 19. o The Commission's attitude toward and treatment of the general public throughout the deliberations process consistantly denied the public of their full rights to effectively observe and listen to the deliberations process. Requests by the public for microphones at the deliberations so that all could hear, adequate seating arrangements at deliberations and just common courtesy through speaking in audible voices, were repeatedly ignored by the Commission. The Chairman's silent disregard to these courteous requests was a denial of citizen's rights in the zoning process. Even requests to the Chairman by this Commissioner to deliberate in a larger room with microphones were ignored. Approximately half of the public at the 1/14/87 deliberations were required to stand and listen in lieu of extending common courtesy to fellow citizens through the use of the larger hearing room. Only through the insistence of the Police Department was the meeting moved to the larger hearing room so that all could be seated. It was then the Commission, seemingly put out by this entire process, noticeably began to lower their voices and blatently ignore the publics right to observe and listen to the deliberations. These actions are totally unacceptable from appointed public servants and I personally will never condone or accept such treatment of the public. During the deliberations (1/7/87) it was established and agreed upon by all of the Commissioners that the "Golden Triangle" is indeed a very valuable piece of property whose value is continuing to increase, and that a major regional mall would be "more detrimental" to the community than a large office park would be. This statement alone indicates that one of the allowed principal uses (a major regional shopping center and/or a 1,000,000 square foot retail project) as contained in the regulations, is in direct conflict With the existing zoning regulations which through the preamble charge "To promote health and the general welfare" of the community. The Commission, through these regulations, is by its own admission not establishing the best land use for this property. Conclusion In conclusion, it is my opinion that the record presented supports denial of the motion made on 1/7/87 and the regulations as approved on 2/11/87. It is clear that the Town of Berlin does not need a regional mall and does not want a regional mall. In addition, the facts show that the "Golden Triangle" is a very valuable piece of property and as such will be developed even if the regulations are without a permitted principal use of a major regional shopping center, thus allowing the owners their return on the property. In addition, this would also allow the Town of Berlin a solid foundation by which the rebuilding of the Corridor (Rt 15/72) could take place which has always been a major reason for these proposed regulations. The record supports that the Commission has ignored the facts and has acted in a cavalier manner with regard to proceedurally evaluating this proposed zone change and serving the citizens of this community. In addition, a permitted principal use has been approved (major regional shopping center) that all Commissioners agree to be "more detrimental" to an alternative (office park). Yet it has been demonstrated that this alternative (office park) would produce the desired positive results that are sought by the Commission without having to resort to a "more detrimental" use. The Preamble to our Zoning Regulations charges: "To promote health and the general welfare" (for the Town of Berlin) "with full consideration to the character of the districts". In my opinion this Commission has seriously fallen short of the Preamble charge as well as our duty as appointed public servants and as such I regretfully submit this dissenting opinion for the record. Robert A. Baumann Commissioner Respectfully sub~)itt edi~ February 18, 1987 A meeting of the Berlin Zoning Commission was held on February 18, 1987. Chairman Ferraguto called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Present: Commissioners Ferraguto, Corrigan, Baumann, Harris & Suranna. Alternate Edelson Town Planner Voelker Zoning Enforcement Agent Gaudio Item 1 Commissioner Corrigan moved to approve the minutes, with corrections, of the February 11, 1987 meeting. Second by Commissioner Harris - unanimously approved. *(Correction: that a vote of 5-0 in favor, be added to the adjusted agenda under Item #2). Item 2 /ommi )ner Ferraguto announced that the clerk at the New Britain Herald erred in publishing date for the effective date of 2/18/87. Special Meeting to be held on 2/23/87 at 7:00 P.M. to set date for effecting new regulation PS-3. Item 3 Reviewed Zoning Board of Appeals applications. Item 4 Various Zoning violations were reviewed with the Zoning Enforcement Agent. Item 5 Reviewed Liquor Regulation - overall general comments regarding memo from Attorney Thomas Byrne, dated December 12, 1986. Additions, definitions and concerns to be further discussed at next regular meeting. Item 6 Reviewed contract (number of meetings, length of time, etc.) with Sam Pine regarding balance of corridor study. Particulars to be determined by Town Planner and Sam Pine and approved by Commission. Concerns for succeeding regular meetings: 1. Revision of Liquor Regulations 2. Discussion of Item 96, mentioned above 3. Discussion regarding moritorium of building permits corridor study. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting ad~ou;r~ne~ at 9:00 P.M. Joseph Suranna Secretary February 23, 1987 A Special Meeting of the Berlin Zoning Commission was held on February 23, 1987. Chairman Ferraguto called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Present: Commissioners Ferraguto, Harris, Corrigan, Baumann & Suranna. Zoning Enforcement Agent Gaudio. Item 1 To set effective date for Regulations and Rezonings adopted February 11, 1987 (PS-3 Regulations - Triangle and Berlin Drive-In sites) set effective date to be March 5, 1987. Commissioner Corrigan moved publication of the notice regarding Regulations and rezonings adopted February 11, 1987 be in effect March 5, 1987 Seconded by Commissioner Harris - passed unanimously. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting wa.a a.~'jo~n~ Joseph Suranna Secretary at 7:09 P.M. March 11, 1987 A meeting of the Berlin Zoning Commission was held on March 11, 1987. Chairman Ferraguto called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. In attendance were Commissioners Baumann, Harris, Ferraguto, Corrigan, Meigs and Town Planner Voelker. Commissioner Edelson entered at 7:10. Commissioner Baumann motioned to approve the minutes of the February 18, 1987 meeting. Commissioner Corrigan seconded and the motion passed unanimously.