TOWN OF NEW MILFORD
Office of the Zoning Commission
10 Main Street
New Milford, Connecticut 06776
(860) 355-6095 • [email protected]
www.newmilford.org
ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 25, 2016
Present:
William Taylor, Chairman, seated and voting
Sharon Ward, Vice Chairwoman, seated and voting
James Volinski, Secretary, seated and voting
Charles Bogie, Member, seated and voting
Thomas O’Brien, Member, seated and voting
Richard Saitta, Alternate, not seated or voting
Rob DiMichele, Alternate, not seated or voting
Laura Regan, Zoning Enforcement Officer, not seated or voting
1) CALL TO ORDER:
a. Recess, move, and reconvene to the E. Paul Martin Room, located on the 2nd floor of Town Hall
Chairman Taylor called the October 25, 2016 Regular Meeting to order at 6:58pm in the Loretta
Brickley Conference Room.
Mr. Taylor moved to recess, move, and reconvene the meeting in the E.
Paul Martin Room. The motion was seconded by Mr. Volinski and
carried unanimously.
Mr. Taylor moved to reconvene the meeting at 7:02pm in the E. Paul
Martin Room. The motion was seconded by Mr. Volinski and carried
unanimously.
Mr. Taylor called the meeting to order and led the room in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Taylor
and Mr. O’Brien indicated that they had listened to the recording and read the minutes of the
previous meeting.
2) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Mr. Taylor opened the floor to any public participation.
Fannella Johnson, 17 Old Grove Street, began to address the Commission, but realized she was in the
wrong meeting and was redirected to the Local Traffic Authority meeting downstairs.
3) PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a. William Raveis Real Estate, Special Permit and Site Plan Applications under Chapters 80,
175, and 180 to allow a 3’ x 40’ awning above Unit 69 on property located at 51 Bank
New Milford Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – October 25, 2016
Page 1 of 12
Street, Map 28.4, Lot 42 in the VC Zone. Request to waive existing conditions map,
engineered site plan, building floor plans, parking plan, stormwater management plan,
lighting plan, landscape plan, traffic study, and soil erosion and sediment control plan. Close
by November 22, 2016
Mr. Volinski read the public hearing legal notice.
Mr. Taylor asked if the applicant was present, the applicant was not present. Mr. Taylor stated that
Agenda Item 3a would be tabled at this time and discussed later if the applicant arrived.
b. Park Glen Homeowner’s Association, Release of the $2,500 balance of the developer’s,
Park Glen LLC’s Site Restoration and Sedimentation and Erosion Control Bond
associated with the development of an Active Adult Community (Park Glen), on property
located on Harmony Trail, Blossom Ct, and Rainbow Ct, aka 1-17 Park Glen Condo
(formerly 309 Litchfield Road) Map 72, Lot 68.1, in the AAC Zone. Close by November
22, 2016
Mr. Volinski read the public hearing legal notice.
Ms. Regan noted the receipt of a letter from Barrie L. Goldstein, Esq., Attorney for the Park Glen
Homeowner’s Association, dated September 28, 2016, requesting the release of the Site Restoration
and Sedimentation and Erosion Control Bond posted by the Developer. Ms. Regan also noted the
receipt of a letter from Philip M. Farmer, Park Glen, LLC, dated September 28, 2016, objecting to the
release of the bond to the homeowner’s association. Both letters were provided to the Commission
members as well as two maps outlining the Active Adult Community, and a Google Earth photo
showing the current conditions of the area in question. Ms. Regan noted that the Commission
members also had been distributed a copy of an email from Ms. Regan to the developer, dated July 11,
2016, as well as photos she had taken, at that time releasing $12,500 of the $15,000 Site Restoration
and Sedimentation and Erosion Control Bond, withholding $2,500 related to the area in question.
Barrie Goldstein, representing Park Glen Homeowners Association, stated that they are a group of
homeowners seeking the release of the $2,500 bond that has been held by the town, because the
developer has not completed the remediation that he was supposed to complete. Ms. Goldstein stated
that they have tried to work with the developer to resolve a number of unresolved issues, commencing
in July of 2015, when they sought correction of the erosion problem that occurred on a slope in the culde-sac, pictures provided. Ms. Goldstein stated that they brought in an expert, landscaper Dirk Sabin,
to seek guidance on what needs to be done. Ms. Goldstein stated that in September 2015, the
developer agreed to bring in Mr. Sabin per a handshake agreement. Ms. Goldstein states that never
occurred, and she reached out to the developer again in November, with no response and nothing
addressed over the winter. Ms. Goldstein stated that in the spring they reached out to the Zoning
Enforcement Officer and arranged for a meeting at the site, where an agreement was reached in which
the developer agreed to watering of the plants and grass that were scheduled to be put in. Ms.
Goldstein states that the plantings were never watered and that they found out the developer had
reached out to the town to request the release of the bond, claiming the project was completed. Ms.
Goldstein referenced the email response from Ms. Regan to the developer, dated July 11, 2016, stating
that after receiving the bond release request, she had inspected the site and stated it still needed
attention as seed was laid and covered with hay but did not appear that it was regularly watered to
establish good germination. Ms. Goldstein stating she is asking that the erosion bond be released to
New Milford Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – October 25, 2016
Page 2 of 12
them so that they can hire Mr. Sabin to remedy the situation, noting that he has provided an estimate of
approximately $2,500.
Mr. Taylor asked Ms. Goldstein what legal standing they have in a contract between New Milford and
the developer to lay claim to any portion of that bond. Ms. Goldstein stated that she learned that she
doesn’t have standing to ask for the bond, and is asking the Zoning Commission to call the bond and
request them to employ Mr. Sabin to complete the work. Mr. Taylor confirmed that they could employ
someone to do the work, but could not release the bond to them. Ms. Goldstein stated she understood
this. Mr. Taylor asked Ms. Regan when the site plan was approved, to which she responded 2004. Mr.
Taylor asked Ms. Regan if the rest of the landscaping had been completed according to the approved
site plan, to which she confirmed it had.
Mr. O’Brien asked for clarification for as to what Ms. Goldstein was actually requesting. Ms.
Goldstein stated she was amending her request to ask that the town call the bond and employ Mr.
Sabin to complete the work. Mr. Taylor outlined the two options available, to call the bond and hire
someone to finish the landscaping per the site plan, or to allow the developer to go back once more in
the spring to attempt to remedy the situation before they call the bond.
Mr. Taylor opened the floor to any public participation.
Austin Farmer, son of Phil Farmer, one of the developers with Park Glen, stated they are requesting the
bond be released to them, stating that while it might not be pretty, there is no soil erosion. Mr. Farmer
submitted pictures he had taken the day prior after it rained, showing no signs of erosion. Mr. Farmer
stated that evidenced in the pictures, some seed did take, however it was a very dry summer, and that
they would like the opportunity to try again in the spring, but at the same time, they believe there is no
erosion occurring.
John Delay, Developer, Park Glen, stated that there is a terrible problem with deer in this particular
area, noting they may have disrupted the deer’s natural routes with the development and this slope is
their new route to the river. Mr. Farmer added that a fence has been put up and it was helping. Mr.
Delay stated that they have worked with Mr. Sabin, stating they did meet with him regarding this issue,
and what he suggested in the presence of Mr. Ferlow and Ms. Regan was implemented within 2 weeks
of the meeting, however the plantings did not take and the fence was knocked down by the deer.
The Commission members had no further questions.
Mr. Bogie moved to close the public hearing for Park Glen
Homeowner’s Association, Release of the $2,500 balance of the
developer’s, Park Glen LLC’s Site Restoration and Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Bond associated with the development of an Active
Adult Community (Park Glen), on property located on Harmony Trail,
Blossom Ct, and Rainbow Ct, aka 1-17 Park Glen Condo (formerly 309
Litchfield Road) Map 72, Lot 68.1, in the AAC Zone. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Ward and carried unanimously.
c. Kathryn Golembeski & Susan Agonis, Co-Executrixes, Map Amendment Application to
change the zoning designation of 2 contiguous properties on the east side of Danbury Road
and Old State Road and the west side of Pickett District Road, Map 14.4, Lot 6 (260
Pickett District Road) and 14.3, Lot 80 (Danbury Road), totaling 39.435 acres, from the
New Milford Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – October 25, 2016
Page 3 of 12
Restricted Industrial (RI) zone to the Industrial (I) Zone, more specifically depicted as
Parcels 2 and 3 on a Class A-2 survey map entitled, “Docktor Brothers Property”
prepared by Robert W. Grossenbacher, LS, dated 9/7/04. Close by November 8, 2016
Paul Szymanski, PE, President, Arthur H. Howland & Associates, PC, was present and addressed the
previously expressed questions, concerns and comments from the last meeting. With regard to the
buffering requirements of the I zone, he states they are the same as the RI zone, adding the properties
zoned Residential on the northern side of the subject properties will necessitate a 100 ft buffer. Mr.
Szymanski stated the Straub property, where there is greater separation between the house and the
property line, would require a 60 ft buffer. Mr. Szymanski stated that due to the abutting residential
properties, a 100 ft. landscaped buffer would be required, which is larger than the typical 60 ft, stating
not only does it have to be greater in width, but it also has to be greater in density with plantings.
With regard to the potential retail use, Mr. Szymanski states that is allowable in the proposed I zone
and the comment that there is no need for retail jobs in the community is simply not true. He said that
as someone who is on the board of directors of some non-profits, there certainly are people in need of
jobs who don’t have the benefit to be choosy, noting retail is one of the largest types of employers in
town and will continue to be, with a wide range of salaries from management to entry level. With
regard to the comments about the POCD, Mr. Szymanski wished to clarify that the Planning
Commission did find the proposal to be consistent with the POCD. With regard to the comment that
the property had only been vacant for a year, Mr. Szymanski stated that the only thing that has ever
been on that property was an agricultural barn, stating that what people may be referring to is the
mining permit which expired approximately a year ago, stating the Docktor family removed gravel
from the property for construction purposes and sold it in a low volume manner, while attempting to
market the property, but to date it had no viability.
With regard to primary sole access via Pickett District Road, Mr. Szymanski stated that would not
occur. The primary access, he said, would be along Route 7. He noted that there are two properties in
play here and one thing they are considering is modifying the proposal to keep the acreage along
Pickett District Road in the Restricted Industrial zone as opposed to the whole property being changed
to the I zone. He said he will provide that information for consideration, expecting that the hearing
will be continued with the new information being presented.
With regard to the request that a site plan be submitted, Mr. Szymanski stated that some towns do
require the submission of a site plan for zone change applications, however in New Milford that is not
a requirement. With regard to the discussion of existing retail vacancies in town, particularly at
Litchfield Crossing, it does appear that their occupancy is approximately 80 percent at this time. With
regard to concerns about Willow Springs and traffic, Mr. Szymanski states that if the zone change is
approved, there is potential once and for all to deal with the traffic issues at this location, which he
wholeheartedly agrees are dangerous. If the proposal goes forward and they are able to develop in the
future, part of that would include going before the Office of State Traffic Administration if more than
200 parking spaces were proposed, which would require a high level of review and necessitate a
detailed traffic study with determination of the level of service, which cannot get worse, only improved
or maintained. With regard to wildlife concerns, there would be added, a corridor along the northerly
property line, fully vegetative, which will be left in an undisturbed state. With regard to environmental
concerns, if there is a zone change approval, they will be required to go before Wetlands Commission
as part of that approval. Mr. Szymanski stated that was all he had at this time.
New Milford Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – October 25, 2016
Page 4 of 12
Mr. Taylor asked Mr. Szymanski regarding the mention of the primary access being on Route 7, which
is currently about an 18 foot driveway at the moment, asking how that would work. Mr. Szymanski
stated that if they develop it, it is likely that other properties would be acquired.
Mr. Bogie inquired about the statement regarding occupancy at Litchfield Crossing being above 80
percent, asking how that relates to the other plazas. Mr. Szymanski stated that the average in town is
greater than 90 percent occupancy. Mr. DiMichele added that is only counting what has been
constructed.
Mr. Taylor stated that they had received 4 letters, which he said will be entered into and become part
of the permanent record. A letter from Kevin Bielmeier, Economic Development Director, dated
October 25, 2016 stating he was in opposition to the proposal. A letter from Timothy Mahoney, Stop
and Shop Senior VP Real Estate, was submitted in opposition to the application. An email from Larry
Lombardo, received October 17, 2016, stated he was opposed to the zone change. An email from Matt
Sekel was also received in opposition.
Mr. Taylor then opened the floor to the public.
Thomas Cody, Attorney, Robinson & Cole, Hartford, was present on behalf of UB Litchfield LLC,
which is an owner of multiple properties and shopping centers in New Milford and the region. Mr.
Cody stated that the reason they are opposed to the map amendment is that it is not consistent with the
comprehensive plan. Mr. Cody stated that the development that would be enabled by this re-zoning
would have significant negative impacts on the town. Mr. Cody stated that in the past two weeks they
have undertaken a study of the property to be rezoned trying to better understand what the impacts
would be. Mr. Cody stated that they had assembled a number of petitions objecting to the zone
change, noting CT General Statutes Section 8-3b has a provision relating to zoning map amendments,
stating if a protest against proposed change is filed at or before a hearing, and is signed by the owners
of 20 percent or more of the area of the lots included in the proposed change, or within 500 feet of the
property included in the proposed change, then the change can only be adopted by the Commission
with a 2/3rds vote. Mr. Cody submitted 26 petitions representing 27 percent of the area of property
owners within 500 feet of the subject properties, as well as a map and diagram representing their
locations. Mr. Cody noted that a build out analysis had also been completed by BFJ Planning of
Stamford studying what types, uses, and magnitude of development could be created with this zone
change.
Mr. Cody stated that the representative for the applicant, Mr. Szymanski, had made several points
which are completely out of line for a zoning map amendment proceeding. Mr. Cody stated that
during the October 11, 2016 hearing, Mr. Szymanski stated: “just to be clear, there has been a lot of
discussion about the client and what potential investments the town may need to make in the subject
property, whether it be infrastructure upgrades, tax incentives, etc.; There is no proposal for that and
there will be no proposal for any incentive, investment, or abatement on behalf of the town”. Mr.
Cody stated the applicant has no ability to make that claim. Mr. Cody stated they also said they would
remediate certain traffic conditions on Route 7, and when asked by Mr. Taylor about access along
Route 7, Mr. Szymanski stated that other properties would be purchased and included in the project.
Mr. Cody stated the application can’t be conditioned on such representations and this was contrary to
law and there is no guarantee that they would occur. Mr. Cody submitted a letter that he wrote to the
Planning Commission dated October 6, 2016, regarding the referral to the Planning Commission,
comments and opposition relating to the POCD, as well as a report compiled by BFJ Planning.
New Milford Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – October 25, 2016
Page 5 of 12
Frank Fish, Principal, BFJ Planning, presented a report and build out analysis with a market study
analysis, as well as a traffic study. Mr. Fish stated the key component of the rezoning from RI to I was
the concern of the retail use. In the process of the study, BFJ states that approximately 670,000 SF of
retail space could be developed on the subject property, assuming 40 percent lot coverage and parking
spaces at 350 SF per parking space. Mr. Taylor interjected that per regulations, the number is 200 SF
per parking space for retail. Mr. Fish stated that they then looked at that report in terms of the market,
with the Ergonomics market study showing that the population is flat, growth is slightly declining,
there is significant retail vacancies in New Milford, concluding that there is not enough population to
support what has already been built and what is vacant and the result could be that the new
development will cannibalize existing retail. Mr. Fish noted that there is little access and visibility to
the site from Route 7 as previously discussed, so something big on this site could have detrimental
impact. Mr. Fish distributed a diagram that depicted Route 7 from town line north to town line south,
showing all the parcels that could allow retail (conservatively), assuming any new retail would be on
vacant land zoned appropriately for retail with at grade parking, deducting wetlands, open space and
setbacks, per their calculations there is a possibility for 9 million square feet of retail. Mr. Fish stated
that at the last meeting the consensus among those against the zone change was the lack of a site plan
and potential investor, noting that New Milford has an older code and explaining how some
communities have imposed requirements for market studies and updated the zoning regulations to
include modern light industrial, research, and manufacturing zones, with retail uses as accessory use
only. Mr. Fish stated that the Town Planner stated that the Restricted Industrial Zone is about
economic development, and two things it is not about, which are residential and retail development.
Mr. Fish urged the Commission to deny the zone change because of the lack of information, and to
update the regulations to require a site plan for future applications.
Lauren Renee, BFJ Planning, transportation planner, referenced the submitted Traffic Impact Study.
Ms. Renee stated the conclusion of the study was that such a development would add substantial traffic
and will have significant negative traffic impacts. The study used ITE standards, which are approved
by CT DOT using a standard 20 percent reduction for pass by traffic. The study determined that this
potential shopping center could have an estimated 1,700 additional trips during the weekday pm period
and 2,400 additional trips during the Saturday day peak period. The study estimates that traffic will
increase by 23 percent on Route 7 north of the site, 18 percent on Route 7 south of the site, and 41
percent on Still River Drive east of Pickett District Road. With regard to the intersection of Route 7
and Bridge Street, the study estimates that 90 percent of the traffic heading north on route 7 will be
circulating through this intersection, currently operating at a service level E, with the increase of traffic
of about 19 percent, this would bring the intersection to a failing service level of F. With regard to the
intersection at Pickett District Road and Still River Drive, which is 300 feet from the subject property,
currently carries an average of 1,300 vehicles during the peak afternoon hour and operates at a failing
level F, with the estimated 40 percent increase in traffic, the study shows it would cause the proposed
round-about to also operate at a level F. With regard to the impacts on Route 7, currently operates at
more than 2,000 vehicles per hour, including both directions, the proposed development could increase
traffic by 600 vehicles in each direction during a pm peak period. This would make left turns and turns
out of un-signalized driveways and side streets virtually impossible. With regard to the impacts on
Grove Street, the study estimates a traffic increase of 40 percent, which will affect the quality of life
and cause noise pollution along this corridor. With regard to site access from Route 7, the property in
question has limited access via Old State Road, which is very narrow and meets Route 7 at a very
awkward angle, the study finds this to be very problematic access to the site.
Willing Biddle, 321 Railroad Ave, Greenwich, President, UB Litchfield, which owns the Stop &
Shop/Walmart plaza as well as the Big Y and Staples/TJ Maxx plazas, representing approximately
New Milford Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – October 25, 2016
Page 6 of 12
390,000 SF of retail space in New Milford is, he said, the largest private tax payer in the town. Mr.
Biddle stated that he is strongly opposed to this zone change that would permit additional retail in New
Milford, stating that the town already has way too much land available for retail development, noting
the retail vacancies and large tracts of land for sale. Mr. Biddle stated that it is very difficult to keep
his current shopping centers full, because there is too much land and retail available and the effects of
growing internet sales. Mr. Biddle discussed some of the vacancy issues he faces in New Milford,
stating that he has reached out to many national large retailers who do not feel confident in this market.
Mr. Biddle stated that moving retailers from site to site in New Milford will not grow the GDP or
create more jobs. Mr. Biddle stated that the owner of the Industrial property sees an opportunity to
instantly raise the value of the property with the proposed zone change, sell the property to a large
retailer and then move out of town leaving the town holding the bag to the detriment of the long term
stability of the New Milford.
Stephan Rapaglia, 321 Railroad Ave, Greenwich, UB Litchfield, stated his opposition to the zone
change because of what he perceives to be likely negative effects on retail in New Milford. Mr.
Rapaglia referenced that the site is in an inferior site compared to other properties along Route 7 with
better visibility and access, for this reason it is unlikely to be a retail center with a lot of small stores
but more likely to be developed for one super store, a destination retailer. Mr. Rapaglia stated that this
will draw business away from existing stores and plazas and not create jobs or growth. Mr. Rapaglia
stated that there is a possibility that all of those shopping centers that are or will be suffering could
challenge their taxes and there will be no new net gain in the tax base. Mr. Rapaglia stated that only
the applicant will benefit from the zone change, while the town will suffer.
Lucy Wildrick, 6 South Main Street, stated that she is a real estate professional with over 35 years
experience and been a project manager on sites like the one proposed, noting that in no instance that
she has been involved in, would the town allow such a large area of land to be rezoned without a
comprehensive plan. Ms. Wildrick discussed mechanisms that could be implemented to protect area
businesses. Ms. Wildrick urged the Commission to deny the zone change stating it provided no benefit
to the town.
Eric Heber, President, Willow Springs Homeowners Association, along with Margaret Albert, also
from Willow Springs, stated their opposition to the zone change, citing problems they currently and
historically have had with traffic including fatalities. Mr. Heber stated they have spent thousands of
dollars trying to get a light for Willow Springs to no avail. Mr. Heber stated their property values are
finally starting to rise and they feel the zone change would hurt their property values. Ms. Albert
added the danger that currently exists exiting their driveway, and they see no benefit to the town of
New Milford if this change is allowed and a large retail center is built there as it will be lost forever to
better opportunities such as another Kimberly-Clark type business. Ms. Ward inquired as to how many
units are in Willow Springs, to which Mr. Heber responded that there are 332, all in and out through
one entrance. Ms. Albert added that there is a bus stop there as well which many children utilize and is
problematic in current conditions.
Eugene Marino, 11 Cedar Knolls Drive, wished to address the argument that the potential gain of jobs
will be good for the town, stating that the retail jobs would be low paying, and part time and not
provide a livable wage. With regard to the statement by the applicant that most towns, including New
Milford, don’t require a site plan to be submitted for a zone change application, Mr. Marino feels that
is something that needs to be changed. Mr. Marino thinks perhaps there is potential for a residential
option there that would be lost with the zone change.
New Milford Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – October 25, 2016
Page 7 of 12
Joyce McKenna, 85 Valley View Lane, 40 year resident, stated her opposition to the zone change and
wishes that the town would take the time to plan out what they would like Route 7 to look like and
work within those guidelines. Mr. Taylor added that there is an architectural guideline plan that
applies to new development, but cannot be applied to existing sites.
Kristen Gizzi, Executive Director, Litchfield Crossing, submitted a letter she wrote as well as a letter
from her real estate broker at Saugatuck Commercial Real Estate, which she read into the record,
stating that based on their history and experience in New Milford, they currently have, built and
vacant, approximately 25,000 SF of retail space, and that retailers feel that the area is more than
adequately served by existing retailers. Ms. Gizzi stated that Litchfield Crossing was approved to
build approximately 242,000 SF of space, adding that they have only built about half of that currently,
with 25,000 SF of that vacant for a very long time, and are choosing not to build the other half at this
time because they have no potential tenants.
Frank Ruiz, 5 Glenwood Road, was concerned about the comment that additional properties would be
purchased to widen the driveway or entrance, wondering if there would need to be additional zone
changes requested.
Dan Ferris, New Milford, made comparisons to the scope of the proposed project as it relates to other
area shopping centers. Mr. Ferris wishes to preserve the character and charm of New England and
does not like the idea of this large retail center.
John NeJaime, owner NeJaime Wine and Spirits, 9 Twin Ridge Road, stated his opposition to the zone
change because he feels like there is too much to lose and feels that supporting local business is more
important. Mr. NeJaime stated that seeing as everyone is against this zone change except Mr.
Szymanski, it ought to be clear that the Commission should vote no.
Mr. Szymanski wished to address several comments. With regard to a statement from the planning
consultant that there would be very limited visibility of the subject property from the roadways, stating
he did not agree with that and was interested to see their hypothetical development that could be done.
Mr. Szymanski stated that per their density calculations on their acreage, proportionately they would
only be able to fit approximately 300,000 SF, not 670,000 SF as was stated. With regard to the traffic
study findings of increased traffic and decreased service levels, Mr. Szymanski stated that the
regulations don’t allow that. Mr. Szymanski addressed the comments stating there is too much retail,
no more demand for retail, and that retail growth has been weak in the last five years, making note of
all of the businesses that have opened and are thriving in the past five years. Mr. Szymanski stated that
the market tells us there is a need for more retail, and with regard to the vacant retail spaces, he added
that most of those are small spaces with the majority being below 3,000 SF. With regard to the
discussion that this property could not support a strip retail center, Mr. Szymanski stated he was
confused because of the speculation that it will be a superstore, so in that case there should not be the
concern of cannibalization. With regard to the comment about the loss of potential residential
development, Mr. Szymanski noted that residential use is not allowed currently in the existing RI zone
either. With regard to the potential purchase of additional property for access, Mr. Szymanski stated
that everything west of them is zoned Industrial already. Mr. Szymanski stated that he would review
all of the information that was submitted and would be happy to respond to it in its entirety.
Mr. Taylor stated that the public hearing would be continued to the November 8, 2016 meeting in the
E. Paul Martin Room.
New Milford Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – October 25, 2016
Page 8 of 12
Mr. Taylor moved to take a five minute recess at 8:42pm. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Volinski and carried unanimously.
Mr. Taylor moved to reconvene the meeting at 8:47pm. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bogie and carried unanimously.
Mr. Taylor moved to suspend Robert’s Rules of Order. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Volinski and carried unanimously.
Mr. Taylor moved to go back to Agenda Item 3a at this time. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Volinski and carried unanimously.
Mr. Taylor moved to restore Robert’s Rules of Order. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bogie and carried unanimously.
Agenda Item 3a: William Raveis Real Estate, Special Permit and Site Plan Applications
under Chapters 80, 175, and 180 to allow a 3’ x 40’ awning above Unit 69 on property located
at 51 Bank Street, Map 28.4, Lot 42 in the VC Zone. Request to waive existing conditions map,
engineered site plan, building floor plans, parking plan, stormwater management plan, lighting
plan, landscape plan, traffic study, and soil erosion and sediment control plan. Close by
November 22, 2016
Mr. Taylor noted that the legal notice was previously read into the record. Ms. Regan distributed
copies of an excerpt of the survey of the property showing the proposed awning. Ms. Regan
referenced a memo from James Ferlow, Wetlands Enforcement Officer, dated September 26, 2016,
stating no individual wetlands permit is required for this project. Ms. Regan then referenced the Staff
Report dated October 21, 2016, reviewing the location, site history and existing conditions, as well as
the proposal by the applicant to erect a 3’ x 40’ awning over their unit’s frontage on Bank Street.
Tammy Zinick, Permit Me Please, was present on behalf of the applicant and provided the return
certified mail receipts. Ms. Zinick presented a piece of the awning material to be used, demonstrating
the color, style and texture of the fabric in response to Question 1 of the Staff Report. With Regard to
Question 2, inquiring if any exterior lighting is proposed, Ms. Zinick replied no exterior lighting is
proposed. With regard to Question 3 and the use of the outside dining tables previously approved, Ms.
Zinick replied no changes were proposed to the use of this area and that when the tables were not
being used by the restaurant they may be used by William Raveis for their clients. Ms. Zinick stated
that the proposed awning is smaller than those previously approved and the color is in keeping with
the character of Bank Street.
Ms. Regan asked if it would be a fixed awning, to which Ms. Zinick replied that it would be fixed.
Mr. Saitta asked if it would be lit, to which Ms. Zinick replied that it would not be lit.
Mr. DiMichele asked if there would be any lettering on the awning, to which Ms. Zinick replied that
there would be no lettering.
Mr. Taylor asked if anyone had anything further to add or any questions of the applicant.
New Milford Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – October 25, 2016
Page 9 of 12
Mr. Volinski moved to waive existing conditions map, engineered site
plan, building floor plans, parking plan, stormwater management plan,
lighting plan, landscape plan, traffic study, and soil erosion and
sediment control plan for William Raveis Real Estate, Special Permit
and Site Plan Applications under Chapters 80, 175, and 180 to allow a
3’ x 40’ awning above Unit 69 on property located at 51 Bank Street,
Map 28.4, Lot 42 in the VC Zone. The motion was seconded by Ms.
Ward and carried unanimously.
Ms. Regan wished to clarify before closing the public hearing that there was a discrepancy on the
rendering which stated the awning length to be 40’ but in other places it is stated at 40’-6”. The
Commission members agreed it was not problematic at 40’-6”.
Ms. Ward moved to close the public hearing for William Raveis Real
Estate, Special Permit and Site Plan Applications under Chapters 80,
175, and 180 to allow a 3’ x 40’-6” awning above Unit 69 on property
located at 51 Bank Street, Map 28.4, Lot 42 in the VC Zone. The motion
was seconded by Mr. O’Brien and carried unanimously.
4) NEW BUSINESS:
None
5) OLD BUSINESS:
None
6) ACCEPT FOR PUBLIC HEARING:
a. Charles Raymond, Special Permit and Site Plan Applications under Chapters 25, 175, and 180 to
allow a parking lot expansion for an existing day care on property located at 11A Aspetuck Ave,
Map 35.2, Lot 123 in the R-8 Zone. Suggested Date: November 22, 2016
Mr. Taylor moved to accept for public hearing Agenda Item 6a on the
date suggested. The motion was seconded by Mr. Volinski and carried
unanimously.
7) BUSINESS MEETING:
a. Discussion and possible decisions on the evening’s agenda
Agenda Item 3a: William Raveis Real Estate, Special Permit and Site Plan Applications under
Chapters 80, 175, and 180 to allow a 3’ x 40’ awning above Unit 69 on property located at 51 Bank
Street, Map 28.4, Lot 42 in the VC Zone. Request to waive existing conditions map, engineered site
plan, building floor plans, parking plan, stormwater management plan, lighting plan, landscape
plan, traffic study, and soil erosion and sediment control plan.
Mr. Taylor moved to approve William Raveis Real Estate, Special Permit
and Site Plan Applications under Chapters 80, 175, and 180 to allow a
3’ x 40’-6” awning above Unit 69 on property located at 51 Bank Street,
Map 28.4, Lot 42 in the VC Zone. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Volinski and carried unanimously.
New Milford Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – October 25, 2016
Page 10 of 12
Agenda Item 3b: Park Glen Homeowner’s Association, Release of the $2,500 balance of the
developer’s, Park Glen LLC’s Site Restoration and Sedimentation and Erosion Control Bond
associated with the development of an Active Adult Community (Park Glen), on property located on
Harmony Trail, Blossom Ct, and Rainbow Ct, aka 1-17 Park Glen Condo (formerly 309 Litchfield
Road) Map 72, Lot 68.1, in the AAC Zone.
Mr. Taylor stated that the applicant has no legal standing to request the bond be released to them as
they are not part of the contract. Mr. Taylor asked Ms. Regan for clarification as to what the site plan
application says the developer will put into that location. Ms. Regan stated she believed it was
supposed to be grass. Ms. Ward stated that it does not appear that grass will grow there so what they
need to do is find another ground cover option to plant. Mr. Bogie added that it was a very dry year.
Mr. Taylor stated the Commission does not get involved in civil issues, but can enforce the
landscaping be completed per the site plan. Mr. Taylor stated that the developer would be required to
plant something suitable in the spring. Ms. Ward agreed that it could not remain as exposed dirt. Mr.
Taylor stated that once something was established in the area of concern for a growing season or two
the bond could be released.
Mr. Taylor moved to approve Park Glen Homeowner’s Association,
Release of the $2,500 balance of the developer’s, Park Glen LLC’s Site
Restoration and Sedimentation and Erosion Control Bond associated
with the development of an Active Adult Community (Park Glen), on
property located on Harmony Trail, Blossom Ct, and Rainbow Ct, aka 117 Park Glen Condo (formerly 309 Litchfield Road) Map 72, Lot 68.1, in
the AAC Zone. The motion was seconded by Mr. O’Brien and failed
with a vote of 0-5-0.
Mr. Taylor moved to deny Park Glen Homeowner’s Association, Release
of the $2,500 balance of the developer’s, Park Glen LLC’s Site
Restoration and Sedimentation and Erosion Control Bond associated
with the development of an Active Adult Community (Park Glen), on
property located on Harmony Trail, Blossom Ct, and Rainbow Ct, aka 117 Park Glen Condo (formerly 309 Litchfield Road) Map 72, Lot 68.1, in
the AAC Zone. The motion was seconded by Ms. Ward and carried
unanimously.
b. Discussion and possible decision on the following closed public hearings
8) ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES:
a. October 11, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes
Mr. Taylor moved to accept the October 11, 2016 Regular Meeting
Minutes as filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Volinski and carried
with a vote of 4-0-1. (Mr. Taylor abstained)
9) BILLS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
a. Bill: Cramer & Anderson, dated 10/1/16, regarding misc. professional services, $74.00
b. Bill: Cramer & Anderson, dated 10/1/16, regarding Park Glen Bond, $314.50
New Milford Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – October 25, 2016
Page 11 of 12
Mr. Taylor moved to pay Agenda Items 9a and 9b to Cramer &
Anderson in the amounts listed. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Volinski and carried unanimously.
10) ANY BUSINESS PROPER TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION:
a. Review and Acceptance of 2017 Regular Meeting Schedule
Mr. Taylor moved to accept the 2017 Regular Meeting Schedule as
presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. O’Brien and carried
unanimously.
11) ADJOURNMENT:
Mr. Volinski moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:05pm. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bogie and carried unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Farrell
Recording Secretary
New Milford Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes – October 25, 2016
Page 12 of 12