Bristol Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting of July 13, 2016
Chairman Skinner called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Commission members present: Brian Skinner (Chairman), Peter Del Mastro (Secretary), Louise Provenzano, Ryan Scrittorale
(Acting Vice Chairman), James Albert (Alternate), Cindy Lamarre (Alternate) (arrived 7:09 P.M.) and Michael Massarelli (Alternate).
Commission member absent: William Cunningham (Vice Chairman).
Also present: Monica Holloway, Zoning Enforcement Officer and Robert Flanagan, Acting City Planner.
Chairman Skinner reminded the Commission and the public audience there was a 10:00 P.M. curfew. He designated the regular
Commissioners as voting members this evening: Commissioners Scrittorale; Del Mastro; Provenzano; and Skinner. He also
designated alternate Commissioner Albert to sit in place of Commissioner Cunningham for all the applications this evening.
I. Administrative Matters
1. Approval of Minutes
Chairman Skinner designated Commissioner Albert to sit in place of Commissioner Cunningham for the June 8, 2016 minutes.
MOTION: Commissioner Provenzano moved that the minutes of the June 8, 2016, regular meeting of the Zoning Commission be
approved as submitted. Commissioner Albert seconded the motion.
VOTE: In favor – Scrittorale, Provenzano, Albert, Del Mastro and Skinner. Against – none. The motion carried 5-0.
2. Zoning Enforcement Officer's Report
Ms. Holloway summarized her monthly report for June, dated July 7, 2016. Ms. Holloway explained her report had an error under
the Business/Industrial section, the total should be corrected from ten to four for June. Regarding complaints for July, there were
many complaints of tall grass. She explained if the Commission had any concerns that they should contact her.
II. Receipt of New Applications
1. Application #2224 – Revision to Approved Site Plan for installation of ground-mounted solar panels at 81 Grove Ave.;
Assessor’s Map 45, Lot 41-1; R-15 (Single-Family Residential) zone; Bristol Housing Authority, applicant.
2. Application #2225 – Revision to Approved Site Plan for installation of ground-mounted solar panels, addition of five dwelling
units, two parking spaces and mechanical room at 3 North St.; Assessor’s Map 22, Lot 33; BD-2 (Downtown Business) zone;
Bristol Enterprises, LLC, applicant.
3. Application #2226 – Special Permit for housing for the elderly (addition of fourteen dwelling units) at 122 Park St.; Assessor’s
Map 28, Lot 44; R-15/RM (Single-Family Residential/ Mixed Residential Overlay) zone; Bristol Enterprises, LLC, applicant.
4. Application #2227 – Revision to Approved Site Plan for installation of ground-mounted solar panels and construction of carports
at 122 Park St.; Assessor’s Map 28, Lot 44; R-15/RM (Single-Family Residential/ Mixed Residential Overlay) zone; Bristol
Enterprises, LLC, applicant.
Mr. Flanagan explained the process for applications regarding Site Plans, which may be reviewed under New Business at the
Commission’s discretion. Mr. Flanagan explained Applications #2226 and #2227 required a public hearing because of the Special
Permit, but Applications #2224 and #2225 were Revisions to Approved Site Plans, which may be scheduled for public hearings or
reviewed under New Business.
The Commission decided they preferred that all of the new applications be scheduled for public hearings at the August meeting.
MOTION: Commissioner Provenzano moved that Applications #2224, #2225, #2226 and #2227 be scheduled for a public hearing
for the August 10, 2016, regular meeting of the Commission. Commissioner Del Mastro seconded the motion.
VOTE: In favor – Scrittorale, Provenzano, Albert, Del Mastro and Skinner. Against – none. The motion carried 5-0.
–1–
Bristol Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting of July 13, 2016
III. Public Hearings
Chairman Skinner explained that Applications #2221, #2222 and #2223 would be heard concurrently, but voted on separately.
1. Application #Application #2221 – Special Permit for motor vehicle filling station with a convenience store at 266 Pine St.;
Assessor’s Map 3, Lot 44; BHC (Route 72 Corridor Business) zone; Cumberland Farms, Inc., applicant (postponed from 6/8/16).
2.
Application #2222 – Site Plan for motor vehicle filling station with a convenience store at 266 Pine St.; Assessor’s Map 3, Lot
44; BHC (Route 72 Corridor Business) zone; Cumberland Farms, Inc., applicant (postponed from 6/8/16).
3.
Application #2223 – Special Permit for removal of earth materials at 266 Pine St.; Assessor’s Map 3, Lot 44; BHC (Route 72
Corridor Business) zone; Cumberland Farms, Inc., applicant (postponed from 6/8/16).
Commissioner LaMarre arrived at 7:08 PM.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the following items:

A report issued April 2016, entitled “Storm Water Management Report, Proposed Cumberland Farms Convenience Store

A report dated May 2016, entitled “Traffic Impact Study, Cumberland Farms, Bristol, Connecticut, City of Bristol Land Use

The first set of Site Plan Committee comments dated May 17, 2016; the second set of Site Plan Committee comments
dated June 7, 2016 and the third set of Site Plan Committee comments dated July 5, 2016

An electronic mail dated June 6, 2016, from Alan Weiner, former City Planner to Paul Strawderman, City Engineer,
regarding cut and fill analysis provided by the applicant’s engineer, Mark Grockey

A memorandum dated June 8, 2016, from to Paul Strawderman, City Engineer to Alan Weiner, former City Planner,
regarding the applicant provide a narrative of the earth removal;

A letter dated June 20, 2016, from the ConnDOT, regarding its review of the property

A Site Plan, Floor Plan and Architectural drawings dated June 21, 2016

A building pad grading plan dated June 27, 2016, prepared by Jones Engineering;

A memorandum dated June 29, 2016, from Alan Weiner, former City Planner to Paul Strawderman, City Engineer,
regarding the request for comments from the Engineering Department for the Jones Engineering plan dated June 27,
2016
with Gas, 266 Pine Street and Emmett Street, Bristol, Connecticut, Prepared by VHB (Vanasse, Hangen and Brustlin)”
Applications, CT DOT Encroachment Permit Application, Prepared by First Hartford Reality Corporation”
The following item was submitted into the record: a memorandum dated July 13, 2016, from Paul Strawderman, regarding his
acknowledgement of the Jones Engineering Building Pad Grading plans dated June 27, 2016, and his request that the plan be
incorporated into any approvals that may be granted by the Commission.
Commissioner Scrittorale read into the record the public hearing process to the audience.
Attorney Andre Dorval, 17 Riverside Avenue, on behalf of the applicant explained there were three applications, which related to
the proposed construction of a 4,786 sq. ft. building on a 1.9 acre site. Attorney Dorval described the facilities in the area and he
explained the proposed use was allowed in the BHC Zone with a Special Permit. He reviewed the previously approved zone change
application for the property (App. #2178) which changed a portion of the property from an A (Multi-Family Residential) to BHC
(Route 72 Corridor Business).
Attorney Dorval explained the earth removal permit was required to level the elevation of the property for construction.
He explained that there were few remaining Site Plan review comments. The property required an approval from the Connecticut
Department of Transportation (ConnDOT). His opinion was the applications complied with the standards of Regulations. He
explained the applicant was making a substantial investment in the property. Also, the facility was aesthetically pleasing; it would
increase the tax base for the City; and the uses were appropriate for the area.
–2–
Bristol Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting of July 13, 2016
Mark Grocki, P.E., of VHB, 100 Great Meadow Road, Wethersfield, on behalf of the applicant, explained the existing and proposed
conditions of the property. Mr. Grocki explained the property was within the jurisdiction of the ConnDOT and was zoned BHC, the
Route 72 Corridor Business Zone. He explained there was also the Access Management Overlay zone.
Mr. Grocki explained the curb cut on Pine Street would not allow a left turn out; it would allow a right turn in; a left turn in; and a
right turn out. The curb cut on Emmett Street was as far away from the intersection as possible. The proposed Site Plan provided
twenty parking spaces; handicapped parking spaces; a screened dumpster on the side of the building; and a six foot fence. The
majority of the vegetation and trees to the south of the property would remain or be replanted to provide a buffer for the
neighboring properties and zone. The property was compliant for setbacks, landscaping, buffers, and building coverage. Regarding
the storm water system, the majority of the property would be paved with catch basins, oil separators, and under water infiltration
systems. He also reviewed the lighting plan with the Commission.
Mark Vertucci, P.E., Fuss & O’Neill, 146 Hartford Road, Manchester, senior traffic engineer, on behalf of the applicant, reviewed the
Traffic Impact Study with the Commission. Mr. Vertucci explained the peak traffic hours were 7:30 A.M. to 8:30 A.M. and 4:30
P.M. to 5:30 P.M. He explained the facilities peak hours overlapped with the peak traffic hours. He reviewed the process of how
the traffic study was completed and the associated traffic counts; turning movements; traffic growth in the future.
After inquiry by Mr. Flanagan, Mr. Vertucci noted the peak hours of traffic for the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) study
were also 7:30 A.M. to 8:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. to 5:30 P.M.
Mr. Vertucci explained the existing left turn in on Route 72 would be striped and the lane would be extended for traffic queuing. A
ConnDOT Encroachment application would be filed. He explained the facility relied on existing traffic passing by the site. The levels
of traffic service was a “Level F” at the intersection of Emmett Street and Route 72, but the proposed traffic signal optimization
would improve it to a “Level E”. The intersections of Emmett Street, Margerie Street and Sycamore Street was a “Level “C”” and
would remain a “Level “C”. The site driveways, que analysis, site distance analysis and travel speeds were an acceptable level of
service.
Mr. Vertucci concluded the access driveways and property was consistent with the Regulations and Access Management
Regulations and would not significantly impact the road.
After inquiries by the Commission, Mr. Vertucci and Attorney Dorval explained the following:

Preliminary conversations with the ConnDOT regarding the existing (and potential) accident levels on Pine Street and
Emmett Street, which were acceptable levels and it was actually not on the high level of accidents list. But, they made the
recommendation to ConnDOT to extend the left turn lane anyway.

Regarding the level of service, Mr. Vertucci explained there were a few seconds of delay on Pine Street and Emmett
Street, but the proposed signal optimization would improve the level of service. Regarding Margerie Street and Sycamore
Street, there were a few seconds of delay, but it was not a significant.

Regarding the Site Plan, Mr. Grocki explained the center island was a mountable island.
After comments from the Commission, Mr. Grocki agreed that the underground tanks should be relocated on the site to the north.
The Commission agreed that the relocation of the underground tanks to the north was a good idea to accommodate the 25 foot
access aisle and could be a condition of approval after a Staff review.
No one else spoke in favor of the application.
The following persons spoke against the application: Edward and Jennifer Gadalinski, 288 Pine Street (Pinecrest Apartments).
Among their reasons were the proposed site development would change the landscape of the residential area because there were
no commercial facilities in the area. His opinion was the facility would increase the potential for car accidents and the demolition
of the thick vegetation would force wildlife onto the streets also increasing accidents.
Mr. Gadalinski noted there were five gas stations in the area and the residents do not want an additional gas station in the area.
His opinion was Emmett Street should be the limit of commercial expansion. The Commission represents their interests and he
requested the Commission to stand with them and deny the application.
Ms. Gadalinski explained her reasons for opposing the application because it would impose on the residential area an increase in
traffic and accidents. Also, the construction was unnecessary with two vacant properties in the area.
–3–
Bristol Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting of July 13, 2016
She reviewed the maps she submitted, noting the south side of Pine Street up to Stop and Shop had no businesses. Her opinion
was a vacant property in the area would be better for the facility.
Attorney Dorval explained the proposed site was in a BHC zone (Route 72 Corridor Business), which was a business zone and not a
residential property and the use was allowed in the Regulations. He reviewed some of the uses allowed in the zone and
commented the Commission approved a zone change on March 2015.
He understood the neighbors would like the property to remain as it exists, but it was not realistic going forward. As stated by the
engineer, a large existing buffer would be in place to screen the property for the neighbors (varies 80 feet to 15 feet). His opinion
was a business would develop the property ultimately.
The following persons spoke again: Edward and Jennifer Gadalinski. Mr. Gadalinski explained he had concerns of encroachment
factor because this has happened previously. As such, facilities purchase properties and the tenants are displaced, which was his
concern because they may not control that situation.
Mr. Flanagan explained he had a conversation with Mr. Grocki and Mr. Vertucci, regarding findings that he and Alan Weiner,
former City Planner had for the traffic report. He explained the parcel was also in the Access Management Overlay zone.
Also, Mr. Grocki reviewed the 30 foot wide access, which was resolved.
After inquiries by Mr. Flanagan, Mr. Vertucci explained regarding Page 79 of the electronic packet, there was a total of 277 and
342 trips, during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, respectively, which included pass by traffic. He explained the “Level F” would not
get any worse, but the applicant was also proposing traffic light optimization discussed earlier this evening.
After inquiries by Mr. Flanagan, Mr. Grocki explained the distance of the driveway and the site lines to the west was 800 feet and
to the east was over 600 feet. His opinion was that this application exceeded the Access Management Overlay Regulations.
There would be no slopes on the property that would exceed 2:1. Regarding the letter from ConnDOT dated June 20, 2016, the
applicant was working with ConnDOT to resolve their comments. If the applications were approved this evening, the plans
required sign off by the ConnDOT.
After inquiry by Mr. Flanagan and the Commission, respectively, Attorney Dorval explained the hours of business for Application
#2223 (Earth Removal application) would be during business hours, but the applicant would not object to any stipulations by the
Commission.
MOTION: Commissioner Albert moved that the public hearing on Application #2221 be closed. Commissioner Scrittorale seconded
the motion.
VOTE: In favor – Scrittorale, Provenzano, Albert, Del Mastro and Skinner. Against – none. The motion carried 5-0.
Commission Provenzano commented the property was a BHC zone and the property was zoned for this use. She understood the
public concerns about further encroachment, but the property near the neighbors was a different zone. Also, if there was
additional encroachment on their property, an applicant would have to file an application with the Commission. She was sensitive
to zone changes for properties near residential areas.
Commissioner Albert explained the property does not look like a business zone because it was mostly vegetation and a house.
Commissioner Del Mastro’s opinion was the property was zoned for the use; it was a well-designed plan; and he had no
objections.
Mr. Flanagan reviewed the Standards of Approval for Special Permits with the Commission.
MOTION: Commissioner Provenzano moved that Application #2221, Special Permit for motor vehicle filling station with a
convenience store at 266 Pine Street, be approved, for the reason that it complies with the Standards of Approval for
Special Permits contained within the Zoning Regulations.
Commissioner Del Mastro seconded the motion.
VOTE: In favor – Scrittorale, Provenzano, Albert, Del Mastro and Skinner. Against – none. The application was approved 5-0.
Chairman Skinner declared a recess at 8:43 P.M. recess; the meeting resumed at 8:45 P.M.
–4–
Bristol Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting of July 13, 2016
MOTION: Commissioner Provenzano moved that the public hearing on Application #2222 be closed. Commissioner Albert
seconded the motion.
VOTE: In favor – Scrittorale, Provenzano, Albert, Del Mastro and Skinner. Against – none. The motion carried 5-0.
Chairman Skinner commented that the applicant has done their due diligence. He also agreed with the Commission that the tanks
had to be relocated to the north on the property. The Commission commented that the applicant and their representatives did a
good job this evening presenting the applications and answering questions. The plans were contingent on the ConnDOT approval
and relocating the tank.
After inquiry by the Commission, Mr. Flanagan explained that the Staff comments that remained were mainly housekeeping
matters. Staff would compare the final plans to the plan approved by the Zoning Commission. If there were any discrepancies,
they would be discussed with the Commission.
MOTION: Commissioner Provenzano moved that Application #2222, Site Plan for motor vehicle filling station with a convenience
store at 266 Pine Street, be approved, with the following stipulations:
1.
The underground tanks shall be moved north to accommodate a 25-ft. drive aisle pursuant to final Staff reviews.
2.
The Site Plan shall not be signed off until final approval from the Connecticut Department of Transportation has been granted
and the plans revised accordingly.
3.
All site improvements which have not been satisfactorily completed by the time a Certificate of Occupancy is applied for shall
be bonded in accordance with Section XI.A.16. of the Zoning Regulations. The performance bond shall be posted by the
applicant with the City before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
Commissioner Albert seconded the motion.
VOTE: In favor – Scrittorale, Provenzano, Albert, Del Mastro and Skinner. Against – none. The application was approved 5-0.
Mr. Flanagan explained the Commission would determine the hours for earth removal for Application #2223.
The Commission commented they preferred the hours of business not during the peak hours of business, which should be Monday
through Friday 8:30 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. with no weekends or holidays.
Mr. Flanagan explained the Commission had to set a bond for the removal of earth materials application per discussions with the
Engineering Department and Planning Staff. He explained Mr. Strawderman had suggested a bond of $9,800 for the applicant. Mr.
Flanagan suggested a 90 day limit for to activate the Special Permit. Also, a 24 month limit of construction for the earth removal
construction was suggested by Staff.
MOTION: Commissioner Provenzano moved that the public hearing on Application #2223 be closed. Commissioner Scrittorale
seconded the motion.
VOTE: In favor – Scrittorale, Provenzano, Albert, Del Mastro and Skinner. Against – none. The motion carried 5-0.
MOTION: Commissioner Provenzano moved that Application #2223, Special Permit for removal of earth materials at 266 Pine
Street, be approved, with the following stipulations:
1.
The operation shall be conducted in accordance with the approved Site Plan for this development, including all sedimentation
and erosion control measures shown thereon.
2.
The operation shall be conducted in accordance with the 6/27/16 Jones Engineering Building Pad Grading Plan for this
development, including all sedimentation and erosion control measures shown thereon.
3.
Within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Special Permit, a $9,800 performance bond shall be posted by the applicant with
the City.
4.
The Special Permit shall be good for a period of 24 months from the date of issuance.
–5–
Bristol Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting of July 13, 2016
5.
The hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday between 8:30 A.M. and 3:30 P.M.; there shall be no operation on
Saturdays, Sundays or holidays.
6.
Measures to control dust from the operation shall be applied as needed.
7.
The maximum allowable slope of 3-to-1 shall be modified in accordance with Section IX.B.5.c. of the Zoning Regulations and a
maximum allowable slope of 2-to-1 permitted in its place, as shown on the approved Site Plan.
8.
The required 100-foot undisturbed buffer shall be reduced as shown on the approved Site Plan and in accordance with Section
IX.B.5.b.(3) of the Zoning Regulations, in order to match the proposed contours of the development to existing contours.
Commissioner Albert seconded the motion.
VOTE: In favor – Scrittorale, Provenzano, Albert, Del Mastro and Skinner. Against – none. The application was approved 5-0.
4. Application #2220 – Special Permit for display/sale of fully operable used motor vehicles at 10 and 20 Old Wolcott Rd.;
Assessor’s Map 7, Lots 49-3 and 49-2; BG (General Business) zone; Skytop Motors LLC, applicant (postponed from 6/8/16.
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the following items:
A copy of the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes, dated September 11, 1967
An A-2 Survey Map, dated June 13, 2016, entitled “Property Survey, Map of Assessor’s Lot 49-32 and Lot 49-3,
Owned by Henry F. Johnson, Jr., Old Wolcott Road, Bristol, CT, Prepared for Jeremy Berube, Scale 1” = 20’,
dated June 13, 2016” and a plot plan dated June 13, 2016 (submitted by Jeremy Berube).
A neighborhood Zoning Map undated (submitted by Robert Flanagan, Acting City Planner).
The following items were submitted into the record from Todd and Lisa Wagner:
Electronic mails dated March 4, 2015; December 18, 2014; and December 5, 2014 to T.J. Decrisantis,
respectively, regarding service of a 30-ft. recreational vehicle; an unregistered truck; and 18 vehicles on the
property
An e-mail dated January 25, 2013 and September 19, 2014, from Kenneth Cockayne, regarding vehicles
An e-mail dated October 4, 2007, from Mayor Arthur Ward, regarding returning the removed vehicles from the
site (attached e-mails)
A Cease and Desist letter dated September 6, 2006, from Guy Morin, Zoning Enforcement Officer, regarding
illegal second dwelling unit for T.J. Sales (after Bristol Auto).
A copy of an Assessor’s Card dated October 1, 2002, regarding 10 Old Wolcott Road
A copy of a letter entitled “10 Old Wolcott Road, Non-Compliance Under Present Zoning Guidelines”.
Four photographs, dated July/September 2007, with concerns to the ConnDMV for zoning non-compliance for 10
Old Wolcott Road (attached concerns)
Eight photographs undated of various congestion on the property (Pro Auto) of site congestion
Two photographs undated of vehicles parked on the street overnight and abundance of vehicles on the property
(attached e-mail)
Mr. Flanagan reviewed the previously approved Zoning Board of Appeals applications:
September 11, 1967 (limited repair license/stipulations business hours 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M.)
September 8, 1969 (general repair license/ten cars repaired on premises).
November 4, 1987 (used car dealers license/stipulation four cars for sale) and (front and side yard variance for display of
used vehicles)
Mr. Flanagan explained the request before the Commission this evening was for a Special Permit use in a BG zone. It is a request
to change the mix of cars for service versus cars for sale. Mr. Flanagan explained the approval granted by the Zoning Board of
Appeals allowed ten vehicles for repair and four vehicles for sale. The request before the Commission this evening was to amend
that approval and change the mix of vehicles to twelve vehicles for sale and two vehicles for repair.
–6–
Bristol Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting of July 13, 2016
Charles Talmadge, Development Planning Solutions, LLC, 73 Meadow Street, on behalf of the applicant, explained that Mr.
Flanagan summarized the request appropriately to the Commission. Mr. Talmadge explained this was an existing commercial
property and it was continuing to be used for a motor vehicle repair facility. The nature of the request was the existing approvals
allowed only four vehicles for sale and ten vehicles for repair for a total of fourteen vehicles.
The request tonight was to allow twelve vehicles for sale and two vehicles for repair for a total of fourteen vehicles. He explained
this application was unlike the usual Special Permit application in that the request would not have any construction; no paving; no
alterations to the property; and the property would be used for fourteen vehicles as it is now. The request was to amend the mix
of the vehicles for the property from the previous approvals that would be more appropriate for his client. He reviewed the
approval standards for Special Permits. His opinion was the traffic pattern and the neighborhood character were existing for the
area and the facility was part of the neighborhood.
After inquiries by the Commission, Mr. Talmadge explained the blue line on the map was the property line and there was a large
State right of way on the front of the property.
Commissioner Provenzano commented she would be shocked there was sufficient area for fourteen vehicles on the property.
She was unsure of what the property would look like with fourteen vehicles on the property.
After inquiries by the Commission, Mr. Talmadge explained the use of the vehicles on the site has existed for decades. He
commented the plan was sent to the State of Connecticut for the applicant’s licensing procedure and the license was approved.
Chairman Skinner commented the existing approval had four cars for sale and a good mechanic would have five or six cars
repaired and then removed from the site after repair. Therefore, versus having fourteen cars on the site there would maybe be six
cars on the site for service, but the request if approved tonight would have twelve cars on the site that would not be removed.
Commissioner Provenzano explained she could argue the application does not meet all the Standards of Approval for Special
Permits.
No one else spoke in favor of the application.
The following person spoke against the application: Lisa Wagner, 154 Old Wolcott Road, among her reasons were the following:
Ms. Wagner explained the items submitted tonight consisted of electronic mails and was only a partial list of the agencies involved
as follows: ConnDOT; ConnDMV; Bristol Police Department; State Representatives; Zoning Enforcement Officers: Thomas Levine
and T.J. Decrisantis; Guy Morin, Chief Building Official; and a former City Councilman/Mayor Kenneth Cockayne.
Ms. Wagner explained regarding 20 Old Wolcott Road (house with garage), from 2007 to 2012, the previous tenants could not fit
all the vehicles on the property so they parked vehicles in the garage portion of the property. Also, they were parking unregistered
vehicles on the street. The documents submitted showed that 10 and 20 Old Wolcott Road were two separate properties, which
were taxed separately and the facility is located at 10 Old Wolcott Road.
Also, this facility parks vehicles partially in the right of way. The existing and previous facilities have put vehicles (exceeding ten)
on the property and have not removed them from the site, but had them for sale. On Page seven of the public hearing handout,
Debra Tonelli, 533 Wolcott Street, stated it was a dangerous intersection with numerous accidents.
Ms. Wagner explained it continues to be a dangerous intersection and the Bristol Police Department has had 65 complaints for 10
Old Wolcott Road.
She explained she was not against the applicant, but the concerns have been ongoing and she paid her taxes to not have these
concerns. She explained that City Council would be addressing the traffic and vehicles on Peck Lane.
Chairman Skinner explained the Commission may not prevent the applicant from having this business.
After inquiries by the Commission, Ms. Wagner explained the concern was the number of the vehicles on the property. She
explained that the existing approval of four vehicles for sale and ten vehicles for repair was appropriate.
Mr. Flanagan explained that the four vehicles for sale and ten vehicles for repair had to remain, but the request was to revise the
mix of the vehicles on the property and issue a new Special Permit.
–7–
Bristol Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting of July 13, 2016
Commissioner Provenzano agreed the request was to revise the mix of vehicles on the property, but the request was also revising
the primary use of the property. Her opinion was that past approvals recognized that this was a repair facility in a residential zone
with a maximum of fourteen cars with ten for repair. Also, the repair vehicles were on and off the site after they were repaired.
The items presented by Ms. Wagner was, in her opinion, evidence the site was not incompliance and that this site has had a long
history of enforcement issues for various City Staff over the years. Ms. Wagner commented the existing tenant was not
incompliance because there was more than four vehicles for sale because he has unregistered vehicles on site not being repaired,
but they were not labeled for sale.
Commissioner Del Mastro commented that Ms. Wagner has made the concerns very clear. But, he agreed with Commissioner
Provenzano’s opinion of that the intent of the 1969 approval of a vehicle repair facility in a residential area was proper to have
limits on the property. His opinion was that this would add insult to injury if the Special Permit was revised because it was a
residential area. He was not in favor of changing the mix of vehicles and he hoped that the Zoning Regulations would be complied
with by applicant.
Ms. Holloway commented that Mr. Morin had no comments for the application this evening. But, she and Mr. Morin have spoken to
the applicant and the property was a concern prior to the applicant occupying the property. It was explained to the applicant that
only four vehicles were allowed for sale and ten for repair and that no more vehicles would be allowed on the site.
In response to Mr. Flanagan and the Commission, respectively, Mr. Talmadge explained the intention was to be more of a sales
facility, but it was a sales and a service facility while trying to comply with the Regulations.
Commissioner Albert was of the opinion that the applicant was trying to improve the property, but there were property owners
that did not take care of the property in the past.
Commissioner Scrittorale’s opinion was this was not just a matter of revising the vehicle numbers to have ten vehicles for sale. His
opinion was that the additional vehicles parked on the site would be a reversal of the previous approval because a repair vehicle
would be off of the site in a couple days, whereas a used car could be on the site for years. He could not justify this request.
Commissioner DelMastro’s opinion was he preferred to have the site in conformance with the neighborhood. He was against
amending the Special Permit to make the situation worse.
MOTION: Commissioner Provenzano moved that the public hearing on Application #2220 be closed. Commissioner Scrittorale
seconded the motion.
VOTE: In favor – Scrittorale, Provenzano, Albert, Del Mastro and Skinner. Against – none. The motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Flanagan explained the Commission had 65 days to make a decision on the application, but no new information may be
submitted for the application. The Commission decided to vote on the application this evening.
MOTION: Commissioner Provenzano moved that Application #2220, Special Permit for display/sale of fully operable used motor
vehicles at 10 and 20 Old Wolcott Road, be denied, because the application does not comply with the Standards of
Approval for Special Permits contained within the Zoning Regulations, specifically items d. and e.:
d: the existing and future character of the neighborhood in which the use is proposed to be located and the
compatibility of the proposed use with the neighborhood;
e: the impact of the proposed use on the natural characteristics of the site and surrounding environment.
Commissioner Del Mastro seconded the motion.
Chairman Skinner explained to the Commission that a yes vote would be to deny the application.
VOTE: In favor – Scrittorale, Provenzano, Del Mastro and Skinner. Against – Albert. The application was denied 4-1.
IV. Old Business
There was no old business.
V. New Business
There was no new business.
–8–
Bristol Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting of July 13, 2016
VI. City Planner’s Report
1. Commission Reappointments/Appointments
The Commission acknowledged receipt of the four letters dated June 15, 2016 from Therese Pac, Town and City Clerk, regarding
the reappointment of Brian Skinner as a regular member; the appointment of Ryan Scrittorale as a regular member; the
appointment of Cindy Lamarre as an alternate member and the appointment of Michael Massarelli as an alternate member.
Mr. Flanagan explained he was recently appointed as Acting City Planner.
VII. Adjournment
MOTION: Commissioner Scrittorale moved that the July 13, 2016 regular meeting of the Bristol Zoning Commission be adjourned.
Commissioner Del Mastro seconded the motion.
VOTE: In favor – Scrittorale, Provenzano, Albert, Del Mastro and Skinner. Against – none. The motion carried 5-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy King
Recording Secretary
Brian Skinner, Chairman
Peter Del Mastro, Secretary
–9–