Friday, April 3, 2009

Zoning Board of Appeals hears public testimony on Miss Patsy's Hot Dog Stand

The Zoning Board of Appeals met yesterday (Thursday) evening, from about 5:30 to 7:30. The meeting began with a review by the acting chairwoman, whose name I didn't get (apologies), and Bruce Driska, Zoning Enforcement Officer for the city, of the reasons for the delay in resolving the present appeal (see *note* at bottom), the circumstances which led to the current meeting's continued inability to issue a final decision (the members haven't yet sufficiently 'experted' themselves on the many interesting twists and turns of the case), and the decision to hold the public hearing in any case (to at least complete the record of testimony and move things along). It was unclear at first whether an actual quorum existed, but the fact that an entirely new member had been seated (sorry, I can't recall that name either) seemed to resolve that issue. (Nevertheless, the quorum present did not include all the members who are voting on the case.)

When we finally did get under way with public testimony a new conundrum presented itself. The chairwoman had, in initiating the proceedings, called for those in favor of the applicant to speak first, after which those opposed could follow. So after Atty. Bennet (representing Christopher Parslow, the applicant) said a few introductory words, Jennifer Saines of High Street went up to the microphone and read her letter in support of Mr. Parslow. The chairwoman let Ms. Saines finish and thanked her, but then added that she had in fact spoken out of turn -- since the chairwoman had asked for those speaking in favor of the applicant to go first. With everyone in the room scratching their skulls, Atty. Bennet pointed out that his client was, in fact, the applicant, so Ms. Saines had spoken in the correct order. Apparently the confusion revolved around the fact that speaking against the continued presence of the hot dog stand constitutes speaking in favor of the applicant. One can thus be opposed and in favor at the same time. (I often find myself in this position at home, so I caught on right away.) This led to a new round of discussion between Mr. Driska and the chairwoman, at the end of which it was in fact determined that Ms. Saines had spoken in the correct order, and the chair apologized for the confusion and asked, for clarification, that every speaker clearly identify whose side he or she is supporting. So Ms. Saines re-approached the podium to say, for the record, that she was speaking in favor of the applicant, Mr. Parslow, as represented by Atty. Bennet. Then a parade of public testimony followed by various members of the public, whose comments ranged from supporting Mr. Parslow to supporting Miss Patsy's (and the lot owner, whose name slips my memory, but all documents relevant to the case can be read here).

The public comment revealed a continued variety of assertions about the alleged prior existence of a hot dog stand on the corner back in the day, as well as the nature of that stand -- though these questions, it should be noted, have been decided by the courts (which, in fact, is why there is currently an appeal to the ZBA). The comments on the mysterious hot dog stand were interesting as a question of historical memory, and as I am a historian, despite my inability to remember names, I will review some of those comments here. Some people claim that they recall going to get a hot dog on a regular basis, while others claim that the sale of food at the site was nothing more than a church bazaar held once a year. One speaker pointed out that the Cyprus Restaurant and Grill down the street (across from the Monte Green [now Haveli]) was formerly known as the Cyprus Diner, and that many people who took the bus to New Haven would stop there to get a hot dog. One person, whose birth date ranged from 1938 (according to Atty. Dowley, representing Miss Patsy's et al) to 1958 (according to the person himself), recalled getting hot dogs as a child in the 1960s and feeding the deer (in fact, I think he even said reindeer, but that could simply by my own memory issues kicking in) at Sanibel across the street. The chairwoman noted, in questioning Atty. Dowley, that she had spoken to two or three long-time residents along South Main and Randolph Road, "who'd lived there 75 or 80 years," who had no memory of a hot dog stand at the corner in question (Randolph and South Main). She added, "it would be wonderful if you could just provide a photograph or some hard evidence to back up your case." Atty. Dowley acknowledged that evidence of this sort would be wonderful, but that he couldn't "simply invent it". The owner of the lot stood up, toward the end of the public comment session, to state that the reason the stand was not shown on the survey that he had had done was that surveys do not include trailers and temporary structures, and that the stand in question was simply a cart with an umbrella. (This and another survey, by the Highway Department, had been introduced as evidence in the Superior and Appellate court cases that preceded (and necessitated) the current appeal; according to Atty. Bennet, it had been proven to the satisfaction of those courts that while a church bazaar may have been held intermittently at one of the two adjacent lots in question [which have since become one lot, adding to the confusion in the case], there was no evidence of a permanent or semi-permanent structure at either lot. The current structure, as I understand it, is a trailer that is connected to both water and power.)

Atty. Bennet's description of the court's decision is, in fact, backed up by the documents from the case, available online. Here is the relevant excerpt from the Appellate Court's affirmation of the original Superior Court decision (I think I have the order correct), issued 16 September 2008, on page 11 of the city's pdf file (note that most of the punctuation was rendered invisible in the scanning of the document):


All in all, it was a surreal evening.

[Full disclosure: During the public comment I spoke in favor of Mr. Parslow's position. And I am related by marriage to Ms. Jennifer Saines.]

*note*: the 'appeal' technically is an appeal of the November 2008 decision by Mr. Driska, the current Zoning Enforcement Officer, to not abide by the findings of the Appellate Court's affirmation of the Superior Court's upholding of the original ZEO's cease and desist order back in the early years of the millennium.

12 comments:

Ed McKeon said...

I think this approach to reporting is sometimes called "new journalism" (e.g. Tom Wolfe), though the artful "forgetting" of names to allow anonymity to self-parodying public officials and witnesses, is a nice, and innovative touch. I enjoy this truly subjective account of a public meeting thoroughly enjoyable.

Anonymous said...

I enjoyed the report, too. But I am not sure if anything happened....

Ed McKeon said...

What I meant to say, but the margarita got in the way, was "I find this subjective account of a public meeting thoroughly enjoyable." I can't bear to leave any tequila behind.

BTW, the fact that nothing happened makes the report all the more delicious.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what the issue is. Gettin a good valued dog from Miss Patsy's has become a fun pastime for me and my boys. The traffic seams safe (no safety issue seams apparrent), it sits in front of a well keep consruction yard. The stand's not an eye soar. What is the other side of the story?

John Phillips

Vijay Pinch said...

Did anything happen? Does anything ever happen? What is an 'event'? When does it begin? When does it end? What conditions are necessary for an 'event' to be remembered in time? What is time? These and other questions raced through my mind at the meeting in question. (For a primer on time, chronology, and 'event', see the discussion of Bakhtin at http://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/bakhtins-dialogic-imagination-notes-on-chronotope-and-the-novel/ )

Actually, one decisive vote was taken at the ZBA on Thursday, and it happened between the 'events' described in paragraphs one and two of the report. It involved an approval for a variance for a lot that had been big enough to develop into two lots until the city took some of it away during a road redesign. The issue was originally second on the agenda, but the chairwoman moved it forward since she felt that it would be quickly expedited (and so the property owner -- sorry, I can't recall his name -- wouldn't have to suffer through all the public comment on Miss Patsy's). It was approved unanimously with very little discussion.

What is the other side of the Miss Patsy story?, asks John Phillips. I guess in the end it comes down to whether zoning regulations have any meaning in Middletown. May a property owner conduct activities on her/his property that contravene what is allowed by zoning, and do neighboring property owners have any recourse if and when this occurs? The applicant (Christopher Parslow) argues that a zoning violation is in fact occurring on the property adjacent to his home and has been for some time, and that the city has been and is allowing it to continue. Miss Patsy's and the owner of the lot in question argue that their use of the property is consistent with the 'noncomforming' nature of the original lot when it was zoned. There is, thus, a clear disagreement. This disagreement has gone to the courts, twice. The courts have decided, twice, in favor of the applicant (Mr. Parslow), that the activity in question, namely, the installation of Miss Patsy's hot dog stand and the sale of hot dogs etc. therein, contravenes the city's zoning regulations and that the city has acted illegally in not upholding its original cease and desist order.

A particular bone of contention was the original nature of the non-conforming use of the lot, which sits in a residential zone. Zoning regulations clearly stipulate that when any change in use occurs that change in use should constitute a move toward conformity within the zone (in this case, toward 'residential'). The courts decided that the installation of Miss Patsy's was in fact an *enlargement* or *expansion* of a non-conforming use. This is prohibited by Middletown's zoning regulations. The courts also determined that the installation of Miss Patsy's by definition introduced an additional structure on the lot. This too is prohibited in Middletown's zoning regulations.

Put more simply, Miss Patsy and the lot owner argue that there has been no change in the non-conforming use. Mr. Parslow argues that there has been a change in the non-conforming use. The disagreement is, then, whether anything actually *changed*. Or whether anything actually happened. OMG, we're back where we started. Except for the fact that the courts have agreed with Mr. Parslow. Something did change. Something did happen. And it should not have been allowed to.

There are many commercial establishments that I enjoy visiting, with or without my kids. But I wouldn't want any of these businesses to suddenly spring up next door to my house. I would find many aspects of the neighboring commercial activity annoying, including the parking of customers' automobiles -- especially if many of these vehicles were trucks. I would find the decline in my own property value particularly irksome, especially in light of the concomitant increase in my neighbhor's property value. I would be dismayed by the prospect of a time-consuming legal battle. My insides would turn at the invariable hostility that would prevail between myself and my neighbor. I would expect, especially if my house were situated in a residential zone, to be able to go to the zoning office of the city and get immediate satisfaction. I would expect the zoning officers of the city to abide by the city's own zoning regulations. I would be dismayed when this does not occur.

This, it seems to me, is what is at issue here.

It is not about the quality of Miss Patsy's hot dogs.

Anonymous said...

Interesting, but very biased, analysis Mr. Pinch. Thankfully, Ms. Patsy and Mr. Parslow have the right to appeal decisions. This is a fight between 2 property owners, not the Wesleyan contingent
Mr. Parslow brings or even the Ms. Patsy customers, (at least they have been there and have enjoyed the hot dogs.)

Its Parslow vs. Patsy, its not a popularity contest and it doesn't matter what ZBA does, it is headed back to the Superior, then the Appealate court no matter what the ZBA says.. it will be up to the Supreme Court and both parties will have to accept what they say.

Thats the system, love it or leave it. I suggest you stay home next month and spend the night with your kids.

Vijay Pinch said...

To Anonymous @ 8:02 pm: I have openly stated my support for the Parslow position in the original post. You, by contrast, pretend to be unbiased. Which of us is more objective? I will let the reader decide.

The assertion of bias implies a claim that there is a distortion of fact. You might help the reader by pointing out where I have written something with respect to the case that departs from fact.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Vijay, It is good to know the route of the issue. I guess I was naïve to think the food establishment was operating under proper zoning authorization. I’m not naïve to think this town would act properly and enforce the town code. The code should be applied with out bias until a proper code change can be applied. Wouldn’t it be Miss Patsy’s right to apply for a zone change? It seams the current path chosen is a bit back doorish??? Maybe I’m wrong. As much as I enjoy a Miss Patsy’s lunch, the zoning regulations are there not only to protect me, but my neighbor miles away. I hope there can be a sensible compromise reached, but any compromise must adhere to the cities principals of the zoning code. Not just for this particular corner but any corner in the city.

Anonymous said...

Civil hostility? Is this an oxymoron? Much as I love a hot dog, I detest hostility and would go far out of my way to avoid an encounter. Isn't there someone , somewhere, a benevolent Solomon-like dispenser of justice who can create a mutually satisfactory resolution to this distressing affair? To have a personable, clever, thoughtful, and probably attractive, philosopher attend and report upon these "events", where it is open to debate as to whether anything happens, is indeed a delight. I am so proud, not to say smug, to live in such an enlightened metropolis where meetings provide so much enjoyment that all that culture stuff is just icing on the cake. To top it off is the cherry of the ever vigilant Eye and the grammarians policing the usage of our fabulous language. Please, Ed, continue unmuzzled, unbiased and stick to beer before composing.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous @ 12:27:

Unmask yourself and become an author for the Eye (if you are not already). We think you are very clever and would like to read more of your writing.

Smugly,

-A. Nona Mouse

P.S. Poor Vijay -- only "probably" attractive.

Dog Lover said...

I think I'm going to the Cypress (NOT Cyprus) for a nice hot dog for lunch....maybe I'll try the chili dog!

Anonymous said...

Don't you mean Chile Dog?