COMMENTARY
by Anthony Lancia
It is quite obvious that both the property owner Mylchreest Construction as well as Miss Patsy feel that a grave injustice has been handed down by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The actions taken on May 7th were against the Town Attorneys advice not to mention against an original decision granted to Miss Patsy to operate her business.
by Anthony Lancia
It is quite obvious that both the property owner Mylchreest Construction as well as Miss Patsy feel that a grave injustice has been handed down by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The actions taken on May 7th were against the Town Attorneys advice not to mention against an original decision granted to Miss Patsy to operate her business.
I question the validity of these actions and if those who hold the power to set precedent and footprints in the City of Middletown have the right direction on mind. Although they have followed the GUIDANCE of the laws as well as testimony given as to past activity pursued on said property they still did not take into account the future of the entire City by creating precedent and potentially affecting future decisions with similar circumstances.
In just two short weeks following this decision the Planning and Zoning Commission invited the Town Planner of Hamden, Leslie Creane to make a presentation on a New Approach to Zoning Regulations with the implementation of Form-based Zoning and Smart Code and its interest to the harmony of injecting businesses in places outside of the current "use based zoning rules" and keeping the communities best interest in mind as well as those whom are surrounded by such businesses. Please correct me if I am wrong but it would seem to me that Miss Patsy's lunch wagon fits into this category and would most certainly be the poster child for such an experiment.
The request made for Ms. Creane to come and share her ideas comes with open arms to me individually as I feel that this approach is something that could help relieve some of the TAX burden upon the residents of the City. It is commercial properties that give back the most to the City, all one has to do is open the Middletown Press this morning and read of the revenues that we will be losing by the departure of insurance giant Aetna, both the City of Middletown as well as the Westfield Fire District have had to make mill adjustments to offset such revenues losses.This example should be enough of an EYE opener to all City officials when making such decisions that have an affect on any tax revenues that we the taxpayers will fore go when ruling to close businesses are made.
One could say that this Board of Appeals were put between a rock and a hard place when they had to make their final ruling, as the consequences of actions taken most certainly can bring litigation from either side. But let us keep in mind the future of the City and its development should be in the best interest of all.
It is more than obvious to anyone who has either frequented or at one time or another made a visit to the lunch wagon that this was a professional and community oriented stop. Miss Patsy has served all that arrived at her wagon with the same respect that she gives to family and friends. I have witnessed those neighbors who have stopped in for an occasional lunch and then testified and spoke out against the running of the wagon. Would that be two faced or would that be selfishness? I would say both.
Not in my neighborhood seems to be the theme when it comes to trying to get things done in the Northeast in general, Lets take Ms. Creanes advice and get on board with Montpelier (Vermont), Jamestown (Rhode Island), and Dover (New Hampshire) and become a role model for the Northeast.
I encourage those who agree and disagree with my mindset to respond as this helps me to be better informed and understand your way of thinking which in turn allows me to exercise my rights as a taxpayer in support of or against what I feel are injustices.
15 comments:
I don't think I'd like to live in a town with no Zoning Regulations, and it's obvious, in the opinion of the court, and the appropriate city boards, that Miss Patsy's was operating illegally.
I think you misunderstand the tenets of Smart Growth, Anthony. In fact, such an approach lays down strict rules as well.
Mixed use doesn't mean an automobile junk yard can or should be opened in a residential neighborhood. So, you are wrong, Miss Patsy's would not fit into the definition of mixed use under Smart Growth.
I don't think Miss Patsy's would have any problem opening a lunch cart downtown, or in an appropriate mixed use location.
I don't doubt Miss Patsy is friendly and respectful to her customers. That is no reason to give anyone a zoning exception.
I think Miss Patsy's should be allowed to operate as long as proper zoning is obtained. I am sorry to hear that the current location isn't zoned for her stand. The property is well-maintained--I drive down Randolph Road every day and have never had an issue with the property.
I don't believe that I stated that we should live in a town with no Zoning Regulations Ed. Furthermore I do understand the tenets of Smart Growth and the strict rules that apply.
The fact of the matter is Ed that there is room for adjustment to the rules in regards to benefits of the community and recoginition of those affected by the P&Z decisions, the Smart Growth concept is to think outside the box.
In regards to the decision passed down does not mean that it was correct, only that those in power have ruled, appeals can keep this issue going on for some time not to mention the cost associated with this INJUSTICE.
I respect your opinion Ed but vehemently disagree with your position on this matter.
Thanks Anthony for posting with your ID. It's greatly appreciated.
We do disagree. I don't live near Miss Patsy's but if the person next door to me decided to park a lunch wagon out front of their house, flaunting zoning regulations, I would be upset. And it would be illegal. I'm guessing, under the same circumstances you would too.
You spoke about precedent. If Miss Patsy's was allowed to continue operation, what's to stop the owner from selling the site for a McDonalds?
I guess we do disagree, and vehemently so.
I understand your concern but your comments lack truth, first the wagon is not parked outside the neighbors front door nor is it in any way an EYE sore, it is in fact a well maintained rehabed property thanks to the business owner.
It should also be noted that this is a mixed zoned area and that she was not operating illegally. The wagon was permitted by both the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as all Health Department permits were obtained.
As far as having a lunch wagon parked outside my front door, it would depend on how it is presented, you see my property has some alure in its own right, people passing often stop by for a visit.
I would love to offer a roadside fruit/vegetable stand or some other service from the confines of my own property. What better than community based relations.
I have a beautiful lake and the Falcons Club across from my home that hosts several events on any given day but mostly on weekends, they are great neighbors and I often enjoy the sound of live bands. I understand this is not for everyone but it works for me.I also serve on the Board of Directors for the club which in turn gives me the opportunity to voice my concerns and work with them as neighbors.
I guess Ed my point is that we all would be much better off putting our time and efforts into being good neighbors as opposed to trying to prove a point for ones benefit.
Smart Growth addresses these exact issues, take the time to read about Vermonts approach to these issues.
Tony
I'm begining to think that the Middletown Eye Blog is turning into the Anthony Lancia Blog.
Might I suggest that Anthony get his own blog and leave the Middletown Eye for news and events rather than his personal commentary? You've already stated your opinions on this matter in several other posts. Why is this newsworthy?
Signing this anonymously as I do not wish to get in a verbal battle with the OP.
Tony:
With respect, I also disagree with your position. I certainly do not see this as an injustice.
As I understand it, the zoning code does not allow a hot dog stand where Miss Patsy's is located. That much everyone seems to agree on. The question then becomes whether there was a non-conforming use that pre-dates the zoning code that would grandfather (grandmother?) Miss Patsy's use in. The ZBA decided that there was not sufficent evidence of a prior non-conforming use. You can argue about whether or not the evidence was sufficent to establish a prior use, but I submit that the rest of the issues that you raise are, and should be, irrelevant to the ZBA decision.
You say: Although they have followed the GUIDANCE of the laws as well as testimony given as to past activity pursued on said property they still did not take into account the future of the entire City by creating precedent and potentially affecting future decisions with similar circumstances. [emphasis in original]". I would argue that the ZBA should not merely be guided by the laws and evidence, they must strictly follow them.
I want a ZBA that makes decisions based upon the law and the evidence, without regard to personalities, tax consequences, personal preferences or how long someone has lived in town. I think that is exactly what the ZBA did in this situation.
You makes some interesting arguments for changes to the zoning code. That's great, but that is a decision that should be made in another forum. The ZBA should make its decisions based on what the code is now, not what they, you, or I think that the code should be.
This isn't about whether Miss Patsy's is run by nice people, or who is or is not a nice neighbor. Its about playing by the rules, one set of rules for everyone. We as citizens have the power to make the rules and to change the rules that we don't like. That is a good thing, but once they are made then they need to be followed. Allowing the government to ignore the rules is a very dangerous thing that never ends well.
This is an entirely appropriate post to The Eye, I disagree with anonymous at 2:19. I think any piece that is clearly labeled as commentary, is informed, signed, and about an issue that is particular to Middletown, belongs in The Eye. I would argue that this is especially true for those opinions which many readers will disagree with.
The Miss Patsy's debate has been the subject of at least 7 articles in The Eye (I'm guilty of a few of them). One of the reasons I wrote about it several times is that it is a real, on-the-ground situation (about a place many people know) that seemed to illustrate a number of important zoning issues that can otherwise be somewhat abstract. It also served as a vehicle for me (and hopefully readers) to understand the mechanics of zoning enforcement, and of the municipal agencies which regulate land use in our city.
Planning aficionados and urbanistas spend a lot of time with lofty goals, big maps, zoning regulations, legal codes, bylaws, and the city charter. Sometimes it helps to have a little hot dog stand on the corner to ground those abstractions. This commentary does it.
Seems Eye Spy missed an important point Middletown Eye made. He used the "D" word. Whenever someone tries to open an establishment outside the confines of Main Street,somebody has a hissy fit.
Why would Miss Patsy want to locate downtown where there are fifty other eateries? The whole idea of a "lunch cart" is to be where the competition ain't! Does anyone remember what that corner looked like BEFORE?
I completely agree with fishmuscle's comment to 3:19---this sort of commentary is exactly why I read the Eye. I don't happen to agree with Mr. Lancia, but that's beside the point. This is actual community journalism and commentary.
- Norman Danner
Eye Spy writes in the first paragraph that "The actions taken on May 7th were against the Town Attorneys advice not to mention against an original decision granted to Miss Patsy to operate her business."
This is slightly misleading. In point of fact, what should probably be regarded as the original decision was the one made by the Zoning Enforcement Officer in 2004. That decision was to issue a "cease and desist" order. That original decision was entirely consistent in its reasoning with the recent decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals on 7 May 2009.
In a document filed for a 2 September 2004 meeting of the ZBA, the then ZEO concluded in reference to Miss Patsy's: "This is a clear violation in the R-15 zone and the ZBA should uphold the cease and desist." This decision, or whatever we might call it (determination?), was overturned by the ZBA at that 2 September 2004 meeting.
Semantics aside, the main point is that according to the current ZBA, the earlier, original decision/determination of the ZEO was the correct one, and it should not have been overturned by the 2004 ZBA.
Good Morning to all: I would like to thank all that have interjected comments and facts as they have followed this case.
It has been very educational to me in more ways than one, I will say that the following of zoning laws is essential to proper growth of any community but it should not be forgotten that these codes need assessment on a regular basis to allow a city to make change.
This is the way any community advances, I will stick to my guns when I say that there are individuals within the community that will go to any lengths to get their way and build their own little sub-community around them.
This is part of life as we get up every day and negotiate a multitude of events.
My feelings go back to my original post about what is best for the COMMUNITY not any one individual, we live in a democracy and legislation is drafted to make changes to law to better improve the lives of all. Living in a community with the ability to make this happen on a local level is something I support.
This case in my EYES is one that the individual is using the law to its fullest extent to satisfy his own selfish needs and to me that is against all basic principles of living in a community.
When we sit down and work things out through negotiations and utilize the democratic process all parties involve tend to win.
When we take a stand and stomp are feet all parties involved lose (except the attorneys) and this is what drives a community apart.
We need to take advantage of all assets that preside within the community and take time to learn more about our neighbors as opposed to driving a wedge between ourselves and the community and ultimately living in a bubble, although this behavior is not for everyone I feel compelled to constantly and aggressively pursue the building of a harmonious community.
Anthony Lancia I appreciate your paassion but in my humble opinion you need to chill out. It seems that the democratic process has been fulfilled. Your words about the people you disagree with sound exactly like what you yourself are doing. ("individuals within the community that will go to any lengths to get their way and build their own little sub-community around them. " )
And calling this an injustice truly is an overstatement.
And this does belong in the EYE. I have seen the EYE get criticized for narrow reporting so who should decide what to include or not.
This is an online news blog. An open public forum for anything related to Middletown.
Chill out people!
Oh Mr. Spy, you contrarian you. Looks like things are going to get interesting around here.
-A. Nona Mouse
I hate to open this up again, but does anyone know why Miss Patsy is still operating as of yesterday?
Post a Comment