At Wednesday's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Bruce Driska, the City's Zoning Enforcement Officer, told the commissioners that he had issued a cease and desist order to the operator of Miss Patsy's Kitchen, located at the corner of South Main and Randolph Road. He said that the operator of the food stand told him there would be no appeal.
Miss Patsy's is a popular lunch and breakfast venue for many in Middletown, but it has come under fire for illegally operating a restaurant in a residential zone. Chris Parslow, who owns a house adjacent to Miss Patsy's has asked the City for 7 years to enforce its zoning regulations and order the hot dog stand closed. After a series of hearings at the Zoning Board of Appeals, and a series of lawsuits, Parslow succeeded in forcing the City to order Miss Patsy's closed.
On March 2nd, Driska inspected the premises, and on March 3rd, he delivered a Cease and Desist order for "illegal food vending cart in residential zone".
Showing posts with label Miss Patsy's. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Miss Patsy's. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Miss Patsy Served Injustice !
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.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Zoning Board of Appeals Votes on the "Miss Patsy's" case
The Zoning Board of Appeals met this evening at 5:30. The main item on the agenda was "old business", namely, the Parslow/Bennet appeal of the decision by Zoning Enforcement Officer Bruce Driska to allow the continued operation of Miss Patsy's hotdog stand at 980 South Main Street despite the Appellate Court's decision to uphold the Superior Court's decision in favor of Parslow/Bennet.
It's a complicated case. For earlier coverage and commentary in the Eye, click here and scroll down a bit.
To open discussion, Officer Driska gave a brief recap of the case, a main point of which was to observe that the public hearing was closed as of the last meeting. At the beginning of discussion a mini-crisis emerged in the form of a letter from ZBA member Judy Pehota who could not be in attendance due to a conflict. The letter was sent to Chairwoman Annabel Resninsky and was written to express an opinion on the appeal. Mr. Driska advised against reading the letter aloud to any of the members or to the public, since it would constitute a form of public testimony. Attorney John Bennet, representing Christopher Parslow, rose on a point of order to concur with Officer Driska's opinion, and added that reading the letter could put in jeopardy any action the Board takes in the case. Chairwoman Resninsky noted her disagreement with the opinion of Officer Driska, but the letter was not read aloud. Instead Chairwoman Resninsky began discussion by stating in detail her changed opinion of the case after having reviewed the copious documentary evidence and public testimony. (The files in the case are well over an inch thick and, in answer to a later question, took many hours to review.) In her view the Parslow/Bennet appeal had merit, she concurred that there was no evidence that a hotdog stand had been on the corner in question, and she agreed with the courts' decisions on the matter.
ZBA member Chris Beauchemin then spoke at length, also in favor of the appeal. He addressed the question of the previous existence of the stand, of which there was no evidence of any sort beyond activity in the form of an occasional church stand. He noted Planning, Conservation, and Development Director William Warner's early testimony concerning the original application of Mylchreest Construction Services, the owner of the site in question, for a continuation of the non-conforming use of the lot, in which no mention was made of anything beyond the original construction equipment storage garage on the footprint of the original building. He also pointed out that the current use by Miss Patsy's was not at all comparable to past use, or even to claims of past use. And he concluded by stating that because the current use of the lot violates the zoning code, he was supporting the appeal.
ZBA member Martin Reardon agreed with both Chairwoman Resninsky and Mr. Beauchemin. The fourth member present was Robert Stefurak. The motion to support the appeal was read, and the vote was taken. Four in favor of the appeal, zero opposed, zero abstentions.
Attorney Bennet thanked the members of the Board for their "extended attention" to the case. [Update @ 9:15 p.m. Christopher Parslow sent the following statement via email: "We're grateful for this positive outcome to our appeal, which has been a long time coming."]
The only other item on the agenda was new business, an application for a variance in an R-30 zone at 144 Saddle Hill Drive. This issue actually preceded the Parslow/Bennet appeal. The applicant, Jodi Lapham, requested that she be able to build her shed closer to the back of her lot than is allowed due to poor grading and moisture issues in the center of the site. Ms. Lapham made a brief statement. The required set back is 30 feet; the back of the shed would be 18 feet from the line. The builder did a bad job grading the lot, which causes water to pool and drain across the middle of the lot. After discussion about the nature of the problem, and a review of the zoning code guidelines concerning imposed hardships, a vote was taken. It was unanimous in favor of the applicant.
After adjournment, Officer Driska informed the Board members that Ms. Pehota's letter offered the same opinion on the Parslow/Bennet appeal as had been expressed by Mr. Beauchemin and Chairwoman Resninsky.
It's a complicated case. For earlier coverage and commentary in the Eye, click here and scroll down a bit.
To open discussion, Officer Driska gave a brief recap of the case, a main point of which was to observe that the public hearing was closed as of the last meeting. At the beginning of discussion a mini-crisis emerged in the form of a letter from ZBA member Judy Pehota who could not be in attendance due to a conflict. The letter was sent to Chairwoman Annabel Resninsky and was written to express an opinion on the appeal. Mr. Driska advised against reading the letter aloud to any of the members or to the public, since it would constitute a form of public testimony. Attorney John Bennet, representing Christopher Parslow, rose on a point of order to concur with Officer Driska's opinion, and added that reading the letter could put in jeopardy any action the Board takes in the case. Chairwoman Resninsky noted her disagreement with the opinion of Officer Driska, but the letter was not read aloud. Instead Chairwoman Resninsky began discussion by stating in detail her changed opinion of the case after having reviewed the copious documentary evidence and public testimony. (The files in the case are well over an inch thick and, in answer to a later question, took many hours to review.) In her view the Parslow/Bennet appeal had merit, she concurred that there was no evidence that a hotdog stand had been on the corner in question, and she agreed with the courts' decisions on the matter.
ZBA member Chris Beauchemin then spoke at length, also in favor of the appeal. He addressed the question of the previous existence of the stand, of which there was no evidence of any sort beyond activity in the form of an occasional church stand. He noted Planning, Conservation, and Development Director William Warner's early testimony concerning the original application of Mylchreest Construction Services, the owner of the site in question, for a continuation of the non-conforming use of the lot, in which no mention was made of anything beyond the original construction equipment storage garage on the footprint of the original building. He also pointed out that the current use by Miss Patsy's was not at all comparable to past use, or even to claims of past use. And he concluded by stating that because the current use of the lot violates the zoning code, he was supporting the appeal.
ZBA member Martin Reardon agreed with both Chairwoman Resninsky and Mr. Beauchemin. The fourth member present was Robert Stefurak. The motion to support the appeal was read, and the vote was taken. Four in favor of the appeal, zero opposed, zero abstentions.
Attorney Bennet thanked the members of the Board for their "extended attention" to the case. [Update @ 9:15 p.m. Christopher Parslow sent the following statement via email: "We're grateful for this positive outcome to our appeal, which has been a long time coming."]
The only other item on the agenda was new business, an application for a variance in an R-30 zone at 144 Saddle Hill Drive. This issue actually preceded the Parslow/Bennet appeal. The applicant, Jodi Lapham, requested that she be able to build her shed closer to the back of her lot than is allowed due to poor grading and moisture issues in the center of the site. Ms. Lapham made a brief statement. The required set back is 30 feet; the back of the shed would be 18 feet from the line. The builder did a bad job grading the lot, which causes water to pool and drain across the middle of the lot. After discussion about the nature of the problem, and a review of the zoning code guidelines concerning imposed hardships, a vote was taken. It was unanimous in favor of the applicant.
After adjournment, Officer Driska informed the Board members that Ms. Pehota's letter offered the same opinion on the Parslow/Bennet appeal as had been expressed by Mr. Beauchemin and Chairwoman Resninsky.
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.
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.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Hot dog decision delayed
The Zoning Board of Appeals at 5:30 today will continue a public hearing on an appeal regarding Miss Patsy’s Hot Dog stand on the corner of
The public hearing on this issue began at the February 5th meeting but was interrupted because the ZBA lost quorum when one of the members was called away. It was then scheduled for the March 5th meeting but was postponed because not enough of the ZBA members who had heard the February 5th public testimony could attend on March 5th. The ZBA is now scheduled to continue the public hearing at its meeting tomorrow, at 5:30 in Council Chambers.
Unfortunately for those hoping for a resolution of the dispute, the ZBA will be unable to issue a ruling on this issue until its May 7th meeting. This is because some of the ZBA members have been unable so far to listen to the digital audio files of the testimony given at the February 5th meeting. Thus, although the public hearing will be closed after all members of the public have spoken, the decision will be further delayed.
The history of the zoning dispute regarding Miss Patsy's Hot Dog stand already goes back several years. Part of that history includes an earlier ZBA decision which had allowed Miss Patsy's to operate on a lot on
Opponents of the hotdog stand insist that the Superior Court judgment explicitly forbids the operation on either lot, and that the ZBA and town officials are refusing to enforce the zoning code on the books. The correspondence, rulings by the ZEO and the courts are all available here.
With this current appeal, the ZBA is being asked to revisit a case in which their previous ruling was rejected by the Superior Court. The repeated lack of a quorum of ZBA members who are present at the meetings, and prepared for them, has delayed the resolution of this appeal.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Postpone that hot dog!
The hearing on Zoning Board of Appeals matter concerning a food vending trailer (Miss Patsy's) on 908 South Main Street has been postponed until the April 2nd meeting.
The other item on the public hearing agenda, a variance in required lot size for 66 Durant Terrrace will be considered at the meeting tonight.
The ZBA was scheduled to continue the hearing on the food vending trailer that was interrupted when they lost quorum at their last meeting. Board member Martin Reardon left that meeting abruptly in the middle of the meeting, after testimony was given, to attend to a "family emergency." That hearing was regarding a ruling by the Zoning Enforcement Officer on the legality of Miss Patsy's Hot Dog stand. He ruled that the stand was a permitted use on a residential lot at the corner of Randolph Road and South Main. This ruling has been challenged by nearby resident Christopher Parslow.
According to Bill Warner, Director of the Department of Planning, Conservation and Development, Vice Chair Judy Pehota is not available for tonight's, and only five other members can attend. Pehota sat through the original testimony during the last meeting. Four votes are needed to overturn any standing decision. In addition, Warner noted that members who had not heard the original testimony have not yet reviewed the DVD of the meeting, and that they needed the time between now, and the next meeting to review the video of the meeting.
Attorney Bennett, who is representing Christopher Parslow, the resident appealing the original Miss Patsy's ruling, says it is only proper that the original four members who heard the testimony are there for the ruling, or that members who were absent review the testimony as recorded.
"They are an appellate body," Bennett said in a telephone interview. "And this is a legal appeal, so it is only right that all members have carefully reviewed the testimony before issuing a decision."
The other item on the public hearing agenda, a variance in required lot size for 66 Durant Terrrace will be considered at the meeting tonight.
The ZBA was scheduled to continue the hearing on the food vending trailer that was interrupted when they lost quorum at their last meeting. Board member Martin Reardon left that meeting abruptly in the middle of the meeting, after testimony was given, to attend to a "family emergency." That hearing was regarding a ruling by the Zoning Enforcement Officer on the legality of Miss Patsy's Hot Dog stand. He ruled that the stand was a permitted use on a residential lot at the corner of Randolph Road and South Main. This ruling has been challenged by nearby resident Christopher Parslow.
According to Bill Warner, Director of the Department of Planning, Conservation and Development, Vice Chair Judy Pehota is not available for tonight's, and only five other members can attend. Pehota sat through the original testimony during the last meeting. Four votes are needed to overturn any standing decision. In addition, Warner noted that members who had not heard the original testimony have not yet reviewed the DVD of the meeting, and that they needed the time between now, and the next meeting to review the video of the meeting.
Attorney Bennett, who is representing Christopher Parslow, the resident appealing the original Miss Patsy's ruling, says it is only proper that the original four members who heard the testimony are there for the ruling, or that members who were absent review the testimony as recorded.
"They are an appellate body," Bennett said in a telephone interview. "And this is a legal appeal, so it is only right that all members have carefully reviewed the testimony before issuing a decision."
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Hot dogs, interrupted
Parslow looks on from front row as
Attorney Bennet presents history
of Miss Patsy's stand
The Zoning Board of Appeals failed to maintain quorum at their monthly meeting, forcing the tabling of a hearing on the status of a Miss Patsy's Hot Dog stand at the corner of South Main and Randolph Road. Board members Judy Pehota, Linda Reil, Martin Reardon, and alternate Robert Stefurak were present at the beginning of the meeting, the minimum number necessary to hold a meeting. Judy Pehota chaired the meeting in the absence of Annabel Resnisky, who Pehota said is away in Florida. Alternates Joseph DeFrancesco and Evelyn Russo were also unable to attend.
In November of 2008, the zoning enforcement officer ruled that Miss Patsy's is allowed to operate on a lot in a residential zone because there was a previous approved non-conforming use on that lot. Christopher Parslow, who lives on a neighboring lot, is appealing this ruling to the ZBA. Tonight, several dozen members of the public had come to show their support and possibly speak on behalf of Mr. Parslow or Miss Patsy.
The meeting began with an hour long presentation on the history and the law relating to the property by Mr. Parslow's attorney, John Bennett. However, when Attorney Bennett finished his presentation, Chair Pehota called an unexpected recess. She then informed the assembled public that the meeting would have to be adjourned because one of the commissioners had been called away on an emergency.
The case of the hot dog stand will continue at the March 5th ZBA meeting.
Another hot dog stand, in South Florida.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)