Showing posts with label planning and zoning commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label planning and zoning commission. Show all posts

Thursday, February 10, 2022

Methadone Clinic Court Ruling to be Appealed

The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to endorse the city's appeal of a court decision that would bring an opioid addiction treatment center to Washington Street.

The genesis of the court case was the decision in 2020 by the Commission to deny an application by the Root Center for a methadone clinic on Washington Street, across the street from Indian Hill Cemetery. The vote was 4 to 3 in favor of approval, but as the City Charter requires any approval to receive 5 of the 7 votes, it was a denial. 

The Root Center appealed the decision, arguing that the requirement for a supermajority was at odds with State Statute. The Middlesex Superior Court agreed, and ruled that the Commission's 4-3 vote was actually an approval. 

The city filed an appeal, now under consideration by the court. The Root Center made a settlement offer that is not public information, according to Director of Land Use, Marek Kozikowski.  The Commission discussed this settlement offer with City Attorney Chris Forte in executive session, not open to the public. 

After returning to public session, the Commission voted unanimously against accepting the settlement offer, advising the City to pursue its appeal. 

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Serra "Corrects" Devoto, Boyce "Corrects" the Correction and a Further Correction From an Anonymous Commenter

UPDATED

As you may have already read, the Common Council voted unanimously Monday to appoint Dan Russo to the vacant seat on Planning and Zoning, and voted 7-3 to appoint Phil Pessina to the vacant alternate seat on the P&Z.

In what was an enlightening foreshadowing of partisan sparring on the Council, and on the P&Z for that matter, Council members who spoke cited the charter, precedent, party privilege and tradition as reasons for making the appointments.

The Council voted Russo in despite his absentee record (missing 40% of P&Z meetings), and despite pleas from a number of residents to seat Democratic alternate Beth Emery, who has an exemplary attendance record.  Russo, for his part, claimed that his absences never threatened quorum, and that illness, family duties and business travel had kept him from meetings.  Predominantly, Council members cited precedent for appointing Russo because in the election, he was the Democrat with the next highest number of votes.  Ironically, when it came to appointing the Republican alternate, the same Democrats ignored the precedent they had used earlier.  Despite pleas from Republican Council members to seat the next highest Republican vote getter, Vincent Szynkowicz, the Democratic majority voted to appoint Phil Pessina, who had  not run for a P&Z seat.

In defending his vote for Russo, Councilman Tom Serra, corrected what he called an error in testimony by Planning and Zoning member Stephen Devoto.  Devoto argued that the next-highest-vote-getter precedent had been ignored in the past when Quentin Phipps was appointed to the P&Z over next highest vote getter David Boyce.  Serra claimed that Boyce was not appointed because he was a city employee, and that law forbids such an appointment.

Russo was Chair of the Democratic Town Committee when Phipps was appointed.  In a statement last night, Boyce made this clarification:

"Mr. Russo asked to be appointed because he was the second highest vote getter, just like I was in 2009.  However he (Russo) passed me over for the alternate (Phipps).  Now that he (Russo) is the second highest vote getter, he pleaded to be appointed instead of the alternate, and got his wish, breaking past practice.  Majority Leader Thomas Serra stated tonight at the meeting that I was not appointed because I was a City employee.  What rule or law is he citing?...If that was the case, why was I allowed to run in the first place, and why was I allowed to be elected to the Board of Assessment Appeals and appointed to the Human Relations Commission?  Chapter 2, Section 3 of the City Charter states 'No elected official in the Government of the City, during the full term of the office for which said official was elected, shall be eligible for appointment to any salaried position except to the positions of Corporate Counsel and Mayor's Administrative Assistant(s) within the City Government.  Persons being so appointed must resign from elected office.'  No violation there since I'm an employee...not an elected official being appointed to a city job.  And if he is citing the Hatch Act, no violation there because my job does not get federal funds, and furthermore, if it did, the Hatch Act would allow me to be appointed to finish out and (sic) elected officials term."


An anonymous commenter points to Connecticut State Law:

David you need to read State Statutes 7-421(e) :

(e) Any municipal employee shall have the right to serve on any governmental body of the town in which such employee resides except any body which has responsibility for direct supervision of such employee. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, (1) no such employee shall serve on any of the following unless such employee is permitted to serve pursuant to the provisions of a municipal charter or home rule ordinance or serves because of membership on the legislative body of the municipality: (A) Any board of finance created pursuant to chapter 106 or any special act or municipal charter; (B) any body exercising zoning powers pursuant to chapter 124 or any special act or municipal charter; (C) any body exercising land use powers pursuant to chapter 125a or any special act or municipal charter; (D) any body exercising planning powers pursuant to chapter 126 or any special act or municipal charter; or (E) any body regulating inland wetlands and watercourses pursuant to chapter 440 or any special act or municipal charter; and (2) any municipality may, by ordinance adopted by its legislative body, authorize such employees to serve on (A) any body exercising zoning powers pursuant to chapter 124 or any special act or municipal charter; (B) any body exercising land use powers pursuant to chapter 125a or any special act or municipal charter; (C) any body exercising planning powers pursuant to chapter 126 or any special act or municipal charter; or (D) any body regulating inland wetlands and watercourses pursuant to chapter 440 or any special act or municipal charter.



Thursday, October 24, 2013

Planning and Zoning Commission, October 23

The Planning and Zoning Commission had four public hearings scheduled last night, but three were either withdrawn or tabled.  The Commission approved a special exception and site plan review for an expansion and sports field improvements at Xavier High. It also approved a modest increase in the size, and mandated improvements in the lighting, of a large parking lot behind High Street.

Withdrawn, tabled, and tabled.
A proposal for a 3-lot subdivision on East Street, that generated considerable concern about traffic and water flow, was withdrawn. City Planner Bill Warner told the Commission that the developer will later submit a new proposal. Commissioner Dan Russo said he hoped that the developer would address the concerns raised in the original proposal. Warner assured him that the developer had paid attention.

A proposal for a 15-lot subdivision at Country Club Road and Massa Tom Road was tabled until the December 11th meeting. Warner said that the developer was still working to address the issues raised by Inland Wetlands.

A zoning code text amendment on "Sale or Dispensation of any form of medical marijuana" was tabled until the December 11th meeting.

Xavier expansion

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Planning And Zoning Approves Zoning Code Text Amendment

The Planning and Zoning Commission held a short meeting last night, and made only one decision.

Two applications for large subdivisions in Westfield were taken off the agenda. A 15-lot subdivision to be located at Country Club Road and Massa Tom Road was tabled, because the public hearing was not properly noticed. A 14-lot subdivision off of Mile Lane was withdrawn because it did not receive prior approval from Inland Wetlands.

The Commission considered a Zoning Code text amendment to add Section 60.02.42 – Existing Age Restricted (55 & Older) Multi Family Housing density not to exceed 24 units per acre on property having at least 2 1/2 acres or more in a Multi-Family (M) Zone. The applicant was Pondview Realty Associates, which operates government subsidized low-income senior housing, located on Butternut near its intersection with West Street. This application was continued from the August 28th P&Z meeting.

Alfred Muracca, one of the owners of the Pondview Apartments said that he currently had 52 units, but he wants to build further age-restricted apartments on approximately 3 acres of excess property. He said he particularly wants to build more housing for couples. The current Zoning Code for the M zone would make such a use non-conforming. At the August 28th meeting, Warner told the Commission that it was unlikely that there were any other properties in the M Zone to which this zoning code text change would apply.

The Commission unanimously approved the zoning code text change.

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Wadsworth Street Subdivision Approved

Wadsworth Street is at the bottom,
parking for the Park is across the street
The Planning and Zoning Commission last week approved a 9-lot subdivision on Wadsworth Street, across from the parking lot for Wadsworth State Park. The approval came after extensive discussion over creating public access to new open space at the back of the subdivision, along the Coginchaug River.

The Conservation Commission supported the public access, Director of Planning Bill Warner, as well as two nearby residents, opposed it, and the P&Z sided with Warner and the residents.

Monday, September 30, 2013

East Street Subdivision Decision Postponed

Westfield Fire Department is immediately
across the street from this lot

The Planning and Zoning Commission heard concerns from neighboring residents and the Westfield Fire Department about water drainage, traffic, and public safety, during a public hearing on an East Street subdivision application Wednesday evening. The Commission was responsive to residents' concerns, and decided to continue the public hearing until October 23rd, to give the applicant more time to address them.

The application was for a modest subdivision of 3 houses on 2.5 acres, across from the Westfield Fire Department at the intersection of East and Miner Streets. The lot was recently clear cut, and an 1850 house demolished. This area of East Street has seen a large number of houses built in the past decade, especially on the ridge above East Street. The Commission heard from several residents that the houses on East Street, and East Street itself are prone to flooding.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Medical Marijuana, Fallen Veterans, And Cemeteries

It was a busy night at Planning and Zoning. The Commission reviewed a lease for a medical marijuana producer, and held public hearings on the Trees of Honor Memorial in Veterans Park, and on a change in the zoning code text to allow cemeteries in the multifamily zone. It also held public hearings on residential subdivisions on East and Wadsworth Streets, these will be the subject of a later post.

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Wadsworth Street Subdivision At Planning And Zoning

Across the street from Wadsworth Park
The Planning and Zoning Commission will tonight consider an application for a 9 lot subdivision in land that lies in a bend of the Coginchaug river, across from the entrance to Wadsworth State Park. The application was submitted by Pattagansett Holdings, LLC, of Durham.

The subdivision has already been reviewed by the Inland Wetlands Agency.

The Planning Department has posted some of the documents regarding the application:
Existing site plan
Subdivision map
Staff comments
Planning and Zoning meets at 7PM in Council Chambers, on Wednesday, September 25th. There will be a public hearing on this application.
----------------
Author's Disclaimer: I am providing information about P&Z meetings, as I have done since 2008, on a volunteer basis for The Eye. I am now a candidate for the Planning and Zoning Commission, and I will continue to cover P&Z until the election in November, because my motivation as a volunteer and one of my goals as a candidate is to increase community understanding of and involvement in land use decisions. The Eye welcomes coverage of P&Z (and other municipal meetings) by any correspondent, including all candidates for office; I would be thrilled to divest myself of The Middletown Eye's P&Z "beat".

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

East Street Subdivision At Planning And Zoning

The Planning and Zoning Commission will Wednesday consider a 4 lot subdivision on East Street, across from the intersection of Miner and the Westfield Fire Department. The application was submitted by Pattagansett Holdings, LLC, of Durham.

The Planning Department has posted some of the documents regarding the application:
Existing site plan
Subdivision map
Staff comments
The staff comments include the following:
The developer applied for a demolition permit through the Building Department and demolished the house that was built in 1850.
The developer has proposed sidewalks on East Street and they connect to the large development to the north which [sic] is desirable. East Street is a state highway and they will need State approval to construct the walks.
The parcel of land is extremely flat and there have been issues with the ponding of water on the parcels to the south. The applicant should explain the amount of increase in impervious surface and where it [sic] will be directed.
Planning and Zoning meets at 7PM in Council Chambers, on Wednesday, September 25th. There will be a public hearing on this application.
----------------
Author's Disclaimer: I am providing information about P&Z meetings, as I have done since 2008, on a volunteer basis for The Eye. I am now a candidate for the Planning and Zoning Commission, and I will continue to cover P&Z until the election in November, because my motivation as a volunteer and one of my goals as a candidate is to increase community understanding of and involvement in land use decisions. The Eye welcomes coverage of P&Z (and other municipal meetings) by any correspondent, including all candidates for office; I would be thrilled to divest myself of The Middletown Eye's P&Z "beat". 

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Planning And Zoning Commission Meeting

The Commission approved a new sewage pumping 
station on South Main Street. The plan was presented
by Fred Mueller.

Planning Director Bill Warner briefed 
the Commission on the progress of the 
Riverfront Redevelopment Commission.

Warner invited P&Z Commissioners to attend the meetings of the Riverfront Redevelopment
Commission. The next meeting is Tuesday, July 2nd, in Council Chambers

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Planning and Zoning Cruises Through Short Meeting

The Planning and Zoning Commission disposed of a number of non-controversial items at its meeting last night.

Washington Street/Barbara Road. It granted final approval for a three lot subdivision, based on the comments from city departments that indicated all requirements had been met.

Congdon Street.
The Lutheran Special Services runs a rest home for indigent elderly. They requested approval to move a city drainage line, to allow them to sell a parcel of their land to raise money. The Public Works Department supported the request, which was approved by the Commission.

Complete Streets. The Commission voted to schedule a public hearing on the incorporation of the Complete Streets Master Plan into the city's Plan of Conservation and Development. The hearing will be at the September 25 meeting, any change to the POCD requires at least 65 days notice, because it also needs to be filed with regional planning authorities. The Complete Streets Master Plan calls for actions to make city streets safe and inviting for more than just autos. Commissioners Salafia, McClellan, and Russo each reminded the Michiel Wackers, Deputy City Planner, that the plan they had seen earlier this year was long on generalities, and inadequate on specifics to our city. They asked him to make sure that the Plan that would be presented in September include Middletown-specific information, as well as an indication of how to prioritize specific actions.

Riverfront Update.
The Commission tabled an update on riverfront planning until their next meeting, when City Planner Bill Warner would be present to provide it.

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Old Farms Developer Fails To Get Cash Bond Released

The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously denied the release of a $10,000 cash bond to the developer of the Old Farms luxury subdivision located off of Atkins Street. The bond was to ensure that the developer planted two street-side trees on every lot, fulfilling a condition of the orignal subdivision approval in 1988.

This is the developer's second recent request to have the bond released. In January of 2012, the Commission denied his plea that it was too late to plant the trees and it was no longer necessary. The Commission directed the developer to offer to plant two trees on the property of each of the current owners.

Two residents of Old Farms spoke to the Commission about the issue. Jennifer Mahr spoke first as a resident of Old Farms, and said that she had never been offered the trees and objected to the release of the cash bond. She also introduced herself as the Chair of the Westfield Residents Association, and said that the WRA was always concerned that developers keep to all conditions of the subdivision approval. Mark Laucella, President of the Old Farms Homeowner's Association, also asked the Commission to deny the release of the cash bond.

In response to questions from Commissioner Nick Fazzino, Deputy Planner Michiel Wackers said that the city had been negotiating with the developer, but had not yet resolved the issue. No representatives of the developer were present at the meeting.

After the meeting, Wackers told The Eye that it would be difficult for the City to do the work, because of the logistics of dealing with unique situations on each of several dozen private properties. However, by State law, the city cannot give the money to another party (such as the Homeowner's Association) to do that work. If the city cannot convince the original developer to follow through on its commitment, the money may remain in the city's accounts indefinitely.

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Planning and Zoning Commission Endorses Complete Streets Plan

The Planning and Zoning Commission heard from John Hall about a vision to make the streets of our city friendly not just to cars, but also to pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transportation. Hall is the co-chair of the Complete Streets committee, which produced a report that will be presented to Common Council, likely at its June meeting.

The 56 page report includes extensive background, carefully documented, on the benefits of providing for alternative modes of transportation. These benefits include increased property values, safety, and health, and an improved sense of community. There are 3 pages specific to Middletown, as well as reports on committee visits to Northampton and South Windsor.

The most important contribution of the Complete Streets committee is a map entitled, "Complete Streets Master Plan Priorities." This map identifies streets in our city that should receive priorities for improvement.

In order for the Complete Streets goals to guide municipal decisions, the Commission would need to draft language to add to the Plan of Conservation and Development. This would require a public hearing.

For now, the Commission voted to endorse the report to The Council, as a non-binding, general statement of philosophy.

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Habitat for Humanity and Riverbend Homeowners Association Reach Compromise

Adapted from a Habitat for Humanity press release.
-----------
Middlesex Habitat for Humanity of CT accepted a check today from the Riverbend Homeowners Association for the purchase of the Habitat owned property located at the corner of Morning Glory Drive and Tuttle Road. Plans by Habitat for Humanity to build a house on this land elicited outrage from property owners in the Riverbend subdivision.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Commission Rules Against Proposal For Zoning Change

The Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to deny a proposal to restrict commercial development from the residential area around Wesleyan. The Commissioners' vote came without any deliberation or discussion, after they had listened to over an hour of testimony from residents concerned about their neighborhood, from property owners looking to sell property for its maximum possible price, and from the lawyer representing a developer who has proposed a shopping strip abutting the residential neighborhood.

The Character of Middletown
The proposal was in the form of a zoning code text amendment submitted by Ed McKeon. McKeon is a resident of the Wesleyan neighborhood and a member of the Board of Education. McKeon's text amendment would stipulate that land in the ID (Institutional Development) zone be governed by an RPZ (residential) zone rather than the MX (mixed use) zone if the institution was not using the property. Residences could be turned into many commercial uses under an adaptive re-use provision, but property would not be able to be used for drive-through banks or used car lots, currently permitted in the MX zone.

McKeon admitted that he had an ulterior motive in proposing this change, "I proposed this change to the ID zone as a reaction to the proposal to expand the commercial impact of the MX zone. ... I propose this change in the ID zone as a way to consider some things that are at risk. The character of Middletown, the character of of our neighborhoods, the lives of our core-city and nearby residents..."

McKeon read from the document that guides all decisions by Planning and Zoning, the Plan of Conservation and Development, saying, "additional protection in an ID Zone fits firmly with your guiding principles." He pointed to multiple passages that emphasize the importance of encouraging owner-occupied homes in the downtown historic residential areas.

Jenn Proto presented research on the economic value of historic districts to the city. She cited an extensive study of real estate values in several towns in Connecticut which demonstrated that protection of historic neighborhoods increased the value of real estate. Proto suggested that this was in part because protected neighborhoods offer stability and predictability to potential home buyers.

"The green elephant"
Ralph Wilson is a land use attorney representing Bob Landino, who has proposed developing a shopping center on Washington, between Pearl and High Street. Wilson repeatedly stated that the proposed zoning code text "makes no sense." He also pointed to the Plan of Conservation and Development for support. His primary argument was that it was wrong to reduce the possible uses of land, calling McKeon's proposal "down-zoning".

Two property owners who have agreed to sell their land to Landino also spoke against the zoning code text change.

Lee Osborne is a former chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission, he justified his opposition by emphasizing the importance of commercialization, "The elephant in the room, ladies and gentlemen is money. If you look at all these areas that have been zoned MX for years, why haven’t [businesses] been built there? Because it doesn’t make financial sense! Why is there now a movement to do something on Washington Street? Because, at 22,000 cars a day, the people interested in leasing property there, are saying, ‘that’s where I want to be’."

He went on to dismiss business opportunities on Main Street, "They’re not interested in being on a vacant store front on Main Street because they cannot have the drive-through and they don’t have the volume of traffic going by to make this happen."

John DeSena did not speak to general principles, he said he was opposed to the zoning code text change because it would stop him from doing whatever he wants with his lot, "I want to be able to do what I want to do with it. Not what other people want to tell me what to do with it."

DeSena said that he had a plan, "Me and Mr. Osborne got together, we approached a developer, we’re trying to do something. Now I think that it’s unfair that so many people want to stop me and Mr. Osborne and the other woman from what we want to do with our pieces of property."

Stephen Smith, a resident in the area, spoke near the end of the hearing. Smith seemed to appreciate Osborne's bluntness, but he urged the Commission to look beyond money, "I appreciate Lee bringing up the money. Because there’s an elephant in the room and it’s green but I don’t see how that concerns you. You voted previously to amend zoning code that will now will allow Lee to make more than market value. But now you also have now diminished the value of someone else’s property. Someone else’s property is worth considerably less."

Smith called on the Commissioners to take a proactive role in City Planning. He decried the process in which a developer and then an individual separately proposed what he considered flawed zoning code text changes. He said, "It’s out of control." He called on the Commission to table the McKeon proposal and to turn their energy to Planning, "You should table this, you should not do this, and you should stop letting other people do your job."

"All those in favor..."
After the public hearing was closed, Commissioner Nick Fazzino tried to introduce a motion to deny the proposed text change. After some confusion, Commissioner Molly Salafia very clearly read the entire text change and made a motion to approve it, so that the Commission could proceed to a discussion and then vote.

Chairman Rich Pelletier waited for discussion or comment on the proposed amendment. None was forthcoming, so he called for a vote. The text change was defeated unanimously.

Friday, March 22, 2013

Dazed, Disgusted and Disappointed But Not Done

COMMENTARY by Ed McKeon
I have been a vocal opponent of the MX zone change because it will change the character of Middletown by bringing high-volume, high-traffic, drive-through restaurants and retail to neighborhoods where they haven't existed before.  I wrote this commentary the day after the March 13 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting but waited to publish it so that I'd be sure it wasn't fueled solely by anger.  I also had the opportunity to watch the video of the meeting again, and my opinion hasn't changed.

--> At the February 27 Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, proponents of the now-adopted MX special exception change, spoke repeatedly about the faith they had in Commissioners to make the "right" decision. I guess that worked out for them two weeks later on March 13. The rest of us may be on the road to losing our religion when it comes to the democratic process in our little town. For two meetings in a row, hundreds of people opposed to the change packed Council Chambers.  At the first, forty spoke passionately and cogently about the looming change.  At the second, they sat disconsolately as the Commission, directed by our town planner, bumbled their way through the creation of a frankenzone (available now for public view on the P&Z website). As a group, they seemed not to be aware of their duty, their own zoning code or of Robert's Rules of Order.  The chairman frequently appeared befuddled by his fellow commissioners, by the tangle of amendment pasted upon amendment and by his very duty to run an orderly meeting. Dozens of my neighbors have asked me to try to explain how an elected board could so recklessly ignore their sworn responsibility to represent the rights, health and safety of residents by accepting a custom-constructed special exception designed to trample landowner rights, create health hazards and promote traffic gridlock and risk to pedestrians. Such an explanation would need to defy logic. The amendments to the original amendment were a carefully-constructed set of misdirections to allow a zoning sleight of hand.  The new amendments were designed to appear as though commissioners addressed community concerns, without really doing so.  This approach allowed them to look residents in the eye while they offered nothing new:  - We will protect historical buildings, but only those on a list which does not include those buildings which stand in the way of Centerplan's development. - We will direct traffic on and off the state highway, even though in previous meetings it has been stated that the state DOT will be unlikely to grant such access.  In which case traffic will flow, heavily, down side streets. - We will create parking pods instead of one big lot, but those pods can still be placed between the street and the building, just like they are in all strip malls.  - We will prevent the horrible rise of used car lots, ambulance garages, ugly cinderblock buildings, and gas stations, except, that the new code doesn't give commissioners any further authority to do any of that.  - We will retain the authority to judge developments case by case, unless the development just so happens to fit the prescripts of the special exception.  - We will allow the public to comment at every future hearing on a special exception.  Unfortunately, residents have now seen how easy it is for the Commission to disregard public opinion. Commissioner Emery proposed several exceptions which would have protected neighbors, but found her exceptions blocked by the town planner and her fellow commissioners.  She suggested:   - Let's take some time, vote this down now, and write some good code, and they responded that it was their right to offer on-the-spot amendments.   - Let's add some controls on air pollution for the health of residents, and they responded that it would be too complicated, and difficult, and they'd have to do some research and write some meaningful standards, and besides, air pollution comes from Hartford and New Haven and Danbury.   - Let's limit business hours and they responded that such restrictions were too limiting, and that business hours should be considered on a case-by-case basis.   - Let's change the minimum frontage and building size and they responded by making required frontage smaller, but could not, and did not, offer any evidence in design or usage why such an alteration made any sense. The final vote, obscured as it was in a cloud of mumbles and confusion, was disappointing, but not surprising.  Most commissioners appeared to have their minds made up before they entered the room. The amendments that planning staff added to the original special exception amendment, were delivered at the last minute, and while it made substantial changes to the language of the original application, it was not offered for public inspection, or public hearing at any point during the proceedings. The vote to accept the amended amendment came before the new language was ever read out loud, even once, in the public meeting, or into the public record. It came after a two-week break between hearing and vote during which commissioners concocted language (a knowledgeable lawyer called it a “Trojan Horse”) which would allow them to defend their acceptance of the Centerplan-authored code and state publically that it was the best thing for the families and children of Middletown. The vote came after dozens of well-prepared residents offered testimony in opposition to the MX change, and then had their testimony dismissed as less valid than the support some commissioners cited in private phone calls, letters and conversations with unidentified proponents of the plan. What now? You can help.  Call zoning commissioners today, and ask them to try to explain what happened. Take notes. You can attend the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, when a proposal to limit the uses of ID Zone buildings (part of the MX zone), will be proposed. You can also contribute to a fund to offset legal fees associated with an appeal of the MX zone change.  Write a check to Jennifer and Jared Proto, 390 High St., Middletown. You can vote.  Half of these P&Z seats will be up for election this November.  Remember the names of commissioners who voted against the public good. It's our town, and I don't know about you, but I'm not prepared to cede control to an influential developer with deep pockets.

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Planning And Zoning Commission Abdicates Responsibility

The Planning and Zoning Commission last night voted unanimously to approve changes to the MX zone text. These changes open the door to high traffic restaurants, as long as these are accompanied by high traffic retail, or offices, or residences. These changes were originally proposed by a developer, Robert Landino, who wants to build a retail development opposite Wesleyan. The vote occurred before a series of amendments to the text change were well articulated. The lack of an open discussion and the apparent confusion of several commissioners left the large crowd of people puzzled. After the vote, the chair of the Commission, Richard Pelletier, turned to the Director of Planning and asked him, "Could you make clear what we just approved?"

A large and diverse turnout of informed residents
Even more people showed up than did for the original public hearing, the crowd included families with children living in neighborhoods that will be affected by the zoning change. The media turned out as well, reporters were there from Patch, Wesleying, The Press, and The Courant, as well as Channel 3 and Channel 61.

The residents in attendance were well informed about the zoning code and legal issues, and paid very close attention to the Commission's deliberations. At one point, when Chairman Richard Pelletier accepted an incorrect statement by Planning Director Bill Warner, Catherine Johnson, a resident of the Washington Street neighborhood, rose to her feet to raise a "point of order". Pelletier claimed she was introducing new information and tried to keep her from speaking, but he eventually admitted that Warner was wrong.

Warner's Words
When Commissioners arrived to the meeting, they found in front of them a series of changes to the original text submitted by Landino. These proposed changes were presented as a response to the extensive input during the public hearing, but they turned out to be the kind of "where possible" and "if available" statements that a developer's expert witnesses easily explain are not applicable to a particular development. Warner added a statement ostensibly to protect the historic urban residential character of the neighborhood. This could have been written by or for the developer, it simply stated that no "inventoried building" shall be demolished. None of the properties under contract to Landino are "inventoried", and thus the developer's plans for high-traffic restaurants are unaffected.

The only sustained objections by the commissioners to Warner's words actually made them even more favorable to the rampant conversion of single family homes into drive-through restaurants (as long as they have a one-room office, perhaps vacant, upstairs). Warner proposed changing the developer's request for a 15,000 square foot minimum building, with a 300 foot minimum frontage to a 7,500 square foot minimum with a 150 foot frontage. Commissioner Joyce Rossiter asked Warner to justify these numbers, "What's magical about these?" Beth Emery also suggested that since there was a minimum building size, it would also be reasonable to have a maximum building size.

The other commissioners did not see a need to think about Planning. Ken McClellan and Nick Fazzino suggested that there should be no guidelines at all on the building size, because the developer (not the Planning and Zoning Commission) should determine what is best.

The commissioners agreed to abdicate any control over the size of the buildings, without any further discussion.

Air quality: not our problem
Commissioner Emery raised the impact of the proposed text change on air quality, suggesting language that would require a developer to determine how much extra pollution would be created in the residential neighborhoods around a new high-traffic commercial development. None of the other commissioners were receptive to this, even though the city's Plan of Conservation and Development lists this as a principle that should guide all zoning code text.

Director Warner told the commissioners that pollution was complicated, hard to measure, and hard to enforce. The other commissioners agreed, McClellan said, "yeah, pollution is there," but since it comes from all over, he argued that the Commission should abdicate responsibility for air quality in Middletown.

"What the public doesn't realize"
Commissioner Dan Russo argued at length that the rights of property owners to maximize their sales price was of paramount importance, "You can't block someone from selling their property!" He did not make clear whether this was a response to a particular statement from someone opposed to the zoning code text change, or whether zoning code text should in general be guided by the short term maximum profit that can be made by property owners.

Russo tried to assuage any concerns that neighborhood residents might have, he listed 30 or 40 uses that are currently allowed in the MX zone. He spoke slowly and clearly to make sure that neighborhood residents understood that neighborhood land could be developed into a used car lot, an ambulance service, or a bank drive-through. Russo wanted the residents of the neighborhoods to believe that allowing new, high traffic uses into the zoning code would improve the residential, mixed use neighborhood.

The uses mentioned by Russo are only allowed by special exception. And after the meeting, Russo admitted that the new regulation will not increase the Commission's ability to regulate any of those uses that are currently allowed by special exception. The approved text opens the door to new, high traffic restaurants and retail, but does not in any way impact the already approved uses.

Astonishingly, this was news to the Chair of the Commission, Richard Pelletier. Pelletier told me after the meeting that he voted for the new zoning code text amendment under the impression that it would give the Commission more power to prevent used car lots and some of the other allowed uses.

"It's pretty much an automatic approval"
Emery suggested an amendment that would require businesses to restrict their hours of operation to 6AM to 11PM. Bill Warner expressed misgivings about this, suggesting language that would not be binding to developers. Ken McClellan reminded his fellow commissioners that they would have virtually no control over what is ultimately approved under this new code, pointing out that if a developer meets the special exception conditions, it is impossible to deny.

Emery's suggestion of restricted hours of operation was accepted by the Commissioners. When Warner stated that the commissioners were restricting hours only for the drive through, Pelletier agreed. Only when the audience expressed its disbelief, and Catherine Johnson raised a point of order, did the other commissioners correct Warner and Pelletier.

"What just happened?"
After the Commission voted, few in the room knew whether the vote was on Warner's amendments to the proposed text, on the commissioner's amendments, or on the text change as a whole. And although the language of Warner's amendments was prepared ahead of time, it was not clear which amendments had been altered or removed, and how that left the language of the text amendment. The motion to approve appeared to be for the text code change "as entered".

Thus, when the voting was done, none of the 150 residents reacted or rose to leave. It was only after Pelletier forged ahead with other Commission business that the crowd began to leave the room. While Pelletier  was interviewed by the TV cameras, a dazed and angry group of neighborhood residents milled in the lobby wondering how and why the Commission had failed to have any substantive discussion about city planning, and how lot and building sizes, drive-throughs, traffic and air quality affect a neighborhood community.

P&Z Passes Controversial MX Zone Changes

The Planning & Zoning Commission passed extensive changes to the code governing the MX zone, opening the door for a planned development on Washington Street and perhaps much more throughout the city.

The Council Chamber was packed with people, many sitting on the floor or watching and listening as best they could on the TV in the City Hall lobby.

The Commission voted 6-0 in favor of text changes championed by the Centerplan Corporation, the Mayor and the Chamber of Commerce, but opposed by neighbors of the planned development and many other citizens.

The Middletown Press says the vote "end[s] weeks of debate", despite the fact that Ed McKeon, leader of the opposition, says neighbors will mount legal challenges to the change. But then, the Press didn't interview him or any of the other scores of concerned citizens who packed the Chamber.

The Patch and Wesleying blogs also covered the meeting, as did TV stations Fox 61 and Channel 3.

More to come later today on The Eye.


Thursday, February 28, 2013

Decision On Commercializing Residential Neighborhoods Postponed

Nearly 150 people packed the Council Chambers last night for the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing on a proposal to change the zoning code text to approve high density commercial development on Washington Street, South Main Street, and Newfield Street. The large number of public comments pushed the meeting nearly to midnight, and the Commission tabled their discussion and vote until the next meeting, on March 13.

40 people spoke against the change; most identified themselves as residents of the neighborhoods near either Washington or South Main.

Far fewer spoke in favor of the proposed zoning change, they included only Bob Landino, the developer who proposed the change, Mayor Dan Drew, former Mayor Seb Giuliano, Jeff Pugliese for the Chamber of Commerce, Vice President John Meerts speaking for Wesleyan, and two others  selling land on Washington Street to Landino's Centerplan Development company.


"It's opening the door for a different type of use for your consideration."
Ralph Wilson is representing the developer. He opened the public hearing by describing what is currently allowed in MX zones, highlighting neighborhood stores and banks with drive through windows. He then said that the proposal to allow retail and drive-through restaurants would not be a big change. Wilson emphasized that the proposal was consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development, which is the document that provides guidelines for Commission decisions, "This text has been purposefully drafted [for the POCD]."

Wilson said that the proposal would only affect land on State Highways, "We're not in a neighborhood." He also told the Commission that the text change would ensure that any developments would be good, "This is not going to be a project with no value."

The text change would not grant automatic approval for high-density commercial development, it would allow developers to apply for a special exception from the Commission. Landino said that the Commission would be able to determine what was approved, "It gives you what you need.... You are in control."

Wilson called on two paid consultants to speak to the Commission about the proposed text changes. Philip Michalowski, a certified planner, like Wilson, emphasized the State highway aspect of the text change, "The critical element to keep in mind that it only applies to properties fronting on state highways." John Nitz, a real estate appraiser, said that the text change would increase the value of land because it could now be sold as retail land. Nitz said that the commercial development of some MX properties would not have any impact on the value of neighboring residential properties.

Commissioner Beth Emery asked Nitz to substantiate this statement, but Nitz could not provide any data to support it, he simply said, "I feel there will be no affect on residential."

"With proper zoning, it can be a great city forever and forever."
A large and diverse group of residents then spoke against the proposed text change. Marian Katz requested, "Please don't allow a change that will allow a developer to destroy [a neighborhood]." Ellen Ornato, a Middletown resident who was formerly the assistant planning director for Meriden, said she admired the proposed change, but that it was being applied to the wrong neighborhoods, "The logic makes sense, the map does not." Jane McMillan said that the proposed change would hurt downtown and the residential neighborhoods around Washington Street and South Main, "this ... would be a self-inflicted wound."

Many residents expressed alarm at the traffic consequences to Washington and South Main if high-traffic commerce were to be allowed. Melissa Schilke did not want Wesleyan students walking across Washington Street to a new fast-food restaurant, "They will be walking to a fatal attraction." Brian Stewart spoke of how walking in the downtown area made for a livable neighborhood and kept him fit. He was concerned about the danger of increasing traffic on Washington Street, "It's not much of a victory if I stay fit and then get smashed by a car."

The Wesleyan Student Assembly passed a resolution in early February, in opposition to the proposed text change. Andrew Trexler read the resolution, which noted the "significant and vocal opposition" by the Wesleyan faculty, residents of areas neighboring campus, and the student body. The WSA resolution also expressed concern over the potential for "damage to Middletown's unique urban aesthetic."

"I would like to express my support."
City Planner Bill Warner read a letter from Dan Drew in support of the text change application, "The amendment allows the applicant and other developers to design projects in the MX zone exclusively along state highways that could be very beneficial to our city." Drew expressed his faith in the Commission, "I have full confidence in your ability..."

Former Mayor Seb Giuliano also supported the application, suggesting that since the state had made the highways into "4-lane commercial throughways" it was necessary to change the zone to allow property owners to develop their land for commercial use. Two such property owners, who have agreed to sell their property on Washington Street to Landino, expressed their strong support for Landino's proposed text change. Lee Osborn painted stark consequences of denying the application, "A no vote will ... signal a period of reduced growth." John Desena praised Landino and expressed impatience for the start of the developer's project on Washington Street, "Approve this so that we can move forward as quick as we can."

Wesleyan Vice President John Meerts spoke after Giuliano, in the portion of the public hearing reserved for those in support of the developer's text change application. However, the Wesleyan statement did not make its position clear. Meerts said that Wesleyan "supports the preservation of the neighborhood's architectural identity, urban design, and history." He went on to say, "new development is important to the vibrancy and economic vitality of cities."

A tale of two cities, commentary
The Commission voted to close the public hearing, but decided to put off any discussion and a vote until their meeting on March 13th. When it deliberates the impact of the proposed change, it will be considering public comments that seemed to describe two different worlds.

The developer and his supporters spoke of "State Highways", in a way that limited their connection to residential neighborhoods. Drew and Giuliano both echoed this language, and Wesleyan emphasized the physical, but somewhat abstract aspects of the neighborhood over the people and homes, "Any proposed development should be consistent with the scale, massing, and architectural sensibility of the neighborhood."

In contrast, those in opposition emphasized the community of people who live, and the specific homes they live in. Bill Carbone, who lives on Pearl near Washington Street, said, "...I absolutely love this community. My wife and I have chosen to raise our kids here..." Lucy McMillan said, "...there are hundreds of us that can't imagine living anywhere else."
---------------
Disclosures: I am employed by Wesleyan, many of the people who spoke against the proposed change are friends, and I share most of their concerns about this proposal before Planning and Zoning. Before the public hearing on this proposal, I urged the Commission to take a more pro-active role in writing the city's zoning code text.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Well, Who Ought To Be Writing Zoning Code?

COMMENTARY
Ed McKeon is a former Middletown Eye editor, and resident of Pearl Street.  He is challenging the expansion of the MX Zone, and recommended that former residences in the ID Zone be regulated as a residential zone with adaptive reuse allowed.  This is an opinon piece.

It was a surprise to me.  When I asked a staffer at the town's planning office about who could apply for a zoning change, he told me, "Anybody who pays the $160."


Sure enough, I looked through the regulations, and it was true.  However, when I handed in my application, it was rejected.  I was told I was not a landowner in the ID zone in which I was requesting the change.  When I protested that the regulations don't make the distinction about owning land in a zone, the staffer handed me a sheaf of "legal precedent" and suggested I find an ID landowner to co-sign the application.  I did, and now I can play the role of "zone-maker."

Still, I'm not completely comfortable in that role.

Sure, I submitted the application because I wanted to give neighbors some protection from developers who want to change their residential zone into a commercial zone.  And, in the end, the Planning & Zoning Commission would have to pass judgment on my suggested changes.



But does it make sense that any resident with a notion to change code, should be able to?

Worse still, should any developer, who's looking for an advantage for their particular development be able to write zoning language?

I think the answer is "no" in both cases.

The regulation ought to be changed.  I can't think of anything more counterproductive to good town planning than to have developers playing the role of zone-maker.  And if one developer is allowed to rewrite code, imagine the precedent that's being set.  Imagine the kind of zoning code we'd have.

I  think the regulation needs to be changed.  What's more, I think our entire zoning code needs reformation.

The often-contradictory Plan of Development is a toothless document without meaningful zoning code, and the town planner has admitted so himself.

Leslie Creane, Hamden Town Planner
Four years ago, Hamden's town planner Leslie Creane was received enthusiastically when she made a presentation to the P&Z about her town's transformation from use-based zoning to form-based zoning, and the remarkably adaptable SmartCode.

She made a few things clear.  New code should not be written without lots of public input.  They call this process "charette" and its a process designed specifically to get many residents involved in the process of defining what their town is, and what it will be.

She also noted that the zoning must be "coherent."   Because it's a zone based on the form of buildings, instead of the function, one neighborhood must relate to the one next to it, and so on.  You don't write this code in bits and pieces.  You create form-based code for the entire city, so that neighborhoods are integrated (and by the way,  pedestrian-friendly).

So, to cut and paste quasi-form-based principles into a proposed zone change, for a slice of a single, small zone in a city, goes against the entire idea of form-based zoning.

Yet, that's what will be proposed at tonight's Planning and Zoning Commission, as the lawyer endorsing an MX Zone change will surely claim that because it's "form-based" it's better.  He's likely to get a ringing endorsement from the town's planning department.

The principle of form-based zoning is a good one.  But piecemeal form-based zoning, particularly zoning designed by a developer to meet his needs, is not an auspicious beginning.

For this reason, I  urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to vote "no" on the MX Zone change.

The Middletown Planning and Zoning Commission meets Wednesday, February 27, 7 PM, in City Hall's Council Chambers to deliberate two significant zoning proposals which could affect Middletown neighborhoods.