Stockmal development plan rejected by warring Planning & Zoning members

NORTH CANAAN — A contentious Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting Sept. 19 left unresolved decisions on two significant applications.

At the meeting, one commissioner verbally attacked the town’s zoning regulations; his fellow commissioners’ interpretation of the regulations and their procedural knowledge; and a decision by the Inland Wetlands Commission — and then threatened the chairman with legal action.

The meeting fell into disarray and motions on the applications were left unseconded or deadlocked.

The commission seems to be suffering from the stress of dealing with difficult, high-profile applications, as well as with seven years of various zoning applications that have exposed deficiencies in the regulations.

North Canaan did not have planning and zoning regulations until 1999.

The town was defeated in its first zoning lawsuit in court earlier this month. Business owner Chris Jordano was allowed to continue using his residential-zone house for a commercial use, despite complaints from neighbors and the resident state trooper. A judge found that the offending commercial activity in a residential zone is not listed in the regulations, and therefore not regulated.

Divisive Stockmal development

The commission had appeared poised to approve the proposed Stockmal multi-home development on Route 7 South but the application was challenged at the last minute by a commission member. His objections to the plan exasperated his fellow commissioners and the Sept. 19 meeting showed signs of fraying nerves.

P&Z Chairman Martin McKay and commission member Matthew Devino say they believe the project is appropriate for the town.

But Vice Chair Steve Allyn disagreed and, at the Wednesday meeting, launched into a lengthy explanation of why he believes it violates zoning regulations and the town plan of development.

His objections raised questions among other commission members as to why he chose to criticize the project at the 11th hour.

The engineered plan to build a phased-in neighborhood of up to 16 homes on a private road has been before the commission since last year. It has been reviewed by independent consultants, approved by the Inland Wetlands Commission and Torrington Area Health District. Public hearings have been held.

It has not changed substantially, and did not seem to justify a sudden attack just before a decision deadline loomed.

Allyn made a motion to deny the project’s special permit application, and then he dominated the hour-long discussion, repeatedly expressing one major point: Both the town plan of development and zoning regulations call for multi-family or cluster housing to be within the central business zone.

Requirements for things like sidewalks and lighting are clearly meant for the town center, not the more rural parts of town, Allyn said.

He also accused the Inland Wetlands Commission of approving the project for runoff without sufficient information — in particular, he said a soil survey completed after the decision was made should be considered.

He said the town’s agricultural areas should be protected, and that those areas are basically everything east of Route 7. He noted the Stockmal land is east of Route 7. But what the town plan refers to is the "Route 7 corridor." Property that fronts Route 7 and is west of Canaan Mountain is not part of the agricultural arena of East Canaan.

The Stockmal land is east of Route 7, he conceded. But, he noted, any property that fronts Route 7 and is west of Canaan Mountain is not part of the agricultural arena of East Canaan.

Where to site affordable homes

The rest of the commissioners agreed that the intent of the regulation was to keep more densely settled neighborhoods in the town center. But, they wondered, how much room was left in town to accommodate such homes?

The commissioners talked about what counts as an "affordable" home for the young families the town would like to attract.

They said the proposed Stockmal homes could be very beneficial to the town.

"There’s no room left," Devino said. "When we went to half-acre zoning there, we committed a good number of lots in the center of town to always being what they are now. We want to attract young families, and I don’t believe [the development] takes away from our goals for the town."

P&Z members also agreed that it’s important to protect farmland, but pointed out that the agricultural uses Allyn cited near the property are actually in Falls Village, not North Canaan.

Seeking outside guidance

The commissioners were surprised to learn that Allyn had consulted with his own attorney about the proposed subdivision. He interjected those legal opinions into his discourse on the proposed project.

While McKay noted there is nothing that prevents a commissioner from seeking his or her own legal advice, he told Allyn the attorney should submit those comments in writing on a letterhead.

[When contacted later for the name of the attorney, in order to obtain those opinions firsthand, Allyn refused, telling The Journal those opinions were broad interpretations and not specific to the application.]

McKay responded to Allyn by saying he was giving too much weight to the town plan.

"We don’t recognize the town plan as directing our decisions. It is not a legal document. It’s a guide," McKay said.

All towns in Connecticut are required by law to have a Town Plan of Conservation and Development, which forms the basis for all planning and zoning regulations. The plans must be updated every 10 years.

He also referred to tests and studies that the town required the applicant to pay for.

"We had an applicant spend a lot of money on consultants. If we’re not going to listen to consultants, the experts, we may as well not have the applications go to them."

Zoning Enforcement Officer Karl Nilsen also sparred with Allyn at the meeting.

Nilsen asked Allyn if he believed the regulations allow such a development.

"The way I interpret them, no," Allyn said.

"I’d love to know how you came up with that," Nilsen retorted.

As for Allyn’s concern that the town would be liable if the project were started and failed, Nilsen said the engineer assumes responsibility.

Seeking advice

Attorney Geoff Drury was attending the meeting on behalf of another applicant. At one point, a frustrated McKay turned to him and asked for advice. Allyn proclaimed McKay out-of-order, and admonished him for the doing the same thing at another meeting.

"I won’t put up with it," Allyn said.

McKay responded that Allyn was out-of-order. Allyn then threatened McKay with "legal action" should he be removed from the meeting.

In the end, Allyn’s original motion to deny the Stockmal application was deadlocked. Allyn and Dan Adam voted in favor of denying the special permit. McKay and Devino voted against denying. Peter Brown abstained, saying he didn’t feel he was ready to vote.

Allyn then made a new, very lengthy motion to deny. It was deemed too confusing and convoluted so he revised the motion to decline, and based it on concerns relating to drainage and runoff, and the Inland Wetlands decision. The motion to deny was approved.

Nilsen said the applicant can re-apply using the same mapping and engineering, but will have to begin the process again.

Zone change for quarry

On another matter, Specialty Minerals is seeking a zone change — from agricultural to industrial on property it acquired next to its Lower Road quarry.

Adam’s motion to deny based on protecting the town’s character was not seconded. Neither was Allyn’s motion to approve.

"We have to protect the industries important to the town, as unfortunate as it may seem," Allyn said, in making that motion.

This time, Drury was properly consulted as the attorney for the applicant. An extension to the allotted decision period was obviously needed, but only an applicant can make that request.

"I’m happy to make the request, but I don’t know what the commission intends to gain with more time," Drury said.