Planning Department to Batista: I don't think so.

The city's Planning Department rejected plans for a Dunkin' Donuts shop that drew criticism from dozens of residents and some city officials over the past six months.

First, ALL credit goes to the people in the third ward who played a important role in fighting this proposal. If it wasn't for your persistence in hard work in fighting Batista and attorney Neil Marcus, this idiotic Dunkin Donuts proposal would be a reality.

Next, thanks to all read my posts in this story and took the time to either email and/or send letters to the Planning Department or write letters to the News-Times and getting this story the attention it deserved. One of the goals of this site is to bring to your attention examples of nonsense that happens under the radar in Danbury EVERYDAY that pisses people off. This proposal is a classic example of a project, which under normal circumstances would go unnoticed by the mainstream media and by the general public until it’s too late. Thankfully, people are fighting back against OVERdevelopment and land use cases and fighting back HARD.

Think I'm kidding when I say the people in the third ward were outraged? Go take a look at the Planning Commission resolution of denial. Read for yourself how the public stood up to the developers and take special note to the concerns regarding public safety and traffic that the neighborhood brought to the commission's attention.

Denial of Special Exception/Site Plan Application for SE 644 Dunkin Donuts Osborne Street

CITY OF DANBURY
155 DEER HILL AVENUE
DANBURY, CONNECTICUT 06810

PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
(203) 797-4525
(203) 797-4586 (FAX)

Resolution: Dated September 15, 2006
Revised and Adopted on September 20, 2006

To: Planning Commission

From: Jennifer L. Emminger, Associate Planner

Re: SE 644
Dunkin Donuts
Osborne Street and Springside Avenue
Assessor's Lot # 112221

RESOLUTION OF DENIAL

Whereas the City of Danbury Planning Commission received an application on March 15, 2006 from Artel Engineering, agent for Eduardo Batista, for approval of a Special Exception/Site Plan for Dunkin Donuts, a 2,160 sq. ft. fast food restaurant with a drive-thru located at the comer of Osborne Street and Springside Avenue, and

Whereas pursuant to • 3.E.2 of the Zoning Regulations, the use is allowed as a special exception in the CG-20 Zoning District upon approval by the Planning Commission affirming that standards and conditions pertaining thereto have been met, and

Whereas the site plan, as modified by the applicant, includes a 2,160 square foot Dunkin' Donuts facility with a drive-thru, and associated driveway access, parking, landscaping and drainage improvements, and

Whereas in accordance with 9 8.7d of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Planning Commission conducted a duly advertised Public Hearing that opened on May 17,2006, continued on June 21,2006 and July 26, 2006 and closed on August 19, 2006, and

Whereas the following maps and plans have been received and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City , staff:

 1.Maps under the general title "Dunkin' Donuts, Osborne Street, City of Danbury, Fairfield County, Connecticut', prepared by Artel Engineering Group, LLC:

  A. Subtitled 'Cover Sheet', dated 10/13/05;
  B. Subtitled 'Site Plan', dated 10/13/05-revised through 7/19/06;
  C. Subtitled 'Grading and Utility Plan', dated 10/13/05-revised 6/27/06;
  D. Subtitled 'Landscape and Lighting Plan', dated 1 0/13/05-revised through 7/19/06;
  E. Subtitled 'Sediment & Erosion Control Plan', dated 10/13/05-revised 6/27/06;
  F. Subtitled 'Site Details 1', dated 10/13/05;
  G. Subtitled 'Site Details n', dated 10/13/05;
  H. Subtitled 'Truck Turning Plan', dated 6/27/06
  I. Subtitled 'Existing Drainage Shed', dated 10/13/05 and
  J. Subtitled 'Proposed Drainage Shed', dated 10/13/05.

 2. Plans under the general title "Dunkin Donuts", Prepared by James D. Smith Architects, dated 6/13/06:

  A. Sheet AI0 - Subtitled 'Proposed Exterior Elevations' and
  B. Sheet AII-8ubtitled 'Proposed Exterior Elevations.

 3. Survey titled "Improvement Location Survey, Showing Property of Bruce J. Daab, property situated at Osborne Street and Springside Avenue", prepared by Surveying Associates, P.C., dated November 18, 2005.

 4. Site Engineering Report, Prepared for Dunkin' Donuts, Osborne Street and Springside Avenue, Danbury, Connecticut, Prepared by Artel Engineering Group, LLC, dated March 2006.

 5. Traffic Study, Dunkin' Donuts, Osborne Street & Springside Avenue, Danbury, Connecticut, Prepared for Artel Engineering, Prepared by Barkan & Mess Associates, dated March 14,2006.

 6. Report titled "Planned Development Osborne Street, Danbury, CT, Environmental Acoustics Study", Prepared by David Taylor, dated June 2006.

 7. The following documents were submitted during the Public Hearing held on May 17, 2006:

  A. A petition titled "We say No to Application for Special Exception to allow Dunkin Donuts Generating 500 Cars Daily JI221 SE 644 Osborne Street" and
  B. Exhibit A - Correspondence trom Beverly McCarthy, 9 Springside Avenue.

 8. Photos of truck deliveries at other Dunkin Donuts facilities were submitted during the Public Hearing held on July 19,2006.

 9. Correspondence received by the Planning and Zoning Department on June 6, 2006 from Patricia Tallman.

 10. Correspondence received by the Planning and Zoning Department on June 6, 2006 from Valerie Bose.

Whereas, during the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the application, raising specific concerns regarding the proposed entrance on Springside Avenue, on site traffic circulation, off site traffic circulation, pedestrian safety, steepness of Springside Avenue at the intersection, weather conditions affecting intersection safety, compatibility with the residential neighborhood, sound, customer parking along Springside Avenue, truck deliveries, screening, landscaping and the aesthetics of the building, and

Whereas, pursuant to ~ 10.CA of the City of Danbury Zoning Regulations, no petition for a Special Exception shall be granted by the Planning Commission unless such petition is in compliance with all provisions of the Zoning Regulations.

Now therefore be it resolved that the Planning Commission of the City of Danbury does hereby deny the application by Artel Engineering for a Dunkin Donuts, SE 644, to be located at the comer of Osborne Street and Springside Avenue (Assessor's Lot # JI2221) having found that the application as submitted does not meet the additional requirements for the granting of a Special Exception per as Section 1O.C.4 of the Zoning Regulations based on the following reasons:

 1. The proposal is not designed in a manner, which is compatible with the character of the neighborhood:

  A. Based on evidence in the record and on individual experiences of the Planning Commission with the operation of similar facilities as proposed, the intensity of the use is not compatible with the existing neighborhood from which primary access to the site is proposed.
  B. There are no reasonable requirements that could be imposed that would render the proposed use compatible with the residential neighborhood.

 2. The proposal will create conditions adversely affecting traffic safety and will cause undue traffic congestion:

  A. Pursuant to • 10.D.8.a. of the City of Danbury Zoning Regulations, 'all proposed uses for which a site plan is required shall provide for ingress and egress to the site which does not adversely impact the normal flow of traffic or the normal safe conditions of the roadways'. The Planning Commission has determined, based on evidence in the record and the personal experiences of the Planning Commission, that the proposed roadway improvements to Osborne Street and Springside Avenue may not adequately accommodate the increase in the volume of traffic without a significant decline in traffic safety.
  B. Pursuant to • 10.D.8.b. of the City of Danbury Zoning Regulations, '....may require such reasonable improvements as may be necessary to accommodate traffic increases caused by the proposed development to maintain existing levels of service and traffic safety. Volumes will increase sufficiently to change the character of the neighborhood and the new turning movements cannot, in the Planning Commission's judgment, be accommodated into the existing traffic flows so as not to cause conditions that are unsafe.

   i. According.. to the Traffic Study submitted by the applicant's traffic engineer, the proposed use expects approximately 400 vehicle trips during morning peak, of which 240 vehicles trips already exist on Osborne Street and 160 trips will be new to the area. The Traffic dictates a substantial increase in the traffic movements of the Springside Avenue westbound left and right turn lanes. According to Figures 3 and 6 of the Traffic Study, during the morning peak hour, an increase from 10 vehicular trips to 90 trips for the left turn lane is expected and an increase from 10 vehicular trips to 110 trips for the right turn lane is expected. Furthermore, the Traffic Study indicates a significant increase in the traffic movements of both of the Osborne Street northbound and southbound turn movements onto Springside Avenue. According to Figures 3 and 6 of the Traffic Study, during morning peak hour, an increase from 15 to 110 trips for the northbound right turn and an increase from 5 to 90 trips for southbound left turn is expected.

   ii. Vehic1es exiting Dunkin Donuts traveling westbound to Osborne Street must exit at an un-signalized T -intersection. Due to existing and proposed traffic volumes on Osborne Street, left turn movements exiting the site into southbound traffic will prove to be difficult for motorists. Additionally, vehicles attempting a left turn onto Osborne Street will be confronted with three opposing traffic patterns at this intersection; (1) vehicles traveling northbound on Osborne Street (2) vehicles traveling southbound on Osborne Street turning left on to Springside Avenue and (3) vehicles traveling southbound on Osborne Street utilizing the proposed bypass lane.

  C. The Planning Commission, based on testimony given by the neighbors and the Commission's personal knowledge of the traffic volumes and movements on Osborne Street and the immediate area, finds that with the substantial increase in new traffic movements at this intersection, the proposed roadway improvements along Osborne Street and Springside Avenue will not result in safe traffic movements for the reasons outlined in #2 above.

 3. The use will jeopardize public health and safety.

  A. Based on the experience of the Planning Commission with similar facilities and existing pedestrian flows in the neighborhood that is supported by testimony in the record, pedestrian traffic in the area is likely to increase and coupled with the increase in volume and conflicting traffic movements may create unsafe pedestrian conditions that may jeopardize public health and safety.

 4. Given the conditions and constraints existing on Osborne Street and Springside Avenue peculiar to this site and the proposed use, the Planning Commission can find no reasonable improvements that will ensure full compliance with the provisions of Section lO.C.4.a.

cc: Sean Hearty, Zoning Enforcement Officer
George Gleason, Permit Center
Farid Khouri, Engineering Department
Abdul Mohammed, Traffic Engineer
Chief Alan Baker, City of Danbury Police Department
Barry Rickert, Fire Marshal
Fran Lollie, Highway Department
Leo Null, Building Department
Robin Edwards, Corporation Counsel

NOW, take a look at where Batista wanted to build this idiotic business in the following photographs and video. The proposed Dunkin Donuts site is boxed in red in the second image.

Before you look, take into consideration:

• The odd location of the site (off Osborne and onto Springside).

• The slope of Springside Ave.

• The firehouse that's one house away from this location.

• The fact that kids go up and down this portion of Osborne on their way to Broadview School

• The fact that this Dunkin Donuts would have been hop and a skip away from the hospital.

Finally, I'd like to know why the elected officials who represent the third ward on the Common Council didn't speak out against this proposal when it was manipulated by Marcus and Batista and re-submitted in such a way that it by-passed the planning commission? As elected officials, Joe Cavo and Michael Calandrino's comments on this matter would have carried weight or, at the very least, their involvement would have given the impression to neighbors in the community they're listening to the people they represent.

Recently, I talked to State Rep. Joe Taborsak (whose district includes the third ward) and several Democrats who were planning to take action and I was preparing to post my interviews but it seems like the News-Times beat me to the punch.

And because of Batista's proposal for a shop on Osborne Street and Springside Avenue and protests from residents living there, Common Council Democrats now want to impose tighter regulations on developments that generate more traffic.

"While there are many traffic-related regulations in place, they are clearly deficient given the current traffic conditions throughout our city," Democratic Common Caucus leader Tom Saadi said Tuesday.

Next week, the Democrats will ask the Common Council to create a committee to study ways in which the city can better regulate traffic and prevent further congestion.

If you’re wondering why this is an important matter to address, look at the loopholes Marcus and Batista tried to use…

Batista filed plans in December to build a smaller shop at Osborne Street and Springside Avenue after his original plans for a larger store were rejected in September by the city's Planning Commission.

The new proposal outlined a doughnut shop that would generate 495 vehicles per day -- avoiding the city's 500-vehicle threshold for commission approval and a public hearing, and giving the Planning Department final say.

But according to the Planning Department, which released its decision Tuesday, the new plans miscalculate the structure size by neglecting to include a freezer as part of the total square footage. Subsequently, the number of vehicles the shop would generate was miscalculated because the city uses square footage to calculate the amount of traffic a business would generate.

In a letter to Batista's engineering firm for the project, the city's associate planner, Jennifer Emminger, said the store would generate 772 trips per day -- and therefore, if Batista wants to build the shop, he must now resubmit his plans to the Planning Commission, which rejected his first proposal.

Neil Marcus did his best to cook the books in order to have his client’s dream to have a Dunkin Donuts in every ward a reality. I guess Marcus and Batista are writing Emminger off their Christmas card list.

Although this case is probably not over, it's great to know that the denial process started when the residents in the third ward took a stand and fought back.