Nov 5 2007:
As many of you know, I've been following this land-use battle for the last two years videotaping all the planning commission meetings as well as meeting with neighbors in the area who were upset with the project.One of the things that really upsetting to residents alongside Springside was the fact that their representatives on the Common Council were no where to be found and would not comment on this issue..well at least the Common Council members that represented the third ward.
Common Council member at large (at the time) Lynn Taborsak and Democratic Town Committee 3rd ward rep Jim Kelly were very open in their opposition to the proposal and assisted the neighbors in terms of helping them understand the planning commission public hearing process. Through their help, the Common Council chambers were flooded with residents who spoke out in opposition to the proposal, which was ultimately denied.
In this video clip shot last year, Carla Pierce (quoted in the News-Times piece) joined Kelly and Taborsak and described how the two Democrats stood up for the neighborhood against irresponsible developers such as Batista.
Feb 19 2007:
Eduardo Batista has found that local residents like Dunkin' Donuts coffee and other products and has expanded his franchise throughout the region.
His latest proposal is to build a Dunkin' Donuts on the corner of Osborne Street and Springside Avenue in Danbury. It's one of the city's older neighborhoods, and the neighbors are upset.
Batista previously proposed a larger Dunkin' Donuts store for the site, which was rejected last fall by the Danbury Planning Commission.
Batista is taking the city to court over that rejection, a common tactic when large development proposals are rejected but somewhat unusual for a doughnut store.
In addition to taking the city to court, Batista has asked the city to approve a different version of a Dunkin' Donuts for the site. This time he says he wants to build a drive-through store, like the one on Danbury's Lake Avenue.
Because it would be smaller and because Batista now says the store would generate 498 car visits a day, not 500, the proposal qualifies for review by the Planning Department staff, not the Planning Commission, without a public hearing.
In the meantime, the neighbors are wondering what is happening to Danbury, not an uncommon feeling these days as development springs up everywhere and traffic clogs the streets.
"Our nice, quiet residential street is under siege," says Beverly McCarthy, who has lived on Springside Avenue for 50 years.
Batista certainly knows doughnuts better than the rest of us, so maybe a big legal fight over a doughnut shop on Springside Avenue isn't as odd as it seems.
But the money Batista is spending on this says something about the pressure facing Danbury from developers.
Older neighborhoods, elected officials, employees of the Planning Department and Danbury taxpayers are all under pressure. Turn a bad proposal down, the developers' message goes, and we'll sue you and run up the city's legal bills.
There were plenty of good reasons to turn down Batista's proposal for a Dunkin' Donuts on Springside Avenue. It's just not the best location for a business that will generate so much traffic. But instead of finding a different location, Batista is suing the city and offering a second proposal as a legal tactic.
Danbury has to get a handle on its growth and protect older neighborhoods from inappropriate development. It needs the help of developers to do that.
Feb 24 2007:
Here's the original resolution of denial from the planning commission and planning department. Take note of the section in bold that had to due with the traffic and safety concerns, which played a large role in Batista finding a loophole in the law where he could get the amount of trips per day under 500 and sidestep the planning commission.
or, as I stated back then:
Now, if you read the portions of the resolution in bold, you'll notice that the the points raised in the denial HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SIZE OF THE DUNKIN DONUTS BUILDING and more to do with the VARIOUS PROBLEMS THAT WOULD RESULT IF THE BUSINESS WAS BUILT IN THE LOCATION.
As an added bonus, I took pictures and shot video of the location to give those who are not familiar with the area a better understanding of the traffic nightmare for the residents of Springside.
First, here are two images of the Osborne Street/Springside Ave intersection. The proposed Dunkin Donuts site is boxed in red in the second image.
...and keep the odd location of the site as well as the slope of Springside Ave in mind when you watch the video.
Now, here's the letter of denial from the planning commission:
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
Here's a copy of the first denial from the planning department when Batista first tried to sidestep the planning commission decision.
SP 06-26 Dunkin Donuts Springside Avenue and Osborne StreetCITY OF DANBURY
155 DEER HILL AVENUE
DANBURY, CONNECTICUT 06810
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
(203) 797-4525
(203) 797-4586 (FAX)
February 27,2007
Dainius Virbickas
Artel Engineering
304 Federal Road
Brookfield, CT 06804
Re: Dunkin' Donuts, Springside Avenue and Osborne Street-SP 06-26 (Assessor's Lot # J12221)
Dear Mr. Virbickas:
The City of Danbury Department of Planning and Zoning received an Application for Site Plan Approval on December 26, 2006 to construct a Dunkin' Donuts facility with a drive-through window to be located at the northeast comer of Osborne Street and Springside Avenue. The lot area is approximately 22,409 sq. ft. and the property is zoned CG-20. Additional site improvements include an exterior order board, drive-through lane and pick-up window, parking lot, landscaping, drainage system, and roadway improvements.
The following maps and documents were submitted for review.
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 11128/06;
B. Subtitled 'Site Plan', dated 11/28/06;
C. Subtitled 'Grading and Utility Plan', dated 11128/06;
D. Subtitled 'Landscape and Lighting Plan', dated 11/28/06;
E. Subtitled 'Sediment & Erosion Control Plan', dated 11128/06;
F. Subtitled 'Site Details 1', dated 11/28/06;
G. Subtitled 'Site Details II', dated 11/28/06;
H. Subtitled 'Existing Drainage Shed', dated 10/13/05 and
I. Subtitled 'Proposed Drainage Shed', dated 10/13/05.
2. 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.
3. Site Engineering Report, Prepared for Dunkin' Donuts, Osborne Street and Springs ide A venue, Danbury, Connecticut, Prepared by Artel Engineering Group, LLC, dated November 2006.
The Application states that the total square footage of the proposed building is 896 square feet generating 495 average daily trips per day, plus a 500 square foot freezer which, you maintain, should be considered as storage generating 2.5 trips per day.
However, average daily trips generated by a fast food restaurant is given as 553 trips per day per 1,000 gross square feet (see ~ 10.D.8.b.(2)). The Zoning Regulations define gross floor area as
the sum of the areas of the several floors of a building, as measured from the interior faces of exterior walls, including all areas used for human occupancy, elevator shafts and stairwells at each story, interior balconies, and mezzanines, but excluding open porches or outside balconies, and any floor space intended or designed for the parking of motor vehicles or for heating and ventilating equipment. [see • 2.B.]
Based on said definition, the freezer must be included in the total gross floor area of the proposed use and used for calculating average daily trips at the rate proscribed for fast food restaurants. Storage is not excluded in the definition of "gross floor area" nor can it be calculated at a separate rate.
Consequently, the total trip generation for the proposed Dunkin' Donuts facility is based on a 1,396 square foot building (896 sq. ft. plus 500 sq. ft.). The total trip generation is 772 trips per day. The Zoning Regulations require that all proposed uses generating over 500 trips per day are designated as special exceptions [~3.E.2.] and subject to all requirements thereof, including review and action by the Planning Commission, not the Department alone.
As a result of these findings, the site plan application for said use located at the corner of Springside Avenue and Osborne Street (Assessor's Lot # Jl2221) is denied. It may be submitted to the Planning Commission for special exception/site plan review and action.
Sincerely,
JennIfer L. Emminger, AICP
Associate Planner
cc: Robin Edwards, Assistant Corporation Counsel
Sean Hearty, Zoning Enforcement Officer
George Gleason, Permit Center
Farid Khouri, Engineering Department
Abdul Mohammed, Traffic Engineer
Alan Baker, Chief, Danbury Police Dept.
Barry Rickert, Fire Marshal
Leo Null, Building Department
Fran Louie, Highway Department
Now, remember, Batista's solution to the FIRST LETTER OF DENIAL was to REMOVE THE REFRIGERATOR. Trust me, I'll bet the house that he'll find a way to get the refrigerator placed in the business AFTER the place is finally built.
In short, this is a yet another story of a greedy developer who cares less about the quality of life in Danbury and more about his profits. Not his quote in Driscoll's article:
"I don't know what the neighbors have against doughnuts. They think we're selling prostitution or something. Doughnuts and coffee. What do they want over there, a church? I paid my money for a piece of land. It is allowed. It's as simple as that," Batista said.Batista knows that this is not the case. It's NOT about an objection to donuts, it's about a man who has the nerve to build a business in an area that will have adverse effect to the quality of life for the residents who live in that area (including the children who walk down Springside, onto and across Osborne Street, towards Broadview School).
I'm in the process of locating the video footage from the planning commission meetings where you can hear for yourself the public outcry in opposition to the proposal and the irrational remarks from Batista's attorney Neil Marcus in regards to the traffic concerns (including the comment regarding the impact the business will have on the firehouse located one house away).
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
