Diana Stricker Photo
Town Counsel Bill Aniskovich addresses P&Z.
Branford’s Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) said yes to a new industry Thursday, but expressed concerns about Sterling Ridge and another proposed residential development.
The commission unanimously approved site plans for Bausch & Stroebel Machine Co. to build a 59,150 square-foot manufacturing facility at the corner of Thompson Road and Route 139.
But it appears that the commission will deny a condo project at the Sterling Ridge site on Cherry Hill Road near the historic Harrison House.
Diana Stricker Photo
And commissioners expressed concern about informal plans to build senior housing on industrial land at 736 East Main St.
New Industry Comes to Branford
Diana Stricker Photo
“I’m very, very happy to say we have an industrial site,” said engineer Bob Criscuolo (pictured left)of Criscuolo Engineering in Branford.
Bausch & Stroebel Machine Co. Inc., which is primarily based in Germany, currently has a plant in North Branford. Company president Helen Stroebel-Glaser, told the Eagle that plans call for building a new facility in Branford and closing the North Branford site.
The company designs and builds packaging and production systems for the pharmaceutical industry.
The site is located at 10 Thompson Road at the corner of Route 139. It was purchased in Jan. 2015 by 20 Thompson Road LLC, which also purchased the adjacent 7‑acre site and industrial building at 20 Thompson Road.
Criscuolo said the 4 acres, which are zoned industrial, are “ideally suited” for this type of production facility. “There are no wetlands on the site,” he said. However, it is thickly covered in trees and brush. Landscape architect Larry Appleton discussed options for landscaping.
Criscuolo said the company estimates there will be 50 employees at the factory. Construction, which will be in two phases, will include manufacturing space, and office and shipping areas.
The commission approved the site plans by a 5 – 0 vote.
Sterling Ridge Reactions
Commissioners did not vote on the Sterling Ridge condos Thursday, but they asked staff to draft a resolution to deny the project.
Diana Stricker Photo
“I think we should draft a denial,” said P&Z chair Chuck Andres (pictured at right with Town Planner Harry Smith) after about an hour of discussion. He said there would likely be a vote at the Sept. 17 meeting. The commission is still short one member, so one of the three alternates would be voting. Alternate Joe Chadwick asked to be recused since he is a member of the Historical Society. Fred Russo will fill the voting slot for the Sterling Ridge issue.
Andres said even if the commission votes against the project, the developer could come back with a revised plan.
“Maybe we do (eventually) approve some sort of change, but not this big,” Andres said.
The site in question is a 3.45 acre lot at 26 Cherry Hill Road located between Route 1 and Main Street. It is part of the Canoe Brook Historic District which is on the National Register of Historic Places. Much of the western edge of the 26 Cherry Hill Road site directly abuts a portion of the property where the Harrison House is located at 124 Main St.
Several different owners have made several proposals for the site in the past 12 years. The land was purchased in August 2014 by Alan Genn of Greenwich.
Genn’s plans call for construction of three buildings on the southern half of the property, totaling 12 condos, plus the existing home on the northern half of the property. He is seeking to modify the PDD that was approved in 2007.
Public hearings on the project began in June and concluded in late July. Click here to read about the final hearing and objections voiced by the Historical Society.
A Planned Development District (PDD) for the site was approved by P&Z in 2005 and was modified in 2007 as part of a settlement agreement after an appeal was filed by the Historical Society and neighbor Ann Trapasso.
Trapasso’s attorney, Christopher Smith, of Shipman & Goodwin in Hartford, raised three legal issues during the public hearings. Town Attorney Bill Aniskovich said Thursday that two of those legal issues do not apply in this instance. One issue involved whether there needs to be a change in circumstances before a PDD can be modified. Aniskovich said that a modification can be considered whether or not there is a change in circumstances. Another issue was whether the parties of the settlement would have to consent to any changes to the 2007 PDD. Aniskovich said the question was whether the party plaintiffs have some kind of veto power. “The answer to that question is no,” Aniskovich told the commission. He said there is no clause in the settlement that would give them that right. He said the settlement was an agreement between parties, not one that was stipulated by a judge.
Aniskovich said the third question raised by Smith “is a much more complicated legal issue,” and the legal research wasn’t complete on that point.
“There’s not going to be an answer, there’s going to be a legal opinion,” he said, adding that the complex issue could lead to an appeal. Aniskovich said there would be no need to do further research if the commission denies the application. “These three issues are really only relevant if you intend to approve the plan,” Aniskovich told the commission.
This third issue raised by Smith questioned whether the plans had expired, and therefore could not be modified. During the public hearing, Smith said he believes the plans approved by P&Z in 2007 expired since construction was not completed in 5 years, and no extensions were requested. He said he believes the project does not fall under state legislation approved in 2011 that extended deadlines for projects for an additional 4 years. Click here to read about that hearing.
In another matter, Aniskovich said in his view the current regulations regarding PDD’s will apply.
The new regulations for a PDD say it should be consistent with the immediate neighborhood. “We’re called on to look at the adjacent property,” Andres said, adding that perhaps the developer may redesign the plans. “We’re not opposed to some sort of modifications,” he said.
There was considerable discussion about how the new plans differ from the 2007 plans in terms of number of units and location. Andres said the new plan concentrates development in the southern part of the property, closer to the Harrison House and the neighbors.
Russo said since the project is in the historic district, it affects the application. “I think that location is an important issue,” he said.
Commissioner Joe Vaiuso said there are some good aspects of the new plan, like the proposed handicap housing.
Commissioner Marci Paluzzi said she was “very conflicted” about the application, and it had some good aspects. “My question is whether they’re trying to push the envelope too far,” she said.
Commissioner John Lust said he doesn’t like the density of the project. “I think it’s too much for this area.”
Following the meeting, Historical Society president Virginia Page told the Eagle that the issues are complicated. “It leaves us kind of on edge as to where we stand,” she said.
Abutting neighbor Ann Trapasso told the Eagle she will be pleased if the application is denied, but she said the situation is confusing.
Housing Master Plan
The development team for a proposed PDD at 736 E. Main St. made an informal presentation Thursday, but didn’t hear much encouragement. The plans call for building 25 homes for senior citizens on property that is zoned industrial. About 7 acres are Branford farmland owned by Anthony LaBella; and an adjacent 8 acres are in North Branford. The properties are currently for sale.
The proposed Ridgeview Farm age-restricted project would be built in a similar fashion to the Riverwalk active adult community.
Diana Stricker Photo
Engineer Ryan McEvoy (pictured), of Milone & MacBroom of Cheshire, said it would be really challenging to put industrial buildings there because of the topography and wetlands. He said 19 units would be built in Branford and six in North Branford “We recognize there are multiple jurisdictional issues and zoning, wetlands and sewer issues,” McEvoy said.
Andres said he likes the concept of single-family home for seniors, but he is not in favor of the location. He said access would be through an industrial area, and there would be no access on the North Branford side. He said he also has reservations about changing the industrial zoning designation to residential.
Town planner Harry Smith said he likes the concept but questioned: “Is this right for this spot?” Smith said he doesn’t think it would mesh with the Plan of Conservation and Development.
Commissioner Lust said “I like the concept and I see the need… but its right in the middle of industrial.”
The presentation was informal and no application has yet been filed.
###
Attorney Aniskovich told the commission that a decision about whether the approval of the earlier Sterling Ridge PDD has expired is unnecessary if the application is denied. Where does that leave the Building Department if the owner applies for a building permit to construct the project approved as modified in 2007?