town of watertown connecticut · 8/25/2016 · valenti motors, inc. for the use of an existing...

Town of Watertown Connecticut Planning and Zoning, Zoning Board of Appeals,

Conservation Commission/Inland Wetland Agency Watertown Municipal Center

61 Echo Lake Road

Watertown, CT 06795

Telephone: (860) 945-5266 Fax: (860) 945-4706

Website: www.watertownct.org

Planning and Zoning Commission

Town of Watertown, Connecticut

SPECIAL MEETING

Public Hearing Minutes

Time: 6:30 P.M.

Date: Thursday, August 25, 2016

Place: Watertown High School Lecture AUDITORIUM

324 French Street, Watertown, CT

1. Call Meeting to Order

Meeting was called to order by Erik Markiewicz at 6:32 pm

2. Roll Call

Members Present: Erik Markiewicz, Chairman

Raymond Antonacci

Richard Antonetti, Secretary

Ken Demirs

Lou Esposito

Richard Miele

Bob Marinaro

Mark Raimo


Special Meeting August 25, 2016

Members Absent: Renato Focareta

David Pope

Bob Marinaro was seated for David Pope

Raymond Antonacci was seated for Renato Focareta

Other Members Present: Mark Massoud, Administrator for Land Use/ZEO

Moosa Rafey, Wetland Enforcement Officer

Assistant Land Use Administrator/ZEO

Charles Berger, Town Engineer

Paul R. Jessell, Town Attorney

Roseann D’Amelio, Secretary

3. Public Hearings

Chairman Erik Markiewicz I am going to read some rules that we have tonight for our

meeting.

Welcome to the meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission. In order to conduct a

fair and open public hearing the Chairman is charged with assuring an orderly meeting as

established in the rules as follows:

Please turn off or silence all mobile devices. The chair will call on the applicant first to

make their presentation and answer any questions from the commission. When the

presentation is completed, you will solicit comments from the public. The Chairman will

recognize speakers from the audience. When called upon please approach the podium

state your name and your address clearly for the record. Speak directly into the

microphone and address your comments to the Chairman only. It is the discretion of the

Chairman to decide if the questions you ask are answered at the time or later in the

presentation. As of now there are no speaking time limits however the chair has the

discretion to stop a speaker who becomes unduly or lengthy. Please do not make any

derogatory or repetitive statements. Your statements other than those related specifically

to the issues before this commission. The Chair will rule on any such comments out of

order. While applications are pending before the commission communication with the

commissioners should only be in this public hearing venue. You may communicate any

concerns or ask questions of staff anytime. These hearings are not a debate between

parties but they are formed to advise and assist the commission with decisions. Thank

you for attending this hearing and sharing your advice and opinion with this commission.



a. An application from Valenti Motors, Inc. for the use of an existing building

for a temporary car dealership at 105 Commercial Street, Watertown, CT in a

B-SC Shopping Center Business District.

Recess or adjourn, the Public Hearing must be closed by September 29, 2016

unless the applicant grants an extension of time.

Chairman Erik Markiewicz a few minutes ago we received a legal opinion from Attorney

Paul Jessell regarding the Valenti application and I will read that into the record.



Chairman Erik Markiewicz with that being said we will not hold a public hearing for

Valenti Auto instead we will act on a site plan. Do you have a site plan tonight or

something you will submit at the next meeting?



Joan Molloy, Attorney with Loughlin & Fitzgerald, 150 S. Main Street, Wallingford I

appeared before you on August 10th on behalf of Valenti Motors and I am here again

tonight on their behalf. We had submitted a site plan and we did discuss at the August the

commission wants additional information obviously we are prepared to do it. We had

actually been hopeful that the commission would be to able act on the application tonight.

Chairman Erik Markiewicz can you update us on that site plan that you receive. Do you

have everything you need? Mr. Berger do you have everything they need or would you

like to put it on our next agenda at the next meeting.

Moosa Rafey Mr. Chairman I am familiar with site because this application went to the

Zoning Board of Appeals with their July meeting and they approved the location of this

dealership. Starting July 1 of 2016, they state that the statute changed their authority of

the location approval from Planning & Zoning Commission to Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Valenti came to the Zoning of Appeals and they granted a variance because the aisle

part of the parking lot was 18 feet and the zoning regulations requires 25 feet and they

approve the location for a temporary car dealership, which will expire by December 31,

2017.

Chairman Erik Markiewicz so the site plan they submitted is acceptable to you guys.

Moosa Rafey the site plan everything is existing there. They are not proposing any

development there. The building is there, the parking lot is there, the drive is there.

Chairman Erik Markiewicz so it sounds like it something you can sign off on when they

come in.

Moosa Rafey yes, if the commission decides to approve the application we can sign off

on it. We have a draft motion for you if you can read this into record because there are

some conditions.

Richard Antonetti Mr. Chairman I would like to adjust the agenda under for 4a Valenti

Motors site plan for a use as an existing building for a temporary car dealership at 105

Commercial St., Ct in BD-SC shopping center business district. I think we should waive

the agenda to go to 4a. I will make that motion if I have a second.

b. Text of Motion: Motion to move Item 4a to 3a for an application from

Valenti Motors, Inc. for the use of an existing building for a temporary

car dealership at 105 Commercial Street, Watertown, CT in a B-SC

Shopping Center Business District

Motion Made by: Richard Antonetti

Motion Seconded by: Bob Marinaro

All in Favor

4. Articles on Agenda



a Applicant: Valenti Motors

Re: Site Plan for the use of an existing

building for a temporary car

dealership

AT: 105 Commercial Street, Watertown,

CT

Zone: B-SC Shopping Center Business

District.

Action: If Public Hearing is closed, decision

by October 29, 2016

Chairman Erik Markiewicz I will read the draft motion.

The Planning and Zoning commission at a Special Meeting held on August 25, 2016

voted to approve a Site Plan for Valenti Motors, Inc. for the use of an existing building

for a temporary car dealership at 105 Commercial Street, Watertown, CT in a B-SC

Shopping Center Business District with the following motion:

WHEREAS: The Watertown Planning and Zoning Commission (herein “Commission”)

received a Site Plan application for the use of an existing building for a temporary car

dealership at 105 commercial Street, Watertown, CT in a B-SC Shopping Center

Business District as part of already existing car dealership location for Audi and

Volkswagen.

WGEREAS: The Watertown Zoning Board of Appeals granted variance #1060 on July

27, 2017 for approval of location and variance of 7 feet to an access aisle width for 7

existing parking spaces,

IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Commission approves the site development

plan titled Temporary Car Dealership 105 Commercial Street, Watertown, CT prepared

for Valenti Motors, Inc by Pustola & Associates Engineers and Constructors dated

7/28/16 with the following conditions:

All existing and proposed exterior lighting shall comply with Section 33 (Lighting) of the

Watertown Zoning Regulations;

All proposed sing shall comply with Section 32 (Signs) of the Watertown Zoning

Regulations;



This approval of use for a temporary car dealership shall continue only for so long as the

subject property at 105 Commercial Street is leased to and treated as part of the already

existing car dealership properties, and shall terminate on December 31, 2017; this

condition of approval shall be memorialized in a document to be signed by the Town and

by the applicant and recorded upon the Watertown land records prior to issuance of a

zoning permit.

Prior to Town officials signing a final Mylar map and two paper copies with a signature

block for the Chairman and the conditions of approval, the final map shall be submitted

to the Land Use Office for review and approval by the Town Engineer and the

Administrator for Land Use.

Text of Motion: Approve Site Plan for the use of an existing building for a

temporary car dealership at 105 Commercial Street, Watertown, CT,

subject to conditions.



All in Favor

c. An application from Shaker’s Enterprises for a Zone Map Change from

R-12.5 Residential Zoning District to B-SC Shopping Center Business Zoning

District at 486 Straits Turnpike, Watertown, CT.



Chairman Erik Markiewicz I believe we are combining all three applications for Shaker’s

Enterprise for a special permit.

Richard Antonetti read the legal notice.

Franklin Pilicy on behalf of the applicant I have a number of submittals any of which

have already been submitted but some that have to be submitted tonight as part of this

public hearing proceeding. First, I will pass out the proof of notice to staff. I note the

Chairman has commented that this is a combined public hearing on the three separate

applications. I submitted earlier and I will pass out a version tonight without the

attachments of a legal memorandum to confirm the appropriateness of filing multiple

applications at the same time and combining the public hearings at the same time. I

would ask if Moosa would pass these out. This legal memo was submitted previously but

I brought additional copies for the commission without the attachments. As stated in the

opening comments there are three separate applications. One is the zone change from the

R12 or residential 12.5 zoning district DSC shopping center business zoning district. The

second is a special permit application pursuant to zoning regulations Section 17.2.2 to



allow a parcel of less than five acres for BSC usage including the auto dealership that is

proposed. The third application is combined application for a special permit and a site

plan in combination of those two application are customarily filed together and have been

tonight. The next items or submittal for the record is a letter from the Water & Sewer

Authority that confirms that water & sewer service is available to this site.



The next submittal it is a letter from the owner of the property consenting to the zone

change application that was previously submitted and I want to make sure in this record.



The next item or submittal is a letter from the Town of Watertown Economic

Development Commission previously submitted in a prior record concerning the subject

applications, which states that the Economic Development Commission unanimously

voted to approve the zone change application.



The next submittal is a report from the Regional Council of Governments, which I will

read a pertinent paragraph it states: the COG staff has found that a commercial use of the

Straits Turnpike property as described in the referral appears to be consistent with the

state Plan of Conservation of Development. The state identifies the area where the area

where the Straits parcel is located as a balance priority funding with funding priority

rating of R and having minimal environmental constraints to development and this is

desirable because of proximity to existing urban development and established water &

sewer services available. However, the parcel is located on land identified as prime

farmland soil thus future land use is recommended to balance conservation and economic

development goals. Properties immediately to the south of 486 Straits Turnpike is all

commercial. Should the Straits Turnpike parcel be rezone to a commercial use it would

complement and extent the commercial use cluster along Straits Turnpike?



I believe that is already part of the record because it addressed to the commission but I

want to make sure we have it.



The next submittal I have is the commission received on an earlier date a letter from

Attorney Steven Byrne concerning some legal issues that were raised by others in

connection with these applications. I have written a response to that where I present the

applicant’s legal argument to indicate that everything with these applications is both

within allowable parameters sort to be speak with Connecticut law with a great deal of

legal precedence. This has been previously submitted but I will submit additional copies

to be distributed that do not contain the attachments that were with the official copy

previously submitted.



The next submittal maybe be a little bit repetitive for most commission members. It is the

minutes of the public hearing held by this commission on August 5, 2015 and a public

hearing held on August 2, 2016 that concerned the similar applications that are before

you tonight and I would like to make the minutes part of the record.



The next submittal the applicant has is a statement sometimes called an environmental

impact statement in accordance with your regulations again this has been previously

submitted but I would like to submit again tonight.

The next submittal that we have are some pertinent sections of the Plan of Conservation

and Development that was adopted by this commission and the environmental impact

statement just distributed contains within it a section of statement of compliance with the

Town of Watertown Plan of Conservation and Development. Much of what I am going to

pass out now is also referenced if not contained in full in the environmental impact

statement but I want to comment on certain sections of the Plan of Development. As we

know when a zone change of this nature is presented to the commission the commission

by statute is required to take into account the provisions of the Plan of Conservation and

Development. That statute is Connecticut General Statute Section 8-23 and especially at

8-23 e it states as follows: such plan of conservation and development should be a. a

statement of the policies and goals and standards for its fiscal and economic development

of the municipality. Section 8-3 of the General Statutes, which is a statute that enables the

commission to both establish and change regulations. It states in pertinent part in making

a zone change decision the commission shall take into consideration the Plan of

Conservation and Development prepared pursuant to Section 8-23. What you have that I

just printed presented to you was Section 5 and Section 10 of the Plan of Conservation

and Development that is currently in effect adopted by this agency in 2007. In the

economic development section is states that the employment and grand list benefits of

nonresidential districts an acreage cannot be taken for granted. Watertown recognizes that

creating a healthy environment for viable business is a critical governmental function.

Further, down the backbone of the central business district is Main Street, Route 63 and

Route 73. Commercial and business uses are predominant along much of the street.

Commercial and business uses are retail establishments, professional and business offices

municipal offices restaurant and other service facilities. While many jobs in Watertown

are provided by the private sector town government has a key role in foster economic

development. Economic Development is a municipality’s effort to improve the

community’s wellbeing. The primary goals are to retain and expand existing businesses

and attract new ones that provide jobs, services, products and tax revenues needed to

sustain a community’s growth. A successful economic development strategy requires a

community understand market forces as receptive to the need of current businesses

selects market segments that enhance the community’s economic makeup and works

diligently to all issues that undermine the community’s marketability. It goes on to state

as of 2007 that the Connecticut economy has undergone a structural shift. The number of

service occupations increased significantly while employment and manufacturing

continue to decline. I think we all know that trend has if nothing increased in more recent

years. It talks also that Connecticut experienced an economic downturn from the late

1990’s through to 2000 and it states the number of jobs lost by the early 2000, which

again is a much direr situation today. It states between 2002 and 2004 the total number

of jobs in Connecticut as whole decreased .8 percent. When we shift over to page 41 it

talks about existing economic policies. The primary economic development policy in the

2007 plan was to retain and expand existing businesses and industries while attracting



new businesses and industries to suitable locations in order to expand the tax base

increasing employment opportunities in Watertown. The town should continue to give

priority to businesses and industries that provide a higher tax base and higher number of

job opportunities. Help support existing local business and industries and buffer local

employment in Watertown’s grand list from negative effects of regional state and

national trends by diversifying employment opportunities. Now if we just focus on that

alone we all know what is going on in Connecticut. We all read the paper everyday about

the continuing escalating decline of the Connecticut economy. And I think it’s fair to say

that municipalities cannot count on state funding as the municipalities have grown

accustom to rely on state funding. I think that every town has to take notice of what is

happening in the state and what is happening with the state budget and the likelihood that

there will be less state funding available in the future to assist with municipalities in

budgeting for the future. I think again this plan tells us that everyone in the decision-

making arena in Watertown cannot take for granted that the tax dollars are going to be

there we have to work for it. I think you are going to see and we are starting to see in the

other municipalities around us a more aggressive attempt to seek and expand commercial

tax base than we saw in the past from our neighboring municipalities. But in Article 10 of

the plan is the more or less the conclusory area that talks about goals and policies and

under the general planning section on page 85 it states: this plan is to establish a long

range planning program to anticipate and accommodate the town’s needs for the next 10

to 20 years. The very first policy, number 1 create a pattern of existing and future land

use that encourages economic growth that is the number one priority in this plan. We turn

to page 86 it’s titled again economic development. Watertown should strive to strengthen

the town’s economic base to preserve Watertown as a desirable place to live, work and

raise a family. A comment here this where I think we all should be looking to the future.

We need tax base not necessarily for all of us here today. We need it in place to build up

the structural ability of this town to support its needs going forward. However, if we shift

down under policies in this section again the very first policy that we are told about in

this plan. Again retain existing businesses and industries while attracting new businesses

and industry expand the tax base increase employment opportunities and then it goes on

to state: priority should be given to businesses and industries which provide a higher tax

base, job opportunities and so forth. Similar to the earlier statement of the same goals. On

page 87 again we are closing in on the end of the report with respect to economic

development and it states: businesses and industry retention and development the

commission encourages annual meetings with the economic development commission

and the economic development coordinator to discuss strategies. One part of the

submittals tonight is the Economic Development Commission coordinating to weigh in

and give their opinion on this application. We know they have submitted a unanimous

vote in support of this application. The next section here is very pertinent to tonight. That

is to keep major land uses distinct from one another to protect existing residential

neighborhoods from commercial development by encroachment and by discouraging

zoning changes that would allow mixed use in established residential areas except at the

borders where major streets are located and to protect industrial land from residential

encroachment. Your plan of development calls for you to consider favorably zone

changes at the borders where the major streets are located and that is what we are

submitting tonight. If that paragraph and those goals generally mean anything, it means



that this is the type of zone change application that should be approved. When you are

considering a zone, change application there is a couple of things that we always talk

about. One is the compliance with the Plan of Conservation and Development and we

talk about that because the statute tells us we have to talk about that but we have

demonstrated that this application fits squarely within what is contemplated in the plan of

development. The next thing we talk about with respect to zone changes is that when a

zoning agency is considering a change in the zoning regulations the zoning agency is

acting with the broadest possible discretion in other words it has called a legislative

decision. As opposed with site plan and even a special, permit which are considered

administrative decisions. Which technically ought to be approved if they comply and

conform to the regulations. But with respect to establishing zones changing zones and

adopting and changing regulations that is where the commission yourselves enjoy the

broadest discretion and have the most liberal again discretion to decide what is needed for

the best interest of all of Watertown both today and in the future. As your plan calls for

it’s supposed to be a 10 year’s plan. But your plan calls for it to be looking forward 10 or

20 years with that I concluded the submittals and I would just like to comment briefly on

prior applications we have heard some opposition due to traffic and I would just like to

remind everybody we have a professional traffic report we will hear from the traffic

engineer but this is about as low a traffic user as you can possibly have on a site like this

and still generate some pretty significant tax benefits. Many years ago there were

individuals that opposed for example Stop & Shop and that battle went on for about 5 or

6 years and the argument and opposition was that if Stop & Shop is built then the sky is

going is fall at this intersection and no one is going to be able to get through the

intersection. Well the project went forward the project was built and there has been no

measurable impact at that intersection. What is proposed tonight is about probably less

than one, one hundredth of a retail center like a Stop & Shop when it comes to traffic.

Again we have a benefit of the intersection we have the benefit of traffic studies so I will

now turn this over I believe to discuss the site plan aspects of this and I think Scott

Meyers would do that. We are hoping to amend our presentation and have Corey Shaker

speak just briefly first.

Corey Shaker thank you.

Chairman Erik Markiewicz I will need your address for the record.

Corey Shaker, 5 Gaypost Lane, Woodbury Franklin mentioned some concerns and some

opposition and I just wanted to address those. They have been addressed before but I

think they should be important into the minutes of this meeting. In the past there was

concern about this line of demarcation that I don’t know where it developed maybe in

people’s minds maybe by law I don’t necessarily know I don’t think there is anything in

the regulations that states that there can be no commercial property beyond Bunker Hill

Road going north. Regarding those concerns and I have some maps here. Number one I

will demonstrate in just a second that topography makes going north on Straits Turnpike

toward Carvel or G’s Burger and Triple Play Sports this is the proposed location you can

see from the lines that it is relatively flat. This is going north up Straits Turnpike toward

Oak Drive and you can see from the lines the topography lines it is extremely steep going



up to the left as you are going north and its extremely steep going down to your right as

you’re going north so these are also property owner lines which I have another depiction.

I estimate that if you could get a two or three-acre piece and you can get all these people

to agree to sell their property at the same time that the site work alone would be about a

million dollars just to make it so that it could be commercially feasible. This is another

map showing the property a little bit better and the topography lines again. As you know

the closer the topography lines are together the steeper the grades. This is a map showing

both the topography, the proposed piece of property and the individual homeowners in

red. I propose that if somebody were going to invest a million dollars in site work alone

and if they were willing to get past that obstacle they would have to get these one, two,

three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen

people to agree to sell their property at the same time. I don’t think it is conceivable that

anybody would want to invest a million dollars in site work but these are all homeowners.

They are not going to sell their property and not agree on a price all at once. There is

another map here same map that shows as Attorney Pilicy stated that the property is

virtually surrounded commercial type properties to the north, and to the east and so to the

south, to the north and to the east is all commercial type properties. Second issue is the

family has been trying to sell this land for 10 years or so. No one has shown any interest

in the property for housing or office space there is plenty of interest and has been plenty

of interest for retail. A few people have said the property taxes are not important they are

important to Watertown. The town wants to spend according to this article August 17,

2016 in the Waterbury Republican American it’s entitled Watertown to decide on 3

projects. In that article the town council sent three bond projects to the referendum and

here they are. They want to spend $550,000 to purchase land on Nova Scotia Hill Road.

The town wants to spend $11,900,000 to turn Heminway School into a new town hall.

The town wants to spend $6,330,550 to bring sanitary sewers and water to Concord and

Lexington Roads. The property taxes are important to the 22,500 people that live in town

that need this revenue. There are a few people that are opposed to it and they have made

some of their voices heard. I respect that this is a democracy. However, what is important

is the needs of the many vs the needs of the few. The town collects about $3,600 in taxes

on this property. The house is now vacant that is on there and according to my sources

will remain vacant. We will generate instead of about $3,600 a year we will generate

about $68,000 to $70,000 dollars a year when the building is finished about 20 times the

current revenue. The town’s people have claimed that we will pollute soil the waters from

the property will be channeled and filtered before it discharged just like it is at 831 Straits

Turnpike. Currently the water falls on the property now and it just runs off into the brook

is not filtered or channeled. I have heard that the town says we are going to have too

much lighting. Watertown’s regulation allows zero light to be over the property line our

current lighting engineered study shows that beyond the property line there is zero light

emission. The town’s people thought there might be too much traffic. Automobile dealers

have very little traffic as a matter of fact customers today only shop on average 1.2

dealerships because they are doing all their research on the internet. Therefore, they come

to the dealership knowing what they want and they do not usually shop other stores.

There are some other measurable financial benefits and these are very big. We will

generate about 2 million dollars a year in sales tax and DMV fees. Which is my clear

understanding that a portion of the sales tax collected in the community that is collected

Commented [S1]:



and goes back to that community not of all of it obviously goes to the state but some of it

goes back to the community. We will create 25 new jobs at a minimum many of those

people employed will live in Watertown and Oakville. We currently have about 20

employees from Watertown and Oakville now already. So I think I need to submit those

to you right you have to take those they can stay there thank you very much.

Scott Meyers, Professional Engineer & Land Surveyor, Meyers Associates P.C., 60

Linden Street, Waterbury tonight I am here on behalf of the applicant. First, I would just

like to iterate the facts on the zone change. The parcel here we have shown on my board

in orange is proposed to go from an R12.5 zone to BSC zone and that contains just over 3

acres. The surrounding zones we are in the northwest corner of Straits Turnpike at

Bunker Hill Road once again the parcels highlighted in orange. To the north, you have

the rest home R12.5 zone the commercial nature type use. To the west is also an R12.5

zone it has been used for several years as a contractor’s yard. To the south, we have the

BSC zone, which is the adjoining zone to us, which is the Webster Bank Staples Plaza.

To the east, we have a gas station on the southeast corner of Straits Turnpike and Bunker

Hill Road, which is also a BSC zone. Directly to the east across Straits Turnpike we have

a vacant piece of land on the corner, which our firm actually got approval four years ago

for the DGP law firm to construct an office business there. The next parcel to the north of

that is Mr. Perugini’s he also has an approval for an office building. The next parcel to

the north of that is DGP law firm which we also did the site plan on that one several years

ago. You could see from this map that whole area is mostly commercial. Next, I would

like to present what we have laid out for the site plan. This particular plan calls for a new

building on the corner a little over 15,000 square feet will contain a showroom, service

bay as well as a mezzanine area of the building for offices upstairs. It has over 160

parking spots mostly displays spots as well as employee spots. Spots for people dropping

off their vehicles to be serviced as well as customer parking to come and actually shop

for the vehicle we have them setup all around the site. The only access we are proposing

is off Bunker Hill Road. There will not be any access off Straits Turnpike.

Typographically the site sets up very well for what we are proposing with the dealership

on the corner in the higher visible area and some displays spots on the corner as well as a

lot of car inventory to the rear. Then the employee and customer spaces would be

northerly side of the building away from the customer spaces. The overall site plan is on

40 scales so it could fit on a sheet however, we did do an enlarged version of the site plan

at 20 scale in order to provide the landscaping as you can see a little more detail on the

site plan. This is actually a revised plan than probably is in your packet and I will go

through that in a second the reason. However, this obviously the same plan you can see as

far as zoning we comply with all the parking setback requirements, all the building

setback requirements from residential zones. All the parking and loading requirements

from the corner. I noticed all the requirements under Section 45.2 in your zoning

regulations is the area for new automobile dealerships after 2005. We are providing the

buffer areas, which are 25 feet on the west, and north sides of the property that is one of

the things we did add after meeting with town staff a few days ago and we did add buffer

plantings in that 25-foot buffer area. The one thing we do note on our new plan is that

we did walk the property after meeting with staff. There is vegetated areas within that 25

buffer along those two property lines and we will maintain any trees 12 inches or over



that are already existing but we will also supplement that with the buffer plantings which

will consist white pines. We added about 35 of them staggered in order to provide the

screening for the R12.5 zones. The only other thing as we did receive a memo this

afternoon from your Town Engineer Mr. Berger I do not know if the board received that

at all. I would just like to go through a couple of the items to make the commission aware

to have discussion on a couple other ones. As far as item 1 under traffic our traffic

engineer is here, he will make a brief presentation in a few minutes. As far as the

drainage report, my father and I have been working with Mr. Berger on the drainage. We

have a few more calculations to run for him as well as some tweaks on the sizing and

elevation of the system. As far as all the drainage goes the runoff currently will be

basically in the same drainage pattern from east to west and right around where the car

inventory is to the west side of the building. We are proposing a underground detention

system that will provide the zero increase in runoff as well as the water quality and all the

items that Mr. Berger is looking for. Therefore, we will comply with all the requirements

as far as that goes we just need a little design in order to complete that. Those are under

all the items I believe under the drainage report 1 through 4. As far as the site plan goes,

it came to our attention that the Department of Public Works is recommending sidewalks

along Bunker Hill currently the sidewalk runs on Straits Turnpike along our entire

frontage it is a concrete walk it runs to the corner and then it goes to the crosswalk across

the street. So I guess we need to open some kind of discussion as to whether the

commission would like the sidewalks or not. We do not have them shown on the plan.

We did take a walk out there it would be very difficult to actually install a sidewalk

adjacent to Bunker Hill Road as there is an old stone wall there we wanted to preserve the

stone wall. Any kind of sidewalk construction adjacent to the road would undermine the

wall and we would have to remove it. There is another option we could put it on the

inside of the wall. Topographical that is a better scenario however; it would require the

applicant or owner granting an easement to the town because it would actually be on our

property. So that is something to consider I don’t know if anybody has any comments on

that whether they would like to see a sidewalk there or not.

Chairman Erik Markiewicz we can discuss the details later on in the public hearing.

Scott Meyers because there are no other sidewalks in that area on Bunker Hill just to let

you know. As far as number two under site plan the buffer I already explained the buffer,

we have added the plantings to the plan. Number 3 was just note about the display cars to

the rear those are just inventory cars there will not be public travel in that area and we

discussed that with Mr. Berger and he was okay with that. Number 4 will be provided

once we finalize the detention system design there is some more notes on how it is going

to be constructed type thing. Those notes will be added to the plan, which is typically

done in the detail section of the plans, and number 5 there were a couple areas of the

lighting that had to be tweaked. The lighting person was out of town there is two or three

areas actually over the property line where it was .1. The way he read the regulation

underneath the car dealership says that it has to be 0.0 at the property line. However, we

are going to have him tweak that so it is 0.0 over the property line as well so that we can

fully comply and there is no question because I think there is two sections in the



regulations that conflict with it. That was pretty much it as far Chuck’s memo goes and as

far as my presentation I will take questions now or we can do it after.

Chairman Erik Markiewicz on the detailed part of the section you can wait until we hear

from the public. We have Mr. Hesketh will present next thank you.

Scott Hesketh, Licensed Engineer, East Granby I am the author of the traffic impact

report, which was dated July 13, 2015. Updated it on August 10, 2016 so that this

commission is part of this application. We have also submitted a response letter to town

comments dated August 10, 2016, which I believe, has been reviewed and the latest set of

staff comments is that they are in concurrence with the responses to that memo. We

conducted a detailed traffic investigation report. Full testimony was given to the last

public hearing my understanding that the minutes of those hearings have been included in

the record. Rather than go through all of that in detail I will just state yes we did volume

counts at the intersection, state counts, and turning movement’s counts, conducted our

own automated counts at the intersection, and conducted capacity analysis of the

background traffic volume conditions. Because this is, a zone change one of the

applications before you is a zone change we looked at the impact of the zone change of

this property by looking at the way the site could be developed under existing zoning and

the proposed zoning. We made a comparison of those two different types of land uses.

We also conducted analysis of the proposed auto dealership and its impact on the section

as well. The bottom line is that the analysis indicates that the signalized intersection of

Route 63 and Bunker Hill Road operates at a level service c during background

conditions. For the morning, afternoon and Saturday peak hours and the intersection will

continue to operate at the same level of service under all the developments scenarios,

which we had reviewed. The proposed development before this evening is an auto

dealership as one of the lowest trip generation land uses which we had reviewed. The

proposed development before you this evening is an auto dealership as one of the land

uses especially on the commercial side. It is comparable and some cases less than some

of the residential generation which one could have. Single-family homes would be lower

but apartment units, which could be allowed on the parcel as well, so the trip generation

is similar to that. By changing the zone and approving a site plan for automobile

dealership at this location it is my professional opinion that the existing roadway network

has sufficient excess capacity to accommodate, the traffic volumes for the proposed

automobile dealership and the intersection will operate much in the same condition that is

does so today. If the commission or the public have, specific questions related to any of

the information provided in the report I will be happy to undertake that at the appropriate

time. At this time, I will turn it back over to Attorney Pilicy.

Franklin Pilicy we have nothing else as part of the initial presentation but we will

obviously be here if there are questions as proceed thank you.

Chairman Erik Markiewicz does the commission members need any clarification from

the applicant on anything that has been presented so far. If not if there anyone wishing to

speak please come up to podium you can form a line since there is going be a lot please.



Michael Regan, 746 Litchfield Road I actually live on Litchfield Road the proposed

zoning change road. I live across the street from the veterinarian. I am lucky to say I am

the insurance agent for the Shaker Auto Group and when I closed it two years one of the

exact that Corey Steven Edward and Janet said was we are going with you because you

are local. If you drive by during the summer, you see nothing but car washes going on at

KIA. If you look 831 Straits Turnpike, they have done a magnificent job with the

building. This family is not going to do a half job they are not to do a flim flam shim

sham job. They are going to build a beautiful dealership. One of the problems as you can

see by reading the paper is this town does not want change. Change unfortunately is

inevitable I am for this project. The problem is it has called a nimbi effect not in my

backyard. It is know thing they do not want this to happen they want it to be the old

Watertown. I congratulate yourselves on the empty buildings. We right now are the

lowest vacant occupancy in Watertown. We have had a phenomenal Renaissance of our

beautiful town we rented almost all of the vacancies now are full. Affluent car

dealerships generate money. They are going to buy sushi across the street they are going

to buy LaBonne’s. They are going to get gas across the street. When they are driving on

Bunker Hill, they are going to stop at Planter’s Choice and say hey look at that beautiful

Japanese Maple. I don’t feel it will hurt the town I think it will be nothing but economic

boom, To reiterate Attorney Pilicy’s words this will complement the area. There already

plenty of car dealerships in the area with Valenti, with Volvo with Ford with Nissan. It is

not going to be a low-income housing development and it is not going to be another

dollar store two items we do not need. I think we should give the Shaker’s a chance and if

you look at the magnificent job Corey and his family with KIA who did they go with

1cocchiola paving you can see they go with local people. When they built 831, they went

with a local millwork company to do a lot the construction. They give back they give to

the people the people that you will hear from that are going to speak are local Watertown

residents and that work for the Shaker family. I am proud to say I am for this project and

thank you for letting me speak.

Tom Hill, 166 Ice House Road Corey said it Michael said it I am for the project this is the

third time here third time is charm so I am for it and because of the long line, I am going

to move along thank you.

Fred Sprano, 245 Deerrun I am for this application because the Shakers have proven that

they have the state of the art building. They run an impeccable business they keep the

place gorgeous for the town. I think it will help the businesses and this town as well thank

you.

Judy Pilicy Sprano, 245 Deerun actually it has been a long time since I have been in the

auditorium for a public hearing like this. In fact, the last time I was here was 1989 when

Homart submitted their application to build a mall on 262 in Route 8 and I bring this up

because at the time and it was memorable hearing for anybody that was involved in it.

The group that was formed to oppose it was the concerned citizens for the preservation of

Watertown and although they maybe a different name they still come out to continually

go against every application that is filed with zoning board that can actually help

Watertown. However, what is interesting about that hearing was there was an overlay that



was done for 262 using another road in Waterbury to show if the mall was built. It would

create other businesses along 262 and they were very opposed to this but during that

hearing it was mentioned by the same group that they need to happen on Route 262

because we already had a road that housed different car dealerships and that is where they

should be and that Straits Turnpike. Now these same groups or group or same people

within the group with new faces are coming out to oppose the dealership being on Straits

Turnpike. This concerns me because every single time there is an application it’s doesn’t

matter where it is or whether it’s good for this town a group formed from this original

group in 1989 opposes it. I think it is time to stop our town needs to build businesses

support what’s happening there is some wonderful things happening in this town. I do not

want to see any more layoffs in schools and cuts from budgets we are all suffering from a

lot of things that happening to this town. I am here to support the Shaker application I

agree with everybody that has spoken already. They do a wonderful job and it will only

be an asset to this town thank you.

Kathleen Basil, 842 Bassett Road I just want to say that I love the Shaker Family they do

a wonderful job. They are good people and I support their application.

Judy Wick, 1051 Northfield Road I have some prepared comments but before I start that I

would to respond to a couple of things that Mr. Pilicy said. Mr. Pilicy talked about the

Stop and Shop and how people said the sky was going to fall in if Stop and Shop was

built and it was built and nothing happened. What he failed to mention was that nine

acres of that property was dedicated to open space. The size of the building was at least

30% smaller than originally provided Stop and Shop had to rebuild the intersection of

Bunker Hill Road and Straits Turnpike and there was an extra lane put at the Stop and

Shop so yes that why the sky didn’t fall in. If the commission at the time had approved

what had been presented by Stop and Shop, it would have been a very different situation.

The other question that I have and I would like an answer maybe not at this time but I

know I have looked at the site plan and the site plan shows a 25-foot setback to a

residential area and that it what is required for new car dealerships between the

dealerships and the residential area. However within the regulations there is another

provision that requires a 50 foot setback between a commercial and a residential area and

there seems to be a play back and forth in this application where sometimes we using

Section 45 which is the car dealership section and sometimes we are using Section 17

which is the BSC. I guess I would like to know if it is necessary to choose either one

section or the other whether this is like a Chinese restaurant you can pick from column a

and column b and so I think that is a question that I would to have answered by staff or

the Town Attorney or somebody? I would like to get to my prepared remarks. I would

like to request that the record from the previous two hearings on this application August

15, 2015, March 11, 2016 as well as the hearing to revise Section 17.2.2 of the zoning

regulations which are May 4,2016 and the public participation on June 1, 2016 and

August 3,2016 be included in the record of this hearing. I have noticed that there is a new

member of the commission seated tonight. Since the issues on this application have been

going on as you can see for over a year I would hope that if he or any other new member

who chooses to participate in this hearing will be sure to familiarize himself with all that,

that has come before by reading those minutes. Maybe even looking at some of the CD’s



of the meeting so that a lot of the information that is being presented tonight is based

upon the need to know what happened before. At this point, I would like to speak for

myself and other members of this community who have contributed funds to hire

Attorney Stephen Byrnes to represent us as citizens and taxpayers in this town. On June1,

2016 an opinion letter from Attorney Byrne was presented to this commission in which

he counselled that the application being considered was in violation of Connecticut State

Statutes and the Watertown regulations. Now I heard a lot of people talk about I think

this is a good idea I think we should have this. The issue that I want to bring forward is

that your regulations your regulations do not allow you to do this. It was expected that the

town attorney would review the letter and respond to it in a timely manner it has been

over 3 months. I have to say I spoke to the town attorney this evening and he explained

why he was not able to respond. Attorney Pilicy representing the applicant has submitted

an answer to Attorney Byrne on August 19th to which Attorney Byrne has responded and

I would like to read that response into the record if I may.

Moosa Rafey Mr. Chairman, can I ask something. Just for information, I received the

letter from Attorney Jessell to Attorney Steve Byrnes opinion tonight. We received it

today actually before the meeting Attorney Jessell gave it to me and I submitted to all

commission members tonight you have it now.

Judy Pilicy this is the letter that Attorney Byrne has sent to the people who have hired

him. In response to the letter that Attorney Pilicy wrote.



Judy Pilicy at that time Attorney Byrnes can be here to answer the questions raised and

the people on vacation the opportunity to attend the hearing. One final comment I would

like to make and that is I remember a comment that Mr. Antonetti made when you were

discussing the vineyard and he was talking about Watertown and our gateway to

Litchfield County. One of the reasons that Bunker Hill Road has been kept out of



commercial development is because that is really the entrance, the gateway to

Watertown. I have heard many people over the years including my husband say well the

other side of Bunker Hill Road is not really Watertown. Nobody knows what that is so

what happens is when you cross Bunker Hill Road and you don’t have the car dealerships

and the gas stations that becomes the gateway to this community. That is why it has been

held in violet for all these years and it is not a question of not wanting change it is a

question of putting change in the right place thank you.

Moosa Rafey Mr. Chairman before the next person talks I have an answer to Mrs. Wick’s

question. Should I give it to her now or can we wait.

Chairman Erik Markiewicz we will let everybody talk after is fine.

Kevin Pilicy, 209 Middlebury Road I just want to say I am for the application and the

dealership. I believe it brings a great number of positive things to this town such as more

jobs, tax revenue and going forward I think that is very imperative especially for my

generation and generations to come.

Jeffery Familigetti, 12 Edgewood Circle, Southington I am the grandson of Raymond

Hoffman, the owner of the said property on 486 Straits Turnpike and I am here this

evening to represent the family. I am here to speak on behalf of the Hoffman family we

offer our support to the purchase and use of 486 Straits Turnpike to the Shaker Family. If

this commission allows the purchase and development it will have a great benefit to the

citizens of Watertown providing a welcome addition to its tax base, adding employment

opportunities and promoting commerce. On a personal note if this sale and this use is

allowed to proceed it will be the last parcel of property that has been owned by the

Hoffman name dating back to 1890 is my great, great grandfather Frederick. It was once

part of more than 200 acres all farm land all now commercial property or industrial use

property. My grandfather built Commercial Street, built State Street and New Wood

Road back in the 50’s for development. I am also here this evening to directly address the

opposition and there address of some false claims. In the past week, protestors along the

corner of Straits Turnpike and Bunker Hill Road have carried on signs that have read

such statements, as Watertown is not for sale. Our corner our town whatever happened to

playing by the rules. As an owner and representative of this property, this is my corner it

is part of your town and it is for sale. We are playing by the rules that is why we are all

here participating this evening in this hearing. I welcome anyone who opposes this sale to

come forward with their proposal and a competitive offer. Present the proposal to this

board and the citizens of Watertown. If no competitive offer exists, please allow the sale

and the use of this property to move forward and to be approved. I would also like to

thank all of you for coming out this evening whether for or against the sale of this parcel

and be taking part in this collective process thank you.

Jonathan P. Famigletti, 20 Dorothy Avenue, Prospect I am the grandson of Raymond

Hoffman I am here on behalf of my grandparents. As a child, I spent many of days

growing up on my grandparent’s property and I had the honor of seeing much

development up the street going for walks with my grandparents was an absolute honor.



Now as an adult, I see on a tax base how important it is for development and I know that

there is so many great memories on my grandparent’s property that I will miss but I feel

for the Town of Watertown, which as a child growing was always a great town. I think

the economic growth and the development of this property will be an absolute advantage

for Watertown thank you.

Curtis Pierce, 123 Gable Avenue I support Mr. Shaker’s application I think it will bring

some jobs to the town and help thanks.

Steven Rubbo, 27 Pondview Drive I like to say that I am for the application as a father of

2 children in the Watertown School system seeing how hard school budgets are being

passed, added taxes could only help us and I am for it thank you.

Edward Bushka, 460 Concord Drive I have resided there 17 years I travel the intersection

at a minimum of 50 times a week. Traffic is not a problem for this project in my opinion

at all. The first they are going to go for is the traffic and it is not a problem traffic wise.

Unlike a lot of the detractors I support this commission I have faith in the commission

and I have faith in all the professionals that are willing to put their stamp on the project

like this and I have faith in the Shaker’s. It silly to me that it is being dragged on for this

long thank you.

David Rosa, 92 Buckwheat Hill I am all for the Shaker’s project. I think it will be very

beneficial and an excellent addition to this town thank you.

Gazepy Rinaldi, 131 Neil Drive I am for the Shaker’s.

Hemidy Dispazia, 53 Moreland Avenue I like the Shaker Family because they do a good

job thank you very much.

Christina Zappone, 53Morland Avenue I am in favor of the Shaker’s.

Al Mickel, 95 Woodvine Avenue I got nothing against the Shaker’s I just don’t want

another car dealership in a residential neighborhood. I would like to talk about a few

things that Attorney Pilicy said he mentioned an awful lot of stuff economic

development. The one-word that he sort of glossed over which I think is very important.

Everything else he said was right on spot but he says where it is appropriate. This

application is not appropriate for this location. It could be appropriate for other locations

but not this one so many reasons why. I also see some faces up here and going to go

through of some of the issues that came before I am sure you will read the minutes and

get an understanding of all the things that it passed. The other thing that was mentioned

about sales taxes, all the good sale taxes well the sale taxes go to the state and sometimes

we get our money back and most of the time we don’t. Depending on the state like,

Franklin said it is something we probably should not do so we probably should not

depend on the sales taxes coming back. This has been going on for a very long time and it

seems to me that the Planning & Zoning Commission is trying very hard to get this thing



passed. It seems to me like they are pounding a square peg in a round hole. I do not

support this application.

Carmine Polletta, 96 Hickory Lane I am for the project. Shaker’s is a great family they do

a good job thank you.

Tom Telesca, 31 Park Avenue and I am for the Shaker’s to go on we could use a tax

revenue and more jobs in our town thank you,

Rachel Harris, 185 Greenwood Street I am absolutely all for this application. I am all

about the tax revenue and it is not as if these are not people that we do not know. The

Shakers even though they do not reside in Watertown have been a staple here. It is not

like John Doe is coming in and wanting to open something up, they have been supportive

to the community, and I feel it is an absolute positive thank you.

Barbara Marquito, 145 Concord Drive I am not against change but I am against this

change. First, I do not know why you approve lots that are too small. Second, we do not

need another dealership high end or not we already have three high-end dealerships. Do

you know what that section of Straits Turnpike called its called gasoline alley and I like

to see grass not black top. I think this property should be sold something like the attorney

house across the street. Which is very nice for our town before you know it we are going

to get another Mr. Shaker and demand a zoning change all the way the down to Davis

Street. What about the land across the street the boundary was set and we should honor

it? What about the property values of the longtime homeowners? Now in the Town Times

article dated August 15th Mr. Shaker said two other towns would approve his dealership

well why doesn’t he go to one of those towns? Can someone on the zoning tell me why

we could not see this entire thing going on here? We are the ones, effected to see what

these graphs are whatever they are. Was there a reason why we could not see them?

Chairman Erik Markiewicz no.

Barbara Marquito well I think that should be done and second is this the right present

zoning regulations went into effect December 25, 2015 not even a year ago and mow you

want to change regulations for a business over the residents why? I think the cutoff

should be at the Webster Bank and do not ruin property values and do the right thing and

let Mr. Shaker go to the other two towns’ thank you.

Ms. Williams, 93 Saunders Avenue I am a Watertown resident and I have lived in the

area my entire life. I have also had the privilege of working alongside the Shaker Family.

I believe you would be hard pressed to find an individual among us who does not support

local family owned businesses. Frankly if I may, there is nothing the Shaker’s do better

than family. They wholly extend the meaning of family not only to their employees but

also to their community and have done so consistently for 86 years. As many of us will

happily attest to. So in short because, I do not want this meeting to go too long. Yes, I

support locally family run business and yes, I support the Shaker Family in building a

new dealership on Straits Turnpike. If I may Watertown welcome to the family.



George Miscavage, 44 Elena Drive I strongly oppose this and for the reasons I am going

to talk to the Hoffman’s over here. For the record, your grandfather bought that property

from grandmother’s sister.

Chairman Erik Markiewicz you have to address the commission I am sorry.

George Miscavage well like I said my family residing and paying taxes in town since

1940. We developed that track and then we went across the street which is Elena Drive

and I am speaking for all 12 residents on my Elena Drive they all oppose it. Erik you

made a statement in the paper, which I respect that you said you do what is best for the

residents of Watertown. Well please respect us residents here in Watertown thank you

very much.

Kim Mailhot, 51 Elena Drive I have nothing bad to say about the Shaker’s I commend

Corey for all has done for the town. With that being said, it does not mean you approve

this. It is easy for anyone who does not live in the immediate area to know how difficult

it is just to come out of our street. I know they had a town study about the traffic it does

not show you when you trying to get out of our street that you cannot get out. There are

many fender benders there. We just had somebody hit the guardrails down the end of the

street. I am sure they want to go to the empty house across I am sure once Corey’s gets

accepted they are going to want commercial you have the lot and also you have the house

at 505 Straits Turnpike that is empty. You are going to have Butresses down the street

that is empty what are they going to do is somebody going to buy the house once this

goes through nobody is going to live next a car dealership. I do not support the

application I feel my property value will suffer please leave well enough alone and please

support our residents here thank you.

Robert Rowland, 26 Farview Circle my wife Teri and I moved to Watertown a year and

half ago. We moved from Naugatuck we really like it here. People are nice, taxes are

reasonable; it is a great place to live. Getting back to Naugatuck for a minute, we lived

there 25 years we saw Louis Engineering close, followed by Resadent, and soon to be

followed by Uniroyal and Peter Paul Hershey. The town fathers put all their eggs in one

basket hoping for that big box store in the sky to show up. Well, Lowe’s never showed

up, Home Depot never showed up, and that’s where they are. Consequently, Naugatuck,

which is 12 miles down the road has the third highest tax, rate in the state. Similar towns

were bigger than Watertown but similar. This is the third meeting I have attended on this

subject. I have heard all the objections, I have heard all the positives comments, I have

heard objections about the noise, the lights and, some of them were dispelled by Attorney

Pilicy and their findings. The Shaker Family is no fly by night outfit. There are not going

to put up flashing lights and mirrors and everything in front of make shift dealership. It is

going to be a quality dealership. Lastly, one of the comments previous let the Shaker’s go

out of town. Based on Attorney Pilicy quoting from your economic development plan in

town I don’t think anyone go out of town you want to do the right thing you want to be

proactive you want to keep him here and you want to grow a new business. I am support

of this the Shaker plan thank you.



Mark Silawacki, 0 Old Baird Road I am here in support of this application I think in this

day and age to turn a business away from a town is one of the worst things that you could

do right now thank you.

Norma Gregory, 351 Straits Turnpike it’s about 4 houses up from Davis Street my father

built this home it is a little cap code in 1942 where I was born. I intend to hopefully stay

there and that is where I will die in that area. My grandparents built the home next door

the Everett home in 1926 when Straits Turnpike was a dirt road. There is too many

dealerships coming down you are infringing on our privacy our piece of mind. The traffic

is horrendous and I cannot believe that this is not going to infringe on traffic. It is already

very bad up in that section. I know sometimes when LaBonne’s has to hire a cop to direct

traffic because the traffic is so heavy up in that area. Therefore, I cannot see it getting any

better it is going to get worse. As far as the Hoffman homes I remember the old farm

house right across from the gas station on the corner next to Apple Rehab beautiful place

torn down for progress and that beautiful little home now I would love to buy it I would

raise chickens or something I am a farm girl. I believe it is the doorway to Watertown

there is too many old places that are being torn down in Watertown. I think it is a

disgrace I am very sad. I do not believe that a dealership should come down I would be

very disappointed if it does. I guess that is all I have to say but I love Watertown I love

my home I feel like it is being infringed on my privacy thank you.

Rose Frankle, 254 Oak Drive read letter to commission from Mary Miley, 239 Oak

Drive. Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the Watertown Planning & Zoning

andCommission thank you for your continued efforts on behalf of the residents of

Watertown/Oakville to balance our needs with the needs for continued development to

expand our tax base and encourage appropriate long term productive commercial

development. I am writing this letter to express my continued concerns about a proposed

zoning change to allow a commercial zone at the corner of Straits Turnpike and Bunker

Hill. My concerns are that they are that there are viable commercially zoned properties in

Watertown/Oakville, which could be readily accessed and would not incur increased

traffic flow in an area that is already heavily traveled. In addition, the history of Planning

& Zoning has been geared toward having buffering transitional zones between the

commercial and residential sections of the town. Presently this area is classified as a

transitional area with strict guidelines to ensure that adjacent neighbors will be minimally

impacted by nearby commercial businesses. My concern is that once this property is re-

zoned for commercial enterprises there will not be any ability to protect and buffer

residential neighborhoods from the traffic, noise and congestion of businesses. This will

also open expansion of the commercial areas previously designated as transitional

between commercial and residential segments of the town. Once an area is designated

commercial future developers can submit plans for any type of development and the

Planning & Zoning Board will have limited ability to distinguish between wanted

commercial development and what the developer would like to include in the commercial

space. I hope that you will carefully consider the ramifications of this proposed precedent

setting change and carefully weigh the concerns of the area residents with somewhat

vague assurances of what type of business is being proposed for this area. Again thank



you for your time patience and effort to address future Planning & Zoning options for

Watertown/Oakville.

Rose Frankle, 254 Oak Drive I strongly oppose any zone change. My feeling is this

would hurt the small town charm of Watertown. Before moving here from Waterbury 30

years ago my husband band I extensive research deciding where we would be the best

place to move our family. We took into account schools, beautiful parks, open areas, and

most importantly great residential areas. We had come close to buying Bethlehem but

once we were made aware of the lack of zoning there, we decided against it. Our worry

was that we might buy a home and at some point, someone could come and open a car lot

or gas station next door. We felt in a town like Watertown our investment would be

protected and the quiet and serene neighborhood we have come love would be protected.

One of the main purposes of the zone board is to protect the taxpayers. Starting a

precedent that allow businesses to invade residential areas will not benefit either the town

or the homeowners. It will hurt resale of property in this town driving down the tax bases

over time. It will push people who have lived here many years to sell, leave, and hinder

some wonderful people from even considering moving here. They will relocate to other

cities and towns that promise to protect their investments through safeguarding the

zoning laws. I am begging you to think and rethink long and hard before you make this

monumental decision. I really fear that this will have a snowball effect and more of our

neighborhoods will be compromised to businesses looking to expand here there is

absolutely nothing that can come from allowing this zone change. Just one last remark we

are not opposed to Mr. Shaker building a dealership we are just opposed to him building

it in a residential area. Find a commercial area in Watertown and there will not be any

opposition thank you.

Elsa Delgado, 58 Elena Drive I am on street straight across from this property in question

and I am one of the few people who are opposing according to a comment done before. I

want as a banker I want to tell you that if you have 99 cents and you try to stretch it as

much as you can without that one penny and that is the few of us you cannot make a

dollar. I hope that we make a difference too and that the board takes our opinions into

consideration as I know you will. Our neighborhood is safe right now and I am not

opposing anything for the Shaker’s. They have done wonders for town I am not opposing

anything that he wants to build I am opposing the zone change it’s not right. We bought

these properties, we pay taxes to the town and I believe we mean something to the town

and for us to be looked at and address us as a few people in opposition it hurt me. It hurt

me deeply. I was not going to talk today I was going to sit here and just listen to

everybody as I have talked to you before and you know what my feeling is on this.

However, when I heard this it hurt me deeply because we are people too. We have

families and all of these people that spoke before you here and a lot of them opposing are

from my neighborhood but those agreeing to this zone change they do not even live in

Watertown. Please remember that penny when you make that decision. Thank you very

much for your time.

Carl R. Mancini, 74 Regency Hill Drive I was on the town council from the year 2005 to

2009. I was on the Planning & Zoning Commission from 2006 to 2014. While on the P &



Z we had an application from the Hoffman family, the owners of the corner of Bunker

Hill & Straits Turnpike property that is on the agenda tonight. Dave Thoreau of Drubner

Properties wanted a zone change from residential to commercial. The commission told

him this property was in a residential zone. The commercial line was drawn at Bunker

Hill and Straits Turnpike by a previous P & Z Commission when the car dealership

started to form in the area. This is where commercial would end they said Mr. Thoreau’s

answer was to pick up the line and redraw it. My answer to him was no because the line

has already been drawn. I told him that I realize the property should be something other

than residential like the transition zone across the street. Across the street there are two

lots already approved for professional buildings. I also realize the need for commercial

instead of professional because commercial would bring a lot more money for the sellers,

the Hoffman family and Mr. Thoreau the agent. We as a commission let them know that

we may lean toward a residential but not a commercial zone. The application was

withdrawn, as I believe. A couple of year’s later new applications same thing residential

to commercial this also ended without zoning changes for the Shaker’s. Then towards the

end of 2014 after 8 years on P & Z, I was going to pack it up in order to help take care of

grandchildren. I told some friends that as soon people find out that I was going to get off

the P & Z the Shaker group would be back to P & Z for approval within about 6 months I

was wrong it took them 7 months. Now here we are again for the same thing. The Shaker

group wants to have the zone changed from residential to commercial and change the

regulations so a car dealership could be built on 3 ½ acres of land instead of the 5 acres

required as the regulations now require. The P & Z Commission of Watertown over the

years has asked Attorney Steven Byrne for his opinion on several cases. Attorney Byrne

has been paid thousands of dollars for his professional opinion by the Town of

Watertown. Attorney Byrne’s has given you his opinion about this application at no

expense to the town but paid for by an outside group. He states in his professional

opinion that it would be illegal for the P & Z to change the zone to commercial and that

the 5 acres should not be changed to 3 ½ acres. Attorney Byrne’s for those of you who

don’t know is one of the best land use attorneys in the

State of Ct. and is presently being pursued by to represent P & Z in the neighboring Town

of Thomaston instead of their present Town Attorney. Please take Attorney Byrne’s

advice I would like also to take time to say I have nothing bad to say about the Shaker

Group or the Shaker Family. When I was on P & Z we approved the KIA dealership

application with no problems. Corey’s father came up to me and thanked me for

supporting the Shaker’s at KIA. You have heard from neighbors in this area over the

years and the majority are not in favor of a car dealership at the corner of Bunker Hill and

Straits Turnpike. Those who were in favor of the dealerships were mostly out of town

friends or employees of the Shaker’s. Mark my words if these applications are approved

the owners of the two approved professional buildings across the street will be back to

get their properties rezoned to commercial. Some of you were on the commission six

months ago, some of you were not but I can remember one individual got up and his

name was Mike Calabrese of Bunker Hill stated about 4 months ago that if this is

approved that he also wants his 3 pieces of property on Bunker Hill to be rezone to

commercial. He will not be the only one. There is the Rubbo property in the back of the

property of Shaker’s and Hoffman’s property he will be next and after that it will be the

property on the end. The whole thing comes under where does this stop and when. Well



the lines are already drawn in the sand and the time is now. Please vote no on both

applications thank you very much.

Sarah Griffin, 698 Davis Street Extension today I address you as a concerned citizen and

neighbor of the property in question. I am not here to speak about anything bad about

Shaker or the town and state statues instead I am here to speak about the crime. Car

dealerships and jewelry stores things like that are high value items. In the last 3 years, the

crime in this town in just this neighborhood has spiked. In fact, earlier this month

Webster Bank right across the street from the proposed site was robbed during the day by

a man with a gun. The jewelry store about a mile up the road was robbed about $10,000

worth of jewelry stolen overnight. The Pioneer Liquor Store again across the street from

the property in question was robbed at gunpoint in July. This year alone from just

searching news outlets WSFB, NBC, there have been seven reported crimes in this

neighborhood. Not even anywhere else in Watertown down on Main Street past Carvel

just in this section alone. Earlier this year in February 2, plow trucks again a high-ticket

item was stolen from Watertown they were found in chop shops in North Haven and in

Meriden. The suspect not a Watertown resident. When you bring in the high value items

your drawing in the criminals from out of town. None of the thieves have been

Watertown residents it’s not us we need to worry about it’s the ones coming in out of

Waterbury a mile down the road. Meriden another two or three this year have been from

Meriden residents coming into our town Naugatuck. It’s part of your job to think about

the safety of your residents when you are making these decisions and Mr. Shaker’s

business if you were to bring this in a resident from another town comes in and steals

parts, tires who’s knows what off the cars in the middle of the night. Dark corner of the

lot where nobody can see them. What does that say about our town your job is to help to

attract residents to build a tax base? To build our town when increase in crime it is a

deterrent from people moving in. Think about that when you make your decision.

David Mango, 240 Riverside Street years ago I use to work for the legendary Raymond

Garacino. I have been in construction for 40 years. I worked for Henry Paperez in 1984

and he was going to build a Pentalitis Property an industrial park that wouldn’t look like

an industrial it would be in the woods all grooved out nice he was going to build you

people a fire house at his expense. This deal here is a drop in the bucket compared to that

and all the tax revenue this town lost over years because of Planning & Zoning blew that

deal. All the jobs that people could have created from that industrial park that would not

look like an industrial park and then he was going to build a firehouse at his expense and

give it to you. Now you got a man here who wants a couple of acres for a car lot. Once he

gets his foot in the door it just like condominiums you got 25 before you know it they

want 40 then 100. What he is going to plan to do if he does not enough land with the

piece that he wants he is going to want to buy the convalescent home next door then he is

going to want to buy Rubbo’s house in the back the messy house. Then he is going to

want to by Kevin Pentalitis and hold a whole corner and now you people are breaking the

buffer that is invading the privacy of all these taxpayers we the people. How would you

like to have your house across the street and this guy builds a car lot with all these lights

and this and that whatever? The value of your property goes down that is not right to the

people. This is what made this town is the taxpayers. I have been here 60 years and I plan



to stay. However, he is going to want to buy the whole area you watch and I bet you I am

right. Then you talk about you got the Steele Brook overflows why does the Steele Brook

overflows because you people keep doing development and you are guiding the water by

the curb line into the catch basin and into the brook. Unless you got underground

retention basin with oil separators or whatever you do not do that. They do not have that

but why can’t you take care of the Pin Shop pond first before you do more development.

It is like this town needing more football fields. They cannot even take care of what they

have Phil Mosacato told them years ago. So I am not for this deal with Mr. Shaker and I

am just warning you that other lady that was here before that talked for quite a while I

think she got you guys over a barrel and if make the decision you are going to pay for it

mark my word thank you very much.

Dennis O’ Sullivan, 238 North Street I would like to thank you for your service to

Planning & Zoning it is a tough job. There was a lady that spoke early on about the 262

project that was a group of citizens stood up and said no. We went through a whole series

of hearings with the Planning & Zoning group and eventually that was turned down but it

was a commercial venture that was attempting to go into an industrial area if you recall.

This is a similar switch of use of property I have nothing against Mr. Shaker he has

brought a number of people that speak in favor of him I find all of them have a lot of

value to speaker there. However, I think it is the wrong thing to change the size of the

zone for him to bring his business into town. I think we ought to be looking at the

residential people like yourselves that came into to town like myself we want to stay in

this town. If we keep on breaking the zoning like was attempted back 20 years ago

having a mall up in the industrial park this is another attempt to change and break the

zoning. The zoning was set up for a good reason we are asking you to enforce it as it or if

its unsuitable have hearings make the changes but just do not make arbitrary openings for

a project thank you again.

Katerina Perugini, 205 Dalton Street I am here for the application I believe that it will

generate revenue for this town thank you.

Mark Soto, 45 Tower Road and I seem to be in the minority here I believe that I support

the application by the Shaker’s to put a business in our town. I am sick of Ct. as a whole

just shewing away businesses, shewing away the tax dollars, shewing away extra jobs. I

think it will help the town its more taxes they will pay and less taxes I will pay and I

support it thank you.

Anthony Fusco, 192 Bunker Hill Road I know this property very well and if I remember

right I could remember when the great grandparents of these kids that own that property

and if they were here today they appreciate that Mr. Shaker buying that property for

business use. Those people were businesses minded people they ran the gas station for

years on that corner. I remember Mr. Ray Hoffman doing all the construction that he did

in that corner where Kmart is now. He took all that land where LaBonne’s now with a

little back hoe and dug it out so he had enough dirt to put in the parking lot where the

parking lot is for Kmart right now. He was business minded and so was his mother and

father. I would think that this land would be the best thing to do with it is to have a car



dealership even though it’s small but I approve to have that dealership there. I have lived

in the area for 54 years I walked the turnpike many, many times before the businesses

were there. I could remember a street light that has been taken down and that corner right

now is dark at night. Especially when it rains or when it snows you cannot see where you

are going as come out of Bunker Hill going right and turning up to the Main Street of

Watertown. It is very dark there I am surprised that nobody has been killed yet I have

been 15 years trying to get that light there and if this car dealership gets in there I am sure

it will light up the area so that it will not be as dangerous as it is now. I realize that the

people that live in the area think about their homes and their values of the land but as

time goes on this what happens with land this is what happens with business it just

changes. I have been 54 years at my own residence now I lived near the same area for 80

years so I am not new in the neighborhood I have known when they built Georgetown

Heights they changed the zoning there. Georgetown at one time was commercial land I

said that that was bad for putting in resident houses because of the water that runs down

them hills and I showed at that time the zoning board that was involved in that was Mrs.

Wick was on that board. I showed them where the spring water coming out of the land up

on top of that hill. Mr. Dave Mango was on the bulldozer he was stuck in the road where

they were putting in the road with a D8 bulldozer he buried in there and he had to be

pulled out. That is how much land and how much water was running in that land but

never the less the board approved that land made it residential and they built the homes in

there. Now people that have homes up in there have water in their lawns some of them

cannot raise their grass as it should be on the lawn because it so wet. This is what

happens with the land now this land could not be used for I do not think anything else but

a car lot. You could not build homes in there I am pretty sure if you dig down if the

engineers have done any kind test boring I am sure that land has got ledge in it so I thank

you for listening and I am for the applicant. I have nothing against him I don’t him from a

hole in the hole in the wall and I have an old car that I use to run up and down that street

on Bunker Hill for years I still have the automobile so it’s in good shape thank you very

much.

Katherine Camara, 31 Cottage Place I am not employee of the Shaker enterprise for the

record I requested that people identify if they were an employee, as I believe that makes a

difference in the proceeding. I am not sure how this car dealership will help the 22,000

residents of Watertown. Especially since, it brings with it a high risk for cancer. That

sounds crazy it was news to me until a resident of Hidden Pond Drive six miles from the

property came out to sign the petition and voiced concern about the night lighting and the

studies regarding an increase in incidence of breast and prostate cancer. This is not a joke

a google search will turn up a wealth of information on the subject. It is not about

whether goes over the property line I have a few articles to give the commission to show

you that this is not homegrown theory. Lighting up a neighborhood may increase

incidence of cancer. Is this commission prepared to impose a cancer risk on the residents

of that neighborhood? Part of our town’s Plan of Development is creating a healthy

environment it was quoted by Attorney Pilicy not creating a cancer risk. No amount of

revenue is worth that. A vinyl fence no matter how high will not dim the lights.

Therefore, what will happen if area residents especially at Garden Brook Manor are

diagnosed with cancer after exposure to the night lighting of a car dealership? Will they



seek compensation from Mr.Shaker or maybe the town for allowing the encroachment of

that intense lighting? Things do happen. Voting no will give Mr. Shaker the opportunity

to move on to one of those other towns willing to welcome him into their commercial

zone and will leave our residents protected. I spent 8 Saturday mornings on that corner I

know what the consensus is no car dealership. The people who did not flat out say no said

it was a done deal or the fix is seemingly resigned to the fact that there been a

predetermination. Those are people talking to us from their car we were not talking to

them they were telling that to us. The only opposition we heard was from Shaker

employees and Mr. Shaker himself who offered us coffee and then sped off angrily

yelling that it was not our corner. Well Mr. Shaker it is the tax paying residents of

Watertown is zoning regulations you want to manipulate on that corner. Perhaps our sign

should have read our zone. However, one thing is clear it is definitely not your zone

because you are not resident. It is a shame that members of the commission did not join

us to get a feel for what the residents want. Then you could honestly vote for the town

and not one-man’s business interests. What you and Mr. Shaker should know is that

residents are not opposed to development on that parcel they are not opposed to an

increase of tax revenue and they are not opposed to job creation. What they are opposed

is a zone change and special permit that would a car dealership. They would be quite

happy with a transitional zone and facility that would be in conformity with the existing

neighborhood such as Damico, Griffin and Petanichi. They do not want a car dealership

and they do not want a cancer risk. If you intend to carefully consider this application,

you need to walk the area. Picture yourself living on Elena Drive or Davis Street

Extension then picture what it would be like with a car dealership doing business around

the corner. The noise lights added traffic cancer risk would you want that in your

neighborhood. If you really care about this town, make the effort to do what the residents,

want and follow the regulations. Your vote is going to send a message what do you want

to say to those people who signed the petition. You were given approximately 93

signatures in your packet for this meeting and I have another 46 here for now. That is a

total of 139 people who are not here 139 would have been a lot more seats but they

signed the petition instead and it is not a select group of 10 who object to everything, as

Mr. Shaker would like you to think. When I give the extra signatures I will give Mr.

Markiewicz the originals there is 33 that were signed last Saturday in one hour and then

there is 13 that I have I do not have the copies of the 13 but everybody else will get

copies I will make sure you get those copies. On two Saturdays, we collected signatures

of the site for one-hour averaging one signature every 3 minutes. One signature every 3

minutes. Not only is that impressive it sends a message. And these were not just

signatures from the immediate area we have signatures from Bassett Road, Litchfield

Road, Echo Lake Road, Beldon Street, Tower Road, Mount Fair Drive, Carusso Drive,

Smith Pond Road, and 44 from Oak Drive. As we were closing up shop on Saturday a

woman from Litchfield Road hurriedly approached us she was so glad we were still there

because she wants this commission to know how she feels from Litchfield Road. After

reading about the petition, people came out to sign it. They came to us we did not go to

them. These pages of signatures are the residents speaking to you. This is not about tax

revenue it is about whether the residents throughout the town agree with the zone change

to allow a car dealership on the corner and they do not. What evidence has Mr. Shaker

provided to support his claim that it is only a small group that opposed his business



venture or is that just his opinion because I am going to hand you or you going to have a

total of 139 signatures throughout town and what happens if this high end car dealership

goes belly-up. We will have another wasteland such as that of Family Ford in Waterbury

when Mr. Shaker moved shop. How will that look in the neighborhood. I have a picture

in my packet for you too of what it looked like when he left Waterbury. Lastly I have a

question, if all the applications are approved is there any member of Planning & Zoning

Commission who will be performing any work at the site or will have employer or

personal company performing any work for this project? That is a question anybody? No

answer I guess not. How should I give this to you?

Shae Boudreau, 191 Lovely Drive I am here to support the application I feel like it will

bring jobs and revenue to Watertown thank you.

Eva Baskicous, 191 Lovely Drive I not an employee of Mr. Shaker I am here on my will.

I would like to say that I think it is shameful that we are discouraging a new business and

we are saying that he should leave our town. In addition, I think it was said that there is

22,500 residents of Watertown and the petition has 139 I think that is hardly a impacting

number based on the majority. I think it is important to encourage business to come to

our town. It is important for jobs, tax revenues as already said and it’s important to

expand Watertown and grow Watertown and changes is a good thing not a bad thing not

a bad thing thank you.

Richard Wick, 1051 Northfield Road Nancy Lanno could not be here tonight and I have

been asked to read a letter into the record that she prepared. I rather not do that if the

hearing is going to be held open I rather give her the opportunity to do it herself which I

understand could be done in 13 days can you tell me that it is likely that the hearing will

be held open so I won’t have to read this. Save a little time tonight.

Chairman Erik Markiewicz yes I would assume.

Richard Wick I think that is reasonable I would assume so too given all of the new

information that has been presented. However, there are a couple of things I would like to

say based on what has been presented this evening. The only issue is the zone change

much of the conversation that has been presented has been irrelevant. I know that the

members of the commission do not need to be reminded but I think many of the people in

the audience should know that issues of economics are irrelevant. Issues of how much

people admire the applicant are irrelevant. There have been many comments made in

admiration of what Mr. Shaker and the Shaker Family have done to benefit the town and

frankly, I am one of them. It has not been mentioned tonight because maybe some people

have forgotten but I have not forgotten the courage he mustered up when he initiated the

complaint against David Minnich. When David Minnich was misbehaving as the

Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission several years ago. As a result of that

complaint David Minnich is no longer on the Planning & Zoning Commission and I will

always remember but Ronald Regan said keep it positive say I will always remember

therefore I will always remember the service that we enjoyed as a result of that courage

and I thank you for doing that.



Michael Jetta, 79 Oak Drive coming here this evening reminds me so much of being in

my 8th grade history class. We had a mock election against Barry Goldwater and Linden

Johnson. I was the only person in the class that voted for Barry Goldwater four years later

it proved me correct. I am in total opposition of Mr. Shaker’s building a car dealership

north of Bunker Hill Road. I am not against Mr. Shaker building any kind of dealership

as long as it’s not above in that area. He has got Ted Trobbs place there he is looking to

sell he could move over on Oakville right next to the Dollar General Store and the Parts

Authority place there. Plenty of land over there a small dealership would be ideal. No, he

wants the location because he wants to extend the entire box store industry that we have

in Watertown. Now with all of the car dealerships, the auto parts store we are getting

another one size fit all store a Taco Bell Watertown is turning into the Berlin Turnpike

and the Boston Post Road of Litchfield County and that is what it is. It’s the wrong

dealership at the wrong time Mr. Shaker says is going to be small dealership high end

cars We had an experience like that in 1988 a person came in and wanted an Acura dealer

he wanted it on Straits Turnpike. The zoning board approved it and the gentlemen said

there is only going be a few cars in front a few in the back. Its going to be a high end

dealership an Acura dealership well that Acura dealership in couple of years went bust

and I understand Mr. Shaker wants to have Jaguar and a Land Rover dealership there

what if that goes bust in a couple of years? Are we going to have something that he left in

Waterbury at Family Ford or we could get an expand dealership with some other

automobile like a Chevrolet or something and it expand so out into something bigger we

don’t need to, we don’t want it in Watertown and I want to thank everybody for listening

to me. One other thing I wish the people every person clapping in opposition of this

proposal come up and speak because it’s the only way you’re going to be heard.

Martin Griffin, 698 Davis Street Extension I think tonight we gotten away from exactly

why we are here. We here on land use issue. We are not here on whether Mr. Shaker is

popular or if his dealership is going to be any good. This piece of property does not fit the

proposed site plan or the dealership. Two tenths of a mile from this piece is a property

that is commercial it is in a commercial zone and it has been sitting there it is for sale. It

two tenths of a mile south of this property. If he wants his dealership, let him go buy

those ten acres. His dealership does not belong on 3 ½ acres in a residential zone thank

you.

Ann Dobronte, 232 Bunker Hill Road I concur with most of the statements that I have

heard in opposition to this application. Many folks that were in favor of the application

gave their addresses as other areas that are not involved with Bunker Hill. I just want to

remind them that if the commission decides to approve this. They are setting precedent

for the rest of the town. That no one is safe just as someone had said any other, transition

area once you approve this you have no rights to stop another developer in another part of

town. So I believe that these other folks need to remember that this is a precedent setting

situation and we need to protect the town as a whole not just one neighborhood. The

other thing I would like to mention is there a timeframe for when someone comes up to

speak.



Chairman Erik Markiewicz there is.

Ann Dobronte how long is that.

Chairman Erik Markiewicz 5 minutes. We do not typically enforce it but when there is

this many people we have to give everybody an equal opportunity to speak.

Ann Dobronte I felt badly about how Mrs. Wick was treated.

Katherine Camara, 31 Cottage Place I am not an employee of Mr. Shaker. I just wanted

to say obviously it was not very impressive that I got all those signatures because there

are 22,000 people in Watertown but I think you have to focus on the fact that when it was

known that the petition was going to be available we were getting one signature every 3

minutes. Now I am going to get signatures because it sounds like this is staying open so if

it stays open I will be back with more the next time I assume that is okay because I

assume by it being open I can still gather those signatures. So when I find out open or

closed I will continue to get signatures and maybe I will be able to impress you with

more thank you.

Dolores Feliciani, 189 Lexington Drive I am too not opposed to Mr. Shaker building in

Watertown I think it is fantastic. However, I do not think this is the property he should be

building on. Mr. Pilicy quoted in one of his many sections that he read to us. That we

should promote business in suitable locations this is not a suitable location. It’s 3 ½ acres

we are not talking about 200-foot variance we are talking about an acre and half out of 5

acres that’s a big piece so I am opposed to this thank you.

Mike Lanville, Bunker Hill Road I like to write letters to the editor because it gets my

juices flowing. But what I am here to say now is about the Hoffman Family and I think

everything that we all feel that is negative about this situation has been said to death. If

you do not get by now you are never going to get it. Wrong piece of property for the

wrong type of business that is the bottom line. I am a taxpayer I love to have more taxes

coming into town but you know what it does not make any difference because all these

town bureaucrats find a way to spend anyway. My taxes have not one down regardless of

what has come into this town. Let us say as Mr. Wick said that is irrelevant not the

money but what you do with it is irrelevant. What I do want to say is if you’re truly a

Planning & Zoning Commission and I am emphasizing planning what you have shown

me is you are a reaction commission. Somebody comes and wants to do something you

react to it yeah that sounds like a good idea. You are not giving any pre-thought to

anything. More money, more money, more money that’s seems to be the answer to

everything but if you are truly a planning commission why don’t you work with these

Hoffman people that want to sell the property. Get some economic development people

involved with them find something that we can transition that property into do the job be

creative help these people they want to sell the property. I would love to see them sell the

property. I do not want to see a big structure there but what about something nice

esthetically pleasing think about it a little bit instead of just reacting to somebody who

wants to throw another building up. Please do your job, plan for a change thank you.



Richard Wick, 1051 Northfield Road you may have guessed that I was standing here a

minute ago without saying anything and that is because I forgot what I wanted to say. I

wanted to respond to the comments that were made very early this evening about that

group of ten people or so that are against development. Well I think it is important to

point out that the members of that group are not against all development. I am a member

of that group, we are in favor of the right kind of development, and I like to give you an

example. Several years ago, an application was prepared and presented to the Planning &

Zoning Commission. The applicants were the entire all of previous Chairman of the

Planning & Zoning commission plus a previous zoning enforcement officer they ponied

up the $500.00 application fee out of their own pockets and presented the application to

the Planning & Zoning Commission chaired by David Minnich to allow medical uses in

the entire industrial park. That application was ignored it was not even given a fair

hearing. Instead the chairman engineered a very, very small change to a portion of that

area which is now supposedly being prepared for a medical building of a very small

square footage and that was the subject to lawsuit because of the way that particular

alternate application was conjured up. That is something to take into consideration with

respect to the issue of the right kind of development.

Joe Spino, Bunker Hill Road with all due respect to the engineering firm that Mr. Shaker

hired to do the traffic study I live on Bunker Hill Road and I got two words for that traffic

study and it BS. When you cannot back out of your driveway on Bunker Hill and believe

me the traffic on Bunker Hill Road is just as bad as it is on Main Street in Watertown

because you have the flow coming up from Waterbury. People that live in Waterbury,

that are working in Watertown the traffic at that intersection is terrible and if I were to go

out and hire an engineering firm on my own I can make them say whatever I want them

to say. So I am here in opposition to Mr. Shaker’s application for the zone change. Listen

to the people that live in that area I believe that what’s this commission is for to take of

people in the particular area in question thank you.

David Kaufman, 110 Oak Drive first I want to say I have nothing against Mr. Shaker as a

matter of fact my son and his daughter were friends in high school so we go way back. I

did send a letter to Mr. Rafey this morning I do not know if you were going to read it or

not. Would you like me to read it?

Stanley Everett, 1 Everett Lane I am not against the dealership because we had a small

garage on Everett Lane before zoning for 50 some years and had no problems. We

worked with the Shaker’s when they were in Waterbury. I am against the zoning change

100% and I am against Mr. Shaker telling us that building a north could never happen

because of the mountain. You go down Watertown Avenue and see the house on the cliff

where they took the mountain away and someone made a porch and taken it away and

sold the land for fortune after. I am against the people that think of all the tax money they

are going to get because I lived here 60 some years I guess and my tax bill has never

come down. It has always gone up with all the big beautiful buildings, dealerships, Stop

and Shop you name my taxes keep going up all the time. I am against the town buying a

fire truck for over a million dollars for what we have no buildings for that and I think if



this panel okays this deals I think it’s a time for a change in our town government thank

you.

Chairman Erik Markiewicz I think it is time for 15-minute recess at 9:08.

Chairman Erik Markiewicz called the meeting back to order at 9:26.

Elizabeth Wasiutynski, 514 Sylvan Lake Road I am enthralled at the amount of good

words that have been spoken this evening about Mr. Shaker personally and presumptively

about his family. I think what Watertown would benefit is having Mr. Shaker as a

member of our community. Therefore, I would suggest that rather trying desperately

paying lawyer lots of money and engineers lots of money to somehow convince us that 3

acres is equal to five acres when any school child knows that 3 acres is not 5 acres. I

would propose that Mr. Shaker buy the 3-acre property from the Hoffman and make it

into a family compound. Watertown would welcome him as a neighbor as a citizen and

we would all be very happy that he would have just a short walk to the office down

Straits Turnpike.

Harry Olsen, 406 Colonial Street I just want to say I am favor of the Shaker project but

before we go any, further I really think we should have the Police Commission block off

Straits Turnpike at night this way none of our families are exposed to cancer from driving

through with the lights on thank you.

Kim Dempsey, 90 Canon Ridge my family has had a business in Watertown for 55 years.

Dempsey manufacturing and I am completely in favor of the Shaker family running their

business bringing jobs to our town. I think it is great idea.

Chairman Erik Markiewicz anyone else from the public wishing to comment or against

the application if not Mr. Pilicy.

Franklin Pilicy I have nothing further at this time unless the commission has questions.

Chairman Erik Markiewicz does the commission have any questions for Mr. Pilicy or the

applicant? Any questions at this time? Anyone from the public wishing to comment?

Richard Antonetti Mr. Chairman I think we should consider all the new information that

we have before us. I make a motion we keep the public hearing open for our next meeting

September 7th at 6:30 here at the Watertown High School, 395 French Street in the

auditorium.

d. Text of Motion: Motion to continue Public Hearing on an application

from Shaker’s Enterprises for a Zone Map Change from R-12.5

Residential Zoning District to B-SC Shopping Center Business Zoning

District at 486 Straits Turnpike, Watertown, CT to September 7, 2016,

Watertown High School, 324 French Street, AUDITORIUM, Watertown,

CT.





All in Favor

e. An application from Shaker’s Enterprises for Special Permit #373 for a new

and used car dealership on less than five acres of minimum lot size at 486

Straits Turnpike, Watertown, CT in a B-SC Shopping Center Business Zoning

District.



Text of Motion: Motion to continue Public Hearing on an application from

Shaker’s Enterprises for Special Permit #373 for a new and used car

dealership on less than five acres of minimum lot size at 486 Straits

Turnpike, Watertown, CT in a B-SC Shopping Center Business Zoning

District to September 7, 2016, Watertown High School, 324 French St.,

AUDITORIUM, Watertown, CT.



All in Favor

f. An application from Shaker’s Enterprises for a combined application for Site

Plan/Special Permit #374 for a new and used car dealership at 486 Straits

Turnpike, Watertown, CT in an B-SC Shopping Center Business Zoning

District.



Text of Motion: Motion to continue Public Hearing on an application

from Shaker’s Enterprises for a combined application for Site Plan/Special

Permit #374 for a new and used car dealership at 486 Straits Turnpike,

Watertown, CT in an B-SC Shopping Center Business Zoning District, to

September 7, 2016, Watertown High School, 324 French St.,

AUDITORIUM, Watertown, CT.



All in Favor

5. Adjournment



Text of Motion:

Motion Made by:

Motion Seconded by:

All in Favor

Richard Antonetti ____________________________________

Secretary

town of watertown connecticut · 8/25/2016 · valenti motors, inc. for the use of an existing...

Documents