Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Question for those of you in the know ... Are State zoning regs always a consideration, or only when the property in question is located on a state road? Reason for my question is that my town's zoning commission was recently forced to deny a permit to a developer from Newtown who was looking to relocate a current town business (Dunkin Donuts) to his property located on Brush Hill Road (Brush Hill is a portion of Route 39 which runs through the center of New Fairfield and is the section where the Town Hall, Library, Post Office, and Old Cemetery are located). After much internal debate at the town level (some residents were opposed to having a D&D located across the street from 18th century Town Hall , and concern about what would happen to the "Norway Maples" which line the street and would likely need to be relocated in order to widen part of Brush Hill), it seemed all opposition at the town level was extinguished and many here were starting to get really excited at the prospect because the developer had agreed to use only modest signage (white board with black lettering -- not the usual pink/orange), AND put in SIDEWALKS, which would have been Tremendous. He also agreed to hire an arborist to relocate and/or salvage as many Norway Maple roots as possible. Attractive fencing along the road next to the ball field by Town Hall was also going to be included in the scope of the project in order to deter any kids who happened to be playing in the fields from sprinting across Brush Hill Rd to get to Dunkin Donuts (townspeople worry about so many things! Haha!). Anyway, I just read in this week's paper that our zoning commission wound up having to deny the project because, because the State did not approve a sufficient water use permit for this site. Is this normal for the State to get involved, or do you think its involvement is based on the fact that the site in question is on Brush Hill Road, a section of State Route 39? Lots of disappointed people in town right now! I was so looking forward to REAL sidewalks as opposed to the "walking paths" we currently have. Lol! Anyway, the article did end by saying the developer may be submitting a modified plan, but that would likely involve displacing other tenants who are currently in that shopping center now, which is not cool...
Last edited by Lalalally; 01-24-2015 at 12:37 PM..
The state does not control zoning. What I believe they did was deny the store because it would not have sufficent water to serve it. That is different. Jay.
So more like a State Health Dept issue, you think? The article really wasn't clear and sort of presented it as the State would'nt approve a permit, and therefore NF Zoning Commission was forced to deny the application.
I was really hoping this would happen, but I guess that's life. It would be a shame though if the current tenants are terminated in order for the owner/developer to make it work via a revised application . I guess it depends how valuable a tenant D&D would be to him. We shall see. Bummed about the sidewalks though! That would have been pretty awesome.
Jay is correct. The state doesn't care about the actual zoning.
There was a case in a shoreline town some 20+ years ago. A developer was approved to built a good sized condo project with access off a state road. Access was approved by the state. He needed to bring in city water from half a mile away. The easiest way to was to go up the state road. The state denied his request to tear up the road to bring in the water lines. Instead he had to go from another direction, down a town road, then through woods which were part of the development to get to the building site.
Other example. Let's say you buy a building lot on a state road with a curb. The state has to give permission for a curb cut even though the lot may be zoned residential and otherwise meets town regulations.
Keep in mind that the state cannot deny a property access to a property. They also cannot deny utility extensions unless there are other options which in the case above is what happened. Jay.
I think the state can deny zoning requests if it would affect wetlands. I don't know if the area you were talking about in New Fairfield has wetlands though.
I think the state can deny zoning requests if it would affect wetlands. I don't know if the area you were talking about in New Fairfield has wetlands though.
No, no wetlands. I think it's an issue relating to water usage or possibly septic capacity? It's a shopping center that currently has 2 tenants, and D&D was going to take over 3 storefronts, with the other two existing tenants staying in place. I was talking to a friend today, and it seems the issue/state's denial was because the proposed D&D was going to be a sit down restaurant with restrooms. They wouldn't approve it for a sit down, but if it was a take out only, or drive through only, they would have. If there weren't two other tenants (one of which does have a public restroom), it seems like it would have been approved. The developer can submit a modified plan for the restaurant, if the two other tenants are gone, or at least if the tenant who already has a restroom is gone.
If this had anything to do with septic capacity or the like, just keep in mind that New Fairfield is VERY strict with the septic issue...IIRC, it has something to do with the fact that the state wanted to put in sewers to service the town of New Fairfield but the townspeople shot it down. As a concession, they agreed to have private septic systems pumped on a yearly basis or face the wrath of the health dept. Septic systems are monitored very closely in NF, so this very likely had some influence on their decision to disapprove the new DD.....
If this had anything to do with septic capacity or the like, just keep in mind that New Fairfield is VERY strict with the septic issue...IIRC, it has something to do with the fact that the state wanted to put in sewers to service the town of New Fairfield but the townspeople shot it down. As a concession, they agreed to have private septic systems pumped on a yearly basis or face the wrath of the health dept. Septic systems are monitored very closely in NF, so this very likely had some influence on their decision to disapprove the new DD.....
I never heard of this, and I've lived in town for almost 19 years. We're kind of a sem-rural town, bordering a much more rural town to the north (Sherman) and a quiet residential section of Danbury to the south. Nothing to the east of us, except for Candlewood Lake, and to the west is NYS entirely. So it doesn't seem like we'd be on the top of anyone's list to get sewers installed anytime soon. (I wish we would though!). The center of town did just recently (like within the last month) hook up to a shared municipal water source, but that's all I'm aware of. We have our private septic pumped every two years -- I'm not sure though if that's per the town's sanitarium's office, or by state mandate. I just know we get a reminder mailed to us, which prompts me to call the septic company.
Last edited by Lalalally; 01-26-2015 at 10:19 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, and concern about what would happen to the "Norway Maples" which line the street and would likely need to be relocated in order to widen part of Brush Hill), it seemed all opposition at the town level was extinguished and many here were starting to get really excited at the prospect because the developer had agreed to use only modest signage (white board with black lettering -- not the usual pink/orange), AND put in SIDEWALKS, which would have been Tremendous. He also agreed to hire an arborist to relocate and/or salvage as many Norway Maple roots as possible. Attractive fencing along the road next to the ball field by Town Hall was also going to be included in the scope of the project in order to deter any kids who happened to be playing in the fields from sprinting across Brush Hill Rd to get to Dunkin Donuts (townspeople worry about so many things! Haha!). Anyway, I just read in this week's paper that our zoning commission wound up having to deny the project because, because the State did not approve a sufficient water use permit for this site. Is this normal for the State to get involved, or do you think its involvement is based on the fact that the site in question is on Brush Hill Road, a section of State Route 39? Lots of disappointed people in town right now! I was so looking forward to REAL sidewalks as opposed to the "walking paths" we currently have. Lol! Anyway, the article did end by saying the developer may be submitting a modified plan, but that would likely involve displacing other tenants who are currently in that shopping center now, which is not cool...
