Plan & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Okay, no problem. Good evening. It's the September 15th, 2026 meeting of the Orange Town Plan and Zoning Commission. My name is Paul Kaplan. With us tonight are Tom Tarenti.

Jenny Bowser, Recording Secretary.

Kevin Cornell. Jay McGuire. Steve Hotchkiss, Zoning Administration.

And Ozzy Parente, our beloved chairman, was otherwise engaged tonight and left this to me. All right, first things first, a review of the minutes for the September 1st, 2026 meeting.

I just have one comment, Jen. The page two, the third paragraph of the conversion, It says, Commissioner Cornello inquired about the existing retaining wall. Mr. Sheck explained how the, and this is just backwards, the building's foundation will become part of the retaining wall, not vice versa.

Okay. Okay. The way that he stated it. Okay. That makes sense.

Yep.

Okay. Thank you.

We'll cut to the structural engineer. Tom, is that correct? I didn't read him. It wasn't in. It wasn't in. Oh, okay.

Okay. It's right. That's it? Kev, anything else? No. Okay. Jay?

No.

All right. I have a question on page three. under the application to amend the zoning map submitted by 284 Racebrook Road, LLC. On the second, I guess on the first paragraph of the body, it says two properties that he owns located at, is that Indian River or is it 284 Racebrook Road? I thought the address of the properties was Indian River, no?

I believe it's Racebrook.

Okay.

We'll double check that tomorrow.

The first one lot was the 284, but the other two lots I thought were on.

What happens is Racebrook Road crosses the post road for that short distance, and Indian River continues and comes out by Dunkin' Donuts. So its frontage is on South Racebrook Road.

But that's the proper designation is 284 Racebrook?

I believe so.

Okay.

I'm good.

We'll double check whatever, you know, the correctness we'll put in there. Okay. All right. Anybody have a motion other than me?

A motion to accept the minutes of the August 4th, 2026 TPCC as amended. Well, I think it's September 1st. September 1st. Okay. Yeah, that's right. We approved the other thing.

Yes.

All right. All those in favor?

Oh, we need a second.

Oh, second? I don't think so. Tom's out.

Tom can't. I'll second. Good job. Thank you.

Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Good job. All right. Next. Old business.

I want to thank Jenny for the updated pages so we can actually have moving motions.

You're most welcome.

New business. All right. The EO report.

Not much to say tonight. We haven't gotten any new applications in since the last meeting. Still working with some of the folks we had discussed that had potential ideas of opening, especially the golf lounge, if that's the right term at this point. But no new applications as of now. And how's your war on signs going? That's going pretty good, I guess. It's an ongoing battle. Stopped at a few more places, had to do... one notice of violation that's going out tomorrow morning. That's the summary right now. Okay. Are there any properties in particular you guys feel I should get to? No, on the weekends it's just a mess, but it is what it is.

All right, so for public hearings... Right. All right, so public hearings, we're going to start with 756 Derby Milford Road, submitted by Kevin Marchito for the property known as 756 Derby Milford. Is the applicant here? Magically, he is.

Yes, his representative is. Just for the record, Attorney Tom Slinch, my office is located in Milford at 63 Cherry Street. Nice to be back before the commission tonight. I asked that the public hearing be opened and then continue to the second meeting in Apparently the legal advertisement that's supposed to go into the New Haven register didn't go into the register. So I wanted to have the hearing open because we did send letters out to all the budding neighbors. I don't see any here tonight, but I did want to open the hearing so that there was a finding that notice was given to the neighbors so we don't have to send the letters out again. Understood. Okay. Okay. Anybody? Nope.

All right. Thank you very much. All right. Thanks. Have a good night. All right, Tommy.

You should vote to continue that one. Okay.

All right. I'm looking for a motion to continue the hearing that we just opened on 756 W Milford Road.

So moved. Okay.

All those in favor? Second? Second. Okay. Good luck. All those in favor? Aye.

All right. One sec. Yep. The application for 756 Derby Milford Road will be heard on the October 20th regularly scheduled meeting here at the lower level of Town Hall, 7 p.m. All right.

Moving on. Subdivision application submitted by TKB Holdings, Orange, LLC. Property owner is TKB Holdings, Orange, LLC. notice that we have to do or not? It was open. It was already open? Oh, it was open last month. Last month, okay.

Paul, if you would like to take one of those, he's on his way.

I'm on my way.

Or Dr. Allen? Sure.

Just waiting, I'm sorry for Mr. Hotchkiss to, he's looking at something, but I am Attorney Joseph Hammer. From the McDermott Reynolds and Glissman Law Firm for the applicant, TKB Land Holdings Orange LLC. And with me is Christopher Orlovsky, who's in the legal department, general counsel for both the applicant and for Eagle Leasing, which operates at the facility. Steve, did you? Yeah, I guess I would just, I don't know what. I guess the question I was raising is we had sent copies of the application as indicated on the application form. But the prior applicant referenced, I believe, letters advising of the hearing date, which we were not aware of as a requirement. So I was just asking Mr. Hotchkiss if it is a requirement to send letters advising of the public hearing date. Yes.

Steve, what do you got?

No, Joe, we went through that. It was done correctly.

Right, because the prior applicant referenced something else. Should I proceed, or what would be the...

Hang on. So what Tommy was referencing was he had a subdivision application as well that the notices didn't go out, or his notices went out, and the question is, is there a difference in the requirement for Mr. Hammer's application?

No, there wasn't. The previous application with Attorney Lynch was an error with the register, the New Haven paper. Right. They had sent notice to a Butters. Right. Attorney Hammer had sent notice to a Butters. It didn't include the exact date of the hearing because it was changed. Correct. but that was announced at the last meeting.

It simply had a copy of the original application, because, again, I didn't see anything in the subdivision regs that said you needed to put the data in. Correct. Okay. So I can...

I don't see anything directly saying that here either.

I... And when we noticed it last time it was scheduled, we had indicated that it was going to be heard tonight.

At the September 1st meeting, we had made that announcement just as I did the last one a few minutes ago. I'm comfortable with that.

Yeah, again. Yeah, we're going to go first. Okay. So it's an application for subdivision. on property that fronts on Post Road. I'm back on. There we go. There's the property. We had done some research to see if we could establish that a first cut of right or a free cut was available. It wasn't. Crystal clear there was some interpretation and the town staff had asked us if we'd make the application, so we have. Essentially, this is really a paper exercise to subdivide a previously developed 13.6 acre parcel into two lots and basically Let me try to see if I can... So the upper part, which is the lighter tan... Actually, let me just point for you. This here... where there's a Burger King restaurant would be proposed lot A and everything else proposed lot B. And you'll notice that the second lot has two colors and that's because the front part of it is C1 commercial and the back part of it is LI1 industrial. We're not proposing any new construction, development, curb cuts, streets. or utility installations, basically. And as I said on the front, there's a Burger King restaurant and an associated parking lot fronting Boston Post Road in the back. Behind the Burger King, starting on the tan and going into the gray, there are some buildings containing commercial industrial uses, essentially having to do with the leasing of either trailer truck trailers and or other types of containers, which are stored on site, they're leased out, and there's some maintenance of the containers. There's paved access separately to get into the proposed lot B, which I'll point to right here. And that's actually the existing paved entry drive to serve the back currently. These properties have been on the property for many years. And as I said, they've all got public utilities existing. As a practical matter, the Burger King portion of the property really functions as a separate lot. It's got its own two exclusive curb cuts. It's got its own dedicated parking area. And in fact, on the outer perimeter of the parking area, right where the proposed lot line is, there's a fence which essentially divides it as a physical matter from the remainder of the property. And again, the second lot will have that access which meets the minimum lot width requirement to continue to serve proposed lot B. Proposed lot A, as I mentioned, Burger King, C1 commercial district, it's approximately 27,300 square feet, or 0.63 of an acre, which exceeds the minimum lot area. It complies with the C1 bulk and density requirements, including lot area, frontage, floor area, ground coverage, rear property line setback, other property line setback, and parking requirements. I would note. The front of the Burger King building is slightly non-conforming from the street setback line. It's 44.6 feet from the street setback line where 50 is required. However, it in no way is affected by the proposed subdivision, which is basically creating a rear property line. It's not increased at all. Proposed lot B, about 13 acres, as I said, partially C1, partially LI1, complies with the bulk and density requirements of each of those respective zones for the rear. The one thing that we noted in our application prior Mr. Hotchkiss's predecessor where we began the discussions with had asked if we could just include a parking table as a point of reference just to have informationally. And there's not really an exact parking requirement that fits this exact use. So we utilize the parking requirement for warehouses, wholesale business, and truck terminals, which is three spaces per loading dock, loading bay, and four spaces per thousand square feet of office. Because it's not a truck terminal, it's not a warehouse, there's not product being taken in and out and trucks loaded. That three space per loading bay results in a number that far exceeds the actual real time number of employees and parking that's utilized. But I just wanted to note, if you were to treat the number of parking spaces on lot B as non-conforming again, The nonconformity, if it existed, would not be increased because they already do not have access to the dedicated Burger King parking lot spaces that are required to serve that restaurant. The only other thing I wanted to mention is the South Central Regional Council of Governments, it's probably in your packet, reviewed the application referral and issued a letter finding no negative inter-municipal impacts to the towns in the region. and no negative impact on the Long Island Sound ecosystem habitat. So with that said, we submit that the application and the proposed subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of your subdivision and zoning regulations, and we would request approval, but we're happy to answer any questions you might have.

Attorney Hammer?

Yes. So, and I should show you this is proposed lot A shown on this subdivision plan.

So, makes perfect sense to create a separate out parcel for the Burger King so people can deal with it as a separate entity, sell it without interrupting the business behind it. No problem. No questions. So now we're in the main, the remainder piece, which is currently being used and has been used for at least 40 years by Eagle Leasing that I can remember. And the original building there does look like it was made originally to be a truck terminal at some point in the far past. But it's your testimony that Currently, it's not used as that. It's basically used as storage and garage space or something that doesn't generate a parking requirement.

Correct. Not like a warehouse would or a truck terminal, so to speak. And I believe we have a couple people here who could speak more specifically to that. As I said, it's obviously...

Operated for 40 years? Yes, yes. Okay, so, or more. But, so the question when we approve stuff is not always what things are now, but what happens later, right? Right. And so, since this would really just be a drawing exercise, you know, I might be... more comfortable if you designate, you know, because if the use changes, okay, somebody comes in and drops a bucket of money on something, and they come in with an as of right use, you know, in the C1 zone, we don't necessarily see it. It's, you know, if the use has changed, but we don't necessarily see it if they're not doing physical changes. So, it would be nice to identify and on 13 acres, I can't imagine it'd be difficult, the acre of parking you'd need in the future if this use changed. You know, somewhere where, you know, in the corner there by the northwest corner or something like that, it just said, you know, it's just that we want to be, to know that If you need parking, it would be available and obviously it would just be striping on the existing pavement in the future.

To respond to your question, I believe if somebody First of all, somebody could come in and propose something that would require a special exception or a site plan review or anything of the sort, in which case you would be looking as a commission at what parking is required for that use. But even short of that... Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what the trigger is for site plan review, but I think regardless of whether it's a commission review or a staff review, one of the things I think they would consider is the parking requirement. And again, to the extent this were viewed as a grandfathered legal non-conforming use, I think if someone comes in and tries to change the nature of the operations, that would give you an opportunity or staff an opportunity to say, you know, are they still within the prior use scope, flavor, and parameters, or are they going to need to go build more parking spaces? Because obviously the grandfathering is premised on the nature of the of the existing last 40 year use in that respect. You can just see underlied in that drawing that there's many trailers and containers that are parked throughout the site. So if somebody were doing something else where they weren't storing those materials, I think there would be lots of available available room if they did need to create more parking. But again, I would say if they're substantially materially changing the use, that would be an opportunity for the town to re-examine what the parking requirement should be. And I think that was going back when Jack was the hearing officer. I think he touched upon that by saying let's just see what the existing situation is and then if you wanna do an addition to a building or add something to the site, then we're gonna have to consider what would be required in order to do that, which I think is touching upon the same issue, basically. So, whoops, sorry about that.

So, Kev, you were talking about in the northwest area?

It doesn't matter where it is. I mean, listen, in a practical world, they're not going to be able to lease it to somebody if they can't park it, if they can't park it.

Fair enough.

Okay. But I think I just, you know, I think that when you figure things out ahead of time and people agree that if we change our use, even if it's a permitted use in the zone, we're going to come back and deal with the parking as a condition of approval, then you're sure things are going to happen. They should happen. It's logical that they happen, but, you know, you can be sure that it will happen. But, you know, again, you may not, you know, it's just one opinion.

I would also, I think there's something in your parking regulations that says if a use doesn't fit exactly in one of the listed use categories that has the ratio that the commission, I believe, has discretion to determine you know, what a reasonable amount of parking should be. So I guess I would also point to that just as something that, you know, sort of goes to this issue that it's being presented to you with that existing use out there. But if somebody were going to build an office building or retail or a manufacturing facility or whatever, the case may be, you know, I think it would be part of that review and inquiry, does parking need to change? So I think the town is covered in that regard, because that would probably be the one, probably the most preliminary thing that would need to be looked at, again, if somebody were to make a change.

But, you know, for right now, we can't,

We can't really, you know, to build 100 more parking spaces. I'm not saying to build them. I understand. It's just, you know, we'd be showing. But I guess, again, I fully appreciate your question. And, you know, with all due respect, I guess I'm just... Just questioning whether that's sort of less a subdivision and more a future zoning issue if someone were to change the nature of the operations on the site. Again, I think the existing parking situation has been there for the 40 years that were referred to. It's been accepted. You're worried about the change, though, in the future?

Yeah, I don't know what happens in the future. I mean, yeah, something, and if you were going to do something big, you're going to get a site plan, and it becomes a moot point. Right. You know, if someone decides that they want to put a spooky Halloween store up on the C1, you know, they can. But, you know, it's a low probability event. All right. The other question is, I appreciate that we're seeing a site plan and the effort to create it to get that lot. But if there isn't a history where this was, that the one lot was originally created out of another subdivision, so that this is a resubdivision, or if there aren't three lots, none of these regulations apply.

I think what Attorney Hammer was saying is that it was not clear when you did your research as to... We actually, and Mr. Hotchkiss was extremely helpful in going back, and we looked at zoning from its inception in the town of Orange, and I think the issue... It could be read as today's subdivision not coming into effect. I can't remember the year, but maybe like the 60s versus something that occurred back in, I can't remember the first year, like 1946 or something like that. And so we outlined an interpretation that would support that view and I think Mr. Hotchkiss showed it to the town attorney who suggested that an application be made, if I recall correctly.

Yes. We started with this in a lot of ways and talked with Owen, our attorney, about it. There's a document from 1944 that's called, and it's not going to be exact, but the Platting of Private Lands in Orange. Attorney Weaver felt that was close enough and qualified as subdivision regulations, and there has been a split, correct, since then?

I think there were some, you know, this is a big land area, and I think over the years, if you're using 1944 as your starting point, I think there were some adjustments along the way that, you know, theoretically could get you over. So as a fundamental question, this was what the agreed-upon procedure would be?

Yes, yes.

Okay. So on the advice of counsel, our re-subdivision regulations apply?

Yes.

Okay.

Anybody else?

All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. I appreciate it. Should I leave that up for now? Okay.

Thanks.

Just take this moment to let the commission know this application was referred out to West Haven, and as Attorney Hammer mentioned, Scrogg, West Haven didn't have any comments, and then Attorney Hammer read into the record Scrogg's comments that they didn't anticipate any negative impacts between the municipalities.

Okay. Anybody else have any comments?

Nothing here.

Okay. We'll close the public hearing. There's no one in the audience. Do I have to poll them? Yeah, you've got to make a call. Okay. Anybody have an objection or any comments from the public, either for or against? That would be a negative. Okay. And I'll look for a motion to close the public hearing.

I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing on the application... of the subdivision application submitted by TKB Holdings Orange, LLC. Second? Second.

So moved. Okay. Approved. Okay. All right. Okay. Comments? I mean, the parking issues aside, it's a pretty clean application.

Yeah. I mean, it makes perfect sense to segregate that as a lot so you can deal with it as an individual entity from a commercial sense. It doesn't hurt the town of Orange that that is more freely, you know...

They operate them as two independent lots anyhow.

Yeah. Right. So, you know... If the parking issue comes up in any significant way, you're probably going to have an application, a site plan application.

And that's what Attorney Hammer was kind of angling to.

Right. I mean, in other jurisdictions, I have just put little dashed lines that said, land bank parking for, you know, if required. With the acreage that they have. And that way, it doesn't come back to us. The CEO goes out and goes, stop parking in the road. Right. Stripes spaces over here. But this isn't Long Island. Right.

Okay. Anybody prepared to make a motion? Or any other comments?

I would like to make a motion to approve the subdivision application Submitted by TKB Holdings Orange LLC, subdivision of 140 Boston Post Road. Assessors, map, block, and lot, 4451. 142 Boston Post Road. Assessors, map, 4453. 148 Boston Post Road. Assessors, map, block, and lot, 4452. And 1 Eagle Place. Assessors, map, block, and lot. 445A to reconfigure this existing lot into, sorry, to reconfigure the existing lot into two. So there's one existing lot for zoning purposes that's getting reconfigured into two zoning lots for zoning purpose. The tax assessor has done this for other purposes of billing people. I'd rather put it. That's fine. Okay.

I think that's it.

Yeah, I think that was a complete thought.

It was. Okay. It died of loneliness, but it was a complete thought. I'm looking for a second.

Second.

Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you, guys. Okay, guys. Any other business to go before the commission? It was?

My pleasure.

Any other business to come before the commission tonight?

I don't have anything for you guys. I'd like to make a motion to...

I sure have.

Second? Second.

Good. All those in favor? Aye. All right, guys. Have a good night.