Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pt Barnum Rehab topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Downtown Bethel rehab at 23 P T Barnum prompts parking concerns from neighbors
Summary
Attorney Josh Pedrera described a full interior and exterior rehab at 23 P T Barnum to create four one‑bedroom apartments and four parking spaces; a neighboring property representative said adding four units could generate up to eight cars and strain downtown parking. Staff said revised plans addressing an encroachment were submitted the same day and would be reviewed.
Attorney Josh Pedrera told the commission the applicant proposes a complete rehabilitation of the second and third floors at 23 P T Barnum, creating four one‑bedroom residential units above an unchanged first‑floor liquor store, removing a rear garage to make room for four delineated parking spaces, relocating and enclosing the dumpster, regrading the lot and redoing sidewalks and siding.
"This is Downtown Bethel," Pedrera said, adding that the building is "significantly deteriorated" and the work would be a substantial improvement to the corner. He also said revised drawings were submitted the day of the meeting to address a staff‑identified encroachment.
A neighboring property representative and local business owner spoke in support of cleaning up the property but urged caution on the parking conversion. The commenter said the liquor‑store employee habitually parks a vehicle in front and warned that converting two units to four could mean up to eight cars for nearby businesses and residents to accommodate.
Commissioners and staff questioned the parking calculations and referenced TOD guidance. Commissioner Jeff DeRosa and Interim Town Planner Jeremy DeCarly noted a TOD parking factor of about 1.25 spaces per unit and discussed whether the project would require a formal parking reduction. Commissioners also raised ADA loading and sight‑line concerns and encouraged buffering and photometric site lighting.
Mr. DeCarly said he had just seen the revised plans and needed more time to review them, but that the applicant had addressed several earlier staff concerns. The commission closed public comment and agreed to give staff time to review the revisions and return the item at a future meeting when final drawings and responses to staff comments were available.
No formal vote was taken on the application at the March 24 meeting; the commission took the matter under advisement pending staff review.
