Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant for vehicle-storage site-plan tells commission it will withdraw and resubmit
Summary
Engineer James DeMeo, representing 75 Express CT LLC, told the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 14 that the applicant will withdraw the PCC 26-11 site-plan application for a private vehicle storage/maintenance facility and return with revisions after structural and stormwater concerns surfaced.
James DeMeo, a professional engineer representing 75 Express CT LLC, told the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 14 that the applicant will withdraw its PCC 26-11 site-plan application and resubmit after design changes. “We are going to be withdrawing the application and resubmitting,” DeMeo said, asking commissioners for overarching comments to guide the next filing.
DeMeo described substantial changes since the original submission: interior demolition of the existing roughly 25,000-square-foot building, the prospect of full demolition and a redesigned footprint, and plans to maximize building coverage in the industrial zone (he said the property is very near the 35% coverage limit). He said the project includes multiple retaining walls—one along the southern boundary and another serving a walkout-patio configuration—and that the applicant is negotiating grading rights with an adjacent owner to move significant quantities of material on site.
DeMeo also described an upgrade to the site’s stormwater controls, saying the plan shifts from two short concrete swales to a much larger stormwater-management system discharging near the current outfall. He noted the team previously obtained a fence-height variance (the regulations allow a 4-foot front fence; he said variances were obtained for a 6- and an 8-foot fence in side areas) to close and screen the site. DeMeo emphasized the project is intended to be a private vehicle-storage and maintenance facility—not a commercial customer-facing operation.
Commissioners asked whether the revised plan will remain within the existing footprint and whether vehicle maintenance would be limited to private use; DeMeo replied that the footprint is expected to be similar and that the use is private. The commission asked for additional architectural materials and for staff comments to be addressed when the applicant returns.
No formal vote or decision was taken; DeMeo said the application will be withdrawn and resubmitted to reflect the design changes and updated materials. The commission did not object to the applicant returning with a revised filing and told the applicant to address outstanding staff comments in the next submission.
