Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Station Conversion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DRB closes hearing after plan to convert 20 Ascutney Park Road into police station
Summary
The Weathersfield Development Review Board closed a public hearing on application 26.0416.ToW to convert a single‑family residence at 20 Ascutney Park Road into a police station after discussing parking, lighting, and potential Act 250 implications. The applicant said interior work will include interview and processing rooms and estimated 3–5 vehicles would use the site.
The Weathersfield Development Review Board closed a public hearing on May 12 after reviewing application 26.0416.ToW, a proposal to convert 20 Ascutney Park Road from a single‑family dwelling to a police station.
Brandon Gulnick, representing the applicant, said the building would be reconfigured for interior police uses but “there will be no outside changes to the footprint.” He told the board the site would include an interview room, a processing room, an office for the chief, and other officer offices; there would be no jail and the site would not be used to hold detainees for other towns though other towns could process someone there. Gulnick said the Town expects “3 to 5 vehicles” to use the building depending on circumstances. Matthew Priestley, the property owner, referenced the 2020 site plan and said the parcel provides a total of 18 parking spaces with about 11 near the brick building.
Board members pressed on circulation and staging: Michael Cohen asked whether two police vehicles parked behind the building would allow enough room for other vehicles to pass; Priestley said there is about 45 feet between the proposed police building and the waste management building and that vehicles have been able to maneuver. Craig Watrous suggested the board consider a call box near the public entrance. The board also discussed lighting: Priestley said existing exterior lights are pre‑existing but the sign lighting will require a separate sign application and any new or changed fixtures must comply with the town bylaws.
Members noted potential permitting consequences: Todd Hindinger said there “might need to be an amendment to the Act 250 permit,” and staff flagged exhibits in the record including a 1985 Act 250 permit and recent agency materials. After discussion the board voted to close the hearing at 9:00 PM. The board did not take a final land‑use vote at that meeting; the hearing record will support any future deliberations or conditions the board may impose.
