Planning commission recommends against allowing truck and trailer storage without a principal structure in MA zone
April 18, 2024 | Town of Stratford, Fairfield, Connecticut
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Stratford Planning Commission voted unanimously April 16 to recommend against a proposed zoning text amendment that would allow storage of trucks and trailers in the MA (light industrial) zone without a required principal structure.
Town planner Sismitha Otata told the commission the petition (originating at 885 Woodin Road) would, if approved, apply to all MA properties and is not tightly drafted. She said the proposal does not specify whether stored vehicles would be enclosed, whether pavements would be pervious, or how electric vehicles would be handled, and that those gaps raise safety and environmental concerns.
Otāta (staff) said she consulted the state floodplain administrator, who “confirmed that this definitely raises concerns regarding increased flooding, debris and possible fires and explosions due to floating debris if the text amendment were to be approved.” Staff noted the Connecticut Coastal Management Act and local floodplain rules call for attention to debris, wave action and impacts to neighboring properties.
Planner Otata also cautioned the commission about effects on Stratford’s Community Rating System flood‑insurance rating, saying that lenient regulations in coastal areas could lower the town’s CRS score and reduce potential insurance discounts for property owners.
Commissioners raised practical enforcement questions: how quickly stored vehicles could be moved in a coastal event, who would maintain sites if owners are absentee landlords, and whether the amendment’s blanket application across the MA zone could invite uses inconsistent with the town’s place‑making and economic objectives. Staff recommended narrowing the language (for example by flood‑zone overlay) or adding conditions to address these risks.
A commissioner moved that the commission make an unfavorable recommendation on the grounds of inconsistency with planning objectives and the DEEP/floodplain concerns; another commissioner seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
The planning commission’s unfavorable recommendation will be forwarded to the zoning commission, which would need four votes to approve the amendment over the planning commission’s recommendation.
Town planner Sismitha Otata told the commission the petition (originating at 885 Woodin Road) would, if approved, apply to all MA properties and is not tightly drafted. She said the proposal does not specify whether stored vehicles would be enclosed, whether pavements would be pervious, or how electric vehicles would be handled, and that those gaps raise safety and environmental concerns.
Otāta (staff) said she consulted the state floodplain administrator, who “confirmed that this definitely raises concerns regarding increased flooding, debris and possible fires and explosions due to floating debris if the text amendment were to be approved.” Staff noted the Connecticut Coastal Management Act and local floodplain rules call for attention to debris, wave action and impacts to neighboring properties.
Planner Otata also cautioned the commission about effects on Stratford’s Community Rating System flood‑insurance rating, saying that lenient regulations in coastal areas could lower the town’s CRS score and reduce potential insurance discounts for property owners.
Commissioners raised practical enforcement questions: how quickly stored vehicles could be moved in a coastal event, who would maintain sites if owners are absentee landlords, and whether the amendment’s blanket application across the MA zone could invite uses inconsistent with the town’s place‑making and economic objectives. Staff recommended narrowing the language (for example by flood‑zone overlay) or adding conditions to address these risks.
A commissioner moved that the commission make an unfavorable recommendation on the grounds of inconsistency with planning objectives and the DEEP/floodplain concerns; another commissioner seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
The planning commission’s unfavorable recommendation will be forwarded to the zoning commission, which would need four votes to approve the amendment over the planning commission’s recommendation.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
