Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1454-81 Monica Barrett Denied APPLICATION FOR TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Application and supplements must be filed in triplicate. l V 2. Application must be typewritten or printed in ink. 3. Answer all items, with particular attention to Page 3. 4. Application must be delivered to Chairman or Secretary no later than 15 days prior to first Thursday of each month. Submit application as soon as possible because it will be returned if incomplete or not described satisfactorily. 5. The applicant or his representative must be present for the Board Meeting (time and place to be advised). TO BE COMPETED BY BOARD Applicant .1 94tgA Barrett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Filed . . f(�•-, 'Z:-�( . . . . (DATE) Mailing Address .32, 11 g&14114 D-r�VP,, .$4ut):i. Wjxid$Qr,. 06974 . . . . . . . . . . Fee v:G)C1 . . . . . . . . . Receipt No. �.�-�� ��.�• . . Is applicant a corporation, co-partnership or individual? i4dtv;L!J1J41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If corporation list names of officers, if co-partnership - owners: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Address: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Address: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Address: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Is applicant owner, lessee or prospective tenant? . . prosp ectv�e ,tenant, , , , , , _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Check one of the following: ❑REQUEST VARIATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE: To vary Article . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section . . . . . . . . . . . . toallow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ OR SPECIFIC EXCEPTION OR ® APPROVAL UNDER Section• 3 10.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a to allow A Day, Care Center. (ch.ange, in.non-conf irming usel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑OR AN APPEAL FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DECISION INVOLVING . . . . . . . . . . • . . • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ OR STATE HEARING UNDER 14-321 ❑ OR 14-54❑ OF THE GENERAL STATUTES FOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑OR TEMPORARY AND CONDITIONAL PERMIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . on premises known as . 65$ .Ellington Road. . . . A. .D N. .UMBER. . . .) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zone . A-20. . . . . . . . . . . (STREET Owner of property . , , , . , . , . . . Address . 05 ,Ellington ,Road, , , , , , , , , , , State the particular hardship or.unnecessary difficulty that prompts this application: Building is commercial and was most recently used for a medical doctors practice, The . proposed use.is not. more ,objectionable in, character than the previous use. . .The area.of . use will. remain the, same. The. building. is ideally suited .for, a.day, care center to serve the community. (Continue on Page 4) Signature of applica . . ;'", ' nature of owner . . . �- . or _ uo—app�_icant Dr, D, McGann This application was executed by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Attorney or Authorized Agent) in behalf of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Applicant) Liquor Outlets Within the Restricted Area: Locations and Distances from Location in Question: Liquor outlets listed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distances listed by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —2— Indicate plot by diagram, photographs and/or letters, in space below, showing streets, lot lines, building line, zone boundary lines, dimensions and buildings present and proposed. It is important to include adjacent properties with dis- tances from subject property. In case of structural changes or new structure blue print or drawing made to scale must be submitted with this application. ACTION OF THE BOARD at the meeting held on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GRANTED DENIED c�Z . . . . .p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • . • . • • . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , • • ``. . . . . R.' Restrictions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Child Dav Care In Connecticut : A Program Review August, 1981 Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee Connecticut General Assembly Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee Legislative office Building 18 Trinity Street Hartford, CT 06115 (203) 566--8480 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE Child Day Care in Connecticut: A Program Review SUMMARY As the composition of families and the roles of its members have changed during the past four decades, the availability of quality day care services at affordable prices has not necessar- ily met demand. Connecticut currently recognizes three categor- ies of child day care facilities--family day care homes, group day care homes and day care centers. As of January 1, 1981, there were approximately 2,600 family homes, 48 group homes and 864 centers. Together these facilities serve close to 49,000 children. In January 1980, the Legislative Program Review and Inves- tigations Committee (LPR&IC) authorized a two part program review of child day care services in Connecticut. Of particular concern to the committee was the fact that six state entities with separ- ate, but sometimes overlapping involvement, hamper the state' s efforts to regulate day care and the public's ability to obtain information about such services. The Departments of Children and Youth Services, Education, Health Services and Human Resources all have roles connected with the licensure and monitoring of day care facilities. In addition, the Office of Child Day Care and the Child Day Care Council are involved in developing regulations and providing information about day care. The first part of the LPR&IC review, which was published in December 1980, concentrated on family day care homes. This .�acond study focuses on group day care homes and day care cen- ters. The committee's recommendations contained in this report, however, do cover all three categories of facilities. The com- mittee has tried to develop a regulatory structure that will fa- cilitate a state day care policy. The members hope a more limi- ted but better defined state role, combined with increased paren- tal involvement, will lead to better day care services in Connect- icut. Major recommendations concern changes in the definitions of the types of facilities regulated, the level of regulation for family day care homes and the consolidation of all responsibil- ity for day care certification and licensure within one agency. i RECOMMENDATIONS Level of Regulation by Type of Facility 1. The definition �of a family day care home should be revised to cover between three and seven children inclusive. A fa- cility caring for less than three children will not be reg- ulated at all. 2. All day care facilities caring for more than seven children shall be called day care centers. 3. The licensure of family day care homes should be phased out and replaced with a certification system within two years of the adoption of this report. 4. All day care facilities caring for more than seven children shall be called day care centers. All of these centers shall be licensed, but regulations may differentiate and .set appropriate standards for children cared for in an in- dividual' s private home. Regulatory Authority 5. All day care facilities should be regulated by the Depart- ment of Health Services. 6. The Department of Health Services should continue to improve its working relationships with as many local health and safety authorities as possible. In addition, DOHS should be sure these local representatives have correct and up-to- date information on the regulation of day care in the state. 7. The existing relationship between DOHS and SDE by which the Department of Education provides specified staff on a regu- lar basis to work in conjunction with DOHS staff to oversee the provision of day care center services in the state should be continued. This current relationship should be extended so that the same consultive relationship will apply to the regulation of all licensed and certified day care facilities. In addition, SDE should be involved in the preparation of that portion of the regulations which concerns child develop- ment requirements. 8. The statutorily mandated relationship between DOHS and DHR should be continued. The Department of Health Services should provide the DHR regional offices with accurate up- to-date lists of providers. ii a► 9. DOHS should be given statutory authority to consult with DCYS, DMH, DMR and other agencies with related interests, if the Commissioner of health services feels such a rela- tionship would be beneficial to the state's regulation of child day care. Organizational Structure 10. The regulation of day care facilities should be handled by a single day care division within the Department of Health Services. In addition, a majority of the current staff from the Day Care Division of the 'Bureau of Field Operations in the Department of Human Resources should be transferred stat- utorily to this single division in DOHS. 11. DOHS should establish a day care policy section within its day care unit. 12. The commissioner of health services shall regularly report on the status of day care in the state of Connecticut to the General Assembly committee of cognizance. 13. The Office of Child Day Care shall be abolished. 14. The commissioner of health services shall be allowed the op- tion of establishing a council on child day care with a mem- bership that reflects the views and perspectives of a variety of day care consumers to advise him/her upon request. Publicly Funded Day Care Centers 15. Publicly funded day care centers should be inspected using the same standards on the same schedule as all other day care centers. 16. The Department of Human Resources should develop a cost es- timate of its needs in this area for the next three fiscal years. Included in this analysis should be an estimate of the funds needed to meet increasing social security costs, annual wage increments and minimum wage rates for publicly funded day care center employees. This information should be reported to the legislature's Appropriations Committee by February 1982. 17. The Department of Human Resources should develop a plan to pay for substitutes in publicly funded day care centers. State Incentives 18. The Human Services Committee should study the issue of how to supplement day care services for low income people who are working. iii Private School Designations as a Means to Avoid Day Care Center L ci ensure 19. The Department of Health Services, as the agency responsible for licensing day care centers, should be required to work with the Department of Education to determine which statutes and/or regulations need to be changed in order to close a loophole in current law which enables day care centers to avoid licensure by calling themselves private schools. This report should be submitted to the committee of cognizance by January 15, 1982. 20. The fee for a day care center license should be increased to $100 for two years and family day care homes should be charged $25 for a two year license or certificate. The fee for a tem- porary license or certificate should increase from $15 to $20. 21. A fine of up to $100 per day for each violation of the licen- sure or certification requirements for family day care homes should be imposed. In addition, the same penalty shall apply to day care centers (as newly defined in this report) which violate licensure requirements. Licensing, Certifying and Employing Persons with Certain Criminal Convictions 22. The statutes .relating to the granting, denying, suspending and revoking of licenses and certificates of operators of child day care services should be amended to provide that those operators who have criminal conviction records should be treated in accordance with the state policy provided in C.G.S. Sections 46a-79 to 46a-81, inclusive. In addition, these statutes should apply the same principles to the em- ployment by child day care facilities of individuals with criminal conviction records. iv TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR 1 454 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS _ _���-- ----- _�. .:----------- Received from .�-��= - ------------------------------------------------------------------ of ------- ---:!_ ._ t_i._ �-- ----kfl_i�t�- ----�' �-=4- s----`�i:_._� _� :-='-`-----------------•-------------------- - Dollars fee for a hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals. This hearing is to cover application number ____ ......L_t_______-for _____________ ---------- ----- ------t-4_..------�---` j---=-- C ---=-A- ----------- --------- Dated at South Windsor,Conn.,this__ __t______________day of______{_.? _ .. .__-____________________________19� '. Signed... ------ --� C------------------------ - -}- - - SECRETARY r ItOVI sE4 ce Tiawn, Ole Sou� ?A;101� c � k , �C 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 Olt- 0 AREA CODE 203/644-2511 October 27, 1981 ;i Ms. Monica Barrett 32 Highland Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 Res ZBA Application #1454-81 Dear Ms. Barrett: Your application to the South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals will be heard at a public hearing on Thursday, November 12, 1981 at 7130 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the South Windsor Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan Avenue, South Windsor. You, or someone representing you, must be present. You are responsible for displaying the sign purchased from the Building Department at least 10 days prior to the public hearing in a location (or locations) visible from all public streets. Please complete the enclosed form by inserting the legal description of the property in question as well as the name of the owner of record, and bring it with you the night of the hearing. Enclosed is a receipt for the application fee of $30.00 and $5.00 for the cost of the sign. Very truly yours, Richard H. Eriksson, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals .RHE/src encl. To ; Mr. Richard H. Friksson, Chairman Zoning Board of App eaI s Town Of South Windsor Dear Sir, The Attached petition Is Sign®d By Almost IO�� Of The Property Owners In The Residential Area That Will Be Affected By The zoning' Change Allowing A DaY Care To (berate On The Premises Known As 658 Filington Road An A-20 Zone. Needless To Say There Is Extreme. OpPosition To This Zone Change And That A More Suitable Location Could -$e :Found To Operate This Type Of Business. R.espectivelY Yours Louis J. Jeski Jr. 19 parkview give South Windsor, Conn. PETITION AGAINST ZONE CHANGE U' 58 EL1,11,R]rTOY, "KAD WE (PROPERTY OWNERS) WISH TO BRING- TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ZONING BOARD Or APPEALS THAT WE OPPOSE THE ZONE CHANGE CONCERNING ALLOWING A DAY CARE CENTER TO OPERATE AT 6,58 ELLUUTOF ROADs, NAMM, ADDRESS to �,�. ��� !�?��, o17 71- < pa kilt 1 kLi A-1 -14 --------- 3-7 PETITION ACTAIN37 ZONE CHANGF, 659 FLL,TVGV_roN ROAD TtIF ".,"TiE UNDERSIGNED (FROFERTY OWNERS) WISH Tn BRIM, TO THE ATT7,,IqTI,,r)1ql OF I rp ,ffF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THAT WE OPPOSE THE ZONE CHANGE CONCERNING ALLOWING A DAY CARE CENTER TO OPERATE AT b,58 ELL INGTON ROAD. ADDRF,'S3 ALI � � � jog ce LAW OFFICES .SOH N J. WOODCOCK III, P. C. 395 BUCKLAND ROAD P. O.SOX 684 JOHN J.WOODCOCK 1110 SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT 06074 409OUM TELEPHONE *ALSO ADMITTED IN MASSACHUUSETTS Michael T. Kozik* (203)644-2431 November 3, 1981 Mr. Richard H. Eriksson, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 RE: Zoning Board of Appeals Application No. -1454-81- Dt. 'Desm6nd'M6.Cann, et al Dear Mr. Eriksson: This letter is to confirm the telephone conference that I had with Ms. Sidnie Cote, Clerk of the Zoning Board of Appeals, with respect to the foregoing application scheduled for public hearing on November 12, 1981. The applicants are seeking a temporary.and conditional permit, Section 11.4.1D, for a day care center, not a variance. Please advise if any further information is needed. Thank you for your courtesy. Q0j y yours,. Woodcock, III J,. W:ca cc: Frank E. Ahearn, Esquire 17ovember 9, 1981 To. Mr. Richard H. Eriksson, Chairman Zoning Board Of Appeals Town Of South Windsor Dear S ir, This Letter Is To Inform The Zoning Board Of Appeals That Both My Wife And I Strongly appose The Request For A Zone Change By Monica. Barrett Concerning Allowing A Day Care Center To operate At 658 Ellington Road For The Following Reasons. (I)! This Location Ha.s An Extremely Hazardous Traffic' Condition Especially At The Key Drop Off And Pick Up Times Of The Day Both A.M. And P,M,r A Def ina.te Deed For A Traffic Controll Light on This Major State Road Would Be Needed '.t.`o Insure Safe Conditions, The Board Can Verify The Heavy Flow From The Many Surveys Taken Recently.The Parking Area_ Of This Building Blends In With The Main Portion Of Ellington Road And Makes It In Its Self I A Hazard. (2) The Building, Itself Has Only One Bathroom Facility And Is Not Hooked Up To Sewers That Are Available Which Eventually In My rTinion Will Become A Definate health Hazard With The Amount, Of Use. (3) The Entire Area In The Rear of The Building Which I Assume Will Become A Playground Could Also Be A Potential Hazard To The Safty Of The Children Because Cf The Possibility Of Fallen TAmbs From The Mammoth Oak Trees That Fill This Area.. (4 ) This Property Is Boarded on All Four Sides BY Private Homes And This Playground Area Would Affect The Privacy And In No Way Benefit This Immediate Area, If The Activity Could Be Confined To The Inside And Front Of The Building it Could Be Considered Comparible To The Ron Conforming Use It Was Zoned For Previously. Allowing This Zone Change Would Not Be In This Neighborhoods Best Interest (2 ) (5 ) No Privacy Fencing Exists To Insure The Privacy of The Area Homes Or The Saftey Of The Children. How Would They Be Confined To The Area. (f� NOTE: This Building Excluding The Area To Be Used For The Day Care Center Is Now Being Used As A Multi. Family Dwelling With An Apartment Above On The Second Floor And A Rent6d Apartment In The Basement. I Believe This Is In Violation of The A-20 Zoning In This Area.. Bow Can one Building Be Zoned For So Many Non Conforming Uses? (7 ) The Application Fending Sign Was ITot Placed on This Property Zo Days Prior To This Hearing, And Was Not Placed In An Area Where Interested Parties Could See fit. (8) In Summary, We Wish. To Go On Record That We Do Not f)ppose This Building Being Used For Business Offices As It Was Intended For And Used For In The Past, Respectively Yours, Louis J. Jeski Jr. Sandra C. Jes i IQ Farkview Drive South Windsor, Conn. ' tOW N 34r4 c ) -awn, mil/ ,� �• 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 �' soR•co AREA CODE 203/644-2511 November 16, 1981 CERTIFIED MAIL . John J. Woodcock, III, Esquire 395 Buckland Road South Windsor, CT 0607 Dear Attorney Woodcock: The application of Monica Barrett, 32 Highland Drive, South Windsor to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a two-year temporary and conditional permit to allow a Day Care Center on premises known as 658 Ellington Road, At-20 Zone, has been denied. In denying this application, the Board noted that there is a definite need for this type of facility in town; however, the overwhelming opposition of the neighbors and their concern for the noise factor and safety concerns caused the Board to deny the application. Section 11.4. 1. d of the Zoning Regulations states, " . . and the appropriate use of neighboring property will not be substantially or, permanently injured and traffic and other hazards will not result from such use. " Enclosed is the original copy of Ms. Barrett's Proposal to Develop a Day Care Center which you submitted at the Public Hearing. Very truly yours, Richard H. Eriksson, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals RHE/src encl.