#MIDDLEBURY
This revised illustration of the car wash proposed for 2160 Straits Turnpike was presented at the Nov. 3 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. (Terrence S. McAuliffe photo)
By TERRENCE S. MCAULIFFE
The Middlebury Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) at its Nov. 3 meeting closed a public hearing on a Straits Turnpike car wash but tabled a vote until the December meeting. It also set a public hearing for revisions to the Senior Residential District zoning regulations.
The car wash decision was deferred until Dec. 1 to allow commissioners time to consider plan revisions and comments received in two public hearings. Maxxwell Sunshine LLC and County Line Carriage Inc. proposed the car wash at 2160 Straits Turnpike as a viable tax-paying business to replace the former Suzuki and Mitsubishi franchises owner Patrick Bayliss said were lost “due to current economics.”
Although original plans were for the car wash to be built inside the existing Suzuki building, that was ruled out for various reasons. The current plan is to build a 2,100-square-foot car wash in front of the existing building and use the old building for the equipment room.
In earlier public hearings, concern was expressed about water runoff onto Straits Turnpike (where it would freeze in the winter), stacking of waiting vehicles onto the road, and the lack of a bypass lane for waiting cars to leave if they chose to do so.
Using a large color rendering, attorney Michael McVerry showed an emergency bypass lane that had been added just after the payment kiosk and would allow vehicles to exit onto Straits Turnpike. McVerry said at least 14 cars could wait in line, and if more than 14 cars arrived at the same time, an employee from the Nissan dealership across the street would direct the additional cars to wait there.
He said 20-foot heated concrete pads placed at the entrance and exit of the car wash would dry and melt anything coming into and going out of the facility, stating the majority of the drying took place in the first car length after exiting. McVerry also pointed out trenches at the end of the drying pad and just before the exit onto the highway.
Jim Arvin, representing PECO Car Wash Systems, manufacturer of the planned equipment, explained “drip times” as the distance from the last application of water and where the drying starts. “We have 30 feet from the time the last drop of water touches the car and the car leaves the building, having gone through a very sophisticated modern dryer.”
During public comments, Fred O’Neill, owner of Fred’s Car Wash on Main Street in Watertown, who also spoke at the Oct. 6 public hearing, said he was very familiar with PECO systems and admitted its drying system works. But he then used photos of the Personal Touch Car Wash on East Main Street in Waterbury to illustrate cars queued up on the road and a 175-foot trail of water left by exiting cars, saying “There is no drying system, there is no heated concrete, there is nothing you can do about that, it’s just what the world is.
“This is an existing, operating car wash in this area,” O’Neill said, holding up a photo from the nearby Walgreens, “They (Walgreens) asked Personal Touch, because of the traffic issues they created for that intersection, to put up this sign ‘Please Do Not Block Our Entrance.’ These are not problems I made up for nothing but what you should consider as you’re improving this property.
McVerry told Commissioner Erika Carrington cars crossing Straits Turnpike to wait at the Nissan lot would not be a problem because there already was a constant flow back and forth from the service department.
Professional Engineer Mark Lancor of Dymar told Commissioner Matthew Robison cars would not be allowed to wait and block the vacuum stations, which he called courtesy vacuums. He said the attendant would direct people out.
Lancor also said the two trench drains would take water off the road and said the State DOT had reviewed the plans for the safety of people exiting as well as traveling Straits Turnpike. “There were no objections from them,” he said.
Arvin, referring to the Personal Touch photos, said, “This location is not going to wash a thousand cars a day, so those arguments are irrelevant to this particular location.”
McVerry showed commissioners a picture of O’Neill’s car wash in Watertown. He said O’Neill’s exit length is maybe four cars. “So, if this picture of the Waterbury car wash presents a significant issue in his thought – then maybe he should address it in his own car wash instead of coming in and talking about what his competitor may want to do,” McVerry said.
“Additionally,” McVerry said, “these are vacuums at his car wash which are adjacent to the entrance lane … so it’s kind of hypocritical for him to come in, speak about danger and design issues when he’s facing these at his own facility in Watertown.”
O’Neill said he had six employees at his car wash to handle traffic, and stated the vacuum was closed on busy days. He also disagreed with Arvin. He said, “These (PECO) car washes can handle up to 120 cars an hour, so you could have a car close to every 30 seconds.”
Commissioner Paul Babarik said, “A car wash is a car wash is a car wash. There’s going to be water, and the water is going to freeze. If the state is satisfied with your plans and what you’ve done, I think that answers the concern.”
Smith tabled a decision until Dec. 1 because commissioners didn’t agree they were ready to vote.
In other matters, a Dec. 1 public hearing was set to consider a zoning regulation amendment to address setback consistency issues in the Senior Residential District in Section 24.7.2 of the zoning regulations.
“It was brought to our attention that setbacks were only 20 feet to existing property lines,” Commissioner William Stowell said, “and I took a look at what was in our other two, Section 22 and Section 23, to get a comparison. Both of those have 50-foot setbacks.” That matter was informally discussed at the October and November meetings with Frank Perrella of 25 Edgar Road, who complained the setbacks were too close.
Stowell added that Section 24 also required a 30-foot landscape buffer and recommended a text change to make Section 24 setbacks conform to the other regulations. Commissioners unanimously voted to bring that change to a public hearing Dec. 1. The zoning change also will need to be reviewed by the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments.
The next regular P&Z meeting will be Thursday, Dec. 1, at 7:30 p.m. at Shepardson Community Center.
You must be logged in to post a comment.