Silvermine Road residents on Tuesday night voiced concerns to members of the Planning & Zoning Commission about a neighbor’s application to convert their garage into a home office and medical examination area.
Granting Dr. Kathleen Berchelmann, a pediatrician, a Major Home Occupation permit to allow for a small staff to work out of the office and see additional patients would bring unwanted traffic to a narrow shared driveway and create a safety hazard for the many children who live in the area and play outside, according to several parents who addressed P&Z during its regular meeting.
There are already cars that go up the driveway and “occasionally make a wrong turn into our house which is to be expected,” said Dan Oliver, who shares a driveway with the Berchelmanns.
“It happens occasionally, and obviously we are very concerned about increased traffic and increased wrong turns into our area,” he said. “And once you come into our house, you can’t really turn around unless you go past our house, up into our larger area to turn around. So it’s not easy to back up. So it really would be a major imposition, not just our house but the shared driveway goes right past two other houses off Silvermine Road. And both of those neighbors are very concerned about the noise, the loss of privacy, the density. They have children, as well, as pets, so obviously the prospect of increased traffic is very concerning. And also they’ve expressed to me that people already turn around in their driveway. In fact, the shared driveway is—I think, as most are—is very narrow, and people miss it, including my parents, for example, when they come to visit and they turn around in someone else’s driveway.”
Oliver addressed P&Z regarding the Berchelmann’s application for a Special Permit that would see the two-car garage at 711 Silvermine Road converted into a “telehealth business office” operated by the 501c3 organization MyCatholicDoctor. There, a part-time nonclinical administrator would work on weekdays, and two interns would also work on a part-time basis, according to Greg Berchelmann.
The organization “uses telehealth to increase access to Catholic healthcare,” he told P&Z.
“And we would also like to allow for Kathleen, my wife, to periodically see patients from the local community,” he said. “By ‘periodically’ we mean an estimated real average of maybe zero to two patient cars per week.”
The permit would be limited in that it would not follow a property transfer, should the Berchelmanns sell their home in the two-acre zone, while business-related traffic would not exceed more than three daily visits by staff, and there would be a monthly average of five business-related cars per week for patients, Greg Berchelmann said.
There would be no signage or new lighting, the footprint of the house would not change and “we are not opening a public clinic,” he said. Dr. Kathleen Berchelmann is a Stamford Hospital pediatrician and does mostly administrative work on behalf of with MyCatholicDoctor on a volunteer, unpaid basis, according to the applicant.
Commissioners asked how the proposed traffic limitations would be enforced (through scheduling patients), how often same-day appointments are made (infrequently, most are made with 24 hours-plus notice), what is the nature of appointments (almost all COVID-19 testing), how much parking is on the site now (six cars can be accommodated easily), what the remodel involves (converting most of the garage to office space with a small telehealth studio), whether new plumbing would need to be installed as part of the remodel (it’s already in place in an adjacent room), whether the New Canaan Health Department has reviewed plans (not yet, that’s a future step), whether the plans are ADA-compliant (the contractor is aware of that need), whether neighbors are aware of the plans (they’ve been notified), whether the property is on a shared driveway (yes) and whether there have been conversations with neighbors about bringing more traffic to the house (yes).
P&Z members also noted that fire marshal sign-off would be required for the home office and that the rules governing operation of a medical office in some ways drive its design.
“Personally I think you have a lot more homework to do on this before we can reasonably address whether this is a viable for a Special Permit here,” Commissioner Dan Radman said. “It seems like there are a lot of unanswered questions as to the usage relative to Health Department requirements and handicapped accessibility that you really haven’t vetted yet.”
Ultimately P&Z put off a decision on the application until at least its May meeting.
Oliver said that the neighborhood of Silvermine Road “is really not suitable for this kind of activity.”
“It’s a residential area, and to increase the traffic and the density would radically change the character and would, in effect, the safety. We also, in terms of the permit we really don’t understand the nature of it.”
Though the Berchelmann’s application says the change in use at the house is needed because the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the needed for in-person testing for the virus, the nature of telehealth itself is that it’s remote, Oliver said.
Another neighbor on the driveway, Scott Roen, said that he had retained an attorney regarding the Berchelmann’s application but “we don’t want to use them.”
“We don’t want to move forward,” he said. “But we do want to make sure that this gets resolved.”
Roen said that it appeared the Berchelmanns were “trying to build a business” and that filings online show they’re “raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to grow a practice.”
“These may be unrelated, I’m not sure, but it just gives me pause for what other things might come over time if we open this up like this,” he said.
Roen added, “Obviously having people who are sick come into our driveway at a time like this is troubling for us.”
The neighbors suggested that the organization find a commercial space in the business district.
But that’s not possible because the organization doesn’t have the funding for it, Dr. Kathleen Berchelmann said.
“We are not building a huge organization in our home,” she said. “We’re a small organization.”
From the beginning, the Berchelmanns’ intention has been to be totally honest and transparent with neighbors about their plans “and I’m surprised by the response,” she said.
“This is the first we’ve heard any of these concerns from the neighborhood,” Dr. Kathleen Berchelmann said. “It’s really our intention to work with the community and we hope that we are approachable. We’ve made ourselves very approachable.”
P&Z Chair John Goodwin in recommending that the appointed body keep the application open noted that “I can’t promise to close this and we deny it, which seems to be a neighbor’s request.” He suggested that the Berchelmanns continue meeting with neighbors to find an agreeable solution.
RESUBMITTING with name spelling corrections:
I am one of the opposing neighbors, and I therefore feel compelled to correct some of the mischaracterizations included in this article as well as during the hearing. We were made aware of this special permit application via receipt of a copy of the document in the mail, including notice that we could appear and comment at the P&Z meeting. The letter was mailed to us approximately a week before the meeting. We then consulted with our realtor and a land use attorney to understand the possible implications, having never before encountered a Major Home Occupation permit application in our seven years of living in New Canaan. We also communicated with four of the other abutting neighbors included on the application to understand their viewpoints. All expressed concern about increased traffic and decreased privacy in our residential area. One neighbor sent an email on behalf of our entire group to the Berchelmanns relaying our universal opposition to the special permit request. We also submitted to P&Z a written opposition letter, which is publicly available, in advance of the meeting. Our concerns and opposition should not have been a surprise to any of the parties involved as we made every effort to be fully transparent and forthcoming regarding our opposition. Concerningly, there are many inconsistencies communicated in the intended use of the clinic. To see two patients a week, as the Berchelmanns state as their intention, is well within their rights and current zoning. Anything more than 5 patients a week triggers the need to rezone, which we are strongly opposed to. I should note that the application mentions 8 available parking spots on the property, although during the hearing, the number was verbalized as 6. The written application notes one employee of the clinic, but during the hearing, two additional interns were added to the organization for a total of 3 non-resident employees. Most concerningly, the driveway leading to the home requesting the permit is on a narrow, one-way private, shared easement, which is quite dark in the winter, and runs closely between two homes with children and pets, including my own. For six stops a day, our driveways serve as the bus stops for NCPS’ three tiers of school busses. Therefore the driveways are not appropriate for commercial purposes. There is ample commercial space in our town and surrounding towns without rezoning residential areas and introducing more traffic where many children live. While P&Z has held the permit open for further consideration, we remain firmly opposed, and would like to clarify that there are no conditions under which we would support this Major Home Occupation permit as it would unnecessarily impose traffic dangers on the surrounding neighbors. We are disappointed that we must continue to dedicate time and resources to supporting our current residential zoning laws that are explicitly designed to protect the safety and privacy of residents in their homes and yards.
What mischaracterizations in the article?
If you’re saying the applicant mischaracterized something during the hearing, that’s one thing. But all I can do as a reporter is transcribe accurately what people say at these public hearings. Has someone been misquoted?
Rules about formally notifying neighbors when applications go into Planning & Zoning are spelled out in state law and local regulations. If you want to lodge a complaint that your neighbors ran afoul of those, or that the applicant was not forthcoming during the public hearing, then the time to do that is during the hearing itself or in a formal letter to P&Z.
Thank you for submitting your comment.
Thank you for your response. To clarify, I am aware of the P&Z rules about formally notifying neighbors regarding applications. Your article quotes Kathleen Berchelmann as saying ““This is the first we’ve heard any of these concerns from the neighborhood,” which I also recall hearing during the meeting. As I explained above, the Berchelmanns did not reach out to us to informally gauge support. But, upon receipt of the application, our neighbors did, in fact, communicate our opposition to the Berchelmanns in advance of the meeting through an email (which they responded to), and through our formal letter of opposition. For further context, a P&Z representative had asked our attorney to have our group limit our comments to one representative of the group, presumably because they anticipated that the Library topic would require much of the meeting time. We didn’t feel comfortable selecting just one speaker, as multiple families are opposed to the special permit and felt strongly about using the hearing to communicate that sentiment on behalf of their families. Even so, it didn’t feel appropriate to interrupt and point out the many inconsistencies expressed in the written application and those verbalized during the meeting, some of which characterized the nature of the business and communicated conflicting intentions in terms of services offered, number of employees, number of patients anticipated, and number or parking spots. As the commission is holding open the application, I feel compelled to clarify now, for the greater Silvermine neighborhood that is only now becoming aware of this application, that the written application currently on file is not fully reflective of the details communicated at the hearing and reported in this article.
But information made public at the hearing about the projected number of employees, patient visits and parking is already in this article—at least as presented by the applicant during Greg Berchelmann’s opening remarks and in response to questions from commissioners.
Also, you reference “the greater Silvermine neighborhood that is only now becoming aware of this application,” but state Rep. Lucy Dathan in addressing P&Z said she had been contacted by the Silvermine Community Association, that they’d “reached out to me with concerns over this,” and then voiced those concerns.
Also, I did see your/the neighbors’ letter (dated Monday) voicing the same concerns raised during the public hearing. However, that letter is addressed to the town planner and Commission. The Berchelmanns are not listed as recipients. So the letter itself, at least to me, didn’t mean Dr. Berchelmann is misstating anything when she said she was surprised to hear objections for the first time.
Again, as a reporter covering a public meeting it’s not my job—at least in producing a news story, rather than an editorial/opinion piece—to judge whether those addressing a municipal body are mischaracterizing things. I’m just there to write down what is said, what is presented, how votes go (if there are any) and report back to our readers. It’s not unusual for neighbors to voice concerns when people want to do something dramatically different with their property. Here are some examples. Here’s one from November. I don’t think it would be rude to correct the record if you find that there’s an inconsistency, and that also would then become reportable information by me/local press.
Thank you again for your comment/response.