ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
MAY 19, 2003
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, May 21, 2003, in the Enfield Room, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
John LeDoux
Kevin Kibbe
John Rinaldi
Paul Thorogood, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
Chairman Yarum apprised the audience of tonight's procedure and also explained when a variance can be granted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Yarum stated Paul Thorogood will be voting tonight.
ZBA 2003-05-01 - Tanya Tracy for Jeffrey and Angela Foss, 4 Meadow Road, Map 16, Lot 16, R-33 Zone: Variance: commercial vehicle exceeding 3/4 ton capacity on residential lot. Sections 4.20.1(3) and 10.10.1(G).
Tanya Tracy, 4 Meadow Road, appeared before the Board and stated they would like to park their income-producing truck in their yard. The truck exceeds the capacity of a commercial vehicle in a residential area and is used for holding mattresses for a delivery service for a subcontractor.
Mr. Kibbe stated one of the reasons that will keep the Board from granting this variance is that it cannot be a self-imposed financial hardship. He asked what is the hardship.
Ms. Tracy stated they would like to park their commercial vehicle in a different town. With their existing vehicles, one of them cannot go out in inclement winter weather. They would have to pay more out of pocket to drive their car to access the truck every day. This would waste gas, time and money.
Mr. Rinaldi asked what is unique about this situation compared to someone who wanted to independently deliver oil or a tree cutting business owning a cherry picker. Ms. Tracy stated there are certain days when the driver goes out of state to deliver. The driver delivers for Dial-a-Mattress and sometimes has to leave at 4:00 a.m. in order to make the delivery on time. This occurs two to three days a week. The truck leaves the property every day.
Mr. Rinaldi asked why wouldn't they be able to rent a spot in a zone which would allow this vehicle to be parked. Ms. Tracy stated the driver parks it at the shop where he loads his stock for the day. It would be easier just to go straight there, get the truck, load it and leave as opposed to going to another location first to get the truck. It would be one less stop at a very early morning hour.
Chairman Yarum stated the driver has to go to the warehouse. Ms. Tracy stated the warehouse is not secure and that is one of the reasons for this request. The warehouse is located in a secluded area surrounded by woods and there is no one out there after 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. While the truck can be locked, it is very easy for someone to get into.
Chairman Yarum noted the applicant included in the application that the hardship is that the configuration of the lot is such to make compliance with zoning requirements not possible. Ms. Tracy stated they have a carport but it is too short. Chairman Yarum noted regarding parking this vehicle at this property, the lot size is not the issue but it is the size of the vehicle.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience.
Carla Tracy, 5 Weymouth Drive, spoke in favor of this application. She stated normally what they do is load the truck at the end of the night. The truck leaves between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. What has happened is because they cannot load the truck at night, the driver has to wait until the warehouse opens. It puts him behind because he cannot bring the truck back to the property. The truck doesn't sit there for twenty-four hours straight but it sits there overnight. The truck is on the road seven days a week. The truck is only at the property for a maximum of eight hours at night. The balance of the time it is on the road. Sometimes it doesn't come in until ten or eleven at night and it is gone by three or four in the morning. Ms. Tracy does not see where it is a problem because it is not in anyone's way and it is not unsightly. The truck is presently on the road and that is why the driver is not present.
Chairman Yarum stated while he has not seen this vehicle, he understands it is a fifteen-foot box truck. He asked about the size of the cab. Ms. Tracy was unsure of the size but stated it is flat in the front with two seats in the front. The truck is a 2001 model and it is serviced every month. They pay taxes of approximately $1,000 per year for this vehicle.
Bob Tkacz, 1300 Enfield Street, spoke in opposition to this application. He stated he is in the freight and courier business. He understands the situation because he was the complaintant to the Town Council in this situation. He feels this is a gross violation for the residential neighborhood to park a diesel truck such as this one. With the truck leaving that early in the morning, he has been told it does wake up the neighborhood.
Mr. Tkacz discussed another situation in Enfield where the Zoning Enforcement Officer became involved. A gentleman owns a truck from Dome Trucking and parked it on Conlin Drive in a residential neighborhood. He now parks it at Bradley International Airport on Route 75. Mr. Tkacz presented a picture of this truck. He stated the gentleman felt it was not right for him to park his truck at his home and start it up early in the mornings. He has to leave at 3:00 a.m. or so and he questioned what is the difference if he gets in his car and drives to his truck, starts his truck up and goes over to the cargo and loads up. He felt there was really no difference and that he may as well comply with the rules of the town. The Zoning Enforcement Officer asked that the truck be moved and he complied. It was not a hardship and Mr. Tkacz presented a picture of the truck.
Mr. Tkacz stated there are other people that have trucks in town and they do park them at Bradley. In Enfield, the trucks that are in business could make a deal to park at the Mobil station right up the road. There is also secure truck parking at Petronella's.
Mr. Tkacz stated he is against this application and does not think it is fair to the neighborhood. It is a commercial business and the parking should not be allowed.
Chairman Yarum asked that the applicant view the picture of the truck presented by Mr. Tkacz and let the Board know if this is similar to their vehicle. Ms. Tracy stated the back is similar but the front doesn't come out. The box size is similar.
Chairman Yarum entered into the record a picture of a similar vehicle to the application's identified as Dome Airport Trucking.
Mary Ann Turner, 7 Meadow Lane, presented pictures of her neighborhood consisting of 8 homes on Meadow Road which is a dead end street. There is a cul de sac and the street is not a very long street. She stated she has a six-car driveway because she and her husband have three vehicles and they wanted to make sure they did not park in the road.
Ms. Turner presented pictures of most of the homes and noted they are not very large lots. She presented a picture of the Tracy home with the box truck located in their driveway. She noted there have also been numerous people come to visit with their box trucks. At times, there have been three box trucks parked. Ms. Turner stated her home is right across the street and you cannot pass down the road when the trucks are parked in the road. Ms. Turner stated the Tracy's do not even have four-feet and they would be right up against the fence line. She presented a picture and noted where the roof of the car shown is located is where they want to park the truck.
Ms. Turner stated one of the homes has a fence and the owners went out of their way to drop the fence line so that there would be no sight line problems for anyone driving in and out of their driveway or coming to either side. When you put the box truck there, you instantly have a sight problem.
Ms. Turner stated another problem is when you park on the street, you cannot get through here in the winter time. This street very rarely gets the big plowing truck and the street usually ends up being one lane width wise in the winter. One of the biggest problems they have is when people park in the street. They are having an ongoing problem with the truck being parked in the road because it has been a big inconvenience for the rest of the neighborhood.
Ms. Turner stated she did not realize this was a business vehicle but thought it was a personal vehicle. She checked at the Town Hall and there is no registration that there is a business at this location. Ms. Turner stated she has a marketing business in her home and she is registered with the town.
Ms. Turner stated when you look at the application submitted, this is a residential street and a very small street. She did not think the truck belongs here for any reason and stated the truck is not going to fit. Ms. Turner stated the Board may hear there was a tractor trailer truck parked in this neighborhood since the Tracy's moved in but they are renter's to this property. If the Board was to even consider granting this variance, it is not a situation where this person gets a variance and when they decide to move, the variance goes with them. Ms. Turner noted the variance will stay with this property. She stated Anita and Dave Brown have been long haul drivers and they have their truck in the yard for only thirty-six hours per week. They leave and they don't come back for six days. However, this box truck is in and out every day. Ms. Turner stated she lives right across the street and the box truck is in the driveway quite a bit except since the cease and decease was issued. It was down the street this afternoon prior to tonight's meeting. Since the cease and decease order was issued, the truck has been down on the street, parked in the road and waiting to go. One of the things that is a problem for a small neighborhood such as this is all of the bedrooms face the street. As soon as you turn a diesel vehicle on, it wakes everyone up. She understands such trucks have to run for a long period of time but it is a real hardship for the neighbors to listen to in the early morning hours.
Ms. Turner stated her neighbors who have been there for twenty years no longer park their vehicle on the street because they also were told to move it. They now park their truck at Tri-State and have to pay $100 per month to park their vehicle.
Ms. Turner stated regarding the concern about not being able to drive a vehicle in the bad weather, she has seen the owner's sporty red vehicle out in the winter. The other vehicle has had no problem this past winter with the excess snow.
Ms. Turner stated the parking of this box truck is a fire problem for the Fire Department. The residents have talked to the Fire Department in District 1. Mr. Richards has come out and stated it is definitely going to a problem if there were any emergency needs on the street. Ms. Turner stated this neighborhood is almost fifty years old and the Fire Department has been there many times. This is because they have a barn in the back that periodically mysteriously catches on fire.
Ms. Turner stated the fumes from the truck are a real problem along with the noise at 4:00 a.m. She urged the Board not to consider this to be a hardship. She understands it is a hardship for the owner and it is a money issue but the Board will now put the hardship on seven other families who have lived in this neighborhood for some time.
Chairman Yarum noted receipt of eight pictures of the residences on Meadow Road.
Diane and Ken Thibideault, the abutters to this property, spoke in opposition and addressed some issues regarding health and safety. Ms. Thibideault pointed out the location of their home where the fence is located. She noted a health concern they have is their bedroom faces the front of the house and is abutting this home where the truck is parked. Throughout this past winter, the truck was parked most of the winter in the driveway or in the road. Because of the cold winter, the truck was started and left running for one half hour to forty-five minutes. The fumes from the truck filter into their house and walking through the Thibideault home, you can smell the exhaust from the vehicle.
Ms. Thibideault also expressed a concern about safety. They installed an eight-foot fence higher up with a four-foot fence down lower. The reason they did this is they do not have a very good view coming out into the street from their driveway with anything over four feet. It is very dangerous for them to get out of their street when the truck is parked because it blocks the view not only for them to come out but even if children are on the street. They would not be able to see anyone coming because of the way the truck is parked. Also, there have been times when the Tracy's driveway is overflowing with cars and they have parked in the street. The street did not have sufficient room and they actually parked the truck so that it crosses their driveway. Ms. Thibideault stated when she wants to get out of the driveway to go to work in the morning, she has had to go down her driveway and around the angle to get past the truck. There have also been two to three other trucks that have been parked there at times and which have obstructed them from coming and going in the neighborhood.
Ms. Thibideault also noted the noise level. Sometimes the truck is started at three or four o'clock in the morning and their bedroom is very close to this. In the summer, with the windows open, the noise from starting the truck wakes them up. At other times, the truck is just there every single day of the week and it doesn't seem like it moves on several days during the week.
Mr. Thibideault stated he tried to measure the distance from his bedroom to the truck and he estimates it is between fifteen and twenty feet from the truck to their bedroom. He noted they have been awakened several times by this truck. He also agrees with his wife about the safety factor because backing out of their driveway gets to be very interesting. You have to come out really slow to make sure no one is coming down the street or no children are in the street.
Ms. Tracy stated their driveway is a lot longer than the fifteen-foot box truck so she doesn't see how it is hard for them to pull out of their driveway when the truck is pulled in to the carport. She has a little sports car that doesn't take up much room and they can still fit a full size car behind the truck in the driveway. In the winter, they do not park in the street because there are parking bans. She has called the town to come and widen the plowed area of the road because they don't do a good job. Ms. Tracy stated if the truck is parked on the street for a half-hour for lunch and if someone is parked on the other side, she can get through with her car. There is plenty of room. Ms. Tracy stated her bedroom also faces the road like everyone else's and there have been no other complaints from any of the other eight neighbors. They do not have a problem with it.
Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Later, during the Regular Meeting, Mr. Kibbe made a motion, seconded by Mr. LeDoux, to approve the request for variances to allow storage and parking of a commercial vehicle exceeding 3/4 ton capacity on a residential lot - Sections 4.20.1(3) and 10.10.1(G). Reference is made to a site plan (no title) prepared by the applicant (Tracy) and stamped "Received, Planning Office, Enfield, CT - APR(il) 22, 2003", as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2003-05-01.
Mr. Kibbe stated in a review of both sides of the issue, he had a concern about the safety and if there was a need for fire or police to access this street, that they would be able to do so safely. Secondly, he cannot get past the fact that the hardship is self-imposed.
Chairman Yarum added by the own admission of the applicant, she stated if they were to relocate the vehicle some place else, they would have to pay more. This is clearly a part of the financial aspect of it and financial and self-imposed factors cannot be considered by law reasons for granting a variance. Chairman Yarum also noted through the opposition there was clarification that the variance goes with the property and not with the person. Therefore, if and when this person leaves the property, the variance would stay with the property.
Mr. Rinaldi stated his concern is that this Board may set a precedent which would allow any commercial vehicle in a residential area which seems to conflict with modern zoning practices. While a mattress box truck really doesn't seem to be a problem, what if everyone had one. Mr. Rinaldi stated he personally would not want any diesel truck firing up outside his bedroom window at three or four a.m.
The motion was denied by a 0 - 5 - 0 vote. The reason for denial is the applicant failed to demonstrate a hardship by the self-stated financial and self-created nature of the hardship given.
ZBA 2003-05-02 - Jeannette Maloney, 21 North Maple Street, Map 83/Lot 91, R-33 Zone: Variance, side yard variance, 5 feet proposed, 10 feet required, garage addition - Section 4.10.2H.
Jeannette Maloney appeared before the Board requesting a variance on her property. She presently has a very narrow lot. If the garage were not attached, she would be able to build it five feet from the line. The plans were changed and now the garage is proposed to be attached. The garage will also be much smaller than originally planned. The ten feet would bring the garage through the center of the lot and she would not be able to bring the driveway down and have a turn into the garage and then a bump out to pull out into the road because there would not be enough room. The proposed garage would go right in line with the house so visually and aesthetically it would look much better than putting a garage right in the middle of the lot. She would also not be able to have a pull out for the driveway.
Mr. Rinaldi stated if it was detached, the applicant would be able to move it closer to the line but rather than doing that, she would like to attach it to the main structure. Ms. Maloney stated she plans to put a breezeway in between the house and the garage so she won't have to go all the way out and walk all the way around.
Chairman Yarum stated the plan that was submitted with the application appears to be somewhat to scale. Ms. Maloney stated that drawing was done by the contractor. Chairman Yarum stated the breezeway itself is not an issue because it is set twelve feet back from the north property line. He doesn't understand why the garage can't be set back an additional four feet to the south. Ms. Maloney stated right now with it being five feet away from the line, when the driveway comes through, it is just barely making the turn around on the driveway. A bigger vehicle such as a full size pickup truck could not go into the first garage because the turn around would be too tight. The vehicle would have to go into the second one because there is just not enough turn around. If she had to shorten it more and bring the garage out by ten feet, her car would even be tight going into it. She wants to install the turn around so that she can back into it and pull on to North Maple Street which is an extremely busy road.
Chairman Yarum stated he reviewed the drawing submitted and in moving the garage addition to the south by exactly ten feet, it appears to him the turn around and the bump out still have plenty of room. Ms. Maloney stated she would not have any backup. Chairman Yarum felt she would and he noted the area in yellow on the drawing would be the proposed addition and the balance of the area would be maintained. Ms. Maloney felt it is very narrow and she questioned pulling the garage out like that.
Chairman Yarum stated according to the drawing, the edge of the south property line to Ms. Maloney's home is 21'. With the garage bumped out and put exactly 10' from the north property line, the dimension from the south property line is 23'. This would be a gain of 2' and the proposal is for a 12 and 1/2 foot driveway. Ms. Maloney stated this plan would not look right and she still would not have the room.
Mr. Kibbe stated Ms. Maloney has said a car could not make the turn to get into the first bay of the garage. He asked about pulling up and backing into the garage for easy access out to North Maple Street. Ms. Maloney stated she is asking for the variance so that she would not have to do all this. Also, aesthetically, with the extremely narrow lot and the house sitting on its side, for the garage to be bumped out further into the middle of the lot, it won't look good. Ms. Maloney stated the variance would assist the property in looking nice. She discussed her six neighbors that abut her lot and the fact that every one of them has something built right near the property line. This garage addition would be the best looking thing of those six lots.
Mr. LeDoux asked if there is a reason why the garage has to be 24' deep since an average car is not that long. Ms. Maloney stated they have adjusted the garage and made it smaller. 24' is the standard garage size.
Mr. Thorogood stated there is 12 and 1/2' of driveway proposed. He stated a single driveway is approximately 8' wide. He suggested moving it back and still making the 10'. He asked about the total frontage. Ms. Maloney stated it is approximately 50 plus feet. Mr. Thorogood asked about the size of Ms. Maloney's vehicle and if she has a large truck. Ms. Maloney stated her husband had a truck but he died.
Ms. Maloney stated the driveway will stay the width that it is because she is not removing it. Mr. Kibbe stated the driveway looks to be eight or nine feet.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this variance application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Later, during the Regular Meeting, Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. LeDoux, to approve the request for a variance of approximately four feet of the side yard setback to 6 feet, 10 feet required, to construct an addition (garage) to the rear of the main structure on the residentially zoned property - Section 4.10.2H.
Reference is made to a site plan (no title) prepared by the applicant (Maloney), and stamped "Received, Planning Office, Enfield, CT - APR(il) 28, 2003", as submitted for this application and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2003-05-02.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he has a full size extended cab pickup truck and sometimes it is kind of tight backing out. He understands what the applicant was trying to convey to the Board. However, he did scale the space between the parking spaces of approximately 22' by using the Costco and this is what the applicant would be left with. Mr. Rinaldi assumed this is an ample distance to make the turn in and out of the garage with the assumption that the plan would be to use the Chairman's suggestion of moving the driveway. There would be ample room left for a full size vehicle.
Mr. LeDoux agreed that there are several options still available for the applicant to gain the necessary four feet. She could reduce the size of the garage by a couple of feet and move it. There are many options to achieve the goal that they want of having a place to park both cars without encroaching on the 10' side yard.
The motion was denied by a 0 - 5 - 0 vote.
The reason for denial is the applicant has other options to allow the construction proposed without the necessity for a variance.
ZBA-003-05-03 - SEA Enfield Freshwater Plaza LLC, 130 Elm Street, Map 57/Lot 346, BR Zone: Variances: Impervious surface from 66% to 70%; Parking ratio from 5 to 4.6 per 1,000 square feet; and parking landscape buffer from 50' to 10' - EZO Sections 5.10, 10.10.2 and 10.10.7iii.
Attorney Susan Hays, Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C., 1 State Street, Hartford, appeared before the Board regarding this application. She is before the Board on behalf of SEA Enfield Freshwater Plaza, LLC. She introduced other representatives that included a representative from Costco, the engineer and a representative from the property owner that will be available if the Board has additional questions.
Attorney Hays discussed what Costco is proposing and the history of the site. She stated the State Line Plaza houses Home Depot, Media Play and, formerly, an Ames. The facility used to be owned by a Konover partnership. This past year SEA, which is a partnership of Samuels and Associates and Eden's in Avon bought about forty of the Konover centers. They are going through and attempting to bring them up to date.
Attorney Hays stated State Line Plaza was purchased by this partnership. The proposal they have for the redevelopment of this shopping center is to eliminate the Levitz building and to replace it with the proposed Costco's. With respect to the Ames building, there is a proposed deal with Dick's Sporting Goods who will be leasing out the remaining space in that building.
Attorney Hays stated the redevelopment will result in approximately 28,000 less square feet on the site than there is today but it will be a much more utilized square footage.
Attorney Hays stated the application contains a request for three variances. The first variance they would be requesting is a variance of the requirement that parking lots over a certain number need to have a 50' setback from the street. This is an older center originally constructed in the early 1970's with one of the first STC certificates ever issued. She presented a site plan and noted what currently exists. The setback of the parking from the street for the majority of the center is approximately 10' from the property line. She noted the plans handed out to the Board and pointed out the area presently reserved for turf parking which was required by a previous Planning and Zoning Commission approval. What they would have to do is they would come along where the existing parking is, bump it in 50' and then run it along that way. They have considered many options with town staff. When they did the layout that showed the 50' bump out, what they ended up with is shown on Drawing #3. With this proposal, they would be very, very close to the wetlands line. Neil Angus, the Wetlands Agent, expressed his concern about the close proximity to the wetlands line and suggested that they look at trying to reconfigure the site so that they would be able to pull it back along the entire way.
Attorney Hays stated they were able to pull back significantly from the wetlands by being able to have their parking relocated. She stated the parking spaces in the area within the 40' area will be turf parking and not be paved. The only pavement would be a little bit of the access drive to get around and through the parking area.
Attorney Hays stated the hardship they have is the fact that they have significant wetlands and a conservation easement in close proximity to where they want to go.
Attorney Hays stated the second variance they are looking for is the parking requirement with respect to the site. Back in 1994 is when the last large redevelopment of this site occurred. That was when Home Depot came in along with TGI Friday's. They had come to the Board at that time seeking numerous variances which were granted. One of the variances that was granted was a variance in the parking criteria from 5.5 spaces to 4.18 spaces. This required the construction of some turf parking in order to be able to get to that ratio. That requirement had certain conditions on it and one of those conditions was that the parking ratio is tied to the fact that there be no different uses that had a significantly greater use than the Home Depot or the Levitz site. As long as the Home Depot and the Levitz store were on the site, the parking ratio could stay at 4.18.
Attorney Hays stated in September, 1994, the owners came back to the Zoning Board of Appeals and confirmed that the 4.18 parking ratio was good regardless of who was going to be located in the center. The Board at that time eliminated the requirement that the parking ratio was tied to the uses within the center and had a 4.18 parking ratio for the entire center.
Attorney Hays stated in 1998 the owner came back to the Zoning Board of Appeals and requested an additional variance because they had done studies regarding the parking needs. They obtained a variance that allowed them to have a parking ratio of 3.45 spaces per thousand square feet. That zoning ratio was tied to the use of the Levitz building as a furniture store. The variance specifically states "if the Zoning Officer determines that any future tenant in this area of the site is proposed to be replaced with a use or uses having a significantly greater parking demand, the applicant must reapply to the Board prior to such new uses being located in this area of the Plaza."
Attorney Hays stated this is why they are before the Board. The request before the Board is to allow the Costco to be constructed with a 4.6 parking ratio. This is significantly greater than the 3.45 and the 4.18 previously approved but still less than the 5.0 which is required for shopping centers. They would continue to maintain the 3.45 parking ratio with respect to the remainder of the center.
Attorney Hays stated in the process of reviewing this, they have gone and reviewed other Costco's where they expect to do the same type of business regardless of the size of the facility. They have determined that 4.7 spaces per thousand is the average they have at those stores located from Maine to Massachusetts. Attorney Hays noted they believe the 4.6 ratio will be adequate to service this Costco facilty.
Attorney Hays stated the hardship for this variance request is the fact that there is no way for them to be able to meet the parking requirements, even with a 28,000 square foot smaller building, without significantly going over the coverage requirements. There are wetlands, conservation easements and the issue with respect to the coverage. What they attempted to do is state what they think they need and what will be adequate. They took that minimum amount so as to minimize the impacts on the coverage.
Attorney Hays noted the plans show dark shadowed parking areas and those are all turf parking. Those will not be paved, will contain support structures underneath, and from the viewing public will look like grass. They have done as much of that as they can in order to get their ratio up. The other thing is they are a shopping center and subject to the shopping center requirements. If the individual uses at the center were taken individually there would be a parking ratio difference. The Home Depot taken individually would be 2.5 per thousand square feet. The Costco is a retail wholesale type of building. They would not want to go with the wholesale requirements because they would not be able to adequately service the building. However, they are not a Stop and Shop where people stop in on their way home from work for a few items. Costco is a destination facility where people stock up and does not require excess parking for the zip in and zip out type of customers.
Attorney Hays stated the third variance they are requesting is a request to increase the impervious surface permitted from 66% to 70%. The zoning regulations provide that in the BR zone you can have 66% coverage unless you're a retail shopping center in which case you can have 70% coverage as long as you demonstrate you would not have an adverse impact on the drainage. This regulation was put into place after this facility and a lot of the older shopping centers were constructed. Going out and looking at some of the town's shopping centers, they are all well over that specific ratio. They are being asked to be treated as though they were a regional shopping center which enables them to go to 70% provided that they can demonstrate there is no adverse impact on the drainage. Attorney Hays stated they are willing to commit to the fact that the peak rate of runoff from the site will be no greater after they do their construction than it will be before they do any construction or expansion.
Attorney Hays stated what has happened with respect to this site has been changes in zoning regulations, previous variances, and restrictions on uses. For them to be able to utilize this facility while still meeting the parking requirements for shopping centers and the coverage requirements would require them to eliminate 50,000 square feet of building. There aren't a lot of tenants out there for a 176,000 square foot building that has a 3.45 parking ratio. You will not get a retail tenant in the town for that. The result will be some type of tenant that will not be a good mix for a shopping center such as a storage facility.
Attorney Hays stated they believe the plan they have submitted takes into account the regulations as they are, the restrictions with respect to the property and comes to a happy medium with respect to those requirements. The result is giving them a good development while respecting the regulations and addressing the issues and concerns of those regulations.
Attorney Hays submitted her signed affidavit to the Board regarding the sign posting.
Chairman Yarum entered into the record three enlarged drawings. The first is entitled "Existing Conditions, Freshwater Plaza." The second one is "Current Site Plan - Freshwater Plaza." The third drawing is "Site Plan - Freshwater Plaza."
Mr. Rinaldi asked how many parking spaces are at the West Springfield store. Attorney Hays responded 613 spaces. This would be about 5 spaces per thousand square feet. Attorney Hays noted that store is a significantly smaller store of approximately 119,000 square feet.
Chairman Yarum asked how this proposed Costco compares in square footage to their other stores located on the east coast. Attorney Hays stated it is on the higher end but there are larger ones. There is a 148,000 square foot facility in Edison, New Jersey and a 142,000 square foot facility in Atlanta. There are several at 139,000 square feet. Attorney Hays stated they actually had a different prototype when they began this process which was a different configuration. It was located sideways and would have required them to go even closer to the wetlands. They took a different prototype and reoriented the facility so that there would be a smaller facade and longer building.
Chairman Yarum noted within this 140,000 square foot building, there is 5,200 square feet of tire center proposed. He asked where that tire center would be located. Representatives showed Chairman Yarum the location on the plans.
Chairman Yarum asked if the tire center would not have as much activity as the store itself. Attorney Hays confirmed that.
Chairman Yarum stated there is 4,000 square feet of canopy proposed. Attorney Hays stated that is when you go into the facility. You walk in out of the elements and there is this open area. It is not a sales area but is used for shopping carts in the winter and such things as rides for children.
Attorney Hays stated one of the things they did look at to increase their numbers with respect to the parking was the regulations talk about gross useable floor area. They don't have .4 parking spaces within the gross useable floor area.
Chairman Yarum considered the 140,000 square feet and took into account the canopy because a parking allowance is not needed for the canopy and the 5,200 square feet for the tire center which does not receive as much activity as the other 131,000 square feet of building. Taking off the others and taking the tire center into consideration, Chairman Yarum comes up with 655 spaces instead of 650. That is at 5 per thousand and the proposal is 650 spaces. Chairman Yarum stated in his eyes, they are really only five spaces off.
Attorney Hays stated they are happy with that number however they get to it. They wanted to be conservative with respect to their calculations because they didn't want to be wrong and then end up with not the appropriate ratio required. They would be happy with a requirement of 650 parking spaces as opposed to a particular parking ratio.
Mr. Rinaldi noted the applicant said if they were to try to meet the five spaces per thousand, they would have to reduce the square footage of the building. He stated the proposed gas station seems to take up parking spaces. He noted if the proposed gas station was not there, the three and a half rows of parking to the right of the driveway could be mirrored. By doing so, there would be a gain of 89 spaces of parking which would yield five and a quarter spaces per thousand square feet. Even if they met the five per thousand, they could eliminate 33 of those 89 spaces which would reduce their impervious surface. It seems to Mr. Rinaldi that the gas station is the reason why the variances are needed.
Attorney Hays stated she would respectfully disagree because you could also say it is the size of the 140,000 square foot building. This is what they are looking for and what the prototype is with this Costco. When she talks about losing 50,000 square feet of building, she is talking about as it relates to this particular plan. In order for them to use what exists on the site today as retail to meet that requirement, they would have to eliminate 50,000 square feet of that building in order to be able to have the 5.0 parking ratio and meet the coverage requirements.
Attorney Hays stated one of the hardships with this property is in order for it to be used for retail with today's requirements, it would require that they eliminate one-third of this facility.
Mr. Rinaldi stated it seems like they are proposing two different businesses in the location and if the gas station were not there, how would this deny them reasonable use of the Costco building. Attorney Hays emphasized if the gas station were not there, there would not be a Costco's.
Mr. Rinaldi stated there is not a gas station in West Springfield. Attorney Hays stated that is an older facility and the new prototypes call for gas stations.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he was at West Springfield store today and on the way to his truck he noted there was not one single empty parking space. If that facility has 613 spaces at 5.1 per thousand square feet, they are proposing a significantly lesser amount at this facility. Attorney Hays stated that is correct. Part of the reason they are proposing to locate a Costco in this area is because of the fact that the Springfield facility is doing so well. What will happen is that there will be a draw of customers from the Springfield facility. They are not looking at the same numbers of people who will be coming but each store will be doing well enough to support their individual sites.
Chairman Yarum asked about the parking requirements for Massachusetts. Brian McCarthy, a representative of the applicant, stated the parking varies from town to town but they did not know exact requirements.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the applicant has stated it is mandatory that Costco has a fuel station with their facility. Attorney Hays confirmed that to be the case for the new facilities being constructed today. Mr. Rinaldi asked staff why the gas station is not included in this application if it is mandatory by Costco's. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is part of the private arrangement between the parties but it doesn't mean it has to come in at the same time. Attorney Hays stated they had discussed whether they should make it part of the same application but their rationale was if they do not receive the variances, they do not go forward and why take up the Board's time.
Mr. Rinaldi stated if the gas station is a mandatory part of Costco's, he is thinking differently than if it were an option. It appears that it is two businesses in one location. Attorney Hays reiterated that it is a part of the Costco development and if they receive the variances and go through the Planning process, they will be back in with respect to the certificate of appropriateness for location. Attorney Hays' understanding is the Board is essentially certifying to the Department of Motor Vehicles that the gas station is a permitted use within that area. Chairman Yarum confirmed that Attorney Hays is correct.
Mr. Thorogood stated the West Springfield store is a nightmare to access. He thinks the layout proposed for Enfield is a lot better. He asked if the traffic flow has been reviewed on Freshwater Boulevard. A representative stated they are in the process of doing a traffic study of the area.
Attorney Hays stated Freshwater Boulevard is a town road and not a state road but they will have to go back to the State Traffic Commission because they do have an STC certificate. They have had some discussions with town staff with respect to traffic improvements at that entrance. Hopefully, they will be able to get everything they want to put in to make sure that the traffic flows well in the area.
Mr. Thorogood stated in his mind, from a parking standpoint, having the lower number is an advantage to the town. Taking the step to make the building a little smaller is an asset. He also knows that Dick's Sporting Goods doesn't really load up with traffic and there may be overflow parking available. Mr. Thorogood stated in his assessment, he is thinking how it gets jammed up at the four corners but it is easy access in in the area of development.
Mr. Alsbaugh noted there was a discussion on the logistics of how things were submitted. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it made the most sense to do the variances first and, if they were successful, proceed with the other portions of the application. This application will go to Wetlands and then Planning and Zoning prior to coming back to this Board for the gas station approval.
Mr. Rinaldi stated his question was not about location or suitability but that there was no mention of a gas station in tonight's presentation.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he previously worked part time at Levitz and they used to watch the traffic stack along Freshwater Boulevard during the holiday season. Attorney Hays stated since then there have been mall expansions with additional improvements required. She felt the traffic situation is probably better today than it was previously.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Later, during the Regular Meeting, Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the request for variances of:
1. Impervious surface from 66% to 70% - EZO Section 5.10;
2. Parking ratio from 5 to 4.6 per 1,000 square feet - EZO Section 10.10.2; and
3. Parking landscape buffer from 50' to 10' - EZO Section 10.10.7iii
Reference is made to a site plan titled "Site Plan, Proposed Costco, Freshwater Plaza, Enfield, Connecticut, prepared by Carter and Burgess, Drawing 1 of 1, dated 4/30/2003", as submitted for the application and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2003-05-03.
Mr. Thorogood stated he reviewed the layout and what is being proposed. He thinks it is an asset with the proposed building being a little smaller in this area.
Mr. LeDoux stated with the landscaped buffer, he thinks the plan falls within the realm of continuing the existing buffer for the rest of the property. He feels it would be unreasonable to have 10' everywhere else and then a 50' buffer in this location. With the parking spaces proposed, there would be added parking to this area.
Mr. Rinaldi stated his first impression was the applicant had two separate businesses on the property. After clarification that it is mandatory that the gas station comes with Costco, he thinks the applicant has done everything they can to try to meet the zoning regulations. With the Chairman pointing out the canopy and the tire change area, he feels these factors favor the granting of the variances.
The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote.
MINUTES
Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the Minutes of April 28, 2003. The Minutes were approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Yarum noted receipt of the Town Attorney's Report for May, 2003.
NEW BUSINESS
Action on tonight's public hearings is included above under the individual public hearings.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. LeDoux made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
John LeDoux, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr
|