ENFIELD CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Conservation Commission was called to order by Chairman LaPlante in the Enfield Room of the Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut on Tuesday, March 9, 2010. The meeting was called to order at 7:09 p.m.
ROLL-CALL – Present were Commissioners Michael Dynia, Natalie George, Joanne Kneiss, Karen LaPlante, and Kathleen Vose. Commissioners Timothy McGuire and Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall entered at 7:13 p.m. Commissioners Richard Szewczak was absent. Alternate Joanne Kneiss was empowered to vote at this meeting. Also present was Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Planner; Robert Johnston of the Historic District Commission and resident Erline Provencher
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Commissioner George, seconded by Commissioner Vose to accept the minutes of the February 9, 2010 Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission.
Referring to Page 7, third paragraph, Commissioner Vose noted she made this statement.
The minutes were accepted unanimously.
Subdivision/Development Referrals from Planning & Zoning Commission
Enfield Properties, Residential & Commercial Development, South Road
Commissioner George stated the plan was totally changed, and they’ve come in with a single road through the commercial area with new drainage. She noted there’s no point in making any further comment.
Mr. Alsbaugh informed the Commission that the updated plans for the South Maple Street Bridge came in today. He noted preliminarily, he does not see any call-outs for archeological protection.
Commissioner Dynia questioned if they’re still supposed to start work between April and June, and Mr. Alsbaugh responded yes.
ARBOR DAY
Commissioner Kneiss questioned whether there’s any more information regarding Arbor Day.
Commissioner LaPlante stated the proclamation is very nice.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated Mary Ann Tucker questioned who will be in attendance at the April 5th Council meeting for the reading of this proclamation. He noted he’ll attend. Chairman LaPlante stated she probably can attend this meeting as well.
Commissioner Kneiss stated JFK Middle School has expressed an interest in having a tree planting. She suggested planting a yellow magnolia tree, which is supposed to be very sturdy. Commissioner George noted they usually go for larger trees that live longer. Commissioner Kneiss pointed out this tree is more of a native specimen, which has a longer life. She noted it would be nice to add some beauty.
Mr. Alsbaugh noted there was also discussion about appropriate specimens for the Enfield Street Cemetery.
Chairman LaPlante expressed her interest in pursuing JFK Middle School for a tree planting.
Mr. Alsbaugh suggested there be a press release as to what/where/when as concerns this tree planting.
Farmland Preservation
Commissioner McGuire stated every year the Connecticut Farm Bureau sponsors farm tours throughout the state. He noted for the past several years in Hartford County, they’ve had the tour at Smyth Trinity Farm. He noted this tour usually takes place in July. He stated this involves a tour of the farm as well as other activities.
He stated he contacted Joan Nichols from the Connecticut Farm Bureau and asked if Enfield could partner with them so other Enfield farmers might be able to invite people to visit their farms. He suggested perhaps the Bureau could include the other Enfield farms in their promotion of these tours. He noted he’s not certain of ideas the Town could use to help promote the Town’s end of this.
Commissioner McGuire stated they first need to come up with a list of the farms which they believe would be eligible and interested in this program. He noted they could then contact those farms through a mailing. He stated from that mailing, they could generate a list of responders interested in this activity. He noted they could then come up with a way to promote this.
Mr. Alsbaugh questioned whether the Bureau repeatedly sponsors Trinity Farm, and Commissioner McGuire responded it’s been Trinity Farms for the past few years.
Chairman LaPlante questioned how many farms in Enfield belong to the Connecticut Farm Bureau, and does this have anything to do with certain farms being promoted. Commissioner McGuire responded it’s not that they’re promoting a certain farm. He pointed out any farm can volunteer their farm for a tour; however, it’s a huge undertaking and a lot of work. He noted there are only so many farms willing to do something this big. He pointed out it requires a lot of resources because they need to line up people to give tours. He stated his belief smaller farms might not want to have tours. He noted perhaps in the Bureau’s promotion and marketing of this event, people will become more aware of these other farms.
Chairman LaPlante suggested perhaps they could have a pamphlet written up.
Mr. Alsbaugh suggested perhaps the Town would be willing to supply a Dial-A-Ride Bus or school bus to transport people who wish to tour farms.
Commissioner McGuire suggested they could develop a map showing where farms are located. He noted this map could include those farms that would like visitors. He noted this would help farms by getting people out to their locations to buy some of their products. Commissioner George agreed this is a good idea.
Chairman LaPlante questioned the possibility of getting a grant from NRCS or the Farmland Trust. Commissioner McGuire stated he could look into whether Enfield qualifies for a grant.
Commissioners Dynia and Vose volunteered to work with Commissioner McGuire to work on some of these items. They agreed to meet March 16th at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Alsbaugh requested Commissioner McGuire provide the name of the Farm Bureau contact.
PLAN OF CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT
The Commission reviewed the proposed 2010 Plan of Conservation & Development (POCD).
Referring to “Waterfront Mixed Use” on Page 35 of the POCD, Commissioner George questioned how mid-rise apartments and higher density within the single-family district support a “traditional downtown”.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated there’s a movement to designate the entire census tract of Thompsonville for in-fill development, which means it can be put anywhere. He noted certain areas are alluded to as where this would be appropriate. He noted because there’s a movement to develop along the river without the full vetting of the people of Thompsonville or Enfield, they’ve also made clear tracks to put into being regulations and ordinances that will allow the development of three particular pieces of property along the Connecticut River that have been traditionally recommended for open space acquisition and designation through two Plans of Conservation and Development. He noted the process by which that was changed is questionable.
Commissioner George questioned if this should be part of the Conservation Commission’s discussion since this commission is required to discover and preserve visual viewpoints of the Connecticut River, and the commission feels that inappropriate kinds of in-fill are going to interfere with the visualization of the Connecticut River by even those homes and businesses currently in existence. She questioned whether this Commission has a right to comment on this. Mr. Alsbaugh responded yes, but he believes the Commission has a more direct basis for comment within the observations of the 1987 and 1999 Plans and the method by which those have been pre-empted.
Commissioner George stated the mandate dealing with in-fill along the waterfront or in the Thompsonville area contradicts the mandate that they provide for visual as well as actual access to the Connecticut River.
Chairman LaPlante questioned where this development can take place on the land use map, and Mr. Alsbaugh stated this type of development can happen anywhere. He noted the lesser statements such as preserving neighborhood character become discretionary. He stated when the base line of what’s allowed is instituted, they’ll essentially negate any sort of potential preservation of historic architecture or neighborhood feeling since the underlying base allowance means they can tear down and fill in with anything.
Commissioner George stated the whole term; “traditional downtown and community character” is totally discretionary and ambiguous.
Commissioner George stated the Silvio O. Conte Wildlife Refuge needs to be spelled out on Page 54.
Chairman LaPlante stated if there’s federal money for the transit center, the Silvio O. Conte Wildlife Refuge organization would come in and evaluate the habitat, and this is required by federal law. She pointed out the preservation area on the Suffield side of the river doesn’t stop in the middle of the river because the birds and fish travel back and forth across the river.
Mr. Alsbaugh noted the development proposals along the Connecticut River have not been properly reviewed in relation to the Silvio O. Conte Wildlife Refuge. He noted the question is whether Enfield is to be part of this river refuge, and by federal law, Enfield is supposed to have a review of this habitat.
Chairman LaPlante stated it’s her understanding this study has to be done before any change has been made, or before anything irreversible is done.
Commissioner Dynia stated another source to be checked is the Connecticut River Watershed Council, which has an office in Greenfield, Massachusetts. He pointed out this organization has a full-time staff.
Chairman LaPlante stated her belief Enfield needs to be more involved with these environmental groups to promote conservation along the Connecticut River.
Commissioner Kneiss stated her belief the charge of the last two Plans of Conservation and Development would have suggested protecting the vision for the Connecticut River. She noted she does not agree with the statement five to seven stories will offer views of the Connecticut River. She pointed out this will result in private views of the river at the expense of the public.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated these proposed five to seven story residential units, which are to have a view of the Connecticut River, would be built on streets such as Pearl Street, Prospect Street and North River Street. He noted this is in direct contrast to 20 years of requests to preserve the existing neighborhood feeling.
Chairman LaPlante pointed out the sewer collapse that occurred on Prospect Street is just the beginning of what would happen in that area. She stated her belief the infrastructure in Thompsonville, especially on Prospect Street, can’t support recommendations for increased residential units.
Commissioner Kneiss stated it should be suggested they delete from the POCD any mention of five to seven story buildings and that the current character of Thompsonville be maintained at the two or three story limit.
Commissioner George stated comments about building heights should also be included in Section 5.3.5.
It was agreed there were contradictory statements within different sections of the POCD. Also, there were questions about the calculations about the units and whether they’re appropriately allocated or realistic in any sense, other than what someone wants to propose to do.
Commissioner George stated her impression the residential calculations are not realistic as stated because of the aging infrastructure.
Chairman LaPlante stated at one point in the POCD there’s talk about building up along the waterfront, and in another section it talks about open space. She read from the top of Page 34 where it states, “...creating outside commuter parking in Thompsonville or in the proposed central business district will provide adequate parking for the facility without encroaching on the waterfront.” She pointed out this is referring to the intermodal center. She noted another section of the POCD mentions the intermodal transit center would have a small area where buses and cars could drop off and pick up passengers and shuttle them to or from an off-street parking lot or parking garage. Mr. Alsbaugh pointed out that is in relation to the consultant’s observation about the new city center. He stated there is also the full-fledged transit center plan that has extensive parking. Chairman LaPlante pointed out that seems to be in conflict with what’s being said in the POCD.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the area for the buses at the intermodal transit center would take up space that has been proposed for open space and riverfront access for the public.
Chairman LaPlante questioned whether anyone ever checked any of the statistics to see if they are valid, i.e., population figures. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this is the responsibility of the consultant.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated statistics, in general, need to have voracity verified, i.e., traffic, farms, and census.
Commissioner George referred to the whole census tract being proposed as waterfront mixed use, which essentially negates any national registered district or place listing in that census tract. She stated the whole waterfront shouldn’t be re-zoned mixed use, but rather it should be far more selective.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated his belief the census tract should be taken as a whole in any planning projects primarily because the census tract is an OPM designated regional center, which means it’s eligible because of income guidelines. He noted at the same time, he got approval to expand the National Register District for essentially the entire census tract. He stated the concept for tiered zoning was supposed to protect the residential buildings and to either stop or severely limit the conversion into more units in those buildings since they don’t have the off-street parking to accommodate them. He explained the second zone would be for the areas that are scattered throughout Thompsonville neighborhoods that have traditionally been mixed use or simple commercial. He noted a third tier would be mixed use commercial. He stated these zones have been designated for 20 years and incorporated into the zoning ordinances. He stated to increase mixed use and density, the market or developers want high rises. He noted this would be at the expense of the open space recommendations for the past 20 years.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the original intent never was for a one-tiered overlay zone. He noted the sound-planning premise of including the entire census tract has been twisted.
Commissioner George questioned how they can address this proposal to protect the National Register District in some of the individual places. Mr. Alsbaugh responded the Town should make a commitment to do whatever is necessary to expand the National District in Thompsonville. He noted they already have an application before the State, and they need a minimum of an additional $2,000 to pay off the consultant to get the complete set of data and paperwork so they can go on with the design guidelines and the expansion of the National District. He stated they need to make a commitment to complete the National Register expansion project and the implementation of the design guidelines in a consistent manner, which should include transferring those administrative policies to either the Historic District Commission or staff.
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall stated the whole waterfront mixed-use concept is a repeat of the 1960’s and redevelopment. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the things put in place to rectify those issues were never implemented to the proper degree, and that has since allowed the market to go sour and the housing stock to deteriorate to the point where they can again use the justification of inferior stock to tear it down. He noted that is completely irresponsible because architecturally historic buildings are proven to be more desirable and they increase in value at a rate much higher than the normal market.
Mr. Johnston stated before he moved back to Connecticut, he was Chairman of the Kingston, New Hampshire Conservation Commission. He pointed out the conservation responsibilities in that town belonged to the Historic District Commission. He stated what he is listening to this evening is what he was going through in New Hampshire. He noted there was a more direct attack by major businesses. He noted he has to leave the meeting at this point, however, he does wish to provide some input at some point.
Commissioner Pfeifer-Hall stated the Connecticut River itself should be what’s driving some economic development, but it has never been taken advantage of. She noted there’s a beautiful boat launch, and there are bass tournaments. She stated people have helped beautify the river through river clean-ups. She noted it seems as though proposals within the Plan of Conservation and Development would benefit private interests at the expense of the public.
Discussion followed regarding Page 36 of the POCD – Greenway.
Chairman LaPlante stated perhaps some of the comments in the greenway section should be included in Goal #4 on Page 54.
There was a reference to Page 57, which states, “Create scenic views and public access ways to the river.” It was noted this can’t happen if there’s commercial development on the waterfront.
Chairman LaPlante suggested the recommendation be that zoning along the river should be compatible with greenway land uses. She went on to state her belief the policies and actions defined are not providing enough protection for the river.
Commissioner Dynia stated his belief Section 2.3 on page 53 does not belong there.
Chairman LaPlante referred to Page 37 and noted the current zoning and number of acres and the future land use and number of acres do not match. She questioned who verified all the numbers in all the tables and stated it should be made known that there are inconsistencies in these figures. She then referred to further inconsistencies in figures for residential units on Pages 35 and 38.
Discussion followed regarding Page 59, and Mr. Alsbaugh stated the comment should be that this is not the actual concept discussed in recommendations during the meetings.
Commissioner George stated they need to allow for smaller acreages to be farmed for specific uses with the adjacent zoned side yards being modified.
Chairman LaPlante questioned if it’s helping farmland preservation by having an overlay zone. Commissioner McGuire stated a statute may have to be changed to say overlays are okay. He stated his belief that doing what they’re proposing is just giving the farmers the option of working with the state program.
Mr. Alsbaugh noted they are supposing there’s a possibility of an agricultural overlay zone, which might be an acceptable thing legislatively to get around that exclusion of industrial. Chairman LaPlante clarified if the Town was to offer a farm zone, a farmer could apply for that, and this would be an additional option.
Commissioner McGuire pointed out farmers are taxed on the use of the property. He noted if its industrial land that’s being farmed, it qualifies for a 490 designation. He stated his belief that if its industrial land that looks like farmland, but no one is farming it, it would be taxed as industrial property.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated if it’s industrial land, and it’s farmed, it’s eligible for the tax reduction. He questioned what the original impetus was to exclude them. Commissioner McGuire stated with the limited funding that the state has to purchase and preserve properties, the state wanted to create larger areas of good farmland. He noted the state didn’t want to put their resources into a little two-acre piece in the middle of an industrial area.
Chairman LaPlante referred to Action 5.1.3 which proposes opening more farmers’ markets in Enfield and questioned whether the Commission wishes to request this be scratched. It was agreed a Hazardville Farmers’ Market would do little if anything for the local farmers and should be scratched. Mr. Alsbaugh observed the farmers currently like the Thompsonville Farmer’s Market location – the parking is good and they like setting up on the grass on the Town Green. Until there is a greater level of activity in the center of the village, it might be more reasonable to leave the market on the Green.
Chairman LaPlante referred to Section 5.1.6 – “use of future land use plan as a basis for farmland preservation.” She questioned if the Commission is happy with just that section of town being farmland preservation. Mr. Alsbaugh pointed out the entire central valley of Enfield has some of the highest quality soils in the world. Commissioner George stated someone at DEP told her it’s basically a certain section of Enfield in the southeast. Commissioner McGuire pointed out that section was identified because the majority of the farms in the program are located there.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated his understanding this should include all appropriate locations. Any location where exceptional agricultural soils are located should be carefully considered before exclusion from a recommendation for protection.
Commissioner McGuire stated his belief the Town shouldn’t be making a decision on what presently exists on farmland.
It was agreed that Sections 6.3.2 and 6.4.1 on Page 64 should be deleted from the plan.
Discussion followed about the inclusion of a section about “Urban and Community Forests of New England”. Commissioner Kneiss pointed out Thompsonville currently has a lot of impervious surface.
Commissioner George stated there are continually contradictions between the mandates of one section and the mandates of another section. She noted if some of the actions were to be undertaken under one mandate, it would negate the ability to take the actions under another mandate. She stated there appears to be no functional methodology of balancing these different actions.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated it should be recognized that this is a document full of recommendations from everyone, and the contradictions are an expected impact of such a process. He stated a high level of review needs to be done to remove the contradictions, and they need to be sure that those contradictions are moved in such a way that they truly represent the desires of the community and not limited input.
Chairman LaPlante stated her belief the land use plan should not be included in the POCD. Mr. Alsbaugh stated his belief it’s too generalized.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated inconsistencies undermine the validity and effectiveness of the POCD. He noted the new proposed plan, for various reasons, contradicts the continuity and general agreement of the population of Enfield for the desired continued development of the town.
Commissioner George stated if this is a Planning & Zoning document, it raises many problems for Planning & Zoning because they would have to revise their document to accommodate this Plan of Conservation and Development because of the inconsistencies within it.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Erline Provencher stated she never realized how much this Plan of Conservation and Development impacts Thompsonville.
The next meeting is scheduled for April 13, 2010.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner George, seconded by Commissioner Vose to adjourn.
The vote was unanimous, and the meeting stood adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall
Secretary |