THESE MINUTES ARE PRESENTED IN DRAFT FORM AND HAVE NOT
BEEN FORMALLY APPROVED BY THE ENFIELD PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION. OFFICIAL COPIES OF MINUTES, WHEN APPROVED,
CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE TOWN CLERK OR PLANNING OFFICE.
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
JUNE 29, 2010
A Special Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Charles Duren called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Charles Duren, Chairman
Peter Falk
Charles Ladd
Kathleen Sarno
Michael Dumont, Alternate
Alan Drinan, Alternate
Ronald Gregory, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: José Giner, AICP, Director of Planning
Dr. Martha McLeod
FIRE EVACUATION ANNOUNCEMENT
Chairman Charles Duren gave the fire evacuation announcement.
PUBLIC HEARING
a. Public Comments regarding the adoption of the Town of Enfield Plan of Conservation and Development
Chairman Duren thanked Dr. McLeod and her committee for the great amount of work they did on the preliminary draft of the Plan of Conservation and Development and also all the citizens of the town who took the time to answer the questionnaire that was sent out to them. This is a plan that will guide the town for the next ten years. Chairman Duren gave the floor to Dr. McLeod at this time.
Dr. McLeod thanked the members of the committee and all the people in town that took the time to give their opinions to bring things to the attention of the Commission. She thanked Jose Giner and his staff who collated data and the consultant who brought many things to their attention all with the purpose of looking into the future and keeping what is special about Enfield and helping Enfield to grow in the way that will best help and service people.
Dr. McLeod stated one thing she recognized immediately is that we must balance between conservation and development. We discussed the importance of having a tax base so that our people could afford to live in their homes because a tax base is critical to the success of our town.
Dr. McLeod stated we have been at this for more than a year and one thing that has most recently come to the forefront is the issue concerning the Connecticut River. Enfield’s western border is the beautiful Connecticut River. Much of it is undisturbed. Some of it is accessible to the public but most is not. It is a resource that deserves protection. There are more than six miles of the Connecticut River running through Enfield. The main thrust of plans throughout the year has been to limit development to passive recreation or to have it remain in its natural state. The Plan of Conservation and Development supports this historical position and does encourage some redevelopment of the Connecticut River in Thompsonville. There is a very small section of land that runs 1,200’ along the river and it contains an abandoned former machine shop from Dow Company, a vacant warehouse of CL&P that once was a jet fuel power plant with a 15,000 gallon jet fuel tank, a gas company regulator with a high pressure gas line, a parcel of land that was once the Bigelow power plant where debris from 1970’s urban renewal road excavation was buried. This heavily industrialized area needs an environmental cleanup. It needs new economic life. Dr. McLeod stated we think the development that affords public access and cleans up the contaminated land is a good thing as long as it’s done in consultation with and with respect for neighbors and all is subject to local board approval. She believes the new train station can bring people, commerce and investment to an area that needs revitalization. The root word of revitalization is vital meaning life, new life. The area is now abandoned, deteriorating, blighting and depreciating. A goal of revitalization is to add value, to add life and renew. The Plan of Conservation and Development encourages that change within the structure of the Enfield town government and all of the commissions that govern those things in Enfield.
Chairman Duren requested that audience members wishing to speak sign up to speak tonight.
Mr. Giner stated this Plan was filed with the Town Clerk on May 11, 2010 well before the thirty-five days required by statutes to be filed with the Town Clerk. The draft plan was also posted on the web page in January also well within the thirty-five days required prior to a public hearing by the statutes. The Plan was transmitted to the Town Council on January 29, 2010 or well within the statutory time frame prior to a public hearing that is required. The Plan also was sent to the Capitol Region Council of Governments on January 25, 2010 well within the statutory requirements. There is a letter back from the Capitol Region Council of Governments dated February 19, 2010 acknowledging the receipt and with the following comments: The staff of the Regional Planning Commission of the Capitol Region Council of Governments has reviewed this referral and finds no apparent conflict with regional plans and policies or the concerns of neighboring towns. We commend the town on producing a Plan of Conservation and Development that also satisfies many of the key goals of the Capitol Region regional plan. In particular, we commend the efforts of the Plan to place Enfield within the context of the surrounding region as well as the plan’s encouragement of sustainable development practices. Specifically commendable are the goals and actions relating to green building standards, promoting mixed uses, providing the range of accessible transportation and housing options, promoting complete streets and supporting more farmers’ markets. A lot of these new policies and action recommendations the Town of Enfield might find useful. The recent Capitol Region Council of Governments PA smart growth guidelines for sustainable design and development are a resource to implement more sustainable practices. These guidelines may be found on the web page. It was signed by Emily Moose on behalf of John Larensen, Chairman of the Regional Planning and Zoning Commission.
Peter Bryanton, the Community Development Director for the Town, stated in the Commission’s packet he put some information specifically under the Transportation section of the plan. Some of the information listed in the Plan of Conservation and Development was good but Mr. Bryanton added in some things that came from the feasibility study for the transit center which were not included as part of the Plan of Conservation and Development. He thought they were important.
Mr. Bryanton stated things that weren’t discussed were the proposed spot service to circulator service that is being planned for with an in town bus service to get people to and from the transit center. Right now the only bus service the town has runs to Hartford and there is a small service that comes in to Mass Mutual on the north end of town. There is really no way to get people around town. One of the things they are working on now is the development of an in town bus circulator service. Mr. Bryanton also put in some more information about the proposed passenger rail service. That service is slated to begin in 2016. Something else they didn’t know about until after the Plan was written was the introduction of high speed rail service that won’t stop in Enfield but will pass through Enfield. The commuter rail service will provide access to that high speed rail service. Mr. Bryanton stated he has sent the Commission three or four pages and he thought it was important to get this updated information into the packet to make the Plan more up to date and provide the latest information that they could.
Attorney Mark Branse from Glastonbury representing Steve Cogtella spoke to the Commission. The Cogtella family owns property that is along the Connecticut River in Thompsonville. They have been very involved in the planning of Thompsonville for just shy of twenty years. Attorney Branse has been working with Steve Cogtella since 1990 when he was a member of the Enfield Revitalization and Strategy Committee.
Attorney Branse would like to review with the Commission what the concerns are of the Cogtella family with the current text. He certainly agrees with the comments made by the Steering Committee. He has been on committees like that and was a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission of his own town for a number of years. He reminded the Commission that by statute this is their Plan of Conservation and Development. This public hearing needs to be sensitive to what people say to the Commission. If all the people who speak are going to hear that the Steering Committee has done its work and we’re grateful and no thank you, the hearing is a sham. This is not what the Commission wants. They are the final decision maker on this plan and Attorney Branse implored the Commission to keep an open mind and not defer to the Steering Committee to the point where no one else can be heard.
Attorney Branse stated the main issue they have with this plan is on page 35, the so-called waterfront mixed use element. They believe that the language even on that page and on other pages of the plan is inconsistent. They are actually in conflict with each other which is an indication that the views on the Steering Committee or in the community have not been totally reconciled. For example, the first paragraph under waterfront mixed use says that one of the purposes of that new use category is to maintain the unique compact urban form of the Thompsonville area while allowing infill development to progressively increase densities particularly close to the center area. That would suggest to the normal reader that you don’t want Thompsonville to sprawl outward. You want to keep it compact. The highest densities should be close to the center and those densities should achieve infill. Infill to planners means areas that are deteriorated or vacant lots that are in the developed area, the currently developed area. The very next paragraph says “the neighborhood surrounding the Bigelow complex could be redeveloped at fifteen units per acre accommodating 425 units. This would be accomplished with the construction of structures five to seven stories tall.” Attorney Branse noted it doesn’t say where around Bigelow Commons but the map would suggest that it could be along the Connecticut River that is west of the rail line in areas that whatever their history are not developed now.
Attorney Branse stated the map says that this would be in lieu of the R-33 zoning and says this rezoning would allow zoning for higher densities in areas such as these which would allow public or private redevelopment when the time is right. Redevelopment implies an area that is already developed. Other than the couple of utilities, this area isn’t.
Attorney Branse stated the confusion is also compounded by the language under future potentials in this plan. It calls for residential development “around Bigelow Commons and also the lumber yard site.” That is the same language that was on page 35. Then it says “access to the river and the intermodal transportation center could be provided by cross walks raised over the rail line.” That suggests that this proposed development is east of the tracks and not west of the tracks. If it were west of the tracks, you wouldn’t need a crossover from Bigelow over the rail line to reach the Connecticut River. Attorney Branse stated clearly there are some inconsistencies in this plan and they feel those should be resolved in favor of the long time policy of this town and this Commission of preserving your Connecticut River frontage. They feel if the plan’s intent is to call for five to seven story fifteen-unit per acre development along the Connecticut River in the conservation zone – and everything west of the rail line is conservation zone – then something should be clarified to not allow that.
Attorney Branse stated the Revitalization Strategy Committee has been around for a while in different forms. As he mentioned, Steve was a member of it initially. In 1992 they issued a final report that had maps, text and it showed that this area should be occupied by a small outdoor concert area, a picnic shelter, a boat dock, some passive recreation along the river walk and some supporting parking and restroom facilities. It called for the area to remain an R-33 zone which is what it was at the time in order to “be compatible with the preservation and usage goals set forth in the zoning ordinance.” There were two driving factors behind that recommendation. The first was the committee called for the area to be “more rural in nature” while others called for active and passive recreation. One of the reasons cited for this was the underpass for the Amtrak line greatly restricts access to trucks, emergency vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles and so on. Mr. Bryanton mentioned the intermodal transit center proposal. Attorney Branse stated one of the things you’ll notice is that while one part of that report calls for bicycle access west of the river to the intermodal transit area, the rest of the report indicates that is impossible because the underpass is too narrow and it cannot be widened. The so-called intermodal transportation center if located west of the tracks won’t include bicycling as a mode because it can’t. The report acknowledges that it cannot. There is room for a sidewalk only so you would have to get off your bike, walk your bike down the sidewalk, get back on and this doesn’t encourage people to do that.
Attorney Branse stated in February, 2009, the Enfield Revitalization and Strategy Committee published the Thompsonville Community profile. It commended the 1992 plan and it endorsed that plan and it continued to talk about recreational opportunities in this area. It makes a reference to riverfront development/public access to the water which could be read to be recreational development. You really can’t tell and it doesn’t really specify where that should be happening. The zoning regulations answer that question through the core zone and it indicates that mixed use is to be occurring in the existing Thompsonville area on the east side of the tracks.
Attorney Branse stated in 3.2 it actually calls for an intermodal transit center at Bigelow not west of Bigelow. Attorney Branse reminded the Commission that the work of this committee has to be contained in its documents. The Commission has to go by the 2009 profile and the 1992 written plan.
Attorney Branse stated nothing in the profile calls for anything to be located in the conservation zone and certainly nothing in the range of five to seven stories and certainly nothing at eleven times the density that is currently allowed by the Plan of Development and the zoning regulations. No where does it say that the goal of preserving the Connecticut River should be abandoned or compromised or split.
Attorney Branse stated the master plan of 1987 specifically recognized the importance of the area. The 1999 amendment repeatedly talked about preservation in this area. Attorney Branse stated he will be providing the Commission with a written presentation that he is working from. The current 1999 plan also talks about the compact urban form of Thompsonville that is not wanting to sprawl or spread. As a result of the 1987 plan, the area was rezoned from R-17 to R-33. R-17 was too dense and it was changed. What is proposed now is fifteen units per acre and that is the equivalent of a 2,904 square foot lot. That is a big change. Attorney Branse pointed out this is kind of buried on page 35 of the plan. He doesn’t know how much publicity this has gotten. He doesn’t know if the people of Enfield realize that a policy that has been in effect for so many years is being changed in a fundamental way. Dr. McLeod mentioned the balance of economic development and open space and this is a laudable goal but again Attorney Branse asked if people in the town know something this critical is being considered by way of change. The map just shows that tiny sliver and it is not easy to pick up on. One of the problems of this recommendation is that it flies in the face of the objectives of the conservation zone. The conservation zone was created by statute. Enfield is a member of the Connecticut River Assembly. Enfield cannot leave the assembly except by a vote of its legislative body. Anything that the Commission does here is going to have to adhere to the Conservation Zone unless the Town Council votes to leave the Assembly completely.
Attorney Branse stated the goals of that zone include preserving unique, natural, historic and scenic areas and the natural topography of river front land, promoting the recreational potential of the river area and public access to the riverfront which is consistent with the ability of the land by the river to support such use. Also important is influencing the visual impact of riverfront development and encouraging preservation and rehabilitation of the Connecticut River green belt. Attorney Branse doesn’t know how you can say five to seven story buildings are preserving the visual impact on the river at least if they are located west of the tracks. The conservation zone has restrictions on dredging and filling. Also, there are restrictions on non-water dependent commercial uses. Attorney Branse stated the text that you have here to the extent that it calls for development in the conservation zone is hopelessly inconsistent with that zone.
Attorney Branse provided to the Commission some very minor changes that he would request in the text. They include about three sentences of the plan. For the most part, Mr. Cogtella feels that the plan is a good one. One thing he would mention is about this intermodal transit facility. This plan indicates a small bus rail station located on both sides of the tracks. Having idling buses or a parking lot next to his home is not something Mr. Cogtella is excited about but he does recognize the benefits of encouraging mass transit and it is something he is certainly prepared to live with. However, the intermodal transit study that Mr. Bryanton spoke about is 120 parking spaces and a completely new station and a number of bus bays and is far larger than what is in this plan. It is located exclusively west of the tracks. That means that people will be allowed to use the train to get to Hartford but they won’t be able to come home. Attorney Branse doesn’t know how you have a transit station without having it on both sides. This is an absurd proposition. What is in the plan makes a great deal more sense.
Attorney Branse stated as far as the changes that Mr. Bryanton has recommended, he is proposing over five pages of new text. He would suggest to the Commission that the Commission could not adopt this text based on the advertised public hearing because there has been no filing of this and no public opportunity to review it. Attorney Branse thinks that as far as the intermodal transit station is concerned, your plan is good in that respect. It shows something modest, something in proportion and something that is practical.
Attorney Branse passed out his letter to the Commission. Attached to this letter are the sections of the plan and other documents that he has referenced.
Steve Cogtella, 2 South River Street, stated Attorney Branse is representing him and he pretty much covered everything that he had concerns with. He thinks there are a lot of issues that have not been discussed openly with the public, particularly with the residents of this area, and more communication has to be made before any type of vote can be conducted. Mr. Cogtella thinks a lot of the issues that Attorney Branse brought out need to be considered and revised before this goes any further.
Chairman Duren stated the Commission’s hope was this would have come out in all the public meetings that were held by the committee.
Mr. Cogtella stated he felt when an individual spoke, it went in one ear and out the other because we were lay people. That is his personal opinion and that is the reason he retained Attorney Branse.
Chairman Duren stated the Committee was composed of a number of lay people. In fact, letters went out to quite a number of people in the community. Mr. Cogtella stated he has never been approached and he lives in the area. There are three properties that the Cogtella family owns and he has never been approached by anyone from the town or the consultant with regard to this. It was stated today that there was a lot of public input. Mr. Cogtella doesn’t see where that is the case. Mr. Giner stated the consultant did a random survey of residents for the plan of conservation and development. Chairman Duren stated the Commission tried to get as much public input as they could. Mr. Cogtella stated that the consultants the Commission hired to do this study failed. They didn’t obtain input from the area that was going to be highly developed from the residents that live there.
Roger Alsbaugh, 22 Russell Street, is here as a resident. He stated it is hard to divorce himself from the everyday involvement with the concerns of Thompsonville. Around 1998 when he came here one of his major concerns and points of interest in planning was to deal with Thompsonville. One of the main things he tried to do during that time when he was working with the two previous community development directors, Debbie Opperman and Laura McMinneman, was to coordinate all the documents and studies and everything that had been done in the last twenty or thirty years and bring them forward and make sure that we didn’t spend money on things that were done previously.
Mr. Alsbaugh pointed out under Debbie and Laura’s tenure we did make a point of bringing things forward. One of the main things they brought forward was the actual visual plan for Thompsonville. It showed a train station being restored in Thompsonville. Laura and Mr. Alsbaugh both attended most of the early transportation strategy board meetings. They attended the ride from New Haven to Springfield and back. Probably the biggest thing that allowed Enfield to be approved for a train station to be reinstalled was the fact that we had a plan. That plan also clearly indicated the open space nature of the areas along the river. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the plan of development is really based on work that has occurred over the last eleven and a half years. As a citizen, Mr. Alsbaugh concurs with just about everything that Attorney Branse has said. He thinks there are serious issues that need to be dealt with prior to the adoption of this document. He has also worked closely as the staff person of the Conservation Commission to give them the support they needed to hold their meetings and prepare their statements that they’ve put together throughout the course of those meetings. Karen LaPlante as the Chair will present that later.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he wanted to point out when we first considered the train station; we weren’t talking about a multi-modal center. The discussion and creation of the multi-modal center came after the fact that the money for the train station was allotted through Connecticut Transit and, therefore, we had to comply with what they wanted. Mr. Alsbaugh was at the first meeting with the consultants. He brought up the question that we know we have to look at these options but we already know that we don’t want the bus station there. The consultant said you have to go over the options and at the other end simply tell them we don’t want it. Well, there was pressure from the transit company that the bus station was supposed to be a given. What bothers Mr. Alsbaugh the most about that process was that nobody considered approaching Connecticut Transit to think outside the box and that we already had bus service in what is being proposed as a city center at the mall area and that by logic it should remain there. Whether or not we would have been successful, Mr. Alsbaugh doesn’t know. He thinks considering how well prepared Enfield was for the issue of resurrecting a train station, he thinks we could have convinced a lot of people had we expended the effort.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated as it has turned out, the bus terminal for multi-modal is going to develop into a much bigger entity. Again, it is on property that has always been proposed, at least in the last two plans of conservation and development, to be acquired for open space. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the bus service should have remained where it was at the mall and that the shuttle buses would make a lot more sense to bring people from there to the train and from other parts of the town.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated since tomorrow is his last day, he wanted the Commission to know his full position on this as a resident and as a professional.
Jeanette Lamontagne, 64 South River Street, would like to thank the Plan of Conservation and Development Steering Committee for all their hard work in putting this Plan together. She supports the vision statement on the first page of the chapter entitled the future of Enfield. Part of it reads as follows: We treasure our vast natural resources especially our two major waterways, the Connecticut and Scantic Rivers. They are an oasis of water, vegetation and wildlife that give us respite. We are committed to making them accessible to everyone and every neighborhood. Ms. Lamontagne also agrees with the section on page 36 of that same chapter which is titled Greenway.
That reads as follows: the Greenway land use aims to protect the recreational and environmental values of the land along the Connecticut and Scantic Rivers. It also seeks protect and expand public access to the rivers. Designated areas along the Connecticut River include most of the land west of the railway corridor and a little further on it reads: the Town should target greenway land for participation in state programs that will help it acquire easements or public ownership for these lands. That has always been Ms. Lamontagne’s vision as well.
Ms. Lamontagne stated another great chapter is entitled “Natural Resources and Climate Change” which includes the Connecticut DEP natural diversity data base area map. This map highlights areas of concern which contain endangered, threatened, special concerned species and significant natural communities. Ms. Lamontagne pointed out all of South River and North River Street are highlighted as areas of concern within the natural diversity data base map. She commended the Plan of Conservation and Development Committee for their wisdom in including this very important map within this document.
Ms. Lamontagne very much agrees with another section on page 34 of the same chapter regarding the proposed intermodal transit center. That reads as follows: the railroad facility could have a small area where buses and cars could drop off and pick up passengers and shuttle them to or from an off-site parking lot or parking garage. Creating off-site commuter parking in Thompsonville or in the proposed central business district would provide adequate parking for the facility without encroaching on the water front. It goes on to state a bus depot would best be located in the central business district which is the mall area. Drivers coming from various parts of Enfield could park and take a shuttle to the train station in Thompsonville or take a bus to another location. The central business district could be the location for the proposed bus depot. A bus depot in this location would provide ample space for storage and maintenance of the buses that service the transportation center in Thompsonville without taking up more space on our waterfront.
Ms. Lamontagne stated the 1987 and 1999 Plans of Conservation and Development and in this proposed Plan, Enfield citizens were polled in a survey asking their opinions about Enfield’s future. She read a couple of excerpts from the Plans. Most residents felt that the town is growing too fast and were dissatisfied with the distribution of land uses. Ninety-three percent of the people expressed overwhelming support for protecting and acquiring open space particularly along the Connecticut River and the Scantic River. Respondents are clearly encouraging town officials and planners to set aside open space for recreation throughout town along the Connecticut and Scantic Rivers. One of the top guiding principles according to resident respondents should be enhancing environmental protection. The overall theme developed throughout surveys is that residents feel the need for more outdoor passive recreation. Ms. Lamontagne reminded town leaders for the past twenty years plans of conservation and development have always meant for the properties along North River Street to be acquired as protected open space. This is what surrounding towns are now doing. Suffield, Windsor Locks and many towns along the river are designating their waterfronts as protected open space. Also, the office of policy and management for the State of Connecticut has a document entitled Conservation and Development – Policy Plan for Connecticut 2005-2010. The opening statement in this plan reads as follows: a goal of this plan is to preserve diverse land space that offers outdoor recreation, preserve fragile natural communities, agricultural lands and habitats for plants and animals, protect and enhance the water resources and green space accessible to residents both in the country and in the cities. These natural scenic, recreational and historic areas of the state are essential to the quality of life, are important economic assets in Connecticut and must be maintained and protected from adverse defects.
Ms. Lamontagne read further that future development must occur in careful balance with the protection of these resources. Towns should focus on a reduction of impervious surfaces and reduce blacktop and sidewalks whenever feasible.
Ms. Lamontagne would like to talk about something she finds disturbing. In March of 2008, around the same time that the POCD committee was developing this plan, a feasibility study was done for the Thompsonville transit center. This report was prepared for the Town of Enfield and the Greater Hartford Transit District. The project would be in four phases with phase four culminating with a very large blacktop parking lot with at least 120 parking spaces, bus bays and a bus depot directly on the North River Street waterfront. Ms. Lamontagne learned on March 1, 2010 the Town of Enfield advertised for a request for qualifications for architectural and engineering services for phase one of this project. It appears the town leaders have not read the proposed Plan of Conservation and Development nor are they heeding the past plans of conservation and development where 93% of the people polled expressed their desire to protect our waterfront. Large bus facilities do not belong in a small village setting and most definitely large bus facilities don’t belong on the Connecticut River waterfront. Ms. Lamontagne pointed out that a development of this type is in direct opposition to the Plan of Conservation and Development vision statement which says we treasure our natural resources especially our two major waterways, the Connecticut and Scantic Rivers. Is our town treasuring our vast natural resource, the Connecticut River, by paving over North River Street’s waterfront and developing a major bus depot?
Ms. Lamontagne stated a large bus facility does not protect the recreational and environmental values of the land along the Connecticut River. It also appears this bus facility will be built right over a natural diversity area. A natural diversity area is given that designation by the Department of Environmental Protection. The feasibility study prepared for the Town of Enfield and the Greater Hartford Transit Center by McMann Transportation Engineers lead our town officials to believe that the riverfront is the most feasible location for a bus station but Ms. Lamontagne believes it is an incredibly overblown project that will cost millions of dollars, have adverse effects on the environment and the quality of life in Thompsonville. Our river has come a long way after many years of abuse by riverfront factories pouring their poisons into the waterway. While a bus station might service some individuals, Ms. Lamontagne would remind our town leaders that a bus station is not what ninety percent of Enfield residents want sitting on our waterfront.
Ms. Lamontagne didn’t agree with everything within the Plan of Conservation and Development. For example, on page 35 of the chapter entitled The Future of Enfield she was alarmed to read the idea of redeveloping certain areas for higher density in Thompsonville and allowing for five to seven story structures. Thompsonville is a village and high rise residential buildings will look sorely out of place in a village setting. Such high rises will also result in millions of dollars in needed infrastructure work and additional fire tax dollars for special fire trucks that can reach the top of a seven story building. Ms. Lamontagne believes that Thompsonville Village is just as historical as the Hazardville Village. On page 28 of this chapter it reads: the Hazardville center retains a charming small village character. Historic preservation regulations should be used to ensure that the architectural buildings and features that define Hazardville’s identity are protected and enhanced. It goes on to read how Hazardville can become a destination where people can buy trees, flowers and produce. Ms. Lamontagne would like to see Thompsonville become a destination and not a transportation center.
Ms. Lamontagne stated this plan recommends a waterfront district where such high rises could be built. A bus station and high rise apartments on our waterfront will not revitalize Thompsonville. Higher housing density will not revitalize Thompsonville. Ms. Lamontagne shared some of the town’s Council members’ comments at a meeting in 2009. Councilman Ragno stated he was more concerned rather than high rises about trying to do a conversion from rental to ownership. He said he’s not a proponent of seeing more density. Councilman Jones reminded the Council one of their top goals is to increase owner occupied housing in the village. He pointed out Thompsonville already has density but no homeowners. Councilman Crowley stated he was not in favor of increased density since it will result in the need for more services. Councilman Nelson stated he doesn’t remember making a goal that they would be increasing the density in Thompsonville. He added he feels it makes no sense for a single family home to get bulldozed and then replaced with a six family house. He said that hurts rather than helps Thompsonville.
Ms. Lamontagne urged the town leaders to please recognize that encroaching on our waterfront with five to seven story residential properties, large parking lots, and bus stations is not progress in an age where people are becoming more ecologically aware and educated to the need to preserve our natural resources. Just about all of Hazard Avenue and Elm Street is one big parking lot. She asked that the town not overdevelop Thompsonville with unsuitable and high density apartment complexes and a bus station as well.
Karen LaPlante, Enfield Conservation Commission, apologized for the lateness of getting this document to the Commission. She asked that the Commission take the time to read this document before any decision is finalized.
Ms. LaPlante would like to go through a couple of things to make sure everybody is aware of them. The following sections we focus on the implementation strategy, goals, objectives, policies and actions where the Enfield Conservation Commission makes observations and comments. It is the opinion of the Commission that the proposed POCD as written contains extraordinary inconsistencies and contradictions and serious departures from previous policy and public input and the intent undermines the credibility of the process. The Enfield Conservation Commission therefore asks the Planning and Zoning Commission to continue this public hearing until such a time that the significant flaws and discrepancies have been corrected. The Enfield Conservation Commission is willing to contribute its time and insight to those ends and looks forward to sound and well reasoned resolutions to enable the adoption of the proposed Plan of Conservation and Development.
What Ms. LaPlante would like to do is go over some of the comments the Commission made on the pages. There is waterfront mixed use, village mixed use and the Conservation Commission’s comment is the waterfront mixed use category should be eliminated and changed back to a village mixed use. When the contradictions, policy questions and the process credibility are all taken into consideration, there is absolutely no reason for a designation of waterfront mixed use. It is in fact so inconsistent with the previous policy and the past and current desire to preserve what is original and characteristic of the Thompsonville Village, the most obvious thing to do would be to designate the Thompsonville census track for all planning purposes and village mixed use as is proposed for Hazardville and Scitico.
Ms. LaPlante stated we go on further to Policy 1.6 on page 44 and action 1.6.1 and also they reference page 41. She quoted the sections that are inconsistent. The Conservation Commission’s comment is each board or commission has a task to perform and the combining of certain tasks could become overwhelming to the volunteers of those commissions. The Planning and Zoning Commission, Inland Wetlands Commission, Conservation Commission and the Historic District Commission all have specific tasks and should continue to concentrate on those tasks at hand. Volunteers should be properly trained with all available resources in order to provide members with the knowledge to fulfill the requirements of each board or commission. Town administrators and employees should make certain submissions to the boards and commissions that are complete and accurate to avoid delays. Incomplete plans that are presented to boards and or commissions should be rejected and resubmitted by the developer upon completion. Boards and commission volunteers have limited time and resources to review plans and submissions and should not have to deal with incomplete or inaccurate data. All the developments, plans and submissions of all data in a clear and standard format will expedite the approval process and it will in itself streamline the approval process. When properly administered, an application’s outcome can become predictable and clear without separate boards or commissions creating an extra step. The Conservation Commission makes some changes in the verbiage of 1.6.1.
Ms. LaPlante stated one of the things they had a problem with was the different versions as they were put on the web. They were having trouble keeping track of what changes were actually made from one version to the next. When things were changed, it wasn’t done so that you could tell it was changed. There wasn’t a strike out and it was really hard to tell. With some of the previous informational sessions that were held, the Conservation Commission made some comments about numbers not being correct and so forth and it didn’t appear that some of these things were ever fixed.
Ms. LaPlante stated Policy 1.8 on page 45 say insure that town staff levels are adequate to conduct work effectively, proactively and in a timely manner. The Enfield Conservation Commission agrees that additional staff is needed in the Planning and Zoning Office and would like to point out that this appears to be in direct conflict with the current budget proposal. Additional staff could ensure proposed plans are complete, conflict with zoning regulations are corrected and training is offered to provide volunteer commissioners. Additional staff could supply support for zoning enforcement and compliance with existing state regulations and local ordinances and also provide for long-range planning for the town. Ms. LaPlante noted it seems the Town Council has gone against this new plan of conservation and development by cutting staff and not increasing it in an important area.
Ms. LaPlante stated on page 53 it talks about water protection requirements for agricultural uses. Action 4.2.2 and also there is some talk on page 212 and 213 about farm resource management and aquifer protection regulations. The Enfield Conservation Commission’s comment is the state aquifer protection regulations do not regulate the agricultural uses but they do regulate activities within designated aquifer protection areas. Enfield should not assume the regulations will not be adopted and implemented by the DEP during the next ten years of this plan as suggested in the plan. The last two sentences on page 212 and 213 should be deleted. Farmers can be directed to work with the North Central Conservation District and or the Department of Agriculture to produce and implement a farm resources management plan to protect the regulated aquifer protection area. A portion of the state statute is quoted below. Ms. LaPlante stated she is saying that management plans can be adopted by the Department of Environmental Protection but when they are going to implement that, who knows when that is going to happen. On or before July 1, 1999 is what it says. As far as she knows, that is not being enforced at this time.
Ms. LaPlante stated Action 4.2.3 on page 53 and 54 talks again about streamlining the inland wetlands and watercourses review process. The Enfield Conservation Commission’s comment is this comment reflects negatively on the town. How applicants perceive the process is irrelevant and should not be in this plan document. Administratively if procedures and processes are implemented to give a clear and distinct road map through the permit process and proper commissioner training is implemented, there should be no issues with inconsistency, lengthy or discretionary processes. Once the application is submitted, questions regarding considered alternatives should be answered and submitted documentation. Issues not relevant to wetlands commissioners or plan review questions should be limited for the applicant as the proper training of commissioners will enhance the public hearing process and will therefore ultimately streamline the process. The Enfield Conservation Commission suggests streamlining the process should not be construed as simplifying by cutting corners and they suggest it means following a specific procedure and a set of guidelines the regulations should be easier to follow.
Ms. LaPlante stated page 57, Action 5.1.3, speaks of opening more farmers markets in Enfield and establishing one in Hazardville. The Enfield Conservation Commission does not think this will enhance the farm to market experience. Many farms currently operate farm stands on heavily traveled roads such as South Road, Abbe Road, Broad Brook Road and Raffia Road providing easy access to many Enfield families. Access to a farmers market in Thompsonville as is currently available does appear to work for this area where residents would be less likely to have transportation to a local farm stand. A pamphlet with locations and available products from local farm stands could be developed and available at town hall, libraries and other public buildings to promote local farms and their products.
Ms. LaPlante stated page 57 goes to the use of future land use as a basis for farm land preservation. The Enfield Conservation Commission’s comment is the future land use plan’s agricultural preservation area does not adequately address farm land preservation issues as much of the land is already in a state preservation program. This ignores the full potential and importance of other prime farm soils within Enfield boundaries. The following concerns and observations should be considered and addressed within action 5.1.6. A map of Enfield should be created identifying current agricultural activities with soil classifications. This should be carefully coordinated with the state farm soils mapping as the state map is used to determine whether a farm qualifies for the state grant or not. Currently farm parcels and parcels containing prime farm soils that do not meet the criteria for the state or a private nonprofit grant funding should be identified as a separate category to coordinate with the recommended local farm land development rights acquisition program. Any extension of industrial designation within a future land use map should be postponed until all farm land preservation issues have been formally addressed within the POCD especially as industrial land cannot be considered for statewide farmland preservation programs.
Ms. LaPlante stated page 59 of the plan it states Action 5.3.5 – it suggests revising zoning to incorporate new building height requirements. The Town of Enfield should revise the zoning code to incorporate new building height requirements for development in Thompsonville along the Connecticut River is what the plan states. The Enfield Conservation Commission’s comment is that this statement should be removed. If any new height regulations are to be implemented, they should be in the downtown mixed use area.
Ms. LaPlante stated page 62, Action 6.3.2, states promote relocation of the North Central Health District facilities. The Enfield Conservation Commission’s comment is the North Central Health District is a separate entity with the Town of Enfield having little authority over its choice of location and this action should be removed.
Ms. LaPlante stated page 62 continues with policy 6.4, ensure that public safety facilities have regular maintenance and capital improvements as needed to improve rapid response and safety of staff and it includes Action 6.4.1 regarding the Thompsonville Fire Department relocation. The Enfield Conservation Commission’s comment is that Action 6.4.1 should be removed completely as the Town of Enfield has no jurisdiction over the facility, budget, operation or spending within the Thompsonville Fire Department or any fire tax district. The policy and the action do not belong in this plan. Therefore, policy 6.4 should be removed altogether.
Ms. LaPlante stated on pages 65 through 74, the implementation matrix, should be revised to reflect any changes that have been made within the chapter. Page 49, Action 3.1.2 mentions GHRTD but it doesn’t tell us what it is. Page 59 and 60, Action 5.3.5, 5.3.9 and 5.3.10 should be listed under separate policy for the central business district. The last comment is the page number should be on the center of the page because Ms. LaPlante found when she was printing her pages, they ended up on the inside corner. It might be easier if they were put in the center.
Bridget Dowliing stated she is a social worker living at 66 South River Street. She bought her home three years ago through a program for lower income people trying to purchase single family homes. She purchased the home and within the past three years, she and her husband have worked on the home refinishing the rooms and upgrading the yard. They take a lot of pride in it. They came to this area because of the river and it was very family looking. They thought that Thompsonville was trying to take families like hers for families to have their own. On the street there is a lot of people doing that and this situation is going to take from that. Ms. Dowling stated she feels kind of gypped in a lot of ways putting so much heart into this home and then to have it taken away. It seems rather contradictory.
Darren LaMore, Chairman of the Enfield Revitalization and Strategy Committee, stated he appreciates all the work the committee did on developing a plan and he agrees with Dr. McLeod about balance. It’s very important to have the balance between conservation and development. They’re not mutually exclusive from one another.
Mr. LaMore stated regarding the transit center, the feasibility study is not a design document. It was more of McMann Associates being able to tell the town if you were to put a train station in or a bus station in, this is probably where it should be located and these are the possible layouts for it. It’s definitely flawed if we were going to consider it a design document. Nothing in there went out as part of any RFP or anything else. It’s more just to say this is what it could possibly look like.
Mr. LaMore stated there was talk about the bridge being widened for bicycle traffic. It actually would be widened because it needs to be redone anyway. Also, about public involvement and public meetings, Mr. LaMore says this a lot of times. As the town, as Chairman of different boards, we don’t do a very good job of getting the message out. We really don’t. We tend to meet the minimum standard. We put a notice in the paper and we meet the minimum but we don’t really get the word out there. Mr. LaMore stated it is important with all he has heard tonight that the better part of it is based on the information that was put out there which is not complete information and that is our fault for not getting the information out. Regarding the parking situation and paving down near the river, there’s talk even recently about nothing being on that side of the tracks whatsoever except for a little bit of a wider road there and the Casket building which exists right now and the parking being in the lot that is already there right where Bigelow Commons is. It is possible that they would work out something with them and possibly have a two level structure or something on their property on that side where there is already asphalt down and it is already separate. Mr. LaMore is a big believer that Connecticut doesn’t do a very good job of doing anything with the river. Nobody does anything positive it seems. When it is done, it is very small. Mr. LaMore stated we have a chance to do something along the river front that could be positive but he agrees that we shouldn’t be cutting it off from the rest of the town and we shouldn’t be taking away every bit of the land that is right there in front of the river. It should be for the entire town to use.
Mr. LaMore stated there is talk about the waterfront mixed use language that is in the Plan of Conservation and Development. He suggested perhaps it needs to be reworded and restructured so that it is more around businesses that would be waterfront oriented. That way if we do have development along there – there is talk about a marina and if there was access to the river, if somebody wanted a food stand, that would fit into those business requirements. He thinks having the language in there and he agrees with the people that have said it that mixed use and putting high rises right up to the waterfront cuts off Thompsonville from the river. One of the reasons Thompsonville is there is because of the river.
Mr. LaMore stated there was a comment made and he has heard it from a number of people that some people don’t feel comfortable coming to the meeting and whenever they speak, they feel they are not heard because they are lay people. Almost everybody on the boards and commissions are lay people as well. They don’t do this full time. It’s not paid positions and a lot of people have day jobs that are completely different than what is done here. For his part, Mr. LaMore stated anybody can come to the Revitalization meetings. They are all public and if people cannot attend, everybody is really easy to reach. He thinks it is very important that we have discussion about the train station, about everything else, because discussion is democracy. If people are going to disagree, then we all talk about it and come to some middle road. He thinks it is important with this plan as well. Mr. LaMore stated there was input from the town at large. He thinks twenty-three percent of the sheets were given back out of 1,000. That’s not a good showing for the town. He thinks that is part of us not getting the message out as well.
Mr. LaMore stated he hasn’t read Mr. Bryanton’s language that he wants to include in the Plan so he can’t really address it. One thing he would like to bring up is transit oriented development which is development usually around transit stations is done in about a half mile radius around a transit center. Transit centers are normally in a small village center. Almost everywhere they are successful, they are in that type of environment. They are not necessarily a Grand Central Station and it may look like that on paper sometimes but that’s not what we’re talking about here. Also, we want to avoid the parking lot syndrome where we become a commuter lot where everybody else in Enfield comes and parks their car and gets on a train, goes somewhere and gets back on the train and comes back. Mr. LaMore stated we already have a couple of commuter lots and we don’t need that going on. We want to avoid that. That would get into where the structures that would be four or five stories. That would be along only the main thoroughfare and maybe that does need to be a little shorter. There were some brownstones up and down North Main there. There was a different look and feel to the area a while back. The village atmosphere is what we need back. But, again, there needs to be balance between what we’re cutting off. Maybe buildings that high cut off the view of the rest of the area and you look like you’re in one big alley. That might not work either.
Mr. LaMore stated the 1992 Plan gets referenced a lot. He has a copy on his phone just to be able to look back at it. There are a lot of valid things in the 1992 Plan but there are some things we can’t take exactly as they are written because if he told us in 1992 we were going to use an 18-year old plan, we would be using urban renewal. Twenty years difference is a big difference. We need to take that and we need to be able to modernize it.
Mr. LaMore stated there has been talk about making sure that things remain R-33 in the Thompsonville Village area. He has talked about it at Planning and Zoning and at Revitalization quite a bit. You can walk Thompsonville and he doesn’t think you will find a 33,000 square foot lot. That banks on the thought that if one house sells, the next house sells. Somebody buys both of them and wants to put one house on that lot. It’s not realistic. It’s not going to happen. It doesn’t necessarily always increase density but it would probably keep it where it is. Density can have its benefits if it’s handled well. There are areas that are dense and they are the most expensive places to live. We don’t want that type of thing going on but it doesn’t always mean poverty.
Mr. LaMore stated if anybody has any questions, he is an easy guy to reach. He would be more than happy to address anything including anything about the train station. If he doesn’t have the answers, he will find them.
Gretchen Pfeifer Hall, 4 Somers Road, stated she needs to refute one thing that the previous speaker mentioned – that there wasn’t anything good happening down at the river or not much good. For the last ten years, the Enfield Conservation Commission has been participating in the Connecticut River Watershed Association Connecticut River cleanup. They’ve removed probably one hundred tons of trash from the dam up to the Massachusetts border. So, there are good things happening there and people that have participated are not just from Thompsonville. They are people from other towns and people from all over Enfield. We celebrate that river and we have made it a much more beautiful place than it was. Ms. Pfeifer Hall stated she can show pictures from the first year that they did the cleanup.
Ms. Pfeifer Hall stated the Connecticut River Watershed Association has started doing canoe paddles down the river. There are a lot of people that fish there and the Barnes boat launch is one of the hidden jewels that many people don’t know about. This town needs to have signs directing people there. When they first started doing the cleanup, people said “I didn’t know this was here.” Also, the Garden Club has been working down there. They have worked with the town Public Works to remove the overgrown shrubs and put in new plantings. The Conservation Commission has been applying for grants and twice they have been rejected to get a kiosk so that they can put informational signs in there and to educate people about the invasive species. Ms. Pfeifer Hall summarized that there are good things happening along the river. It is a place to be celebrated.
Peter Bryanton, Community Development Director, wanted to clarify a couple of things that were brought up by the last few speakers. The funding for the transit center comes from the Federal Transit Administration and as Mr. Alsbaugh said correctly it does come from a discretionary bus fund. This means the funding has to be used to design a bus in conjunction with other means of transportation. So it would be bus and rail, bus and taxi, whatever it might be. In this case, we’re talking about bus and rail. There would be no maintenance facility here for buses. This is only to transfer people from trains to bus and from bus to trains. There will be no maintenance facilities or storage of buses overnight here. It is just to pick people up and drop people off.
Attorney Mark Branse stated he appreciates what Mr. Bryanton just said. He very much appreciates what Mr. LaMore said but if you look at the study, at the Plan, at phase one, two, three and four, that is just not what it is. The study itself says that the consultants at McMann Associates examined both the east and west sides of the track and that they developed feasibility analyses for both sides, that they developed cost estimates for both sides. He wrote to Mr. Bryanton a Freedom of Information Act request asking him to obtain for Attorney Branse the material about the east side which was omitted from the report. Chairman Duren questioned if this is addressing the Plan of Conservation and Development. He stated those concerns are more to the Town Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission hasn’t had any input or anything to do with that at present.
Attorney Branse stated what he said in his comments and in the letter he presented to the Commission is that what your plan has for a transit station is fine with his client. What is in the plan now shows a small drop off area and they can live with that.
Chairman Duren thanked Attorney Branse and stated he didn’t want to get into too much of a discussion because it is not the Commission’s purview at present.
Karen LaPlante, Conservation Commission, stated one of the other things they talked about at length in the Conservation Commission was the high rise structures for Thompsonville. They talked about 400 or 500 units. One of the things that Ms. LaPlante was concerned with was whether the public facilities are going to be able to support that type of structure. We already know the sewer line on Prospect Street has been somewhat compromised over the years and there’s not much left of that piping. Chairman Duren stated that is something that would come out if it was ever presented. Ms. LaPlante stated when the Commission makes decisions, they look at the Plan of Conservation and Development to determine if it’s in compliance or if it agrees with the Plan. If in the plan it says we are going to put in 500 apartment complexes over on Prospect Street, then you’re going to say it does meet the Plan of Conservation and Development plan. It is consistent with the Plan is what the Commission is going to say. Ms. LaPlante stated we’re not looking at the fact that the utilities can’t support it. What the Commission needs to do is look at this plan and determine how many questions are going to arise out of the possibility of the things that are going to come before the Commission in the next ten years that are going to be conflicting. This part of the plan says this and this part of the plan says that. So, it says both and we have to make it consistent throughout the whole thing.
Margaret Jedziniak, Abbe Road, stated she doesn’t know if this is relevant or not to what we have been speaking about but she was listening to CTN last week and the Federal Government was having a meeting about this rail line. It was all about the federal plan that was coming from Vermont to New Haven. It did mention Enfield very slightly. She doesn’t know if this is relevant to what has been discussed but it would not go into effect until 2030. It was all about this rail line and what they wanted to do. The meeting was either in Hartford or one of the towns down further in the state.
Mr. Giner went over the statutory requirements. The hearing may be continued. It’s the Commission’s hearing and the statutes don’t say there is a limit. All you are required to do is after the completion of the public hearing, the Commission may revise the plan and may adopt a plan or any part thereof by a single resolution or you can also choose to do successive resolutions and adopt parts of the plan. Mr. Giner stated the Commission may want to go chapter by chapter and revise it, adopt that chapter and then move on to the next chapter. There is also another process that is going on concurrently with this. This plan was referred to the Town Council. They have a role in it. They may choose to endorse the plan, endorse portions of the plan or stay silent on the plan. Anything that is not endorsed would require a two-thirds vote of the Commission to adopt. The Council needs to provide input to the Planning and Zoning Commission. They can do so either as a whole or suggest that a chapter be changed or amended in the following manner. Anything that they don’t endorse outright, for the Commission to adopt it requires a two-thirds vote. The Commission can also choose to adopt the Council’s recommendations and that would require just a majority vote. It is up to the Commission what they want to do.
Chairman Duren asked if it is necessary to keep this hearing open or can the Commission close this hearing and have another hearing. Mr. Giner stated it is really silent about multiple hearings. The Commission can continue this hearing or close it and make revisions and post it again. The only concern Mr. Giner might have is if the Commission chooses to close the hearing, would we have to start the whole process again and resubmit the plan to CRCOG. His recommendation is to continue the hearing to July 22, 2010. Maybe between now and then, the Commission can get some advice as to whether they should close it.
Chairman Duren stated the Commission has to work on this plan before there is another hearing. Mr. Giner stated he would recommend continuing the hearing and find out from the Town Attorney if the hearing is closed and re-advertised, do we have to start all over again with the Capitol Region Council of Governments and all that process.
Commissioner Ladd asked about extending the hearing to August. Mr. Giner stated there are no time limits for the Commission’s own public hearing. Commissioner Ladd suggested scheduling a meeting in September.
Mr. Giner said he chose July 22 to give us a chance to get together and find out what dates are available and perhaps on that date make a decision to close the hearing or continue it. He will get together with the Town Attorney and find out exactly what they believe the statues require.
Chairman Duren asked if the minor changes that have been suggested have been included in the plan. Mr. Giner stated any suggested changes he has held off until after the public hearing. There were changes made while the committee was posting drafts. The concern was it was hard to keep track of those drafts.
Chairman Duren asked with the staff that Mr. Giner has, when can he get this together. Mr. Giner stated there are times when he has been able to spend four or five hours on the plan. He stated there are many formatting issues that he has been trying to address.
Commissioner Sarno questioned what is going to change the text of the Plan – what was presented to the Commission tonight? Mr. Giner stated the Commission probably should set up a special meeting for a workshop. Chairman Duren stated we’re going to have to discuss the plan chapter by chapter. Mr. Giner stated they should be public meetings where the Commission can discuss the testimony and provide some direction as to what they want changed. He is sure the Commission is going to get comments from the Town Council. It’s the Commission’s final decision what goes into the document that is adopted. It needs to be discussed by the Commission at a public meeting and then provide some direction to Mr. Giner to make whatever changes are decided upon.
Chairman Duren stated that is what he thought the Commission was doing beforehand. Mr. Giner stated in that way the public has the benefit of knowing what is being changed.
Commissioner Sarno stated we’re still changing things. Mr. Giner stated the Commission needs to take in the information and make decisions on whether they want Mr. Giner to draft the changes into the plan before it is adopted and then open it up again for further comment. At some point, the Commission has to make a decision.
Commissioner Sarno noted at some point we’re going to need a plan.
Chairman Duren asked if Mr. Giner has the changes listed chapter by chapter. Mr. Giner stated the Commission wants a summary of everything that was suggested so far chapter by chapter. Chairman Duren stated the Commission has to discuss it chapter by chapter. He noted there were a lot of comments tonight and prior to tonight and the Commission has got to do it chapter by chapter because it can’t be taken as a whole.
Commissioner Sarno saw a need to cut off discussion somewhere. If the Commission gets hung up on one chapter, when do they move on to the next one?
Chairman Duren stated the meetings would be public.
Mr. Giner stated the statutes say that after the completion, you can go ahead and change the plan and vote on it. He read Section 8-23g1. It states after the completion of the public hearing, the Commission may revise the plan, may adopt the plan or any part thereof or amendment thereto by a single resolution or by successive resolutions. Mr. Giner stated the process is up to the Commission. They can direct staff to have workshops, revise it and have hearings on it again.
Commissioner Ladd stated the future of Enfield is the only chapter anyone really talked about tonight.
Mr. Giner stated the other changes were technical and typos and all that. He doesn’t think they were substantive changes.
Mr. Giner suggested a special workshop meeting to discuss the Plan chapter by chapter. Chairman Duren confirmed that the Commission should do chapter by chapter to respond to any questions.
Commissioner Sarno asked if we will ever come to an agreement on the future. She noted who knows what the future holds. We can have a vision on something but when it actually comes time to develop it, it may not be that vision.
Mr. Giner stated it is the Plan of Development and what you put in it are your hopes and expectations. Things change and at some point, it is not the implementing document. You can propose changes to the regulations. People can come in and propose changes to the regulations or zone changes. The Commission would still have to consider each one at a public hearing.
Mr. Giner recommended keeping the hearing open until July 22, 2010 so we can at least discuss what open dates everyone has. He noted the Commission probably doesn’t want to mix this into business meetings because there is a lot of business on the agenda. He saw a need to coordinate dates that are open for the Commission to discuss the plan.
Commissioner Ladd stated the census is going to change a lot of the information.
Commissioner Gregory stated he was under the impression that the Town Council was going to be involved in some of this also and he hasn’t heard from any Council person as to the way the Commission should go about adopting this plan. He thinks the Council should give the Commission some direction as to how they want to proceed. They are cutting back on some of the things that the Commission really needs to do to make this a more viable plan by adopting the budget that they have adopted and then cutting so much staff. He questioned how the Commission is going to implement this.
Chairman Duren stated we have to do the best we can with what we have.
Chairman Duren stated the Commission will continue this hearing to July 22. Mr. Giner will come up with a list of open dates when the Commission can have special meetings. The Council will do whatever they do whenever they have the time. Mr. Giner stated he believes the Town Manager has it on the Council’s agenda. Councilman Lee stated the Council is waiting for the results of this meeting.
Chairman Duren stated there will be a need for special meetings to do the plan chapter by chapter. Mr. Giner will have all the typos done and the other comments received tonight listed by chapter.
Chairman Duren continued this hearing to July 22, 2010.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Peter Falk, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|