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 REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 2007
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, October 4, 2007, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Elizabeth Ballard
Charles Duren
Jason Jones
Nicles Lefakis, Alternate
Charles Ladd, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to approve the Minutes of September 20, 2007. An addition was made on page two, paragraph three. The following sentence should be added: “It was the consensus of the Commission that in the absence of Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley, that his duties would be taken over by Virginia Higley.” The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Lefakis and Ladd voting.
4. Staff Comments
a. Town Attorney (in person)
Assistant Town Attorney Maria Elsden appeared before the Commission. There are two items in the Town Attorney’s Report. The first item, 229 Post Office Road v. PZC, received a decision by the Court yesterday. Attorney Elsden stated the bulk of the Court’s analysis is on pages 20 and 21. It is up to the Commission whether they want to appeal this case. Attorney Elsden stated there is a twenty-day appeal period and the Commission may want to consider this relatively quickly.
Attorney Elsden stated the second item, Somerset Development Corporation v. PZC (“Stonegate”) is on hold pending the plaintiff’s filing a second application in that case. The Court granted an extension until February, 2008.
Chairman DiPace asked that any Commission member that wants an Executive Session to contact Mr. Giner or him.
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer (in person)
Commissioner Duren asked about the procedure on home occupations in condominiums. Mr. Giner stated Wayne Bickley is planning to ask the person applying for a home occupation to notify the condominium association.
Some discussion followed on Bull Brothers located at 116 Raffia Road. Mr. Giner had asked Mr. Bickley to give a report to the Commission. He went back and looked at the original subdivision approval because there was some talk that there might have been some condition that a nonconforming use was supposed to be extinguished. The applicant basically said there was a nonconforming use on the property and they were not going to discontinue it. Commissioner Ladd stated the use of the property as a construction yard is a legal nonconforming use. Mr. Giner explained a legal nonconforming use is a use that existed legally at the time the zoning regulations were adopted or changed to make it legal. That would get grandfathered. Mr. Giner stated at some time that construction yard was there prior to zoning and you cannot remove the use. Mr. Giner stated there was nothing about the applicant discontinuing the use. Chairman DiPace stated he wouldn’t have so much of a problem if they had kept it only as a construction yard but they are using it to rehab construction equipment and resell it. This is more automotive reconditioning and not construction. Commissioner Ladd stated the neighbors are not very happy with the dust and noise. Mr. Giner stated Wayne Bickley has gone out to the property. Mr. Giner tried to find where Bull Brothers was listed and he has not been able to find such a business.
Mr. Giner will have Mr. Bickley inspect the Bull Brothers property again.
Chairman DiPace discussed the new system of emailing complaints through the Town’s web site and he asked how it is working. Mr. Giner stated it is working mostly with blight complaints. Chairman DiPace discussed how he contacted the town to check the new system. In response to the complaint, the gentleman came to his business and gave him his business card and information on his business. Mr. Giner discussed his response to this inquiry. Mr. Giner would like the address from Chairman DiPace.
Commissioner Ladd had another question for Mr. Bickley. He received some information from the town and one was the blight ordinance. He doesn’t see why the town is having trouble enforcing the blight ordinance as it is pretty specific. He noted the North Maple Street property met the criteria for a blight and he doesn’t know why it took so long to resolve the matter. Chairman DiPace stated the Town Manager may have designated the Police Department to handle this. Mr. Giner stated they have the actual citation power after the thirty days and he is not sure if they have appointed a hearing officer. When Mr. Bickley cites someone, the person has thirty days to appeal to a hearing officer. Commissioner Duren stated he has complained about two homes on Booth Road and there has not yet been any action. Mr. Giner stated they have a task force with the Chief of Police and they are looking into the possibility of deputizing additional people. There was one meeting with all the Fire Marshals. The idea was that there are a lot of other people besides Mr. Bickley out there doing inspections that can note these things. Mr. Giner stated hopefully there will be some recommendations from the Town Manager’s Office. Commissioner Ladd suggested bringing the list of items to the offender. Further discussion followed about Mr. Bickley using his judgment in these cases. Commissioner Jones requested that Mr. Bickley be at the next meeting to respond to Commission questions.
c. Director of Planning
Mr. Giner stated housing subcommittee ads have been placed in the various newspapers and the Commission received about twenty responses to date. He asked how the Commission wants to handle them and if they want a committee to review them. Chairman DiPace would like a list in the Commission’s packet for the next meeting and the Commission will review it.
Mr. Giner stated he was at the Town Council meeting on Monday regarding the rest stop study by the Connecticut DOT. He also went to the CRCOG policy board meeting last Wednesday on behalf of the Town of Enfield. At that time, they adopted a resolution supporting the town’s position that they thought the study was flawed in terms of the sites they had shown. Mr. Giner has gotten a memo from CRCOG saying the next report from ConnDOT will drop those two sites from their report. Commissioner Jones asked if they intend to put one in Enfield at a later date. Mr. Giner stated their concentration is on existing rest stops where they already have the land. Chairman DiPace suggested they go to the State of Massachusetts for this truck stop. Mr. Giner stated they are also going to drop the one in Windsor Locks. There have been five advisory committee meetings since 2005 and they notified the Town of Enfield only prior to this last one.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission had asked for an opinion on the open space fund use and it is in tonight’s meeting packet. The bottom line is the state statutes say the open space fund can only be used to purchase land and not for the development of land.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Eileen Cybulski, 27 Somers Road, stated on September 26, 2007 she emailed Jose Giner with a problem on Cybulski Road and she has not heard back from him. There are five or six dump trucks a day on Cybulski Road for the new construction of the parking lot on the right side of the office building. The 1993 approval had a condition that large trucks would not use Cybulski Road. She questioned if these trucks should be using Taylor Road. Chairman DiPace directed Mr. Giner to handle this concern as there was not supposed to be commercial traffic on Cybulski Road.
Michael Dynia, 29 Plainfield Street, Chairman of the Conservation Commission, wanted to go on record saying the open space fund should not be used for the lighting of baseball fields. It should be used for the purchase of open space in the Town of Enfield. He noted the Conservation Commission would agree with this as well.
Margaret Jedziniak, Abbe Road, asked if the Enfield Planning and Zoning Enforcement Officer ever tours the town in search of any zoning violations or does he only act on complaints. There are many locations where the sight line is not good especially around the mall. Ms. Jedziniak discussed Broad Brook Road over by the bridge which is overrun with brush. The only way she has been able to get anything done is by calling Dan Vindigni.
Ms. Jedziniak stated the Town of Enfield is one of the worst violators of its own ordinances such as the blight ordinance. She questioned why people can have so much debris left on the street for long periods of time and why it is not picked up sooner than it is. Chairman DiPace stated this should be directed to the Town Council. Further discussion followed. Chairman DiPace noted if someone gets evicted, the town is supposed to pick up their belongings. Ms. Jedziniak also noted the Council was discussing changing the length of the grass allowed in the ordinance. It is now fourteen inches. Ms. Jedziniak has never seen grass grow to fourteen inches as it lays down before it gets that high.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace stated Correspondence includes a letter from Jose Giner to Joseph Fallon regarding the Mt. Carmel Society, a letter dated September 18, 2007 from Joseph Fallon to Jose Giner, a memo to Matthew Coppler, Town Manager from Wayne Bickley regarding 55 Enfield Street – the Edge, Capitol Region Council of Governments referrals for 9/20/07 through 9/26/07, the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Notice of Action for September 18, 2007, and the Historic District Notice of Action dated September 26, 2007.
COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace noted receipt of training information from the American Planning Association and a notice for a senior planning position from CRCOG. There is also the magazine from the American Planning Association, the College of Agricultural Journal and information on the aquifers approved by DEP. Chairman DiPace stated he has maps from the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, the level A aquifer maps. Mr. Giner also has copies.
Chairman DiPace requested that for the next meeting an item be placed on the agenda regarding swimming pools. If you go for a building permit, they consider an above the ground swimming pool as a permanent structure and that gets included in the amount of square footage for the applicant’s development. Chairman DiPace could not see an above the ground pool included because of its limited life span.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – NEW
a. PH#2617 – Petition for zone change from R-44 to R-33, Map 69, Lots 296, 266, 267, 268, for 91 Simon Road, Villages LLC, Applicant/Villages LLC and Frank Legienza, Owners. (Must close by Nov. 1)
Attorney Paul Smith, 27 South Main Street, Windsor Locks, and David Fredrick appeared before the Commission regarding this application. Attorney Smith stated they represent Villages LLC, the owner of a sixty plus acres parcel which is part of this application, and Frank Legienza, the owner of five to seven acres in two parcels which are also part of this application. Attorney Smith stated the principals of Villages LLC are M. Diane Fredrick and Jeannette Tallarita.
Attorney Smith presented some background in writing to the Commission showing a summary of the proposal and the reasons for the application. Also, in preparation for tonight’s hearing, they did distribute a letter to the neighbors.
Attorney Smith referred to the map presented and noted what they are talking about is property on the east side of Simon Road located right on the Enfield town line with the Town of East Windsor. The parcel owned by the Villages is shaded in green on the map. The two properties of Mr. Legienza are the two smaller properties that are right on Simon Road and those are outlined in yellow. These are the parcels proposed for the rezoning. The property is currently zoned R-44 and they are proposing a change to an R-33 zone. With regard to locating the property in terms of a larger context, the smaller map shows it within the larger area of that portion of Enfield. The Town of East Windsor is located to the south. To the east of this parcel is some R-44 zoning and the beginning of the Buckhorn Estates. To the direct east of this is the R-33 zone that includes a lot of neighborhoods. Directly to the north is the Shannon Drive and Kelly Drive area which although located in R-88 was actually developed as an R-17. Historically, Attorney Smith noted much of the east side of Simon Road and much of the property to the north of this parcel were all actually developed as R-44 developments although there are some scattered parcels zoned R-88, R-44 and R-33. Attorney Smith stated that an R-33 zone in this area would actually be larger than some of the neighborhoods that surround it.
Attorney Smith stated the rationale for the request to rezone is to give the developer more flexibility in terms of developing this parcel in a way that is sensitive to open space, to the Scantic River which runs to the rear of the parcel and sensitive to the environmental areas. An R-33 would allow them to develop between 42 and 45 homes and be placed in a way that’s much more attractive. The goal is to build homes within the $300,000 range. The intent is strictly a residential subdivision and not age restricted housing.
Dave Fredrick provided more detail in terms of the development. He pointed out on the map the old R-17 subdivision regulations where Shannon, Kelly, and Patricia were developed. If you go east, the Buckhorn Estates is also an R-17 subdivision. Their request for the zone change from R-44 to R-33 is very consistent with the neighborhood. In many instances, these lots will exceed the area that was developed under the R-17. The 2.57 acres of the open space subdivision will exceed many of the lots that are currently in this area. The homes will be in the $300,000 range – from the low $300,000’s to the high $300,000’s. They will be traditional ranches, capes and colonials on a minimum of a 25,000 square foot lots. This is consistent with the neighborhood.
Mr. Fredrick stated if the Commission chooses to grant the zone change, the developer has the option to be less than honest and try to get active adult living in here. This is not what they are proposing. They are proposing an R-33 open space subdivision. Their intent is much like Kelly and Patricia and other streets in this neighborhood – to be consistent with the traditional R-33 open space subdivision.
Mr. Fredrick stated the land they are going to be giving as open space will be compatible with the land that is currently owned by the Town of Enfield, about thirteen acres where the pump station is, and the State of Connecticut land which abuts to the east. They own about twenty-one acres. They are also planning on having at the very northeast section or the direct east section access from their subdivision to go down into the area owned by the Town of Enfield and also access to get on to the State of Connecticut’s land. Mr. Fredrick stated his recollection is one of the reasons why R-44 was initiated as part of the master plan of development about twenty-five years ago was at that time it was determined that an R-44 lot was needed to be able to support a well and septic system. He noted this area has full utilities like the adjoining area. They have gas and Yankee Gas will install a “t” going into this property. Yankee Gas has also installed a gas main to pick up a subdivision in the neighboring town of East Windsor.
Mr. Fredrick stated one of the important things is they have begun looking into research and they will be incorporating a lot of the green concepts in this area. They think it would in no way negatively impact the surrounding properties or any of the surrounding communities. They are excited about it and think it is a very positive application going forward. Attorney Smith stated Mr. Legienza could not be present this evening due to shoulder surgery but he was very supportive of this.
Commissioner Duren read a letter addressed to Chairman DiPace with attachments from the Enfield Conservation Commission in which the Commission agreed to recommend against the zone change and cited their reasons for this position.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.
Ellen Martin, 6 Patricia Circle, read a lengthy statement speaking against this zone change proposal. She publicly thanked Councilman Peruta for his letter. She also thanked Mr. Fredrick for his letter. She noted Mr. Fredrick’s letter compared the proposed zone change area to the surrounding areas of Patricia, Celtic, Shannon, Kelly, Eastgate, Brentwood and Windmill. She does not believe this is a fair comparison. The area of the proposed zone change lies within the river belt greenway and the area it is being compared to does not. The river belt greenway was upzoned as part of the Plan of Conservation and Development. The existing neighborhoods were not. The majority of the river belt greenway is zoned R-88. In addition, Patricia, Celtic, Shannon and Kelly are zoned R-88 and not R-33. Ms. Martin believes that area was an approved subdivision before the up zoning went into effect. She felt the river belt area should be treated with the same respect it got when it became designated as the river belt greenway.
Ms. Martin stated according to the Enfield Plan of Conservation and Development, as each plan update has been initiated, there have been community requests to slow the pace of development and reduce the density of new residential construction. According to that Plan, progress in this area has been made. That progress lasted until April, 2000 when part of that parcel now before the Commission was put in for a zone change from R-88 to R-44. The Conservation Commission recommended against it and Ms. Martin cited the reasons. Ms. Martin gave further history of this zone change which went through in 2000.
Ms. Martin stated Villages LLC purchased the property knowing it was zoned R-44. Now they want to change it to R-33 to put in a denser development. The same concerns from the Conservation Commission from 2000 still exist. Those same concerns from the Capitol Region Council of Governments have not gone away.
Ms. Martin asked that the Commission take a harder look at past concerns when considering rezoning this property because they are still legitimate. She also cited the Plan of Conservation and Development and asked that the Commission remember what their original vision was when they up zoned those areas to reduce the density of new construction. Ms. Martin discussed PH#2541, another zone change request in April, 2006 where a developer requested a zone change from R-88 to R-44 to allow for more density. For that zone change request, the Commission did look at the Plan of Development.
Ms. Martin felt that the parcel can be developed as R-44 but the developer just won’t be able to put in as many homes. She has a concern that if the zone is changed, all the other properties in the river belt area could also request a zone change.
Ms. Martin questioned what benefit this zone change would be for the Town of Enfield. If the Commission approves this zone change, the only one who will benefit is the developer of that property. They will be able to build more homes and make more money. The developer wins and the community loses the progress it has made to slow the pace of development and reduce the density of new residential construction.
Ms. Martin presented a handout to the Commission and asked that the Commission consider the town Plan of Conservation and Development. She does not believe that individual financial gain should be a reason for a zone change. She further asked that the Commission consider the Powder Hollow property hearing in 2006 where under similar circumstances the Commission decided to follow the land use plan and not allow an area in the river belt to be downsized.
Mr. Fredrick stated in terms of the additional homes that may be constructed in R-33 versus R-44, there will be an additional seven to ten homes. The Town Planner suggested this parcel has public water available and noted the difference would be seven more lots under R-33 versus R-44. Mr. Fredrick acknowledged there will be more homes but not twenty more. Their surveyor laid out the R-33 subdivision versus the R-44 subdivision and the R-33 subdivision is simply a more intelligent layout. They would be able to bring homes further away from the escarpments. They will be able to give more land to the Town of Enfield and the State of Connecticut. Mr. Fredrick noted those lots that will be in the area of terrace escarpments will all have lawn gardens to be able to capture any of the nutrients that will be seeping into the Scantic River. They are also talking about building bat boxes to control the population.
Mr. Fredrick stated Patricia Circle is approximately 700’ to the north and that is quite a distance away from the proposed subdivision. He added that Councilman Peruta circulated an alert to the neighborhood suggesting that low income housing or active adult housing might be built there. Mr. Fredrick responded to Councilman Peruta and he read his email from him wishing them luck with this project.
Commissioner Duren asked if this is a prime preservation program as suggested in Mr. Giner’s memo. Mr. Giner stated it is not. If you look at the open space plan, it shows farm preservation in the red parcels but after giving some history, he stated that designation is in error.
Chairman DiPace asked that Mr. Giner make copies of the information submitted and include it in the next meeting packet.
Attorney Smith emphasized listening to the comments in opposition that it seems to him historically that the R-44 and R-33 designations were made due to the issue of public utilities and needing a larger footprint for septic systems. He noted this subdivision is going to be serviced by sewer, water, gas and electric. All public utilities are available. What they are asking the Commission to consider is a small trade off and an increase in density versus trying to create a smaller environmental footprint. Larger lots with larger lawns needs more pesticides and more fertilizers. Attorney Smith stated with an open space subdivision, the Commission has a lot more latitude in terms of what can be required. It also has to make sense to the developer. The Commission has two things to weigh. One is the benefit to the developer and also how does it impact the community. How does it weigh against similar situations? How does it impact people in the area? How does it impact the neighborhood? Attorney Smith stated they see their proposal as positive for those issues. He doesn’t see any negatives and what they do see is with an R-33, it will give more open space to the town, they will be able to manage the property in a way that would not create any problems with regard to the Scantic River or the green way. They see it as a win, win. Attorney Smith stated when you look at the alternatives of the layouts, this seems to be a practical solution and one that is not spot zoning. This is a decision of the Commission and it is known as a legislative decision. The Commission looks at it and sees where the interest falls. Attorney Smith stated he thinks they can take this piece of property, zone it R-33, and do an open space subdivision that will work well for the town, be sensitive to the environmental areas, give the town increased open space making it a win, win for everyone. Attorney Smith asked that the Commission consider this zone change on a case by case basis, where it fits and what is the proposal going forward.
Chairman DiPace stated he plans to continue this hearing in order the read the handouts submitted. Following some discussion of when to continue this hearing, Chairman DiPace continued this hearing to November 1, 2007.
b. PH#2621 – Special Use Permit to unmerge purchased lot at 82 Park Avenue from adjoining lot at 76/78 Park Avenue, zoned R-33, Map 39, Lot 4, Helayna E. McGuire, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by Nov. 1)
Gordon Bednarz and Helayna McGuire appeared before the Commission regarding this application. Mr. Bednarz stated lot size is the main issue here.
Chairman DiPace asked if there is a garage on one of the lots that they want to separate from the house. Mr. Bednarz confirmed that there is.
Chairman DiPace stated the garage was used by whoever lived in the house making the property merged. The driveway comes in on one lot and goes over to the other lot. They are merged.
Ms. McGuire stated when she first bought this property, about a third of the way through the deal they told her that the yard was a separate lot and that she would have to come up with $25,000 overnight to buy the yard. It was a separate buildable lot and Kenneth Nelson had the plans to build a house on that lot if she didn’t come up with the $25,000. She wanted to buy it and she stated it is a separate buildable lot. She is getting a separate tax bill for it and it has always been a separate lot.
Mr. Giner stated that lot with the garage was owned separately until Ms. McGuire bought it. It had existed under separate ownership. Ken Nelson did obtain a building permit at one point for a new home on that lot. At that time, the lot was offered to Ms. McGuire.
Ms. McGuire stated she bought the house and then found out that the yard was a separate building lot that she had to purchase separately. She noted there are two separate deeds.
Ms. McGuire noted the map and stated every lot on the street is the same size. There are only a couple of homes left that have a double lot and hers is one of them.
Commissioner Duren stated the driveway cuts directly over and would be on Ms. McGuire’s property. He questioned how it cannot be one lot.
Ms. McGuire stated there have been a couple of other properties on the street which had the same things and they just split the driveway. They both use the driveway.
Mr. Bednarz stated another issue is there is a mortgage on the house and there is not one on the lot. Chairman DiPace questioned if the purchase of the lot was legal. Ms. McGuire stated she does not park in the garage but she uses the driveway because it is her land. The driveway is half on the house land and half on the yard land.
Chairman DiPace felt the lot is merged.
Mr. Giner stated the assessor shows it as two separate lots and it technically got merged when Ms. McGuire bought the property. It was under separate ownership and when she bought both lots, it got merged. Ms. McGuire stated she went to the town and they stated it would not be merged.
Chairman DiPace stated there is a driveway that crosses both property lines and a garage that is on the other lot that is being used for the existing house. Ms. McGuire stated the garage is not being used. The garage is vacant and there is only her car. The doors on the garage don’t work. Ms. McGuire stated if you look across the street, the property was recently sold where they added a single-family house and they shared a garage. It is the same situation as hers.
Chairman DiPace stated it is #75 across the street. He asked that Mr. Giner find out how that mistake happened because this Commission denied that separation about nine years ago. He would like to know how somebody got a building permit and built a house. There is a garage in the back and there was a pool. The Commission denied it. They have now separated it and built a house.
Commission members questioned who was the previous owner of the house.
Chairman DiPace saw a need for more information. The driveway is going down the middle of the two properties. Chairman DiPace reiterated his request about Lot #75. He wants to know who approved it and who signed off on it.
Commissioner Duren asked how Ken Nelson got a permit. Mr. Giner stated there were two different owners. Commissioner Duren stated you have a garage that is being used by the residence.
Ms. McGuire stated they told her it was not merged and that they were separate. She assumed that she had it as an investment property and could sell it when she needed to do so. Now she needs to sell it.
Commissioner Duren questioned where the parking will be for Ms. McGuire’s house and the lot. Ms. McGuire stated a lot of the homeowners in the area park their vehicles on the street.
Commissioner Jones stated #65 and #71 have the shared driveway. Ms. McGuire would have to move the garage.
Chairman DiPace cited the need for additional information. He continued this public hearing to October 18, 2007.
c. PH#2622 – Special Use Permit for construction of a 23 unit senior residential development on the east side of Powder Hill Road along with associated drainage improvements on the west side of the road, zoned R-88, Map 84, Lot 15 and 16, Powder Hill Sand and Gravel, LLC, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by Nov. 1)
Dana Steele, Mark Spazzarini and Attorney Michael Bonanno, Jacobs, Walker, Rice and Basche, LLC, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Attorney Bonanno stated his client’s proposal is a special use permit for the construction of a twenty-three unit senior residential development on Powder Hill Road. Attorney Bonanno stated his client has owned the subject property since 1998 and has used it to extract sand and gravel. It has been used in that manner since the 1920’s and is still being used in that fashion today. If their application is approved, they will close operation in accordance with all applicable statutes and regulations.
Attorney Bonanno stated the property on Powder Hill Road is located within the R-88 zoning district where senior residential developments are permitted by special permit. Their project meets all the requirements of the zoning regulations. Previously they came before the Commission to change the zone to R-44 for a traditional subdivision. That proposal was denied. It included septic systems. It was clear that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not want septic systems at that site so they went back and reconsidered the project. They are back with a project that connects to municipal sewers as well as water and the septic systems are gone.
Attorney Bonanno stated the Inland Wetlands Agency is currently in the process of reviewing their application. They will be back before them on October 16. They have met with the administrative review team and have tried to address their comments. This is gong to be a nice looking site that the town will be proud of. His clients are experienced professionals and they take great pride in their work. According to the Plan of Development, senior residential developments are desirable in Enfield. It provides a balance of residential land use and meets the needs of many aging citizens in the town.
Attorney Bonanno believes this project is in harmony with some of the key goals of the Plan of Conservation and Development. Under the development strategy of the plan, there is a goal to continue to provide a wide range of housing types to enable people of all income levels and housing needs to live in Enfield. In the community opinion section of the Plan of Development, residents support the development of retirement communities and citizens have requested that town officials and planners include such housing types in their development mix. They will be preserving and protecting the town’s inland wetlands and aquifers and they will be updating a currently inadequate drainage culvert that discharges water on the property of Connecticut Water Company land across the street.
Attorney Bonanno stated a project of this type has distinct advantages over other types. It lessens the strain on community resources in that there will be no school age children. It will substantially add to the grand list while not presenting a large demand on services. This development is not a large traffic generator as people do less driving. There will be less peak time traffic. They believe the project fits well within the area and provides an important resource to the town. Attorney Bonanno introduced Dana Steele who reviewed the specifics of this proposal.
Dana Steele stated this property is a twenty-four acre parcel located on the east side of Powder Hill Road. It is situated approximately half way between the intersection of Powder Hill Road and Abbe Road. This property is currently the site of a sand and gravel removal operation that has been going on for many years. The applicant purchased the property in the early 1990’s and has been using it for that purpose ever since. They are now at the point where they are ready to close out that operation and restore it to a fully vegetated site and an appropriate use. The property is in the R-88 zone which permits senior residential developments with one unit per acre. This property contains 23 buildable acres as defined by the regulations excluding twenty-five percent of steep slopes. The property does not contain any inland wetlands or watercourses. The buildable area is therefore twenty-three acres.
Mr. Steele stated in addition to the plans for this application, a management plan was submitted with the title Draft Declaration. This addresses exactly how the homeowners association is going to manage itself and maintain the necessary items. Also included with the application was an Integrated Pest Management Plan. This is a plan for controlling the amount of pesticides that are used by landscape professionals on this property. It is similar to other plans that are proposed for a project such as this and it provides an additional protection for limiting those types of chemicals.
Mr. Steele stated the property is located within an aquifer protection area for both Connecticut Water Company and the Hazardville Water Company. Per the town’s regulations, the water companies have been notified of this application and the green cards have been submitted to the Town Planner confirming the submission of that notice via a receipt. Mr. Steele has spoken with representatives of both water companies and they have no concerns with this application.
With regard to Connecticut Water Company who owns the property across the street from this property and on which activity is proposed for drainage improvements on their property, they have obtained authorization from them to submit this application. They met with the water company, found out what their concerns were and made revisions to their plans. One of the things they requested was a wet pond to provide water quality treatment. They modified their plan to incorporate that. Another thing they asked to see if there was any way any of the existing runoff from the town roadway could be treated in that wet pond. They adjusted their design accordingly to include that. The water company asked if they could provide ground water recharge through an infiltration process and they have proposed an infiltration area as well. They spent a great deal of time with the water company because they are in an aquifer protection area. The water company has had input into the design process and they have come up with a design that they are in favor of.
Mr. Steele stated the property includes a stem and loop style roadway system that has a geometry to improve aesthetics. The entrance to the site off of Powder Hill Road has a landscaped island in the center of it similar to a boulevard entrance. This provides some breakup of pavement and some additional landscaping. It improves the aesthetics for the overall development. The houses are set back quite a ways from the road and if you look on the plans, you will notice that the space between the units exceeds the minimum requirements of the regulations. As a result, the layout is nicely spaced and it provides a great deal of green space and open space for the use of the residents of the development.
Mr. Steele stated in these types of developments, additional parking for visitors is necessary. They have provided a bay of parking spaces at the top and bottom of the loop portion of the roadway. The loop provides better circulation so that the traffic can move in either direction and they have also provided a cul de sac with a center island. This also breaks up the pavement and provides more green space and useable open space for the residents. It also provides a larger turn around. They feel the layout is favorable in regard to access both for emergency equipment and for the public.
Mr. Steele stated submitted with the application is a cover letter where specific waivers were requested. The first waiver is subdivision Section 5.8.3. This was also addressed at the ART when they met with staff. This section deals with cul de sac length. The regulations require a maximum cul de sac length of 600’ but allow the Commission to waive that length. The total length from the cul de sac out to Powder Hill Road is a little over 1,000’ or 1,040’. The cul de sac portion from the stem loop is less than 600’. That’s where the question came as to whether they needed a waiver. However, they have requested the waiver and would ask the Commission to consider it. They feel it is consistent with other projects of this nature and it would provide a good circulation.
The second waiver is subdivision Section 5.f.2. with regard to sidewalks. The project does propose sidewalks. They have a sidewalk on the eastern side of Trout Brook Lane and it connects up with another sidewalk system that runs through the green open space area. They have a gazebo there. The plan does not propose any sidewalks on Powder Hill Road or along the boulevard portion of the development. They do not want to encourage pedestrian traffic on Powder Hill Road.
Mr. Steele stated steep slopes encompass the entire project and at the top of the ridge is a large tree. It is a nice quiet area and in terms of providing some recreation, they would like to keep that as an isolated area for the residents.
Mr. Steele stated the next waiver is in regarding to the zoning regulations, Section 40.13.19.g which is the SRD regulations which allow you to waive certain design standards for the roads. They are asking for a modification of the curbing. The town standard is 6” bituminous curbing. In their discussions with staff, there was a discussion that the regulation needs to be changed to allow for the alternative of a 4” cape code curbing. This is a broader, mountable curb and provides benefit for emergency access and for cars parking along the road.
Mr. Steele stated there is nothing in the regulations dealing with boulevard islands or with cul de sac islands. They felt it was appropriate to ask for these features which they see as positive aesthetically.
Mr. Steele stated the project has gone through several administrative review team meetings. The police department made a recommendation to add a turning lane into the project. As you are heading down Powder Hill Road, the police department felt if there was a separate lane that vehicles could get out of the way of the traffic. By providing that lane, it provides an improved access to the existing site. Mr. Steele stated there is a paved driveway apron that goes into the gravel pit. That apron is just to the north of the proposed access. They are now proposing the driveway as far down the hill as possible to address sight line and safety issues. They have done a survey of the roadway and determined with significant clearing of vegetation along the western side of the property and the driveway being up the hill, the sight line will be much better. They have determined when these improvements are made, there will be adequate sight line for this access. They have provided a sight line plan which demonstrates that the sight line can be achieved.
Regarding the drainage for this site, Mr. Steele stated drainage was one of the main interests of the Connecticut Water Company. They had requested a wet pond. Mr. Steele pointed out the wet pond on the site plan which is a permanent pool of water that provides storage below the outlet of the basin for containing the water quality volume. This is a volume of water that is produced by one inch of runoff from the entire watershed of the development. They have sized the wet pond to provide treatment consistent with the DEP storm water quality manual for the development as well as, at the recommendation of the water company, some of the drainage in Powder Hill Road.
Mr. Steele stated the project also includes an infiltration basin shown on the plan above the wet pond. The infiltration basin is designed to drain water and it is located in an area where the soils permit that type of infiltration. This is something that the water company was in favor of because it would be a filtered recharge through a vegetative bottom.
Mr. Steele stated the third basin is located in the rear of the project and this is a dry detention basin which deals with reducing peak discharge. This basin holds back the water with a metered outlet so that water is let out slowly thus reducing the size of drainage pipes that are required and providing a reduction in peak runoff from the project compared to existing conditions. The wet pond also has extended detention storage above it. Between the infiltration of runoff, the detention of runoff from the dry basin and the water quality treatment and extended detention in the wet pond, they are able to provide a comprehensive drainage system that meets all current standards and is consistent with the regulations and sound engineering design.
Mr. Steele stated they have added hooded outlets before going into the wet pond to catch oils and floating debris.
Mr. Steele stated included on the erosion control plan is a maintenance schedule. This maintenance plan includes maintenance of the ponds, the drainage system, the hoods, the sumps, and the sweeping of the street. In addition, drainage was a big part of this design. The outlet from the wet pond crosses under Powder Hill Road and on to the Connecticut Water Company property. Right now there’s an existing culvert that goes under Powder Hill Road and it is the only formal drainage within Powder Hill Road. It’s a twelve-inch pipe and it is vastly undersized for the 90 acre watershed that drains to it. As a result, the road overtops on numerous occasions and presents safety problems. This is something that the town really needs to address. One of the benefits of this project is it provides funding for those improvements. They are proposing to provide the right hand turn lane, provide additional drainage in Powder Hill Road, provide water quality treatment for the drainage in Powder Hill Road and eliminate the problem of water overtopping the road. In addition, there are issues with water sheeting across the road which causes icing. This is an area that is heavily sanded. By putting the additional drainage structures in, they will be improving the situation.
Mr. Steele stated they will be replacing the culvert with a properly sized culvert and discharging into a pre-formed scour hole which provides erosion protection. In addition to that, the water company requested that they provide rip rap lining from the drainage ditch which takes the water from the discharge point down to a wetland area on their property. The rip rap has been sized to accommodate a l00-year storm event. They have provided the necessary erosion control treatment on the water company property.
Mr. Steele stated the project is going to be serviced by public sewer. This was considered a critical aspect of the project because it is in an aquifer protection area. When they met with the Commission in December, 2006 to present this type of development, one of the positives that came out of that was the opportunity to provide public sewer. That sewer is provided by providing a gravity sewer main down Powder Hill Road to the intersection with South Maple Street. There is a sanitary manhole on the south side of the road that they can tie into. They do not have to cross the Scantic River in order to tie into the town sewer.
Mr. Steele stated the project is also going to be serviced by public water. This project is in Hazardville Water Company’s area and they have been in discussions with them about providing a water main from Powder Hill Road up to Abbe Road and connecting there with the existing water main.
Mr. Steele presented colored renderings showing the architectural features of this development. The units are colonial in nature with siding and pitched roofs. The application included three different architectural styles. The spacing is around forty feet between each unit. The applicant is looking to put in a unit costing less than $300,000. That is done by providing a smaller footprint, one floor living, approximately 1,200 square feet. Unit A has a one-car garage option. All of the units on the plan show a two-car garage layout. Unit A has an optional second bedroom upstairs and a master bedroom on the ground floor. Unit C has a master bedroom on the main floor and two optional bedrooms upstairs. Both Unit B and Unit C include optional sun rooms off the back.
Mr. Steele stated they believe this location will be a nice neighborhood and a quiet area. It is secluded and provides a nice living space and the units will be moderately priced to provide housing that is appropriate for seniors in Enfield that would like to remain in town and others that wish to move to Enfield.
Mr. Steele stated in the ART staff asked for a plan that showed the open space calculations for this site. They wanted to see the topography overlaid with the open space to see if the areas that they had designated as open space areas were in fact useable areas. There are a number of slopes that are close to twenty-five percent. The open space areas that they designated show that there are some flat areas where a park like setting could be created. They would leave it to the homeowners association as to how they would like to best use those open space areas. Mr. Steele submitted this plan for the record showing the correlation between topography and open space. He believes this plan meets the requirements of the zoning regulations and the waivers are consistent with other developments and beneficial to this project. This site because it is an existing gravel pit has been disturbed. The Hartford County soil survey identifies the site as mainly Agawam fine sandy loams and the area over on the southern side is terrace escarpments. Most of the terrace escarpment soils have been removed through the gravel operation. The area of development, the area where the gravel pit is, no longer contains those terrace escarpment slopes. The soil is still very sandy and suitable for development.
Mr. Steele stated this project is a little different as opposed to terrace escarpments. As opposed to projects where the development is happening at the top of the hill, this is just the opposite. Their project is down at the bottom of the bowl and slopes are all around them. The terrace escarpment slopes are above and they are not impacting them.
Mr. Steele stated with regard to the character of the neighborhood, he thinks this development provides a nice isolated residential area but in regard to size, most of the homes on Powder Hill Road are about an acre in size. They are looking at the same density to be consistent with the area. The open space that is being provided with this development is more than the minimum required by the regulations. With the emergency access with the mountable curbing and the loop style roadway and extra parking spaces, they feel that this is going to really provide a good access for emergency services.
At this point, Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.
Michael Dynia, 29 Plainfield Street presented a letter the Conservation Commission drafted about the Village at Powder Hill. He presented copies to the Commission and the applicant.
Some discussion followed about the possibility of a special meeting.
Chairman DiPace continued this public hearing to November 1, 2007.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, for a recess. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission recessed at 10:00 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 10:10 p.m.
d. PH#2623 – Special Use Permit to unmerge lot #51 from lot #50 at 4 Munda Drive, zoned R-33, Map 33, Lot 126, Nick Zaccaro, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by Nov. 1)
Nick Zaccaro and Mrs. Zaccaro appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated they are here to unmerge lot #51 from lot #50. They presently live at 2 Munda Drive but do not own it. They bought 4 Munda Drive.
Mr. Zaccaro stated his mother bought the lot about a year ago. At one time the same owner owned both lots and they were considered merged. They would like to unmerge them.
Commissioner Duren stated it shows a building on the lot. Mr. Zaccaro stated that is just showing a proposed home on the lot.
Chairman DiPace stated there is nothing built on the property. It looks like at one time where 2 Munda Drive is might have been three lots and they merged two of them and built a house and a garage.
Mr. Zaccaro stated there was a home behind his that had pretty much the same situation.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve PH #2623 – Special Use Permit to unmerge lot #51 from lot #50 at 4 Munda Dr., Zoned R-33, Map 33, Lot 126, Rick Zaccaro, Applicant/Owner. This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Special Use Map Prepared for Nick Zaccaro 4 Munda Drive Enfield, Connecticut.” Scale: “AS NOTED”, by Dennis G. Rehmer, dated July 6, 2007.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
2. The street address for the new lot shall be obtained from the Engineering Division in consultation with the E-911 coordinator. The addresses shall be shown on the final plans submitted for signature.
3. The file number “PH 2623” shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
4. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this motion shall be placed on the final plans submitted for signing.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
5. One set of mylars and three sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.
6. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
7. Final approval of site layout and grading for shall be obtained from the Engineering Division for the proposed house.
8. Final approvals shall be obtained from the Water Pollution Control Division for the sewer hook ups.
9. If necessary, a Separate Erosion and Sediment Control Bond shall be submitted in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
10. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
11. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director unless waived by the Commission.
General Conditions:
12. This approval is for the specific use identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
13. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
14. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Ladd and Lefakis voting.
e. SPR#1405.02 – Modification of conditions imposed in SPR 1405 for hours of operation in connection with an application for conversion and re-striping of parking lot off Print Shop Road to accommodate parking of trailers at Lego Campus at 555 Taylor Road, zoned I-1, Map 99, Lot 11, Equity Industrial Enfield LP, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by Nov. 1)
Hunter Emerson of Equity Industrial Enfield LP and Mr. Islami, the Director of Corporate Real Estate for Hasbro, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Emerson apologized to the Commission for giving inaccurate and incomplete information with regard to certain aspects of Hasbro’s distribution operations. They are before the Commission for a fourth time tonight.
Mr. Emerson stated on July 12 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the reuse of the parking lot at Lego for truck parking for Hasbro. One of the conditions that was imposed was the ability for Hasbro to operate on a twenty-four hour basis for a fifteen week period between September 1 and December 15. They are before the Commission tonight to request not an increase in the number of weeks but a reallocation of six of those weeks to six other weeks at other times of the year. This allocation would allow Hasbro to appropriately service their highest business demands.
Mr. Emerson presented a copy of a calendar that shows what was approved by the Commission and another copy that shows what is proposed. If this is approved, it would satisfy all of Hasbro’s needs to meet the demands of their business partners.
Commissioner Duren noted receipt of a letter from Ray Warren to Jose Giner dated October 3, 2007 regarding SPR#1405.02 and related material.
Commissioner Duren read an editorial which appeared October 2, 2007 in the Hartford Courant entitled “Keep it Down.” This editorial discussed excessive noise and what towns are doing about it. Commissioner Duren felt another extension of the agreement already in effect would be too much in his opinion.
Commissioner Ballard asked about the decibel level on the beepers. Mr. Emerson did not know the decibel level. Commissioner Duren stated they are set by government standards.
Chairman DiPace asked if the construction on Cybulski Road is for this project and Mr. Emerson confirmed it is not. Chairman DiPace noted the property is owned by Equity Industrial and one of the past agreements was there would be no commercial traffic on Cybulski Road. Mr. Emerson stated they have agreed to put a sign up indicating no trucks are allowed on Cybulski. Chairman DiPace stated the truck traffic needs to stop in order to protect the old Shaker buildings.
Commissioner Ballard questioned if it would be better to have twenty-four hour operation for a shorter amount of time in each quarter rather than all at once.
Chairman DiPace stated it is the same amount of time and it is just spread out differently. He noted the property is zoned industrial. If Lego was still there, there would be trucks going in and out. The change was the parking lot was changed from cars to tractor trailers for the distribution. If a company came in, they would be running twelve months out of the year and the Commission could not stop them. Chairman DiPace felt as long as they kept the same amount of time and are not increasing the time, he doesn’t have a problem with it. However, if this applicant comes back again, they would not receive a favorable reaction from this Commission. Chairman DiPace felt this is a compromise and they are not adding any additional weeks from the original approval.
Gretchen Pfeifer Hall, 4 Somers Road, thanked the Commission for holding this public hearing again and giving the residents an opportunity to voice their opinions. She has a bit of a complaint regarding notification. The sign, although it fulfills the requirements, was located at the end of Print Shop Road and at the end of Cybulski Road where the neighbors are not going to see it. There could have been one on Taylor Road. Ms. Pfeifer Hall went around to her neighbors to try to get them to come to this hearing but people are reluctant to come because they feel what they have to say just doesn’t matter. Ms. Pfeifer Hall presented three letters from her neighbors in opposition and she read them into the record. The letters were from Sandra Meichinski, Karen Silverstein, 496 Taylor Road, and Judith Salsreed.
Ms. Pfeifer Hall understands it is an industrial zone and both she and her neighbors appreciate anything and everything that the Commission can do to protect their quality of life, safety and property values. When Lego was there, people were employed there. Now there are trucks coming back and forth from East Longmeadow with a lot of wear and tear on the town’s infrastructure. Ms. Pfeifer Hall does not think the economic benefit to the Town of Enfield is very great.
Eileen Cybulski, 8 Cybulski Road and 27 Somers Road, stated in the notice about the meeting it says conversion and re-striping of parking lot off Print Shop Road to accommodate parking of trailers at Lego Campus at 555 Taylor Road. She questioned whether it is Print Shop Road or Taylor Road. She understands where it is going to be but she wants to make sure this is for the Print Shop Road parking lot only. Chairman DiPace stated the address is one owner with two parcels and by law they have to publish both addresses. Chairman DiPace stated the layout has not changed.
Ms. Cybulski stated that parking lot was used for an employee parking lot and this is a definite change. They are increasing their jockey trucks which they didn’t even state publicly tonight. There is a lot of noise and a lot of beeping. She was concerned about the residents’ quality of life and the noise in this area. She has the same concerns as she had before. She would like to note that when they start bringing trucks in on March 5 or March 7, who enforces the March 19 date. Who do the residents call? Chairman DiPace stated that would be the Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley.
Ms. Cybulski stated Magnani and McCormick has been vacant for a couple of years now. She is concerned that at some point Martin Brower might expand into that property which will mean more trucks. Olympic Sales is hanging by a thread and there’s another building that might have a change. She asked that the Commission consider the people that live in the area, the effect of the noise and the effect it is having on the residents’ quality of life.
Ms. Cybulski stated at one time there were no truck signs on Cybulski Road but they were removed. She asked why the signs were removed as they were part of the 1993 approval. Chairman DiPace directed Mr. Giner to find out why the signs were removed and if the signs can be re-installed.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission is trying to listen to both sides. He noted the current approval is 108 days out of the calendar year. What they are proposing is 105 so there will be three less days. This use will be distribution. Ms. Cybulski asked that the Commission in the future give consideration to those people who live in the area. The changes affect their quality of life and property values.
Karen LaPlante, North Maple Street, stated she doesn’t live close enough to be impacted by the noise but what she sees happening is at that meeting where the Commission approved the changing of the parking lot to park these temporary storage units for their distribution system and not require them to put this all inside a building, the Commission has cut us off from taxes that we could collect from a warehouse distribution system. They are running a distribution system from tractor trailer trucks that have to move back and forth on the site. This is what is causing the noise. If we are going to start allowing temporary warehouse space in parking areas, then maybe we should change some of the rules.
Gretchen Pfeifer Hall stated if traffic is not going to be back and forth between East Longmeadow and Enfield but goes from Print Shop Road out to other points, she would ask the applicant to please not have the trucks going through the residential neighborhood. The trucks should go down Moody Road which was designed for this kind of traffic. Chairman DiPace asked the applicant to route their truck traffic down Moody Road toward I-91 rather than through the residential neighborhoods.
Hunter Emerson stated Equity Industrial did transfer the property on August 9, 2007 to National Portfolio Borrower LLC. They have hired Equity Industrial to manage the property and they are acting on their behalf. With respect to trailer parking, Mr. Emerson noted Hasbro is going to rent 300,000 square feet of space as part of this application. With respect to the movement of trailers back and forth from East Longmeadow, Mr. Emerson requested a clarification. Commissioner Jones asked that when trucks go out to the stores instead of going back up through the neighborhoods, the traffic should go down Moody Road and on to 220. Stay away from the neighborhoods. Take a right instead of a left when exiting.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve SPR#1405.02 for a modification of conditions imposed in SPR#1405 for hours of operation in connection with an application for conversion and re-striping of parking lot off Print Shop Road to accommodate parking of trailers at Lego Campus at 555 Taylor Road, zoned I-1, Map 99, Lot 11. The motion was approved by a 5 – 1 – 0 vote. Commissioner Duren voted nay and Alternates Ladd and Lefakis voted.
Chairman DiPace asked that Mr. Giner take a look at Somers Road and make sure it is blacktopped before winter sets in. Commissioner Jones stated Taylor Road and Somers Road are still a mess. Ms. Pfeifer Hall spoke with Jeff Bord about this. Wood Construction was the contractor that installed the water line for the water company and they spoke to them about correcting the situation. They said that they would and they came back and they patched the area in front of her house and a couple of other low areas. They put tar and stone dust down. As far as Ms. Pfeifer Hall is concerned, it is a temporary fix. She spoke to Jeff Bord again and he was going to speak with Wood Construction. Engineering is not satisfied that the result is permanent. Chairman DiPace stated the town has not yet accepted their work and there is a bond in place.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR#1420 – Application for a dealer license to sell 150cc and larger scooters and motorcycles with no outside display and paint the exterior of the building at 70 Enfield Street, zoned BG (Overlay District), Map 35, Lot 45, Marks Motorsports LLC Applicant/Robert Nuger, Owner. (Deadline for Decision 11/01/07 Meeting)
It was the consensus of the Commission to allow Jose Giner to handle this item administratively if they meet all the regulations minus the painting of the exterior in accordance with the memos submitted to the Commission.
b. SPR#1421 – Removal of an existing 11,500 gallon underground fuel tank removal and replacement of approximately 5,000 square feet of concrete pavement, installation of a 15,000 gallon above grade fuel tank with appurtenant works at 191 Moody Road, zoned I-1, Map 100, Lot 35, Martin-Brower, Applicant/Troiano Realty Corp. Owner. (Deadline for Decision 11/01/07 meeting.) – No action.
c. SPR#1422 – Addition of 6 parking spaces and increase in impervious coverage at 2 Pearson Way and addition of 22 parking spaces and increase in impervious coverage at 270 George Washington Road, zoned I-1, Map 75, Lot 45 and 46, A. W. Hastings & Co. LLC, Applicant/Owner. (Deadline for Decision 11-01-07 Meeting)
It was the consensus of the Commission to allow Jose Giner to handle this item administratively if it meets all the regulations in accordance with the memo submitted to the Commission.
d. SPR#1423 – Additional parking for van s