THESE MINUTES ARE PRESENTED IN DRAFT FORM AND HAVE NOT BEEN FORMALLY APPROVED BY THE ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONOFFICIAL 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
NOVEMBER 1, 2007
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, November 1, 2007 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Vice Chairman Hickey called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman (arrived at 8:00 p.m.)
James Hickey, Jr.
Charles Duren
Elizabeth Ballard
Jason Jones
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
Charles Ladd, Alternate
MINUTES
The Minutes were tabled pending the arrival of Chairman DiPace. Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to postpone the Minutes until later in the meeting. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
Later in the meeting, Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to approve the Minutes of October 18, 2007. Chairman DiPace stated on page 14 there was a discussion about the process regarding the unmerger of lots on Park Avenue. During the discussion as to the process, Mr. Giner had said it is the state attorney’s office that handles that. The Minutes state the Town Attorney. Mr. Giner misunderstood and thought Chairman DiPace said to send it to the Town Attorney’s office. Mr. Giner sent it out to have Chris Bromson do the preliminary investigation. If he finds a violation, it would be prosecuted and be left to the local public safety department to do an investigation. Mr. Giner said he believes ultimately it would go to the state prosecutors..
STAFF COMMENTS
a. Town Attorney (in writing) – Vice Chairman Hickey noted the Town Attorney’s report outlines two pending litigation cases against the Commission. One is Somerset Development where the schedule has been suspended until February, 2008. For 229 Post Road versus the Planning and Zoning Commission, the brief is scheduled for February, 2008. Chairman Duren suggested the Commission meet on these matters.
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer (in writing) Mr. Bickley has sent a memo for October outlining the home occupation uses and describing the building permit applications, c.o.’s and zoning enforcement case law.
c. Director of Planning
Mr. Giner stated there was some discussion last time about the status of the landscaping at the American Inn project off Mayfield Drive. Wayne was not yet able to review the property. Mr. Giner did speak with the owner of the project who tells him he has put in the landscaping. He hired a landscape architect and had to replant some of the trees. Mr. Bickley will review the project and see if it was what was approved. Mr. Giner encouraged Commission members to view this site. Mr. Bickley and Mr. Giner will view the site early next week.
Mr. Giner brought up the need to add an item on the agenda to appoint Chris Burke of Burke Associates as the appraiser for Cherry Wood Estates. Mr. Giner suggested a procedure for naming appraisers and having him keep a list of those who are approved to be updated regularly to provide to applicants. Commissioner Ballard suggested Mr. Giner give the Commission a list of three names and the Commission will put it to a vote.
Mr. Giner stated on the Hasbro project they want to install a couple of break away gates. He showed the location of the two break away gates. There is a landscaped area also.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve an administrative approval by Mr. Giner to Hasbro for two break away gates with the caveat that Mr. Giner confer with the Safety Director and Fire Marshal. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
Mr. Giner stated he has had a request from Adspresso LLC to allow internally lit signs. Mr. Giner stated the Commission just passed a regulation to allow internally lit signs in the overlay district. The sign is already there and the request is to illuminate it.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to allow Mr. Giner to approve administratively the internally lit sign for Adspresso LLC. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to add an item to tonight’s agenda under New Business 11 c. for the approval of Chris Burke of Burke Associates as an appraiser for Cherry Wood Estates. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Margaret Jedziniak, Abbe Road, Enfield, asked about a question Commissioner Ballard had asked her about the corner of Town Farm Road and Abbe Road. Commissioner Ballard stated the state has gone before the Zoning Board of Appeals and it was approved to realign that intersection and it is part of a state project. They did not need to show a hardship.
Mr. Giner stated ZBA can still deny it. They applied for variances because when the State moves a road or right of way and causes a setback problem and makes a property become nonconforming, they are obligated under state law to apply for a variance on behalf of the property owner. This is why the state was applying for variances. Mr. Giner has seen cases where the state was denied a variance because it caused a greater hardship on the people that were there. Mr. Giner discussed other applications where the state was involved.
Ms. Jedziniak believes that the state is coming into the Town of Enfield and taking property by eminent domain. Mr. Giner was not sure and Ms. Jedziniak would have to ask Engineering and Public Works about the process. Normally they negotiate right of way acquisition with the property owner.
Ms. Jedziniak stated it seemed to have already happened. Mr. Giner stated this is a ZBA matter and it doesn’t necessarily follow that they have already negotiated the takings. Ms. Jedziniak stated it seems to her that it is very close to the properties and they will also have to take down several large trees. She would say that they are doing things that the people in Enfield would not care to have going on. It has already gone on on Post Office Road where they are taking the property in front of people’s houses. They did change the road and she thinks people should know what is happening in Enfield.
Vice Chairman Hickey asked if Mr. Giner is notified of state actions. Mr. Giner stated not unless it requires the Public Works and the Town Council approval for the project. Vice Chairman Hickey asked if the individual property owner will be notified. Mr. Giner stated the process is usually to negotiate with the property owner and come to some type of agreement. If they cannot, they would go to some form of eminent domain procedure. This is more of the Town Council and Public Works issue. The only time the ZBA gets involved is if they negotiate a right of way that is somehow impacting someone’s lot and decreases the setback. They are then obligated to be the applicant for a variance.
Ms. Jedziniak stated recently she and her husband received a letter from AT&T telling them that they wanted to put a pole up. Mr. Giner stated those are public rights of way and utilities. The town’s Town Attorney has said the Commission can’t do much about that.
Ms. Jedziniak stated they wanted to put the pole in a line of trees adjacent to her property. They hadn’t told the town and they said they don’t have to tell anybody but the Public Utilities. Mr. Giner stated this was a transformer box. Ms. Jedziniak stated it is a pole with a single box on it. The Town asked for a copy of the letter and no one knew about it. They were quite concerned that they were going to put telephone poles on the other side of the street to where poles are already in. Mr. Giner stated Planning and Zoning does not get notified of that. A lot of these matters go before the Public Utility Commission and if its big enough it goes before the Siting Council. The Town becomes a party and is able to attend the hearings. However, most of the time they just send agendas out to the Town Hall.
Ms. Jedziniak was concerned with what is happening in the town. It’s bringing on a great many lawsuits in the Town of Enfield. She hopes Planning and Zoning will keep their eyes open for the sake of the people in the Town of Enfield.
Commissioner Duren stated the Commission has two postponements of hearings that were to be heard tonight. He noted a letter from Dana Steele of J. R. Russo regarding the Village at Powder Hollow. The applicant is unable to attend the hearing this evening and they have granted the necessary extension to continue the hearing to the November 15, 20007 meeting.
Commissioner Duren read a letter from Karios Properties LLC which is under Site Plan Review 1429 requesting the Commission postpone their hearing to November 15, 2007.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace asked that the application on Post Office Road be scheduled for the next agenda.
Chairman DiPace noted Correspondence includes the following: notification of Wetlands Permits letters; a letter from Alan Tracy, a letter from Daniel Hinckley, a memo dated September 6 from John Cabibbo, the Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies Quarterly Newsletter, a summary of zoning, subdivision and POCD referrals from the Capitol Region Council of Governments and the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Notice of Action dated October 16, 2007.
Commissioners’ Correspondence
Chairman DiPace noted Commissioners’ Correspondence includes a violation order, the Connecticut Wildlife from the DEP, and information on a conference, Building Energy 08, on green energy.
Commissioner Duren stated he is liaison to the Thompsonville Revitalization and Strategy Commission. They had a discussion and were wondering how the Commission would feel about conversion of the larger homes into condominiums. Their concern was for younger couples starting out. Commissioner Duren stated we did this several years ago with People to People, a group out of St. Bernard’s Church, and took some of the old factory housing and turned it into co-ops. Commissioner Sarno stated she is not sure this falls under the Committee the Commission is trying to put together.
Mr. Giner stated he had this conversation with Peter Bryanton and you cannot regulate tenure. The courts have always held that you regulate land use. If it is a multi-family, it is a multi-family whether someone owns it or someone rents it. The court cases in Connecticut have been consistent in saying you cannot regulate the tenure of the land use. Chairman DiPace asked if someone had an apartment and they wanted to make it a condo, they could do that. Mr. Giner stated there is a procedure that is governed by state statute for that. The courts have said Commissions can’t get involved in deciding whether it is ownership or rental.
Commissioner Duren asked how the Commission feels about converting some of these larger buildings to condominiums. Mr. Giner stated that would have to come before the Commission. Whether they are apartments for rent or condominiums would not come into the decision. Mr. Giner stated there could be grant programs that encourage owner occupied units.
Commissioner Sarno stated she was contacted about Bigelow and Hartford Avenue to try to separate these homes. It would allow someone to buy half of it. Then you get into the home maintenance issues. Commissioner Sarno did not feel this fell under the group being organized for the senior housing.
Commissioner Sarno stated there has been a lot of interest on the committee and she would like to get it going. She has people that have contacted her via email and personally and she asked where we go from here. Chairman DiPace stated it is on the agenda for this evening but the Commission may not get to it. He suggested a special meeting to try to get the Committee going. Chairman DiPace would like to receive a list of the people who have volunteered via email. He suggested next Thursday night for a special meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 4, 2007
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 November 1).
Dave Fredrick and Frank Legienza appeared before the Commission regarding this zone change request.
Mr. Fredrick stated he is representing Villages LLC owned by Diane Fredrick and Jeannette Tallarita and also Frank Legienza. He pointed out on the map where the subject property is located. It is located on the east side of Simon Road and it consists of sixty acres. Frank Legienza owns about five acres on both the north and south side of their property. The property is located in a former R-17 area. Shannon, Celtic, Kelly and Patricia are R-17 lots with an R-88 zone.
Mr. Fredrick stated he would like to make an observation to individuals who might not be aware of the zoning regulations. Under the present R-44 regulations, he would be within his rights to appear before the Commission looking for an active adult community. This land would support approximately seventy units. They are not looking for that. Under the present R-44 subdivision, they would be able to generate 38 lots. Mr. Fredrick has asked his surveyor to show what this subdivision would look like at 38 lots. It would be the same entrance and they would be using the same amount of land. The same amount of land would be used for R-33 or R-44. They would be giving this open space to the Town of Enfield.
Mr. Fredrick showed what an R-33 subdivision would look like. The R-44 subdivision would generate thirty-eight lots. Under the R-33 subdivision, they would generate 45 lots or a net difference of seven lots. With R-33 the zoning regulations call for twenty-five percent of the land to be used for open space. With R-33 they are able to donate to the Town of Enfield twenty of the sixty acres or one-third of the land for open space.
Mr. Fredrick stated they have assembled the project with an environmental eye for the subdivision. Villages is sixty acres on the east side of Simon Road. It is currently zoned R-44 and they are requesting R-33. The minimum lot size of the R-33 would be 25,000 square feet. R-44 would be 33,000 square feet or an 8,000 square foot difference. The proposed R-33 would exceed most of the lots in the old R-17 and currently the present R-33 zoning. The market price for these single family homes would be in the $300,000 area. The Villages would have full municipal facilities available to them.
Mr. Fredrick stated when the zones were changed from R-17 in the early eighties, the reason behind that was that there was no available land that was serviced by public utilities. Therefore, the R-44 lot was necessary to support a septic tank and a well. That doesn’t apply on Simon Road because they have full municipal facilities available to the property.
Mr. Fredrick stated there are precious few single family building lots in the Town of Enfield.
Mr. Fredrick reported Villages has recently joined the Connecticut Green Building Council. They are going to implement geothermal energy, solar energy and lawn gardens particularly in sensitive areas. Villages is keenly aware of the sensitivity of the Scantic River and they will work in conjunction with the town land use agencies to protect and preserve the existing environment.
Commissioner Duren asked if the figures take into account the wetlands and the steep slopes. Mr. Fredrick stated the open space land is outlined in orange on the plans. The wetlands on the developable land is .65 or less than one acre. It is a very dry property.
Chairman DiPace asked what is the dark shaded spot on the plans. Mr. Fredrick stated that is the regulated wetlands area. The houses would be away from the escarpments.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.
Sean McGuire, 17 Kelly Drive, presented and read a petition for the record in opposition to this application.
Tom Donahue, Celtic Court, spoke against the zone change. He stated if the zone change is granted, this development is not what has to be built. Anything that is allowed in R-33 is allowed to be built. Mr. Fredrick mentioned in R-44 he could build seventy units. If this was R-33 housing instead of being two units per developable acre in R-44, it would be three units per developable acre in R-33. Mr. Donahue noted the housing market is in a state of flux and there is nothing saying what will eventually be built there no matter what the intention is right now. Mr. Donahue discussed a previous Powder Hollow application that was denied. He believes a lot of the same principles would exist here. The merits of this development are not what is at question. What is at question is do we want R-33 in that area or R-44.
Ellen Martin, 6 Patricia Circle, offered some points of clarification with regards to the minutes of the October 4 hearing. In the initial presentation, both Attorney Smith and Mr. Fredrick pointed out many times that the request for the zone change from R-44 to R-33 is very consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. Ms. Martin agrees with that statement. However, what is not mentioned is that those neighborhoods were already developed before the town’s decision to up zone. The town’s decision to designate the area around the Scantic River takes into account the resident’s desire to slow the pace of development and reduce the density. Even though the zone change request is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods, it is not consistent with the town’s plan.
Ms. Martin stated during the hearing Attorney Smith and Mr. Fredrick emphasized differences or lack thereof between R-44 and R-33 and that some designation was at one time necessary with regards to the issue of public utilities and needing a larger footprint for septic systems. Since the proposed development will utilize public utilities, that concern is no longer valid. What Attorney Smith and Mr. Fredrick do not mention is that down zoning in this area to put more houses in goes against the concept of up zoning to slow that density and development.
Ms. Martin stated her issue is not about the type of development they intend to build. Her issue is with down zoning. Attorney Smith ended his rebuttal with some comments and questions. The Commission has two things to weigh. One is the benefit to the developer and also how does it impact the community. She thinks he had that question in the wrong order. First and foremost the Commission needs to look at the impact to the community and the part of that impact must reflect the town plan. How does it weigh against similar situations? One was in April, 2006 where the Commission honored the town plan and denied the request. When the first down zone request came through in April, 2000, Ms. Martin reviewed the minutes for that meeting – PH#2173. To be honest with you, she was a little confused as to why the town plan wasn’t considered more thoroughly in the Commissioners’ decision. At that time, Mr. Giner’s memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission referred to the town plan saying that the parcel could be developed under the open space provision of the regulations regardless of whether it was R-44 or R-88 since there’s public water and sewer available. The significant difference, according to Mr. Giner, is that under R-44 twenty-five percent of the lot area would have to be reserved as open space while in the present R-88 zoning fifty percent of the area would be the minimal requirement. Ms. Martin takes that to mean that leaving the zone as it was, R-88, would require the developer to give back more land to the town. That sure is an answer to reducing density and that is following the town plan.
Ms. Martin stated Mr. Giner’s memo also sums it up nicely. He states the issues the applicant needs to address are whether the overall benefits of more compact development with respect to open space preservation on that property outweigh the risks involved in allowing a greater density. Yet the minutes of the meeting do not reflect either of those two points that Mr. Giner’s memo addresses. Ms. Martin asked if his memo was reviewed and considered in the decision.
Ms. Martin stated the Enfield Conservation Commission’s recommendations against that first zone change answers Mr. Giner’s concerns. According to them, that plan does not conform to the Plan of Conservation and Development in regard to the preferred use. In addition, the larger lots under the present R-88 would provide greater area on the individual lots for distancing structures, grading and other impact from natural resources while not requiring the town to maintain the property. Yet the minutes of that meeting do not reflect the Conservation Commission’s concern. The only mention of the Conservation Commission’s recommendation was regarding a letter. The attorney stated they were all present together with their soil scientists when the application was discussed and they asked to speak and the Commission would not allow them to do so. He noted they had given their recommendation without hearing from the applicant.
Ms. Martin stated the Commission’s concerns and reasons against that zone change were based upon the town plan. A soil analysis in this case was not the issue. Yet the concerns of the Commission were not addressed or discussed. At the time of the vote for the first zone change, Commissioner Crowley stated the change in that zone would mean the property still meets or exceeds other developments in that area. He was in favor and noted the town would benefit with the open space dedication along the Scantic River. Ms. Martin wondered if Commissioner Crowley knew the purpose of the up zoning back in 1987-88. She does not believe it was done to keep the properties as dense. As far as the town benefiting with open space dedication, maybe the part of Mr. Giner’s memo was overlooked when he explained that the significant difference under R-44, twenty-five percent of the lot area, versus R-88, fifty percent of the lot area, would be the minimum. Before taking the vote, the Chairman referred to the homes across the street being on a much smaller lot and stated that R-88 in that area is almost an overkill. Where was the Chairman when the town plan was adopted and passed out?
Ms. Martin stated in summary, benefit to the developer, more houses and more money. How does it impact the community? Not the way it should. It goes against the town plan. It goes against the expressed desires of the townspeople. Ms. Martin questioned why do we need seven to ten more high end houses in Enfield which already has 200 plus or minus on the market. If it was approved, what would stop the abutting land owners from doing the same thing and receiving the same zone change. How does it weigh against similar situations? The most recent one was in 2006 when the Planning and Zoning Commission upheld the town plan or the Planning and Zoning in 2007 where Ms. Martin doesn’t really think they considered the town plan with regard to the up zoning concept. She doesn’t really think they considered the town plan with reducing the density of new residential development. She doesn’t think they considered the Conservation Commission’s concerns. To Ms. Martin it looks like the first zone change request could be considered spot zoning. What a developer wanted, a developer got without regard to the many reasons why he shouldn’t and without regard to what Attorney Smith suggested needed to be looked at and that was the impact on the community.
Ms. Martin stressed to the Commission that before they vote to down zone an area that they up zoned in accordance with the town’s land use plan, please consider the Town Plan of Conservation and Development. Please consider the Powder Hollow property hearing in 2006 where under similar circumstances the Commission decided to follow the land use plan. The town’s concept of up zoning has been compromised already by the approval of the down zoning of this property in 2000. She would hope that if the Planning and Zoning Commission does anything to the zoning on this property that it would up zone it back to what it was and what it should be in keeping with the town plan.
Chairman DiPace asked if there were any more comments, either from the public or the applicant.
Hearing none, Chairman DiPace closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve PH#2617, Petition for a zone change from R-44 to R-33, for 91 Simon Road.
Commissioner Duren stated he plans to vote against this zone change. It goes against the Plan of Development and the preservation of the Scantic River watershed. He has not heard any reason to change the zone.
Commissioner Jones echoed Commissioner Duren’s comments. He does not think it is consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development. It sets a bad precedent for other properties along the Scantic and he doesn’t think the benefits to the town outweigh the detriment to the town.
Commissioner Sarno stated she will also be voting against this zone change. The Commission denied a similar project and they need to keep it that way.
Chairman DiPace disagreed. He saw a need to look at what we’re doing with the town. He met a gentleman at the Eastern States that talked about preserving farmland. One of the things he said was by having two acre lots for homes is more than people need and the more homes built like that the faster we eat up the farmland that we have. At the rate we’re going, there will be no farms left in the near future. He said if you allow more density and give people smaller yards, they are not going to spend as much time working in the yards because they are not as big and you will use up less space. Chairman DiPace thought if it was this application or down the road that we really need to take a look at that. The difference with Powder Hollow was there were no sewer lines and there was going to be septic systems. There are public utilities with this application.
Chairman DiPace stated whether it is rezoned R-33 or it is developed as R-44, the same amount of land is being used. It is just how many homes will be allowed. If there are less houses, we will be eating up the land faster and faster. If we want to preserve farmland, we really need to take a look at how we’re doing things and try to preserve farmland.
The motion was denied by a 2 – 5 – 0 vote. Chairman DiPace and Commissioner Hickey voted in favor; Commissioners Jones, Ballard, Duren, Sarno, Alternate, and Ladd, Alternate, voted against.
b. 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 November 1)
At the request of the applicant, this public hearing was continued to November 15, 2007. Chairman DiPace opened the hearing to the audience and no one spoke in favor or against this application.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 18, 2007
a. PH#2614 – Special Use Permit for a 42-unit senior residential development with related site work to be located east of Mayfield Drive, north of Westview Drive and west of Shaker Pines Lake, zoned R-44, Map 79, Lot 11, Stonegate Associates, LLC, Applicant, Angelina McGillivray and John and Marnie Dyer, Owner. (Must close by November 15)
Chairman DiPace noted both Alternates will be sitting in on this public hearing.
Mr. Giner stated an extension was granted just to tonight and not to November 15. There was a mistake in the agenda.
Wes Wentworth of Wentworth Civil Engineers stated he would be happy to respond to questions.
Commissioner Duren asked if there was still a question open about the necessity for a parking area for the land trust. Mr. Wentworth responded the land trust was all for having a parking area and that is shown on the plans. It is a five-space gravel parking area.
Lori Parker, 105 Cottage Road, stated she obtained a little more detail on other points that she had previously brought up. One was about the drainage calculation methods that were used. She did find the report from the engineer who did the study for the Lake Association. He spoke about the rational method that was used for the drainage pipe calculations and said that the recommended method was the TR-20 or TR-55 which is part of the guidelines in the manual of the Connecticut Department of Transportation. He recommends the use of the TR-20 or TR-55 for peak flow calculations. Ms. Parker submitted the supporting detail on that. Ms. Parker stated it was probably based on the old flow rates. Mr. Giner stated that was raised at the last hearing and the town’s engineers supported the methodology that was used at that time. The Town Engineer has reviewed all this and the Commission has a memo.
Lori Parker had questioned the pumping station and a site plan and the applicant had said the improvements were internal. However, she wondered about the culvert and if that was going to be needing improvements and if that would require a site plan. Chairman DiPace stated the culvert is in the town right of way. Ms. Parker is questioning the big pipe that goes along the front of the beach behind the retaining wall. Mr. Giner stated without knowing the improvements, he would not know whether it would need to come back or not. If it involved taking more land to expand the road, then it would be an 8-24. Mr. Giner stated it depends on the site work on the pump station whether it will have to come back.
Chairman DiPace stated the changes are internal for the pumping station and the culvert is not part of the application.
Lori Parker wondered about the catch basins and if they are running into the town road catch basins and who will maintain those – the town or Stonegate Associates. Mr. Giner responded Stonegate’s responsibility is to maintain the ones on their property. If there are some connected to the town drainage system, the town would maintain them.
Lori Parker noted the letter submitted by the Conservation Commission at the last meeting which cited some supporting documentation. She didn’t know if all that was brought forward into this application. In the last sentence of their letter, they cited some supporting documents and she asked if they had been brought forward. Chairman DiPace stated the Commission is taking this information under advisement. She submitted the first item she addressed for the record.
Mr. Giner asked if the intervener is submitting only the one page clipped open or the whole document. Ms. Parker stated she is submitting the whole document.
Jessica Duga, 101 Cottage Road, stated she has a few concerns. She would ask that the Commission deny this application. The community of Shaker Pines is a small community. It’s got a lot of history and character. Ms. Duga felt if we continue to allow development that is immediately adjacent to the lake neighborhood it seems as though the neighborhood will turn into a through way to get to somewhere else. Once that happens, there is no going back to what they have. It is a beautiful area and it’s very quiet. Ms. Duga would like it to stay that way. Ms. Duga stated seeing how there is no actual guarantee that the storm water management proposed by the applicant will be sufficient, there’s going to be a lot of homeowners that live with a lot of anxiety and worry every time there is a heavy rain or extended periods of rain. She discussed the flooding in the past where the Lake rose so quickly. Ms. Duga is in fear that if the storm water management doesn’t work, what’s going to happen. It’s going to be so much worse. Ms. Duga asked if the Commission approves this application that they not allow them to tap into the pump station on West Shore. It seems if they are going to build a new community, they should be able to build a whole new sewer system and not have to tap into one that is right on the lake. If anything were to happen, it would be a huge health risk and funds the lake association would have to spend. Property values would plummet and they would have a lake that would be completely useless. Ms. Duga stated everyone is nervous about what will happen if this application passes. People have a lot of concerns. Ms. Duga asked that the Commission deny this application.
James Brislin, Oakwood Street, stated at the last hearing the applicant introduced into evidence what they described as a positive reputation here in town. Since they brought that into evidence, he will rebut it. Chairman DiPace stopped Mr. Brislin at this point and asked that he not attack individuals.
Mr. Brislin stated the developer claims that he is going to price the homes in the ballpark of $300,000. His previous development, Autumn Fields, has homes that are still not selling. With the decline in home prices, Mr. Brislin felt the homes will have trouble selling which leads to the question of what happens to them. He questioned if the developer will be coming back in four or five years asking for a free pass to let them not be fifty-five plus units. Mr. Brislin noted this is an environmentally sensitive project and the applicant is not entitled to his permit. He thinks that evidence and history prove there is not enough commitment to take the necessary steps to preserve public health and to protect the environment.
Pat Houlan, 27 West Shore Drive, hoped the Commission will deny this application. If they do not, she hopes the Commission considers large bonds being held even when it’s turned over to an association. She cited what could happen to the lake with the pumping station and their wells and everything they have known. She would hate to see it lost.
Linda Meyer, 109 Cottage Road, would like to raise the issue of the possibility of the developer starting the project and falling upon a situation where he cannot continue and the condition of the land that might be left over a period of time. The reason she raises this is she is looking at Mayfield every day. Fortunately, that land does not drain into their lake but this project would. If the exact same situation happens with this development, that silt will run right into their lake. She would like the Commission to deny the application.
Chairman DiPace asked the applicant if that is the only access they have for a pumping station and is there another alternative. Mr. Wentworth stated it was not their decision to use that pump station. They met initially with Water Pollution Control and they designated it as to here is where you should tie in. They added we have this dilapidated pump station that’s causing problems so we’re curing a bad situation by upgrading. That was at the recommendation and direction of both the Water Pollution Control and the professional engineers that they hired to prepare a report for the upgrade.
Chairman DiPace asked if there are any changes to the pipes that have to be made. Mr. Wentworth responded not that he is aware of. There are no off-site pipes being changed. What was prepared was a report by a third party engineer hired by the Water Pollution Control stating all the upgrades. Once this approval falls in place, that engineer will be hired to prepare the actual plans to do the upgrade. They will have to meet the requirements of the Water Pollution Control.
Mr. Wentworth stated there are problems with Shaker Pines Lake in terms of flooding now. They have never testified that they are going to fix those problems. They are just not worsening them. 1,200 acres currently flow into Shaker Pines Lake. They have a drainage area coming off their site and they are developing between ten and fifteen acres of land. It is very minimal in terms of effect on that lake and the amount of runoff coming into a lake is directly proportional to the land area draining to that. Their ponds are conservatively designed and over designed and over engineered in terms of storm water peak flow retention.
Chairman DiPace asked about volume. Mr. Wentworth stated volume is not being decreased and it is not required to be decreased. Whenever you have development, there are increases in volume over a long period of time. Chairman DiPace asked what kind of volume are we talking about. Mr. Wentworth stated that number has not been computed and it is not required to be computed.
Chairman DiPace asked about the peak flow and if it is designed to withstand a twenty-five year storm or more. Mr. Wentworth stated it is designed to withstand the smallest rain storm up to a 100-year storm. All the culverts, the road crossings and the roads themselves have been designed as well as the volumes, the structures and the emergency overflow structures. Mr. Wentworth stated there are emergency measures, two or three in each pond, should something fail.
Chairman DiPace asked if this drainage system that Mr. Wentworth designed does not work, will he come back and repair it. Mr. Wentworth stated he will come back and oversee anything as far as engineering. He is a professional engineer licensed in the State of Connecticut and he puts in conservative measures and factors of safety into everything he does. He has been designing with practices that have been used for thirty to forty years throughout Connecticut to control development. The designs as far as capacities go – for his emergency measures, those design methods have been in place for seventy to eighty years when they size emergency overflows.
Chairman DiPace asked when the water does flow, could Mr. Wentworth show where the water is going to come out and in which direction it’s going to go. Mr. Wentworth presented an overall map of the area. He pointed out the drainage area that comes down and is being protected by two detention basins. Again, they have oversized these basins for both storm water quality and peak flow retention. One of these ponds would take care of any increases in flow but they have shown two and they are outside the wetlands. There is an emergency overflow. There is a ten to twelve acre drainage area where it leaves the site and that flows southeast and eventually under West Shore Drive and ultimately into Shaker Pines Lake. The eastern terminus flows to an extremely oversized detention basin. There is incredibly large volume to accommodate this flow and it is 200% to 300% oversized for even a 100-year storm event. Mr. Wentworth pointed out the much larger drainage area coming down with head waters coming from Massachusetts and 120 to 140 acres draining down and discharging at the lower portion into the wetlands. There are appropriately designed emergency spillways to accommodate peak flows coming in.
Chairman DiPace asked if there is any way to slow down the volume without jeopardizing the detention basin so that it doesn’t come gushing out. Mr. Wentworth stated that is exactly what they are doing. When they say they are metering peak flows, they are trickling the ponds out over a course of twenty-four hours or more. They are coming out of the spreader and there are outlet pipes that are eight inches in size. There is a very small flow. They come out ultimately into rip rap spreader time situations to diffuse the flow and get it acceptably into the wetlands.
Chairman DiPace asked if the grades will be directed so that the water goes exactly where they want it to go. Mr. Wentworth stated yes. He has placed his emergency overflows and natural low points because it is easier to work with. They work with the grades as much as possible and always can safely direct all water in a situation where it will not wreak havoc should a failure in the street system occur. Every step of the way they look at safeguards in these designs. Lastly, there is a small portion that drains to the north to a large wetland system to the northwest. They are not worsening that situation at all. There is a concern at Dartmoor where they have flooding coming up to the rear of their condominiums. When Dartmoor was designed, sized and built there is a flared end and natural low point where that flooding can come up and drain and pass through their situation. Again, should that happen now, they have a piping system to accommodate this natural flooding. They are not worsening that situation.
Mr. Wentworth stated in regard to erosion controls, during construction they have designed and laid out everything to 2002 Connecticut erosion control standards and met and exceeded those. There is no proposal to change any exterior culverts at the pump station. Their catch basins, drainage and detention basins are all private and discharge independently on site and are completely separate from town systems. There is a storm water management plan that will be on the land records and it is also on the plans.
Commissioner Ladd asked what agency enforces that management plan. Mr. Wentworth stated it can be brought to the town’s attention and it is on the land records. Ultimately it is a civil matter but it can be brought through the wetlands agent or through the town planning staff as far as notification working with the homeowners’ association.
Mr. Giner stated when the hearing is closed, he will prepare a memo with pros and cons for the Commission’s consideration. He will try to summarize the testimony and the findings.
Commissioner Duren stated a wetlands permit was issued according to an October 23, 2007 letter. It is Wetlands Permit 460-02 issued October 16, 2007.
This public hearing was closed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2624 – Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the renovation of the former high school/residence building at the Felician Sisters Convent to house 22 apartments at 1297 Enfield Street, zoned HR-33, Map 46, Lot 2, Glenn H. Gregg, Applicant/Felician Sisters Convent, Owner. (Must close by November 15)
Glen Gregg of Gregg, Weis and Gardner, representing the Felician Sisters, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. They are here tonight seeking to build twenty-two units of apartments in the building on the Felician Sisters property that was originally the convent. It was then a high school and residence hall and most recently a day care center for children. It has been vacant for four years and the Sisters would like to protect their property by building apartments on the property.
Mr. Gregg presented a site plan showing the architectural details. The building is attached to the main building or the Mansion up front. There are columns on both sides. The building is presently used as a residence and the lower level is used as an adult day care center. The two buildings are separate. There is a connection between them right now but that will be closed off. They are building a new interior fire stair to be able to separate the two buildings completely.
Mr. Gregg stated there will be forty-six parking spaces on the back side. It is a slightly different configuration than was presented during the informal presentation last spring. In order to preserve the trees on the site, the layout changed somewhat. The entrance is off of South Road directly in to the parking lot. They are doing a good deal more work on the site itself to upgrade the property. The fire service to the property is undersized and quite old and they will be coming in with a new fire service and fire hydrants throughout the property. This also allows them to bring in new water service for this building and new sprinkler service.
Mr. Gregg presented a drawing of the building and showed the landscaping layout. They have accessible parking spaces and an existing walkway and a new handicapped ramp coming right up to the side which is where a new elevator will be placed so that all units are accessible. On the first floor, there are three units which are adaptable to being accessible.
Mr. Gregg presented a drawing showing the floor elevations of the building. The main purpose of this drawing is to show that the entire character of the building is being preserved. This is a handsome well-built building designed in the early 1930’s and used initially as the convent. There is an entrance side from the parking lot with two existing doors and there’s a canopy over them which will be replaced with a new canopy. Mr. Gregg pointed out the main entrance for the public. They will change the color of that door and have signage to guide people there. There will be a canopy in the front as well.
Mr. Gregg stated there will be twenty-two units. They will be building a new elevator to service all the floors. There’s an existing section of the building that is the size the elevator will go in. They have to extend it up and it is in an area that really can’t be seen from the outside.
Mr. Gregg stated there are four to six units on a floor and most of the units are two bedrooms. There are some one bedrooms and there are two efficiencies. The apartments are good sized.
Mr. Gregg presented a series of photographs that show the existing surroundings and the context of the building. The building is handsome and they would like to keep it that way. They plan to replace all the windows with new windows of good quality.
Mr. Gregg stated Ed Lally, their civil engineer is present. They have surveyed the site and tested the soil. They have a soil erosion plan, a drainage plan, a parking plan and a landscaping plan and all the documents required by the town for that.
Chairman DiPace stated the Health Department had a concern about lead paint. Mr. Gregg stated they have been abating the whole building and that will be totally abated before they begin construction. The Fire Marshal had asked to locate the hydrant in a specific area and they are amenable to locating the hydrant where the Fire Marshal wants it. There are hydrants throughout the property but they are undersized and in very poor condition. They will be replacing all the hydrants on the site and upgrading the size of the service into the property.
Mr. Gregg pointed out the existing fire lane that the Fire Marshal has asked them to maintain so they can get a ladder truck into the side of the building. They will lose two parking spaces but may accommodate them elsewhere on the site.
Commissioner Duren noted they received approval from the Enfield Historic District.
Commissioner Jones was impressed with the plan and felt it was a great use for this building.
Commissioner Ladd asked who will be managing the property. Mr. Gregg stated that decision has not yet been made.
Mr. Gregg submitted three letters in support of this application. They were from Karen Jarmoc, State House of Representatives, Chris Casey dated October 31, and Susan Reale, Pearl Street. Also, approval was given by the Historic District Commission under HDC#337.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve PH #2624 –Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the renovation of the former high school/residence building at the Felician Sisters Convent to house 22 apartments at 1297, aka 1315, Enfield Street, zoned HR-33, Map 46, Lot 2, Glenn H. Gregg, Applicant/Felician Sisters Convent, Owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Felician Sisters Proposed Apartments, 1315 Enfield St. Enfield, CT 06082, Title Sheet” Sheet T-1.0, Scale: “As Noted”, by Gregg Wies & Gardner Architects, dated 13 September 2007.
“Felician Sisters Proposed Apartments, 1315 Enfield St. Enfield, CT 06082, Survey” Sheet C-1.0, Scale: “As Noted”, by Gregg Wies & Gardner Architects, dated 13 September 2007.
“Felician Sisters Proposed Apartments, 1315 Enfield St. Enfield, CT 06082, Site Plan- Demo” Sheet C-1.1, Scale: “As Noted”, by Gregg Wies & Gardner Architects, dated 13 September 2007.
“Felician Sisters Proposed Apartments, 1315 Enfield St. Enfield, CT 06082, Site Plan- Parking/Landscape” Sheet C-1.2, Scale: “As Noted”, by Gregg Wies & Gardner Architects, dated 13 September 2007.
“Felician Sisters Proposed Apartments, 1315 Enfield St. Enfield, CT 06082, Site Plan- Utilities” Sheet C-1.3.2, Scale: “As Noted”, by Gregg Wies & Gardner Architects, dated 13 September 2007. “Felician Sisters Proposed Apartments, 1315 Enfield St. Enfield, CT 06082, Site Plan- Utilities” Sheet C-1.3.1, Scale: “As Noted”, by Gregg Wies & Gardner Architects, dated 13 September 2007.
“Felician Sisters Proposed Apartments, 1315 Enfield St. Enfield, CT 06082, Site Plan- Grading and Erosion Control” Sheet C-1.4, Scale: “As Noted”, by Gregg Wies & Gardner Architects, dated 13 September 2007.
“Felician Sisters Proposed Apartments, 1315 Enfield St. Enfield, CT 06082, Site Plan-Parking” Sheet C-1.5, Scale: “As Noted”, by Gregg Wies & Gardner Architects, dated 13 September 2007.
“Felician Sisters Proposed Apartments, 1315 Enfield St. Enfield, CT 06082, Site Plan- Sedimentation & Erosion Control Notes” Sheet C-1.6, Scale: “As Noted”, by Gregg Wies & Gardner Architects, dated 13 September 2007.
“Felician Sisters Proposed Apartments, 1315 Enfield St. Enfield, CT 06082, Site Plan- Construction Details Plan 1” Sheet C-1.7.1, Scale: “As Noted”, by Gregg Wies & Gardner Architects, dated 13 September 2007.
“Felician Sisters Proposed Apartments, 1315 Enfield St. Enfield, CT 06082, Site Plan- Construction Details Plan 2” Sheet C-1.7.2, Scale: “As Noted”, by Gregg Wies & Gardner Architects, dated 13 September 2007.
“Felician Sisters Proposed Apartments, 1315 Enfield St. Enfield, CT 06082, Lower Floor Demo/Proposed Plans” Sheet A-2.0, Scale: “As Noted”, by Gregg Wies & Gardner Architects, dated 13 September 2007.
“Felician Sisters Proposed Apartments, 1315 Enfield St. Enfield, CT 06082, First Floor Demo/Proposed Plans” Sheet A-2.1, Scale: “As Noted”, by Gregg Wies & Gardner Architects, dated 13 September 2007.
“Felician Sisters Proposed Apartments, 1315 Enfield St. Enfield, CT 06082, Second Floor Demo/Proposed Plans” Sheet A-2.2, Scale: “As Noted”, by Gregg Wies & Gardner Architects, dated 13 September 2007.
“Felician Sisters Proposed Apartments, 1315 Enfield St. Enfield, CT 06082, Third Floor Demo/Proposed Plans” Sheet A-2.3, Scale: “As Noted”, by Gregg Wies & Gardner Architects, dated 13 September 2007.
“Felician Sisters Proposed Apartments, 1315 Enfield St. Enfield, CT 06082, North Elevation & East Elevation” Sheet A-2.4, Scale: “As Noted”, by Gregg Wies & Gardner Architects, dated 13 September 2007.
“Felician Sisters Proposed Apartments, 1315 Enfield St. Enfield, CT 06082, South Elevation & West Elevation” Sheet A-2.5, Scale: “As Noted”, by Gregg Wies & Gardner Architects, dated 13 September 2007.
Conditions to be met prior to signing of plans:
1. The final plans shall be revised to indicate that the pavement shown on Sheet C-1.1 at elevation 166.25 between the existing building and the 27” maple to remain and the two parking spaces shown to the north east of that area on Sheet C-1.2 to be removed or relocated to allow for Fire Truck access.
2. The Standard Town Notes be added to the plans.
3. The base material on the pavement and sidewalk detail sections should read processed crushed stone.
4. Final fire hydrant locations as approved by the Fire Marshall shall be shown on the plans submitted for signature.
5. All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
6. The plans submitted for signature shall include the Application Number “PH 2624 displayed prominently on the final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
7. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of the Approval and conditions shall be placed on the final plans submitted for signature.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
8. One mylar set 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 Secretary.
9. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
10. An Erosion and Sediment Control and Site Restoration Bond shall be submitted in the form of cash or a check, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
11. A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney shall be submitted to the Town.
12. 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.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
13. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance. The as-built plan shall also contain a certification by a Professional Engineer that they have inspected the site improvements and that they have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. Any deviations or omissions must be noted.
14. 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.
15. No Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval may be issued until the applicant has received a Certificate of Site Plan Compliance from the Planning Department. When minor site work cannot be completed because of weather or other pertinent reason, a conditional Certificate of Site Plan Compliance may be issued for a period not to exceed 180 days, providing satisfactory surety shall be posted with the Town of Enfield in an amount sufficient to complete the site work and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney and Finance Department.
16. A request for Certificate of Site Plan Compliance from the Planning Department must be made at least 10 days before a Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval is requested from the Building Official.
General Conditions:
17. This approval is for the specific use and structure identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structure will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
18. 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.
19. All improvements required on the approved site plan must be maintained in good order and repair and in proper appearance, on a continuing basis. All landscaped areas and plantings, including any planters or like receptacles, shall be maintained free of debris, sand, salt, litter, weeds and other unsightly or deleterious vegetation, growth or matter. Required plantings shall be replaced when the same have died. All parking areas, sidewalks, walkway areas, light standards, berms, curbs, bumpers, signs and all parts of storm drainage systems shall be maintained in good order and repair and in proper appearance on a continuous basis. The site shall be maintained free of debris, sand, salt, litter, weeds and other unsightly or deleterious matter.
20. A building permit for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained within one year of the effective date of the Special Use Permit or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
21. The project shall be completed by November 1, 2012 or this approval shall be considered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission .
22. 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.
Chairman DiPace felt this is a nice fit for this building.
Commissioner Duren noted it maintains the same character of the building.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to recess. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission recessed at 9:30 p.m. Commissioner Sarno left the meeting at this time. The Commission reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
b. PH#2625 – Special Use Permit to put a 12’ x 16’ pre-built shed on concrete blocks west to an existing garage and to install 10 additional parking spots in two phases, at 4 Thistle Lane (off High Street) zoned R-33, Map 15, Lot 133, William Peltier, Applicant/Freshwater Pond Limited Partnership, Owners. (Must close by November 15)
William Peltier, 9 Tabor Road, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He represents Freshwater Pond apartments and they are proposing a couple of modifications to the property. One modification is a small 12’ x 16’ shed pre-built that will be placed on some cinder blocks. Next to the shed is the existing garage. The second modification is some additional parking. They would like to do five spots this year and five spots next year. He pointed out the material from the contractor. They will be using existing drainage and will not have to install additional catch basins.
Commissioner Duren stated it would be tough for people backing in or backing out with the new parking spaces. There are ten new parking spaces in the middle of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Peltier stated that circle is over three hundred feet wide. Chairman DiPace asked what is the distance from the end of the parking space to the curb. Mr. Peltier did not know. However, they measured it using the 19’ parking area and allowing for people to back into it.
Commissioner Duren noted the drawings are not to scale and it looks like people backing out from either position are going to have a tough time. In Commissioner Duren’s opinion, it will also ruin the look of the area by taking out the grass and putting in more blacktop. Mr. Peltier stated right now the area is not used for anything. It was first built as a picnic area. Commissioner Duren would like to see it planted. He noted the gardens in the area. He would hate to see the green space go to parking.
Mr. Peltier stated when it was originally built in 1980, most families only had one car. Now families have two to four cars and there is not enough parking. The cars are all operable.
Commissioner Ballard stated she has seen this configuration some place else in the Woodgate apartment area. It is into the green area like is proposed.
Chairman DiPace would like to know the width of the roadway. He suggested a motion to approve the shed and have Mr. Peltier come back for the parking. Commissioner Duren would like the Traffic Safety Officer to take a look at this configuration.
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to approve the 12’ x 16’ shed for William Peltier, PH#2625. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote. This public hearing was kept open to consider the parking. It will be heard at the November 15, 2007 meeting.
c. PH#2610.02 – Application for modification of plans previously approved for 5 units additional to three units additional/office and future use only on first floor at 127 Pearl Street, zoned TVC, Map 22, Lot 9, Richard Binns, Applicant/Masonic Building Association, Owners. (Must close by November 15)
Richard Binns appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated this project was approved as PH#2610 for the addition of five apartments at 127 Pearl Street with three apartments being below the square footage standards. After redoing the financial calculations, Mr. Binns stated he saw that he could add three apartments and get some specific use for the assembly room. He is proposing three apartments instead of five apartments with one on the third floor, two on the second floor and additional office space on the first floor. He would be leaving the apartment that is there already making it four apartments.
Chairman DiPace asked about on-site parking. Mr. Binns stated there are thirty spaces on site right now. When you take away four for the apartments, it brings it down to 26 spaces. The requested room numbers are based on the zoning regulation, 10.10.2, in terms of how many attendees can go to the given parking spots.
Mr. Binns stated there would be twenty-six available parking spaces and 14 available on the street. They are requesting they be allowed to use 14 on-street parking spaces.
Chairman DiPace stated this is in the middle of a residential neighborhood. People have taken great care in restoring their homes and he has some concerns about allowing on street parking. Mr. Binns stated the parking would be on the other side of the road.
Chairman DiPace stated 160 people is a big stretch with the available parking in his opinion. The amount of parking that is available – twenty six – and to allow 160 people to use this building will mean a lot more cars than anticipated. Mr. Binns stated he was taking the number off the 10.10.2 numbers. Chairman DiPace saw the possibility of eighty cars with 160 people and it is a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Giner stated the opposite side of the street is zoned R-33. The one property on the corner of Maple is residential and then the TVC zone begins.
Commissioner Duren stated there is no public parking in the immediate area.
Mr. Binns acknowledged the public hearing sign has been up for about three weeks. Commissioner Duren was surprised there was no one here about this public hearing. Chairman DiPace stated this would be a bigger impact on this neighborhood than what the Commission had originally approved.
Commissioner Hickey stated one of the standards to demonstrate is to have no adverse impact on the surrounding area. Mr. Binns is not really giving any statements to that effect.
Mr. Binns stated because it went to the TVC and people did not have a problem with it, he didn’t think there would be a problem.
Commissioner Hickey stated Mr. Binns needs to offer proactive testimony that he is meeting the standards of the ordinance.
Mr. Binns stated he didn’t realize he had to do all of that. It seemed 14 cars on the street wouldn’t be a problem. He asked if the twenty-six spots on the site is all he can work with. Chairman DiPace discussed the difference in parking today from years ago. He also reiterated that if 160 people show up, that would be eighty cars and where are they going to go.
Commissioner Hickey stated Mr. Binns has to demonstrate to the Commission why this should be approved. He is not giving the Commission any information.
Mr. Binns stated he doesn’t have any additional information than what he has provided.
Commissioner Duren asked what kind of restriction they would have on hours of use. Mr. Binns would expect everyone out by 11:00 p.m. The hours would be 4:00 p.m., 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Duren stated the police would be getting calls that people are parking in nearby driveways. He also questioned what would be done in the winter when there is no parking on the streets.
Mr. Binns stated there is a possibility of an agreement with the Anderson’s in the building next store that has extra parking. Maybe he could make arrangements and come back to the Commission.
Commissioner Duren noted that Leete-Stevens did have an agreement with the Masonic Hall for cross parking. Mr. Binns stated he owns the property across the street and he has additional parking spaces on that site. Mr. Giner stated this would be asking a residential premises to support commercial parking. Because across the street is not zoned the same, the regulations do not allow such parking.
Commissioner Hickey asked what is the parking criteria that Mr. Binns has to demonstrate. Mr. Giner stated it is contained in 10.10.2 and the memo he sent to the Commission should have the criteria. The parking requirements in 10.2 require one per four seats for parking spaces. The section on TVCZ says you may consider on site parking within 500’. Alot of the parking across the street and south of that is zoned residential and Mr. Giner is not sure those regulations apply to that side of the street which is where the parking is available. If you went by what the regulations require, it would be one for four. The wenty-six parking spaces on site could technically handle 104 people. However, if two people per car show up, you are going to get more. These were the same concerns they had at the A.R.T.
Chairman DiPace suggested Mr. Binns come back and see what he can do with parking agreements. Chairman DiPace stated if the Commission approves this, Mr. Binns would no longer have the five apartments. Mr. Binns asked if they could be separated from the parking. Mr. Binns asked if he would have to have this ready in two weeks. Mr. Giner stated the hearing can be kept open to December 6.
Commissioner Duren stated the Commission has a letter from Revitalization and they did approve it.
Natalie George, 304 Brainard Road, Unit 22, spoke in favor of this application. She noted what is needed in this town is meeting places for small groups. It is presently difficult to find a place to meet for groups of fifty or less. If somehow the parking could be worked out, there is very much of a need for meeting facilities in the town.
Chairman DiPace continued this public hearing to December 6, 2007.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR#1427 – Application to add three 4x3 window openings to east façade of building at 9 North Main Street, zoned TV, Map 24, Lot 59, Sachi Corporation, Applicant, Dayal Patel, Owner.
Chairman DiPace stated these windows are already in. His understanding was Mr. Giner was going to hand