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 18, 2007
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, October 18, 2007, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Vice Chairman Hickey called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman (arrived at 7:58 p.m.)
Elizabeth Ballard
Geoffrey Cooper
Charles Duren
James Hickey, Jr.
Jason Jones
Charles Ladd, Alternate
Nicles Lefakis, Voting Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to approve the Minutes of October 4, 2007. Commissioner Duren made a correction on page 8, third paragraph. “Prime” should read “farm”. Commissioner Ladd made a correction on page 2, paragraph 2, fourth sentence. It should read: “Commissioner Ladd asked if the use of the property as a construction yard is a legal nonconforming use.” The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a unanimous vote.
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to replace item 5 on tonight’s agenda with item 13.a. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote with Alternates Lefakis and Ladd voting.
ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER REPORT (IN PERSON)
Commissioner Ladd brought up the blight ordinance and the difficulty enforcing it. Mr. Bickley stated there are a lot of problems with it. They do have a hearing officer that was appointed approximately five years ago and, hopefully, he will still be willing to do it. Commissioner Ladd stated maybe Mr. Bickley or Mr. Giner could talk to the Town Manager to make sure the Commission has a hearing officer.
Mr. Bickley stated there is one property that is supposed to go before a hearing and that is Louise Drive. It doesn’t go to the hearing officer unless there is an appeal of Mr. Bickley’s order. The second time it goes to a hearing officer is when there are fines involved.
Commissioner Ladd asked if Mr. Bickley has given the North Maple Street property owner a list of the items that need to be addressed. Mr. Bickley has talked to the property owner. He noted there are items handled by the Building Department and the Health Department. Commissioner Ladd stated the law says that Mr. Bickley is the enforcement officer on blight. Mr. Bickley stated only for certain parts of it. Also, it is a town code and not a zoning ordinance. It is set up by the Town Council. Further discussion followed as to whether Mr. Bickley is the enforcement officer for all aspects of the blight ordinance. Commissioner Ladd felt that is something that should get straightened out.
Commissioner Ladd stated he would like to see Raffia Road and North Maple Street addressed. Raffia Road has been going on for ten or fifteen years. Mr. Bickley stated he was out there last Friday and they were installing a new overhead door which they did not have a permit for.
Mr. Giner clarified that Bull Brothers is the business on Raffia Road but he could not find any change in the business to buying and selling construction equipment. It is a question of trying to find out whether they are conducting a separate business on this site. They were grandfathered in as a construction business but there have been allegations that they are buying and selling and reselling used construction equipment. The issue was trying to get some proof of that. Mr. Giner had tried doing a comprehensive search of the internet and could not find Bull Brothers listed as a reseller or a purchaser of construction equipment.
Commissioner Ladd stated he has been told that he could have access to a site map that was approved by the Zoning Commission for two building lots on the Bull Brothers property. Commissioner Ladd stated if it is approved for building lots, it should still be zoned residential. Mr. Bickley stated it is a preexisting nonconforming use. Mr. Giner stated Bull Brothers was subdividing a larger piece of property into building lots and one of the questions was were they planning to retain the existing construction business. Mr. Giner believes the answer was yes and they were not going to give up the business. The Commission then approved the splitting off of residential lots off that property and Bull Brothers retained the lot they are on. The owner did state he was going to continue to run his construction business out of whatever garage he had.
Commissioner Ladd stated it is still Bull Brothers that is the owner and he asked if they were informed they were going to be in violation of the aquifer protection ordinance. Mr. Bickley did not inform them of this.
Commissioner Duren asked previously about the procedure when Mr. Bickley issues a home occupation on condominiums and whether the condominium association is notified. Mr. Bickley stated he does not notify them. It is treated as a single family residence and they have the rights of single family residences. Commissioner Duren asked if the association should be notified. Mr. Giner stated the town is enforcing its zoning regulations. The associations have different rules and it would be impossible to know about all of them. Mr. Giner gave an example of the difficulty in enforcing such a requirement. Mr. Bickley stated usually the Building Inspector will ask for something from the condominium association on any kind of building permit that is issued which also includes siding and roofing.
Commissioner Ladd asked if the North Maple Street property owner has stated if he is going to put up siding. Mr. Bickley stated the boxes on the front porch are siding but he does not know when the siding will be installed.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Section 8-24 Referral – Conveyance to return a 0.91 parcel in the Enfield Industrial Park from the town of Enfield back to Enfield Lodging, LLC. This would then allow the town enforcement powers over the restrictions and conditions set forth in the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for the property. This action is being urged by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Attorney Susan Hays appeared before the Commission. She stated in connection with the acquisition of the property at the corner of Hazard Avenue and Phoenix Avenue, the transaction was the sale of the entire parcel of land to the developer and then the transfer back to the town for conservation purposes of between ten and twelve acres of land. When that was done, a mitigation area that is required by the Army Corps of Engineers and by the Inland Wetlands Permit was split in half. The property was given to the town subject to a restriction that the property can only be used for conservation purposes. The Army Corps of Engineers wanted something more than that on the mitigation area that was located within the town’s property. They, however, did not want the restrictive covenant and they directed Attorney Hays to find someone else who will take it. In talking with the Town Manager, the Town Attorney, the Director of Planning and the Economic Development Director, Attorney Hays stated the simplest thing to do was to transfer back the mitigation area that was within the property given to the town to them and they will then impose upon it the restricted covenant which is a form provided by the Army Corps of Engineers. The town would be the beneficiary of that restricted covenant. This would be acceptable to all parties. This is a referral from the Town Council.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to make a favorable recommendation to the Town Council regarding the Section 8-24 referral – conveyance to return a 0.91 parcel in the Enfield Industrial park from the Town of Enfield back to Enfield Lodging, LLC. The motion was approved by a 7- 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Lefakis and Ladd voting.
CORRESPONDENCE
Vice Chairman Hickey stated correspondence includes a notice from Wayne Bickley concerning a violation at 319 Hazard Avenue with a car sales business, a notice from Wayne Bickley concerning a violation at 534 Hazard Avenue regarding two freestanding storage containers, a notice of action from the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Agency dated October 2, 2007, and a letter from Mountain Tree Service requesting permission to cut down some sugar maples at the Johnson Memorial Surgery Center on the property that borders Middle Road. Regarding the last item, Mr. Giner stated he can take a look at the property to make sure it is not part of the landscaping buffer and he will come back with a recommendation. Mr. Giner will check the site plan and call them and find out exactly what they are doing.
COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE
Commissioner Duren asked about the two items he emailed Mr. Giner about that he is ready to come in and sign. Mr. Giner stated it looks like it is the same plan but he will double check the plan. Baco’s submitted the required revision. Mr. Giner will double check if engineering checked out this plan. Commissioner Duren questioned how the process can be streamlined. Mr. Giner will come up with some recommendations. Chairman DiPace stated perhaps when the applicant is sent a letter of approval, the letter should include the fact that construction cannot start until plans are signed off. Mr. Giner will include something to the effect that this does not constitute an approval to proceed. Mr. Giner suggested something in bold in the approval letter stating this is not an authorization to proceed and please make sure that all the conditions are complied with. Further discussion followed on specific cases.
Chairman DiPace announced that the new public hearings scheduled for this evening are not going to be heard because the legal notice was not published in the newspaper. Some discussion followed regarding the republishing of the legal notice for Stonegate which was not legally required but requested. It was published one time but not twice. Mr. Giner just got back from a conference and one of the court cases decided that a continued hearing does not have to be republished.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 20
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 & John and Marnie Dyer, Owner. (Must close by October 18).
Chairman DiPace read some rules for this public hearing this evening.
Wes Wentworth of Wentworth Civil Engineers appeared before the Commission on behalf of the applicant. There were a few questions that were put to the Town Planner and he will let him discuss those this evening. The Commission did request that he present the architectural plans of the units and he described them for the Commission.
Mr. Wentworth stated there are two unit types, a ranch type unit and a cape unit. The ranch has a two-car garage and similar features are on the cape unit.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission has a letter dated September 23 in the file from the intervener. At the last meeting, this was not available.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission needs to vote whether to allow the intervener or not. However, it is difficult at this time because it says if we feel an application is going to harm or endanger and the Commission really doesn’t know. Chairman DiPace held off on a formal motion until the hearing is completed.
The intervener, Lori Parker, 105 Cottage Road, stated she has been going through the plans trying to look for relevant materials. A couple of things she wanted to bring forward are the Eastern Connecticut Environmental Review Team Report dated October, 2004 which speaks to the effect on the watershed, and Shaker Pond Diagnostic Evaluation and Recommendations from Management dated March, 2006, page 11, page 10 and page 30.
Ms. Parker stated they would like to see a site plan for the upgrade of the pumping station. They would also like to clarify the number of units and whether it is 42 units or 40 units. Chairman DiPace stated the Wetlands Commission had asked them to remove two units so it would be 40 units.
Ms. Parker brought up the intervener status. Chairman DiPace stated before this Commission votes on the application, there will be a determination whether the intervener is accepted or not. Ms. Parker requested copies of everything as an intervener.
Commissioner Duren read three letters pertaining to this hearing from Michael Dynia, Chairman of the Enfield Conservation Commission, dated October 16, 2007, a letter dated September 5, 2007 from Paul Bernstein, Senior Project Manager, Regulatory Division, CEMAE-R, File No. MAE2007-2559 to Stonegate Associates, and a letter to Jose Giner from the Board of Directors of Dartmoor Condominiums. The last letter had no date or signature and was not accepted by the Commission. A letter was also received from Alan Silver, President of the Dartmoor Condominium Association, 27 Dartmoor, Enfield, Connecticut 06082.
Chairman DiPace opened this public hearing to the audience.
Alan Silver, President of Dartmoor Condominiums, stated the letter the Commission has that was not signed is a copy of an original letter that was presented three or four years ago. Chairman DiPace stated this is a new application and a new letter is necessary. Mr. Silver questioned how to address the access of Mayfield Drive. Mayfield Drive has always been a beautiful road and Mayfield Park has had an effect on the road. They promised they were going to install a tree buffer which they never did. Mr. Silver gave his word that the landscaping would be done. They didn’t do it and he went ahead and had someone do it and paid for it out of his own pocket. Mr. Silver questioned where the water is going to go to. Last year they gave the wetlands commission about seventy photographs after a rain storm that showed how water had crept up to many homes in the area. When they do get rain, the area will be saturated. Mr. Silver stated they think this project is a bad idea and not good for the community. You can’t put a house in the middle of a swamp. It is a bad situation.
Alan Levitz, 57 Dartmoor, stated he is on the Board of Directors of Dartmoor Condominiums. He apologized about the letter. It was submitted a couple of years ago and they did not realize they had to update it and sign it again. At the last meeting, Mr. Levitz noted that Chairman DiPace asked Mr. Giner if he had contacted the state about Route 192 with the increase in traffic that will occur. Mr. Levitz stated they are very concerned about the wear and tear on Mayfield Drive. He asked who they going to contact as they have to maintain Mayfield Drive as a private road. They now have to go to the previous owners to collect for snowplowing and he asked if they will now have to go to these new people for their share. Mr. Levitz stated if they are going to overburden this road with dump trucks for a couple of years, who is going to be responsible for the road. Dartmoor has to pay the bill and then collect and they don’t want to end up in litigation.
James Dean stated he was unclear as to what the developer is planning to do. It is his understanding that when this project is completed, Mayfield Drive will be continued and there will be a semi-circle and it will go out again to Route 192 near Lake Drive. It would seem to Mr. Dean that they are intending to use Mayfield Drive for construction purposes. He thought the developer should be required to complete the road first and go out to Route 192 both ways rather than entirely on Mayfield Drive. Chairman DiPace noted the narrowness of the other streets and the difficulty dump trucks would have accessing them. Mr. Dean asked if there is a construction easement. Chairman DiPace stated there is an access easement. The road is a privately owned road and there are easements on it for these lots.
Chairman DiPace asked if Mr. Giner contacted the state. Mr. Giner talked with the state and they would like to see an application approved by the town before they consider any state permits.
Chairman DiPace asked about the applicant before this Commission several months ago and whether the landscape buffer has been installed since it was one of the conditions for the approval of the modification. Mr. Giner will check on this. Chairman DiPace stated this is way beyond the dates given to this applicant to do the landscape buffer. If he has not made any attempts to put them in, the application would be null and void. Mr. Giner will call Mr. Massimino and find out the status of the landscaping.
Chairman DiPace stated he has not seen any of the buffer going in and the Commission made it quite clear when they wanted to see it done and no extension has been requested.
Alan Levitz stated he saw a landscaping truck in the area today. He sees no reason why a landscaping truck would have been there except for the buffer area.
Commissioner Ladd noted there is a legal opinion in the Commission’s packet about the right of way for that road and that they have the right to use it. The legal opinion is dated November 14, 2005.
Mike Minola, 57 West Shore Drive, stated he is against this application for all the reasons that have been stated. It is not the correct place for putting this type of project. He brought some pictures to the last Inland Wetlands meeting. There is an area in back of West View that is considered wetlands and they have been doing some clearing back there. There is a trench someone had dug to drain this property right where they are going to put the road. It is not a good situation and Mr. Minola is against it.
Chairman DiPace asked that Mr. Minola submit those pictures to the Town Planner for the Commission. He asked if the trench is a new trench. Mr. Minola stated the trench has been there for about a year. Mr. Giner will check on this. Chairman DiPace requested copies of the pictures for the Commission.
Reg Leonard, 42 Fairfield, stated he is neither for or against this application. The town has just revisited its statutes to increase the penalties of unauthorized developers without proper permits performing work and accessing town roads and sewers. That was all started by public involvement. The town has also been put on notice to scrutinize building in this town to improve this town. Certainly storm water permits both by state and town ordinances have to be improved. That was started by public involvement. Mr. Leonard stated the town as well as its citizens should assure itself that all state and town regulations are met, followed and enforced.
James Brislin, 43 Oakwood Street, stated the evidence presented by the Conservation Commission and the Wetlands Commission should be clear and convincing that this application should not go forward. In addition to the visual component of environmental degradation that would come from this project, Mr. Brislin is very concerned about the degradation to the eco system. The applicant has thus far failed to present any evidence of what they are attempting to do to protect the eco system. Mr. Brislin had a concern about the way this is being done and having to use a private road to get there. In his opinion, the applicant has failed to present any compelling evidence that they are going to comply with regulations regarding runoff and the environment. Mr. Brislin asked that the Commission deny this permit.
Mr. Giner reported Wetlands issued a permit this past Tuesday evening.
Mr. Wentworth stated the first question was had the site plan been prepared for the sewer pumping station. A review report has been provided by the town’s third party engineer who they hired and all modifications to that pumping station are interior to the structure. There is no site plan proposed. The number of units on the plans is forty.
Mr. Wentworth stated it keeps getting brought up that they are building in the middle of the wetlands. They are not building in the wetlands and they are not building within 100’ of any wetlands. There are wetlands on the site but there is also a lot of dry land. They are building within the uplands.
Mr. Wentworth stated the developer has a history of working and operating in Enfield and cooperating in full compliance with the town through other projects in the town. As far as construction goes, in working with town staff on that, Mr. Wentworth thinks that has a lot of merit as well.
Mr. Wentworth reported that the Wetlands Commission has exhaustively reviewed this application and this past Tuesday approved this application.
Attorney Dennis McCormick stated he has some history with the parcel. He was the attorney of record when the property was originally subdivided. Regarding Mayfield Drive, there is an agreement between the three parcels – Mayfield, Dartmoor and this parcel – to use Mayfield Drive. That was instituted when the property was originally subdivided and there is a written agreement between all of the parties that as soon as this parcel is developed, this parcel will share one-third of the cost of maintaining the road. There currently is an agreement in place between Dartmoor and Mayfield. It is the intention of this applicant to abide by the agreement. Attorney McCormick stated he has issued an opinion previously on this issue.
George Logan, REMA Ecological Services, stated he listened to the allegations of the intervener and apart from the fact that the Wetlands Commission has issued an approval, there are some other issues that they talked about that are worthy of mention. There was some discussion on critical habitats that exist near the property that include the southern New England basin marsh and the scrub shrub pitch pine. What the applicant has done is retain REMA Ecological Services during the entire process that goes back a couple of years to do extensive inventories of natural features and natural resources on the site. During that process they identified some of these critical habitats that the intervener has mentioned. From the beginning, there was an effort put forth to avoid either direct or indirect impacts upon these communities particularly the pitch pine and scrub oak communities and the southern New England basin marsh. There was a very small portion of unavoidable impact to one of these communities coming in from the entrance. Mr. Logan stated they have been in contact with the Connecticut DEP and they received communication telling them that when the proper time comes, they would have to engage the services of specialists to make sure they inventory the site properly and, beyond that, with a small encroachment in the pitch pine community provide a mitigating plan that the Connecticut DEP will approve.
Mr. Logan stated something very similar has been done throughout this town before and he cited the tiger beetle that was a part of the Autumn Fields development. Mr. Logan’s opinion is that when it comes to critical habitats, it is the Connecticut DEP that has the jurisdiction. They work in coordination with the town but the way that they get involved is the storm water permit that the applicant is going to have to get from the Connecticut DEP. At that time, the review kicks in.
Mr. Logan stated the other issue he heard from the intervener has to do with Shaker Pines Lake and the potential for degradation of that water body by this proposal. The argument could be said that because Shaker Pines Lake is a water course which is regulated by the Wetlands Commission, that this Commission should not be reviewing that situation. If there is a potential for pollution, this Commission probably should hear some discussion on it. Because it is a water course, the Wetlands Commission has spent a lot of time in reviewing and hearing opposite sides and coming to a conclusion that there will be no degradation of the water course that they regulate.
Mr. Logan stated one and a half to two years ago when this project started, there were eighty plus units being proposed. A gentleman from Bay State Environmental (the author of the report produced by the intervener tonight) was retained and he came in and reviewed their application. He had some specific recommendations and they adhered to his recommendations and put this plan together. His conclusion at that time was that they had done everything they could possibly do to ensure that there wouldn’t be a further degradation of Shaker Pines Lake. The issue at Shaker Pines Lake is total phosphorus. Also, Shaker Pines Lake has an extensive watershed that’s two and a half plus square miles, a lot of which is in Massachusetts. If you read the report, you will discover that the finger is not being pointed to adjacent Enfield properties but in Massachusetts because there are significant industrial and agricultural uses. They have over time been releasing fine sediment which is the issue with phosphorus and excess nutrients from agricultural purposes. There is already an issue with this pond which goes far beyond the reaches of any watershed that they have here.
Mr. Logan stated the gentleman from Baystate Environmental concluded there would not be a significant degradation to Shaker Pines Lake. The Wetlands Commission agreed. They have always said that they have not only complied with the requirements of the Connecticut DEP but also their recommendations that are put out in the Storm Water Quality Manual.
Mr. Logan stated he heard a gentleman comment that there is no eco system protection and they have not provided one. He differed with that and thought they had done an exceptional job in protecting the environment. One of the things that has happened as part of the public hearing process is the development with forty units has now set aside all kinds of land in perpetuity both in conservation easements and in the parcel that is to be given to the land trust. In Mr. Logan’s opinion that is incredible eco system protection. All the critical habitats and natural features of the site have been protected either within the boundaries of their development or within the overall property itself.
Mr. Wentworth asked that the Commission keep in mind the whole picture and the existing 95 acre parcel. Thirty-four acres are going to the land trust. The remainder shown in orange is being protected as a conservation easement. They have gone from 73 units down to 40 units which only compromise 17% of the total parcel. 83% of this 95 acres will either be in a land trust or conservation easement.
Commissioner Ladd asked about the right of way to the land being donated to the land trust. Mr. Wentworth stated they are providing a gravel parking lot for them to the east of the intersection. There’s a 25’ access right of way left from that parking lot. They will also have access over the private roads to get in there.
Chairman DiPace asked if the intervener had anything else to add.
Lori Parker wanted to talk about the site plan for the pumping station and why she asked for that. It is her understanding now that because the improvements are internal, they don’t need a site plan. There are concerns about what kind of right of way might be necessary for that kind of work. What kind of trucks are going to be coming up and down through that area? There are many concerns with the pumping station.
Chairman DiPace stated regarding the trucks coming in, they are public roads. If the town needs to improve the pumping station, they have every right to do so. There will be no outside changes to the pumping station and it will all be internal. Lori Parker stated they have other concerns with that area. They would like to see the pumping station eliminated. It has had problems. It has leaked into the lake. There’s been sewage in the lake and they see the potential for more problems with more units going in. Right now, Ms. Parker has a note from the Town Manager about some things that they will be improving in the lake area. One of the things they are doing is installing weep holes for the steel retaining wall for the culvert of where the pumping station comes out. There are problems with the pumping station right now that the town needs to fix. There might be a better alternative to where the station could go. That property is owned by the back lot owners of the lake and Ms. Parker doesn’t know what the agreement was between the town and the lake. She thought it was for a certain number of houses to be able to go through that. If that documentation is somewhere within the town, they would love to see it.
Chairman DiPace stated they have their leg work to do. If Ms. Parker can produce such documentation, the Commission would be more than happy to take a look at it.
Ms. Parker stated in regard to degradation of the lake and the watershed, she is not an environmentalist but if something is in the watershed, she would think it is going to affect the water within the watershed.
Allen Silver, President of Dartmoor, stated Attorney McCormick mentioned that the parcel is split three ways with Mayfield. Dartmoor has always been the one that takes care of the contracting for snowplowing. He noted the many times they have had to litigate to try to collect their money. Chairman DiPace stated Attorney McCormick stated for the record that as the three parcels are developed, it will be distributed in equal thirds. The other two are not yet developed. Mr. Silver stated they have not been able to collect money and they are in court right now with American Inn and they still have not been paid. Chairman DiPace stated that is a civil matter.
Commissioner Cooper asked if the first report that the intervener submitted was based on the first application. Mr. Giner stated it was. Commissioner Cooper stated that would be based on the 80 plus units. Mr. Giner stated this was an overall report. What DRT does is even before there is a proposal, they will go out and review a site and they don’t review the developed proposal. They just point out constraints and issues. The second report was done in March of 2006 but the Commission has not yet seen it. The Commission requested a copy of the March, 2006 report in their meeting packet.
Commissioner DiPace asked if there is anything outstanding that would necessitate keeping this hearing open. Commissioner Jones stated he would like to read the report. Mr. Giner stated the hearing has to close tonight unless the applicant grants an extension.
Mr. Wentworth made a correction and stated the ERT is based on 85 units on 95 acres. When they requested the ERT, they sent them a preliminary overall map including the 85 units and that is what was looked at. Commissioner Cooper asked if the conclusions would be the same. Mr. Wentworth stated you would have to read all their conclusions. Anything talking about the second wetlands crossing to the east they have eliminated.
Following some discussion about continuing this hearing, Attorney McCormick stated they would prefer the matter was closed tonight and the Commission make their decision. Chairman DiPace stated if the Commission reads the material, they would not be able to ask questions about it. Attorney McCormick offered to grant an extension.
Because the applicant was not available on November 15, 2007 and that was the last possible meeting with an extension, Chairman DiPace continued this hearing to November 1, 2007.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 4
a. 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 November 1)
Gordon Bednarz and Helayna McGuire appeared before the Commission regarding this public hearing.
Chairman DiPace stated there was an illegal split that was never approved by this Commission. Mr. Bednarz stated there were three lots involved.
Chairman DiPace stated those lots were always one lot. An individual submitted it illegally, the Alaimo Brothers. They illegally without any approval violated state statutes and the town zoning regulations. Mr. Bednarz stated they did the same thing for 72. Chairman DiPace stated they never separated the garage from the house. Technically, whoever bought the house bought the house and that lot. Chairman DiPace is surprised an attorney did not notice that.
Ms. McGuire stated had it not been for being ripped off by her tenants - $40,000 since 2005 – she would have wanted to keep this yard which her parents bought her. She bought this house for her brother, his wife and two kids who were homeless in 2002 when her father was ill. Halfway through the deal of buying this house, they told her that the land was separate. She took a few pictures of all the surrounding homes and they are all conforming to what she wants to do. She asked that the Commission take a look at all the houses around her which are all the same way. Chairman DiPace stated the Commission knows that but it is not relevant. Somebody acted illegally and improperly when they subdivided that house and the garage into two parcels.
Ms. McGuire stated when she originally bought the land, she came to the town and said she wanted to join the two parcels together for a refinance to improve the appraised value of the property. They told her at that time that it couldn’t be done. She even went to an attorney and he advised against it. She ended up leaving the lots separated. Chairman DiPace stated it never was a separate building lot. Ms. McGuire stated she was always getting a separate tax bill. She noted she was getting two different stories. She has come to the town over ten times first trying to join the lots and then trying to separate them. At first they told her she could not join it. Chairman DiPace stated he has a merged lot and he still, fifteen years later, gets two separate tax bills. Those lots have been merged since the fifties.
Ms. McGuire stated they were separated since the eighties. Commissioner Duren stated they were sold illegally. Ms. McGuire asked if she has a case to prosecute Ken Nelson in court because he ripped her off for $25,000. Chairman DiPace stated he doesn’t think he acted illegally. He thinks Frank Alaimo and his brother Don Alaimo are the ones that illegally subdivided that lot.
Mr. Giner stated he did spend some time in the Town Clerk’s vault. The Alaimo brothers got the deed from the estate of Scavotto and it showed one deed with the two parcels listed. The lot of record back in 1916 showed those lots and it was all one piece of property. They bought it in 1989 from the estate of Rose Scavotto. In 1990 they conveyed the parcel with the house on it to Cournoyer which is the person Ms. McGuire bought the house from. At that point when they sold the house and retained the garage lot for themselves, that was a split that should have required Planning and Zoning Commission approval. That was a violation of the zoning regulations.
Chairman DiPace stated when they bought it they bought 80 and 82 and where the new house is. They came in and got a separation for that new house. Chairman DiPace stated that would then have been a subdivision. Mr. Giner stated right now it is a merged lot of record and Ms. McGuire is asking that it be unmerged. That is the application before the Commission.
Commissioner Duren questioned if that solves the problem. Mr. Giner stated when Ms. McGuire bought the adjoining property, it merged again. She owns one parcel right now as far as zoning is concerned.
Mr. Giner stated there was no building permit on file in the building records but that Ms. McGuire had a plan that showed an engineering review.
Chairman DiPace asked if Ms. McGuire bought title insurance. Ms. McGuire stated she did not and the deal was a cash deal. She had to come up with $25,000 for the lot. Further discussion followed.
Chairman DiPace stated Mr. Giner sent an email to the Commission that shows the history of the property. It was one parcel. Mr. Giner stated when Ms. McGuire bought that second lot it became conforming again.
Chairman DiPace stated the last time someone got caught illegally moving lot lines around, they went to jail.
Mr. Giner stated what should have happened in 1990, Ms. McGuire is trying to do now. Chairman DiPace stated Ken Nelson did not know that he was buying an illegal lot. He thought it was a valid lot. It was prior to that and it was the Alaimo brothers that acted illegally.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission can separate the lots but Ms. McGuire would have to take the garage down. He asked if she still has enough room to have a driveway on the property. Ms. McGuire stated they do. On the plan it shows how the house will fit. Chairman DiPace asked if there is enough driveway and is it going to be paved.
Mr. Giner stated there cannot be a garage on a stand alone lot because it is an invitation for blight. Under the regulations, garages are only allowed as accessory uses because of that. Before the mylar is submitted, one of the conditions would be the garage would have to come down. The other thing Mr. Giner suggests in his memo was that a cross easement be provided and the plans be revised to assure access to the rear portion of each lot. In that way, each lot will be able to build its own garage or a little parking area in the back if they so need it.
Chairman DiPace questioned why would they need a cross easement. Mr. Giner stated if they chose to do one driveway. Right now it shows the driveway straddles the property line. Ms. McGuire stated the houses around her are all sharing the same driveway. Chairman DiPace stated if the Commission is creating a new lot, they cannot create it without a driveway and have cars in the street.
Mr. Giner showed plans of the home across the street.
Commissioner Duren stated for Ms. McGuire’s protection, she needs an agreement with whoever is going to use that driveway.
Chairman DiPace stated the way it was done was not Ms. McGuire’s fault and not Mr. Nelson’s fault. But when you back up to the mortgage company, they knew there was a problem and the Alaimo brothers created it.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Chairman DiPace stated he would like to know what violations occurred and what can be done to prevent this from happening in the future. Mr. Giner noted how many papers get filed in the land records each day. He stated when people file maps on the land records, the town clerk sends them to the Planning Office to make sure it is not a subdivision or a resubdivision.
Chairman DiPace asked if Mr. Giner has talked to the Town Attorney as far as what they did. Mr. Giner stated the violation was corrected when Ms. McGuire bought the second parcel. Chairman DiPace asked if there is a penalty for creating illegal lots. Mr. Giner stated from a zoning perspective, it’s a moot question. When Ms. McGuire bought the lot, the violation went away. Chairman DiPace asked that Mr. Giner send this to the Town Attorney to find out what was done wrong.
Commissioner Duren asked if the Building Department would have picked it up. Mr. Giner stated it should have because Mr. Bickley would have had to sign off on any building permit and he would have had to check to see if it was a legal building lot. At the time of the building permit, Mr. Bickley would have had to sign off on it.
Chairman DiPace asked if the garage had electricity because if it is wired to the existing house, that would have to be disconnected.
Ms. McGuire stated they did not have a chance to do a title search and she doesn’t know if Ken Nelson is entirely innocent because he only gave her twenty-four hours to come up with the $25,000 cash. There was no time for a title search. Chairman DiPace stated but he was not the one that did the illegal act of splitting the lot and selling it.
Chairman DiPace stated he did contact the Town Manager’s office today regarding this and it will get reviewed again. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve PH #2621 –Special Use Permit to unmerge purchased lot at 82 Park Ave., from adjoining lot at 76/78 Park Ave., Zoned R-33, Map 39, Lot 4, Helayna E. McGuire, Applicant/Owner. This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Special Use Map Prepared for Helayna McGuire 80-82 Park Avenue Enfield, Connecticut.” Scale: “AS SHOWN”, by Dennis G. Rehmer, dated Aug. 1, 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 file number “PH 2621” shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
3. The Emergency-911 Coordinator shall be consulted as to the proper house number and the plans shall indicate the new house number approved by E-911.
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.
5. The plans shall be revised to indicate cross access easements to each lot to ensure access to the rear portion of each lot. These easements shall also be noted in the deeds of each respective property.
6. The existing garage shall be demolished prior to the signing of the mylars.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Final approval of site layout and grading for shall be obtained from the Engineering Division for the proposed house.
10. Final approvals shall be obtained from the Water Pollution Control Division for the sewer hook ups.
11. 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 :
12. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
13. 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:
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
Commissioner Hickey asked that the applicant be cognizant of the fact that she has some work involved before she can do what she intends to do.
Chairman DiPace stated a title search would have indicated this problem.
Mr. Giner stated the garage has to be removed immediately before the mylars are filed. Before Ms. McGuire can sell the lot, the garage has to come down.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Lefakis voting.
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, for a recess. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission recessed at 9:41 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 9:50 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PH#2619 – Petition for a zone change R-33 zone to BL zone, Map 32, Lot 3, for 674 Enfield Street, Rockville Bank, Applicant/660 Enfield Street, LLC, Owner. (Must close by November 15)
This public hearing was not heard this evening because the legal notice was not published in the newspaper.
b. 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)
c. PH#2625 – Special Use Permit to put at 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 25, Lot 133, William Peltier, Applicant/Freshwater Pond Limited Partnership, Owners. (Must close by November 15)
OLD BUSINESS
a. SPR#1421 – Application for removal of an existing 11,500 gallon underground fuel tank removal and replacement of approximately 5,000 square feet of concrete pavements, 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, Owner. (Deadline for Decision 11/01/07 meeting)
Steve D’Ambrosio appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He presented a plan showing 191 Moody Road and noted they are proposing the removal of an 11,500 gallon underground tank located within the area shown on the plans. They are proposing to replace it with a 15,000 gallon above ground tank as shown on the site plan. There would be the removal and replacement of approximately 5,000 square feet of concrete pavement.
Mr. D’Ambrosio stated they went before the wetlands commission and were approved. They have had discussions with Fire Marshal Senatore. At this time, he is in agreement with what is being proposed. It is Mr. D’Ambrosio’s understanding that when it comes time for construction, the contractor will have to supply the Fire Marshal with additional information. It is at that time that supplemental information will be given to the Fire Marshal.
Mr. D’Ambrosio stated there were some comments from Engineering. He noted the additional impervious created by this work is 250 square feet or very minimal. The zoning regulations allow up to 66% of the parcel to be impervious. Prior to this work, the coverage is at 44% and 250 square feet would be an extremely minimal addition. There’s also some question of drainage. He has done some in house calculations and there is no change.
Chairman DiPace asked if the applicant had something showing the tank itself. Mr. D’Ambrosio stated in the packet there is a detail of the tank on the third page. It is a symmetrical tank.
Commissioner Ladd noted that Wetlands recommended an inflatable plug. Mr. D’Ambrosio stated that is in the event of a spill that would be catastrophic enough to have fuel in the detention basin. Commission Ladd asked if the tank will contain any spill. Mr. D’Ambrosio stated it will. There will be a berm along the back so there isn’t any fuel that spills into the wetlands. The tank itself has many prevention measures. It’s a double walled tank so if any moisture gets between the two walls, an alarm would go off. There are multiple layers of protection. There are positive limiting barriers that would be around the concrete. It meets regulations and is similar to what you would see at a gas station. There are bollards proposed around the tank itself.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission would like to see something showing them what the tank is going to look like from the road and if you are in the parking lot. Mr. D’Ambrosio stated he has a cut sheet and he can supply that. Chairman DiPace noted the location is behind the building. Mr. Giner stated he will look into coming up with some standards for above ground tanks regarding setbacks and not being forward of the front building line.
Commissioner Duren asked if it has a cement base with a lip around it. Mr. D’Ambrosio stated it is his understanding the tank will be on a concrete pad with no lip.
Mr. D’Ambrosio stated the way the spill prevention measure works, there are alarms on the inside. Martin Brower has someone on site twenty-four hours and if the alarm does go off, they would be alerted.
Commissioner Duren thought the regulations from DEP required a cement wall with a lip. Mr. Giner stated this one is far enough away.
Chairman DiPace asked if the tank will blend with the building. Mr. D’Ambrosio stated he is sure that it could. Chairman DiPace suggested a condition that the tank be the same color as the building so that it blends in.
Chairman DiPace stated tanks can no longer be underground. This tank is in the back of the building and as long as one of the conditions is that the color match the building, he would be in favor of it. It is set back enough and there is a cherry tree and an island in front of the tank which will screen it.
Mr. Giner stated condition #12 should read October 18 instead of October 4.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve SPR #1421 – Removal of an existing 11,500 gallon underground fuel tank 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. This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
“Improvement Location Plan (Record) Prepared for The Martin-Brower Co., LLC, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 1 of 1, Scale: 1”=40’ by William R. Palmberg & Son LLC., dated 01/02/02
“Proposed Fuel Tank Replacement” Sheet S-1 of 2, Scale: 1”=30’, by Baystate Environmental Consultants, dated Sept. 2007.
“Construction Notes and Details” Sheet S-2 of 2, Scale: “As Noted”, by Baystate Environmental Consultants, dated Sept. 2007.
2. The application number (SPR #1421) shall be displayed on the plans in or near the Title Block area of each sheet.
3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns, a copy of the Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated on the plans submitted for signing.
4. The Fire Marshall shall be provided with the additional information requested to determine compliance with the code requirements of NFPA and EPA.
5. 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. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by October 18, 2012 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
13. 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.
14. The tank shall be painted the same color as the building.
BOND RELEASES
1. PH#2557/2558 – Request by Ric Leno for release of the $6,550 Engineering Bond for 3-lot subdivision on Woodlawn Avenue.
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to approve the release of the $6,550 engineering bond for PH#2557/2558 as stated in the memo from John Cabibbo to Jose Giner dated September 28, 2007. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Lefakis voting.
2. PH#2536 – Request by Dave Fredrick for release of the $1,950 Erosion & Sediment Bond for Yale Court.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve release of the $1,950 erosion and sediment bond for PH#2536. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Lefakis voting.
3. PH#2468 – Request for release of the $1,279 Landscape Bond for Child Daycare at 18 Shaker Road.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to approve the release of the $1,279 landscape bond for PH#2468. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Lefakis voting.
4. PH#2462 – Request for release of Troiano Professional Building (Enfield Federal Savings & Loan) Engineering bond for $235,000 and Erosion and Sediment Bond in the amount of $3,000 for 851 Enfield Street.
This bond release was tabled.
NEW BUSINESS