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 15, 2007
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, November 15, 2007, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Elizabeth Ballard
Geoffrey Cooper
Charles Duren
James Hickey, Jr.
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
Charles Ladd, Alternate (arrived at 7:35 p.m.)
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Cooper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve the Minutes of November 1, 2007. A typographical error was corrected on page 22. “Store” was changed to “door”. The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Sarno voting.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of a certified letter to Craig W. St. Germain from Wayne Bickley regarding 130 Brainard Road, the Zoning Board of Appeals Notice of Action dated October 29, 2007, and a letter from the State of Connecticut DOT regarding the Aquifer Protection Regulations. Regarding the last item, Chairman DiPace stated if time permits Mr. Giner should put the Aquifer Protection Meeting on the agenda for the Commission’s next meeting so that the Commission can make the necessary changes.
COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of information on EDC courses in New Haven, the New England Economic Development course, and the American Planning Association information on housing. Regarding the last item, Chairman DiPace noted if any Commissioner would like to order any of the books to let the Planning Office know. Commissioner Duren stated Correspondence also includes a letter from Patricia Carson, Town Planner of the Town of Somers dated November 13, 2007 regarding proposals to amend its regulations concerning prohibiting outdoor wood burning furnaces.
Commissioner Duren stated there is also a letter from Paul Stacey of the DEP dated November 1, 2007 regarding the aquifer protection regulations. Chairman DiPace stated there are some technical changes. Mr. Giner stated one of the changes is to make the time frames the same as Planning and Zoning Commission and Wetlands applications so that there are not two sets of notification time frames and decision time frames.
Commissioner Duren discussed a housing Opening the Door seminar.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 1, 2007
a. 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 15)
Attorney Michael Bonanno appeared before the Commission along with Jay Ussery of J. R. Russo and Mark Spazzarini regarding this application.
Attorney Bonanno stated they are before the Commission for a continuation of the October 4, 2007 hearing. He introduced Mr. Ussery who gave the Commission a summary of the last hearing’s discussion.
Mr. Ussery stated Dana Steele, the project engineer, went through ninety percent of his presentation at the last meeting. Following a consensus from the Commission, Mr. Ussery recapped the information.
Mr. Ussery stated this is an application for an active adult community project located on Powder Hill Road on the easterly side halfway between Abbe Road and the bridge on South Maple Street over the Scantic River. The property is approximately twenty-four acres in size. Based upon the regulations, they are allowed to have 23 units on this parcel and they are showing 23 units. There is a boulevard entry way off of Powder Hill Road.
Mr. Ussery stated this was previously a sand and gravel operation that has operated for forty to fifty years. The boulevard entrance is very close to the existing entrance into the gravel pit. The boulevard entrance comes into a loop road and then a stem off of that with a cul-de-sac at the end. The total length of the roadway from Powder Hill Road out to the cul-de-sac is just under 1,200’. It meets the regulations in terms of having one means of ingress and egress with a less than 1,200’ roadway.
Mr. Ussery stated the parcel is in the R-88 zone. They are going to bring sanitary sewer and water to the site. The sanitary sewer will come from the end of South Maple Street. City water will be brought from the intersection of Abbe Road coming down Powder Hill to the location. In terms of storm drainage, currently this site drains from the east to the west. Water comes through in various places, crosses Powder Hollow and gets into the property across the street which is owned by the Connecticut Water Company. They will be proposing a drainage system that consists of a dry basin and to the west of the cul-de-sac there will be an infiltration basin and a wet bottom basin. Currently there is a drainage outlet that takes storm drainage from a formal system located in Powder Hill Road and discharges on the Water Company parcel. The drainage system they are proposing would repair and upgrade that existing outlet that takes the storm drainage from Powder Hill and would also repair a ditch into the wetlands that is eroded. There will be a new plunge pool and a rip rap ditch to the outfall located adjacent to the wetland. That would be the outfall for all the drainage from this particular development.
Mr. Ussery presented architectural renderings of the units and noted the units are approximately 1,200 square feet in size. They are one and two bedroom units. There are options for one and two car garages. Some of them would have an option for a loft on the second floor. The Commission has received floor plans and there are master bedroom suites on the first floor so it would be first floor living for these active adults.
Mr. Ussery stated part of the presentation that Mr. Steele didn’t get into was regarding Section 4.40.3 which talks about some of the things they need to consider when looking at one of these developments. The first thing the regulations talk about is whether it is in harmony with the zoning regulations and requirements. It is their belief that this development is in harmony in terms of its density and location. Mr. Ussery stated most of the project is not visible from Powder Hill Road with the exception of a few units located close to the road. In terms of the Plan of Conservation and Development, Mr. Ussery noted the Plan calls for areas easterly of the Scantic River to be of low density. It is their opinion that based on one unit per acre zoning that this is a low density development. There are twenty-four acres and they are showing twenty-three units.
Mr. Ussery stated the Plan discusses preserving natural features on this particular property. This being a gravel operation for so many years, most of the natural features within this property are no longer there. Most of the area has been disturbed due to the sand and gravel operation. The one natural feature is the old Powder Hollow cart path that comes up through the southerly side of the property. That’s an area that will remain essentially undisturbed other than a small area that will be part of the storm drainage system. The rest of it will remain intact and there will be no changes within that area.
Mr. Ussery stated the Plan discusses the character of the neighborhood. He doesn’t feel this plan will have any changes in the character of the neighborhood. It is relatively isolated and most of it is not visible from the street. Regarding open space, Mr. Ussery stated the requirement is 2,500 square feet per unit of open space. They far exceed the requirement and the plans show in green the areas of open space. There is an area in the center with a gazebo and a walkway and fairly extensive plantings in terms of trees, shrubbery and flowers.
Mr. Ussery discussed emergency access. There is a boulevard entrance that comes in. The pavement widths on either side of the boulevard are eighteen feet. This was discussed with police and fire and ultimately increased to eighteen feet for safety reasons. In terms of the loop, there are two ways in and out and if one side got blocked, you could go the other way. The stem meets the regulations in terms of cul-de-sac length which is less than 600’. They feel the project will be safe in terms of emergency access.
Mr. Ussery stated in terms of the size of the development, this is a relatively small development with minimal impact to town services. There is no impact to the school system and the project will have minimal impact.
Mr. Ussery stated they did have an application pending before the Wetlands Commission and at their last meeting they did approve a permit for this development. That permit involves some work on the water company property adjacent to the wetland and some repair to the existing drainage ditch. It is within the 100’ regulated area and a permit was issued at the last Wetlands Commission meeting.
Mr. Ussery stated they believe they meet the criteria for special residential developments. He opened the floor to questions.
Commissioner Ballard had a concern about the eastern slope. These homes are located in a bowl and she asked what they plan on doing with the eastern slope. If everything is gone out of it and there is a torrential rain storm, there will be a problem.
Mr. Ussery stated that was of concern to the Engineering staff. There were also some concerns raised by the Wetlands Commission. The applicant did hire Dr. Clarence Welty who is a geotechnical engineer to go out and look at these slopes and review their plan. The Commission has a report from him in which he states he didn’t have any real concerns over this site other than some cut areas adjacent to the infiltration basin and he gave some methodology to implement if needed when that construction is done. Regarding the slopes, they had an initial design and some swales behind the units. There was a drainage system behind the units. Based on Mr. Steele’s conversations with John Cabibbo in a meeting they had, additional yard drains were added behind these units. Some of the units were moved and some of the swales deepened so that when the water does come down the slope, it will be directed either to the tri-basin or through a formal drainage system to the infiltration basin.
Commissioner Ballard asked what will occur if that doesn’t work. Will the applicant come back in and repair it? Mr. Ussery stated during the initial construction and until fifty-one percent of the units are sold, the developer is responsible for anything that has gone on. If there was going to be an issue, it would happen early on. It is Mr. Ussery’s feeling as design engineers they feel comfortable with the plan and they feel they have done the proper design so as to not have an issue in terms of drainage.
Commissioner Hickey asked given the significant amount of site work that is going to be necessary to bring this project forward, how will that impact the pricing of these homes. Is it a viable project given the fact that they will have an underlying condominium use with the land? Mr. Ussery stated that is something that came up at the Wetlands Commission meeting. The applicant has looked at that and worked out the numbers. They want to be able to come in at under $300,000 for the sales price and they are looking to keep their monthly maintenance fee at under $200 per month.
Chairman DiPace asked what is currently on the site. Mr. Ussery stated pretty much all that is left is sand. When they did some of the test pits, they hit a little bit of gravel but for the most part it is medium sand. Chairman DiPace asked when the project is completed, how much topsoil will be brought in to the site to address the closure plan. Mr. Ussery stated if you look at the topography plan there is a major hill which is a topsoil stockpile that has been there for twenty to twenty-five years. This topsoil pile will be spread over the site. Chairman DiPace asked if it will be four inches to meet the requirement. Mr. Ussery stated whatever they are lacking to get to four inches, they will import.
Mr. Spazzarini stated they have sufficient topsoil to cover the entire site with a minimum of four inches and probably closer to six inches thick.
Attorney Bonanno stated Dr. Welty is going to be on site during the construction as well. He will report back to this Commission and the Wetlands Commission.
Commissioner Cooper asked why isn’t the cul-de-sac being measured from the end of the boulevard. Mr. Ussery stated it falls under the definition of a stem and loop road because there are two means of access. The cul-de-sac would start at the intersection and come out.
Chairman DiPace asked where the waiver of 1,064’ starts from and Mr. Ussery pointed it out on the plans and noted it starts from the intersection. Mr. Ussery stated they are also asking for a waiver of sidewalks. They plan to provide cape cod style curbing and they are asking for a waiver regarding curbing.
Commissioner Ballard asked if moving the entrance up the hill is safer than moving it down the hill. She noted it is a treacherous hill. Mr. Ussery stated upon the recommendation of the police department, they are widening the road at this point and adding a turning lane. Mr. Ussery acknowledged the road access would probably be better down the hill but they do not own that land. They are as far to the north as they can go. They attempted to purchase a piece of land and the abutters were not interested in selling.
Commissioner Hickey asked if they have looked at the issues with the Powder Hill Bridge and access to the community. Mr. Ussery stated they haven’t looked at that but it is their feeling that with a 23-unit development the amount of traffic that this is going to generate is not substantial. They are probably looking at a range of six or seven trips per day per unit or a minimal amount of traffic.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission has a letter from Dana Steele regarding the waiver requests. Mr. Giner’s memo covers those waivers being requested.
Commissioner Duren asked if the applicant has the memo from John Cabibbo regarding a drainage easement in favor of the town which he wanted added to the plans. Mr. Ussery stated it is a right to discharge into the wet pond and the applicant will give an easement to the town for that. Mr. Giner stated that is included in the proposed conditions. In the future, he will make sure there is a memo from Engineering regarding applications.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public.
Patrick Sharon, 57 Yale Drive, President of the Scantic River Watershed Association, stated the Scantic River area is an important area of conservation. Both conservation and development affect the quality of life for residents of the town. The town’s Plan of Conservation and Development discusses this area in many ways. The Plan’s intent is to provide a master plan or blueprint for boards and commissions to follow. The Plan update of 1987 discusses limiting expansion of the sewer east and south of the Scantic River to preserve and protect the town’s natural resources. The Plan of Conservation of 1999 discusses the acquisition of this area for open space and some parcels have already been acquired. The property is also a Level A aquifer mapping area for two water companies. The land is an important recharge area for both water companies. The State of Connecticut has determined that stratified drift aquifers are more susceptible to contamination from the surface and required the water company to map any wells and stratified drift soils. When the contamination of the water occurs, it will affect not only Enfield but Somers and East Windsor as well.
Mr. Sharon noted there have been seventeen motor vehicle accidents on Powder Hill Road between October 1, 2004 and October 1, 2007. That is almost six potential hazardous spills per year in this delicate aquifer area. Adding 23 more units will increase the chance of any hazardous spills with increased traffic. On Powder Hill Road just north of the entrance to the proposed development are the remains of some of the canals built by the Hazard Powder Company. If the sewer is connected to the south end of the bridge, these canals will disappear forever.
Mr. Sharon suggested that the Commission require the state archeologist to be brought in to survey the area to be disturbed prior to any construction. The canal should be preserved for future generations. Regarding the proposal of an integrated pest management plan for the development, Mr. Sharon asked who will enforce the management of the plan. The Commission should also consider if maintenance is not properly performed or the pest management plan is not properly implemented and contamination occurs, who will pay the price.
Mr. Sharon urged the Commission to consider the maximum requirements and the best technology available before approving this application. He is against the development of this land and would like to have it become part of the Scantic River Park. He urged the Commission to deny this application.
Jack Sheridan, Buchanan Road, stated he has a few concerns. One is regarding the water and the aquifer area and the spillage that will go over there. There is some kind of a catch basin that has to be maintained. It would seem to Mr. Sheridan that with most of these developments, there needs to be something clarified in the purchase agreement that says that they are responsible for the cost of maintaining that equipment. A lot of people need to know that that stuff is even there and that there are liabilities attached with not keeping that clean. Mr. Sheridan is concerned about the clarity of the water. The last time they talked about having licensed people put down the fertilizers. If the individuals put more fertilizer down than is necessary, this could be a problem. Mr. Sheridan stated these are the reasons that he would deny this application until those questions are answered. Mr. Sheridan acknowledged that in the winter time this area is a hazardous place and if the traffic increases there is the possibility of contaminants getting into that basin. Mr. Sheridan stated the applicant used the words if it is required and he asked how do we know if it is going to be required or not. He is glad there is a sewer system to ensure a little better preservation of the water company wells.
Chairman DiPace read an excerpt from a letter from Brian Mead dated September 26, 2007 stating the water company has no concerns or requirements. In an email dated October 1, 2007, Mrs. Gaudino of the Connecticut Water Company states there are no comments on this application. Both water companies have been notified and they have both stated they have no concerns.
Commissioner Duren stated the Commission also has their draft declaration for the Village of Powder Hollow. They were going to report yearly to the town regarding the type of fertilizer and the frequency of applications.
Attorney Bonanno stated Clarence Welty is on retainer. His clients hired Mr. Welty to go out there and plan to keep him on retainer throughout the process. He noted there were some concerns about the drainage system. They will be improving the town drainage system that exists today. There were some comments about the condition of the road. They are making the improvements to the road as discussed earlier. He thanked the Commission for bringing the water company comments into the record because it addresses the water quality. They have been through Wetlands and they are improving the wetlands.
Attorney Bonanno stated the Association duties are going to be spelled out in a public offering statement and anyone that is going to purchase the property will receive the public offering statement. They will be able to see the maintenance duties and they will know what the condominium dues are going to be.
Attorney Bonanno stated there was some talk about fertilizers. There is a fertilizer plan. Mr. Ussery stated Commissioner Duren just talked about that and it is part of their management plan. Anything that is used will be reported to the town and will be applied by licensed personnel. There will be a contractor responsible for the maintenance of the entire community and there won’t be any individual applications of any types of fertilizers. Commissioner Ballard asked if the owners will know that. Mr. Ussery stated it will be in the condominium declaration documents.
Attorney Bonanno stated the applicant has worked with the Connecticut Water Company with regard to the wet pond and the drainage plan and they had their input in that way in addition to the letter cited earlier.
Michael Dynia, 29 Plainfield Street, a member of the Scantic River Watershed Association and Chairman of the Enfield Conservation Commission, read from the master plan of development of 1987. Under the quality of life section it states the adoption of the master plan is the official guide for the development and preservation of open space. Under goal 5 it states to preserve and protect the town’s natural resources. It talks about limiting the extension of sewers in high priority natural resource areas especially east and south of the Scantic River. This proposal is east and south of the Scantic River. Along that area on that side of the road there are historic canals. Any sewer line being brought down that far will impact those things. Mr. Dynia stated the sewer line where they are going to connect may be on state property. There are concerns about the slopes and the drainage in the area and he would hope the Commission would consider these reasons for denying this application.
Kathleen Vose, Powder Hill Road, stated she has lived on Powder Hill Road for 31 years and 31 winters. She is very concerned about the safety of the proposed homeowners and the other members of the community who will be traveling down Powder Hill Road towards the proposed community. As soon as the sun sets, the water starts flowing all winter and it freezes every night and it is black ice. The people that will be moving into this community will have a slow process going up that hill. The cars coming down the hill travel at least fifty to sixty miles per hour. This is a plan for disaster with 46 cars pulling out of this development and going up the hill with these conditions. Ms. Vose discussed the accidents on Powder Hill Road and stated for the safety of the town she would ask the Commission to deny this proposal.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve 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. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans, as may be required to be modified by these conditions, and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans
“The Village at Powder Hill 23 Unit Senior Residential Development, Powder Hill Road, Enfield, Connecticut” Cover Sheet with Drawing Index and Location Map, by J.R. Russo & Associates, revised to 10-5-07.
“Boundary Survey, The Village at Powder Hill, Senior Residential Development, Powder Hill Road” Sheet 2 of 17, Scale: 1”=100’, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 6-29-07.
“Existing Conditions/Demolition Plan, The Village at Powder Hill, Senior Residential Development, Powder Hill Road” Sheet 3 of 17, Scale: 1”=60’, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 6-29-07.
“Layout Plan, The Village at Powder Hill, Senior Residential Development, Powder Hill Road” Sheet 4 of 17, Scale: 1”=40’, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 6-29-07, revised to 8-31-07.
“Layout Plan, The Village at Powder Hill, Senior Residential Development, Powder Hill Road” Sheet 5 of 17, Scale: 1”=40’, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 6-29-07, revised to 8-31-07.
“Grading & Utility Plan, The Village at Powder Hill, Senior Residential Development, Powder Hill Road” Sheet 6 of 17, Scale: 1”=40’, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 6-29-07, revised to 10-5-07.
“Grading & Utility Plan, The Village at Powder Hill, Senior Residential Development, Powder Hill Road” Sheet 7 of 17, Scale: 1”=40’, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 6-29-07, revised to 10-5-07.
“Plan & Profile Rapids Boulevard Sta. 10+00-17+00, The Village at Powder Hill, Senior Residential Development, Powder Hill Road” Sheet 8 of 17, Scale: 1”=40 HORZ, 1”=4’ VERT., by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 6-29-07, revised to 10-5-07.
“Plan & Profile Trout Brook Lane Sta. 20+00-29+00, The Village at Powder Hill, Senior Residential Development, Powder Hill Road” Sheet 9 of 17, Scale: 1”=40 HORZ, 1”=4’ VERT., by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 6-29-07, revised to 10-5-07.
“Sightline Plan, The Village at Powder Hill, Senior Residential Development, Powder Hill Road” Sheet 10 of 17, Scale: 1”=40 H, 1”=4’ V’, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 6-29-07.
“Landscape Plan, The Village at Powder Hill, Senior Residential Development, Powder Hill Road” Sheet 11of 17, Scale: 1”=60’, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 6-29-07, revised to 10-5-07.
“Erosion & Sediment Control Plan, The Village at Powder Hill, Senior Residential Development, Powder Hill Road” Sheet 12 of 17, Scale: 1”=60’, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 6-29-07, revised to 10-5-07.
“Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Notes, The Village at Powder Hill, Senior Residential Development, Powder Hill Road” Sheet 13 of 17, Scale: “As Noted”, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 6-29-07.
“Detail Sheet, The Village at Powder Hill, Senior Residential Development, Powder Hill Road” Sheet 14 of 17, Scale: “As Noted”, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 6-29-07.
“Detail Sheet, The Village at Powder Hill, Senior Residential Development, Powder Hill Road” Sheet 15 of 17, Scale: “As Noted”, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 6-29-07, revised to 8-31-07.
“Detail Sheet, The Village at Powder Hill, Senior Residential Development, Powder Hill Road” Sheet 16 of 17, Scale: “As Noted”, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 6-29-07, revised to 8-31-07.
“Detail Sheet, The Village at Powder Hill, Senior Residential Development, Powder Hill Road” Sheet 17 of 17, Scale: “As Noted”, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 6-29-07, revised to 8-31-07.
“Unit A Exterior Elevations, The Village at Powder Hill, Powder Hill Road, Enfield, CT.” Sheet A3, Scale 1/8”=1’-0”, by Stephen Jager Associates, LLC, dated 7/24/2007.
“Unit A Floor Plans, The Village at Powder Hill, Powder Hill Road, Enfield, CT.” Sheet A2, Scale 1/8”=1’-0”, by Stephen Jager Associates, LLC, dated 7/24/2007.
“Unit B Exterior Elevations, The Village at Powder Hill, Powder Hill Road, Enfield, CT.” Sheet A3, Scale 1/8”=1’-0”, by Stephen Jager Associates, LLC, Stamped “received” on Jul 23, 2007.
Unit B Floor Plans, The Village at Powder Hill, Powder Hill Road, Enfield, CT.” Sheet A2, Scale 1/8”=1’-0”, by Stephen Jager Associates, LLC, Stamped “received” on Jul 23, 2007.
“Unit C Exterior Elevations, The Village at Powder Hill, Powder Hill Road, Enfield, CT.” Sheet A3, Scale 1/8”=1’-0”, by Stephen Jager Associates, LLC, dated 7/24/2007.
Unit C Floor Plans, The Village at Powder Hill, Powder Hill Road, Enfield, CT.” Sheet A2, Scale 1/8”=1’-0”, by Stephen Jager Associates, LLC, dated 7/24/2007.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Mylars and Certificate:
1. The Engineering Division has recommended that the Applicant grant a drainage easement for the outlet pipe into the detention area for the drainage coming off Powder Hill Road and a right to drain into the basin. The drainage easement over the pipe should meet Town Standards. These items should be added to the plans, with a bearing and distance definition for the drainage easement.
2. For all sewer pipes, show on the drawing(s) the length, diameter, slope, location, and type of pipe; for inverts show elevation in and out, and for frame(s) show elevation at the top. Sewer system shall conform to Town of Enfield, Subdivision Regulations, revised as of February 12, 2002, and on the Town of Enfield Public Works Department drawings titled Typical Details I, II and III.
3. Show on diagram(s) - “WPC shall be notified 24 hours in advance for all inspections required for installations of sewer system{s}. Please call 860-253-6450 – if no one is there, please leave a message.”
4. Note the plans: 6”PVC laterals, minimum slope 2% and a cleanout every 100’.
5. Show on the plans encasing the sanitary sewer in concrete at the drainage crossing in Powder Hill Road Sheet 8 of 17.
6. Final Plans to be reviewed by WPC and Engineering Divisions prior to signing.
7. All mylars and paper plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
8. A finalized Management Plan based on the one presented at the Public Hearing shall be offered for staff review and approval. Any subsequent changes to the terms of the Management Plan shall require the Commission's approval as an amendment to the approved Special Permit.
9. The Management Plan submitted shall contain clear language referencing the stormwater management plan and the obligations of the Homeowner’s Association to inspect and maintain all elements of the plan on a regular basis based on Best Management Practices.
10. 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 incorporated into the final mylars submitted for signature.
11. The Public Hearing file number “PH 2622” shall be displayed prominently on all final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
12. One set of final 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. The signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk prior to the Special Permit becoming effective. The applicant shall also submit final plans as approved by the Commission in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
13. 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.
14. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
15. An Engineering bond for each phase, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits for that phase.
16. A Separate Erosion and Sediment Control Bond for each phase shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits for that phase in the form of a passbook, pledged to the Town, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
17. A Landscaping bond for each phase, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits for that phase.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
18. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
19. Town approved and police enforceable fire lane signs must be installed on all roads of the development as directed by the Fire Marshall.
20. All street signs and traffic safety signage shall be installed prior to the issuance of the any certificates of zoning compliance.
General Conditions:
21. Additional Erosion and Sediment Control Measures shall be installed upon review and recommendation of Town staff should field conditions necessitate.
22. This approval is for the specific use and structures identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structures will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
23. This project is also subject to Conditions of Approval imposed by the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency.
24. This project is approved, and shall be maintained, as a Senior Residential Development, subject to the requirements and limitations of Section 4.30.19 of the Zoning Regulations.
Commissioner Duren stated the Commission has the Inland Wetlands approval and letters from the water companies giving their approval. The concerns regarding the use of pesticides have been addressed and Commissioner Duren would approve this application.
Commissioner Cooper stated he has concerns about Powder Hill Road.
Commissioner Hickey stated this particular piece of property has a very unique character and history and is a source of a lot of sentiment to a lot of people. However, there is a right of development and the applicant has demonstrated that they do meet the standards for a special use permit. Commissioner Hickey feels the road conditions and some of the other issues are outside the purview of the property owner.
Chairman DiPace has heard a lot of concerns about looking at the Master Plan of Development. He noted the Master Plan is done by a subcommittee and this Commission. The Commission knows their Master Plan and there are a lot of things in it to protect the town. There are other things that are in there that are misinterpreted. Chairman DiPace stated regarding sewer lines, in this case the applicant is running a sewer line down to a piece of property that was a gravel pit and it does need to be put to some use. To tie someone’s hands and say you can’t develop your land when all the reports are positive is not something that should occur. Chairman DiPace stated he has advisory reports but he would rather see the reports indicate how the area can be improved rather than just have negative comments. Chairman DiPace felt this is a good application and it has very minimal impact. The applicant has addressed all the concerns.
Commissioner Duren stated the applicant came in for a zone change to build more and it was denied. This is a much smaller project.
Commissioner Ladd felt the proposed storm drainage plan would help alleviate the black ice. Chairman DiPace discussed traveling up and down this road and stated Powder Hill Road is the first road sanded in this town. He stated it is not an easy road to drive through but he suggested contacting the Police Department to have them monitor it and slow the cars down.
Mr. Giner brought up the five waivers that require a vote prior to approval of this application.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve the request for a waiver of Subdivision Section 5.b.3 to allow an increase in the maximum length of cul-de-sac from 600 feet to approximately 1,040 feet. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
The reasons for approval are the Commission finds that the waiver will not have a significant adverse effect on the adjacent property; it will not have a significant adverse effect on public health and safety; there is no conflict with the Plan of Development; the waiver is consistent with the development pattern of other land in the area; and it is compatible with the site’s natural features.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve the request for a waiver of the sidewalk requirements of Section 5f. of the Town of Enfield Subdivision regulations revised to 02-12-02, to eliminate the sidewalk on the boulevard entrance portion of the roadway; to waive the sidewalk around the loop portion of the roadway and replace instead with sidewalk through the interior of the open space in the loop; to waive the requirement to install sidewalks on Powder Hill frontage.
Commissioner Hickey stated he normally is opposed to waiving sidewalks but he agrees with the proposed reasons. He thinks the concept of replacing the sidewalks in the interior of the project is a reasonable compromise.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
The reasons for approval are the waiver will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent property; it will not have a significant adverse effect on public health and safety; there is no conflict with the Plan of Development; the waiver is consistent with the development pattern of other land in the area; and it is compatible with the site’s natural features.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve the request for a waiver of the requirements of Section 5.b.9 of the Town of Enfield Subdivision regulations revised to 02-12-02 with respect to the type of curbing to allow “Cape Cod” curbing as an alternate to the standard requirements. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
The reasons for approval are the Commission finds that the alternate “Cape Cod” style of curbing is a result of environmental concerns and will mitigate the impacts that the proposed roadways may have on wildlife in the project area and that the substitution of such curbing will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent property; it will not have a significant adverse effect on public health and safety; there is no conflict with the Plan of Development; the waiver is consistent with the development pattern of other land in the area; and it is compatible with the site’s natural features.
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve a waiver under Section 4.30.19 G of the Zoning Regulations to allow a boulevard entrance with a center island for improved aesthetics and site access. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
The reasons for approval are the Commission finds that the boulevard entrance will improve aesthetics and site access and that the waiver will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent property; it will not have a significant adverse effect on public health and safety; there is no conflict with the Plan of Development; the waiver is consistent with the development pattern of other land in the area; and it is compatible with the site’s natural features. The entrance is on a private road and will be maintained by the Association.
Chairman DiPace further noted the Commission has on its agenda discussion regarding boulevards. Unfortunately, because of the present work load the Commission has not had a chance to complete their work on boulevards. This is something the Commission is looking at to approve in order to make some of the roads in this town better. He is in agreement with the waiver.
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve a waiver under Section 4.30.19G of the Zoning Regulations to allow a landscaped island in the middle of a cul-de-sac to reduce impervious coverage and provide more open space. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
The reasons for approval are the Commission finds that the landscaped island will improve aesthetics, reduce site runoff and that the waiver will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent property; it will not have a significant adverse effect on public health and safety; there is no conflict with the Plan of Development; the waiver is consistent with the development pattern of other land in the area; and it is compatible with the site’s natural features. The cul-de-sac island is located on a private road and will be maintained by the Association.
The main motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
The findings for approval are:
1. The proposed development is found consistent with the standards of the Special Residential Developments found in Article IV of the Zoning Regulations.
2. The SRD is adequately screened from all abutting streets, single family buildings, and Town lands by the use of existing land forms or vegetation, by supplemental plantings, adequate setbacks and/or sensitive and compatible building design.
3. The proposed development of the SRD is such that it does not have a negative impact and becomes a compatible land use to the surrounding existing development and/or potential surrounding future development.
4. All proposed structures, equipment or material are readily accessible for fire and police protection.
5. The proposed use is of such location, size and character that, in general, it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the district in which it is proposed to be situated and will not be detrimental to the orderly development of adjacent properties.
6. That, in addition to the above:
a. The location and size of the development, the nature and intensity of operations involved in or conducted in connection therewith, its site layout and its relation to access streets shall be such that both pedestrian and vehicular traffic to and from the use and the assembly of persons in connection therewith will not be hazardous or inconvenient to, or incongruous with, the adjacent zoning residential district or conflict with the normal traffic of the neighborhood; and
b. The location and height of buildings, the location, nature and height of walls and fences, and the nature and extent of landscaping on the site shall be such that the use will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings, or impair the value thereof.
b. PH#2625 Special Use Permit to put a 12’ x 16’ 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 December 6)
William Peltier appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated the Traffic Safety Officer did view the area and he saw no problem with it. Paul Censki also had no problems. Mr. Giner confirmed that he received an email from Officer Santanella dated November 7, 2007. Chairman DiPace asked that a condition of approval be that the Commission receives a letter from the Traffic Safety Officer that his concerns have been addressed.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve 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 25, Lot 133, William Peltier, Applicant/Freshwater Pond Limited Partnership, Owners, subject to conformance with the hearing record and the following conditions:
1. Two sets of paper plans signed by the person responsible for their preparation, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.
2. The plans submitted for signature shall include the information and details requested by the Town Engineer in his September 21, 2007 comments.
3. 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.
General Conditions
4. This approval is for the specific use and structures identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use of the structures will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
5. 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.
6. Any necessary permits for the construction or operation of the use as approved must be obtained within one year of the effective date of this approval or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
7. The Traffic Safety Officer shall submit a letter to the Commission stating that his concerns have been addressed.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to waive the Site Plan requirements of Section 9.10-.2 because the information is not necessary in order to decide on the application’s conformance with these Regulations. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PH#2619 – Petition for a zone change from R-33 zone to BL zone, Map 323, Lot 3, for 674 Enfield Street, Rockville Bank, Applicant/660 Enfield Street, LLC, Owner. (Must close by December 20).
Dana Steele of J. R. Russo and Attorney Stanley Falkenstein appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Attorney Falkenstein stated they are seeking to change the zone of 674 Enfield Street from R-33 to BL. Rockville Bank occupies the building immediately to the north of the parcel. The request is to permit the zone change so that Rockville Bank can expand its drive-in window. Right now there is one drive-in window and they wish to add another drive-in window and another lane for an ATM. The Plan of Conservation and Development calls for this area to be within the retail commercial district.
Dana Steele stated they did submit a concept plan as requested. The zone change map that was submitted shows the parcel along with the surrounding properties. He presented a colored map showing the existing BL zones and residential zones. There is BL on both sides of the street and to the north of the subject parcel and to the south of the subject parcel on the east side of the street. This is a single residential lot that abuts the bank.
Mr. Steele presented the concept plan showing that the pavement for the bank comes within a foot of the property line. It doesn’t have the current requirements for buffers and so forth. By removing this house and planting the proper 35’ landscaped buffer, they would be taking an existing nonconforming situation and making it conforming. This would be an improvement to the zoning of the area and it also improves the bank property so that they can service their customers.
Mr. Steele noted the lanes shown on the concept plan and the gray area that would be an expansion of pavement. Even with that expansion, there would still be room for the 35’ buffer that the regulations require.
Chairman DiPace stated this plan would only use ten percent of the property and very rarely does the Commission see that.
Commissioner Sarno asked if they would be demolishing the existing house and garage. Mr. Steele stated the intent is to remove the structures. Otherwise they would have zoning compliance issues with setbacks. The parcels are going to be merged.
Chairman DiPace stated that house is one of the nicest looking homes in the area. It is a shame to lose it but at the same time things change. Mr. Steele stated they did ask us to see if there was a way that the house could be saved and they could still accomplish what they were looking to do but, unfortunately, the house had to go in the interest of meeting the zoning regulations.
Jason Courtier, Ridgewood Drive, Suffield, stated he owns the house at 676-678 Enfield Street directly next to this house. This would adversely affect his property. The question he would have was when he first purchased his property in 1999, the existing bank was a credit union. There was a privacy issue because there was no fence. People that were in the drive-through windows that worked in the bank would be looking at his house all day long. After negotiations with the bank, he was able to get them to put up fencing. Mr. Courtier stated if they want to do three lanes, the area is tight. The existing fence is damaged from people hitting it. Also, there’s a noise problem. With the credit union there was a high traffic flow late at night. Mr. Courtier asked if they do take the house down, what type of privacy are they going to provide for his property and his tenants.
Chairman DiPace stated there will be a 35’ buffer. Mr. Courtier stated even though there would be a 35’ buffer, you can still look directly into the windows of his property. If they don’t put up a fence and the plantings are not very high, he would have the same problem. This would be an invasion of their privacy.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission is not approving the site plan tonight. The first step is to approve the zone change and then they would have to come back for the site plan. That is the time to discuss fencing or screening. Chairman DiPace felt fencing makes sense because they are going from a home to a business and creating the change next door. Mr. Courtier stated if they did expand it with a lawn, he would have no problem. His major concern is the privacy issue.
Mr. Giner stated he just received the affidavit about the posting of the sign. He recommended a December 1 effective date if the zone change is approved. He noted a drive-through would have to come back to the Commission as a public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve a zone change from R-33 to BL zone at 674 Enfield Street as heard in Public Hearing #2619 with an effective date of December 1, 2007. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
The Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:02 p.m.
b. PH#2627 – Resubdivision of remaining land into 16 single family residential lots on the west side of Laughlin Road at Ellington Town Line, zoned R-88, Map 106, Lot 1, Homes by Guarino, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by December 20)
John Martucci and Paul Guarino appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Martucci stated the application is regarding forty acres on the west side of Laughlin Road. The southern boundary line is also the Ellington town line. Included in this application are sixteen new R-88 single family homes, about 2,200’ of a new town road, Bellawood Drive, and improvements to l,600’ of Laughlin Road in front of the parcel. This is the site of a former nursery and it has gravel soils. The slope is fairly gentle from east to west. It is a paved road with curbs. Laughlin Road will also be paved with curbs and the town drainage system. The drainage systems drain down in the natural direction towards the west. There are three detention ponds that effectively reduce the peak runoff from the site. The storm water quality meets the requirements of the 2004 Storm Water Quality DEP guidelines. They received Wetlands approval in October.
Mr. Martucci stated the only waiver they are requesting is the use of cape cod curbing instead of the standard curbing. The application meets all the requirements of the regulations.
Commissioner Duren stated the Wetlands permit is Inland Wetlands 504 and it included several conditions.
Commissioner Sarno noted this is an off shoot of what is already existing – the seven lots.
Commissioner Duren stated they have approval from the Health Department on the septic tanks and all they have to do is test the wells for EDB.
Mr. Martucci stated they have sidewalks proposed on one side of the new road and also on the development side of Laughlin Road.
Mr. Giner stated if cape cod curbing is used, a motion to waive the standard bituminous curbing should be included. Regarding the appraisal, there is a total value of $384,000 and this would be about $2,400 per lot which is consistent with previous applications.
Chairman DiPace stated the town engineer has not had a chance to review this. Mr. Giner talked to him today and there was curbing proposed along the existing Laughlin Road. The town engineer wanted to make sure there were appropriate openings. Chairman DiPace asked if there is a condition that the concerns of the Town Engineer be addressed. Mr. Giner stated he can put that as a condition prior to signing the mylars. He proposed making it condition 14 and renumbering the following conditions.
Commissioner Ladd asked how far away is public water. Mr. Giner noted it is pretty far away. Some discussion followed regarding EDB.
Judy and Chris Martin stated they are in favor of this application. They have recently purchased lot 5/ 56 Laughlin Road. Their concern is safety. There is mud out there right now because the road is not paved. There is no lighting. There are hunters. The subdivision will make it a much safer area.
Attorney Katherine Hale and Alan Torrant appeared before the Commission. She stated Mr. Torrant lives on the opposite side of Laughlin Road from this development. Attorney Hale stated before the first phase of this development went in, they were here a number of times and they have some concerns about the Commission approving this development. They are mostly engineering concerns. They would ask that the Commission not just put a condition on that the Town Engineer will approve before the mylars are filed. They would like him to look at several aspects of this plan before the Commission takes a vote.
Attorney Hale stated Mr. Torrant’s house is directly across from the northern exit of Bellawood Drive as it intersects Laughlin Road. With the placement of that road, as cars come up that road, they will be directing their headlights right into Mr. Torrant’s yard. There is a concern about that and they would like the Commission to look at some buffering or other ways to protect him from that.
Attorney Hale stated they are in agreement that there should not be sidewalks on the east side of Laughlin Road. They have no problem with the paving being done from the Ellington line down to the northern edge of the subdivision but they do have concerns about the fact that there are no catch basins for the last 300’ at the northern end. That is a down slope and their concern is that the water will sheet flow off of the paved area and into the unpaved area which is fairly muddy. Attorney Hale asked the Commission to have the Town Engineer check to see whether there will be an erosion problem where that northern end of the pavement is played out into the existing road.
Attorney Hale stated there is also a concern that the pavement be located in the center of the right of way. The plans do show that the utility poles will be moved toward the development. They now, unfortunately, sit just about in the middle of the right of way and this is what caused problems in the initial application. Attorney Hale stated she is assuming that the applicant will take care of getting those poles moved and absorbing the cost of all of the paving for this section. Mr. Martucci confirmed that is correct. Attorney Hale stated they would like the Town Engineer to confirm that the paving is located in the center of the right of way. What has happened over the years is the actual traffic tended to move toward the east away from the poles and encroach upon Mr. Torrant’s land. Mr. Torrant owns the entire frontage along Laughlin Road. They are concerned that the taper where the paved area goes down into the unpaved area not create any kind of washout. They are concerned with the intersection at the northerly end of Bellawood Drive with Laughlin Road and that it be buffered in some way. They are also very concerned that as the road has been graded out there recently, there are some substantial cuts up to a foot on the eastern side of the road. There are substantial trees that have been there for a long time that are on Mr. Torrant’s side of the road and where the driveway has been cut in, they don’t want to lose any trees. They would like the Town Engineer to confirm that all the curbing and all the paving and all the cuts are done with minimal impact to the landowners on the opposite side.
Attorney Hale stated if you look at Sheet 14 of 17 you can see there is a down slope and the last catch basin is approximately 300’ from where the pavement ends. The concern is how much water will be flowing down that last hill and they would like to make sure that the calculations are done on that. Attorney Hale pointed out where that appears on the plan.
Attorney Hale stated Mr. Torrant would like there not to be a street light placed directly opposite his house if at all possible. Mr. Torrant stated he has been in the quiet and darkness for many years and he would just as soon not have a street light there.
Commissioner Sarno asked if Mr. Torrant is the only property owner on that side of the street. Mr. Torrant stated they own eight-tenths of the road all the way from the Ellington town line up to where it becomes paved. The Cornier family built a couple of houses there. Mr. Torrant stated there is another house, his sister-in-law’s, set back up the hill.
Mr. Torrant stated the trees that are on Laughlin Road now require a lot of cutting but those trees are what gives Laughlin Road its character. He would like to keep the trees in his front yard.
Christine Keagan and Mr. Keagan spoke in favor of this application. They own Lot #4. They have two small children and their concern is safety. They are in favor of sidewalks and would like safety from the hunters and school bus access.
Mr. Martucci addressed the Laughlin Road profile. Sheets 13 and 14 show the design of Laughlin Road. On Sheet 13 up on the plan view at the top going from left to right, it is right across from Lot #5. The plans show the existing road. They are pushing the road ten feet or more west. He doesn’t believe there was sufficient right of way in the beginning. The applicant gave the town right of way so that there is now a 50’ road. Laughlin Road is not in the center of the right of way but further west by 10’. It tapers down to 4’ to 5’. Then when you get to the northerly entrance of Bellawood Drive, the proposed Laughlin Road is in the center of the right of way and very close to the existing edge of road. If you go in front of Lot #1 you will see that the existing gravel road is much farther east of the new road. They are favoring the applicant’s side of the road and they are pushing Laughlin Road over to where it should be.
Mr. Martucci stated as for the last 300’ not having catch basins, they are adding ten catch basins on the improved section of Laughlin Road, two of which are on the Bellawood Drive intersection. They do pick up drainage along the surface of Laughlin Road. They are reducing the amount of water by ten catch basins of what is existing on Laughlin Road today. As far as the 300’ of road that doesn’t have catch basins that is shown on Sheet 14, when they analyze drainage, the first thing they do is delineate how much drainage area is going to the catch basin. When they have catch basins that are in the road, they do a gutter flow analysis. They will be improving the amount of water that comes down Laughlin Road today and reducing it tremendously.
Chairman DiPace noted the 2% drop in the area and that the minimum to keep water flowing is one and a half percent. Mr. Martucci stated some towns allow you to go to one percent and the DOT will let you go to one half a percent. However, it is hard to build a road and not have puddles. Further discussion followed. Mr. Martucci stated the crown of the road is about 2% and they are picking up a lot of the water in the catch basins along that side of the road. Mr. Martucci stated he designed the drainage and it is not a tremendous drainage area. It will be designed according to town standards and it will improve the drainage tremendously. Mr. Martucci doesn’t expect any erosion because they are picking up a lot of the water and the limited amount that is on that last 300’ is not a significant amount.
Chairman DiPace stated the front homes are already built. The catch basins are going to stop at the corner. He asked does this property being developed stop at the end of where this road is going to end or does it continue on and could there be a phase three. Mr. Martucci stated no. The last set of catch basins is about 200’ north of their last intersection. They went up 200’ north of the last intersection where the northerly part of Bellawood Drive comes in and put in another set of basins. They made every effort they could to catch as much water as possible. They stayed at existing grade as much as they could. It goes from 2% to 3% but the amounts of water that will be flowing down the road at 3% are not erosive and will not cause any erosion.
Mr. Martucci stated today a lot more water runs down the road at the same rate. He doesn’t think the problems on Laughlin Road are erosion. It’s a concern because there isn’t a tremendously large drainage area. The problem is now it is a gravel or earth road and it doesn’t drain so the water sits there.
Chairman DiPace noted Mr. Torrant had a concern about the trees. Mr. Martucci stated they pulled the proposed road away from Mr. Torrant’s property and they are not changing the grades at all. They designed the road to a geometric profile and regardless of what shape the dirt is today, the new road will be at grade and where it is shown on the plans.
Chairman DiPace brought up Mr. Torrant’s concern regarding the street light in front of his house and can that be addressed. Mr. Guarino stated they do have street lights with lower light levels. Mr. Giner discussed particular street lights. He would imagine in this type of setting that the decorative lights would be used.
Mr. Martucci stated they submitted these plans to Wetlands in September. John Cabibbo has reviewed the drainage report. Mr. Giner stated what he had not reviewed were the comments that came after the ART.
Chairman DiPace asked if there is anyone to speak in favor or against this application.
Mr. Torrant stated he has not had a problem because he has been out there all alone and who cares what happens with runoff out of his driveway. But what might happen in the future is the water table on the top and the water table sub surface goes from Somers towards the development property. It comes up his father-in-law’s hill and down his driveway. It could be a situation where we have water shooting on to this finished road that would start off as water and be in a freeze situation. When that happens, does he have a liability to deal with any runoff that shoots out on to the paved surface of that road creating black ice? Chairman DiPace stated it is not something he is intentionally causing. It is just the natural grade of the land.
Mr. Giner stated he would ask that of the engineer. Mr. Martucci stated the cross section of any road has a crown on it. A lot of times when there are old roads, they weren’t constructed properly or they have settled and you don’t have the crown and that is when you have water crossing the road. Any water coming out of Mr. Torrant’s driveway is just going to go into the gutter and be picked up by the catch basin about 150’ down hill of it. The road is designed to keep the water out of the center of the road and keep it into the gutter.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to accept the appraisal of Burke Appraisal Services which indicates the value to be $384,000 and, therefore, the total due to the town would be $38,400. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve PH #2627 – Resubdivision of remaining land into 16 single family residential lots on the west side of Laughlin Road at Ellington Town Line, Zoned R-88, Map 106, Lot 1, Homes by Guarino Applicant/Owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans, as may be required to be modified by this motion, and the following conditions:
“Cherry Wood Estates, Prepared For Guarino Homes, Enfield, Conn.” Cover Sheet, Location Map and Index to Sheets, Sheet 1 of 17 Scale: “None”, by Aeschliman Land Surveying, PC., dated 8-28-07, revised to 11-1-07.
“Resubdivision Plan Cherry Wood Estates Prepared For Guarino Homes, Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 2 of 17, Scale: 1”=40’, by Aeschliman Land Surveying, PC., dated 8-28-07, revised to 11-1-07.
“Resubdivision Plan Cherry Wood Estates Prepared For Guarino Homes, Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 3 of 17, Scale: 1”=40’, by Aeschliman Land Surveying, PC., dated 8-28-07, revised to 11-1-07.
“Resubdivision Plan Cherry Wood Estates Prepared For Guarino Homes, Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 4 of 17, Scale: 1”=40’, by Aeschliman Land Surveying, PC., dated 8-28-07, revised to 11-1-07.
“Resubdivision Plan Cherry Wood Estates Prepared For Guarino Homes, Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 5 of 17, Scale: 1”=40’, by Aeschliman Land Surveying, PC., dated 8-28-07, revised to 11-1-07.