|
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
JANUARY 4, 2007
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, January 4, 2007, in the Town Council Chambers, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Vice Chairman Hickey called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: James Hickey, Jr., Vice Chairman
Elizabeth Ballard
Geoffrey Cooper
Jason Jones
Karen Weseliza
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
Charles Ladd, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
Stephen Sadlowski, Assistant Town Planner
Vice Chairman Hickey led the audience in a moment of silence to remember Mary Lou Strom, Enfield’s former mayor, who passed away this week.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 16, 2006 MEETING
a. Consideration of the adoption of Aquifer Protection Area Regulations in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes §22a-354p and R.C.S.A. §22a-354i-3. These regulations will enable the Agency to administer all provisions of An Act Concerning Aquifer Protection Areas, C.G.S. §22a-354a to§22a-354bb (the Act), and to approve or deny registrations, issue permits, issue permits with terms, conditions, limitations or modifications, or deny permits for all regulated activities in aquifer protection areas in the Town of Enfield pursuant to the Act.
Mr. Giner reported the DEP came to Enfield and held a public information session. Mr. Giner also attended a Town Council meeting and gave them an update on what is going on. One of the things the Council wanted to do was to establish a subcommittee of interested Council and Commission members. If any Commission member wants to serve on this subcommittee, Mr. Giner asked that they let Chairman DiPace know.
Mr. Giner stated one of the things that was discussed is the Commission has some leeway on the fees that they charge and how they charge them. He suggested that the initial registration fee could be waived for those people submitting on time in order to ease the transition into this regulation for existing businesses. The Commission can consider this when adopting the regulations.
Commissioner Cooper noted it came up during the information session that if you have one parcel that qualifies for the aquifer protection, what would happen if this parcel was subdivided. He asked if this was answered. Mr. Giner stated the initial reaction was if it was subdivided without a use on it, there would be no use to be grandfathered. Mr. Giner will follow up on this.
Commissioner Ballard asked how other towns handle the fee schedule. Mr. Giner stated the fee schedule proposed was based on what other towns have been charging. The model regulations contain blanks for fees and it is up to the town to fill in those blanks.
Mr. Giner stated he can redraft the regulations with some language to put forward a process where first time registrants would get the fee waived if they submitted it within a certain amount of time. After that, in five years the fees would be paid. The consensus of the Commission was that Mr. Giner redraft the regulations to include this wording.
Vice Chairman Hickey opened this hearing to the audience.
Lee Hawthorne, North Maple Street, stated he had asked about the cemetery located near his home. He asked if the Commission has a response. Mr. Giner stated he has not yet received an answer. Mr. Hawthorne stated he now has to pay fees for the same regulations that were put in place ten years ago. Further discussion followed.
Commissioner Weseliza asked what the fees are for. Mr. Giner stated they are for administrative costs. There is a need to send out certified mail, notify the DEP and publish hearing notices in the newspaper. Staff time is also needed to inspect the sites.
Commissioner Ladd asked if there are any plans to have additional information sessions. Mr. Giner stated the one in December was the only one to be held.
Commissioner Cooper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to continue this hearing to January 18, 2007. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Cooper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to adjourn. Following a 7 – 0 – 0 vote, the Aquifer Protection Agency adjourned at 7:47 p.m.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING –IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING AQUIFER PROTECTION AGENCY MEETING
Vice Chairman Hickey convened the Regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at this time.
STAFF COMMENTS
a. Town Attorney (in person)
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer (in person)
Commissioner Weseliza had a resident call her from her neighborhood regarding Bosco’s. They have signs up advertising that they make and sell go-carts. This resident was concerned about the mess. Commissioner Weseliza asked that Mr. Bickley visit the site.
c. Director of Planning
Mr. Giner introduced Steve Sadlowski, the Assistant Town Planner and Wetlands Agent, to the Commission.
Mr. Giner noted there is a seminar by the Connecticut Bar Association on March 17, 2007 at Wesleyan. It is an all day seminar with interesting topics and the cost can be covered under the budget for professional development.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Margaret Jedziniak, Abbe Road, had questions regarding a permit recently granted to a person who owns horses and wants to give riding lessons. This use also had a related farm stand and Ms. Jedziniak asked what percentage of the crops have to be grown on the property. Mr. Giner responded the majority has to be grown on the property. Ms. Jedziniak asked if they bring in all the produce, what happens. Mr. Giner stated there would be a need to notify the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Ms. Jedziniak asked additional questions about the animals on the property. Mr. Giner stated it is a farm and the animals would be allowed as long as they do not violate any health codes.
CORRESPONDENCE
Vice Chairman Hickey reported Correspondence includes a schedule of the various Board and Commission meetings, a report from the Inland Wetlands public hearing held December 19, 2006, a copy of a planning magazine and correspondence concerning the Somers Road drainage issue. Regarding the last item, Mr. Giner stated the concern was whether or not the Shaker Heights development was causing the drainage issue. Jeff Bord went out to see if there was anything contributing to this issue which has been an ongoing problem but he didn’t find anything. There was some standing water due to the way the homes were constructed. The Town Engineer will keep an eye on this area.
Vice Chairman Hickey stated there is a letter from the applicants regarding the Hazard Avenue/Middle Road proposed zone change requesting a continuance. This hearing will be postponed to January 18, 2007.
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to take items out of order and consider the bond release for PH#2389 at this time. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
c. PH#2389 – Request for release of Engineering Bond in the amount of $14,840 and the Landscape Bond in the amount of $297 for Arby’s on 103 Elm Street.
The owners appeared before the Commission with a request to release this bond. Mr. Giner stated normally someone retains an engineer during construction and they certify everything is installed. While the town has an as built, they do not have the engineer’s certification for these private underground improvements. It has been three years and nothing has happened. The Town Engineer has done a visual inspection and the Commission has a memo from him. At this point, staff would concur about releasing this bond.
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to release the $14,840 engineering bond and the $297 landscape bond for PH#2389, Arby’s at 103 Elm Street. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – CONTINUED FROM DEC. 21, 2006 MEETING
a. PH #2573 - Special use permit and site plan review for a 73 unit senior residential development at the east end of Mayfield Dr. and north of Westview Drive, and west of Shaker Pines Lake, Map 79, Lot 11, Stonegate Associates, Applicant/Angelina J. McGillivray, Owner. (Must Close This Evening).
Vice Chairman Hickey read some comments regarding how this hearing will be conducted this evening.
Attorney Keri Olson stated there now exists two pieces of correspondence in the file from the DEP. The first is an email from Ken Metzler to Mr. Giner confirming that the analysis of the potential critical habitat on site will take place in conjunction with the applicant’s storm water permit application. The second communication is a letter from Ed Parker, Chief of the Bureau of Natural Resources for the DEP, which outlines the jurisdiction of the DEP over these issues as well as confirms the agreed upon survey for invertebrates and the appropriate mitigation program that will take place at the appropriate time.
Attorney Olson has asked Attorney Gregory Sharp to address the Commission. He is an environmental attorney who has worked extensively with the DEP and he has also communicated directly with the DEP regarding this particular plan. He was also present with Attorney Olson and others during the site walk with Ken Metzler.
Attorney Sharp clarified for the Commission what some of the issues are and what the legal framework is in Connecticut. They had a site walk with Ken Metzler. They identified the critical areas and confirmed that the areas previously identified by REMA Ecological were in fact the most important vegetative areas. They discussed during the site walk what could be done and what reasonable steps could be taken to protect the habitat. The site plan shows close to ninety percent of the critical areas are to be preserved.
Attorney Sharp clarified that when the term critical habitat is used, it is used in conjunction with a vegetative soil assemblage for species that are considered rare or endangered. His client has agreed to do a survey this summer to determine whether there are endangered species on the site. DEP has lists of such endangered species. In Connecticut, the department imposes the requirements of endangered species through the storm water permit process. Any project that involves more than five acres has to go to the DEP for a storm water permit. DEP does a review to determine what the situation regarding endangered species is. The problem for applicants is you can’t submit your storm water application until you have a footprint. You don’t have a footprint until it is approved by Planning and Zoning. In this case, they have to know what their approved footprint looks like so that their engineer can design the storm water and erosion controls to meet the DEP storm water requirements, submit a registration form and go through an endangered species review.
Commissioner Cooper asked if after they get their approvals, they find endangered species, what does the DEP do. Is the project shut down? Attorney Sharp stated what the department does is included in Mr. Parker’s letter. In the second paragraph he points out that Section 3D2 of the general permit says that no registrant for a storm water permit shall adversely impact essential habitat for threatened or endangered species. If you do, it is $25,000 per day whether you intended it or not.
Vice Chairman Hickey asked if the general permit process for discharging waste waters is an internal administrative process or does it involve public input. Attorney Sharp stated it is internal. People are welcome to comment but there’s no formal hearing or notice. All of the information goes to the Wildlife Division and the endangered species people to review.
Vice Chairman Hickey stated the survey for the endangered species would be submitted as part of the permitting process to the DEP. Attorney Sharp stated they will submit a storm water permit registration and go through the department’s process. In doing so, they have already agreed that this summer they will conduct a survey and determine whether this habitat is critical. Attorney Sharp discussed the American Inn project and noted you don’t know what is out there until you have done the field work.
Commissioner Ladd stated Attorney Sharp is not saying anything about the vertebrates, the normal animals in the area. Attorney Sharp stated at the moment the diversity data base is indicating the concern is over moths and that is what the department has focused on.
Commissioner Ladd discussed a development in the back of his property where the construction work killed all the predators and the end result was a lot of rats in the area. He is concerned about that with this project.
Attorney Sharp noted seventy-five percent of the site is going to be preserved as open space. The layout is designed with wetlands protection in mind. There is a large section along the northern edge of the site that contains all the critical habitat. Here the most critical part of the project from a habitat perspective is intact and preserved.
Commissioner Weseliza noted while the DEP imposes penalties on someone, it doesn’t necessarily stop the project.
Attorney Olson asked Attorney Sharp that in order to commence construction does the applicant need a storm water permit. Attorney Sharp responded yes. Attorney Olson stated given the letter from Mr. Parker, it is his opinion that the applicant would get the storm water permit without doing the surveys that have been outlined in Mr. Parker’s letter. Attorney Sharp stated what happens is you submit your registration and the department reviews that. At the same time, the endangered species people review their issues. Until the entire process is finalized, they will not issue a certificate which gives you a building permit which you post on the site.
Attorney Olson requested time later in the meeting for another expert to address the Commission.
Attorney Olson stated Mr. Wentworth is present to answer any engineering concerns and their other experts are also available.
Commissioner Jones asked about the waivers they are requesting.
Mr. Wentworth stated the waivers are for cul de sac length, reduced snow shelf width as a result of wetlands crossing and waiver of sidewalks to minimize the snow shelf width. There are three wetlands crossings and at all three crossings they are reducing the snow shelf width. In areas without sidewalks, they are going down to five feet. They are also asking for a snow shelf waiver on a section of the road that is not internal to the neighborhood. That allows them to minimize the crossing which was important to the Wetlands Commission. For cul de sac length they have two points of ingress and egress and the town regulations allow up to a 600’ cul de sac but it can be waived up to 1,200’ by the Commission. They have 1,160’ up to one point, at Stonegate up to 1,000’ and on Shady Rise Lane approximately 760’. Through the entire subdivision they are proposing the cape cod curb rather than the standard town curb. It is a wider curb for aesthetics and for the wildlife in the area.
Attorney Olson asked Mr. Wentworth to explain why they are proposing the extended cul de sac. Mr. Wentworth stated originally they were proposing a loop type road with two crossings. The Wetlands Commission eliminated the second crossing down to one crossing. They proposed a bridge which has almost no impact to the wetlands. The reasons for all of these waivers are for environmental concerns.
Commissioner Jones asked what would have to be done if they did not receive the sidewalk waiver. Mr. Wentworth stated what would happen is it would require a wider wetlands crossing by approximately five or six feet in width. This is a senior residential development and it would not be a situation where you have people walking to local stores or children walking in the neighborhood. The environmental concerns were critical to the Wetlands Commission.
Regarding how many feet of sidewalk are being discussed, Mr. Wentworth stated it is approximately 650’ of road and there are no homes within that stretch of road. Mr. Wentworth stated if it got to be a concern, you still could do the sidewalks up to a certain point just not at the wetlands crossing. It was their feeling that the environmental concerns outweighed the sidewalks.
Vice Chairman Hickey asked if the wetlands approval pretty much precludes sidewalks or is there something else they can do to put the sidewalks in. Mr. Wentworth stated at this point the waiver is required. If it were changed, it would require going back to the Wetlands Commission.
Commissioner Ladd brought up the cul de sac waiver noting that the cul de sac rule is no longer than 600’. Mr. Giner confirmed that the 600’ length can be waived up to 1,200’. Commissioner Ladd had a concern about the Westgate Drive waiver because of the narrowness of the Shaker Pines roads. Mr. Wentworth stated when they were here informally regarding the intersection of Pine Hill Road and Westview Drive, the Commission said without any doubt that a second access would be required.
Attorney Olson stated the waivers are requested because of the decision by the Wetlands Commission for a prudent and feasible alternative.
Commissioner Ballard asked what is the average length of the crossovers of the wetlands. Mr. Wentworth stated there is only one crossing affected by the sidewalk waiver and that length would be approximately twenty-five feet. Commissioner Ballard noted there could be a sidewalk down to the crossing but not at the crossing.
Mr. Wentworth stated if they have sidewalks, the Town Engineer has said they need a wider snow shelf. That snow shelf would require more fill within the wetlands and it would therefore be outside of their wetlands permit. Attorney Sharp also clarified that if you were to encroach on the regulated area, you would have to go back to the Wetlands Commission in order to do that. Mr. Wentworth stated the regulated area is 100’ on either side of the wetlands.
The intervener’s attorney, Attorney Amy Blaymore Patterson, addressed the Commission at this time. Attorney Patterson passed out two pieces of information. One was a June 6, 2006 report from Dr. DeSanto and the second was a memo of summary for the Commission’s information.
Attorney Patterson stated with respect to the DEP letter, when they left here at the last public hearing it was their understanding that this Commission was concerned about control. It was concerned about this application being moved over to DEP and the Commission’s ability to control what is going on. Attorney Patterson was left with the impression that the Commission was looking for conditions that they could put in if they chose to approve this application that would assure the Commission that the issues raised in all the DEP letters were addressed now in this report. What the Commission now has is DEP saying they will work with them. Attorney Patterson stated we knew that they had to work with them as part of their permit process. They also said they may undertake these activities. DEP is okay with deferring the mitigation of the enhancement details because they will have jurisdiction over those issues but Attorney Patterson questioned where does that leave the Commission with respect to their review. Under Section 4.40.3.8iii, the Commission needs to determine whether the site’s significant natural resources are preserved in their natural state to the greatest extent possible. DEP has been telling the Commission there is much to be concerned about with this site but also great potential to improve this plan. The only guarantee the Commission and the public has for these improvements is to incorporate them now. Attorney Patterson noted those surveys could have been done last summer but they were not.
Attorney Patterson stated there are two burdens of proof. One belongs to the intervener under Section 22A19. They need to prove that there is a reasonable likelihood of unreasonable pollution. They also need to go on to prove that there are prudent and feasible alternatives that will create less of an environmental impact. The applicant has its own burden of proof as well. There are certain provisions of the regulations that they have to meet. Those are outlined in the memorandum.
Attorney Patterson stated Mr. Logan has presented rebuttal testimony regarding Mr. Godin’s report and they also received a copy of an email from the Town Engineer commenting on Mr. Godin’s findings. Mr. Godin appeared before the Commission to respond to those assertions and respond to questions especially with respect to flooding.
Mark Godin, a professional engineer in the State of Connecticut, noted there were two waivers requested. One was for cul de sac length and one was for sidewalk length. He questioned why we have those requirements in the first place. The main reason for cul de sac length is if an accident occurs, you only have one way in and one way out so emergency vehicles cannot get in or out. Before the Commission gives that cull de sac waiver, Mr. Godin believes you should have that snow shelf. In this cul de sac design, because the cars are parked so close to the road, they will be in that snow shelf. There isn’t the room to go around those vehicles. He questioned if the homes shouldn’t be pushed back so there is a normal snow shelf. Mr. Godin also felt the sidewalks need to be redesigned before the cul de sac waiver is granted so that the cars are not parked over them or in the snow shelf.
Mr. Godin stated two of the wetlands crossings have sidewalks and for the third crossing, they could have asked the Wetlands Commission for five more feet.
Mr. Godin focused his comments on drainage. He had written a report dated November 28, 2006 with over thirty points included. He discussed the Town Engineer’s comments regarding his storm drainage review. He has two comments. He says the method used for detention was acceptable. Mr. Godin’s comment was it was not acceptable. The second point of the Town Engineer was they didn’t have to control volume. Mr. Godin stated the regulations require that you need to control volume and it is a common sense thing as well that you need to control volume. Mr. Godin went into some detail about controlling volume for storm drainage design. In his opinion, the methodology for the peak flow is incorrect and the volume has not been addressed. He handed out some information regarding best management practices.
Mr. Godin reviewed the response from George Logan to Mr. Godin’s report. George Logan gave a written presentation saying the comments Mr. Godin has given have been addressed or discussed at the Wetlands Commission. Mr. Godin noted none of the comments in his report have been addressed. Some of them have been discussed at the Wetlands Commission. As Mr. Godin reads the regulations, this Commission is responsible for improving erosion and sedimentation control. Mr. Godin stated as he looks at George Logan’s comments in a report dated November 7, 2007, he doesn’t rebut any of Mr. Godin’s comments. He doesn’t respond to a single item. He then says let me submit to this Commission two reports that I submitted to the Wetlands Commission in response to Mr. Godin’s comments. Mr. Godin referred to Mr. Logan’s report on storm water quality dated June 6, 2006. Mr. Logan states in that report that the above performance standards assume the storm water practices are properly selected, designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with the guidelines contained in this manual. Mr. Godin agrees with him. In the same report, Mr. Logan also says strive to remove eighty percent of the total suspended solids so the average annual loadings are not greater than the pre-development loadings. After that on July 18, Mr. Logan wrote another report in rebuttal to Mr. Godin’s testimony where he contradicts his own testimony. Mr. Godin talked about putting sediment chambers in for sediment removal and noted they were not designed per DEP guidelines. His response is on page 3 of his report of July 18. He says whether or not they meet the requirements is the wrong question. The right question is has REMA substantiated this removal efficiently based upon field studies and he points out the Massachusetts study that he used. Mr. Godin stated he has Connecticut Guidelines saying how to do it and Connecticut standards should be used.
Mr. Godin suggested that regarding Shaker Pond, they should have pre-development equal post development. This is where Mr. Logan disagrees. Mr. Godin’s suggestion was that we have no more pollution after this development than before development. Mr. Logan says it is impractical and unnecessary.
Mr. Godin brought up two other issues. He felt the basins are improperly designed. He elaborated on this point. His second comment is the two-inch outlet that goes into an eight inch concrete wall is substandard and could be easily clogged. It is an unacceptable design. One major design flaw is they didn’t start at the right elevation of that basin. The second major design flaw is they are using this basin for pollution renovation. If you look at the DEP requirements, they say that a dry detention basin does not provide any water quality. DEP says it has to be a wet pond or a wetland. The need is for the basin to have six inches of water in it year round and that has not been confirmed.
Mr. Godin submitted the following documents to the Commission: the DeSanto report dated June 6, 2006; Chapter 3-6 of the 2004 Connecticut Storm Water Quality Manual; Chapter 7-8 of the 2004 Connecticut Storm Water Quality Manual; 2002 Connecticut guidelines for soil and erosion and sediment control; the Connecticut Department of Transportation Drainage Manual excerpt starting with 11-5.1 dated October, 2000; and a letter from Attorney Patterson to Chairman Anthony DiPace dated January 4, 2007. Two other documents entitled Dry Detention Ponds from the 2004 Connecticut Storm Water Quality Manual and Storm Water Ponds from the 2004 Connecticut Storm Water Quality Manual were also presented.
Vice Chairman Hickey opened this public hearing to the public.
Laurie Parker, 105 Cottage Road, questioned the ten standard and the nineteen additional conditions of the Inland Wetlands Permit of August 1, 2006 and how they are enforced. If the applicant is not accurate in drainage calculations, who is responsible when they have flooding conditions? Ms. Parker stated the applicant spoke at a prior meeting about the success of the Autumn Fields project. Ms. Parker discussed other projects that were not so successful. One is the Grandview project in Enfield where there were many problems with drainage and runoff and it was noted in newspaper articles that grading and landscaping were not done in accordance with the plans approved. There was also a project in Suffield, Stony Brook, and according to the Minutes of a Suffield Conservation Commission meeting on May 23, 2006, they were in violation of wetland requirements and the project was halted because a phasing requirement stipulated by the board was not followed.
Vice Chairman Hickey responded to the question on enforcement and noted Enfield has a Wetlands Officer who handles enforcement. Mr. Giner explained the administration process for wetlands to Ms. Parker.
Ms. Parker asked what happens if they do find evidence of endangered species and they already have the approval. Is there enforcement that the applicant obtain those permits from the DEP? Ms. Parker stated their Lake Association has spent $30,000 and they really would like to see that the applicant puts forth the due diligence that the Lake Association has.
Ms. Parker stated at the last meeting she questioned a property purchase by Azura LLC on 90 Pine Hill Drive. There was also another property at 92 West Shore Drive purchased by the same company in July, 2005 which was then sold in March, 2006. Ms. Parker asked what the plan is for this property and if they have heard of this development. It should be in this application because they have a direct effect on the quality of life, the character of the neighborhood and the traffic on Pine Hill Drive and West Shore Drive. Ms. Parker asked about the overall plan for purchasing these residential homes.
Mr. Giner does not know of any plans for these homes. Attorney Olson confirmed the properties are not part of this project and they are owned by an affiliate company. Ms. Parker had heard that they might be using those properties to get access or build roads for the development area. Mr. Giner stated they are not part of this application.
Ms. Parker read letters from Robin Hart, 155 Cottage Road, Jessica Dugo, 101 Cottage Road and Kimberly Beck, 139 Cottage Road opposed to this development. Ms. Parker had other letters which she submitted for the record and did not read because of time constraints.
Tricia Holden, 57 West Shore Drive, discussed the many animals in the lake area. There are turtles and frogs that could be hit on the roads proposed. There are also lady slippers. Ms. Holden discussed the saw mill that existed on the property that was lost to demolition. She would hate to see the lake get lost also. Another concern was a development in East Longmeadow called Great Woods. She called to ask who maintains the detention ponds and could not get an answer. She noted they have not been taken care of. Another concern Ms. Holden has is water pressure and her well. She is also concerned about the two properties that were purchased but are not part of this development. She believes the property on Pine Hill was purchased for an access to the development. Ms. Holden is also concerned about all the waivers being requested.
Bob Rossman discussed the waivers being requested. Regarding the cul de sac length, they are increasing it from 600’ to 1,200’. As he looks at that, he sees it as one big cul de sac. You are allowed to increase the size to 1,200’ but there are further regulations that only allow three driveway cuts in the circle and none in the transition area. On the right hand side, there are five driveway cuts and about a dozen or so cuts in the transition area. For this reason, Mr. Rossman is asking the Commission to deny this waiver.
Bob Rossman noted the second waiver is to reduce the snow shelf width. A couple of weeks ago he presented some newspaper articles from the Hartford Courant about snow shelves. With this configuration, Mr. Rossman felt we should be concerned about increasing the snow shelf width rather than decreasing it. For that reason, he is asking the Commission to deny this waiver.
Bob Rossman stated the third waiver is to eliminate the sidewalk going on to Pine Hill Road. By granting that waiver, the Commission would be denying the area to the current neighborhood. He is asking the Commission to deny this waiver.
Bob Rossman discussed scarifying and stated he is scared that this is going to be a bad project. To go with the scarifying, it means to break up the surface of the topsoil. At the last hearing, they proposed that they were going to go in and cut trees and remove all kinds of organic material. That is not in their application. As Attorney Patterson pointed out, the P&Z regulations limit tree and soil removal. It also says in the regulations that no soil shall be removed from any portion except where required for construction of streets, driveways or structures. By scarifying, they are in violation of the town requirements and Mr. Rossman would like the Commission to deny this application.
Mike Grimola, 57 West Shore Drive, stated Mr. Wentworth had mentioned there wouldn’t be that many people using the sidewalks. He walks the area and there are quite a few people using the sidewalks in the Dartmoor project. He thinks the sidewalks are needed and he is opposed to this project.
Attorney Keri Olson introduced Mr. Wentworth who will discuss some of the representations Mr. Godin made to the Commission.
Wes Wentworth stated he did not feel the intervener’s engineer was completely accurate in conveying to the Commission the overall review of this project. The Wetlands Commission had months and months of review with input from town staff. They looked at things not only as far as wetlands disturbance but potential downstream flooding, storm water quality and possible impact to the wetlands. All of these issues were heard at wetlands as part of their review. Common sense was brought up. Mr. Wentworth stated they have a site with 68 acres being preserved or over seventy percent of the site. Secondly, things such as impervious area have been reduced to as little as eight percent of the site. This is considered to be a low intensity of impervious areas. Mr. Wentworth stated the Commission is hearing things from him and from the intervener. Town staff reviews these issues. They have thoroughly reviewed all of the issues Mr. Godin has brought up as part of this application and the wetlands application. What the intervener is trying to do is tell this Commission that these issues have never been analyzed. They are trying to use that assumption to tell the Commission the project is going to have a negative impact when, in fact, all town staff have looked at the waiver requirements. They have looked at the sidewalk waiver and the cul de sac waiver. They have no negative comments about this proposal as it stands. Also, Grandview Drive and Katie Lane are cul de sacs where waivers were granted.
Mr. Wentworth stated from looking at storm drainage from a potential flooding standpoint, their methodology has been reviewed by the Assistant and by the Town Engineer. The methods are appropriate. The methods they have designed these ponds with are appropriate. The ponds have been adequately designed and they have been oversized in volume for capacity. There are infiltration basins which they have not taken into account. Mr. Godin is talking about volume increases and is completely inaccurate. With volume increases, it is not required that you have to have a zero increase in volume off your site. It is impossible. They have analyzed their volumes and they have even gone above and beyond the design with infiltration basins and rain guards.
Mr. Wentworth stated as far as the sidewalk snow shoulder at the southern most wetlands crossing, he cannot emphasize enough what a plan of contention that wetlands crossing was to the Wetlands Commission. One of the reasons they outlined in their first denial was the fact that they had too much disturbance with that proposal in the area of that crossing and that a head wall would be required to bring it in another four or five feet. They have to prove prudent and feasible alternatives to this Commission. They had to reduce the snow shelf in order to prove to the Commission that they had examined all prudent and feasible alternatives.
George Logan appeared before the Commission and stated it is their opinion that they have done a more than adequate job to protect the water quality downstream. The Commission realized from the beginning that Shaker Pond not only is a sensitive resource but it also is a regulated resource and they had full control over it. The applicant hired someone who is actually a specialist in ponds who came in and commented that the lake is not going to be in any detriment with this application. What it comes down to is Mr. Godin’s opinion as an engineer versus Mr. Logan’s opinion as an environmental scientist. Mr. Logan stated the Wetlands Commission trusted their testimony as being more in keeping with the resource that was being protected. If you go through the reports, the Commission will see that their rebuttal was clear.
Vice Chairman Hickey stated it is clear there are differing opinions and the Commission has the material available to them.
Attorney Olson stated Attorney Sharp will touch on a point Attorney Patterson made. Attorney Sharp stated he would like to try to help the Commission avoid a problem and that has to do with their role and their job under Title 8 of the zoning statutes and the DEP’s role under Title 26 which is the endangered species statute. The suggestion was made by Attorney Patterson that the Commission should impose conditions on the critical habitat or restoration enhancement. Attorney Sharp stated they are a long way in coming up with a plan and they certainly would not want to scarify an area and then find out they destroyed a species that is endangered. They are at the front end of a process. The Commissioner will control that process. The legislature made a determination to give the 169 towns the authority to run the wetlands program. The endangered species are clearly the purview of the Commissioner. Attorney Sharp cautioned the Commission to stick with Title 8 and the town’s regulations. Whatever conditions the Commission feels are appropriate, Attorney Sharp would say fine. In terms of the preservation of natural resources, the legislature has said the Commissioner does it under Title 26. As a final point, to the extent they are preserving over seventy percent of the site is a pretty good job of preservation.
Attorney Olson discussed scarifying. Most of the Commission members were present when they discussed that that was a potential mitigation plan down the road with DEP. There is no intention to go in and start scarifying this property.
Attorney Olson stated she did intend to have another expert present tonight but Attorney Ziska was unable to be present tonight. He wanted to discuss that an ERT report is simply a guideline. It is extremely preliminary. The members of an ERT write their recommendations without any acknowledgement of which agencies are responsible for the aspects of it. The ERT report is really meant to be a preliminary review and guideline from an environmental agency. The ERT report also recommends the cul de sac waiver.
Attorney Olson stated the applicant has taken great pains and has gone above and beyond to assure an environmentally sensitive development. Beginning with the ERT report, which was a voluntary undertaking, the applicant designed a development that would have the most minimal impact on any environmental concern. At this Commission’s request, the applicant did conduct a preliminary site walk with Mr. Metzler and then got written correspondence on what occurred. As far as engineering, Mr. Wentworth has analyzed the site. He has designed each element of the plan in accordance with best management practices and the design has been approved by town staff. He also told the Commission that he stands by this design and he stakes his reputation on it.
Attorney Olson stated Mr. Godin did appear tonight to discuss his report. She referred the Commission to her submission from the last hearing where town staff addressed his comments and ultimately approved the plan before the Commission. Mr. Wentworth indicated that town staff did not review the plans only in the jurisdiction of the wetlands window but from an engineering standpoint. The Administrative Review Team looked at the plan from every aspect. They did not have any concerns that have not been addressed.
Attorney Olson referred to the reports from Dr. DeSanto and Dr. Smith. They are based on pure conjecture. Not one of these reports is the result of testing or analysis or a site walk that was done. They invited them during the wetlands application to view the site and they declined. The Commission has heard from George Logan, Wes Wentworth and Greg Sharp. These are all people who have been to the site, analyzed the site and provided reports to the Commission. Given the testimony and the submissions from the applicant’s experts, Attorney Olson stated the intervener has failed to meet its burden and has failed to prove there is any reasonable likelihood that this proposed development will unreasonably pollute, impair or destroy the area.
Attorney Olson stated this proposed development does meet the appropriate criteria for a special permit and is wholly consistent with Enfield’s plan of conservation and development. This area has been slated for residential development. Given the fact that this is going to be a senior residential development next to the Dartmoor Condominiums and the American Inn project, it is clearly in harmony with the neighborhood. Also, a senior residential development will have minimal impact on town services and no impact on the town’s school system. The plan preserves two-thirds of the area in a conservation area. It is hard to imagine a better plan and Attorney Olson asked that the Commission approve this application.
Vice Chairman Hickey closed this public hearing. No vote was taken on this application and action will be on a later agenda.
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, for a recess. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission recessed at 10:17 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 10:25 p.m.
b. PH #2579 - Site Plan review for proposed addition to existing building with parking lot at 229 Post Office Road, zoned BL, Map 69, Lot 232, Sands Aeschliman, Applicant/ 229 Post Office Road, LLC, owner. (Must Close and Act This Evening)
John Martucci, Engineer for the applicant, stated they have submitted final revisions of their site plan to respond to the Town Engineer’s comments. They have also submitted revised elevation views that have the north, south, east and west elevation designations on them. They have also submitted today the final revision to the landscaping plan.
Commissioner Cooper noted the plans do not reflect the impending road work. Mr. Martucci agreed they do not. Commissioner Cooper stated they are right at the minimum setback now and he had a concern if the road changes. Mr. Giner stated they would have to come back and get an amendment to their plan. If the state does a taking, it would be up to the taking party to get a variance for them. Commissioner Cooper had a concern that if this goes through and the road changes, the property will become nonconforming.
Vice Chairman Hickey noted as it stands today, they can meet the criteria. Mr. Giner stated those are the property lines as of today.
Commissioner Cooper questioned if it would be irresponsible for the Commission to approve something and then have it become nonconforming. Mr. Giner discussed other projects that were planned but did not proceed. Commissioner Ballard stated the Commission does not have the right to deny this application because of something that has not yet occurred.
Mr. Martucci stated at the last meeting there was a lot of concern about traffic. He introduced Dave Spears of DLS Consulting.
Dave Spears stated they were asked to take a look at this project from a traffic point of view. They did limit their study to the p.m. peak hour because for the retail use, there typically is not a lot going on in the morning. They did a site visit and looked at the volumes and compared them to the state data. They obtained information from the McGuire Group that had the signal warrant information that was used. They compared their volumes to the volumes they used in their study and their volumes are consistent and somewhat higher. There was some question about the fact that there was a signal proposed. Mr. Spears pointed out right now the intersection is an all way stop intersection which is an efficient form of traffic control. The analysis shows they had a level of service C operation with the same volumes used in the other studies and there is no inconsistency. The four-way stop works effectively and a signal is not a requirement.
Mr. Spears stated in doing their analysis, they took the trip generation based upon the additional retail proposed which is 5,748 square feet. They used conservative numbers in their estimate of the traffic. What they would expect to locate here would be more of specialty retail like a hardware store or a drycleaners. Those type of uses would generate less traffic than what they have included in their report. This type of retail will also draw its customers from the existing traffic going by the site so that there will be some new traffic but also people who are already going by will turn into the site. For purposes of their review, they assumed that all the traffic was new and they made no adjustment for the fact that the stores will draw from the existing travel street. What they have shown is under the existing conditions if you have no future improvement project, this development and the changes that they propose will not significantly alter the way the intersection functions. It will function in the future the same way it does today.
Vice Chairman Hickey stated the specific concern was the study made a statement that it is a level of service C. There are levels of service F at times. Mr. Spears stated the level C is a weighted average and this is what ConnDot uses and what any other engineer would use. If you have a longer delay, this analysis is for a one hour period. Over the course of an hour, you average it out. Based on these volumes, this is what the analysis shows. They are not significantly adding to the intersection because their volumes are so small.
Commissioner Jones asked at what hour of the day were the traffic counts done. Mr. Spear stated from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. He further discussed the spike in the middle of the afternoon with the school traffic.
Commissioner Jones did not feel the numbers shown are representative of what occurs at this intersection in the morning.
Commissioner Cooper asked if an analysis was done on a Saturday or Sunday. Mr. Spears stated it was not.
Mr. Spears went into some detail on the numbers and stated they are not inconsistent. The a.m. peak hour is not a retail peak. The p.m. peak is when their traffic will be there. Mr. Spear elaborated further on the traffic report.
Commissioner Sarno stated her concern is on Post Road, Wagon Road and Weymouth School Road. These are residential neighborhoods and you have people coming through to avoid the intersection. If more traffic is created, the only way to avoid such traffic would be to go through these residential neighborhoods.
Commissioner Cooper felt on Saturdays and Sundays there is a big problem at this intersection. There is a large church and also classes at JFK on Saturday. He has seen the traffic back up.
Attorney Mike Ziska stated Commissioner Ballard is correct on how the Commission should be viewing this. Even though there is some possibility that the state may do something a couple of years from now, from the standpoint of the applicant, the applicant is entitled to make a reasonable use of the property under the regulations as they stand now.
Attorney Ziska stated while he understands the concern about traffic, this is a site plan application. What the courts have said is that when you have a situation where a use is allowed as of right, the Commission has already made the decision that the kind of traffic that that use would generate is acceptable in that area. The site plan analysis says you are to be looking at traffic access. Commissioner Sarno raised some excellent points with regard to the traffic patterns in the area and the concern is a legitimate one. However, for purposes of this application, the Commission has already made the decision that the traffic generated by a retail use is acceptable. What the Commission should be focusing on is the access pattern.
Commissioner Weseliza stated one business is vastly different from four businesses. Attorney Ziska stated the way a use as of right works is to determine maximum size or maximum number of uses. When the regulations don’t place any restrictions on those kinds of things, the presumption is that the Commission was not concerned about traffic generation. Otherwise, there would have been limits in the regulations. The traffic generation was one that was acceptable for these types of uses.
Commissioner Cooper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to extend the meeting to midnight. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
Commissioner Jones asked when the existing building was constructed. Mr. Giner could not determine this but noted at some point the Commission decided to zone this area Business.
Mr. Martucci stated the accident data was requested. They went to the Enfield Police Department and found out there were eleven fender benders during the last three years. There were two injuries.
Vice Chairman Hickey opened this hearing to the audience.
Steve Laroach, Rene Lane, stated he doesn’t think they bought enough land. If you look at the property line, the exit will empty out pretty close to where the stop sign is located. If they had more land toward the school, it would be okay but they do not. If they want the exit on the Post Office Road side, that road should be widened out and straightened. Mr. Laroach believes the traffic study is not adequate. In his opinion, they should use portable counters and set it up for a week or two to get an accurate assessment. Also, it is unknown what types of stores will go in here.
Vice Chairman Hickey closed this public hearing.
Vice Chairman Hickey stated he has concerns about the traffic and the fact that there may be a taking at some point. However, he was persuaded by the applicant’s attorney’s remarks. The traffic, as bad as it is, is not the purview of the Commission because it is a site plan review.
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to approve PH#2579 - Site Plan review for proposed addition to existing building with parking lot at 229 Post Office Road, zoned BL, Map 69, Lot 232, Sands Aeschliman, Applicant/ 229 Post Office Road, LLC, owner This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Site Plan # 229 Post Office Road Prepared for Somerset Development Corp. Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 1 of 2, Scale: 1”=20’, by Aeschliman Land Surveying, PC, dated 8-15-06, revised to 1-03-07.
“Details # 229 Post Office Road Prepared for Somerset Development Corp. Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 2 of 2, Scale: “None”, by Aeschliman Land Surveying, PC, dated 12-14-06, revised to 1-03-07.
“Planting Plan # 229 Post Office Road Prepared for Somerset Development Corp. Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 2 of 2, Scale: “None”, by Aeschliman Land Surveying, PC and LADA, P.C. Land Planners, dated 9-15-06, revised to 12-27-06.
“Exterior Elevations”, Scale 1/8” = 1’-0”, Building For: Addition 229 Post Office Road Enfield, CT., Sheet 1 of 3, by Somerset Homes, LLC., dated December 22, 2006.
“First Floor Plan”, Scale 1/8” = 1’-0”, Building For: Addition 229 Post Office Road Enfield, CT., Sheet 2 of 3, by Somerset Homes, LLC., dated December 4, 2006.
“Roof Plan”, Scale 1/8” = 1’-0”, Building For: Addition 229 Post Office Road Enfield, CT., Sheet 3 of 3, by Somerset Homes, LLC., dated December 4, 2006.
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. There are two “Sheets 2 of 2” one is a Details Sheet and the other is a Planting Plan. The final plans shall have the proper numbering of sheets with consistent revision dates.
3. The application number (PH # 2579) shall be displayed on the plans in or near the Title Block area.
4. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
5. Two 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. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
7. An Erosion and Sediment Control and Site Restoration Bond shall be submitted in the form of cash or a check, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
8. A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. A request for Certificate of Site Plan Compliance from the Planning Department must be made at least 10 days before a Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval is requested from the Building Official.
General Conditions:
13. Upon placement of the foundation or lowest floor, including the basement, and prior to backfilling or further vertical construction, the builder shall submit documentation prepared, signed and sealed by a Connecticut registered land surveyor showing the location of the foundation as well as the as-built elevation of the lowest floor, including basement, and the elevation of the top of the foundation wall. The as-built document shall also include the locations and elevations of any footing-drain outlets when footing drains are required by soil conditions or shown on the approved site plan. The elevations shall be not lower than those on the approved site plan and not more than six inches higher than those on said plan. Any deviations from these tolerances shall subject the site plan to further review. A signed and sealed recommendation and explanation from the Connecticut registered professional engineer who designed the approved site plan shall be submitted prior to approval of any changes.
14. 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.
15. There is major intersection and road reconstruction planned for the adjacent right-of-way that may involve the taking of part of the applicant’s property. Any changes that are required to the Site Plan as a result of such takings require that an application for Site Plan amendment be filed with the Commission.
16. 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.
17. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by December 21, 2011 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
18. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval
The motion was denied by a 3 – 4 – 0 vote. Commissioners Ballard, Hickey and Ladd voted in favor; Commissioners Cooper, Jones, Weseliza and Sarno voted nay.
Commissioner Jones stated his concerns are for public safety. The traffic in the area is high and getting out of the site is difficult. He doesn’t feel it is a good decision that is harmonious with the neighborhood.
c. PH #2581 – Site Plan review to convert storage space to retail space within an existing business (Bookends) located at 44 Enfield St., Zoned BL, map 35, Lot 79, Steven Paradis, Applicant/ Dave Grunberg, Owner. (Must Close and Act This Evening)
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to accept the request for an extension of the public hearing for PH#2581 to January 18, 2007. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2584 – Application for a zone change from Business Professional(BP) and Residential-44 to Business Local (BL) and R-44 at 88 Hazard Avenue and 17 Middle Road, Map 56, Lots 9 and 11, Galaxy Development Group LLC, Applicant/Poway Associates and Clementine Harris, Mary Witson and Elizabeth Mobley. (Must Close by 2/1/07)
Vice Chairman Hickey opened this hearing and continued it.
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to continue this hearing to January 18, 2007. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
b. PH#2586 –Special Use Permit for division of merged lots on the south side of Fairview Avenue, adjacent to the railroad, zoned R-33, Map 20, Lots 90, 344, 345, 346, Mark and Edward Spazzarini, Applicants/Robert F. Kelliher and Donald A. Fortin, Owners. (Must Close by 2/1/07)
Jay Ursery and Mark and Edward Spazzarini appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Ursery stated this is an application to unmerge four lots located on the southerly side of Fairview Avenue. This is a subdivision that was mapped and approved in 1897. They were all 50’ lots and the lots were merged by the zoning regulations in the 1980’s. The Spazzarini’s would like to unmerge the lots to create two new lots to be built on with two new homes.
Mr. Ursery stated the regulations require a computation for median lot size and median lot frontage. In looking at the median lot area, it is 7,703.5 square feet. The two lots would be 10,349 and 11,819 square feet or well in excess of the median lot size. Regarding frontage, the median frontage is 99.5’. The frontages proposed for the two lots are 100.00’ and 100.06’.
Mr. Ursery stated they looked at the next two residential structures to the east of this site and came up with an average building setback. The average building setback of the two residential structures to the east is 10’. They are proposing these two homes to be built at 18’ from the property line. All of the utilities are available to these two lots. There are some wetlands located to the south and west of the parcel. There is a wetland application permit that was granted by the Wetlands Commission in the spring.
Mr. Ursery stated the outstanding issue is there was a memo from the Fire Marshal indicating there was an underground fuel tank on this property. The Spazzarini’s talked with the property owners and they had removed the tank and had claimed that all the paperwork had been done but they were unable to find it. What they have done in the meantime is hired Geoquest to go back out and do a new study. They did twenty-four test holes and came up with a report that the tank was removed. There was some remediation that was done and there is no contamination on the site.
Mr. Ursery presented an affidavit confirming the signs have been posted on the property. He stated this is a pretty straight forward application and they meet the requirements.
Commissioner Sarno asked if this is interfering with the entrance to the river. Mr. Ursery stated this particular site used to be a parking lot and it is his understanding that they do not use it for that today. They are showing a fence along the westerly property line and along the back.
Vice Chairman Hickey opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Vice Chairman Hickey closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve PH#2586 –Special Use Permit for division of merged lots on the south side of Fairview Avenue, adjacent to the railroad, zoned R-33, Map 20, Lots 90, 344, 345, 346, Mark and Edward Spazzarini, Applicants/Robert F. Kelliher and Donald A. Fortin, Owners. This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Neighborhood Map Plan Prepared For Elm Construction, LLC, Fairview Avenue, Enfield, Connecticut” Scale: 1"=40’, Sheet 1 of 3, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 3-9-06.
“Boundary Survey Prepared For Elm Construction, LLC, Fairview Avenue, Enfield, Connecticut” Scale: 1"=20’, Sheet 2 of 3, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 12-19-05 and revised to 3-9-2006.
“Plot Plan Prepared For Elm Construction, LLC, Fairview Avenue, Enfield, Connecticut” Scale: 1"=20’, Sheet 3 of 3, by J.R. Russo & Associates, ,dated 12-19-05 and revised to 3-9-2006.
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 2586” shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this motion shall be placed on the final plans submitted for signing.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
4. One set of mylars and two sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.
5. 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.
6. Final approval of site layout and grading for shall be obtained from the Engineering Division for the proposed houses.
7. Final approvals shall be obtained from the Water Pollution Control Division for the sewer hook ups.
8. 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 :
9. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
10. 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.
General Conditions:
11. 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.
12. This approval is also subject to conditions of approval from the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency.
13. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
14. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
Vice Chairman Hickey felt the applicant met all the conditions of the special use permit.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
BOND RELEASES
a. PH #2323 – Request for release of Landscape Bond in the amount of $39,449 for Shaker Heights Subdivision – Taylor Rd.
This bond release was tabled.
b. PH #2309 – Request for release of Phase II Erosion & Sediment Bond in the amount of $5,900.12 for Autumn Fields 55 & over on Elm Street.
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to release the erosion and sediment bond in the amount of $5,900.12 for Autumn Fields 55 and over on Elm Street, PH#2309. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Informal discussion with representatives of the Holy Cross Parish, located on 723 Enfield Street to informally outline and discuss a proposal to establish residential housing for elderly persons on its property at 723 Enfield Street.
This discussion was tabled to January 18, 2007.
c. Applications To Be Accepted
The following applications were accepted by the Commission:
PH #2588 - Application for a special use permit to allow for operation of a landscape company (construction) on the premises at 114 North St., Zoned I-1, Map 100, Lot 4, Jeffrey Peterson, Applicant/Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for February 1, 2007.
PH #2589 – Application for a special use permit to unmerged lots of record to form 2 lots at Kalish & Bernardino, Zoned R-33, May 35, Lot 232, Victoria Kaplan, Applicant/Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for February 1, 2007.
PH #2590 – Application for a special use permit and site plan for demolition and construction of new McDonalds restaurant at 97 Elm Street, Zoned BG/BR, Franchise Realty Interstate Corp., Applicant/Owner. (Note: Applicant is represented by Attorney Susan Hays. They have requested a February hearing date.)
A public hearing will be scheduled for February 15, 2007.
PH #2504.02 – Application requesting modification of conditions imposed on previous site plans or special use permits for review of the neon mortise and pestle logo located inside the entrance tower at 2 Shaker Road, Zoned BL, Map 64, Lot 70, Blake Investments, Applicant/Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for February 1, 2007.
SPR #1387 – Application for proposed addition to the existing U.S. Glass Distributors Building on 7 Niblick Road, Zoned IP, Map 55, Lot 98, Gary Greenath, PE, Applicant/ Fine Realty LLC, Owner.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Cooper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to adjourn.
Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 11:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|