|
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 18, 2007
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Elizabeth Ballard
Charles Duren
James Hickey, Jr.
Karen Weseliza
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
Charles Ladd, Alternate
Nicles Lefakis, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
ENFIELD AQUIFER PROTECTION AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARINGS – CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 4, 2007 MEETING
a. Consideration of the adoption of Aquifer Protection Area Regulations in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes Section 22a-354p and R. C. S. A. Section 22a-354i-3. These regulations will enable the Agency to administer all provisions of An Act Concerning Aquifer Protection Areas, C.G.S. Section 22a-354a to Section 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.
Chairman DiPace noted this is a continued public hearing from January 4, 2007. It began in October and since then there has been a workshop with the DEP. Mr. Giner went before the Town Council. The Council is talking about forming a subcommittee to oversee some of the concerns. The concerns include who will be enforcing the Aquifer Protection Area Regulations.
Chairman DiPace recommended continuing this hearing to March 1, 2007 since by that time the subcommittee will be set up and the Commission will have additional input. Chairman DiPace stated he was told by the Mayor last night that he was appointed to be on the subcommittee.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if the businesses would be notified about the Aquifer Protection Regulations. Mr. Giner stated the businesses were given notification of the public information meeting. Also, when the time comes, the town will have a list of businesses that are affected and will send them a request to register. Mr. Giner will also provide the Commission with a modification to the fee schedule that would waive the fee for the first registration if it occurred within sixty days.
Commissioner Duren stated there were several questions asked of the DEP gentleman. Mr. Giner stated the Assistant Town Planner is working on the responses. When they are completed, the Commission will receive them.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this public hearing. Chairman DiPace continued this public hearing to March 1, 2007.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Aquifer Protection Agency adjourned at 7:36 p.m.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING – IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING AQUIFER PROTECTION AGENCY MEETING
Chairman DiPace opened the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 7:36 p.m.
Chairman DiPace led the Commission in a moment of silence to recognize the passing of Mary Lou Strom.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve the Minutes of December 21, 2006. The Minutes were approved by a 5 – 0 – 2 vote. Commissioners Sarno and Ballard abstained.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace noted Correspondence includes a letter from Denise Ruzicka, Director, Inland Water Resources Division, to Town Manager Matthew Coppler regarding a dam construction permit at Crescent Lake. Other Correspondence was a report from the Capitol Region Council of Governments which contained a summary of zoning, subdivision and POCD Referrals.
Chairman DiPace brought up the email sent by Mr. Giner which allowed the Commission to access town maps. Commissioner Ladd requested that Mr. Giner print the maps for Commission members and include them in the next meeting packet.
COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of a notice from the American Planning Association with seminars listed for February 14, May 23 and June 27, 2007. If any Commissioner has any interest, they should contact Mr. Giner. Also received was a notice from the American Planning Association regarding programs available.
Commissioner Ladd asked if there is a new business on the corner of Moody Road and Elm Street. Commissioner Duren stated he has talked to Zoning Enforcment Officer Wayne Bickley about this use which seems to be on and off at this location.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 4, 2007 MEETING
a. PH#2581 – Site Plan review to convert storage space to retail space within an existing business (Bookends) located at 44 Enfield Street, zoned BL, Map 35, Lot 79, Steven Paradis, Applicant/Dave Grunberg, Owner. (Must close and act this evening.)
Chairman DiPace read information to the public regarding the procedure of tonight’s public hearings.
Steve Paradise appeared before the Commission regarding this hearing. He noted the last time he was here there was an issue about an extra 600 square feet of retail space and there was a problem with parking. He presented a new plan which shows another four to five parking spaces. Mr. Paradise stated this would be accomplished by the removal of an existing building on the site which was formerly Terwilligers. The removal of the building would increase the amount of landscaping to hardtop ratio.
Mr. Paradise stated the building to be removed is approximately 400 square feet. He has been told the space would be the equivalent of five parking spaces. Four new parking spaces are required for the additional 600 square feet of retail. Mr. Paradise described where the four parking spaces would be located.
Commissioner Duren asked about the direction of items located on the plan. Chairman DiPace stated the floor plan should be identified because it is not marked front or rear. Mr. Paradise noted there is no entrance in the front.
Mr. Paradise pointed out the storage area that is proposed to be converted to retail and noted all the changes would be internal with no changes to the exterior of the building.
Mr. Giner stated by taking the building down, they would gain five parking spaces. All they need to do is to maintain the degree of nonconformity they have. With three more parking spaces, it would bring the building more into conformity. It will be conforming with respect to the parking.
Mr. Giner stated there are letters from the Fire Marshal and the Town Engineer regarding this application.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if the parking lot is filled at any time and Mr. Paradise responded not lately.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.
Ed Blue, Sword Avenue, stated the neighbors on Sword Avenue are very much against an expansion of Bookends because it will create more traffic. The customers coming out of Bookends have no regard for the people on Sword Avenue. There is a bus stop at the end of Sword Avenue and if there are more cars added, it will increase the chance for people to get hurt. There are several women and a couple of men on the street that have had to move over on to the grassed side of Sword Avenue to avoid getting hit. Mr. Blue would like to see the entrance on Sword Avenue closed so that the only entrance would be from Route 5.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission has a report from the Fire Marshal dated today along with a report from the Town Engineer saying there is a minimal decrease in impervious and he had no concerns. Mr. Giner noted there is no report from the Traffic Safety Officer. Mr. Giner stated there will be no change to the access and the changes are all internal.
Chairman DiPace noted the need for a report from the Traffic Safety Officer prior to the Commission voting on this application since a concern has been raised that there is a traffic problem. He also brought up the need for an extension from the applicant.
The applicant granted an extension in writing at this time.
This hearing was continued. Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to extend PH#2581 to February 1, 2007. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
b. 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).
Attorney Susan Hays of Updike, Kelly and Spellacy appeared before the Commission regarding this application. She is representing Galaxy Development for a request for a zone change for 88 Hazard Avenue and 17 Middle Road.
Attorney Hays noted there are a lot of people present for this hearing tonight. There has been some discussion in the neighborhood that the zone change is in connection with a proposed Lowe’s. Attorney Hays stated that is not what this zone change is in association with.
Attorney Hays clarified that when you look at the impact of a zone change application, you don’t look at the property from the perspective of what is it today and what are the impacts of it today versus what would happen if it developed. What you do is you look at it from the perspective of what if it were developed as permitted under the current zone versus what if it were developed under the zone that they are requesting it be changed to. The property being discussed is vacant land with one building on Hazard Avenue and another residential building on Middle Road. The question is what is the difference between five and a half acres with those two uses on it versus what could happen with a Business Local zone if the property is developed.
Attorney Hays stated the property for which they are requesting the zone change is located on Hazard Avenue just to the east of the liquor store on Middle Road. The property is currently zoned BP and R-44 and Attorney Hays pointed out the zone line. They propose to rezone a portion of the property to Business Local, a portion of the property which is R-44 to Business Local and a portion of the property from BP to R-44. The back end of the property that is zoned residential would remain residential. There is a house on the property and they want to keep that as a residential lot. There’s a 175’ frontage requirement in the R-44 zone and they have adjusted the line so there is a conforming residential lot.
Attorney Hays stated the lines on the plans show the wetlands limits. The property is bounded on the west by wetlands. They took the minimum amount of land that they would need for access around the wetlands area. The property is zoned BP and right now there are two parcels of property. There is a lot in the middle which is about a half acre and the remainder of the parcel which is about five acres. When they are done, one parcel would be about an acre and a quarter and they would end up with approximately three and a quarter acres zoned commercial. A large portion of this land would not be developable because of the wetlands located on the site.
Attorney Hays stated under the current Business Professional zoning, what you could have on this site is an area already developed with its access and another parcel which would have to have a full ingress and egress out on to Hazard Avenue. The BP parcel cannot access Middle Road because there’s a swatch of residential that runs along Middle Road and you can’t cross residential to get to commercial. Secondly, the zoning regulations specifically state the only access Business Professional property can have on to Middle Road is for emergency purposes.
Attorney Hays presented a plan that lays out the maximum development on the site. There would be approximately 16,000 square feet of retail with the parking that would be required. There would also be a 60’ front yard setback along Middle Road and buffer requirements. There would be a 35’ buffer setback against the residential that is going to remain residential. Attorney Hays stated what they would be doing by rezoning the property would be taking away two full access points on Hazard Avenue. They would be able to limit the access on Hazard Avenue because there would be access on Middle Road.
Attorney Hays stated the differences between Business Professional and Business Local are minimal. Their proposal would meet the requirements of the regulations with respect to things like minimum lot size, frontage, maximum lot coverage, and maximum front and rear yards.
Attorney Hays reminded the Commission that the charge in the regulations and the statute is not that you might increase traffic but it is a question of increasing the congestion on the street. What this zone change will do is enable a curb cut on Hazard Avenue and a curb cut on Middle Road which would lessen the congestion in the area.
Attorney Hays stated what they are asking to do is not inconsistent with what is out there. To the east the property is zoned BL. To the north the property is zoned BL. What they have done is match the property line with the zone line.
Chairman DiPace asked if they have a tenant for this parcel. Attorney Hays stated they do not have a specific tenant. This developer did develop the Walgreens and the bank at the intersection of Elm and Shaker and they do not anticipate it would be the same type of tenant. They are talking with different people with respect to a potential user for this site.
Patrick Doherty, a professional engineer from Middletown, stated they do not have a specific tenant in mind so he will be talking in generalities. They have not completed a full traffic study because they don’t have a specific use. He did complete a concept plan with the possible development of this site in a BL zone. The retail would be approximately 16,000 square feet with associated parking to meet the zoning regulations and stay within the dry area of the site which is just over two acres. If the site was left BP, they looked at the types of uses that could locate on the site including a general office type use. If they were to develop an office type use, it would probably be two stories and the gross square footage would be between 24,000 and 30,000 square feet of building area. Mr. Doherty stated they looked at how much traffic would be generated in a peak period. With the morning peak hour, the retail use would be much lower and the office use would be larger. Looking at where people would be traveling from, they would think that for a retail use it would be part of the commuter traffic with people taking rights in off Hazard Avenue. However, there would be some movements coming from the east traveling west. The driveway on Hazard Avenue would not be a good driveway to have full access and you would want the driveway to be restricted to rights in and rights out.
Mr. Doherty stated they also looked at it from an office building perspective. You would have a majority of the people coming and leaving at one time. In the morning peak, you would have more people coming from the interstate highway coming into the site and being able to take a right in off Hazard Avenue. The evening commute is where the difference lies where more people would want to make a left hand turn. If they were not successful in getting a full access driveway out there and not being able to access Middle Road, people would need to take a right and turn around or make an illegal movement at the curb cut.
Commissioner Hickey asked if the plan for an office building on the site anticipates that what is currently R-44 will remain R-44. Mr. Doherty responded yes.
Mr. Doherty stated there are provisions to allow parking in residential zones in conjunction with an office building in the BP zone. You would be allowed twenty-five percent of your parking spaces in a residential zone. From a traffic perspective, they feel it would be much better to have an access on to Middle Road especially with a retail type of user.
Commissioner Ballard asked if you travel east to west on Middle Road how would you make a turn. Mr. Doherty stated if you are traveling east to west and the zone was BL with an access on to Middle Road, you would make a left at the light which had a dedicated left turn lane and then make another left. A left turn would be necessary and they would need to do some improvements.
Commissioner Hickey asked if assuming the entire parcel was rezoned to Business Local, is the 16,000 square feet the total amount of developable land. Mr. Giner stated it is difficult to tell because there are wetland constraints. They would have to find spots for on site drainage and that might limit what could be put up.
Mr. Doherty stated their development of the site would be near 16,000 square feet. A big box user is over 100,000 square feet. Drug stores are between 13,000 and 14,000 square feet. Mr. Doherty stated they do know that this is most likely not a drug store location because of the close proximity of the existing ones. Their intent for the site would be general merchandise. Commissioner Weseliza asked what about a restaurant. Attorney Hays stated a restaurant would be permitted.
Chairman DiPace asked if a zone change was granted, would the uses permitted in the zone not have to come back for a public hearing. Mr. Giner stated anything that required a liquor license would require a public hearing. Anything that would require a drive through would need a public hearing. He went on to list the other uses that could be allowed if the zone was changed to BL.
Commissioner Hickey asked how one use versus eight to ten individual units would affect the parking requirements. Mr. Giner stated the parking is all retail and would be the same regardless of the number of users. Some discussion followed on the requirements for a medical office use.
Commissioner Ladd asked about Lot 9. Attorney Hays stated this is a one-half acre parcel and it has a building on it which would be removed. The two lots would be merged and there would only be one access point out on to the roadway instead of two.
Mr. Giner passed out information on the plan of conservation and development for this area. He added the Business Professional zone encourages access management because it is on Hazard Avenue. Something to be considered in the future, whether the zone change goes through or not, would be the ability of getting some type of easements so at some point there is some type of access. Also, at some point if you were to get a light on to Hazard Avenue, that might eliminate the need for a curb cut on to Middle Road. The state’s record has been to require some type of traffic improvements on Hazard Avenue.
Chairman DiPace noted if the zone change was granted, the application to follow would have to go to Inland Wetlands. Mr. Doherty stated the wetlands are mapped accurately but he is not sure if the wetlands were flagged.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.
Cynthia Mangini, 32 Glendale Road, spoke against the zone change. She noted the actual impact of the zone change will be of a negative nature. There is currently bad congestion on Middle Road without any type of change. Changing it from Business Professional to Business Local will only enhance the negativity. Should the change be allowed, there would be an access on to Middle Road from Hazard dumping traffic into people’s driveways and front yards. This will not only cause congestion but public safety is the number one concern. There are children that walk and ride their bikes to and from the library and the Eli Whitney elementary school. There are school buses that stop intermittently on that road. There are pedestrians that walk to and from the area businesses and the people could be in jeopardy with more traffic. Ms. Mangini encouraged the Commission to deny this zone change request based upon public safety.
Mae Slupecki, 12 Middle Road, objected to this zone change because the intersection at Middle Road, Hazard Avenue and Palomba Drive is already congested with traffic and dangerous. Adding additional commercial traffic would be detrimental to the safety of the community. Ms. Slupecki stated she has accident reports from the Enfield Police Department for the past three years that list 72 accidents near the Middle Road/Hazard Avenue intersection and 64 accidents near the Palomba Drive/Hazard Avenue intersection. The total is 136 accidents in 36 months which resulted in injuries to 35 people. The majority of these accidents occurred in the daylight on dry roads which indicates a problem.
Ms. Slupecki stated only a right turn in and out is allowed on Hazard Avenue at the Mobil Gas Station. Many cars turn on to Middle Road to enter and exit. The light on Middle Road is short so traffic backs up. There is not a clear sight line. When traffic backs up, cars from the gas station and Long Radio have difficulty getting in to the north bound lane and frequently come into her driveway or neighboring driveways to turn around. Ms. Slupecki has been rear ended by a truck in her own driveway. She added there is a popular ice cream business on Palomba Drive which attracts walkers.
Ms. Slupecki stated a change to Business Local with a driveway on Middle Road will adversely affect traffic. It will put trailer trucks on the street where children are walking to Eli Whitney School. It could hinder passage of emergency response vehicles at an already problematic intersection. This zone change is out of harmony with the comprehensive plan for the good of the community as a whole. Ms. Slupecki noted when the Johnson Hospital complex was developed, an access on to Middle Road was requested and denied.
Ms. Slupecki presented petitions filed by more than 150 residents opposed to this zone change including twenty percent of lot owners within a 500’ radius of the proposed zone change.
Ernie Maynard, 21 Southwood Road, stated he is not in favor of the zone change. The state run children’s safe home is less than three tenths of a mile from the package store. The Middle Road library is just short of one eighth of a mile along with the Eli Whitney School. When the Eli Whitney School lets out, there is significant traffic on Middle Road. People on Indian Run and Raffia Road come through Southwood Road and the other roads in the area and come on to Middle Road. Traffic piles up there very often. Mr. Maynard stated the best thing that occurred was to put the gas station on a one way entry because there were many accidents in the area. Mr. Maynard stated he does not want to live in an area like West Springfield where you can’t get by even to buy an ice cream cone.
Alan James, 18 Middle Road, stated he has lived here for twenty-five years and he objects to the proposal of putting a driveway on to Middle Road. The Commission had the same request from Johnson Memorial Hospital and it was turned down.
Michael Agruso, 16 Middle Road, stated his home is directly across from where the proposed driveway is going to come in. He noted people that come out of the gas station that can’t make a left on to Hazard all come down Middle Road to turn around in the driveways. At certain times, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., it is impossible to back out of their driveways. Mr. Agruso has three children that are constantly walking in the area and he is opposed to any more traffic in the area.
Rick Rimmel, 24 Southwood Road, stated he is against this zone change for all the reasons stated. Middle Road has always been a residential area and he would like to see it remain that way.
Bernard Reynolds, 32 Middle Road, has a list of things but they have been mentioned previously. He has some questions. They are talking about fixing the intersection and who would pay for the improvements. He doesn’t know who designed the intersection of Middle Road and Hazard Avenue because it is a joke. He noted even though people are not supposed to turn left from the gas station, they do so. There is no sign posted. Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Bickley look into this and have the sign replaced if it is down. Mr. Reynolds discussed the traffic patterns in the area and noted the intersection is poorly lit. With bad weather, people go right over the island without realizing it. He discussed how difficult it is to get in and out of his driveway because of people using Middle Road as a short cut.
Richard Chmura, 39 Middle Road, stated before business encroaches into a residential neighborhood, residents’ safety should be kept in mind. He thought it would be counterproductive to allow more high traffic business in this area. He presented a letter to Mr. Giner from the Commissioner of Agriculture in reference to the rezoning issue in this area. Mr. Giner stated Mr. Chmura is presenting a letter dated January 19, 2007 from F. Philip Prelli, Commissioner of Agriculture. He will make copies for all Commission members.
Greg Gnatck, 28 Middle Road, stated the safety of children is a consideration and more traffic is not needed. He noted the intersection is bad already and he hopes this zone change does not pass. The children from Still Meadow walk to school. Mr. Gnatck felt Enfield is turning into a Manchester with too much traffic.
Bob Lemieux, 28 Middle Road, Unit 2A, and President of the Association stated he is against this zone change. He noted the zone change would be putting more traffic on Middle Road. He suggested something like what is being proposed locate in the Enfield Industrial Park instead of in a residential area.
Scott Kaupin, 9 Allen Street, reiterated the points the other folks have given this evening on Middle Road and spoke about Hazard Avenue. In 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission turned that area into Business Professional to reduce the development of Hazard Avenue and make it be the buffer area as you transition into the village in Hazardville. He remembers the discussions when Big Y was put in and it was said that that was the end of the commercial retail development along Hazard Avenue.
Mr. Kaupin noted a few years ago the town had the 190 corridor study done and the discussion was about converting Hazard Avenue into a four-lane road. The decision from that study was the Town of Enfield would prefer to keep Hazard Avenue a two-lane road. Mr. Kaupin felt keeping it Business Professional is the right zone for the area and he would not be in favor of the zone change. He saw a need to limit access from Hazard Avenue along this stretch because it is very dangerous right now and he doesn’t believe we need to be moving any traffic towards the Middle Road area. He asked that the Commission deny the zone change application.
Oyeniya Sunday of 22 Middle Road stated when she bought her home, she came to the town to see what would be across the street from her. Presently it is a beautiful corn field and she would like to see it stay that way. Her driveway is the beginning driveway as you come on to Middle Road and it is used as a u turn zone for everyone. She has a basketball hoop on her property for her son and would like to see him continue to play basketball. The proposed driveway will be almost right across the street from her home. She stated once the zone is changed, there is no more control and it is necessary to stop it here. She asked that the Commission keep Middle Road a residential area.
Jim Scalia, Beech Road, stated he purchased his home about three months ago and the traffic between Beech Road and Middle Road is already difficult. He asked the developer how the truck traffic would exit from the proposed site. Having been a truck driver for many years, Mr. Scalia would assume that the loading docks would be on the back with a curb cut on Middle Road. Delivery drivers with fifty-three foot trailers would be asked to come out the back of Middle Road and make that corner on to Middle Road. It would add more truck traffic coming into a residential section. Having been a truck driver, if 190 is backed up, trucks are going to come down Beech Road and go down to Route 5. Truck drivers would be asked to make a swing on to Middle Road which would stop traffic. They are going to run a trailer truck down that street. This would be adding a lot of commercial drivers in a school district where the library is.
Ted Slupecki, 12 Middle Road, stated he is against the proposal to change the zoning for all the reasons stated. He believes the applicant is minimizing the impact. A use like a Seven Eleven would be permitted and it would generate traffic at all hours. Also, the original master plan envisioned that there would be residences on Middle Road and business professional offices would be on Hazard Avenue. There really isn’t an appropriate reason that they have given for making this change. The heirs of the original owner are now trying to sell the property and they do not live in the area. The property has never been on the market for residential. Mr. Slupecki felt a residential subdivision would be more appropriate for the area. In his opinion, the proposed zone change represents spot zoning. He saw a need to draw the line somewhere. It was envisioned that this area was going to be a buffer zone between residential and commercial. There are other places where you can have commercial development. Maybe the Commission could consider rezoning some of the industrial park to Business Local. Mr. Slupecki stated there is a significant flooding problem in this area. Last year they had a major problem. He discussed Cranbrook Boulevard which floods and the possibility of flooding in this area. He had other items to discuss and Chairman DiPace suggested he wait until others have spoken to continue his remarks.
Commissioner Duren noted the industrial park is presently full and there are no parcels for sale.
Ashley Norman, 36 Ellis Road, stated she is a recent graduate of Enfield High School and the street she lives on and the streets surrounding her have been used as through streets from Raffia and South Road to Middle Road. She believes the proposed entrance to Middle Road is going to cause more traffic and more problems for children in her neighborhood. The area is becoming very dangerous for small children to play in the street. Ms. Norman feels more traffic will cause more speeding problems and more problems for small children in her neighborhood. It will also force more parents to drive their children to school because of the excessive traffic in the area.
Mark Norman, 36 Ellis Road, stated he drives through the intersection in this area at all different hours and he has noticed that people that want to make a right turn will cut through the parking lot of the package store in spite of the signs. If this business is located here with an access to Middle Road, this would be inviting another right turn only area. Mr. Norman noted when you come through Middle Road to Ellis, you are going from a large industrial area into a residential area. If the zone is changed, Mr. Norman questioned what guarantee do residents have that the business will not keep going eastward. He cited the many businesses in the area and the empty businesses that would allow plenty of space for commercial businesses. Mr. Norman doesn’t want to see what happened on Elm Street with Walgreens happen on Middle Road. Once development is started, it will keep pushing forward so that the end result will be a four-lane highway going from I-91 to the Somers town line.
Ann Kaplan, 7 Steele Road, stated she grew up at 12 Middle Road. Her mother is Mae Slupecki and she is opposed to this zone change. She noted Enfield has embraced the idea that family matters. The Commission has heard the voices of families with 150 signatures of people that oppose this zone change. She asked the Commission to show them that family actually does matter.
Tracy Keri, 108 Middle Road, stated she is opposed to this zone change. Traffic on Middle Road since she moved to the area has increased. She has children and pets and lives close to the library. There are many children in the area. The police have been called many times because of the excessive traffic in the area. She felt the town needs to come to a place where it finally says enough is enough. The town needs to focus on the residents and stop looking at the bottom line and the dollars that come in with the businesses. The town is growing too fast. If this zone change is allowed, it will ruin what this town stands for. She would hate to see a lovely part of Enfield ruined.
Frank Ravosa, 24 Beech Road, stated any type of access to Middle Road will bring more traffic to an already burdened street. He would not like to see this zone change approved.
Attorney Susan Hays asked if she would be allowed to make concluding comments. She stated with respect to the petition that was submitted, she assumes Mr. Giner will go through it thoroughly. Mr. Giner stated he would need a continuation to make the calculation to verify that it is twenty percent of the land within 500 feet. If that is verified, a three-quarter vote of the Commission would be necessary. Attorney Hays requested a copy of the petition.
Chairman DiPace stated the concern this evening is that the traffic on Middle Road is already bad enough. He noted that as long as the piece in the back is zoned R-44, Business Professional uses cannot come out that way. He asked if Business Local would be allowed to come out on to Middle Road. Mr. Giner stated if it stays residential, you cannot have a commercial driveway access through residentially zoned land.
Chairman DiPace stated the main concern he has heard is the driveway on to Middle Road.
Attorney Hays stated you don’t look at this from the perspective of there is nothing out there today. There’s a nice transition zone and if they build something there, there will be more traffic. That is not what the statutory requirements are.
Chairman DiPace stated there are residential homes along Middle Road and dumping commercial traffic into that neighborhood is a concern.
Attorney Hays stated you don’t look at it going from nothing to something. You have to look at it going from what is permitted under the current zoning to what they are asking for. Patrick Doherty previously stated the traffic volumes would be about the same and the peak hours would be different.
Chairman DiPace stated the way the property is currently zoned, no driveway can come out on to Middle Road. The way they are proposing it, a driveway would be allowed. Attorney Hays stated the mere fact that there is not an entrance there does not mean that the traffic will not go down that road. By having an entrance there and a right in and right out on Hazard Avenue, you would effectively be taking traffic out of that intersection.
Chairman DiPace stated his concern is if you have a right turn driveway in and a right turn driveway out, if a delivery comes in, the truck will exit on to Middle Road and back down 190. There will be commercial traffic in a residential neighborhood. The way the zone is now, you would be allowed a full driveway on to Hazard Avenue and it would preserve the residential character of the neighborhood.
Chairman DiPace had a concern which he detailed regarding commercial traffic exiting into a residential neighborhood.
Attorney Hays stated you would have to consider what the traffic pattern would be if it were developed fully as Business Professional. Under a BP zone with an office permitted as of right, their peak hours are morning and afternoon. When you are discussing the safety of the children, with respect to children being able to play in the street, Attorney Hays felt they shouldn’t be playing in the street.
Chairman DiPace stated if the R-44 was left in the back, he would consider rezoning the front of the property on Hazard Avenue as long as the driveways stay on Hazard Avenue. Attorney Hays stated if the hearing is continued, they can look into that. They attempted to look at how they could get residentially zoned property there and she doesn’t think they would be able to fit residential there. The property is 175’ of frontage with about 200’ back or about 77,000 square feet.
Patrick Doherty repeated that the size of this development would not warrant a traffic signal. Based on the conditions out there, without substantial improvements on Hazard Avenue, the driveway would be restricted by the Connecticut DOT. They have proposed on their concept plan that retail development or office development have an access on to Middle Road which was not received very well. What ends up happening if you end up with a driveway only on Hazard Avenue, any traffic that would want to go in the eastbound lane would end up making a right because you will be restricted from taking a left or it will be very difficult to take a left. The traffic would end up on Middle Road and would have to travel the entire length of it. They have located the driveway in the concept plan as far away from the intersection as they could and as far away from the residential. There would be one or two homes between that driveway and Hazard Avenue. They are looking at keeping the majority of the traffic off of the whole length of Middle Road. Although they would have a driveway on Middle Road, the traffic would be within the first couple of hundred feet from Hazard Avenue down Middle Road. Once the actual traffic is known, it would be analyzed and the staff could restrict left turns out of that driveway on to Middle Road. By not rezoning the property, you will not restrict the traffic on Middle Road. Commercial development has approached this property and it is going to continue going west whether it is commercial retail or uses allowed in the BP zone.
Attorney Hays stated there were comments regarding flooding and the regulations require that there be no net increase in runoff from any developed site. There shouldn’t be any adverse impact from a zone change. Attorney Hays noted there was some discussion about a slippery slope and look what happened at Walgreens. She worked on the Walgreens and there was Business Local in the vicinity of that property. Ten of the fourteen acres have gone into a conservation easement with the town so that the issue of slippery slope there is one that is inappropriate. With respect to the issue of spot zoning, it is a five acre parcel of land and that is not spot zoning. There is Business Local across the street and then Business Professional heading east on Hazard Avenue. The plan of development does talk about wanting to control the proliferation of commercial development. With respect to a zone change, there are other goals within the plan of development that this plan does fall in line with including growth in an orderly fashion, promoting quality development and promoting economic development within the Town of Enfield.
Attorney Hays stated regarding the Industrial Park, she has clients who would like to go in there and rezone some of the property putting some retail development in there but Ray Warren is not in favor of rezoning industrial to anything else. Attorney Hays stated they believe the impacts from the zone change would not be any different from a development of this property under its current zoning. Attorney Hays stated if the Commission is going to close this hearing tonight, she would technically object to the fact that she has not had a right to view the petition and she would reserve her right to review or object to any of the signatures.
Commissioner Sarno asked for additional information regarding the petition. Mr. Giner stated if the petition contains the owners of twenty percent of the land, it would require a three-quarter vote of the Commission. Chairman DiPace asked if the abutter to the east has signed the petition as that would be twenty percent. Mr. Giner stated the petition includes 12 Middle Road, 16 Middle Road, 18 Middle Road, 22 Middle Road, 26 Middle Road, 39 Middle Road and Still Meadow.
Frank Pelleteri, 88 Middle Road, stated if there is a driveway on Middle Road, that means that people that are going east will have to take a right hand turn to go into this new business. When they are inside the business, they will come out and take a right or left on Middle Road. The applicant stated the traffic is not going to change. However, he noted if you are going west on Route 190, you are not going to be able to take a left into the business. This means you can either go to the existing stop light and take that left which is very difficult or traffic will have to take a left on to George Washington and then on to Middle Road. This means the traffic will be going by the library, the ball parks and the school around the corner and then take a right into this driveway to get into the business. People will take the shortest distance to get there and they will go on to Middle Road further up. The traffic will pass the library and during the spring and fall there are softball games that are played in the evening. You will now have traffic coming down that road. Walking is done all day long and Mr. Pelleteri is concerned about the traffic.
Ted Slupecki, 12 Middle Road, thought they are minimizing the impact of this zone change. As it is presently zoned, there would be residences on Middle Road and no commercial driveway. Therefore, there would be a substantial traffic impact if it was changed. With Business Professional, there would be no driveway on to Middle Road. As far as spot zoning, Mr. Slupecki stated we are talking about two separate parcels and the large parcel is also split into two separate zones. Chairman DiPace stated it is not spot zoning because it is more than two acres and you have Business Local all around it. Further discussion followed on spot zoning.
Mr. Slupecki stated he finds it unbelievable that they say that they cannot build homes on the parcel. He thought it would be feasible to take the property fronting on Hazard Avenue and develop that. Mr. Slupecki addressed speeding on Middle Road and Beech Road.
Ernie Maynard, 21 Southwood Road, stated the mail men stop their vehicles at every house and he imagined the congestion that would be caused if there is a commercial road going into Middle Road. They will be blocking the traffic all day long with these trucks.
Carol Cotazo, 43 Glendale Road, thought she heard in the beginning that if the zone was left BP, the only access on to Middle Road would be for emergencies. If this is true, there would be a great difference between the type of access for a BP zone versus a BL zone.
Sue Norman, 36 Ellis Road, stated the residents have traffic concerns which seem to be dismissed by the applicant’s representative. It seems pretty clear that the majority of those in this room do not want the zone change. If the Commission approves it, Ms. Norman asked what kind of message that sends to all who voiced their concerns.
Kathy Ravosa, Beech Road, was not in favor of the zone change. If they put that driveway on Hazard Avenue, it is so congested there and would require another light. She hopes when the Commission looks at rezoning in the area that they keep the bigger picture in mind so there aren’t a lot of driveways.
Mike Agruso, 16 Middle Road, brought up when they closed down Beech Road because of the excessive traffic.
A resident of 22 Middle Road asked that the Commission just deny this application so that everyone can go home.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren stated the Commission has been trying to protect the traffic on Middle Road and instead of getting better, it is getting worse. He doesn’t know what the Council can do about Middle Road, but he sure could not add to the traffic on it.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to approve the zone change requested in Public Hearing #2584 from Business Professional and Residential-44 to Business Local and R-44 at 88 Hazard Avenue and 17 Middle Road.
Commissioner Hickey pointed out that many of the residents and adjoining property owners came out tonight to express their concerns about the proposed rezoning. Commissioner Hickey felt there were some very persuasive arguments made this evening particularly the one from the former truck driver.
Commissioner Ballard thought the strongest argument was what Mr. Kaupin said as to why this area is zoned Business Professional. It was to be a transition zone going down Hazard Avenue.
Commissioner Duren stated the Commission didn’t allow this for Johnson Hospital. The state has more control than this Commission over what goes on Hazard Avenue. The Town has had on paper for a long time a cut through but Big Y took up some of that property. Commissioner Duren cannot see adding any more traffic to this area of town.
Chairman DiPace stated the residents have a lot of concerns as far as traffic. They are right that you come around that corner and it is like you took a step back. You have homes there. The applicant did not prove to him that the proposed zone change would not impact the area. Chairman DiPace stated if that back piece was zoned as a residential area with a couple of homes and with a buffer, he would consider taking a look at the Hazard Avenue side because that would only be on Hazard Avenue and not on Middle Road.
Commissioner Sarno noted the traffic increase on the roads in the area especially Beech Road. She agrees it is already a high traffic area and putting in a driveway would cause more traffic.
The motion was denied by a 0 – 7 – 0 vote.
The Commission recessed at 10:10 p.m. and reconvened at 10:20 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2578 – Special Use Permit for a Police Shooting Range at the former town landfill on Town Farm Road, Map 71, Lot 3, Town of Enfield, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by 2/15/07).
Larry Curtis and Gary Collins appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Curtis stated they have had a police shooting range in this area for several years. They are proposing to move west into a more secure area. The range would be located on the south side of the Scantic. There is a 30’ to 40’ berm that surrounds the area.
Mr. Curtis stated the plan is to use reclaimed road grindings that come off town roads. There will be no expense but a delivery and spreading process.
Mr. Curtis stated they are located at the furthest point from the old landfill property just west of the satellite tower. There are no homes within 1,000’ or better. There are a few bike riders in the area but they mainly stay on the established roads.
Mr. Curtis referred to page 2 of the ART report. The hours of operation were questioned and it was noted 9:00 p.m. at the latest. By state law training standards, they do have to do dim light or darkness night training but it would not be any later than 7:30 p.m. Chairman DiPace suggested leaving the hours at 9:00 p.m. to cover everything.
Commissioner Ladd asked how the Mancuso Recreation area would affect this area. Mr. Curtis stated they are approximately 700’ to 800’ from this recreation area. Where they are located is down in a deep hollow surrounded on all four sides by 30’ to 40’ high banks. Any security issues are already taken care of by the terrain itself.
Commissioner Ballard asked if they bring the ammunition to the range. Mr. Curtis confirmed that they do and nothing is actually stored at the site. They may in the future look to get a small storage trailer to store paper and wood products for target stands. No ammunition or fire arms or anything of a hazardous nature would be stored.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if this range is only for Enfield Police and Mr. Curtis confirmed it is only for Enfield Police.
Mr. Curtis stated starting four years ago they switched over to EPA certified and totally lead free ammunition. It meets all EPA specs for both indoor and outdoor ranges.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve PH#2578 – Special Use Permit for a Police Shooting Range at the former town landfill on Town Farm Road, Map 71, Lot 3, Town of Enfield, Applicant/Owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the submitted record, as may be required to be modified by these conditions, and the following conditions:
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
1. 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.
2. The shooting area shall be graded so that water flows back to existing collection area south of the existing parking lot.
3. Appropriate warning signs as discussed in the Administrative Review meeting shall be placed and maintained at the internal entrance drive and along the perimeter of the shooting area.
General Conditions:
4. 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.
5. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the submitted plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
6. There shall be no shooting past 9:00 p.m. in the evening.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno, Ladd and Lefakis voting. Commissioner Duren was not present.
OLD BUSINESS
PH#2573 – Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review for a 73-unit senior residential development at the east end of Mayfield Drive and north of Westview Drive, and west of Shaker Pines Lake, Map 79, Lot 11, Stonegate Associates, Applicant/Angelina J. McGillivray, Owner. (Hearing closed – Deadline for Decision 3/1/07 Meeting.)
The Commission tabled Action to a later meeting.
BOND RELEASE
a. PH#2323 – Request for release of landscape bond in the amount of $39,449 for Shaker Heights Subdivision – Taylor Road.
This bond release was tabled.
NEW BUSINESS
a. 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 Greenalch, PE, Applicant/Fine Realty LLC, Owner.
Gary Greenalch appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Greenalch stated U. S. Glass Distributors is proposing an addition on to the back of their building. The application has gone through Wetlands. The existing driveway comes in to a large parking area for employee cars and truck vehicles. The intent with the new addition is to keep the employee and visitor parking separate from the truck traffic. Spaces will be added along the front and along the back side of the building to meet the parking requirements.
Mr. Greenalch stated they plan to do a lot of landscaping especially in the wetlands area. They would replant trees that would be disturbed by the addition of parking.
Mr. Greenalch stated they are moving a few trees along the front of the building to extend the parking through there. They replaced those out front with some maple trees that are the same type as being removed. They have increased the landscaping in the front of the building and in the islands. There would be customer parking which would be buffered from where the truck traffic would be.
Chairman DiPace stated they buffered the retention area but he asked about the wetlands area. Mr. Greenalch stated that is actual wetlands now and they would not be going near them. He pointed out the area is all a wooded area. They plan to disturb as little as they can and they plan to stay away from the wetlands. Aside from excavating for the foundation, nothing will be disturbed.
Mr. Greenalch confirmed that the line pointed out by Chairman DiPace is actually the limit of construction. They are not cutting down any trees beyond that.
Commissioner Ballard asked how far from the wetlands the building will be. Mr. Greenalch stated approximately twenty feet.
Mr. Giner stated there were a couple of concerns by the Fire Marshall and those are part of the conditions.
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to approve 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 Greenalch, PE, Applicant/ Fine Realty LLC, Owner. This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans
“Proposed Addition U.S. Glass Distributors 7 Niblick Road, Enfield, Connecticut.” (Sheet Index) by Gary M. Greenalch, P.E., received Jan 3, 2007 by the Planning Office.
“Boundary and Topo Survey of U.S. Glass Dist. For Pacesetter Construction Corp. 7 Niblick Road, Enfield, CT.”, Sheet 1 of 1, Scale: 1”=20’, by Pudeler Engineering PC, dated 9/05/06.
“Site Layout Plan, U.S. Glass Distributors 7 Niblick Road Enfield, CT.” Sheet S1, Scale: 1”=20’, by Pacesetter Construction Corp., dated 10-25-06 and revised to 12-30-06.
“Grading & Drainage Plan, U.S. Glass Distributors 7 Niblick Road Enfield, CT.” Sheet S2, Scale: 1”=20’, by Pacesetter Construction Corp., dated 10-25-06 and revised to 12-30-06.
“Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Plan, U.S. Glass Distributors 7 Niblick Road Enfield, CT.” Sheet S3, Scale: 1”=20’, by Pacesetter Construction Corp., dated 10-25-06 and revised to 12-30-06.
“Landscaping Plan, U.S. Glass Distributors 7 Niblick Road Enfield, CT.” Sheet S4, Scale: 1”=20’, by Pacesetter Construction Corp., dated 10-25-06 and revised to 12-30-06.
“Site Details -A, U.S. Glass Distributors 7 Niblick Road Enfield, CT.” Sheet S5, Scale: 1”=20’, by Pacesetter Construction Corp., dated 10-25-06 and revised to 12-10-06.
“Site Details -B, U.S. Glass Distributors 7 Niblick Road Enfield, CT.” Sheet S6, Scale: 1”=20’, by Pacesetter Construction Corp., dated 10-25-06 and revised to 12-30-06.
“Elevations, Proposed Addition For: U.S. Glass Distributors 7 Niblick Road Enfield, CT.” Sheet A1, Scale: 3/32”= 1’-0”, by Pacesetter Construction Corp., dated 10-25-06.
“Floor Plan, Proposed Addition For: U.S. Glass Distributors 7 Niblick Road Enfield, CT.” Sheet A2, Scale: 3/32”= 1’-0”, by Pacesetter Construction Corp., dated 10-25-06.
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. Fire Lanes shall be shown on the plans in appropriate area as determined in consultation with the Enfield Fire District #1.
3. A fire hydrant as required by the Deputy Fire Marshall shall be shown on the western driveway.
4 The plan view notations should match the section view with regards to concrete strength and depth.
5. The impervious surface figures on the chart on sheet S1 should match the figures noted on the plan view.
6. The application number (SPR #1387 ) shall be displayed on the plans in or near the Title Block area of each sheet.
7. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns, a copy of the Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated on the plans submitted for signing.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
8. 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.
9. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
10. An Erosion and Sediment Control and Site Restoration Bond shall be submitted in the form of cash or a check, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
11. A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
12. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance. 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.
13. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
14. 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.
15. 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:
16. 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.
17. This approval is for the specific use and structure identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structure will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
18. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
19. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by January 18, 2012 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
20. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno, Ladd and Lefakis voting.
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 item was tabled to a later meeting.
b. Applications to be accepted
The following applications were accepted:
PH#2591 – Special Use Permit to allow for conversion of first floor commercial space into two residential units at 42 Asnuntuck Street, zoned TVCZ, Map 24, Lots 32 and 33, Solomon Rosemond, Applicant/Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for March 1, 2007.
PH#2592 – Special Use Permit and final site plan review for a proposed restaurant with a Class 1 restaurant liquor permit on the previously approved BR-1 development located at 20 Phoenix Boulevard at its southwest intersection with Hazard Avenue, zoned BR, Map 45, Lot 12, Benderson Property Development, Inc. and Sullivan Hayes Companies NE, Inc. Applicants; Enfield Lodging, LLC, Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for February 15, 2007.
SPR#1388 – Site Plan review for a change of use from a vacant former bar/lounge to a Used Furniture Store at 26 Pearl Street, Zoned TVCD, Map 24, Lot 84, Kevin Paradise, Applicant; Anthony and Frank Troiano, Owner.
b. Discussion of Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Commission Budget.
Mr. Giner stated the Fiscal Year 2007-2008 budget will be the same as last year.
c. Discussion of Connecticut River Assembly membership.
Mr. Giner stated the cost to be a member of the Connecticut River Assembly is $500 and the Council is looking for some direction. Mr. Giner did not think he has had one project in his planning experience that has risen to the level of the Connecticut River Assembly. This item will be on the agenda of the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|