|
THESE MINUTES ARE PRESENTED IN DRAFT FORM AND HAVE NOT BEEN FORMALLY APPROVED BY THE ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 1, 2007
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, February 1, 2007, in the Town Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Anthony DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Charles Duren
Jason Jones
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner
Chairman DiPace announced to the audience that the Commission will not be voting on the Stonegate application this evening. A waiver would require six votes of the Commission and there are only four Commissioners present.
MINUTES
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve the Minutes of January 4, 2007. The Minutes were approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve the Minutes of January 18, 2007. The Minutes were approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
STAFF COMMENTS
a. Town Attorney
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer
Commissioner Duren thanked the Zoning Enforcement Officer for the list of 2006 home occupations. He would like to see the report include home occupations by street in order to monitor areas so they are not inundated with home occupations.
Chairman DiPace asked about the fee charged for home occupations. Mr. Giner stated the town charges $5 and the state charges $30. Chairman DiPace suggested the Commission consider raising the town fees. Mr. Giner stated the fees are part of an ordinance and would have to go to the Town Council for an amendment.
c. Director of Planning
Mr. Giner stated Bed, Bath and Beyond is opening and they came in and asked for an application to put box displays on their south wall. He showed a drawing and stated they are not windows but similar to a marquis made of good quality vinyl. Mr. Giner felt this would fall under a sign.
Mr. Giner described the proposal as a vinyl insert. Their point was you have a nice looking facade but when you look down at the wall, it is pretty bleak. They want to dress it up and this would be for people walking by.
Chairman DiPace asked about the size and was informed it would be 84” x 84” and there will be two of them. Mr. Giner stated the Commission can amend the regulations to allow pedestrian oriented signage or have them come in as an amendment to their facade and call it a facade element.
Chairman DiPace stated he would classify this as a sign. He noted if a sign doesn’t conform to the regulations, it has to come to the Commission for approval. Mr. Giner confirmed that these do not meet the requirements of the sign ordinance. Mr. Giner read from the regulations regarding the possibility of appealing.
Mr. Giner stated the proposal is a changeable wall sign. It is not like a window sign which normally would be allowed. If they had an opening there which they cannot put in because of utilities they would be allowed to have these signs.
The consensus of the Commission was to have Bed, Bath and Beyond come before the Commission for this sign proposal.
Mr. Giner presented to the Commission a print out of the community resources report as requested.
Mr. Giner reminded the Commission of the Saturday, March 17, 2007 American Bar Association program at Wesleyan. If anyone wants to attend, they should contact Mr. Giner’s office.
Mr. Giner reported the Aqua Turf annual meeting of the Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Commissions is on March 22, 2007. If any Commissioner wants to attend, they should contact Mr. Giner.
Mr. Giner reported on the town’s GIS which is in place and which will soon be available to the public. He stated there will be some training and a demonstration in the future.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Frank Dubish, 42 O’Hear Avenue, appeared before the Commission regarding the business that is being run at 40 O’Hear Avenue. Chairman DiPace stated this has come to the Commission previously six to eight months ago and the Commission requested that any complaints be put in writing.
Mr. Dubish stated he has sent a number of letters to the town and received responses but he doesn’t get all the questions he has answered. He went through the Town Council to try to get someone to do an investigation on why a lot of this was happening. Mr. Dubish questioned why someone is allowed to build a three-car garage which is higher than the house and why they allow storage containers in the back. He noted everything seems to be grandfathered or they don’t see anything. Mr. Dubish pointed out during a recent storm, someone came by at 4:00 a.m. and took out one of the plows. He questioned if the owner is not running a business, why are people coming in and taking out vehicles for the purpose of plowing.
Mr. Dubish stated there are a number of vehicles on the property and he questioned where this business is being operated out of and is it out of a p.o. box. With the apartment, it took the owner four years to get a c.o. for the apartment and Mr. Dubish questioned why it took four years. Mr. Dubish asked if it was inspected and he got an answer that it was. He said if they inspected it, they would have seen the apartment which is supposed to be storage space. Just before they were going to give him a c.o. a big renovation was done at a cost of approximately $14,000. Mr. Dubish questioned if the owner was hiding something. The other day he was hauling a lot of building material and for three or four days there were men working up on the roof. Mr. Dubish stated there is a lot happening that no one seems to want to do anything about.
Mr. Dubish stated the owner has five garages and yet also put up a portable garage to put one of his trucks in. He noted the backhoe owned by this person which is parked at Troiano’s plaza. It is unregistered and parked on state property right next to the sidewalk. He saw children playing on it two weeks ago and questioned the safety issues. Further discussion followed on backhoes which are parked in the shopping malls and at other locations.
Mr. Dubish presented a picture of a sander kept at the house that was taken early in the morning. It was his opinion that someone is not looking into this to see what is going on. Chairman DiPace stated the owner is supposed to have one truck there and the Zoning Enforcement Officer has confirmed the presence of one commercial truck. Mr. Dubish stated there are employees coming to the house working and he questioned if this is legal in a residential area. Chairman DiPace asked if it was one person that took out the truck and Mr. Dubish confirmed this to be the case. Chairman DiPace stated the Zoning Enforcement Officer was sent to this site on several occasions. He was sent out for the storage containers but they were put in prior to the enactment of the zoning regulations. Mr. Dubish stated there was one storage container and then a second one showed up. Chairman DiPace stated he was told the storage containers were there prior to the regulations and they were moved because of complaints. That wasn’t satisfactory so they were moved back to where he had them. Mr. Dubish stated one container was there for more than five years but not the second one. Chairman DiPace noted the Commission adopted the regulations as far as containers in April, 2006 and if they were there prior to the regulations, they are grandfathered.
Chairman DiPace stated the Zoning Enforcement Officer has been to this site many times. Mr. Dubish stated he doesn’t get rid of the violations but he just pulls the vehicles into his garage. Chairman DiPace stated the Commission does not have the authority to go in someone’s garage. Mr. Dubish stated most of his operations are done at night. Chairman DiPace stated when the owner has received communications from the Zoning Enforcement Officer, he has always been cooperative and corrected things.
Mr. Dubish asked what is needed from him. Chairman DiPace stated Mr. Giner and the Zoning Enforcement Officer can only do what the law allows them to do. Mr. Dubish noted in 1995 the stuff was parked right out in the open and nobody did anything about it. He would call and all the trucks would disappear but then they would come back. This happened several times. Chairman DiPace stated there has to be a violation before the town can cite the owner. Mr. Dubish asked if he can have people coming to the site and taking vehicles out of a residential area. Chairman DiPace stated he is only supposed to have one vehicle there.
Mr. Dubish stated when the owner drops his plow in the driveway, it wakes him up and he doesn’t think that is fair to him. Mr. Giner stated the regulations require that if the operator of a home occupation wants to have non-residents employed on the premises, it shall require a site plan approved by the Commission and you can have up to two employees. Mr. Giner stated there is need for some proof that he has more than one person on the premises. Mr. Giner stated it is a cat and mouse situation and there is need for proof. Chairman DiPace suggested the Zoning Enforcement Officer call the owner to see if he has any employees.
Mr. Giner stated he has gone by this residence at random. At one point he did see an extra truck, the owner was sent a notice of violation and the truck disappeared.
Chairman DiPace stated if the owner is coming and going at all hours, he saw a need to look into this regarding a violation. Mr. Dubish stated during a snow storm he has a bob cat running all day causing noise. Mr. Dubish presented pictures that were taken in December, 2006.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of a letter from Chris Bromson regarding 229 Post Office Road, the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Notice of Action dated January 16, a letter from Steven Sadlowski to Jose Giner regarding the Autumn Fields bond release, and a letter from Attorney Gregory Galanek regarding 167 South Road. Following a question from the Commission about 167 South Road, Mr. Giner will check with the Zoning Enforcement Officer on the status of this application.
COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace noted receipt of a letter from Fahey, Landolina and Associates dated January 22, 2007, a copy of the Connecticut Planning Newsletter, and a copy of Connecticut Wildlife.
Chairman DiPace reported on February 12, 2007 the Town Council has requested a meeting of the chairs and vice chairs of all the boards and commissions in town to consider any changes that should be made. If any Commissioner has a suggestion, they should email Chairman DiPace.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 18, 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.)
Steven Paradis appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He noted the Commission was awaiting a report from the Traffic Safety Officer.
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of an email from Robert Santanella, Traffic Safety Officer, to Jose Giner stating there were no traffic concerns. Commissioner Duren stated if the Traffic Safety Officer had received complaints, he would have included them in his report. That was one of the concerns of the neighbors.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. Prior to doing so, there was a question regarding the vote of the Commission with four members present. Mr. Giner confirmed that with four members present, an application vote would require a majority of the four members.
Blair White, 63 Sword Avenue, asked if the Traffic Safety Officer reviewed this site at 7:30 a.m. when you can’t get in or out of the street. He added the Valero gas station is planning on putting in a Dunkin Donuts. Not only are you compounding the traffic with the expansion of Bookends but when Dunkin Donuts goes into Valero, the traffic on that corner will increase further. Mr. White expanded on the Dunkin Donuts and noted all the items the Valero station now sells will be replaced with the Dunkin Donuts. Mr. Giner stated it is retail to retail and there are no tables. There would be no change in use.
Mr. White stated there is a traffic problem now and a change at the convenience store to Dunkin Donuts will further the problems. He noted each one of those establishments has access and egress on to Enfield Street. If the Commission wants to continue keeping traffic being a problem, they would approve this. Mr. White suggested the Commission may want to consider blocking off the entrance and access to Sword Avenue from both of those establishments and let them use their entrance from Enfield Street. Chairman DiPace stated it is not wide enough for two cars. Mr. White noted the increase of traffic that this approval would cause and he asked that the Commission give this consideration.
Chairman DiPace asked the applicant about the width of the driveway on to Enfield Street. Mr. Paradis stated the driveway is one car width. Mr. Giner provided the Commission with a measurement and noted the narrowest point between the two buildings is about 18’. At the mouth there is approximately a 42’ opening and it tapers down at the property line to 22’ and when you get to the two buildings, it is 18’ wide.
Chairman DiPace requested that the Commission be supplied with small rulers to use when examining plans.
Chairman DiPace asked if these are two separate lots. Mr. Giner confirmed it is all one lot and the assessor’s card carries the address as 44. The Assessor’s map and lot number is 35 and Lot 79. For legal purposes, it is all one property.
Chairman DiPace stated he has heard the concerns as far as the driveway. He asked if there would be a problem if this Commission approved this application with the condition that the Sword Avenue entrance be an in only and the exit would have to be between the two buildings. Commissioner Duren felt the driver would be safer coming out Sword Avenue rather than between the two buildings. Mr. Giner stated ConnDOT would have to be asked since there may be restrictions on the turning movements. ConnDOT may have put on restrictions when this road cut came in. Mr. Paradis stated the way it is set up now, there is an in on Route 5. Further discussion followed on the traffic pattern that should be put into effect for this business. Commissioner Duren brought up the McDonald’s next door which has much more distance. Mr. Giner stated there is always an attempt to try to consolidate curb cuts and to try to avoid as many points of conflict at an intersection.
Mr. Paradis stated as far as the morning traffic, they do not open until 9:00 a.m. He felt the problem is Valero’s which is much busier and has no stop signs. Bookends does have a stop sign from the parking lot on to Sword Avenue.
Ed Bluet, 54 Sword Avenue, confirmed there is a stop sign but the customers don’t acknowledge that there is a stop sign and they come right through. He noted there are many people on Sword Avenue that had to drive on to the green strip in order to not get hit. He asked that if the Commission does approve this that they approve it so that it is in only on Sword Avenue and out between the buildings. Chairman DiPace stated the problem is such access would have to be approved by the state. It is also so close to the McDonald’s driveway that you will have cars coming out both ways creating another traffic problem. This is why the driveway is presently one way in.
Mr. Bluet stated he understood from the last meeting that the applicant is going to tear down Terwilligers and make room for three cars to park. Chairman DiPace stated that area will be grass in the front. There will be no parking spaces in the front. Mr. Giner confirmed the owner would be making the property more conforming with the layout proposed. Right now he is three spaces short and the application includes the addition of four spaces. The site will be conforming with 29 required parking spaces. Mr. Giner stated the applicant could have 26 spaces to maintain the present nonconformity but by knocking down Terwilligers, it makes the site conforming.
Mr. Bluet felt the Commission is more concerned about the safety of Route 5 than the safety of the residents of Sword Avenue. Chairman DiPace stated the state would not allow the cars to go out on Route 5 and the Commission cannot let this applicant have two entrances in and no entrance out.
Mr. Bluet asked why they can’t have the entrance out between the two buildings. Chairman DiPace stated it is a state road and the state will not allow a curb cut to go out. They gave him an entrance in and told him the cars had to go out on Sword Avenue.
Commissioner Duren asked Mr. Bluet if he has complained to the Traffic Safety Officer. Mr. Bluet stated he spoke to the Traffic Safety Officer yesterday. Commissioner Duren asked if any of the complaints have been registered with the police department. Mr. Bluet could not confirm that they had been. Chairman DiPace requested that in the future the residents make formal complaints if they are having a problem with the traffic.
Chairman DiPace stated to make them move the driveway back further into the residential neighborhood is also not a good thing.
Blair White, 63 Sword Avenue, asked if the information on the Valero business has changed anything about the Commission’s decision. Chairman DiPace responded no because the Commission has to base it on this property. No application regarding Valero has been received by the Commission.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing. Mr. Giner noted this application has to be voted on this evening.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve PH #2581 – Site Plan review to convert approximately 600 square feet of 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. This approval is conditioned on conformance with the Referenced Plans, the hearing record and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“PH #2581, Site Modification Plan prepared for G&S Realty at 44 Enfield St. Enfield, CT 06082.” Sheet LP-1, Scale: 1”=20’, by L.P. Consultants, LLC, dated 1-11-07.
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 conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. The conditions of approval shall be incorporated in the final plans submitted for signing.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
3. Three sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.
4. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant and Town Staff shall be held.
5. 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.
6. 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 :
7. The parking lot improvements shall be completed and the “building to be removed” shall be removed.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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:
12. 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.
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. This project as approved must be completed by February 1, 2012 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
15. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
Chairman DiPace noted there is a traffic problem at the state line but it is not all generated by this applicant. They have been asked to address the requirements and make it more conforming and they have done so. In the past, there have been neighbors that complained because it is Bookends. Chairman DiPace looks at other sections of the state and he sees what is going on with these VIP places coming in. He is glad that Bookends keeps their place the way it does which is quiet and low key. Chairman DiPace noted the Commission has really not had any problems and complaints that can be discussed about problems there. Also, this is an interior change and the only exterior change is the addition of three parking spaces.
Commissioner Duren stated a lot of the traffic problems are caused by the signs which say do not enter which are both gone on the southern entrance. People are heading north in a south bound lane as you come out of Booth Road. A vehicle has a green light and they come face to face with someone. The signs have disappeared and when Commissioner Duren has inquired, the response is Massachusetts is supposed to replace them. Mr. Giner stated he can ask Longmeadow to address this. Chairman DiPace stated the procedure should be for a request to be made at the next meeting to have the Traffic Safety Officer look at the area.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2588 – Special Use Permit to allow for operation of a landscape company (construction) on the premises at 114 North Street, zoned I-1, Map 100, Lot 4, Jeffrey Peterson, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by 3/1/07)
Jeffrey Peterson, 55 Sharon Lane, appeared before the Commission regarding this application for a special use permit to allow for operation of a landscape company at 114 North Street.
Chairman DiPace asked about a map that shows the property boundaries, the location of parking and the location of stock piling. Mr. Peterson stated the map he used was from 2003.
Chairman DiPace asked how far down the property goes heading east. Mr. Peterson stated way past and east of the apple trees. Chairman DiPace asked if there is a race track on the property because it is throwing the dirt on to the road. He suggested it be moved back.
Chairman DiPace asked if there would be stockpiling of mulch. Mr. Peterson stated he would not be and there will just be parking for two trucks.
Chairman DiPace noted there is a truck out in the back where the wooded area is. He asked if it will stay there. Mr. Peterson stated there are two trucks in question and they will stay in the back. They are the dump truck and the truck to collect leaves. Chairman DiPace asked how far back those are from the garage. Mr. Peterson responded approximately sixty feet to the beginning of it.
Chairman DiPace noted the one truck back in the wooded area. He asked if that can be moved next to the garage to keep it away from the wetlands.
Mr. Giner stated his understanding was the parking was going to be in the area of the hedges and the hedges are going to be used for screening.
Chairman DiPace suggested a place be designated next to the garage further west for the trucks. If there should be an increase in vehicles in the future, there will be a spot for them.
Mr. Giner stated Mr. Peterson can have a maximum of six vehicles.
Mr. Giner stated the surrounding area is all industrial.
Commissioner Duren stated the application refers to pine family shrubs. He recommended the Town Planner approve what he is planting. Mr. Giner suggested adding as condition 8 that the final species and type shall be approved by staff.
Chairman DiPace discussed the area noting that next door is a driving range and the across the street are the greenhouses. Further discussion followed on the exact location of this use.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission needs to waive the full site plan requirements. Mr. Giner added that a special permit will be filed on the land records for this application.
Chairman DiPace stated it is necessary for the applicant to mark the plans to show the details of this application. Mr. Giner asked that the applicant submit two copies of this plan with the areas drawn in for the Commission to sign.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve PH #2588 - 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. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans as may be required to be amended by this approval and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Plan of 114 North Street, Proposed Landscaping Contractor” taken and modified from a plan entitled: “Boundary Survey for Montgomery-Peterson, Inc., Enfield, Connecticut” A-2 Boundary Survey by William R. Palmberg & Son, LLC, dated 7-11-03.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Mylars:
1. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
2. The Public Hearing file number “PH 2588” shall be displayed prominently on all final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
3. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
General Conditions:
4. Two paper copies, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted for signature to the Commission.
5. All proposed landscaping must also be in place within 90 days. If weather conditions prevent this a bond shall be submitted to insure the timely planting of required landscaping.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Prior to the planting of the landscaping screen, a list of the species should be submitted to the Town Planner for approval.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to waive the A-2 survey for PH#2588. The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
The main motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
b. PH#2589 – Special Use Permit to unmerge lots of record to form two lots at Kalish and Bernardino, zoned R-33, Map 35, Lot 232, Victoria Kaplan, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by 3/1/07)
Attorney Charles Parakilas and Victoria Kaplan appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Attorney Parakilas stated the applicant is seeking a special use permit to form two lots, one on Bernardino and one on Kalish in order to build two single-family residences.
Attorney Parakilas confirmed that the public hearing sign has been posted on the premises in excess of ten days before the date of this hearing.
Attorney Parakilas stated one of the two parcels of land faces Bernardino Avenue and has a frontage of 108.25’. The other faces Kalish Avenue and has a frontage of 67.47’. Bernardino Avenue is a public highway within the Town of Enfield. Kalish Avenue is a paper street but it has never been fully developed by the town.
Attorney Parakilas gave some background on these lots. In 1914 prior to zoning in the state and town, the Conchusetts Realty Company developed most of North Thompsonville into subdivision plans consisting of twenty-five foot lot frontages. This subdivision plan of the Conchusetts Realty Company consisted of almost 325 lots with some on Bernardino and Kalish. The most westerly portion of that subdivision was on Old Springfield Road which later became State Street and is now part of I-91. Attorney Parakilas stated what occurred was what was originally Old State Street was relocated to where Enfield Street is now. When they relocated Enfield Street, they cut right across the subdivisions that ran from east to west and cut off portions from the major portion of the subdivision.
Attorney Parakilas stated the land that Mrs. Kaplan owns consists of eight twenty-five foot lots ranging from Lots 186 through 195 as depicted on the dotted lines within the submitted map. Attorney Parakilas could not explain why they were twenty-five foot lots. He stated in the past such lots were called garden lots and were used to plant vegetables. They were never geared to be building lots. Zoning came into the Town of Enfield in 1926. When the subdivision regulations came into effect, there was a requirement for larger sized lots. A lot of these lots became merged lots in order to conform to zoning.
Attorney Parakilas stated Mrs. Kaplan owns these eight lots. One of the lots faces Bernardino Avenue with a frontage of 108’ and the other lot faces Kalish Avenue. In order to develop these two lots, instead of trying to access the back lot to Kalish Avenue, Mrs. Kaplan has opted to access that lot through a private driveway through the front lot to Bernardino Avenue. In doing that, she has chosen to furnish public water and sanitary sewers through this lot in order to service the back portion. Her other option would be to claim the frontage is on Kalish Avenue and Kalish Avenue is a developed street. Attorney Parakilas stated there is a stop light at the intersection of Kalish Avenue and Enfield Street that faces this paper street.
Attorney Parakilas stated since Mrs. Kaplan has two parcels of land fronting on public highways, the feasible thing would be to allow her to construct these two single-family dwellings with public service and access coming from the Bernardino side lot.
Chairman DiPace asked if either of these houses are existing now. Attorney Parakilas confirmed that neither of them are. Chairman DiPace asked about the existing house which has a shed and a garage on these lots. Mrs. Kaplan stated the shed and garage will be removed. Mr. Giner asked if the garage and shed are part of the existing house to the west. Mrs. Kaplan stated they are asking to build a house on the existing lot and there is no driveway or existing house. Attorney Parakilas stated Mrs. Kaplan owns the house next door. Chairman DiPace asked where is the driveway for that house. Mrs. Kaplan stated the driveway is on the west side. Mr. Giner asked if the garage is being used by the existing house and Mrs. Kaplan confirmed it is not. Chairman DiPace asked if there is a driveway leading up to the garage. Mrs. Kaplan stated there really isn’t a driveway but the land was used to drive into the garage area. It is a three-car garage and there are no vehicles in the garage. It is used for storage for the construction business. Mrs. Kaplan confirmed there is no driveway leading around the back.
Mrs. Kaplan explained at one time this property was zoned Business. It was rezoned to Residential. At the time that it was zoned Business, there was a business there, a boating business. They built this garage to use as their office for the boat company. Mrs. Kaplan stated she purchased the property when it was zoned Business and it was later rezoned back to Residential.
Chairman DiPace asked about the house next door. Mrs. Kaplan stated the house next door on a 50’ lot was built in approximately 1930.
Chairman DiPace asked if the garage was ever used for parking cars. Mrs. Kaplan stated it was not because you couldn’t get in there.
Mr. Giner stated it is a unique property because there are not too many residential lots to compare it to. This one included business properties.
Chairman DiPace asked if the plan is to unmerge and create a rear lot and put in a driveway with an easement coming down for the rear lot. There would be a house in the front and a house in the back. Attorney Parakilas confirmed that is what is planned.
Mr. Giner stated because the lot is like a rear lot which can only be accessed from the front, Engineering asked that the driveway be constructed to town standards and the deeds on the front lot are clear that there are restrictions on the area around the driveway. There has to be at least an 18’ clearance so that fire equipment can get to the back. It is therefore necessary to provide a permanent easement for this lot to get access.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve PH #2589 – Special use permit to unmerge lots of record to form 2 lots at Kalish & Bernardino, Zoned R-33, Map 35, Lot 232, Victoria Kaplan, Applicant/Owner. This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Special Use Map Kalish & Bernardino Aves., Enfield, Connecticut, Assessors map #35 parcel 232” Scale 1”=20’ by Dennis G. Rehmer, dated Jan. 2, 2007.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
2. The street address for both lots shall be obtained from the Engineering Division in consultation with the E-911 coordinator. The addresses shall be shown on the final plans submitted for signature.
3. The file number “PH 2589” shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
4. A note shall be added to the plans stating that the plans submitted for construction of the northerly lot shall contain a detail of the driveway to be built to the standards for rear lot driveways found in Section 4.40.5 C iv of the Zoning Regulations.
5. 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:
6. 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.
7. A Permanent easement securing access for the northerly lot and detailing the requirements and restrictions for the driveway and the area immediately adjacent to the driveway shall be filed on the land records to run with the land of the southerly lot.
8. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
9. Final approval of site layout and grading for shall be obtained from the Engineering Division for the proposed houses.
10. Final approvals shall be obtained from the Water Pollution Control Division for the sewer hook ups.
11. If necessary, a Separate Erosion and Sediment Control Bond shall be submitted in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
12. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
13. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director unless waived by the Commission.
General Conditions:
14. This approval is for the specific use identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
15. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
16. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
c. PH#2504-02 – Modification of conditions imposed on previous special use permit 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. (Must close by 3/1/07).
Doug Palmer appeared before the Commission representing Blake Investments. Blake Investments is the owner of the new Walgreens on Shaker Road.
Chairman DiPace asked if there is a reason why the pharmacy signs are covered. Mr. Palmer stated the sign company did not remove the paper. They were called today and asked to remove them.
Mr. Palmer stated he is before the Commission tonight concerning the mortise and pestle logo located in the light tower over the entrance of Walgreens. It was originally shown on the plans that were approved. When Mr. Palmer talked to Roger Alsbaugh about the sign permit, he was informed that it did not count as a sign because it was behind glass.
Mr. Giner stated he doesn’t think the mortise and pestle showed on the plans. It showed the north tower and the dotted line and there might have been some questions as to what was going to go in there. Chairman DiPace stated the mortise and pestle was turned on several months back and the Commission said it was not supposed to be there. Mr. Palmer stated when he was informed by the Zoning Enforcement Officer, they immediately pulled the plug.
Chairman DiPace stated it is really bright and if he had known it was going to be that bright, he doesn’t know if he would have voted in favor of it. There are a lot of homes in the area. Commissioner Duren asked if the Commission was given a schematic of the lights and if they have ever been checked. Mr. Giner stated the photometric plan would not necessarily show how bright it is but it would show that there are no foot candles bleeding off the property. Mr. Giner will check to see if there are meters available to check the lighting.
Chairman DiPace recommended language be added in the regulations that says when places like this are built, the applicant is going to have to hire someone to check the lighting and provide the results.
Mr. Palmer stated the towers are also in Rocky Hill, Vernon and Manchester.
Chairman DiPace suggested the lighting of the mortise and pestle be turned on for two weeks so that Commission members can see what it looks like. Commissioner Jones stated he has seen it and he thinks it is too bright for something facing a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Palmer stated the hours of operation would be from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or the same hours as the store and the mortise and pestle would only be lit during those hours.
Commissioners Duren and Sarno noted the sign would be turned off at 10:00 p.m.
Chairman DiPace would like to see how bright it is before saying yes. He previously got a few phone calls when it was turned on a few months ago. His wife also told him how bright it was. Chairman DiPace would like to see it turned on for Commission review. As it stands now, he is not in favor of it but maybe once he sees it lit up with the rest of the store, it may change his mind. Mr. Palmer stated it will be turned on.
Commissioner Sarno asked if it could be dimmed. Mr. Palmer stated with a neon light, he doesn’t think you can do so.
Chairman DiPace stated the next meeting is February 15, 2007. He asked that a week prior to that meeting that the mortise and pestle be turned on so that Commission members can see what it looks like.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace continued this public hearing to February 15.
OLD BUSINESS
a. 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)
Action on this application was tabled to a later meeting since there are only four Commission members present this evening.
BOND RELEASE
a. PH#2323 – Request for release of landscape bond in the amount of $39,449 for Shaker Heights Subdivision – Taylor Road
Chairman DiPace recommended tabling this bond release to the next meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
a. Action re: final court judgment on PH#2526 – Conditional Approval for a proposed 15-lot residential re-subdivision at the end of Meetinghouse Lane and north of Bridge Lane with a proposed road intersection with Bridge Lane at #44 Bridge Lane, zoned R-33, Map 19, Lots 1 and 10; Margaret R. Pappas, Applicant/Owner.
Chairman DiPace asked which plans the Commission is approving. Chairman DiPace stated the plans that were denied were dated 11/15/05. These plans presently before the Commission are dated 11/7/06. Mr. Giner stated what normally happens is the Commission approves the plans, they are modified and then signed by the Secretary. Mr. Giner confirmed there are no changes other than the sidewalk on the new plans. Chairman DiPace stated he has no problem approving the 11/15/05 plans with the condition that the outstanding item is addressed. Chairman DiPace had a concern that the Commission has not seen the revised plans.
Mr. Giner stated they took the conditions and added them to the plans. Chairman DiPace stated this approval will have to be modified which will turn into those plans. He suggested referencing the date of the plans originally submitted and revised to this date.
Mr. Giner stated John Cabibbo mentioned the sidewalks should go to the driveway.
Commissioner Duren stated he has signed plans with several revisions on them. Mr. Giner noted the conditions of approval revise the plans. Mr. Giner stated if the conditions are put on the mylars, they really don’t have to come back to the Commission.
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to approve a court ordered approval for PH#2526, revised to 11/15/05 and revised again to 11/7/06 - Conditional Approval for a proposed 15-lot residential re-subdivision at end of Meetinghouse Lane and north of Bridge Lane with a proposed road intersection with Bridge Lane at #44 Bridge Lane, zoned R-33, Map 19, Lots 1 and 10; Margaret R. Pappas, Applicant/Owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans, as may be required to be modified by this motion, and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Drainage Improvement Plan Parsons Road, Prepared for Margaret R. Pappas 44 Bridge Lane, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 1 of 1, Scale: 1”=20’, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 12-05-05.
“River Meadows Section II, Bridge Lane & Meetinghouse Lane, Enfield, Connecticut, Single-Family Residential Subdivision” Drawing Index with Key Map, Owner/Applicant, Margaret R. Pappas, 1 Meetinghouse Lane, Enfield, Connecticut by J.R. Russo & Associates, revised to 11-07-06.
“Resubdivision Plan, River Meadows Section II, Meetinghouse Lane & Bridge Lane, Enfield, Connecticut, Owner/Applicant, Margaret R. Pappas, 1 Meetinghouse Lane, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 2 of 16, Scale: 1”=100’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, revised to 11-07-06.
“Resubdivision Plan, River Meadows Section II, Meetinghouse Lane & Bridge Lane, Enfield, Connecticut, Owner/Applicant, Margaret R. Pappas, 1 Meetinghouse Lane, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 3 of 16, Scale: 1”=40’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, revised to 11-07-06.
“Resubdivision Plan, River Meadows Section II, Meetinghouse Lane & Bridge Lane, Enfield, Connecticut, Owner/Applicant, Margaret R. Pappas, 1 Meetinghouse Lane, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 4 of 16, Scale: 1”=40’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, revised to 11-07-06.
“Resubdivision Plan, River Meadows Section II, Meetinghouse Lane & Bridge Lane, Enfield, Connecticut, Owner/Applicant, Margaret R. Pappas, 1 Meetinghouse Lane, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 5 of 16, Scale: 1”=40’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, revised to 11-07-06.
“Topographic Plan, River Meadows Section II, Meetinghouse Lane & Bridge Lane, Enfield, Connecticut, Owner/Applicant, Margaret R. Pappas, 1 Meetinghouse Lane, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 6 of 16, Scale: 1”=40’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, revised to 11-07-06.
“Topographic Plan, River Meadows Section II, Meetinghouse Lane & Bridge Lane, Enfield, Connecticut, Owner/Applicant, Margaret R. Pappas, 1 Meetinghouse Lane, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 7 of 16, Scale: 1”=40’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, revised to 11-07-06.
“Topographic Plan, River Meadows Section II, Meetinghouse Lane & Bridge Lane, Enfield, Connecticut, Owner/Applicant, Margaret R. Pappas, 1 Meetinghouse Lane, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 8 of 16, Scale: 1”=40’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, revised to 11-07-06.
“Plan & Profile Meetinghouse Lane Sta. 6+00 - Sta. 14+38.50, River Meadows Section II, Meetinghouse Lane & Bridge Lane, Enfield, Connecticut, Owner/Applicant, Margaret R. Pappas, 1 Meetinghouse Lane, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 9 of 16, Scale: 1”=4’ VERT., 1”=40’ HORZ., by J.R. Russo & Associates, revised to 11-07-06.
“Plan & Profile Rivercliff Lane Sta. 19+70 - Sta. 27+50, River Meadows Section II, Meetinghouse Lane & Bridge Lane, Enfield, Connecticut, Owner/Applicant, Margaret R. Pappas, 1 Meetinghouse Lane, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 10 of 16, Scale: 1”=4’ VERT., 1”=40’ HORZ., by J.R. Russo & Associates, revised to 11-07-06.
“Plan & Profile Rivercliff Lane Sta. 27+50 - Sta. 30+90.95, River Meadows Section II, Meetinghouse Lane & Bridge Lane, Enfield, Connecticut, Owner/Applicant, Margaret R. Pappas, 1 Meetinghouse Lane, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 11 of 16, Scale: 1”=4’ VERT., 1”=40’ HORZ., by J.R. Russo & Associates, revised to 11-07-06.
“Landscape & Lighting Plan, River Meadows Section II, Meetinghouse Lane & Bridge Lane, Enfield, Connecticut, Owner/Applicant, Margaret R. Pappas, 1 Meetinghouse Lane, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 12 of 16, Scale: 1”=60’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, revised to 11-07-06.
“Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Notes, River Meadows Section II, Meetinghouse Lane & Bridge Lane, Enfield, Connecticut, Owner/Applicant, Margaret R. Pappas, 1 Meetinghouse Lane, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 13 of 16, Scale: “As Shown’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, revised to 11-07-06
“Details, River Meadows Section II, Meetinghouse Lane & Bridge Lane, Enfield, Connecticut, Owner/Applicant, Margaret R. Pappas, 1 Meetinghouse Lane, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 14 of 16, Scale: “As Shown’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, revised to 11-07-06.
“Details, River Meadows Section II, Meetinghouse Lane & Bridge Lane, Enfield, Connecticut, Owner/Applicant, Margaret R. Pappas, 1 Meetinghouse Lane, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 15 of 16, Scale: “As Shown’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, revised to 11-07-06.
“Details, River Meadows Section II, Meetinghouse Lane & Bridge Lane, Enfield, Connecticut, Owner/Applicant, Margaret R. Pappas, 1 Meetinghouse Lane, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 16 of 16, Scale: “As Shown’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, revised to 11-07-06.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Mylars:
1. That the proposed sidewalks currently shown as ending on the property line of Lot #1 be extended to show a terminus at the driveway of #4 Meetinghouse Lane.
2. The Town Engineer shall review and approve the final plans.
3. A schedule and description of responsibility for maintenance of the storm water system shall be on the mylars.
4. The applicants have chosen to offer a fee–in-lieu of Open Space. The appraisal for the pre-development value of the property is $334,000 resulting in a total payment of $33,400 as fees-in-lieu of Open Space. A note shall be placed on each lot on the mylars stating that a $2,227 per lot fee is owed to the Town of Enfield prior to the first sale of each lot.
5. The final mylars shall contain the application number “PH #2526” prominently displayed on each sheet above or near the Title Block.
6. Street lighting details shall be shown on the approved plans in accordance with standard town practice and subject to approval from the Town Engineer and Public Safety Department.
7. Location and types of street trees shall be shown on the plans in accordance with the Subdivision requirements. Notes shall be placed on the plans stating that the trees are a required public improvement and may not be removed without permission of Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
8. All mylars submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
9. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this approval motion shall be incorporated onto the final mylars prior to the signing of the mylars.
10. The applicant shall post a bond for public improvements in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer and with surety acceptable to the Town.
11. A Separate Erosion and Sediment Control passbook shall be submitted in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
12. A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.
13. A developer's agreement shall be required for any on-site or off-site public improvements, which agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney, and which shall be executed, and may be recorded in the town clerk's office, prior to the filing of mylars;
14. Any deeds or easements for public improvements or land dedication shall be submitted, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney, to be held in escrow until completion and acceptance of the improvements by the Town. Any easements encumbering individual lots shall be recorded prior to, or concurrently with, the filing of the Subdivision mylars.
15. In lieu of either the completion of work on the public improvements or the furnishing of the bonds required under Conditions # 9 and 11 above, the applicant may file a plan in the Town Clerk’s Office with a Conditional Approval endorsed thereon.
16. The Commission shall authorize the filing of a plan with a Final Approval endorsed thereon only upon the occurrence of either (1) the actual construction, maintenance and installation of any improvements or utilities prescribed by the approved plans and conditions, or (2) the provision of the bonds required under Conditions # 9 and 11 above. Such bonds shall be equal in amount to the incomplete improvements but in no instance be less than fifteen percent of the original estimate of improvement costs as determined by the Town.
17. Such Conditional Approval shall lapse on January, 19, 2009. The applicant may apply for, and the Commission may grant, at its discretion, a renewal of such Conditional Approval;
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits or start of construction:
18. Two sets of final mylars along with three paper copies, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to signature to the Commission. One set of signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk and one set shall be retained by the planning department.
19. Final plans reflecting the approval of the Commission shall also be submitted in a digital format prescribed by the Director of Planning.
20. Signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk no later than ninety (90) days from the expiration of the appeal period or this approval shall be null and void. The applicants shall provide such mylars to the Planning Department sufficiently in advance of this deadline to allow for review of the plans and the arrangement for the Commission Secretary to sign the mylars. The applicant may request an extension of the filing deadline in accordance with Section 8-25 of the CT. General Statutes. Any extension requests must be received in time to allow the Commission to act on them before the original deadline expires.
21. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
22. A Conditional Approval does not permit the sale of lots within the subdivision, no Building permits may be issued and no lots may be sold within the subdivision prior to a Final Approval being filed on the Land Records.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Zoning Certificate of Compliance:
23. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
24. No certificates of compliance shall be issued until the drainage has been completed.
25. No certificates of compliance shall be issued until the sub-grade and base course for the road have been completed, inspected, and approved by the Town Engineer.
26. No certificates of compliance shall be issued until the Enfield Water Pollution Control Division has inspected and approved the sewer connection for the project.
27. No certificates of compliance shall be issued until the Connecticut Water Company has inspected and approved the water delivery system for the project.
General Conditions:
28. The Final as-built for the Public improvements shall be submitted both in paper and digital formats as prescribed by the Planning Department.
29. 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.
30. All public improvements in connection with this subdivision shall be completed by January 19, 2012 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission in accordance with its Regulations.
31. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
Commissioner Duren asked about the open space. Mr. Giner stated that was already set and it was part of the original motion. The Commission did not want open space but wanted fees and it is included in the conditions.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
Chairman DiPace asked if this has to be published in the newspaper. Mr. Giner stated there is no appeal and the purpose to publish this is to allow people to appeal. If the neighbors wanted to preserve their right to appeal, they would have had to petition the court to be a party. Chairman DiPace asked that the Notice of Action include the fact that this is a court ordered approval.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Informal discussion with representatives of the Holy Cross Parish to informally outline and discuss a proposal to establish residential housing for elderly persons on its property at 723 Enfield Street.
Mr. Giner stated Holy Cross representatives were waiting for some prints from their architect prior to appearing before the Commission. He recommended tabling this item.
b. Applications to be accepted
There were no applications to be accepted.
c. Discussion of Connecticut River Assembly membership
Mr. Giner stated the Town Council is looking for Commission input as to whether or not to continue membership in the Connecticut River Assembly.
Following a brief discussion, the consensus of the Commission was to keep the Connecticut River Assembly membership.
d. Discussion of Somers Road drainage issues
Commissioner Duren asked if someone goes out to investigate a site, if they notice something, do they ever come back and tell someone else. If you see this mud slide going down the hill, he asked wouldn’t you say something.
Mr. Giner stated there are two issues – whether or not there is an overflow from the pond that’s going on to Somers Road and there is a particular house in the back that is affected. Mr. Giner stated the mud slide happened when they started boxing out the new road. They had a lot of rain and that gave way.
Bob Mercier appeared before the Commission and stated when the detention pond fills up, it comes out into the street, runs down the side of the road and fills his lawn.
Chairman DiPace stated he has gone out there and he has seen it washed out going into the detention basin.
Mr. Mercier stated the road is crowned. There is no storm drainage or any sewers. He has been there for forty years. Last year, in a snow storm, he had to plow the driveway because the water and ice were coming half way up his front lawn. The water is coming from the detention pond.
Commissioner Duren stated they knew it was a sensitive area and that should have been taken into consideration.
Mr. Mercier asked when the storm drainage goes into that detention pond, where is it going to go. He noted he cannot have any more water because he is living on a swamp. He cannot have water three quarters up his front lawn four feet deep.
Mr. Mercier submitted some pictures of the area. He cited the road and stated the road never did this until the water started going down there. This water flows here after it stops raining and it stays there for three days before it dries up.
Commissioner Duren asked if the pond is undersized. Mr. Mercier stated he talked to two contractors and they said it is.
Mr. Giner stated there has been email correspondence. Steve Sadlowski went out to the site with a representative from the Soil Conservation Service. He has given all the information to the engineers and asked that they look at the area again.
Commissioner Duren stated all these people that live along that road came in and said how bad it was without the construction. The Commission was guaranteed this would not happen.
Chairman DiPace stated he traveled this road for many years and he has never seen it as bad as it is today. He has been saying for the last six to eight months that there is a problem out there. He has been out there and seen ruts two feet wide washing the swale away.
Mr. Giner stated the Town Manager has asked the staff to provide reports. Commissioner Duren would like the Commission to receive the reports.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission should get some input from the Town Attorney because this needs to be addressed. If necessary, c.o.’s will be held up. Mr. Giner stated they need to keep doing the site work in order to stabilize the area.
Commissioner Jones questioned why the developer has not been shut down until this problem is addressed.
Chairman DiPace asked that Mr. Giner send a letter to the developer and inform him that the Commission wants to see them. Some discussion of ownership followed with two developers being involved.
Mr. Mercier stated all he is asking is that they fix the problem.
Chairman DiPace would like to see both developers appear before this Commission. He asked that the letter sent include the Commission’s concerns about the detention basin and ask what corrections they are going to make. If they don’t have a plan for correction, then the Commission will stop the c.o.’s. Commissioner Sarno stated this would allow them to continue building. She would like to see them stop all building until the problem is addressed.
Mr. Mercier reiterated that he just wants the problem fixed.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|