|
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
MARCH 1, 2007
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, March 1, 2007 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Jeffrey Cooper
Charles Duren
James Hickey, Jr.
Jason Jones
Karen Weseliza
Nicles Lefakis, Voting Alternate
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
Charles Ladd, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve the Minutes of February 15, 2007. The Minutes were approved by a 5 – 0 – 2 vote with Alternate Sarno voting. Commissioners Sarno and Weseliza abstained.
STAFF COMMENTS
a. Town Attorney
Chairman DiPace saw a need for an Executive Session in the near future to discuss 229 Post Office Road. Mr. Giner stated his office has been working on assembling the record and the case is now in the pleading stage. There is nothing pending at this time that needs the Commission’s attention. Chairman DiPace asked that Mr. Giner report back to the Commission should a meeting become necessary.
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer
Commissioner Duren stated he received a response regarding the inspection of the use on Raffia Road.
Chairman DiPace stated approximately twelve to fourteen months ago, this Commission denied the application of the use on South Road. They are still operating and have been saying for the past five months that they will be submitting an application. Chairman DiPace talked to Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley and he was supposed to notify them and give them a deadline of March 1, 2007. Chairman DiPace stated a cease and desist order would be appropriate at this time. The consensus of the Commission was to proceed in this manner. Mr. Giner will inform Mr. Bickley of this decision.
c. Director of Planning
Mr. Giner asked for a final count of those Commissioners attending the Aqua Turf meeting of the Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies. Commissioners DiPace, Hickey, Cooper, Duren and Sarno plan to attend.
Mr. Giner asked if anyone is planning to attend the planning session at Wesleyan on March 17, 2007.
Mr. Giner stated he plans to view the Somers Road area tomorrow with the Town Engineer and the Wetlands Agent because of the heavy rain that is forecast.
Commissioner Duren reported on the situation at the end of Elm and Moody Roads. Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley reported there are people living there. He did say some of the vehicles were not supposed to be there. Commissioner Duren noticed a bucket loader on the property which has been there for a week or so. The cars would be enforced by the Police Department. Chairman DiPace stated they are towing cars and dropping them off at this site. Commissioner Duren asked if Steve viewed this site because it is right up against the brook. Mr. Giner stated he did and he will ask him to put something in writing. Mr. Giner stated this area is zoned I-1. Further discussion followed on what was located on the site previously.
Commissioner Ladd reported there is a house trailer on Enfield Street that is sitting out in front of the house. Mr. Giner stated there was a death and they are starting to clean up the site. Chairman DiPace noted the trailer has been there for three to four weeks. Mr. Giner will have the Zoning Enforcement Officer review this.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Frank Dubish, 42 O’Hear Avenue discussed 40 O’Hear Avenue. Chairman DiPace requested that in the future Mr. Dubish put any future complaints in writing in order to have a record of what is occurring.
Mr. Dubish further discussed 40 O’Hear Avenue which is running a business in a residential area. Following the recent snow storm on February 15, a bob cat was on the property at 6:30 a.m. to remove snow. Mr. Dubish did call the police and complained about the early hour this noise was occurring. After the police came, the owner hooked up a trailer and parked it outside. Mr. Dubish stated this is continual and there has to be some way to notify the owner that he cannot have this equipment on the property. The problem is noise at 6:00 a.m. and the fact that this business being run at 40 O’Hear Avenue does not care. Mr. Dubish stated his wife made a call to the town and asked someone to come out to see what was going on. However, he doesn’t know if anyone came.
Chairman DiPace asked if this equipment can be used prior to 7:00 a.m. Mr. Giner will have to check the specifics of the noise ordinance. Mr. Dubish had a concern about someone running construction equipment for four to five hours on a lot that is only 100’ wide by 250’ deep. Mr. Dubish stated the reason for this is the lot is so developed that the owner has to move the snow. Mr. Dubish also mentioned the portable garage which is on the property and the fact that someone was supposed to look into it. Mr. Giner reported Mr. Bickley did look into it. There was a previous one that was there and this was a new one. The owner was going to trade it for the one already there.
Commissioner Hickey asked if there is any reason why this has not been put in writing. Mr. Dubish stated he can do so. Chairman DiPace asked that Mr. Dubish put it in writing and send it to the Planning Office with copies to the Commission and the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Regarding what is to be put in writing, the Commission stated the specific complaint with the dates and times.
Mr. Dubish stated his frustration began in 1995 when this all started. He noted nothing has ever been done. He stated it has been put in writing a few times over the years. Mr. Dubish had a question if the large garage on the property is legal. He noted when someone is going to come and inspect the property, all the equipment disappears and two to three days later it returns. Chairman DiPace asked if all the equipment is still there. Mr. Dubish stated it is parked in the garage. Mr. Dubish presented pictures to Mr. Giner which show a truck plowing the street. What happens when this occurs is the town trucks go by and see part of the street is plowed and they just keep on going. Mr. Dubish has to call the town to plow the street.
Chairman DiPace stated if something is put in writing and the Zoning Enforcement Officer makes a determination, there is an avenue to appeal the determination through the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Reg Leonard, 42 Fairfield Road, commended this Commission for taking the lead role enabling the town to change its statutes as to the amount of fines for serious violations where no permits were obtained, no bonds were posted and there was unauthorized access to town properties in regard to roads, storm water and sewer lines. Upon the Commission’s recommendations, the Town Manager and the Town Council acted. Mr. Leonard also commended the Commission for having the foresight to review their own regulations. He urged the Commission to seriously consider what he handed to Mr. Giner a month or so ago. He was requested by the Chairman to have copies included in the meeting packet as far as state mandates to municipalities on storm water runoff and regulations to insure that subdivision developers adhere to such rules. This is not only to protect the town but to protect the homeowners and the public. Storm water runoff is a serious problem and adhering to state and town regulations can do nothing but improve the problems people have had as homeowners.
Chairman DiPace suggested discussing storm water in April. Mr. Giner stated he has been exploring what other towns are doing. Chairman DiPace would also like to see the Commission set some priorities on what they want to accomplish this year. He asked that this be on the agenda under Other Business at the April 5, 2007 meeting. Some discussion followed on the Plan of Conservation and Development which is scheduled to be revised beginning in 2008.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of a letter from Halloren and Sage regarding the Holy Cross informal discussion for establishing elderly housing on property located on Enfield Street, a summary of zoning referrals from the Capitol Region Council of Governments and the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Notice of Action dated February 13, 2007.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. 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. (May be kept open until 4/5/07 Meeting.)
Attorney Richard Cottone and Solomon Rosemond appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Attorney Cottone stated Mr. Rosemond purchased 42 Asnuntuck Street in March, 2006. In 1976, when the regulations of the town were different, the then owner who also was the seller to Mr. Rosemond last year, came before the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals. The reason was to convert two commercial units on the first floor of this building to residential. The procedure then was a variance to do that conversion. He was represented by counsel and the ZBA determined that person did not show a hardship and his application was denied. Attorney Cottone stated while the records are sketchy, Mr. Giner and he and other town officials are of the opinion that that matter was appealed to the Superior Court and the town prevailed in that no hardship was ever proven.
Attorney Cottone stated somewhere between the defeat in court and when Mr. Rosemond purchased the property in March, 2006, activity took place on this property. Specifically, the two units on the first floor that are approved for commercial use were converted to residential use. They have learned that the approvals for this building currently are two commercial uses on the first floor and two residential uses on the second floor. Mr. Rosemond had an attorney that searches the title, goes to a lender, has an appraiser and looks through town records. Mr. Rosemond also presented himself to Engineering and Zoning Enforcement to look through files and determined that what he saw in this building was what was approved. What he saw was five units, two residential units on the first floor and three residential units on the second floor. Attorney Cottone noted apparently what happened is the former owner was of the opinion because he owned the property, he could do whatever he wanted to despite what the Zoning Board of Appeals and Superior Court ruled.
Attorney Cottone stated Mr. Rosemond purchased this property thinking it was a legal five-family unit. A tenant for some reason went to the Fire Marshal for potential code violations and then Mr. Rosemond was made aware of the problem. He learned that what he thought was a five-family dwelling is two residential units on the second floor and two commercial units on the first floor. He had already started to do extensive rehabilitation of the building. Mr. Rosemond owns five other buildings in Thompsonville and he has invested in Thompsonville for more than five years. He has spent on his other properties more than $100,000. Attorney Cottone has driven by all of them and he noted the pride of ownership in his properties is evident.
Attorney Cottone stated this property is not the most attractive from the outside and part of his budget to rehabilitate this property dealt with making the outside facade more attractive. So far Mr. Rosemond put $11,000 into the building and stopped when he got a cease and desist from Mr. Bickley.
Attorney Cottone stated they have submitted an application but not a site plan. Mr. Rosemond would like an approval to convert the two units on the first floor to residential. He’s also going to take away the three units that are on the second floor and make them two because that is what it was approved for. Mr. Rosemond is anticipating an investment to make this a legal four-family building of about $80,000. This includes the improvements to the exterior.
Attorney Cottone stated they are located in the Thompsonville Village Center and it was mandatory that they go before the Enfield Revitalization and Strategy Committee. They appeared before them on January 25, 2007. On Monday of this week was the first time that Attorney Cottone saw their written decision. His presentation to them took approximately twenty minutes. The Committee then went into, incorrectly, an executive session. When the meeting resumed, someone moved to deny the application and it was voted upon. Their recommendation was they not be allowed to do this. No reason was given. Attorney Cottone noted the Revitalization Committee is concerned that there will be a train station down there soon and this retail business store front business is important to maintain. Attorney Cottone has talked to a number of real estate agents and every one of them told him a business would not be successful at this location. Chairman DiPace agreed with this decision because of the location of this building and the changed character of this neighborhood. Attorney Cottone stated the last time a commercial business was thriving in this location was in the early 1970’s.
Attorney Cottone stated if you look at the street now, every single property is a multi-family home except for the old Allen Hotel which has been vacant for ten or more years. Attorney Cottone noted they are not in the core area of the Thompsonville Village Center District but they are a block and a half from it.
Chairman DiPace asked if any pictures are available and Attorney Cottone stated none are available at this time. Attorney Cottone stated they were more concerned with the expense Mr. Rosemond has to make inside the building. There are three units on the second floor that he has to make into two no matter what happens. Regarding the two on the first floor, one of the units is in complete disrepair. Since then, Mr. Rosemond has decided to take on more of the job himself and to keep within the budget, there is now some money for the exterior.
Commissioner Duren asked if the research indicated any building permits were issued for this building. Attorney Cottone stated they found no permits. Commissioner Duren is concerned about fire inspection. Attorney Cottone stated the prior owner converted the commercial uses on the first floor to two residential units and the two residential units upstairs, he made into three with no building or fire inspection. Mr. Rosemond has never appeared before this Commission or had any violations on any of his other properties.
Commissioner Duren stated his concern is approving something the Fire Marshal may have a problem with. Chairman DiPace stated for a three-family home or greater the Fire Marshal has jurisdiction and he can do all the inspections. Mr. Giner stated Mr. Rosemond will have to get permits and part of that permit process will be an inspection.
Mr. Rosemond discussed the work he has done prior to receiving the cease and desist order for his property which included primarily interior work.
In response to a question from Commissioner Hickey, Attorney Cottone stated he did not represent Mr. Rosemond at the time of the purchase. Attorney Cottone distributed a memo to the Commission noting the property was designated a four-family in April, 2005.
Regarding the title search revealing some inconsistency, Attorney Cottone stated this is beyond the title search. He is surprised the real estate appraiser didn’t come up with something because he would have physically seen five units and the building is listed on the assessor’s street card as a four-family building. Attorney Cottone responded to Commission questions and stated this sounds like a misrepresentation by the seller.
Attorney Cottone stated if Mr. Rosemond has to restore this building to two residential upstairs and two commercial downstairs, the income from this property will not support it assuming it will be a struggle to have two commercial tenants. Regarding the argument about the train station, this building is about as far away from the train station as it can be and still be on Asnuntuck Street.
Commissioner Duren agreed it is too far out of the Thompsonville District to be viable as a business.
Commissioner Hickey stated he is concerned to see situations like this because something went awry.
Attorney Cottone stated Mr. Rosemond can make it with four units and this is why they didn’t apply for a variance first. Chairman DiPace stated it would be a different story if this building was located on the corner of Asnuntuck and Pearl Street because there is through traffic.
Chairman DiPace assured Commissioner Duren that fire inspections will take place on this property and the property will be made safer.
Chairman DiPace noted the Enfield Revitalization and Strategy Committee decision is advisory only. Commissioner Duren disagreed with their decision because the building is too far down.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if any of the units are currently rented. Mr. Rosemond stated there are three units upstairs that are rented. He will give the upstairs tenant the option of relocating downstairs. Mr. Rosemond stated he didn’t know what he could do and he left the property the way it was. It has been operating as a five family for at least twenty-five years. He has tenants in there now that have been there for sixteen years.
Chairman DiPace opened this public hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission has his memo regarding approval. He added Mr. Siana has owned this property for twenty-five years and certainly misrepresented the property. He had met with Mr. Siana in the last ten years and he had asked about converting the building.
Chairman DiPace stated it is nice to see that someone is fixing up some of these properties that have not been attended to. It is a positive direction for Thompsonville. It is good to see Mr. Rosemond is here to make it legal and do it properly.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve PH#2591 to allow for conversion of a first floor commercial space into two residential units at 42 Asnuntuck Street, zoned TVCZ, Map 24, Lots 32 and 33, Solomon Rosemond, Applicant/Owner, subject to conformance with the hearing record and the following conditions:
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
1. 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.
2. Final Fire Marshal approval shall be obtained.
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. The total number of apartment units in the building is limited to four (4).
5. 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.
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. Any necessary permits for the construction or operation of the use as approved must be obtained by March 1, 2008 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
Chairman DiPace reiterated it is nice to see Mr. Rosemond doing this. He noted there are only a handful of people doing this in Thompsonville and, hopefully, ten or twenty years down the road there will be more people doing improvements.
Commissioner Duren stated in this particular section there has not been that much improvement and this is a nice start.
Commissioner Lefakis stated making this a four-family home is probably the best use for this building.
Commissioner Lefakis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to waive the site plan for PH#2591. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
The main motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Lefakis voting.
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)
Commissioners Duren and Lefakis did not participate in this hearing because they were not present at the public hearings.
Commissioner Cooper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, that in response to The Shaker Pines Lake Association’s filing and intervention under 22a-19, the Commission finds, based upon the evidence presented, that the intervenor’s claim does meet the threshold of CGS Section 22a-19 which is that the proposed activities are “reasonably likely to cause the pollution, impairment or destruction of the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the State…”
Chairman DiPace read through the meeting material and attended all hearings but one. His opinion was the intervenor did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was definitely damage that was going to be done. While it is not known what actually will happen, Chairman DiPace stated he cannot vote in favor of the intervenor.
Commissioner Cooper stated he believes the intervenor met the criteria and he will support the motion.
Commissioner Hickey stated his opinion is that much of the intervenor’s concerns were placing a burden upon this Commission as opposed to the state DEP relative to environmental issues that were the primary factor in their intervention. Commissioner Hickey thought that the concerns the intervenor expressed are the purview more of the DEP than this Commission.
Commissioner Jones agreed. During the hearings, he disagreed that the Commission shouldn’t have had the information that would go to DEP and he still believes that and puts his trust in DEP. Commissioner Jones cannot support the intervenor’s status.
In response to a question from Commissioner Sarno, Mr. Giner stated seven voting members of the Commission are needed.
The motion was denied by a 1 – 6 – 0 vote. Commissioner Cooper voted in favor; Commissioners DiPace, Duren, Hickey, Jones, Weseliza, and Sarno voted nay.
Chairman DiPace noted in response to The Shaker Pines Lake Association’s filing and intervention under 22a-19, the Commission finds, based upon the evidence presented, that the intervenor’s claim does not meet the threshold of CGS Section 22a-19 which is that the proposed activities are “reasonably likely to cause the pollution, impairment or destruction of the public trust in the air, water or other natural resources of the State...”
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve the request for waiver of the sidewalk requirements of Section 5f. of the Town of Enfield Subdivision regulations revised to 02-12-02, for the provision of sidewalks on Westgate Drive from Sta 35 + 20 to Sta 42.00.
Commissioner Jones stated he will be voting against the waiver for the sidewalks. In the hearings he expressed his concern. He does think this will be a major thoroughfare for walking and he has major concerns for health and safety reasons in this area. He thought it was too much of a corner not to have a sidewalk.
Commissioner Hickey stated he normally is a staunch opponent of sidewalk waivers. However, in this particular case, he thought the applicant gave ample support as to why they were seeking the sidewalk waivers. He sees no reason not to vote in favor of the waiver for the sidewalks particularly because there will be extensive sidewalks throughout the area. It is only specific areas where there are wetlands concerns that they are requesting this waiver.
Commissioners Sarno and Ladd were also in favor of the waiver.
The motion was approved by a 6 – 1 – 0 vote. Commissioners DiPace, Cooper, Duren, Hickey, Weseliza, and Sarno, Alternate, voted in favor. Commissioner Jones voted nay.
The reasons for approval is the waiver will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent property; it will not have a significant adverse effect on public health and safety; there is no conflict with the Plan of Development; the waiver is consistent with the development pattern of other land in the area; and it is compatible with the site’s natural features.
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve the request for a waiver of the snow shelf requirements of Section 5.b.9 of the Town of Enfield Subdivision regulations revised to 02-12-02, at the following locations only:
* Sta 37 + 40 Westgate Drive – reduce snow shelf to five feet on both sides
* Sta 11 + 75 Stonegate Drive – reduce snow shelf to 1 foot on the left and to 7 feet on right sides (Bridge Crossing)
* Sta 20 + 60 Stonegate Drive – reduce snow shelf to 5 feet on the right side of the road.
Commissioner Ladd stated he would be against this waiver. He noted what has occurred in the last couple of weeks and felt there was hardly any place to put the snow now without reducing snow shelves in this area.
Chairman DiPace noted this has not been a normal winter and in a normal winter the conditions would be a lot worse. Reducing the snow shelves five feet on both sides will create a tight situation.
Commissioner Hickey felt the applicant made a reasonable explanation as to why this waiver should be granted. He would be in favor of it.
Commissioner Jones stated he will be voting against the waiver because he has public safety concerns especially with the amount of snow during the winter months.
The motion was denied by a 1 – 6 – 0 vote. Commissioner Hickey voted in favor; Commissioners DiPace, Cooper, Duren, Jones, Weseliza and Sarno, Alternate, voted nay.
The reasons for denial are the waiver will have a significant adverse effect on adjacent property; it will have a significant adverse effect on public health and safety; there is a conflict with the Plan of Development; the waiver is not consistent with the development pattern of other land in the area; and it is not compatible with the site’s natural features.
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve the request for a waiver of the requirements of Section 5.b.9 of the Town of Enfield Subdivision regulations revised to 02-12-02 with respect to the type of curbing to allow “Cape Cod” curbing as an alternate to the standard requirements.
Commissioner Jones stated he prefers the cape cod curbing because of its aesthetics in the neighborhood. Also, it will allow wildlife to get through more easily. Commissioners Hickey and Ladd agreed with these comments.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reasons for approval are the Commission finds that the alternate “Cape Cod” style of curbing is a result of environmental concerns and will mitigate the impacts that the proposed roadways may have on wildlife in the project area and that the substitution of such curbing will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent property; it will not have a significant adverse effect on public health and safety; there is no conflict with the Plan of Development; the waiver is consistent with the development pattern of other land in the area; and it is compatible with the site’s natural features.
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve the request for a waiver of the requirements of Section 5.b.9 of the Town of Enfield Subdivision regulations revised to 02-12-02 with respect to the elimination of curbing along portions of Clay Hill Lane as designated on the plans.
Commissioner Jones would submit the same reasons for this waiver as for the last one.
Commissioner Sarno is in favor of the waiver in the limited area.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reasons for approval are the Commission finds that the elimination of curbing within this limited area is an environmentally sensitive solution for mitigating the potential impacts of storm water runoff and is consistent with the best management practices of the 2004 CT DEP Storm water Quality Management Design Manual; the Commission further finds that the waiver will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent property; it will not have a significant adverse effect on public health and safety; there is no conflict with the Plan of Development; the waiver is consistent with the development pattern of other land in the area; and it is compatible with the site’s natural features.
Commissioner Cooper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve the request for a waiver of the cul-de-sac length requirements of Section 5.b.3 of the Town of Enfield Subdivision regulations revised to 02-12-02 to allow Stonegate Drive to be 1, 163’ in length.
Commissioner Ladd stated he has a problem with this waiver. The Commission just revised the cul de sac length ordinance because of a lot of problems with safety. He has a problem with increasing the length one hundred percent due to public safety. He felt the length of this cul de sac would not handle emergency vehicles.
Chairman DiPace stated what bothers him is the amount of time an ambulance would take to get to the site. He discussed the path ambulances would take down North Maple Street, to Mayfield Drive and to the site. Getting to the location with normal traffic will take almost four minutes because it is a difficult spot to access. He doesn’t think this would be beneficial to the town to allow such a cul de sac.
The motion was denied by a 0 – 7 – 0 vote.
The reasons for denial are the waiver will have a significant adverse effect on adjacent property; it will have a significant adverse effect on public health and safety; there is a conflict with the Plan of Development; the waiver is not consistent with the development pattern of other land in the area.
Commissioner Cooper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve the request for a waiver of the cul-de-sac length requirements of Section 5.b.3 of the Town of Enfield Subdivision regulations revised to 02-12-02 to allow Shady Rise to be 1,074’ in length.
Chairman DiPace stated he would have the same reasons for this as he outlined in the last waiver request.
The motion was denied by a 0 – 7 – 0 vote.
The reasons for denial are the waiver will have a significant adverse effect on adjacent property; it will have a significant adverse effect on public health and safety; there is a conflict with the Plan of Development; the waiver is not consistent with the development pattern of other land in the area; and it is not compatible with the site’s natural features.
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve the request for a waiver of the cul-de-sac length requirements of Section 5.b.3.b of the Town of Enfield Subdivision regulations revised to 02-12-02 to allow Sunny Wood Lane to be 723’ in length.
Chairman DiPace stated while this request is more reasonable, it is over one quarter of a mile from North Maple Street to the start of this project. In his opinion these cul de sacs should not exceed the 600’ limitation.
Commissioner Hickey stated this is an ongoing problem on a lot of these subdivision applications with excessive cul de sac lengths and he agrees with Chairman DiPace.
The motion was denied by a 0 – 7 – 0 vote.
The reasons for denial are the waiver will have a significant adverse effect on adjacent property; it will have a significant adverse effect on public health and safety; there is a conflict with the Plan of Development; the waiver is not consistent with the development pattern of other land in the area; and it is not compatible with the site’s natural features.
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to approve Public Hearing #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, subject to conformance with the referenced plans, as may be required to be amended by this motion, and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Stonegate Estates Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Conn. 73 Unit Senior Residential Development” Cover Sheet and Index to Sheets, Sheet 1 of 34, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC and Aeschliman Land Surveying, PC., dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Overall Layout Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 2 of 34, Scale: 1” = 100’, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Boundary Map Stonegate Estates Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Conn.” Sheet 3 of 34, Scale: 1”=200’, by Aeschliman Land Surveying, PC., dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Site Analysis/Soils Plan Stonegate Estates Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Conn.” Sheet 4 of 34, Scale: 1”=200’, by Aeschliman Land Surveying, PC., dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Wetlands/Critical Habitat Plan Stonegate Estates Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Conn.” Sheet 5 of 34, Scale: 1”=200’, by Aeschliman Land Surveying, PC., dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Site Development Plan And Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 6 of 34, Scale: 1” = 40’, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Site Development Plan And Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 7 of 34, Scale: 1” = 40’, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Site Development Plan And Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 8 of 34, Scale: 1” = 40’, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Site Development Plan And Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 9 of 34, Scale: 1” = 40’, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Site Development Plan And Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 10 of 34, Scale: 1” = 40’, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Stonegate Drive Plan & Profile Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 11 of 34, Scale: “As Noted”, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Stonegate Drive Plan & Profile Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 12 of 34, Scale: “As Noted”, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Westgate Drive Plan & Profile Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 13 of 34, Scale: “As Noted”, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Stonegate Drive Plan & Profile Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 14 of 34, Scale: “As Noted”, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Westgate Drive & Sanitary Sewer to West Shore Drive Plan & Profile Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 15 of 34, Scale: “As Noted”, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Clay Hill Lane & Sunny Woods Lane Plan & Profile Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 16 of 34, Scale: “As Noted”, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Shady Rise Lane Plan & Profile Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 17 of 34, Scale: “As Noted”, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Landscape Plan Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 18 of 34, Scale: 1” = 40’, by Raymond Jefferson, Landscape Architect, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Landscape Plan Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 19 of 34, Scale: 1” = 40’, by Raymond Jefferson, Landscape Architect, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Landscape Plan Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 20 of 34, Scale: 1” = 40’, by Raymond Jefferson, Landscape Architect, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Landscape Plan Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 21 of 34, Scale: 1” = 40’, by Raymond Jefferson, Landscape Architect, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Landscape Plan Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 22 of 34, Scale: 1” = 40’, by Raymond Jefferson, Landscape Architect, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Landscape Notes & Details Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 23 of 34, Scale: “None”, by Raymond Jefferson, Landscape Architect, dated 9-9-05 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Erosion & Sedimentation Control Phasing Map Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 24 of 34, Scale: 1” = 100’, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 25 of 34, Scale: 1” = 40’, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 26 of 34, Scale: 1” = 40’, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 27 of 34, Scale: 1” = 40’, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 28 of 34, Scale: 1” = 40’, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 29 of 34, Scale: 1” = 40’, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Erosion & Sedimentation Control Notes & Details Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 30 of 34, Scale: “None”, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Storm Drainage Details Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 31 of 34, Scale: “None”, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“General Notes & Details Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 32 of 34, Scale: “None”, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“General Notes & Details Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 33 of 34, Scale: “None”, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“Conditions of Approval Stonegate Prepared for Stonegate Associates Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 34 of 34, Scale: “None”, by Wentworth Civil Engineers, LLC, dated 2-14-06 and revised to 10-12-06.
“New Residence for Stonegate Estates Elm 2” Sheet Title: “Elevation”, Sheet Number: 1 of 3, Scale: ¼”= 1’-0”, by Stonegate Estates, LLC., dated November 7, 2005.
“New Residence for Stonegate Estates Elm 2” Sheet Title: “First Floor Plan”, Sheet Number: 2 of 3, Scale: ¼”= 1’-0”, by Stonegate Estates, LLC., dated November 7, 2005.
“New Residence for Stonegate Estates Elm 2” Sheet Title: “Second Floor Plan”, Sheet Number: 3 of 3, Scale: ¼”= 1’-0”, by Stonegate Estates, LLC., dated November 7, 2005.
“New Residence for Stonegate Estates Oak” Sheet Title: “Elevations”, Sheet Number: 1 of 2, Scale: ¼”= 1’-0”, by Stonegate Estates, LLC., dated November 7, 2005.
“New Residence for Stonegate Estates Oak” Sheet Title: “First Floor Plan”, Sheet Number: 2 of 2, Scale: ¼”= 1’-0”, by Stonegate Estates, LLC., dated November 7, 2005.
“New Residence for Stonegate Estates Sunrooms” Sheet Title: “Elevations”, Sheet Number: 1 of 2, Scale: ¼”= 1’-0”, by Stonegate Estates, LLC., dated November 7, 2005.
“New Residence for Stonegate Estates Sunrooms” Sheet Title: “Plans”, Sheet Number: 1 of 2, Scale: ¼”= 1’-0”, by Stonegate Estates, LLC., dated November 7, 2005.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Mylars and Certificate:
1. All mylars submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
2. A finalized Management Plan based on the one presented at the Public Hearing shall be offered for staff review and approval. Any subsequent changes to the terms of the Management Plan shall require the Commission's approval as an amendment to the approved Special Permit.
3. The Management Plan submitted shall contain clear language referencing the stormwater management plan and the obligations of the Homeowner’s Association to inspect and maintain all elements of the plan on a regular basis based on Best Management Practices.
4. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this motion shall be incorporated into the final mylars submitted for signature.
5. A general note shall be placed on the plans stating that snow removal from hydrants must be done immediately after any snow storm and that hydrants must not be covered by snow plowed from roadways during snow cleanup.
6. The Public Hearing file number “PH 2573” shall be displayed prominently on all final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
7. One set of final 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. The signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk prior to the Special Permit becoming effective. The applicant shall also submit to the Planning Director, final plans as approved by the Commission in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
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. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
10. An Engineering bond for each phase, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits for that phase.
11. A Separate Erosion and Sediment Control Bond for each phase shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits for that phase in the form of a passbook, pledged to the Town, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
12. A Landscaping bond for each phase, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits for that phase.
13. Proof of a Storm Water Discharge Permit from the State DEP shall be provided.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
14. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
15. Town approved and police enforceable fire lane signs must be installed on all roads of the development as directed by the Fire Marshall.
16. All street signs and traffic safety signage shall be installed prior to the issuance of the any certificates of zoning compliance.
General Conditions:
17. 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.
18. This project is also subject to Conditions of Approval imposed by the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency.
19. This project is approved, and shall be maintained, as a Senior Residential Development, subject to the requirements and limitations of Section 4.30.19 of the Zoning Regulations.
20. 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.
21. A building permit for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained by within a year of the effective date of this approval or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
22. This project shall be completed by February 15, 2012 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
23. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
Commissioner Hickey stated having sat through the public hearings and read the volumes of material regarding this application he is not against the application and the development of the property. He again would defer to the DEP that would oversee any development of this property to see that it is environmentally protected. However, in view of the concerns the Commission expressed about the cul de sac length, he is unable to vote in favor of this application.
Chairman DiPace stated that if any of the waivers failed, it is impossible to approve this application because it does not meet the requirements. There is no way to decrease the cul de sacs without making drastic changes to the plans. Chairman DiPace felt the length of cul de sacs would not be compatible with the immediate neighborhood.
The motion was denied by a 0 – 7 – 0 vote with Alternate Sarno voting.
The reason for denial is Section 4.30.19g which states that all streets shall be constructed to the standards of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Enfield unless a waiver is granted in the same manner as provided for in the Subdivision Regulations. Both the snow shelves and the cul de sac lengths fail to meet those.
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, for a recess. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission recessed at 9:10 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 9:20 p.m.
BOND RELEASE
a. PH#2323 – Request for release of Landscape Bond in the amount of $4,200 for street trees for 7 frontage lots for Shaker Heights Subdivision – Taylor Road.
This bond release was tabled.
NEW BUSINESS
a. Demonstration of Town GIS System
b. Discussion on Regulations
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Applications to be Accepted
The following applications were accepted by the Commission:
PH#2593 – Change in previously approved Special Use Permit to increase the number of motor vehicles being sold or repaired on the premises to forty (40) on property located at 534 Hazard Avenue, zoned Business General (BG), Map 101, Lot 206, David R. Sarno, Applicant; Keith Prior and Martin Sullivan, Owners. (Already scheduled for March 15, 2007 Hearing.)
PH#2594 – Resubdivision application for 4 lots (one existing frontage lot plus one proposed frontage lot and two rear lots) at 48 Steele Road, zoned R-33, Map 52, Lot 55 and Map 53, Lot 1, Tim Fortune, Applicant; Tina Smith, Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for April 5, 2007.
PH#2595 – Special Use Permit for rear lot (#3) on resubdivision application PH#2594 on property located south of 48 Steele Road, zoned R-33, Map 52, Lot 55, Tim Fortune, Applicant; Tina Smith, Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for April 5, 2007.
PH#2596 – Special Use Permit for rear lot (#4) on resubdivision application PH#2594 on property located south of 48 Steele Road, zoned R-33, Map 52, Lot 55, Tim Fortune, Applicant; Tina Smith, Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for April 5, 2007.
SPR#1390 – Site Plan Review for replacement of playground equipment at Henry Barnard Elementary School, 27 Shaker Road, zoned R-44, Map 64, Lot 61, Enfield Public Schools, Applicant; Town of Enfield, Owner.
The Commission directed Jose Giner to handle this item administratively.
SPR#1391 – Site Plan Review for replacement of playground equipment at Harriet Beecher Stowe Elementary School, 117 Post Office Road, zoned R-33, Map 54, Lot 6, Enfield Public Schools, Applicant; Town of Enfield, Owner.
The Commission directed Jose Giner to handle this item administratively.
SPR#1392 – Site Plan Review for replacement of playground equipment at Edgar H. Parkman Elementary School, 167 Weymouth Road, zoned R-33, Map 52, Lot 60, Enfield Public Schools, Applicant; Town of Enfield, Owner.
The Commission directed Jose Giner to handle this item administratively.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
jmr Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission |