|
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
APRIL 19, 2007
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, April 19, 2007 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Elizabeth Ballard
Jeffrey Cooper
Charles Duren
James Hickey, Jr.
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
Charles Ladd, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
3. Staff Reports
a. Report on the proposed Capital Improvement Program by the Town Manager
Town Manager Matthew Coppler reviewed the recommended Capital Improvement Projects that are a part of the proposed 2007-2008 Annual Operating and Capital Budget that recently was submitted to the Town Council. The items include the following: Communications - $180,000; Architectural and Engineering - $75,000; Municipal Facilities - $50,000; Old Town Hall - $150,000; Angelo Lamagna Activity Center Improvements - $100,000; JFK Storm Drainage - $275,000; Fletcher Road Improvements - $90,000; Town Road Paving - $800,000; Future Town Road Paving - $150,000; Boiler EPS - $200,000; Public Safety Vehicles - $232,500.
Questions from the Commission followed Mr. Coppler’s presentation. Chairman DiPace asked about the problems on Somers Road and he noted he doesn’t see anything allocated for this drainage problem during the next fiscal year. Chairman DiPace saw a need to do something in a timely manner to not lose the road. Town Manager Coppler stated there has been some staff activity related to looking at that area. The first question he asked was prior to the development, what was the status of that roadway. Mr. Coppler noted there was a drainage problem to begin with and if you don’t correct the initial drainage issue, any more water that is ejected into the stream will cause additional problems. Mr. Coppler stated there is a commitment from staff to put together a plan to address this issue. He noted at the same time there is a secondary issue with the sanitary sewer system in the area. The two will probably have to go hand in hand. Mr. Coppler stated the projects before the Commission tonight do not preclude the town from coming forward with a plan in the near term or longer term to address Somers Road. Staff has to prepare the necessary information for Mr. Coppler to present it to the Town Council. Mr. Coppler stated there are a lot of drainage issues within the town and it is his desire to put together a strategy to address all of them.
Commissioner Cooper led some discussion on the need to improve Weymouth Road. Mr. Coppler stated Weymouth Road is part of Roads 2005 program. There is a commitment to address this road work during the upcoming construction season.
Chairman DiPace questioned the inclusion of Public Safety Vehicles in the Capital Improvement budget. Mr. Coppler stated last year was the first year these vehicles were taken from the operational budget and put in capital improvements.
Commissioner Ladd noted on Somers Road part of the problem is the paving of the road has raised the road higher than the yards. He asked if it would be possible to run two culverts through so that it goes back to its natural drainage. He further noted the health issues involved with the septic systems. Mr. Coppler stated that is one of the solutions brought forward. He saw a need to look at some immediate fixes that will help ease some of the problems but there also has to be a long-term solution.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve the 8-24 Capital Improvement Projects as presented. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported Correspondence includes the following: a memo from Wayne Bickley regarding 350 North Maple Street; a cease and desist from Wayne Bickley to Raffia Farm, Inc. dated April 11, 2007; the Capitol Region Council of Governments summary of zoning, subdivision and POCD referrals; and a letter from the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Mr. Giner stated the last letter involves a plan to widen the path on the bridge over the Connecticut River. Correspondence also includes an Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Notice of Action dated April 3, 2007.
COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Giner brought up the Connecticut Land Use Academy being sponsored by CRCOG. It is a new program that the Connecticut Center for Land Use, Education and Research at the University of Connecticut is sponsoring. It is scheduled for three nights and the fee is $20. Mr. Giner asked that any Commissioner that is interested in attending should contact his office.
Mr. Giner noted receipt of a letter from Frank and Suzanne Dubish, 42 O‘Hear Avenue with some pictures regarding 40 O’Hear Avenue. Mr. Giner reported that they had addressed the issue of using a bobcat for landscaping in previous years. Commissioner Duren stated the point is the equipment that is being kept on the property. Chairman DiPace asked that Mr. Giner look into this for the Commission.
Commissioner Cooper brought up a mobile billboard he witnessed at the King Street Mobil Station yesterday. This is something not allowed by the ordinance. It was not advertising the gas station but a place that recently opened in Manchester. Mr. Giner stated he received previous complaints about this mobile billboard that was being moved throughout the town. If it does get parked on a property, Mr. Giner can talk to the property owner regarding this off-premises advertising billboard. Mr. Giner discussed how he attempted to follow this vehicle.
Commissioner Ballard would like Mr. Giner to remind Mr. Bickley about the rusty trailer on the former Hurley property. Chairman DiPace asked that he issue a cease and desist order. The rusty trailer is located in front of the front building line and it is not allowed to be there. It has been on the property for over a month and it is time to take action. Chairman DiPace would also like Mr. Giner to notify the Police Department who can take action under the blight ordinance.
Commissioner Duren brought up the Moody and Elm Street area where a bucket loader is still there. Mr. Giner stated Mr. Bickley has cited this property for some issues with storing cars but was not sure if the bucket loader was an issue.
Commissioner Ladd reported he received a complaint regarding 47 Oak Street where someone is converting a truck box into a temporary garage for a motorcycle.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2598 – Petition for a zone change from Business Professional (BP) and Residential-44 to Business Local (BL) and R-44 at 88 Hazard Avenue and 17 Middle Road, Map 56, Lots 9 and 11, Galaxy Development Group LLC, Applicant/Poway Associates and Clementine Harris, Mary Witson and Elizabeth Mobley, Owners.
Chairman DiPace noted Alternates Kathleen Sarno and Charles Ladd will be participating in this hearing.
Attorney Susan Hays, Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, 1 State Street, Hartford, Connecticut, appeared before the Commission on behalf of the Galaxy Development Group LLC. They are seeking a zone change from Business Professional to Business Local. Attorney Hays stated they were before the Commission several months ago seeking a similar but not the same zone change. At that time, there had been some comments from Commission members that there were issues with the fact that the zone change came all the way over to Middle Road and that that would allow access from Middle Road into the site. There were concerns with respect to the traffic impact on Middle Road by having an entrance there.
Attorney Hays stated they went back and looked at the site and looked at various potential layouts for the site and what they could do without bringing the zone change all the way to Middle Road. Attorney Hays presented a map to the Commission showing the new proposed zone change area and she explained the various areas to the Commission. They went through several scenarios for the property but because of the specific requirements with respect to the buffers required between residential property and commercial property, the fact that the zone line splits the property, the fact that there are wetlands on the site that inhibit the development, they did have to adjust the zoning lines. They have taken some property and turned it into residential and have left the entire frontage along Middle Road as residentially zoned.
Attorney Hays presented an example of what could be located on the site with the zone change. She introduced Patrick Doherty who discussed the technical items and whether or not there is any differential impact between one zone and the other with respect to the potential development.
Patrick Doherty, a professional engineer for the project, stated they have put together a site plan showing potential development and utilizing the zone change. The gray line shown on the plan is where the new zone line would be. The reason why they also included some of the residential area is so that they could keep the required buffers under the zoning ordinance away from the developed property. The example shows a 16,000 square foot retail building with 85 parking spaces with a full access driveway on to Hazard Avenue. The required buffer is 35’ from commercial development to residentially zoned land. Even though the zone line is in one area, the edge of the pavement is at least 35’ away. They have left the entire frontage of Middle Road in its natural state which is currently wooded. The bottom portion of the plan shows the residential area and they would further buffer the existing properties by subdividing a portion of the lot and creating a single residential lot on the south part of the property.
Mr. Doherty stated regarding the curb cut on to Hazard Avenue, at the last meeting they had presented a site plan which would have changed the zone and allowed a curb cut on to Middle Road. Since that time, they had an informal meeting with the DOT to review some aerial photos and consider whether a development of this size would be able to get left turns out of the site. They have not done a traffic impact study but it looks like it is feasible to get a full access driveway on to Hazard Avenue. This is why they are no longer pursuing a driveway cut on to Middle Road.
Mr. Doherty reviewed the constraints of the property on the site plan and indicated the wetland areas on the west, northeast and southeast. They would be looking to develop the middle portion of the property. The wetland closest to Middle Road would be left in its natural state. In the proposed configuration, the entire frontage would not only have a 35’ buffer but would have the existing vegetation left in place.
Commissioner Duren asked if they have left any room for detention ponds on the site. Mr. Doherty stated this is not fully engineered but this is a five and a half acre site. There are adequate green spaces in the area and they would be able to do some bio-filtration or detention with the areas that are left without needing to clear the vegetation along Middle Road.
Attorney Hays distributed aerial photographs to show what the property is like now and the existing vegetation. All of the vegetation shown is what would remain unless the person who owns the residential lot has other desires.
Attorney Hays brought up the issue of whether or not changing the zone from Business Professional to Business Local would have any kind of adverse impacts on the traffic in the area. Mr. Doherty addressed this question and stated Business Professional is predominantly office type uses, laboratories, health care centers, banks and other financial institutions. Taking a look at it as office space versus what they would like to do or what Business Local would allow, they have looked at generic generation rates on traffic. Comparing a 16,000 square foot retail development, this would also support 25,000 to 30,000 square feet of office space in a two-story building. Trip generation would be pretty equal. The big difference would be when traffic occurs on the roadway. With retail, there would not be any conflicts with the morning peak but you would be looking at a p.m. peak and Saturday. Looking at an office use, you would definitely have traffic in the morning peak as well as the evening peak with everyone leaving the property at the same time. Although trip generation would be about the same, a retail type development may be a little bit better on the road system because you would not be conflicting with the morning peak and there would be similar p.m. peaks.
Commissioner Hickey asked if a traffic study has been done. Mr. Doherty stated they have not yet done a traffic study. They looked at two generic building plans and the trip generation based upon each. They do not have a specific tenant so they can’t really do a full impact study. Mr. Doherty further noted the DOT recently upgraded the closest intersection to an acceptable level of service.
Commissioner Hickey asked if the residential area proposed to remain residential is going to remain under the ownership of the developer. Attorney Hays stated they have not thought about it. The property is two parcels now with one parcel being the building right in the middle and the rest of it is all one parcel. They would have to split off the property with the house on it. The question would then be whether that lot ends up following the zone line or whether it just comes out as a nice square lot. In any case, it is zoned residential and there is a house currently on the property. They would create a separate residential lot. Attorney Hays stated she has not gone into a full title search of this property and does not know at this time whether it would be an individual lot, a subdivision or a resubdivision.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.
Robert Lemieux, 28 Middle Road, Unit 2A, Stillmeadow Condominiums, and President of the Association, stated he is speaking on behalf of all those who could not make it tonight. He asked if anyone has driven down Hazard Avenue between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. because the amount of traffic that exists is atrocious. This zone change would make it even worse. At the last meeting, he was made aware of a no left turn on to Hazard Avenue from the Mobil Station. He discussed the small plaza next door that has motorists using their parking lot as a turn-around. There is no right turn lane to enter on to Middle Road. Regarding the newly proposed zone change, Mr. Lemieux stated he cannot see that this is going to alleviate any of the traffic problems but will make it worse. He discussed the traffic patterns in the area and the fact that vehicles will go out of the complex and turn around to return westerly to Hazard Avenue and may go further down Middle Road and come back down Middle Road. He felt this is the wrong place for this proposal. Mr. Lemieux suggested the developer instead look at the industrial park which is a more suitable location. He has a concern that an exit to Middle Road would be added in the future. He also asked about whether Lowe’s is moving into this area and if they are, why not consider an access further down with a traffic light on Hazard Avenue. Mr. Lemieux reiterated his opposition to this proposal.
Ernie Maynard, 21 Southwood Road, stated he is against this proposal of changing the zone because the traffic on Hazard Avenue is almost impossible to get by. He asked if they would put in a stoplight in the area of Big Y and the new building. He felt the state is going to have to do a lot of repairing and digging up the area and it is all wetlands. Right now, water is right up to the ditch. He doesn’t see any reason to change the zone. Mr. Maynard recommended leaving it as it is.
Mae Slupecki, 12 Middle Road, stated she objects to this zone change because the intersection at Middle Road, Hazard Avenue, and Palomba Drive is already congested with traffic. According to the Enfield Police Department, there were 136 accidents at or near the intersection in the previous three years. From January 1 to April 15, 2007, six more have occurred. Adding another retail development nearby will increase traffic and be detrimental to the safety of the community. It would hinder passage of emergency response vehicles. As traffic backs up now along Middle Road at the stoplight, there is not a clear sight line. Cars frequently use her driveway or neighboring driveways to turn around. This application decreases a part of residential land on Middle Road. Although it is stated that Middle Road will remain residential, when it narrows to a depth of fifty feet, this prevents future residential use. It permits a future request by the developer to extend the parking lot and add a driveway out on to Middle Road that is home to a school and a library. If only right in and right out is permitted on Hazard Avenue, cars and trucks coming from the east will come down Middle Road to make a right turn at the intersection to approach the development from the right. Also, retail stores are open seven days a week and sometimes twenty-four hours. Professional offices are generally closed on Sundays and not open twenty-four hours. Ms. Slupecki felt this zone change is out of harmony with the comprehensive plan for the good of the community as a whole. No residential land on Middle Road should be rezoned Business. The property can be developed as it is now with residences on the Middle Road side and professional offices on the Hazard Avenue side. Ms. Slupecki presented a petition signed by residents who also object to the zone change including twenty percent within a five hundred foot radius of the proposed change.
Ms. Slupecki reported she received a telephone call from Councilwoman Cindy Mangini of 32 Glendale Road. She called from Florida and asked to say to the Commission that she is unable to attend this hearing. If she was in Enfield, she would be present to speak in opposition to this application as not in the best interests of the public.
Graham James, 18 Middle Road, stated he is speaking on behalf of his father. He would like to see the Board not approve this application. Early regulations were set to form a buffer area from local stores. He thought the Route 190 to Hazardville is a very good buffer and the site should remain as intended by the original plan or residential on Middle Road and Business Professional along Route 190. This zone change will not be good for the people of Enfield and Mr. James sees no reason for the change. If Business Local is approved, it is possible for an adult bookstore to be built on the site. If the state will not allow an entrance on to Hazard Avenue for large trucks, will they then come back again and try to use Middle Road for access to the site? Mr. James asked that the Commission reject this application.
Bernard Reynolds, 32 Middle Road, suggested changing the name of Middle Road to Bypass Road because all it is doing is bypassing. If you start putting in another 85-car parking lot that will exit on to Hazard Avenue, people will realize very quickly that it is another traffic jam being created. The easiest solution is to turn right on to Middle Road and go down Middle Road. While the applicant tried to come up with a solution, it is still a case of when you come right off of Hazard on to Middle Road. Mr. Reynolds noted the sign stating no left turn from the gas station to Middle Road is still not there. People are making left turns and going around the islands. Chairman DiPace stated there is not supposed to be a sign stating no left turn on Middle Road but only Hazard Avenue. Some discussion followed regarding traffic patterns from the Mobil station. With a new site with 85 parking spaces, people will cause a traffic jam. Mr. Reynolds stated he would not be happy with the proposed zone change.
William Bostick, 20 Middle Road, stated he opposes this zone change because of the traffic and the future possible hardship the business would experience with the traffic pattern. Currently, the Mobil station has a no left turn sign posted on Hazard Avenue. He asked if this business wouldn’t also have the same type of issue where there will be an increase in accidents. Mr. Bostick has seen many accidents in the area. Where the new site will be is where the current traffic merge ends. How will many vehicles be able to come out of that new parking lot and make a left turn? Mr. Bostick asked once this site is built, will there be a proposed hardship case to allow a driveway out on Middle Road. Mr. Bostick reiterated he is opposed to this zone change.
Brian Trudeau, 46 St. James Avenue, voiced his opposition to the proposed zone change. As someone who is a new resident in town, he informed the Commission that this past holiday season, the traffic was quite an issue to deal with. Developing this area will just make matters worse. Mr. Trudeau is quite puzzled as to the reasoning behind wanting to develop this area because it seems like there is more than adequate commercial capacity in the area. Mr. Trudeau reiterated his opposition to this change based upon the traffic and the impact it is going to have in this area.
Richard Chmura, 39 Middle Road, stated there is a high traffic area at the intersection of Middle Road, Palomba Drive and Route 190 which is documented as a dangerous intersection. From the south, there is a high volume of traffic coming down Beech Road to Middle Road and Route 190. Adding more commercial retail traffic to this small area will only compound the problem. This second zone change application is continuing to eliminate residential land. There is a trend for commercial businesses to be open twenty-four hours a day. Position that against residential Middle Road and they are not going to co-exist. Before business encroaches into a residential neighborhood, residents’ safety should be kept in mind. This zone change application is not providing for a buffer between retail commercial and residential. This proposal is actually taking away the buffer which is Business Professional. Mr. Chmura stated as was acknowledged in the previous public hearing, this zone was established in 1995 to protect residents of Middle Road and Southwood Acres from large retail development until the Route 190 widening became a reality. Mr. Chmura felt it would be counter-productive to allow more high traffic business in this area and jeopardize the original intent of the Business Professional zone. He presented correspondence from the Commissioner of Agriculture pertaining to the right to farm law and some other comments on development in close proximity to an established farm.
Carla Polek, 36 Southwood Road, discussed the walking nature of the neighborhood. She asked if the Commission changes the zone on this property, what is going to happen to the rest of the farmland on Middle Road. What is going to happen on that field across from Southwood Road? She has heard rumors about a Lowe’s and felt it has no place in this residential area. Ms. Polek stated the other thing she doesn’t understand is why there is such a need to develop every piece of open property that exists. She asked why can’t we save some of this property and turn it into a park for the residents. This would be a great location. It is a wetland and people are already in close proximity walking. Ms. Polek stated she opposes this zone change and she is afraid it will trickle down to Middle Road. She suggested leaving the area residential and noted she doesn’t want any more retail.
Mike Agruso, 16 Middle Road, stated he is opposed to this zone change. The single access on to Hazard Avenue will not work without a light and a turn in lane to get into the site. The traffic is presently so congested that you can’t make a left hand turn. He discussed the traffic patterns in the area and stated he does not know how they are going to do this without widening that road. Mr. Agruso also noted a future hardship could be to claim a hardship and dump the traffic out on to Middle Road. Either way, it’s going to congest the traffic at that light and it is impossible as it is now. When someone tries to take a left out of the Mobil station, it blocks two lanes. Mr. Agruso stated the proposal looks to be a pretty picture but pretty pictures don’t mean anything if the traffic is not going to work. He assumed the Commission would not approve this application without a traffic study. He noted the 136 accidents and the problems in the area. He did not feel it should be approved either as Business Professional or Business Local because of the traffic.
Mark Norman, 36 Ellis Road, stated he has been here for eleven years and he asked what guarantee do residents have that they are not going to see a Dunkin Donuts come in there. If that comes in, you are looking at having to widen Hazard Avenue even more than it already is. People that are going to be trying to pull in will back everything up on Hazard Avenue. Mr. Norman discussed the intersection which is congested due to the existing retail. The last thing needed is another piece of retail that will blossom and expand out. There are already two big gaping holes in Brookside Plaza and the Home Depot Plaza. He asked why the retail development can’t go in there as opposed to this site. Mr. Norman felt this continued encroachment of retail into farm land and current residential space will mean a four-lane highway from the Connecticut River to the Somers town line. He felt it is time to stop.
Jim Scalia, 47 Beech Road, stated he is opposed to this zone change. They are talking about putting in a commercial business with trucks delivering. The trucks will not be able to cross Route 190. He noted the traffic in this area is terrible. His concern was with a right turn out, people will go down George Washington and cut down Middle Road or Beech Road. Trucks are going to figure this out and go right. Mr. Scalia stated people on Middle Road will have to look at the back of a building with trucks backing up making deliveries at all hours. Mr. Scalia reiterated his opposition.
Ashley Norman, 36 Ellis Road, stated she is a college student. She travels down Hazard Avenue through Middle Road to get to school. She has seen people come out and take the sharp curve around to get on to Hazard Avenue. She has almost been hit being at that light and traffic has been backed up a lot. She has also had to find alternate ways to get to work as well because of the light. She works at the Shaws Plaza and the light that is there where the Stop and Shop road comes on to Freshwater – that’s backed up as well and it is hard getting out of there also. Changing the zone is going to cause a lot more problems on Hazard Avenue. Tractor trailer trucks will find a different way to get back on to Hazard Avenue by going down Middle Road. Ms. Norman has seen people race down the road and she thinks it is really a dangerous situation. She reiterated her opposition.
Tracy Carrier, 108 Middle Road, stated she is opposed to this zone change. If the Commission allows this zone change, they set a precedent that can snowball all the way down. It is a bad precedent to set.
Attorney Hays responded to comments from the audience. She noted with about two acres of dry land in the center of this parcel, this will not be a Lowe’s development on this property. A gentleman mentioned the possibility of a Lowe’s going in further down the street. Attorney Hays stated the zone for that area is Business Professional and she is not sure how a Lowe’s development would go in there.
Attorney Hays stated what is shown on the site plan layout is about the maximum that could be put on the site from a retail perspective. There are four acres of land that would have 16,000 square feet of development. Such a development size would be a very small development whose impact would be minimal. Saying there would be a truck there is not appropriate from a zoning perspective when you’re looking at what should be done. Attorney Hays stated when you look at this request, you don’t look at it from the perspective of if there were nothing on this site versus what would be permitted under the proposed zone. You look at it from the perspective of what would be permitted under the current zone versus what would be permitted under the proposed zone and what, if any, is the difference. Attorney Hays stated when people are talking about traffic at the intersection being terrible and any further development is going to impact it, that is not really an appropriate discussion with respect to a zone change. She noted they could come in tomorrow with a site plan application for a medical office building and get approval for that.
Attorney Hays stated they met with officials from the DOT with respect to potential access whether the zone is Business Local or Business Professional. It was their opinion that it would be possible to get a full in and full out entrance at this site.
Attorney Hays stated there were people that mentioned there was a fear that we are looking at this as a two-step process by claiming a hardship in the future for an access on to Middle Road. Attorney Hays stated they learned their lesson with the first zone change application when they found this Commission does not want to see commercial access on to Middle Road. This Commission would have the ultimate say as to whether or not there would be any change to allow such an access on to Middle Road. It is not their intent to do that.
Attorney Hays stated she finds it interesting when Mr. Chmura mentions farmland and farming. Farming and agriculture activities are not allowed in the Business Professional Zone. They are, however, allowed in the Business Local zone.
Attorney Hays stated there was a comment that this would be a great place for a park. Mr. Doherty noted one of the last places you want to have a park is on a major arterial road. The other point is people do have the right to use their property in accordance with the laws established at the time they want to use their property whether it be a medical office or some other type of commercial development. If the town thinks this is an appropriate place for a park or some other type of open space, the town has the opportunity to acquire the property.
With respect to the comment about paying taxes and participating in the town, Attorney Hays stated she is sure the woman who made that remark did not mean to imply that all the business owners in town where the owners are not residents of the town don’t pay taxes and don’t participate in the town. Attorney Hays has been involved in Enfield with a lot of the commercial development and she knows those people are all very involved in the town. She doesn’t feel there should be discrimination between someone who does or does not live in the town just because they want to have a business in the town.
Attorney Hays stated she would like to review and confirm the petition that was submitted by the owners of twenty percent of the property within 500’ of the boundaries of the zone change. She noted their objection to that and she would like an opportunity to review that.
Attorney Hays stated the rezoning of this property would be in accordance with the comprehensive Plan of Development and the goals of the town within the Plan of Development. Attorney Hays submitted a zoning map showing across the street and adjacent to it is all Business Local. It would be appropriate to rezone this small portion of the parcel because it would be consistent with what is out there today.
Attorney Hays stated there was talk about changing the residential to commercial. From a net perspective, yes there will be a little more commercial but not a whole lot more. They are changing residential to commercial and commercial to residential. There will be at least a buffer from the edge of the right of way of 85’ to the edge of the 35’ buffer which is significantly greater because of the residential property along Middle Road.
Chairman DiPace questioned if the Plan of Development recommends putting more commercial on Hazard Avenue. He noted there were rather lengthy discussions about containing it and stopping the growth. Attorney Hays stated it talks about containing them in areas where commercial already exists. You are not going to go down one-half mile and rezone a parcel of property. She also brought up areas that were discussed such as Elm Street.
Chairman DiPace stated if a store is allowed on this property, they are busier at night when people get home from work and want peace and quiet. With medical offices, they would be closed by 5:00 p.m. and it would keep the neighbor’s tranquility in the evening hours. Attorney Hays stated you could have an emergency room that is open twenty-four hours a day or it could be a medical laboratory that is open twenty-four hours a day.
Chairman DiPace asked if they have done a traffic count and if they have any idea what the traffic is on Hazard Avenue. Mr. Doherty stated he doesn’t have those numbers. Chairman DiPace stated the count is about 30,000 cars per day. In front of Shaws, it is about 36,000 cars per day. In Hazardville center, it is about 18,000 cars per day. Chairman DiPace stated one of his concerns if he lived in the area was this use would generate more traffic in the evening versus during the day when most people are at work.
Commissioner Ballard noted the intent of Business Professional was to stop this type of growth so that there would not be a big influx of traffic on Hazard Avenue. She doesn’t have any objection to either zone but she believes that Business Professional is the correct zoning for this parcel. It protects the residents on Middle Road and it protects Hazard Avenue so that the traffic that comes in there would be more like it is in the area of Johnson Memorial. She acknowledged that it is a terrible intersection.
Attorney Hays discussed the history of this intersection.
Commissioner Ballard and Chairman DiPace discussed the many changes that have occurred in the town over the years.
Commissioner Ballard stated the question is why was it originally zoned Business Professional and it was to put an end to Business Local in this area of Hazard Avenue.
Chairman DiPace stated this hearing will be continued in order to verify the petition presented.
Mr. Giner stated there was a question about how much land is being traded off. The R-44 to Business Local trade-off was 15,719 square feet. Business Professional that would be returned to R-44 would be 10,057 square feet. There would be a net gain of about 5,700 square feet of Residential to Business Local.
Chairman DiPace asked that the petition be verified by Mr. Giner.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience a second time.
Brian Trudeau, 46 St. James Avenue, stated the fact that these developers did not take the time to provide a traffic study speaks volumes. It shows that there is a lack of understanding of what the traffic impact is going to be. He also stated Attorney Hays did not really address the point that he had raised that there is more than adequate commercial capacity already in town and he doesn’t think there is a need to expand it further. There are plenty of vacant, large retail facilities that any number of companies can move into. Mr. Trudeau also noted it is his understanding that this Commission is here to represent the best interests of the town and its people. He thinks that the voices here have overwhelmingly communicated to the Commission what the best interests of the people are.
Scott Kaupin, 9 Allen Street, stated he was attending a meeting downstairs on the budget but he promised the residents that he would come forward tonight and speak on the application. He agrees with Commissioner Ballard that the intent of the development along Hazard Avenue has always been to serve as that buffer between the commercial area of Hazard Avenue and Hazardville. Mr. Kaupin is sensitive about it because he represents that section of town on the Town Council and he receives a lot of comments from folks in the neighborhood that abut that area. Any change from Business Professional to him would be intensifying the development along Hazard Avenue that we really cannot afford from a public safety and traffic standpoint. It is too difficult to get out on to Hazard Avenue for the residents that are there. The Commission was wise in making it Business Professional because it allows for an easier access and it is a lower intensity use of development along that stretch.
Glenn James, 25 Bridge Lane, stated he grew up on Middle Road. He reiterated the traffic counts of 36,000 in front of Shaws and other counts in the area. He has a young daughter and she attends Here We Grow which is 300 yards from the Powder Hollow intersection. When it is time to pick her up at 3:30 p.m., Mr. James cannot take a left on to Hazard Avenue. He has to pull out and take a right and this is only with an 18,000 car traffic count. He is opposed to this zone change.
Margaret Jedziniak, Abbe Road, stated she doesn’t live in the area they are speaking about but she has worked and lived in Scitico which is four miles from this area. Just lately, they have been talking about closing off the street at the M&R Package Store. While talking to people from the state, they said they wanted to close off the street at the M&R Package Store and the reason was it was too dangerous at that intersection. This is four miles from here. Ms. Jedziniak stated the traffic in Scitico backs up at two traffic lights at Broad Brook Road and at Taylor Road. She has noticed the traffic not only comes that far but it also goes all the way back practically to Route 5 at peak hours. Ms. Jedziniak stated she was told a while back that the traffic going through this area was at least 33,000 cars a day out to Scitico alone. The east and west highways in this town are the ones that have all the traffic today. A lot of the people are moving into Somers and now Somers is getting full and they are moving into Stafford. You have all this extra traffic. She has seen the traffic for years and she cannot understand how the street can take any more traffic. There is so much traffic on Hazard Avenue that a great deal of the traffic comes through Town Farm Road and goes out to Fletcher Road and then to Somers. There is a tremendous amount of traffic before they cut off to go through the back roads. Ms. Jedziniak asked that the Commission take this into consideration.
Chairman DiPace continued this hearing to May 3, 2007.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, for a recess. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission recessed at 9:15 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 9:25 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
a. SPR#1393 – Application for soft serve ice cream shop with slide window service at 46 High Street, zoned TVCD, Map 24, Lot 103, Sean Gondarowski, Applicant/Jeff and Angela Foss, Owners.
Sean Gondarowski and Joseph Lemieux appeared before the Commission for a continuance of this application for an ice cream shop.
Mr. Gondarowski presented colored plans to the Commission for the soft serve ice cream shop with slide window service to be known as Thompsonville Creamery.
Regarding the hours of operation, Mr. Gondarowski stated they would be 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week. The hours would drop back after the warm season. The 10:00 p.m. hour is to accommodate the late summer hour cravings. The business would be open year round but once the temperatures drop, the hours would be reduced to 4:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. and would accommodate their hot dog and sandwich items.
Mr. Gondarowski stated on the patio there is adequate space and they are looking to have eight picnic tables. Mr. Giner had indicated this is something that could be approved by the Commission. They would like eight tables to accommodate the potential foot traffic. The patio is 50’ x 17’ and the tables shown on the plan are to scale. It was noted that the plans only contain six tables but Mr. Gondarowski confirmed that the request is for eight tables.
Mr. Gondarowski pointed out the two windows that are a part of the business. One is for ice cream and the other is a pickup window for other items.
Mr. Gondarowski stated the business does not have a hood or a grill and there would be hot dogs with a steam table and cold sandwiches.
Commissioner Ballard brought up the handicapped bathroom and noted there is no access on the side. Mr. Gondarowski stated there is only access from the front and the back. The main entrance is in the rear. There is a handicapped access ramp and handicapped parking. The building is about 25’ to 30’ from the door and there is a ramp going up. According to the building code, Mr. Gondarowski stated he doesn’t believe that the outside seating is counted regarding the bathroom.
Mr. Giner stated the applicant could consider a gate on the patio for access. Mr. Gondarowski stated they could have an opening in the back for access and he agreed that makes sense.
Commissioner Sarno had a concern about the 10:00 p.m. closing hour. She suggested 9:00 p.m. in order to not ask for trouble. Chairman DiPace stated if the applicant has a problem, he will adjust the hours to accommodate his business. Commissioner Sarno noted the applicant has stated there will be controls in place.
Mr. Gondarowski stated controls will be in place for the outside patio. He further discussed the hours of operation and stated other town businesses serve ice cream well after 9:00 p.m. and he would want to be able to compete with them.
Mr. Giner stated he did speak with the Building Official today about the need for additional bathrooms and he said the building code only took into account the indoor seating for bathrooms. Chairman DiPace would like to see something in writing about the bathrooms.
Mr. Gondarowski stated he attempted to get something in writing from James Taylor, the Building Official. Chairman DiPace suggested a memo in writing for the file from the Building Official be a condition of this approval.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to approve SPR #1393 – Application for soft serve ice cream shop with slide window service at 46 High Street, Zoned TVCD, Map 24, Lot 103, Sean Gondarowski, Applicant/Jeff and Angela Foss, Owners. This approval is conditioned on conformance with the plans submitted and the following conditions:
General Conditions:
1. 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.
2. Any additional changes to the exterior of the building or site require further approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission and/or ERSC.
3. The outside seating area shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. Staff shall patrol the area to ensure that no waste is blown off the premises.
4. All necessary approvals of the North Central District Health department shall be obtained.
5. Signage to be in place prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
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. This project as approved must be completed by April 19, 2012 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
8. 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.
9. The hours of operation are 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days per week.
10. The handicapped access shall be by a gate to and from the patio area.
11. A memo shall be placed in the file from the Building Inspector stating that the outside seating is not considered for handicapped bathrooms.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
Chairman DiPace welcomed Mr. Gondarowski to the Thompsonville area and stated this is something that Thompsonville needs.
b. Discussion of Somers Road/Shaker Heights Drainage Issues.
Mr. Giner stated he sent a copy of the minutes from the last meeting to the applicant and to the Engineering Department. Mr. Cabibbo is out on vacation. There was an attempt to coordinate a meeting with all the parties. Chairman DiPace stated this Commission took a vote that there was a need for some answers from Engineering. Commission members acknowledged that this area is a mess. Chairman DiPace stated he had requested a member of the Engineering Department be at this meeting tonight and he doesn’t see him here. Mr. Kaupin noted Jeff Bord is on his way.
Later in the meeting, Chairman DiPace tabled the Somers Road discussion. In the meantime, he directed Mr. Giner that from this day forward there are to be no more c.o.’s issued for Shaker Heights until the Commission gets answers. Neither the Assistant Town Engineer or the applicant were present at this time.
Chairman DiPace requested this item be placed on the Commission’s next agenda.
Commissioner Duren made a motion to take items out of order and consider Applications to be received at this time. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
c. Bond Release
1. 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.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Informal Discussion request re: Felician Sisters Convent Proposed Housing Conversion.
Glenn Craig of Greg, Weis and Gardner, Architects in New Haven appeared before the Commission representing the Felician Sisters. They would like to convert their former high school on their property to rental housing. Their intent is to discuss the plans and get the Commission’s feedback prior to making a formal application.
Mr. Craig stated this is located in a HR-33 zone. It is allowed by special permit and site plan review. They have met with Mr. Giner and gone over the general idea. He suggested they take advantage of this opportunity to have an informal discussion.
Mr. Craig stated this will be rental housing open to the public at market rates for non-profit.
Mr. Craig stated the architect’s name in 1937 was Anthony DiPace.
Mr. Giner stated when looking at the regulations there are standards for non-profit organizations but no description in the regulations for non-profit residential housing.
Mr. Craig presented preliminary plans for the building. There would be parking of two spaces per unit. Twenty-two units are planned on four floors. There is a lower level that is mostly above grade that has three units. There are six to seven units on the other three floors. There are 13 two-bedrooms and 7 or 8 one-bedroom. There are 42 parking spaces and two handicapped spaces. There is a handicapped ramp that comes directly in the back side. The only addition to the building would be an elevator to make the building fully accessible. Otherwise, the exterior of the building would not change. They will be replacing all the windows. There will be a new roof. The masonry is in good condition.
Mr. Craig stated the lower level consists of a laundry room, a storage area and mechanical space. The places where they have apartments are almost fully above grade on this floor.
Commissioner Sarno asked if any of the garages on the property would be for tenants. Mr. Craig stated they planned a parking lot and the garages are privately owned. The existing trees on the site are very mature and the parking lot has been built around them. Tom Swift representing the Day Hill Company appeared before the Commission and stated the Felician Sisters have asked them to manage this project. There are some garages farther down in back of the convent but those will not be part of this complex.
Mr. Swift stated the entrances and exits would be located on to South Road similar to where the day care center goes or right in back of the convent building.
Commissioner Hickey asked about the market based units and where are they getting the market from. Mr. Craig stated the Sisters have asked them to look at what the market is here. Their interest is protecting their property and doing a public service. They feel there is a need for housing. They are not interested in making a profit but also not interested in undercutting someone else’s ability to have apartments at market value. They feel they would be doing a service and they would establish the rental rates based upon what it would take them to cover their expenses in building this and their maintenance. Commissioner Hickey stated the units would then have to be fairly expensive. Mr. Craig stated that may be the case but the building is in excellent condition on the exterior. The interior is deteriorating very quickly because of disuse.
Mr. Craig stated there are still nuns living on the property and they have a very strong interest in who they rent to in terms of it being a compatible community.
Commissioner Duren stated the access doesn’t look like it is going to be very straight to the laundry area. Mr. Craig stated if you come out of the elevator, you can go directly through straight into the laundry. It doesn’t show a door but there would be a door. Mr. Craig showed this pattern on the site plan.
Mr. Craig noted the stairwells shown on the plans are all existing.
Commissioner Duren questioned why there is a doorway from the laundry room into the storage area. Mr. Craig stated the plans are very preliminary at this point.
Chairman DiPace stated it is a beautiful building and if it is not occupied, it will deteriorate. Commissioner Sarno thought it was a good idea.
Commissioner Hickey asked if this would require any rezoning. Mr. Giner stated that is the question. It is non-profit residential housing by special permit. Since there are no special criteria, Mr. Giner felt it would default to the special permit criteria. Mr. Craig stated that was their read on it.
Chairman DiPace stated as far as new construction of apartment buildings, they are not allowed but non-profit is going to be the key thing. Chairman DiPace would like a legal opinion from the Town Attorney. This is a legitimate non-profit use but he would not want to see someone create a non-profit organization, turn around and buy a piece of land and build apartments. Mr. Giner stated they can write that this is an adaptive reuse of existing buildings and this can be added to the regulations. Chairman DiPace stated it has to be written carefully, it has to be non-profit and it has to be a certain size. Mr. Giner will talk to the Town Attorney regarding the proper language.
Chairman DiPace stated this is something the applicants should move forward with. Mr. Craig stated they have also requested a meeting with the Historic Commission because this is within that area. They would like to see if there are any issues from them.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Giner reminded the Commission of next week’s meeting with the Enfield Revitalization and Strategy Committee. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Enfield Room.
b. Applications to be accepted
The following applications were accepted by the Commission:
PH #2603 – Application for a Special Use Permit for temporary residence at 315 Broad Brook Rd., Zoned R-44, Map 88, Lot 129, NADA, Applicant/Raymond Hallack, Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for May 17, 2007.
SPR #1396 – Application to extend concrete pad at Infiniti Graphics, 96 Phoenix, Zoned I-P, Map 46, Lot 34, Infiniti Graphics, Inc. Applicant/Owner – Administrative Approval Requested.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, that SPR#1396 be handled administratively by Mr. Giner. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
SPR #1397 – Application for 12x18 Block Building (Pump House) at Brainard & Booth (behind 40 Booth), Zoned R-33, Map 59, Lot 54, Connecticut Water Company, Applicant/Owner.
SPR #1398 – Application for remodel to existing Taco Bell store – complete facade renovation and no added square footage additions and no site alterations at 18 Hazard Avenue, Zoned BR, Map 56, Lot 22, Taco Bell, Applicant/Equity One (Brookside) LLC, Owner.
SAN 1350 – Application for internally illuminated “Kia” and “Service” signs to match existing “ARTIOLI” sign at 809 Enfield Street, zoned BG (Overlay District), Map 29, Lot 72, 809 Enfield St., LLC, Applicant/Owner.
This sign application will be on the Commission’s next agenda. Chairman DiPace stated he thinks internally illuminated signs are much better because you don’t get the glare as you travel down the roadway. Mr. Giner stated there can be a change to the regulations if that is the consensus of the Commission. Chairman DiPace stated he would like to keep the present regulation for the Thompsonville and Hazardville areas but allow illuminated signs in the King Street and Route 5 areas. Mr. Giner will draft some regulations to allow internally illuminated signs in certain areas.
Mr. Giner presented a proposed signage package from Dunkin Donuts located in Stella’s Plaza. He added they are proposing moving the handicapped ramp. The Commission directed Mr. Giner to handle these items administratively.
Mr. Giner brought up Attorney Johnson’s building at 480 Enfield Street. The zone is Business Local. The gentleman previously had someone living in the house and now would like to convert it back to his business. The consensus of the Commission was to have Attorney Johnson come before the Commission for a site plan review.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Ballard made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|