|
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 AQUIFER PROTECTION AGENCY AND
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2007 – 7:30 P.M.
ENFIELD TOWN HALL – COUNCIL CHAMABERS
820 ENFIELD STREET – ENFIELD, CT
AQUIFER PROTECTION AGENCY AGENDA – 7:30 P.M. – This meeting was tabled until June 7, 2007.
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS – CONTINUED FROM MAY 3, 2007 MEETING
a. Consideration of the adoption of Aquifer Protection Area Regulations in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes Section 22a-354p and R. C. S. A. Section 22a-354i-3. These regulations will enable the Agency to administer all provisions of An Act Concerning Aquifer Protection Areas, C.G.S. Section 22a-354a to Section 22a-354bb (the Act), and to approve or deny registrations, issue permits, issue permits with terms, conditions, limitations or modifications, or deny permits for all regulated activities in aquifer protection areas in the Town of Enfield pursuant to the Act.
4. Adjournment
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING – IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING AQUIFER PROTECTION AGENCY MEETING
REGULAR MEETING
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, May 17, 2007 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman DiPace called the meeting to order at 8:20 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Charles Duren
Karen Weseliza
Charles Ladd, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve the Minutes of May 3, 2007. The Minutes were approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of a letter from Jose Giner to Captain Gary Collins of the Police Department, a copy of a letter from Jose Giner to Scott Kaupin regarding the Fourth of July celebration, a copy of a letter from Jose Giner to Geoffrey McAlmond regarding World War II Memorial Flagpoles, a letter from Wayne Bickley to John Brogan regarding the Stickley sign, a memo to the Town Manager from Virginia Higley regarding the Enfield Farmers Market along with copies of the letters to the various farmers in Enfield, a letter from Robert Aresti to the Planning Department from Hamilton Sundstrand regarding a grand opening, the Capitol Region Council of Governments Summary of Zoning, Subdivision and POCD Referrals dated May 9, 2007 and May 16, 2007, a copy of Zoning Practice, a copy of a letter from Jose Giner to the Pheasant Hill Homeowners Association, the Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies, the Planning Magazine and the Connecticut Planning Newsletter from the American Planning Association.
Mr. Giner reported there is a joint meeting between the Planning and Zoning section of the Connecticut Bar Association and the Chapter of the American Planning Association on Thursday in two weeks. Mr. Giner asked if anyone wants to attend the dinner meeting. Chairman DiPace asked about a book the American Planning Association used to publish. Mr. Giner will research this.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PH#2601 – Petition for zone change from Industrial, I-1 to Residential R-33 for property located at southwest corner of the intersection of North Street and Taylor Road (Assessor’s Map 100, Parcel 1), Pace Construction, Applicant/Edward Carrera, Trustee, Owner.
Commissioner Ladd did not participate in this public hearing.
Attorney Charles Parakilas and Paul Fox appeared before the Commission regarding this application. Some discussion whether testimony can be taken tonight due to a lack of a quorum followed.
Attorney Parakilas stated he was just handed a memo from Ray Warren, Director of Economic Development, dated May 9, 2007 concerning their application which he had not seen previously. In view of the nature of this report, Attorney Parakilas stated they need to respond to it. He requested a continuance of this public hearing.
Chairman DiPace continued this public hearing to June 7, 2007.
OLD BUSINESS
a. Discussion of Somers Road/Shaker Heights Drainage Issues.
Chairman DiPace noted a plan was presented prior to tonight’s meeting to the residents of Somers Road so that everyone would have an opportunity to see it. Chairman DiPace talked to Jeff Bord last week and he said he is working on the plan and waiting for agreement from the developer that he was going to do it. Mr. Giner told him this evening that that is what they are going to do.
Mr. Giner stated regarding the gentleman who lives in the house just to the west of the entrance road, when they put in the entrance road they had to put a cover over the sewer pipe. That left a dam for the water coming down the hill which is now backing up into this gentleman’s house. Mr. Bord mentioned that he is also going to put in a pipe on the upper half of this and then also scoop out an area where there’s cover toward the bottom and let the water flow the way it did before which is naturally down the hill. What is before the Commission is the level spreader and the outlet which are now present will be shut off completely so that there will be nothing going through the level spreader and the outlet. There will be a pipe added at the end which will take the water to the ponds. The pipes are going to be brought down to the existing drainage system in the street. In addition to that, there will be a new catch basin installed by the town near the corner which is going to catch some of the water going around the corner and going down Somers Road. This will take even more water away from the area.
Chairman DiPace asked if the town is installing this or is the developer. Mr. Giner stated the developer is bringing it out and the balance is part of the town’s road system. The developer is doing all the on-site work.
Commissioner Duren asked if both detention ponds will be going into the same place. Mr. Giner stated the upper pond is supposed to be hooked up to this one. There is no outlet on the upper pond but it goes into the lower one. Chairman DiPace asked if the pipe has been calculated out so that it will be able to handle the volume and the peak. Mr. Giner stated Mr. Bord has looked at this and is still working on the final design. Mr. Giner noted the detention pond is still going to detain but it’s not going to outlet. This will keep the peak flow from rushing down the fifteen-inch pipe. This plan should result in less water going off than was there before. Mr. Giner stated Mr. Bord spoke with the property owner and the property owner on whose land this discharges is on board and doesn’t have any objections. Mr. Giner heard there is some concern about making sure that there’s no siltation that doesn’t clog up at the outlet. Mr. Giner assumed there would be a plunge pool or something there to collect the silt.
Chairman DiPace asked about a maintenance schedule. Mr. Giner has noted it from the comments he heard this evening and he will ask Mr. Bord what the plans for a maintenance schedule will be. Commission members stated they would like to see the end result regarding a maintenance plan.
Chairman DiPace opened this meeting to members of the public to voice their concerns regarding tonight’s plan for Somers Road.
John Cappiello, 18 Somers Road, questioned where the water will go. Mr. Giner stated it will end up at the wetlands system in the back. Mr. Cappiello stated where that water spills out is in front of the tobacco shed area which has silt from twenty or thirty years. It needs to be dredged out and if it is not, there will be a big problem. Chairman DiPace directed Mr. Giner to discuss this with Mr. Bord so that no other problems are created.
Jack Sheridan, Buchanan Road, stated he has a few concerns. One is he contacted the DEP and they said any parcel over five acres needs a permit from the state for detention ponds. That has not been done. He questioned if the town approves this, he would think there has to be some checks and balances to make sure these things are addressed. If you have standing water in a pond, Mr. Sheridan would think there is a liability without a fence. He discussed the pond at Walgreen’s which has a fence.
Mr. Sheridan asked what recourse is there if this system doesn’t work. He doesn’t know if a fifteen-inch pipe is going to be adequate for the amount of water coming through there. He asked if they are connecting that pipe to a third exit. According to the drawing, it looks like a whole separate connection to the pond. They said they are going to plug where the distribution rake is now. He asked what is the date when that will be done. Chairman DiPace stated the intent is to have the plan completed by this summer.
Mr. Sheridan asked if the c.o.’s are going to be held until this is resolved. Mr. Giner stated he doesn’t know about legally holding up the c.o.’s but there are bonds for it. Chairman DiPace added the Commission took a formal vote to hold off the c.o.’s until the Commission received some answers. The Commission is now getting answers. He would like to see the system working.
Mr. Giner stated they have cleared some of the area already to start the plan. Chairman DiPace would like to see some type of a time frame for this project with start date and completion date. Mr. Giner will discuss this with Mr. Bord and email the Commission.
Chairman DiPace would like to know when it is installed so that Commissioners can go out after the next rainfall to see if it actually works and addresses the problems. There is a bond in place if the system does not work.
Mr. Sheridan stated his concern goes back to why would the town issue c.o.’s when the developer did not get the permit from the state DEP. Mr. Giner stated that is up to the Building Department and the town doesn’t enforce the state requirements. Chairman DiPace stated the developer should be informed of the permits he needs before he goes too much further. Mr. Giner will discuss this with the Building Official.
Mr. Giner stated it is his understanding the DEP is aware of the detention basin and is contacting the developer. Chairman DiPace would like to receive any correspondence from the state DEP.
Mr. Sheridan added he doesn’t think any bond should be released on this property until the drainage problem is taken care of. It could come down to the point where every penny is going to count. Chairman DiPace stated the bond in the front is only for the street trees. Mr. Giner stated you can’t take money that you bond for trees and apply it to engineering.
Mr. Sheridan stated his concern is the town’s liability if they don’t put a fence around the detention pond. There is standing water. Chairman DiPace stated the detention pond is on private property and the responsibility of the property owners. It would be an association issue.
Joanne Divenero, 23 Somers Road, stated she has another flood in her lot. The whole front is flooded with orange silt. It is going to rain again tonight and she asked does she have to put up with this flood every time it rains. Her sump pumps will not shut off. This water is sitting at the corner of her home and her pump is pumping every sixty seconds. She is concerned should there be a power failure. Ms. Divenero would like to know what will be done for her now. She is in a mess. She is trying to sell her home and she needs to do so but how can she sell it with the mess in the front. She asked if they are going to address the mud coming on to her property. The town made these little berms the other day so the water wouldn’t go on Mr. Mercier’s lawn and it is now coming all on her lawn. She pointed out that she never had this flood next to her every time it rains prior to this development.
Chairman DiPace stated the level spreader is going to be removed. They will pipe that over and put it into the storm drainage. Ms. Divenero questioned what does she do now.
Mr. Giner stated they are busy working on the road. As the reports indicate, the silt is really fine and no amount of silt fence is going to stop that.
Chairman DiPace reiterated his request for a time frame as to when they are going to pipe this in and when the system will be completed. Regarding what has been done to the front lawns and houses, Chairman DiPace felt someone should go out from the town and clean up the mess made in front of these homes. Ms. Divenero stated they made an attempt this week but it is worse again. The water is now in the middle of the road and it is the worst in front of her house. She questioned how she can sell her house. She asked for a better effort temporarily to address this flooding. Ms. Divenero questioned why can’t they put plastic over the fresh dirt piles on the developer’s property to hold the dirt back.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if there is a step by step timetable in place. Mr. Giner stated the developer had phasing but it was affected when the water company made them put the additional water pipes in. They were not planning on working on this section until the end. The original phasing plan did not have this phase open at this point. This week they were working on trying to finish up some of the roadways so that the water will get into the catch basins.
Chairman DiPace asked if Public Works could supply some sand bags down the side of Ms. Divenero’s property to direct this water. Mr. Giner will discuss this with Mr. Bord. Chairman DiPace saw a need to slow down the water. Ms. Divenero stated it was never this bad. There was a water problem years ago but never ever this bad. She did not have a sitting lake next to her every time it rained.
Chairman DiPace noted the many storms that have taken place this year.
Commissioner Ladd suggested Ms. Divenero contact Town Manager Coppler again and express her concerns. Commissioner Duren also advised Ms. Divenero to attend a Town Council meeting.
Mr. Sheridan stated right now Ms. Divenero’s property is assessed for a room in her basement and her son lived in that room previously. That room is not there any more. It had to be torn out because there was two feet of water in the cellar when they first started this project about two years ago. She is back down to the bare cement walls and she needs to have that taken off the appraisal for her house. Mr. Sheridan stated the comments that there was the same water problem before as there is now are not true. There was a heated room which had to be all removed. Mr. Sheridan acknowledged Ms. Divenero may have gotten an inch of water once in a while but never like this.
Bob Mercier stated the developer is building houses and roads but he is not fixing the water problem. He asked why don’t they stop building and install the pipe tomorrow. People don’t realize how much water is coming on to their properties. He felt there is more of a feeling for the contractor and he reiterated he should put the pipe in tomorrow. The residents have been living with this for two years. Mr. Mercier stated if you go by his home tonight, there is a brown river there. Commissioner Duren asked if Mr. Mercier has gone to the Town Council. Mr. Mercier stated the Town Manager was out to the site.
Mr. Sheridan stated they went to the Town Council and the Council took a vote and voted unanimously that the Commission did the right thing by holding up the c.o.’s. Chairman DiPace asked if any c.o.’s have been issued. Mr. Giner stated Wayne Bickley has not signed off on any. Mr. Giner stated the Town Engineer is designing the project fix. He has to make sure all the elevations work. Chairman DiPace stated all the Commission can do is recommend and suggest to the developer. He has agreed to do it so the Commission cannot really force him to do so.
Mr. Mercier asked why the developer cannot do something to address the residents’ front lawns on Somers Road. He has had to do it himself. Mr. Mercier stated the water is getting so bad it is going to the middle of the road. When the rain stops, it take three days for the mud to go away. He again addressed Ms. Divenero’s home and the fact that she comes home to a horror show every time it rains.
Mr. Giner will invite Mr. Bord to come back before the Commission with a status report.
b. 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.
Mark Chanitz with Arc Vision, Inc. representing Taco Bell appeared before the Commission regarding this application to remodel the existing Taco Bell store at 18 Hazard Avenue.
Mr. Chanitz distributed a document showing a similar project that was transformed. There is also a photograph showing an actual built restaurant. Mr. Chanitz noted the Commission did not like the bold colors and he distributed a revised color proposal. He noted the color of Taco Bell today is pretty monochromatic. In talking to the client, Mr. Chanitz noted there are different levels of what they will allow to be presented to the Commission. In the color elevation, the colors have been muted. Each of the colors is different from the previous presented elevation and he would call the colors pastel in nature. This represents the middle ground proposal from Taco Bell.
Mr. Chanitz stated the other item that seemed to be of concern to one of the Commission members was the flying arch located over the tower parapets. In this case, he recommended that element be pulled down. He referred to the photographs and noted the last page contains an example showing how that element is now a part of the parapet as opposed to flying.
Mr. Chanitz is proposing the document entitled l.0 from a color perspective as the less intense color palette. This entire remodel would not alter the existing footprint of the building. The bathrooms will be brought into ADA compliance and the exterior will be renovated. Mr. Chanitz presented a sample of the cultured stone that will be used. That stone is also represented in the photographs presented.
Chairman DiPace asked about the colors proposed at the last meeting versus the colors proposed tonight which are toned down. He confirmed the exact color that will be used on the building which is the muted color. Mr. Chanitz stated the stone would be the same but the colors would be less intense. The flying arch is engaged into the parapet.
Chairman DiPace stated the revision is dated April 16, 2007. He would like the revision to be marked with today’s date. Mr. Giner marked it received May 17, 2007.
Some discussion followed on the appearance of the stone.
Chairman DiPace stated the new proposal is definitely toned down much more than what was previously presented. Mr. Chanitz presented a drawing showing what the colors for Enfield’s Taco Bell will look like. He also noted the parapet will look just like the photograph with the white element on it as well.
Commissioner Duren asked if there was a reason why the flying arch was removed. Mr. Chanitz stated he got the impression that it may have been objectionable. Commissioner Duren stated McDonald’s has something similar. Mr. Chanitz stated it can go either way as far as the arch with the people he is dealing with.
Chairman DiPace stated his main concern was color and that concern has been addressed.
Commissioner Duren stated he would not have any objection to the flying arch because it is an element that was allowed on McDonald’s.
Mr. Chanitz stated he had hoped to bring color samples but the colors are closely represented in the drawing. The colors will be very muted and more earth tones.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to approve SPR#1398, application for a remodel to the existing Taco Bell store – complete facade renovation and no added square footage additions and no site alterations at 18 Hazard Avenue, zoned BR, using the color scheme of 18 Hazard Avenue, Enfield Connecticut, bold choice dated 4/16/07, scale 1/8”=1’ received May 17, 2007 at the hearing with the muted color scheme and leaving the option for the flying arch on the top. The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
c. PH#2597 – Mike Nelson – Subdivision at 96 Steele Road – Approval of final appraisal for fees-in-lieu of Open Space.
Mr. Giner stated an appraisal for Mike Nelson, PH#2597, was received from Allard Appraisal. It is just one lot and based on their value of the property before subdivision it was $19,000 so the lot would need to be a $1,970 fee in lieu of open space.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to approve the Allard appraisal report for 96 Steele Road with a fee in lieu of open space of $1,970. The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to take items out of order and consider SPR#1402 at this time. The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
SPR#1402 – Application to construct a 40-car parking area to conform with current fire regulations at 1365 Enfield Street (corner of Post Office Road), zoned HR-33, Map 46, Lot 22, Anthony Spazzarini, Applicant/Little Sisters of the Poor, Owners.
Anthony Spazzarini, 40 Post Office Road, appeared before the Commission regarding this application along with Sister Mary Brenard, 1355 Enfield Street.
Mr. Spazzarini stated they are in need of a parking lot. He discussed special events where cars end up parking on the grass and the Fire Marshal becomes involved. They looked the situation over and the proposal is in their opinion the best place to build a parking lot. The lot would be 40 spaces. They have received a permit from Inland Wetlands.
Commissioner Duren asked if there were any requirements from Wetlands. Mr. Spazzarini stated the only thing they changed is they had him build a double sump for the catch basin and put in a hood with an oil separator. They didn’t have to do any other structures.
Commissioner Ladd asked where that drains off to. Mr. Spazzarini stated it goes down along the highway by the state property and at that point it goes north. Commissioner Ladd stated he is asking because he doesn’t want to see any problems in the future. Mr. Spazzarini stated their pond is quite capable of handling the flow without ever going over. They don’t have to increase the size of the pond. Commissioner Ladd stated the previous issue was not the peaks but the volume. No one seems to want to deal with increasing volume. Mr. Spazzarini stated their pond was built a lot larger than it actually had to be when it was done. It was built in 1972 when they built the original building and it goes out toward I-91.
Mr. Giner confirmed it goes under I-91 and then goes along the old Sterling Machine and then there is a culvert down Post Office Road, it turns south and then eventually is part of the Beeman’s Brook watershed.
Chairman DiPace stated it has its own detention basin on site toward the highway.
Mr. Giner stated in the past existing ponds have not been allowed to be used for the calculations for detention. He noted the Pappas pond where they had to build additional detention. Mr. Giner stated the calculations that were submitted to the Engineering Department were whether or not the pipes could handle the additional water. They could and the Engineer said those calculations were fine. There was nothing about the peak flow. Commissioner Weseliza noted there will be a minimal impact. Mr. Giner stated they don’t know what the size of the pipe is under I-91 and that would regulate the flow. It is not a detention but a retention and the water stays there for a while.
Chairman DiPace stated a forty-car parking lot is not really that big. He asked about the proposed area. Mr. Giner stated it would be 12,000 square feet or about 115’ x 120’.
Chairman DiPace stated what is there is designed for a twenty-five year storm.
Chairman DiPace asked about waivers. Mr. Giner stated the requirements of site plan say that all drainage has to be constructed to the standards of the town’s technical Subdivision Regulations. According to John Cabibbo, the technical requirements are that one catch basin should cover not more than 9,000 square feet of paved area. This covers 12,000 square feet but Wetlands has already approved it. This would require a waiver.
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve SPR #1402 – Application to construct a 40 car parking area to conform with current fire regulations at 1365 Enfield Street (corner of Post Office Rd.), Zoned HR-33, Map 46, Lot 22, Anthony Spazzarini, Applicant / Little Sisters of the Poor, Owners. This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Site Plan, Saint Joseph’s Residence Prepared For Tony Spazzarini, Enfield, Conn.” Scale: 1”=40’, by Aeschliman Land Surveying, PC, dated 3/14/07.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. There is a utility pole and a tree shown within the proposed parking area. These items should be labeled to be removed or relocated outside of the parking lot. There is an undefined circle drawn in the southwest corner of the proposed parking area. This circle should be removed or defined.
2. All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans
3. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
4. The application number (SPR #1402 ) shall be displayed on the plans in or near the Title Block area of each sheet.
5. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns, a copy of the Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated on the plans submitted for signing.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
6. Three sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.
7. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
8. An Erosion and Sediment Control and Site Restoration Bond shall be submitted in the form of cash or a check, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
9. A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
10. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance. The as-built plan shall also contain a certification by a Professional Engineer that they have inspected the site improvements and that they have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. Any deviations or omissions must be noted.
11. A Certificate of Site Plan Compliance from the Planning Department is required upon completion of the project. When minor site work cannot be completed because of weather or other pertinent reason, a conditional Certificate of Site Plan Compliance may be issued for a period not to exceed 180 days, providing satisfactory surety shall be posted with the Town of Enfield in an amount sufficient to complete the site work and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney and Finance Department.
12. A request for Certificate of Site Plan Compliance from the Planning Department must be made at least 10 days before a Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval is requested.
General Conditions:
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by May 17, 2012 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
16. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve the following waivers:
1. The area of impervious surfaces to be covered with one catch basin
2. The calculations that show zero increase in peak storm drainage.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
The main motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
BOND RELEASES
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.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve the bond release for PH#2323 for the landscape bond in the amount of $4,200. Reference is made to the memo from Jose Giner to the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission dated May 17, 2007 recommending release. The fourteen street trees were installed over two years ago and are in good physical shape.
Commissioner Duren noted the bond is for the seven subdivision lots and it is separate from the Shaker Heights development. The Commission is still holding engineering, landscaping and erosion and sedimentation bonds for Shaker Heights. Chairman DiPace noted the Commission cannot hold the bond for trees due to drainage concerns.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
2. SPR#1361 – Request for release of Erosion and Sediment Bond in the amount of $2,900 for 4 Anngina Drive, Precision Camera.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to release SPR#1361 Erosion and Sediment Bond in the amount of $2,900 for 4 Anngina Drive, Precision Camera. Reference is made to an letter from Virginia Higley sent Thursday, May 3, 2007 to Maya Smyth with a copy to Mr. Giner. The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR#1401 – Application for construction of a 9,360 square foot warehouse building with loading docks, parking spaces and associated drainage, sewer and utility services at 7 Anngina Drive, zoned I-1, Map 82, Lot 56, Katherine and Robie P. Staples, Jr., Applicant/Owners.
Dana Steele with J. R. Russo & Associates and Robie Staples appeared before the Commission regarding this application. Mr. Steele stated the property at 7 Anngina Drive is a five-acre parcel in the I-1 zone and in an existing industrial park with a cul de sac road off Moody Road across from Fermi High School. The property owner is Robie Staples. The tenant who occupies the existing building on the property is Precision Camera. They repair cameras and also occupy a couple of other buildings on Anngina Drive. Precision Camera is a business that is expanding and they would like to expand and add a warehouse building in the back of 7 Anngina where they have their existing building. This warehouse building is going to be for distribution.
Mr. Steele stated this building has parking spaces for employees and they are proposing to add about twenty-five to thirty new positions with this building. There will be two loading docks – one for the cameras coming in and a second loading dock for the cameras going out.
Chairman DiPace asked if there was a warehouse already approved at one time. Mr. Steele stated there was a larger warehouse approved of 16,000 square feet and because of environmental concerns, they were limited to this smaller size. That application had expired. Mr. Staples stated that was previously Lego and they were thinking about a bigger building but it did not materialize.
Mr. Steele stated the parcel is serviced by public water and public sewer. The proposed building will not be seen from the road. The land is bordered to the north and west by agricultural lands. On the east is part of the industrial park. The building is 72’ x 130’ and 9,360 square feet in total surface area. The loading docks are on the south side of the building and the parking area is on the west side of the building. The parking spaces on the west side will access from a front door location with handicapped parking and the loading docks on the south side. There are no accesses on the north or east sides of the building.
Mr. Steele stated the drainage for this site is being handled with a sub surface detention system which is located under the parking lot area on the west side of the building. The roof runoff discharges to a rain garden, an environmental strategy for addressing water quality. The detention system holds the water, treats the water, provides for the removal of oils and suspended solids and holds it back and reduces flow. It also addresses peak flow and volume. It is a problem in areas where you don’t have soils that are suitable for infiltration. There’s really not much you can do to reduce volume. In this case, they are providing a system that would provide infiltration as well. They will be addressing both peak and volume with this system. It is not a large site in terms of how much water is generated from this area.
Mr. Steele stated they have a maintenance schedule that has been prepared which is included on Note #12 of the plan set located on sheets two and three. It explains in detail how the sub surface system is going to be maintained. All of the best management practices will be implemented to make sure it functions properly.
Mr. Steele stated Precision Camera will occupy this building. He explained the process of the camera distribution and the need for the two docks. In the back is a parts area and a warehouse storage area, a break room and bathroom facilities. It is an open area warehouse predominantly.
Mr. Steele stated it is a steel building with a concrete wall on the back side. The color of the building is tan. The building in the front is a darker brown.
Mr. Steele stated they have addressed all of the comments of the Engineering Department. The Fire Department asked for fire lane markings and fire signs. Mr. Steele requested that be a condition of approval.
Mr. Staples stated there is a hydrant in the back. Mr. Steele stated the Fire Department did not feel any additional hydrants were needed.
Mr. Steele stated one of the typos is that it was a 10,010 square foot building. That was the size it originally was but because of environmental concerns, they reduced the size and it is now 9,360 square feet. In the drainage report it still said 10,010 and Mr. Steele informed John Cabibbo he would get him a revised report that showed the 9,360.
Commissioner Duren stated Engineering says that a few of the proposed pipes have not been shown in the drainage pipe analysis. Mr. Giner stated they are in the conditions and are shown as conditions 1 and 2. Condition #4 is about the fire lanes.
Commissioner Duren asked if the Fire Department is all set. Mr. Giner stated he has not heard from them in writing. The Traffic Safety Officer also had no comments. Mr. Steele stated there are really no traffic volume issues. Mr. Giner stated it would be the same traffic but it would be going to a different place.
Chairman DiPace asked how many parking spaces have been added. Mr. Steele stated the existing building has 64 spaces existing and they are proposing 52 additional spaces.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to approve SPR #1401 – Application for construction of a 9,360 sq. ft. warehouse building with loading docks, parking spaces and associated drainage, sewer and utility services at 7 Anngina Drive, Zoned I-1, Map 82, Lot 56, Katherine & Robie P. Staples, Jr., Applicant / Owners. This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Site Development Plan, Property of Katherine & Robie P. Staples, Sr. 7 Anngina Drive, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet 1 of 6, Scale: 1”=40’, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 3-05-07 and revised to 5-2-07.
“Grading & Utility Plan, Property of Katherine & Robie P. Staples, Sr. 7 Anngina Drive, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet 2 of 6, Scale: 1”=20’, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 3-05-07 and revised to 5-2-07.
“Landscape & Lighting Plan, Property of Katherine & Robie P. Staples, Sr. 7 Anngina Drive, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet 3 of 6, Scale: 1”=20’, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 3-05-07 and revised to 5-2-07.
“Erosion & Sediment Control Notes, Property of Katherine & Robie P. Staples, Sr. 7 Anngina Drive, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet 4 of 6, Scale: “As Noted”, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 3-05-07 and revised to 5-2-07.
“Detail Sheet, Property of Katherine & Robie P. Staples, Sr. 7 Anngina Drive, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet 5 of 6, Scale: “As Noted”, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 3-05-07 and revised to 5-2-07.
“Detail Sheet, Property of Katherine & Robie P. Staples, Sr. 7 Anngina Drive, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet 6 of 6, Scale: “As Noted”, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 3-05-07 and revised to 5-2-07.
“Floor Plan, Property of Katherine & Robie P. Staples, Sr. 7 Anngina Drive, Enfield, CT.” Sheet A-01, by Aecon, dated 5/10/07.
“Elevations, Property of Katherine & Robie P. Staples, Sr. 7 Anngina Drive, Enfield, CT.” Sheet A-03, by Aecon, dated 5/10/07.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. The narrative in the engineering report calls the building area as 10,010 square feet which should be revised to match the area shown on the plans.
2. The drainage pipe analysis shall reflect the proposed pipes which have not been shown per the Assistant Town Engineer’s e-mail of May 17, 2007.
3. All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
4. Fire Lanes shall be shown on the plans in appropriate area as determined in consultation with the Shaker Pines Fire District.
5. The application number (SPR #1401 ) shall be displayed on the plans in or near the Title Block area of each sheet.
6. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns, a copy of the Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated on the plans submitted for signing.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
7. Three sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.
8. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
9. An Erosion and Sediment Control and Site Restoration Bond shall be submitted in the form of cash or a check, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
10. A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
11. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance. The as-built plan shall also contain a certification by a Professional Engineer that they have inspected the site improvements and that they have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. Any deviations or omissions must be noted.
12. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
13. No Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval may be issued until the applicant has received a Certificate of Site Plan Compliance from the Planning Department. When minor site work cannot be completed because of weather or other pertinent reason, a conditional Certificate of Site Plan Compliance may be issued for a period not to exceed 180 days, providing satisfactory surety shall be posted with the Town of Enfield in an amount sufficient to complete the site work and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney and Finance Department.
14. A request for Certificate of Site Plan Compliance from the Planning Department must be made at least 10 days before a Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval is requested from the Building Official.
General Conditions:
15. Upon placement of the foundation or lowest floor, including the basement, and prior to backfilling or further vertical construction, the builder shall submit documentation prepared, signed and sealed by a Connecticut registered land surveyor showing the location of the foundation as well as the as-built elevation of the lowest floor, including basement, and the elevation of the top of the foundation wall. The as-built document shall also include the locations and elevations of any footing-drain outlets when footing drains are required by soil conditions or shown on the approved site plan. The elevations shall be not lower than those on the approved site plan and not more than six inches higher than those on said plan. Any deviations from these tolerances shall subject the site plan to further review. A signed and sealed recommendation and explanation from the Connecticut registered professional engineer who designed the approved site plan shall be submitted prior to approval of any changes.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by May 17, 2012 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
19. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
4. 8-24 Referral – Acceptance of Bush Lane and Clinton Lane as Town Roads
Mr. Giner stated the Commission has reports from Public Works recommending acceptance of Bush Lane and Clinton Lane as town roads. Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to recommend approval to the Town Council of the acceptance of Bush Lane and Clinton Lane as town roads. The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Final approval for Lot #1 of Minor Subdivision MSN 031, off Laughlin Road originally approved in 1987.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission did this once before for one of the other lots that needed a sign-off by the Health Department. Mr. Giner stated the approval approved the lots but without a perk test. Chairman DiPace stated the Commission now has the perk test and the Health Department is okay with it.
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to approve Lot #1 of minor subdivision MSN 031 off Laughlin Road originally approved in 1987. The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
b. Discussion on existing funeral homes compliance with zoning regulations
The Commission met with Bud Brown concerning a discussion regarding existing funeral homes.
Chairman DiPace stated currently funeral homes are allowed in HR-33 and Business General. They used to be allowed in residential. Chairman DiPace stated Mr. Brown went to get a building permit to build an addition for an office. It is not a permitted use in the zone. Mr. Giner stated prior to 2001 funeral homes were allowed in R-33 zones but not R-44. This property was switched to R-44 as part of the December, 1987 comprehensive revision. Even with the change of regulations, it didn’t change the status of this property. It would have been nonconforming.
Mr. Giner presented the zoning map for the Commission’s information.
Mr. Brown stated his funeral home was built in 1989.
Mr. Giner stated the zoning regulations were done after the Plan of Development. Funeral homes were never allowed in R-44.
Chairman DiPace stated right now funeral homes are allowed in Business General and HR-33. He questioned the HR-33 zone. Some discussion followed of the cost to redo the zoning regulations.
Mr. Giner asked if the Commission wants to allow funeral homes in R-33 and R-44. Mr. Brown stated he is presently nonconforming in an R-44 zone. Mr. Giner stated this property was R-33 up to December, 1987. The zone was then changed to R-44. The old regulations still only said funeral homes were allowed in R-33 with three acres.
Chairman DiPace asked about the zone for both funeral homes. Mr. Giner stated both are now nonconforming because of the new regulations.
Mr. Brown stated what bothers him is the fact that R-33 has twenty percent lot coverage and R-44 has fifteen percent lot coverage. He stated this is a financial loss for him. He had a special use permit and his question to Jose was wouldn’t that special use permit carry over. Mr. Giner stated any site work expires after five years and the permit is no longer valid.
Mr. Brown asked about the best way to resolve this. Commissioner Weseliza asked what is the lot next door zoned. Mr. Giner responded Business Local. Mr. Giner asked if the Commission wants to allow funeral homes in R-33 and R-44.
Chairman DiPace asked if there is a way to allow incidental expansion. Mr. Giner stated any expansion of a nonconforming use would require a variance.
Chairman DiPace felt funeral homes need to be removed from HR-33. He doesn’t think funeral homes belong in the Historic District. The Commission members agreed.
Some discussion followed on the best place to locate funeral homes. Mr. Giner stated there is no site where funeral homes can fit in Business General.
Mr. Giner stated Business Local seems like a more fitting zone.
Chairman DiPace stated Mr. Brown’s funeral home has over five acres. He suggested allowing funeral homes in R-33 and R-44 zones with a minimum of five acres. Mr. Giner did not know if this would affect the other funeral home. Chairman DiPace further suggested three acres rather than five. Chairman DiPace stated this would make the two funeral homes conforming so when they want to build an addition, they will be able to do so.
Commissioner Duren questioned why the present zones for funeral homes are in place. Some discussion followed regarding the zoning map from 1987.
Further discussion followed regarding the variance procedure.
Chairman DiPace asked that Mr. Giner take a look at the present zoning and see what can be done. He would want to eliminate funeral homes in HR-33. He suggested keeping them as special use permits and allowing them in R-33 and R-44 with over three acres. Mr. Giner stated if the Commission feels more comfortable with five acres, he can find out if the other funeral home can add two acres to make it conforming. It will all be by special permit and the Commission would have discretion on a case by case basis whether the funeral home would be allowed in the neighborhood.
Chairman DiPace asked that Mr. Giner have a draft ready for the next meeting. Mr. Giner stated the regulation change would have to be sent to CRCOG. He will provide a draft for the next meeting and send it to CRCOG.
Mr. Brown asked if there is any way he could go back to R-33 from R-44. He had a concern about the lot coverage and losing five percent lot coverage. Mr. Giner stated that is the way it has been since 1987.
Commissioner Weseliza asked what would happen if the zone was changed to BL for Mr. Brown. Mr. Giner stated he would then get the twenty percent coverage.
Chairman DiPace stated he would like funeral homes to be a permitted use in R-33. He asked if Mr. Brown’s property could be rezoned to R-33. Mr. Giner stated this would be a spot zone. Chairman DiPace noted spot zoning is under two and a half acres and this property is over five acres. He suggested including the school in a zone change.
Mr. Giner stated the coverage can be allowed in R-33. The lot sizes are going to be proportional. You are still using twenty percent of your land. He doesn’t see the logic for requiring less. Mr. Giner summarized the Commission wants to try twenty percent coverage in R-33.
Chairman DiPace summarized the Commission is going to draft a regulation change. It will be reviewed by CRCOG. The zone will be changed to allow funeral homes in R-33 and R-44 with a minimum of three acres. Mr. Giner is going to look at the lot coverage and making R-44 and R-33 twenty percent on both.
Discussion of Regulations
a. Signs in Design Districts – This will be discussed at the next meeting.
b. Boulevards – This will be discussed at the next meeting.
c. Accessory Buildings in Industrial Districts
Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Giner put together a draft for accessory buildings. Mr. Giner stated it affects Sterling Machine. They have a shed they want to locate on their property. The regulations require that all accessory buildings have to be behind the building line. This would put it into wetlands. Mr. Giner recommended in commercial and industrial that they be allowed in front of the building line as long as it is not next to residential and as long as it is not in the front yard. Mr. Giner will draft something that will say as long as you are not facing a residential zone, an accessory building would be allowed in front of the building line.
Applications to be Accepted
The following applications were received by the Commission:
No public hearings to be received.
SPR#1403 – Application for conversion of building (former Hamilton Sundstrand Credit Union) to a Pizza Restaurant, zoned BL, Map 33, Lot 206, Harry Bacopoulos, Applicant/Hamilton Standard Credit Union, Owner.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
jmr Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission |