|
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
JULY 26, 2007
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, July 26, 2007 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Vice Chairman Hickey called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman (arrived at 7:35 p.m.)
Elizabeth Ballard
Jeffrey Cooper
James Hickey, Jr. (left the meeting at 7:45 p.m. and returned at 9:50 p.m.)
Jason Jones
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
Charles Ladd, Alternate (arrived at 7:40 p.m.)
MINUTES
Commissioner Cooper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve the Minutes of July 12, 2007. A correction was made on page two, first paragraph. The name “Connelly” should be “O’Connell.” The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a 4 – 0 – 1 vote. Commissioners Hickey, Cooper, Ballard and Sarno voted in favor. Commissioner Jones abstained.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace stated correspondence includes a notice of violation regarding 65 Palomba Drive, and a letter from Jose Giner to the Mt. Carmel regarding the helicopter landing.
COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Notice of Action for July 10, 2007, a letter from Jose Giner to Reverend Waltzer of the Charismatic Church, information from the American Planning Association regarding Hot Topics of Land Use Practice to be held July 27, 2007, and the Connecticut Planning APA newsletter. Chairman DiPace noted an article on newspaper boxes that may be of interest to the Commission.
Chairman DiPace noted he received correspondence regarding 17 Louise Drive. No one has lived in it since 1981 and it has not been kept up. Chairman DiPace suggested a letter from the Commission to the Town Council recommending toughening the blight ordinance.
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of a letter from Joe Jednak’s wife regarding 209 Hazard Avenue. Mr. Bickley said because it was under a certain amount of square footage, it was not a part of the blight ordinance or a zoning violation. They have a refrigerator sitting in the front yard with no door on it and it is unsightly. Mr. Jednak had concerns that this brings the neighborhood down. It was the consensus of the Commission to send a letter to the Town Council requesting they review the blight ordinance. Chairman DiPace discussed home valuations and noted the house at 209 Hazard Avenue was assessed for less than the rest of the homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Giner asked that the Commission suggest a subcommittee to work on this blight ordinance concern.
Commissioner Ladd asked about North Maple Street. Mr. Giner has not heard from Mr. Bickley on this location.
Mr. Giner reported on a newsletter he received on the Connecticut Rest Area Service Plaza Study. They will have four regional meetings throughout the state. One is scheduled for Tuesday, August 21, 2007 in Willington at the Willington Public Library at 6:30 p.m. Information is available on the town’s web site.
Mr. Giner stated he is on the advisory committee for the town regarding these rest areas. There is talk of putting a welcome center southbound and a rest area. Chairman DiPace stated he heard that someone was looking at the former Digital building on Phoenix Avenue. Mr. Giner stated there is a firm that is connected with Control Module and he met with their representatives today. They do state of the art facilities and they are looking at the feasibility of putting in a laboratory for their units right next to the building they will occupy off of Phoenix Avenue. Mr. Giner advised them that the use is not allowed in that zone and they would have to come in for a zone change. There are also land swap proposals that would have to go to the Town Council. Further discussion followed on the specifics of this proposal. Chairman DiPace stated this is something that is worth exploring for the benefit of the truckers. Mr. Giner stated there would be a small swap of open space and Ray Warren was talking about the DEP and the fact that the open space was done as some type of an agreement when the industrial park was done and that a certain amount of open space should be maintained. Mr. Giner stated it is very preliminary right now because without the land swap it would not work. Secondly, it has to go to the Town Council regarding the land swap. Third, the regulations would have to be amended. The representatives had a meeting with town staff for their input.
Mr. Giner stated he received a letter from Mark G. Griswold, Scitico Street, regarding petitioning the Planning and Zoning Commission to reverse its decision to grant commercial status to 544 Hazard Avenue. He read the letter to the Commission outlining Mr. Griswold’s concerns. Mr. Giner stated the Town Manager and the Engineering Department are looking at designs for closing Scitico Street at Hazard Avenue. Chairman DiPace requested that this be a discussion item for the September 6, 2007 agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
- PH #2608 – Application of plans previously approved for 1) modification of the design of the Central Service/44 Unit Apartment building, 2) Modification of the design of the cottage units, 3) Seeking permission for a use of a temporary Central Service Building to allow the issuance of Certificate of Occupancies for the cottage units, after receiving the certificate of occupancy of the proposed temporary central service building at property located on the corner of North Maple Street – Mayfield Drive “Mayfield Park”, zoned R-44, Map 78, 79 and Lots 30 and 95, M&J Developers, LLC, Applicant/Owner. (Must close tonight – decision deadline 9/20/07)
Michael Massimino from M&J Developers, 184 Morgan Avenue, East Haven, Connecticut, Jack Galanek, John Seveni and Skip Alford appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Massimino stated they are before the Commission in regard to Mayfield Park which is an existing approved 159-unit project. 115 of the units are residential units referred to as cottages. The main building in the center consists of a central service building as well as 44 units. This project has been around for over ten years and Mr. Massimino recently purchased it this past November. Since then, they have begun the site work and cutting in the road. They are about to pave most of the road in phases one and two in about two weeks. There is also a sales office that will be open in approximately two weeks.
Mr. Massimino stated they are here tonight because of item 19 on the original approval which reads: (19) No certificates of occupancy or compliance shall be issued for any residential units until the accessory services are completed and a certificate of occupancy is issued for the central service building. Mr. Massimino stated until they build the central service building which is in the center of Bayberry Circle, they are not allowed to have c.o.’s on the residential cottages.
Mr. Massimino stated they are here tonight for three items. The first is to phase the central service and apartment building. The second item is to modify the design of the cottage and residential units. The third item is to allow a temporary central service building which will allow them to get c.o.’s on the residences.
Mr. Massimino stated the way the existing main central service building which has forty-four apartments within it is designed architecturally, there is no way of phasing the building. You would be forced to build the building in its entirety prior to getting a c.o. The way the approval reads states that the central service building must need a c.o. prior to getting c.o.’s on the cottage residential units. Mr. Massimino presented a rendering of their new proposed central service building which shows the central service building as well as the apartment buildings. Mr. Massimino had their architect create a scenario where they could build this building in phases. They separated where the central services section of the building could be. They could go in, obtain a building permit on the central service building solely without having to build the forty-four units. With the existing plan, the central services are incorporated throughout the whole building. This proposed building will include all the services – an indoor swimming pool, a fitness center, a multi-purpose room, a spa, a gym, a game room and a computer room. The main level will have a dining room and a full kitchen. It will also have an administrative office and a wellness center. They are not taking any central services out of this building. All they are trying to accomplish is to build it within phases.
Mr. Massimino stated each phase of the building will be self-sufficient. Each phase of the building will be code compliant. Each phase will have its own independent ingresses and egresses. The elevator which is going to be part of the main corridor is going to be extended when they do their future additions.
Mr. Massimino stated the second item on tonight’s agenda is to modify the residential cottage design. This project has been around for over ten years. The previous owner owns the American Inn in Southwick, Massachusetts, which is a similar facility with an assisted living component. Ten years ago, the developer took his exact design from the American Inn and he plotted it for Mayfield Park. It would consist of 115 cottage units. Ten years later there is a new market and a need to adjust the market trends to see what people want. Residents are not looking to downsize their unit but their lifestyle. The current plan only has one-car garages and they are only 900 square feet to 1,300 square feet. They have three new proposed models - Unit A, Unit B and a Unit C. The units will range from 1,500 square feet to 850 square feet. Units A and C will have two-car garages. The one-car garage will be an oversized one. Mr. Massimino noted the difference in today’s market from ten years ago.
Mr. Massimino stated the third item they are applying for tonight is permission to build a temporary central service building. In the event they are granted the approval for the central service building to phase it, their construction time will be twelve to sixteen months. They are twelve to sixteen months away from obtaining c.o.’s on their residential units and cottages. Mr. Massimino had his architect put together something that would conform to the regulations. The state looks at Mayfield Park as an MRC. An MRC is a managed restricted community. There are certain regulations to be granted MRC status and some of the main items are the units have to be handicapped accessible, they have to have an emergency call system, and you have to have a facility which could accommodate fifty percent of the residents at one point in time. Mr. Massimino had his architect design a temporary central service building within their B and C unit in a triplex and in the event they are granted permission tonight, they plan on locating the central service building across from the future permanent central service building and forty-four apartments.
Mr. Massimino stated the MRC regulations state you need to have a facility that will accommodate fifty percent of the residents at one point in time. The main central service building will take from twelve to sixteen months to build. When they have a c.o. on the main building, they will be able to get a c.o. on the residences. Within twelve and sixteen months, their intentions are Phase 1 which is Bayberry Circle and Phase 2 which is Morningside – a total of 46 units. Mr. Massimino had his architect design the temporary central service building to accommodate fifty percent of the residents in the event that he built out the whole Phase 1 and 2 of Mayfield Park. Their intention is, if they are granted the approvals tonight, to pull a permit on some residences and the temporary central service building as well as the main central service building. Twelve to sixteen months from now when the main central service building is completed, they will shut the doors down on the temporary central service building. What they are trying to accomplish is to let the community build itself a reputation and a community rather than waiting twelve to sixteen months. The objective of the temporary central service building will be to allow them to obtain c.o.’s within three to four months of the time of construction rather than twelve to sixteen months.
Chairman DiPace stated construction has been started on this project for the past six to eight months and it has been an eyesore. The trees have been removed right up to people’s back yards in Longmeadow. Chairman DiPace drove up and down the area and stated to be a good neighbor, that should never have been done. Screening should have been left for the neighbor’s back yards. The front sidewalk has had dirt on it on several occasions and the grass is not being cut. Once it is built, it will look nice but Chairman DiPace felt in the interim the best way to handle it would be to try to have it looking a little better. Trees were stripped and that to him was wrong. He would be very upset if he lived in those homes in Longmeadow.
Mr. Massimino stated when they decided they were going to build out Phase l and 2 of the project, they took a look at what they could try to save. They did leave a good amount of trees and about 75’ of woods. When he submitted the application, there was an ART meeting and one of the comments was why don’t you try to make more of a denser landscape buffer. He submitted this last week and it shows more of a significant buffer than what they have. Mr. Massimino agrees it is a short distance from these people’s back yards to Longmeadow’s back yards. They did not have a choice. The way the contours went, they had to make some swales and they wanted people to have at least a twenty to twenty-five foot back yard. Skip Alford and his team went in and designed a landscape buffer that is more dense than what was approved.
Chairman DiPace asked if there is a twenty-five foot setback line. Mr. Giner stated there is a setback for the buildings. The original plan did not show too much landscaping along that border. There was a setback for building. Mr. Giner noted this occurred twelve years ago.
Mr. Massimino stated they did not do anything against what was approved currently. They did what they were entitled to do. They wanted to do whatever they could to create a buffer or some type of fencing and that is what they have today. They are willing to increase it. Chairman DiPace would like to see some privacy for the abutting residents.
Mr. Massimino stated this is not a condominium development where they will build them and go away. This is something they will have a long-term interest in and they want to do whatever they can to accommodate the community. They have met with the Dartmoor community several times to address their concerns. Mr. Massimino stated they are looking to do whatever they can to increase the buffer and the landscaping. The other item the Commission has to look at is in reference to the temporary central service building and talking about time frames. In the event that they are granted the temporary central service building, their construction time is going to go three to four months on that facility. They will be using the same footprint as the proposed modified cottage units and the same elevations. The only difference is the temporary unit with the wellness center will not have a garage door because they will be utilized as offices. They will build them to residential standards and fit it as a temporary central service building. Within three or four months, it will be their opportunity to start building the project and they will be a year closer to starting the landscaping and improving the property between Dartmoor and the Longmeadow line. Mr. Massimino stated in the event they did not have the opportunity to utilize a temporary central service building, they would have twelve to sixteen months construction time.
Mr. Massimino stated they are looking to build a buffer. Chairman DiPace stated he has been on this Commission for twenty years and this is one of the worst situations he has seen. It needs to be cleaned up. Commissioner Jones did not feel the buffer on the Longmeadow line should be improved as they go along but it should be improved now because it looks horrible.
Jack Galanek stated they will plant six to eight foot pines and put them within a foot of each other. In three years, it will be a wall. Chairman DiPace asked if this screening could be done this fall. Mr. Massimino stated if it can be done, he would be willing to accommodate that. He noted cutting down from twelve to sixteen months to four months will decrease the impact on people’s lifestyle. They can create temporary screening.
Mr. Massimino discussed utilities and stated they are installing electrical conduit next week. They plan on bringing the road base in and having a binder course for the majority of the road that is cut down. All the laterals are in and they are ready to build.
Chairman DiPace reiterated the sidewalk with dirt on it. The sidewalk along the street did not get cleared this past winter.
Commissioner Jones stated right now the developer is promising these things but the Commission has seen a lot of empty promises. Chairman DiPace questioned what benefit it would be to the town to make this modification. Mr. Massimino stated in the event they were granted permission, he is willing to do whatever he can to accommodate the Commission. Chairman DiPace stated his concern is screening for the neighbor’s back yards for privacy reasons. Mr. Massimino stated he is more than willing to do whatever they can. This is a long-term project for them.
Commissioner Ballard asked if the temporary service center is built like a unit and will be turned into a unit once the permanent building is completed. Mr. Massimino stated that is correct. The only difference from the outside is if you drive by the temporary central service building, there will be windows and two less one car garages. They will build it as a unit and as soon as they have a c.o. on the main building, they are going to close the doors on the temporary central service building and fit it back into a cottage unit. In this case it would be a B and a C model.
Chairman DiPace asked if the main building would be completed following completion of Phases 1 and 2. Mr. Massimino stated he would have the main building prior to that. In the event they were approved tonight, they are going to come in, put a full set of drawings together, pull a permit and start construction. In twelve to sixteen months, they may have half of the units built or they may have forty units built. They have the intention of completing the main building as soon as possible.
Chairman DiPace suggested the Commission allow the temporary central service building with the condition that by the time these two streets are done, the main building will be done. If the Commission says you can have c.o.’s for the two streets and they are not to go any further unless the central service building is complete, that is not a problem. Mr. Massimino stated that would not be a problem. Commissioner Jones stated he would like to see the apartments done also.
Commissioner Sarno stated it sounds like the developer wants to do the cottage units first because that is the market demand. He is also enlarging them square footage wise. Regarding the apartments going up last, Commissioner Sarno agrees with Commissioner Jones because that is what is needed. The original plans were to put up the central service building first and then the cottages.
Mr. Massimino stated in the event that the Commission grants the three modifications and they go in and start immediately with the central service building, these units are not condominiums where you have two separate communities. This is all one community. It is an aging in place community. All the units have three foot openings, are level entry, have emergency call systems. All the units are handicapped accessible. Whether he builds the main building including the forty-four units – the only difference between the cottage and the apartments is it is more independent type of living versus apartment style living. Both the apartments and the cottage units will have the same items. They could bring services in the event they are needed into these units.
Commissioner Sarno asked if the cottages would be rented or sold. Mr. Massimino stated there is a buy back. There is an entrance fee and then they buy the unit back. This is industry standard. This is all the same type of unit but it is apartment style versus residential cottage style. Mr. Massimino discussed the fact that services can be brought to the cottage units in order to keep residents lifestyle the same.
Mr. Massimino stated the way it works is people give an entrance fee and then there is a monthly fee which is going to help support the community. In the event they wanted to strictly rent the units, they would consider it but it is mostly an entrance fee which is industry standards. Commissioner Jones would still like to see the forty-four units built.
Mr. Massimino stated the way they set the main building up, they could build it in three phases. They could build the central service building and then they have two wings. He suggested building one wing simultaneously to the central service building and the other at a later time. Chairman DiPace stated both wings would then be completed by the time they have completed Phase 3. Mr. Massimino stated he would be fine with that.
Mr. Galanek discussed his experience with American Inn. The majority of people did not transition into the main building. If someone moves into the cottages, from the beginning there are all of the services available to them in their home. Chairman DiPace asked if the need is there for the apartments in the previous project. Mr. Galanek stated eventually there will be and it will be from people on the outside who refuse to move into a community until they need a more sheltered environment. Mr. Galanek went on to discuss the American Inn which has sixty percent of the occupants still there.
Commissioner Ladd had a concern about only one elevator for twenty units upstairs. If they are elderly people and more in need of special care, he would think you would want more than one elevator. Mr. Galanek stated at the American Inn they have one elevator for 57 apartments in a three-story building and they have never had a problem. Further discussion followed.
Commissioner Cooper asked about the revised landscaping plan.
Chairman DiPace stated there was a memo today from Engineering. Mr. Massimino talked to Mr. Cabibbo this afternoon and they have addressed his concerns.
Mr. Massimino stated in conclusion they know they are looking to phase the main building from the central service building and build phased wings of the apartments. They are looking to modify the design only of the cottages. They are not increasing any density. They are not modifying all the design of the cottage units but it is 95 out of 115. When they looked at the site plan, there were some instances where there were going to be conflicts. Twenty out of 115 units would have had conflicts with the setbacks. They decided to leave those as is. Lastly, the temporary central service building will allow them to obtain c.o.’s. Mr. Massimino stated he is willing to do whatever he can to accommodate the Commission’s concerns. In the fall, he would be willing to put screening along Longmeadow. He would be willing to put more screening in the event that it was needed along Dartmoor. He would be willing to do what can be done to move forward and get this community up and running.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.
Alan Serva, President of the Dartmoor Association, stated Dartmoor has been living with this for quite a long time. He has spoken to Mr. Massimino on several occasions and whenever they had a problem, it was taken care of the next day. He doesn’t think Mr. Massimino should be responsible for what happened with the landscaping down on North Maple Street. Originally, that was Dartmoor project. Mr. Serva discussed North Maple Street not being plowed. He has asked their landscapers not to do it because there was construction going on. Mr. Serva noted the many problems with the previous owner. They feel very strongly that Mr. Massimino is going to comply and once the project is finished, it will be a beautiful one. He noted there is still a tremendous amount of trees that have been left on the property and there is only one small area of Dartmoor where you can see into the property. Mr. Serva has no problems with the buildings and thinks it will be a great asset to the community. The Dartmoor Association is for it one hundred percent.
Chairman DiPace asked about the plowing and the sidewalk on North Maple Street. Mr. Serva stated they used to have it plowed all the time but when all this construction began, Mr. Serva asked them to stop it because of the construction. Chairman DiPace stated the sidewalk on North Maple Street has not been cleared for the last three years. Mr. Serva stated it was taken care of up until last year. They used to clean that at least once every six weeks. Chairman DiPace stated he is talking about plowing the snow. Mr. Serva stated they have never plowed that. Chairman DiPace stated that is a public sidewalk and it has not been taken care of. Mr. Serva stated if they have to correct it, they will do that.
Chairman DiPace stated he has been asking for screening for the last four to six months and it has not happened.
Mr. Serva stated before November it was handled by American Inn. They are concerned also because they want the area to look nice. He gets calls every single day from realtors in Longmeadow about when they are going to start building. Mr. Serva requested that the Commission approve all the motions that Mr. Massimino has requested.
James Breslin, Oakwood Street, stated his neighborhood feeds on to North Maple Street and this project has been an eyesore for him. Mr. Breslin asked that any approvals that do happen tonight are conditional on substantial improvement to the property - specifically, the landscaping. He would like to see planting of trees occurring to mitigate some of the worst things that make the property an eyesore at this time. If there is nonperformance, there should be a penalty to the developer.
Mr. Massimino added that he would be willing to accept conditions as far as the screening and landscaping. He is willing to accommodate the community and accommodate the temporary eyesore. Within a couple of weeks, they will be paving the road. They are moving forward. Mr. Massimino is willing to do temporary screening to meet the concerns.
Chairman DiPace noted the memo regarding this application with the eight conditions.
Chairman DiPace stated one of the concerns is getting the apartments built. There is a reason why that condition was placed there that the main building go up first and it was because the Commission wanted assurances that it would be built. He asked if Mr. Massimino would have a problem with a condition that they do the temporary central service building and phases one and two. By the time they are finished with that, that main building will be up. By the time you get into phase three, you will be working on the wings with the apartments. One will be done and completed by the completion of phase three and the fourth one will be completed before they get c.o.’s on phase four.
Mr. Massimino stated in the event that he was granted an approval based on the condition, he could put the temporary central service building up and start phase one. When he is done with phase three, he needs to start one wing. If he can do it in phases, he would be willing to do that.
Some discussion followed on the specific conditions to be included with this application.
Mr. Giner stated there would be no more c.o.’s beyond Phase II until the main service building is completed and has a c.o. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase four, the Commission wants both wings completed. Chairman DiPace stated the Commission would like to see the project cleaned up.
Commissioner Cooper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve PH #2608 – Application of plans previously approved for 1) modification of the design of the Central Service/44 Unit Apartment building, 2)Modification of the design of the cottage units, 3)Seeking permission for a use of a temporary Central Service Building to allow the issuance of Certificate of Occupancies for the cottage units, after receiving the certificate of occupancy of the proposed temporary central service building at property located on the corner of North Maple Street – Mayfield Drive “Mayfield Park”, Zoned R-44, Map 78, 79 and Lots 30 & 95, M&J Developers, LLC, Applicant/Owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Mayfield Park Prepared for the American Inn, Overall Landscaping Plan, Mayfield Drive, Enfield, Connecticut.” Scale: 1 in. = 80 ft., by Alford Associates, Inc. dated April 13, 2007.
“Mayfield Park Prepared for the American Inn, Overall Site Plan, Mayfield Drive, Enfield, Connecticut.” Scale: 1 in. = 40 ft., by Alford Associates, Inc. dated April 13, 2007.
“Mayfield Park Cottages, Enfield, Connecticut, Unit A –Schematic Design, April 11, 2007” Elevation Drawings, Scale 1/16” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Cottages, Enfield, Connecticut, Unit A –Schematic Design, April 11, 2007” Floor Plan Drawings, Scale 1/8” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Cottages, Enfield, Connecticut, Unit A –Schematic Design, April 11, 2007” First Floor Plan , Scale 1/8” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Cottages, Enfield, Connecticut, Unit A –Schematic Design, April 11, 2007” Loft Plan, Scale 1/8” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Cottages, Enfield, Connecticut, Unit B –Schematic Design, April 11, 2007” Elevation Drawings, Scale 1/16” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Cottages, Enfield, Connecticut, Unit B –Schematic Design, April 11, 2007” Floor Plan Drawings, Scale 1/8” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Cottages, Enfield, Connecticut, Unit B –Schematic Design, April 11, 2007” First Floor Plan , Scale 1/8” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Cottages, Enfield, Connecticut, Unit B –Schematic Design, April 11, 2007” Loft Plan, Scale 1/8” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Cottages, Enfield, Connecticut, Unit C –Schematic Design, April 11, 2007” Elevation Drawings, Scale 1/16” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Cottages, Enfield, Connecticut, Unit C –Schematic Design, April 11, 2007” Floor Plan Drawings, Scale 1/8” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Cottages, Enfield, Connecticut, Unit C –Schematic Design, April 11, 2007” First Floor Plan , Scale 1/8” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Cottages, Enfield, Connecticut, Unit C –Schematic Design, April 11, 2007” Loft Plan, Scale 1/8” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Cottages, Enfield, Connecticut, Duplex –Schematic Design, April 11, 2007” Elevation Drawings, Scale 1/16” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Cottages, Enfield, Connecticut, Duplex –Schematic Design, April 11, 2007” Floor Plan Drawings, Scale 1/16” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Cottages, Enfield, Connecticut, Triplex –Schematic Design, April 11, 2007” Elevation Drawings, Scale 1/16” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Cottages, Enfield, Connecticut, Triplex –Schematic Design, April 11, 2007” First Floor Plan, Scale 1/16” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Cottages, Enfield, Connecticut, Triplex –Schematic Design, April 11, 2007” Upper Floor/Loft Plan, Scale 1/16” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park , Enfield, Connecticut, Main Building –Schematic Design Progress Plans, April 11, 2007” Elevation Drawings, Scale 1/16” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park, Enfield, Connecticut, Main Building –Schematic Design Progress Plans, April 11, 2007” Elevation Drawings, Scale 1/16” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park , Enfield, Connecticut, Main Building –Schematic Design Progress Plans, April 11, 2007” Main Entrance Level Plan, Scale 1/16” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park , Enfield, Connecticut, Main Building –Schematic Design Progress Plans, April 11, 2007” Lower Level Plan, Scale 1/16” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park, Enfield, Connecticut, Main Building –Schematic Design Progress Plans, April 11, 2007” Main Entrance Level Plan, Scale 1/16” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Main , Enfield, Connecticut,–Schematic Design –Exterior Elevations, April 11, 2007” East & North, Scale 1/32” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Main , Enfield, Connecticut,–Schematic Design –Exterior Elevations, April 11, 2007” South & West, Scale 1/32” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Main , Enfield, Connecticut,– Phase 2- Schematic Design –Floor Plans, April 11, 2007” Main Entrance Level Plan, Scale 1/32” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Main , Enfield, Connecticut,– Phase 2- Schematic Design –Floor Plans, April 11, 2007” Lower Level Plan, Scale 1/32” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Main , Enfield, Connecticut,– Phase 2- Schematic Design –Floor Plans, April 11, 2007” Upper Level Plan, Scale 1/32” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
“Mayfield Park Cottages, Enfield, Connecticut, Temporary Wellness Center–Schematic Design, June 13, 2007” First Floor Plan, Scale 1/16” = 1’-0”, by Strekalovsky Architecture, Inc.
Conditions:
1. The applicants shall provide a detail of the connection from the temporary Wellness Center to the sewer system to the Water Pollution Control Authority.
2. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
3. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
4. This approval is for the specific use and structures identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structures will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
5. An additional Bond for the Revised Landscaping Plan shall be submitted in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department and with surety acceptable to the Finance Department and Town Attorney.
6. All other conditions of approval for Special Permit #2404 not specifically modified by this approval shall remain in full force and effect.
7. 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.
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. No more c.o.’s beyond Phase II will be issued until the main service building is completed and has a certificate of occupancy.
10. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase 4, both wings containing 44 apartments shall be completed.
11. Appropriate sedimentation and erosion controls along North Maple Street shall be installed to prevent dirt from going on to the sidewalk and temporary screening along the Longmeadow border shall be installed by October 15, 2007.
Chairman DiPace stated this project has been around for a long time and it is something there is definitely a need for. He still thinks it is a worthwhile project and if it can be cleaned up and put on track, it will be a win win situation for the developer and the town. Chairman DiPace feels this development will help the quality of life in this town.
The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting. (Commissioner Hickey was not present for this vote.)
- PH #2609 – Application for a Special Use Permit to put a licensed day care (approximately 3,100 square feet) within the existing facility (Healthtrax) at 3 Weymouth Road, zoned I-1, Map 17, Lot 86, Stephen Capezzone of Healthtrax, Applicant/Health Care Property Investors, Inc. Owner. (Must close tonight – decision deadline 9/20/07)
Attorney Richard Cottone appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Giner stated there was a mistake regarding the zone. It should have been zoned BG. The applicant had put down District 1 and it got translated to Industrial 1. Mr. Giner does not believe it is a fatal defect because it doesn’t affect the location and what is being conducted. The applicants are comfortable going forward tonight.
Attorney Cottone stated he represents Healthtrax. With him this evening is Stephen Capezzone of Healthtrax. Attorney Cottone got involved in this application less than two weeks ago after it was submitted by Mr. Capezzone. He has met with Mr. Giner and had an administrative review team meeting. Last Thursday, the revised plans were submitted.
Attorney Cottone stated this project is a joint venture between World of Imagination which is a day care center in Astro’s Plaza adjacent to Healthtrax and Healthtrax. World of Imagination is a much smaller facility and is booming. They have a waiting list of people who are desirous of this type of service. Healthtrax is all about fitness and family. They have had requests from some of their members to provide these services as well. The day care provider would be running this operation if approved.
Attorney Cottone stated the plans before the Commission show a 3,100 square foot facility including a 20’ x 50’ fenced in mulched area outside with a direct access from the building to it. Inside there is a new day care center and a youth activity center. The outside area consists of the removal of a HVAC system. The improvements to the outside are well over 100’ from any wetlands area. This was a concern of Building and Engineering because of the stream in the back by the I-91 ramp.
Chairman DiPace asked if Healthtrax would be kept in place. Attorney Cottone stated it would and within its facility a racquetball court is being given up for this service. The swimming pool is at the other end of the building and is an indoor pool. Chairman DiPace asked if the doors would be locked so that children cannot walk in to the pool area. Mr. Capezzone stated they would and they are very sensitive to that because they have a lot of children from families using the facility.
Attorney Cottone stated there is a wall dividing the day care area from the basketball court and there is also a wall at the end of the basketball court to get into the pool area. This is not an open area. There is a floor to ceiling wall on both ends of the basketball court. Attorney Cottone pointed out these areas on the floor plans.
Commissioner Jones noted on the spinning studio there is a door going into the daycare. He sees a security concern and if two doors are needed, he would suggest the door be moved to the other side. The second door is to be moved to the hallway.
Todd Delnegro, the Physical Plant Director of the facility, appeared before the Commission and stated the exit that is seen leading to that common hallway is an alarmed emergency exit door. A common hallway will be created and the door leading out of the spinning studio is an emergency exit only. They would not want to get rid of it.
Commissioner Sarno asked if there is an existing day care in the facility now. Mr. Cappezone stated they would be moving this business to Healthtrax by using the area that is now one of the racquet ball courts. Mr. Cappezone discussed the specific location of the day care center.
In response to a question from Commissioner Ladd, Mr. Cappezone stated the door on the left side of the spinning studio is not alarmed. Commissioner Ladd had a concern that someone may go into the gymnasium. The exit out to the play area is on the other end of that hall.
Chairman DiPace pointed out the two exits including the alarmed exit. Commissioner Ladd asked if it would be possible to put an emergency door where it says equal equal on the plans. Mr. Delnegro discussed eliminating a doorway and moving it to the hallway. He acknowledged the location would probably be better. They would eliminate the wall entirely and the result would be better.
Commissioner Cooper asked about staffing. Jenny Riggins, owner of the World of Imagination in Astros Plaza, stated the staffing will be full time and part time. Children under three are staffed with a four to one ratio and the children over three are staffed at a ten to one ratio. There would be eight employees. The hours will be 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Sarno asked if they would be increasing the number of children. Ms. Riggins stated Healthtrax will still be staffing their activity area and it will not be a part of World of Imagination. Mr. Cappezone stated there is a licensed day care and then a service they provide to their members which is babysitting.
Mr. Giner stated the Health Department had some issues which are more building code issues.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Ladd made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve PH #2609 – Application for a Special Use Permit to put a licensed day care (approximately 3,100 sq. ft.) within the existing facility (Healthtrax) at 3 Weymouth Road, Zoned BG, Map 17, Lot 86, Stephen Capezzone of Healthtrax, Applicant/Health Care Property Investors, Inc. Owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the application record and the following conditions:
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Zoning Permit and Certificate of Compliance :
1. Final inspection and approval of the North Central Health District is required.
2. Any issues regarding emergency exiting from the occupancy shall be resolved to the Fire Marshal’s satisfaction.
General Conditions:
3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
4. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits or compliance sign-offs.
5. There is no exterior work proposed or approved with this application other than the new playground. Any additional exterior work will require further Site Plan approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
6. This project shall be conducted and maintained in accordance with the application record. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
7. The door in the northwest corner of the spinning room, the door to the north, will be eliminated and it will be moved to the northwest and it will be alarmed.
The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, for a recess. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission recessed at 9:15 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 9:30 p.m.
c. PH #2610 – Application for a Special Use Permit for conversion of existing rooms into 5 additional apartments at 127 Pearl Street, zoned TVC, Map 22, Lot 9, Richard Binns, Applicant, Masonic Building Association, Owner. (Must close tonight – decision deadline 9/20/07)
This public hearing was opened and continued to September 6, 2007 because the public hearing sign was not posted for the required ten days. An extension was granted by the applicant in a letter to the Commission.
d. PH #2611 – Initiative by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission to impose a six-month moratorium on all age-restricted applications including Assisted Living Facilities under Section 4.30.2, Senior Residential Developments under Section 4.30.19, Housing for the Elderly under Section 4.30.11, and Continuing Care Communities under Section 4.30.06.
Chairman DiPace stated the original intent of this moratorium by the Commission was to review what changes need to be made with the applications and what can be done to make them better. One of his concerns is a lot of these senior PRD’s are being built on two floors. He felt three quarters of them should be on one floor to avoid relocation. Chairman DiPace stated he has heard other communities limit the number of units that can be built. The Town of Enfield presently doesn’t have any limitations regarding the number of units and that needs to be looked at. Chairman DiPace would also like a review of the square footages which have changed due to market demand. He stated a moratorium is necessary should the Commission get an application in the interim. It would have to follow the old rules.
Commissioner Sarno asked what are we looking to change. Chairman DiPace stated some of the units are being built as two stories. Commissioner Sarno stated while that is true, the master bedroom is on the first floor. It is one-story living for the people buying the unit. Some of the purchasers are fifty-five and still have children that come and visit.
Commissioner Cooper asked about the impact on the town if the bottom ever drops out of this market. Chairman DiPace stated something will have to be done if the market ever drops. There are not that many where the town has to worry right now. However, if there are no regulations and guidelines to limit these developments, it could be a concern.
Mr. Giner stated other towns like East Windsor have a limit on the total number of units that can be built. Commissioner Ballard would like to see Enfield come up with a reasonable number. Chairman DiPace stated Mr. Giner can look at surrounding towns. He saw a need to make sure these projects are done right and not overburden the town with them.
Mr. Giner saw the benefit of a limitation. If in the future there is a problem, the market would create the pause and the Commission can have a hearing to increase the number or not.
Chairman DiPace stated there are currently five projects that are approved or built. Mr. Giner stated there are two under construction – Shaker Heights with 77 units and Brainard Gardens with 42 units. The total number of approved units at this time is 176 plus the Commission has two applications pending. There are 115 cottages for Mayfield.
Chairman DiPace saw a need to take a good look at these developments.
Commissioner Jones discussed Stonegate with their 90 units in a very confined space. He felt there was some validity in looking at the number of units allowed in an area of land. He doesn’t think the Commission should be eliminating them at this time.
Commissioner Cooper stated these are high end homes and you could end up with a situation where they have to become regular housing stock.
Commissioner Ladd saw a need to take a little time to look at the situation and understand what is going on.
Chairman DiPace stated he would like to make sure that the Commission doesn’t burden people’s neighborhoods with such developments.
Chairman DiPace discussed the problem with Shaker Heights which has been addressed. He stated a moratorium would give the Commission time to get things done and to get some input from the public to find out if there is something different they want to see.
Commissioner Ballard would like to know the numbers some of the other towns have imposed regarding the number of units. Mr. Giner discussed East Windsor and the necessity for a text change when the number of units was exceeded.
Some discussion followed regarding how to limit the number of units in the town. Commissioner Jones felt the Commission should address density. Mr. Giner stated the density right now is twice the underlying zone. If it is in an R-44 zone, it would be two units per acre. Commissioner Jones discussed open space and he would like to see less density where they are building.
Mr. Giner stated Enfield has a low density. Most other towns allow four units per acre. For SRD’s, the Commission took a very conservative approach. He can look and see what other towns are doing.
Chairman DiPace stated Commissioner Duren had originally made the motion for this moratorium and he wanted to speak on this.
Commissioner Jones suggested Mr. Giner gather items from other towns before the Commission thinks about a moratorium. Further discussion followed.
Commissioner Ballard suggested a three month moratorium.
Mr. Giner stated regarding outstanding applications, Stonegate is reapplying and the other one is located in Powder Hollow. Mr. Giner stated this is the Commission’s initiative and they can continue the hearing.
Commissioner Jones would like to see it continued pending receipt of the requested information.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.
Ronald Tenerowicz, 1 Essex Street, discussed the housing for the elderly and the fact that all he has heard is geared toward a higher class of individuals. He advised the Commission to take a look at what other towns have done like Agawam. His mother could not find a nursing home suitable for her in this town. He felt this town is so far behind. He pointed out Agawam, Willberham and Longmeadow. He saw a need for the Commission to take a look at the cross section of individuals. There are people living in this town that can’t afford the upper end housing. There are nursing homes across the border with a multiple number of units. If the Commission is going to put a moratorium on nursing facilities, there are only two in the town and Mr. Tenerowicz would not see fit to have his mother in them. There is very little assisted living. It is sorely needed not only for the upper class but for the people who need affordable housing. Mark Twain is about the best assisted living in town. Mr. Tenerowicz suggested a moratorium with limitations because he saw a need to have something for the people who cannot afford the current housing. Chairman DiPace stated the Commission is only considering a four to six month moratorium. Mr. Tenerowicz stated if you put a moratorium on, you will scare people away. There are not that many applications coming in. Chairman DiPace discussed Mayfield.
Mr. Tenerowicz would not like to see a moratorium. He asked that the Commission look at other communities to see what they have.
Chairman DiPace discussed Suffield House versus what the town presently has. Mr. Tenerowicz stated his mother was in Mark Twain but they would not allow her to stay there because she needed assistance. He noted there is no assisted living in Enfield. People in their eighties or nineties are living on a limited income.
Commissioner Jones suggested looking at a percentage of affordable units in particular developments.
Mr. Tenerowicz asked that the Commission look at it across the board for all individuals and not just for the people that can afford a two-car garage unit. Chairman DiPace suggested with assisted living increasing the density provided they be of a certain size, and they are affordable. If they are not going to be affordable, they will have to follow the present rules.
Mr. Tenerowicz suggested putting a limit on the number of units in different categories. Chairman DiPace saw a need to look at the present regulations.
James Breslin, Oakwood Street, thought a moratorium would be a prudent step by the Commission. They should step back and set a time limit and look at the nature, type and quality of housing stock and the functioning of the real estate market in town. Having read the plan of development, it speaks very little of the role of senior housing in town. Mr. Breslin thought there are some artificial factors driving the types of demand that we see. You can put a lot more properties into a fifty-five and over project than a subdivision. The town has banned condos. He agrees that people that are born and have lived in town shouldn’t have to leave town because of their age. This points to a larger issue which is the type of development. Mayfield is a good example. The way things are planned today is antiquated because it is single-use development. You are betting on one type of individual and you have the severe amplification of life events that causes huge pendulum swings. What the town should look at is why not have senior housing but some housing for regular people on the property as a coherent neighborhood type of deal such that senior citizens interact with others.
Mr. Breslin discussed the problems with single-use development. He would call this Act 3 of the Ledger Starr story. Post World War II there was a building of subdivisions. Act 2 was in the l990’s and now, Act 3 is the baby boomers retiring and them overlapping with their parents to create a turbo-charged demand. What needs to be done is to make sure how this is handled is appropriate such that you do not have pendulum swings.
Mr. Breslin stated the other issue with this that concerns him is the nature of some of these developments. They all involve significant costs. When you look at this you also have to look at the needs of senior citizens to make sure they aren’t being roped into something they don’t fully understand or can’t handle. The last piece of this is where all of this goes. What you are seeing is the developments want to gobble up some of the industrial land in town. That is a concern to Mr. Breslin.
Mr. Breslin stated his concern is turbo charged demand combined with market activity is gobbling up rural land which is a detriment to the long term interests of the town. He felt the Commission should look at the use of condos here in town and the availability/unavailability of various types of condos. The other piece is building upward and this is an antidote to building outward and gobbling up rural land. Some parts of town will be more appropriate for this than others such as the area by the mall and parts of the industrial park. Mr. Breslin asked that the Commission approve the moratorium and look very carefully at the land use in town especially for people like him. He is twenty-three and if this is done wrong, he doesn’t want to come in in twenty years and say what are we going to do to clean this up or fix it.
Chairman DiPace continued this public hearing until September 6, 2007.
e. PH #2612 – Application for a Special Use Permit for non-profit residential shelter housing at 15 Charnley Road, zoned R-88, Map 108, Lot 33, Kathy Barron, applicant/Donald & Gertrude Cunningham, owners.
Chairman DiPace read a letter from Kathy Barron to Mr. Giner withdrawing this application.
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to accept the withdrawal of PH#2612 at 15 Charnley Road without prejudice. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting and Commissioner Hickey present.
NEW BUSINESS
- SPR #1409 – Application for modification of plans previously approved for site modifications to meet State DEP Storm Water Requirements under the MS4. Modifications include drainage system improvements and extension of utilities to serve a future vehicle wash facility at Town Garage, 40 Moody Road, zoned BG, Map 75, Lot 27, Town of Enfield (Colleen Brand), Applicant/Owner. (Decision by 7/26/07 meeting.)
Colleen Brand and Alan Wells, the public works consultant from SCA Consultants, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Chairman DiPace asked when this car wash was previously approved. Ms. Brand stated the car wash was never approved. This is just in anticipation even though it says previously approved.
Mr. Wells stated there are two improvements shown on the plans. The plan is to provide utilities to the future car wash. When that facility is designed, they will be back before the Commission. This first phase is just to extend the utilities there. The reason they are doing this now is because there are some other improvements that were previously approved down at the lower end of the drawing. There are some catch basins and some gross particle separators associated with the salt shed. Those improvements were already on a previous plan that was approved. Since the site is already being excavated to do that, they thought it made sense to go ahead and extend the water, gas and sewer to the future location of the vehicle washing facility. This work is all being done to maintain compliance with the town’s general permit for the discharge of storm water.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission has the conditions and condition #4 states the future truck wash facility would have to come back when they have plans available. It will improve the drainage and water quality coming off the site.
Chairman DiPace stated once the Aquifer Protection Act goes into effect, this car wash cannot be approved because it will no longer be permitted after January 1, 2007. He suggested they look into this. Mr. Giner recalled there was an exemption for the new car washes that recycle their own water.
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to approve SPR #1409 – Application for modification plans previously approved for site modifications to meet State DEP Storm Water Requirements under the MS4. Modifications include drainage system improvements and extension of utilities to serve a future vehicle wash facility at Town Garage, 40 Moody Road, Zoned I-1, Map 75, Lot 27, Town of Enfield (Colleen Brand) Applicant/Owner., This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Town of Enfield, Connecticut, DPW Complex Stormwater Improvements, Site Plan.” Sheet C-1, Scale: 1” =40’, by SEA Consultants, Inc. dated 5/1/07.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. The application number (SPR #1409) shall be displayed on the plans in or near the Title Block area.
2. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
3. Two sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.
General Conditions:
4. The “Future Truck –Wash Facility” shown on the plans is not part of this approval and will require further details and approvals.
5. This approval is for the specific use and improvements identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the improvements will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
6. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
7. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by July 19, 2012 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Ladd and Sarno voting.
b. SPR #1412 – Application for 149 additional parking spaces with associated drainage ata 1699 King Street (aka One Corporate Road), metro North Complex, zoned I-1, Map 14, Lot 25, White Diamond, LLC, applicant/owner. (Decision by 9/06/07 Meeting)
Chairman DiPace stated this application is for additional parking for Mass Mutual.
Mark Friend appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated this is a proposal for an addition of 149 parking spaces to the existing facility which was planned from the beginning when the original proposal was shown in 1983. This area was shown as future parking. It is just now that the needs of the building dictate that the additional parking be installed. It is an Industrial-1 zone and the total lot size is 9.3 acres which consists of 7.07 acres in Enfield and 2.23 acres in East Windsor. Mr. Friend pointed out the existing building on the site plan and noted the proposed parking expansion is shown in gray. Currently it is all lawn area. It is located on Corporate Drive at the intersection of Corporate Drive and King Street. It is also known as the Metro North Office Complex.
Mr. Friend stated the existing parking lot is 395 spaces. They are proposing an additional 149 spaces. Fifty of those are in Enfield and the other 99 are in East Windsor. They have an application before East Windsor as well. This need is generated by a pending lease that the owner has with Mass Mutual who wants to move into the building but they need these additional spaces to move in.
Mr. Friend stated this is the exact layout that was submitted and approved in 1990. It was never built. The landscaping proposed meets the zoning requirements. They have shown additional lighting which matches the existing fixtures in terms of height and lighting levels. There are no wetlands permits needed in the Town of Enfield. They do have to go to the wetlands commission in East Windsor.
Commissioner Ladd asked if there will be any new jobs for people in Enfield. Mark Fontaine, representing the owner, stated this is a new Mass Mutual project. Some of the people are moving from both Springfield and Enfield but they are also hiring a number of other people to accommodate this new project.
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve SPR #1412 – Application for 149 additional parking spaces with associated drainage at 1699 King Street (aka One Corporate Road), Metro North Complex, Zoned I-1, Map 14, Lot 25, White Diamond, LLC, applicant/owner. This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Cover Sheet Metro North Complex Prepared for White Diamonds Enfield & East Windsor, Conn.” Sheet 1 of 8, by Megson & Heagle , dated 6-1-07.
“Site Grading Plan Metro North Complex Prepared for White Diamonds Enfield & East Windsor, Conn.” Sheet 3 of 8, Scale: 1”= 40’ by Megson & Heagle , dated 6-1-07.
“Storm Water Pollution Control Plan Metro North Complex Prepared for White Diamonds Enfield & East Windsor, Conn.” Sheet 4 of 8, Scale: 1”= 40’ by Megson & Heagle , dated 6-1-07.
“Storm Water Pollution Control Plan Notes & Details Metro North Complex Prepared for White Diamonds Enfield & East Windsor, Conn.” Sheet 5 of 8, Scale: “None” by Megson & Heagle , dated 6-1-07.
“General Plan Notes & Details Metro North Complex Prepared for White Diamonds Enfield & East Windsor, Conn.” Sheet 6 of 8, Scale: “None” by Megson & Heagle , dated 6-1-07.
“Landscaping Plan Metro North Complex Prepared for White Diamonds Enfield & East Windsor, Conn.” Sheet 7 of 8, Scale: 1”= 40’ by Megson & Heagle , dated 6-1-07.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. The application number (SPR #1412) shall be displayed on each plan sheet in or near the Title Block area.
2. The Sheets shall either be re-numbered or the applicant shall supply the missing sheets prior to the signing of the plans.
3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of these conditions shall be incorporated on the plans submitted for signing.
4. The plans shall be revised to show the Fire Lane Signs and markings as requested by the Enfield Fire District Fire Marshall.
5. The location of the fire hydrants shall be shown on the final plans.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits or the start of work:
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. 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.
8. 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 or Use of the facilities approved with this application :
9. Final As-Built Survey in both paper and digital format shall be submitted to the Planning Department.
10. No Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval may be issued until the applicant has received a Certificate of Site Plan Compliance from the Planning Department. When minor site work cannot be completed because of weather or other pertinent reason, a conditional Certificate of Site Plan Compliance may be issued for a period not to exceed 180 days, providing satisfactory surety shall be posted with the Town of Enfield in an amount sufficient to complete the site work and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney and Finance Department.
11. A request for Certificate of Site Plan Compliance from the Planning Department must be made at least 10 days before a Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval is requested.
General Conditions:
12. This approval is for the specific use and improvements identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the improvements will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
13. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
14. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by July 26, 2012 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
15. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Discussion on Enfield Dekhockey Park, 101 North Street with Bob Baillargeon.
Bob Baillargeon appeared before the Commission regarding this discussion. He briefly described some plans he has at 101 North Street currently known as the Enfield Dekhockey Park. About four weeks ago he purchased it from the previous owner. He was the one who started it in 1992. In the last few years, the place has gotten out of control. The owner of the property moved his location. Mr. Baillargeon stated he has purchased a new rink for the indoor area and started insulation of the entire building. They have started the renovations and Commission members will see the rink that was inside now outside and the new steel framed updated rink arriving in a couple of weeks. Their plan is to see if the Commission has an objection to putting the rink that was inside outside. Mr. Baillargeon would like to set it up where the greenhouses were and clean that place up. The plan for the rink to go outside is not necessarily to have two rinks operational because there is no roof on it and the weather will affect playing time. The plan is to get the kids to go there and have a place to hang out with some form of supervision. This is a good alternative to ice hockey which is very expensive.
Mr. Baillargeon stated the teams that are enrolled would have an opportunity to practice at no cost. He would like to see lights go up and come back in a couple of years if the market demanded it to put a roof over it. The plan now is to put the rink outside and dress the whole area up. There is the driving range across the street and it will be like a little sports area in town. There is also a field which may be able to be used for soccer or lacrosse.
Mr. Giner stated this is a permitted use. There are some elements that could have been moved from a setback point of view.
Mr. Baillargeon stated it was his intent to apprise the Commission of his plans prior to working on the site plans. He discussed dekhockey and roller blading. He noted the previous owner had about 200 kids enrolled.
Chairman DiPace asked if Mr. Baillargeon has considered batting cages since there are none in town.
The consensus of the Commission was that Mr. Baillargeon should go forward with his plans.
b. Discussion of request by property owner to partition College Pizza space at Riverview Shops.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission had requested a floor plan. The Commission also has a letter from North Central Health.
Chairman DiPace stated it is partitioned off but it is still not divided. Mr. Giner stated the intent is to use the rest rooms for both uses. Chairman DiPace stated if someone rents Unit #5, they will be able to walk over into the other unit. Commission members were not in favor of this plan.
Mr. Giner will inform the applicant he needs to appear before the Commission. He will inform him he has to come in with a new application with two bathrooms, one for each side. Chairman DiPace would like to see a better set of plans.
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to add receipt of applications to tonight’s agenda. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
c. Receipt of applications
The following applications were accepted by the Commission:
Public Hearings:
PH #2614 – Application for a Special Use Permit for a 42 unit Senior Residential Development – Stonegate – Detached Units Serviced By Private Roads, Sanitary Sewers & Public Water Supply East of Mayfield Drive, North of Westview Drive at Intersection with Pine Hill Road, Zoned R-44, Map 79, Lot 11, Stonegate Associates, LLC, Applicant, Angelina McGillivray & John and Marnie Dyer, Owners.
A public hearing will be scheduled for September 20, 2007.
PH #2615 – Application for a Special Use Permit with Site Plan Review for construction of a 23 unit senior residential development on the east side of Powder Hill Road along with associated drainage improvements on the west side of the road at Powder Hill Road, Zoned R-88, Map 84, Lots 15 & 16, Powder Hill Sand & Gravel, LLC, Applicant/Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for September 6, 2007.
PH #2616 – Application for a Special Use Permit to unmerge a lot at 10 South Road and for lot line adjustment at 12 South Road, Zoned R-33, Map 74, Lots 102 & 104, J & L Builders LLC, Applicant/Joseph & Nancy Ingram, Owners.
A public hearing will be scheduled for September 6, 2007.
Site Plan Reviews:
SPR #1414 – Application for ice cream window and outside seating tables for One Stop at 397 Enfield Street, Zoned BL, Map 33, Lot 234, Al Yacteen, Applicant/397 Enfield Street, LLC, Owner.
SPR #1415 – Application for proposed construction of a business and professional office building with access driveway, parking area and detention basin rain garden at 35 Oliver Road, Zoned I-1, Map 47, Lot 6, Brendan Begley, Applicant/Owner.
FLD #022 – Application for property in Flood Plain Zone Designation A, at 35 Oliver Road, Zoned I-1, Map 47, Lot 6, Brendan Begley, Applicant/Owner.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr |