The Town of Enfield, Connecticut - PZC 09/06/07 Minutes

www.enfield-CT.gov

Home Residents Business Community Public Interest

Search:

Calendar

11/24/2008:

Zoning Board of Appeals

11/24/2008:

Town Council Special Meeting

11/26/2008:

Historical District Commission

More...

Surveys

We Welcome Your Feedback

More...

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

SEPTEMBER 6, 2007

A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, September 6, 2007 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman

Jeffrey Cooper

Charles Duren

James Hickey, Jr.(left at 7:30 p.m. and returned at 9:30 p.m.)

Kathleen Sarno, Alternate

Nicles Lefakis, Alternate

Charles Ladd, Alternate

ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning

MINUTES

Commissioner Cooper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve the Minutes of July 26, 2007. The Minutes were approved by a 3 – 0 – 2 vote. Commissioners Duren and Lefakis abstained.

STAFF COMMENTS

a. Town Attorney

b. Zoning Enforcement Officer

Commissioner Duren asked about F14, Bradley Circle, and whether they need condominium approval. Chairman DiPace suggested Mr. Giner forward a copy of the home occupation to the condominium association.

c. Director of Planning

Mr. Giner stated the Commission has received a copy of the letter Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley sent to the owners of 33 North Maple Street. This begins the thirty day time period. After that, if there is no progress regarding the violation, it can be turned over to the police who can then issue citations for fines per day. Beyond that, it would go to the Town Attorney for collection of any fines.

Mr. Giner noted the Commission received a copy of the letter he drafted to be sent to the Town Council regarding the blight ordinance and the need to strengthen it. If the Commission approves, Mr. Giner has the original for the Chairman to sign and it can be sent tomorrow morning.

Mr. Giner stated the Commission has received a notice from Kim Czapla regarding aquifer protection agency training. Each town has one free spot and someone from each agency or staff has to attend those training courses. Mr. Giner stated he plans on attending and he will also have other staff attend. It is a two-day all day course and he questioned how many agency members could attend. He will suggest that it be spread out and scheduled in the evening in the future.

Mr. Giner stated he has two requests to replace underground fuel tanks with above ground fuel tanks. One is U. S. Glass and they are requesting a 4,000 gallon above ground tank and the other is Martin Brower who is requesting a 15,000 gallon above ground fuel tank. Chairman DiPace stated because of the size of the tanks, he would like these to go through a site plan review. Commissioner Duren asked if the Commission would be getting letters from the Fire Department. Mr. Giner stated a fuel tank was just approved administratively for Casual Corner. Commissioner Duren stated the police should also be involved regarding how they are protected from vandalism. Chairman DiPace stated there is a need to see if an aquifer is near any of these proposed fuel tanks and what type of device will there be in case of a leak. Mr. Giner stated Martin Brower has to go to wetlands because they are within twenty feet of wetlands.

Mr. Giner stated he received a letter from Scientific Games. They run the lottery for the State of Connecticut. They want to put up satellite dishes at every lottery outlet. Mr. Giner asked if they can just come in for one approval. The dishes are approximately three feet in diameter such as those used for Direct TV. Chairman DiPace felt the dishes all need to be screened so they are not visible from a public road or the front of the building. If there are houses in the rear, they should not be visible from there either. Mr. Giner stated some of the dishes are going to be side mounted. The regulations state if they are side mounted they have to blend in with the colors of the building. Mr. Giner asked if one application would be acceptable rather than 38 individual applications. Mr. Giner stated they have included all the locations in a book but they do not include photographs or building orientation. Mr. Giner will tell them they need to bring in pictures showing the color of the building and how it will blend in. Chairman DiPace stated he would like to see some shots from the street.

Mr. Giner presented information on funeral homes. Chairman DiPace stated one funeral home is in R-44 and one is in R-33. The one on Shaker Road wanted to build a new office and found out he was in the wrong zone and couldn’t get a permit for it. The Commission is looking at what impact it would have to change the zone where funeral homes are permitted and how many parcels would be available where somebody could put a funeral home. The total number came up to 287 parcels where someone can open a funeral home. Chairman DiPace asked that Mr. Giner review how it can be worded so that both funeral homes are on a level playing field but not leave the town vulnerable to have many more. Mr. Giner stated either you would regulate the types of roads funeral homes can go on or you can also set separation distances. Mr. Giner will look into whether any of those would be appropriate.

CORRESPONDENCE

Chairman DiPace stated Correspondence includes a letter from Wayne Bickley to Joseph Bosco regarding 167 South Road, a Notice of Action from the Zoning Board of Appeals for July 31, 2007, and correspondence from North Central Health District regarding a generator. Chairman DiPace explained the generator request where North Central had some money in their budget and if they didn’t spend it by September 1, they would lose that money. They wanted to install a backup generator. Chairman DiPace directed Mr. Giner to handle this item administratively. He also asked that there be some kind of screening.

Correspondence also includes the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Notice of Action from July 24, 2007, and the Historic District Notice of Action from July 25, 2007.

COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE

Chairman DiPace stated he received information from the American Planning Association regarding a seminar to be held today. Also received was information from American Planning on organizing activities like public outreach campaigns. Mr. Giner will talk to the Library Director about a possible program.

Mr. Giner stated he had a request for everyone’s email from the American Planning Association. Chairman DiPace stated he has no problem forwarding them his email address. Commissioner Sarno responded directly.

Chairman DiPace stated in this morning’s Hartford Courant there was a guide to assisted living communities throughout the state. He has it in case anyone wants to see it. Chairman DiPace stated he hears more about the need for assisted living and he would like to see what other towns are building and what their regulations allow. Chairman DiPace stated he plans to view assisted living communities in other towns.

Commissioner Ladd asked if Mr. Giner has a report regarding the history of the property on Raffia Road. He would like to see the entire history in one report. Mr. Giner will look into this.

PUBLIC HEARINGS – Continued from July 26, 2007 Meeting

a. 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 at the last meeting the Commission did have some discussion but Commissioner Duren was absent and did have some concerns.

Commissioner Duren stated the Minutes indicate that five projects were approved or built and he asked about them. Mr. Giner stated there are Autumn Fields that is approved and pretty much completed, Shaker Heights, Mayfield which is assisted living and Brainard Gardens which is four projects rather than five.

Mr. Giner stated there are two additional projects in the application stage, Stonegate and the one that withdrew this evening but is planning to reapply.

Commissioner Duren asked if Mayfield is part of the 176 units that are approved. Mr. Giner stated of the 176 units, there are 77 units in Shaker Heights and 42 in Brainard Gardens. Those plus Autumn Fields total 176 units. There are 115 cottages in addition to that for Mayfield which is assisted living.

Commissioner Duren confirmed that the 176 units includes the projects completed and under construction for fifty-five and over. Mr. Giner stated there would be 23 plus 42 for Stonegate coming in. Chairman DiPace understood that the 42 units for Stonegate represented Phase 1. Mr. Giner said when he met with them they only referred to the 42 units.

Mr. Giner stated there would be 65 additional units that are under application. Chairman DiPace stated the total number of units would be 356 units.

Commissioner Duren asked if the units across from the senior center are completely sold. Commissioner Sarno stated they are completely sold but there are now resales.

Mr. Giner assembled a matrix for the abutting towns and one of them does use a maximum number limit. East Windsor has set a limit of 260 that can be built at any given time town wide. Once this number is reached, the Commission may review this provision for a possible amendment but is under no obligation to increase the 260 cap at any time. Mr. Giner stated they went through an amendment process one time and did increase it by sixty units.

Mr. Giner stated Enfield would have 241 senior residentials with the projects completed and under construction.

Mr. Giner stated Enfield is the only one of the surrounding towns that limits such projects to single-family detached. East Windsor is up to three units. Ellington can have multi-family. Somers is up to four units and Suffield up to three units. They all have greater densities.

Chairman DiPace asked if this is hurting Enfield by not having attached units. Mr. Giner stated duplex and triplex units tend to be more affordable. Commissioner Sarno stated people want freestanding and that is why they are more expensive.

Chairman DiPace stated he saw some in Suffield that were nicely done. It has taken Enfield a long time to get assisted living but Chairman DiPace sees a need to make assisted living affordable. Commissioner Duren stated there was a project planned in the south end of town and it never got built.

Chairman DiPace noted at the last meeting there was a gentleman who stated his mother needed care and he could not find a place in Enfield for her. He had to go to Agawam.

Commissioner Sarno saw a need for more projects like Raffia Road and Enfield Street.

Chairman DiPace stated in order for such projects to be built, there would have to be an increase in the density so that the project can be done affordably. This is what the Commission needs to take a look at.

Mr. Giner noted that South Windsor doesn’t have any over fifty-five projects but they do have a lot of assisted living. Chairman DiPace asked that Mr. Giner make copies of the regulations from other towns for the Commission’s next meeting packet. Mr. Giner stated he has regulations from Windsor, South Windsor, Manchester, Farmington and Bloomfield.

Chairman DiPace would like to see someone do a project that is more affordable for the residents of this town.

Mr. Giner stated the minimum square footage at this time is 900 square feet for senior residential. Other towns set the density on the buildable acreage but then the developer has the flexibility to put them all in different types of buildings. This allows more compact development and less infrastructure costs. If you have a triplex, you still have driveways but they are not as separated as single family and you can cluster them better.

Mr. Giner stated Suffield has an incentive for affordable housing. They have a unit per acre bonus if more than twenty-five percent of the units in the development are deed restricted to affordable housing. Ellington gives a density bonus of one unit per acre.

Commissioner Duren suggested setting up a subcommittee to look into this rather than approving a moratorium. Chairman DiPace stated the only way to make projects more affordable is to increase the density. He suggested looking at something like Suffield does and increase the density and allow more than just single-family units. This may encourage developers to come to Enfield. Commissioner Duren stated such a subcommittee could study this and come back to the Commission with recommendations.

Commissioner Sarno suggested something like Mayfield but not quite as high scale. While Mayfield may be nice, it will be very expensive.

Commissioner Duren asked if there is any way to find out where the people are coming from that are purchasing the current units. It appears they are geared to Longmeadow. Commissioner Sarno confirmed a lot of Longmeadow residents have come because there isn’t anything available in their town.

Chairman DiPace discussed the Laurels condominium project.

Commissioner Duren reiterated the need for a subcommittee and the possibility of putting an ad in the paper asking for volunteers to serve on this committee. Chairman DiPace asked Commissioner Sarno if she would like to chair this subcommittee. Some discussion followed on the time frame for this committee.

Mr. Giner stated the purpose of this subcommittee would be to explore changing the regulations to encourage more affordability for fifty-five and over and assisted living projects. Commissioner Duren stated the committee could consider the best way to go.

Mr. Giner stated the intent is to have volunteers and the Commission will appoint them to be on the committee.

Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Chairman DiPace, to form a subcommittee chaired by Commissioner Kathleen Sarno for the purpose of coming back to the Commission within three to six months to study the senior housing, assisted living and fifty-five and over housing and the possibilities of making them more affordable and accessible to Enfield residents. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with all Alternates voting. The Commission directed Mr. Giner to publish an advertisement asking members of the public to volunteer to be on this committee.

Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.

Natalie George, 304 Brainard Road, Unit 22, supported the moratorium. She noted there are many units not built at this time except for a for sale sign on the property. She lives in a condominium that is not age restricted. However, 22 of the 28 units are occupied and owned by either members of the family or elderly residents. They are ranch units because a lot of older people cannot get up and down stairs. Ms. George feels at the present time with the downturn of housing and the promise of reduced interest rates in the future, that this is a very good time to talk about a review of what the town now has. Part of the review should consider addressing the entrances and exits of some of these units. Ms. George stated when you are talking about fifty-five and over projects, you are talking about units that are going to be occupied on roads that need to be fully accessible easily by emergency vehicles as well as people whose reaction time is not quite as fast. To place a facility of any one of these types at the corner of a turn or just over the crest of a hill or on a road where the town has not been able to control the drainage and therefore it ices in the winter would not be feasible. Somehow if that can be addressed the way subdivisions are addressed it would be very helpful in the future.

Ms. George stated the reason the cost of some of these units have gone up is that her units which were originally sold six years ago for $110,000 to $135,000 have just been revalued by the town of Enfield at $190,000 to $248,000. Therefore, any realtor coming in and advising somebody to sell is not going to advise them to sell for $150,000 which they might have done if the town had not decided that these units are worth a lot more. Ms. George stated she would like to serve on that committee.

Commissioner Duren stated right now he doesn’t see a need for a moratorium.

Commissioner Sarno stated the market is not booming.

Commissioner Duren would like to see the study committee’s recommendations.

Chairman DiPace agreed and stated if the word gets out that Enfield is trying to increase the density and make it more affordable for residents, this may slow things down while people wait to see what is done.

Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.

Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to withdraw PH#2611. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting.

PUBLIC HEARINGS – NEW

a. PH#2610 – Special Use Permit for conversion of existing rooms into five additional apartments at 127 Pearl Street, zoned TVC, Map 22, Lot 9, Richard Binns, Applicant, Masonic Building Association, Owner. (Extension granted previous meeting for hearing)

Richard Binns, 1174 Blossom Street, Suffield, Connecticut appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated the proposal is to take the Masonic Lodge building at 127 Pearl Street and convert it into apartments. It currently has one apartment in it which was used by the caretaker of the building. The proposal is to add on the first floor a type B accessible apartment plus some office space. On the second floor there would be two apartments added and on the third floor there would be two apartments added. The proposal is also to maintain the architectural integrity of the building internally and externally as much as possible. The intent is to keep the lodge room, the 2,000 square foot room, a meeting room for future use.

Commissioners Duren and Lefakis stated they are members of the Masonic Association but have nothing to gain by this application.

Commissioner Duren referred to Section 4.30.7a of the Thompsonville Village Zone and noted existing buildings can be converted to two, three or four family buildings. The request tonight is for five. Mr. Giner stated he is looking under g. as a non-residential building. The primary use was a Masonic hall and non-residential. Section g. says conversion of an existing non-residential building such as industrial or mill buildings, multi-family dwellings may take place under this section. Mr. Giner stated the Commission has the option for non-residential buildings. Mr. Giner stated the Commission can waive b or c. Mr. Giner stated the former Leete Stevens funeral parlor was converted to a six-family and it came under this section. The Commission said that was a multi-family and anything over four could come in at the Commission’s discretion. This is the way it was handled in the past.

Chairman DiPace questioned the third floor apartment and asked if there is a second access. Mr. Binns stated under the building code, they are required to provide sprinklers. He has spent many hours with Fire Marshal Censki in this regard. The sprinkler system will be for the entire building. This is fully compliant with the IABC.

Mr. Binns stated each unit will have an individual heating system. The heat will be gas forced air.

Commissioner Sarno asked about possible uses for the large room. Mr. Binns stated they have lots of ideas but nothing specific. He could see it being used for weddings, funerals, exercise classes or other uses.

Chairman DiPace asked if there are any plans to make any changes to the exterior. Mr. Binns stated there are not. The only thing he proposed is that he put storm windows on the third floor to match the ones that are on the first and second floors. The windows are original and in good condition but he is proposing storms to improve the energy situation. Another change will be to add a handicapped ramp on the south side of the building to make the whole of the first floor handicapped accessible. The unit will be type B handicapped.

Commissioner Duren asked if storage will be in the basement for tenants. At this time, Mr. Binns stated the basement will only be accessible by him and not by the tenants.

In response to a question from Chairman DiPace, Mr. Binns stated there are no plans to do any facade changes to the exterior. Mr. Binns stated this is an attractive building as it stands and there is no proposal to change it. Chairman DiPace praised Mr. Binns for what he did on High Street.

Commissioner Duren asked if the hall is used, what will be done to suppress the sounds to other parts of the building. Mr. Binns stated that room has walls an inch and a quarter thick plus there’s a space between that room and the adjacent apartment. The chance of any sound problems is very low. Commissioner Duren asked about going upstairs. Mr. Binns stated the only other part that will be attached to an apartment will be adjacent to the kitchen and bathroom area of that apartment. He would expect there wouldn’t be any noisy events. Commissioner Duren stated a wedding could be noisy.

Chairman DiPace addressed the parking. There are twenty-five spaces and with parking for the residents, the remaining spaces would be fifteen spaces. He questioned what the maximum occupancy could be according to the Fire Marshal. Mr. Binns stated the initial request is that the building be allowed to have up to 49 people for assembly. Mr. Binns stated the large room is 17’ high in the middle and is a beautiful room. Further discussion of the layout of the room followed. Commissioner Duren asked if the kitchen will be left. Mr. Binns stated what was a kitchen on the second floor would be made into a kitchen and bathroom of the new apartments.

Commissioner Sarno asked if the hall would have a separate kitchen. Mr. Binns stated there are a couple of rooms with no specific use. He would not be planning on a kitchen for preparation but an area to keep things warm. He doesn’t want to be including a full kitchen.

Chairman DiPace asked if the apartment sizes meet the regulations. Mr. Giner stated they need to be at least 600 square feet. Commissioner Sarno stated the smallest apartment is proposed to be 445 square feet. Mr. Giner stated the apartments on the third floor are all under 500’ and c. under Section g. can be waived by the Commission. There are three apartments that would require a waiver. The smallest waiver would be 60 square feet for the handicapped accessible rental and the greatest waiver would be 155 square feet. The third one is 113 square feet.

Chairman DiPace stated the apartments on the third floor are one-bedroom and similar to a studio apartment. Mr. Binns stated one room would be the bathroom and kitchen and the other room would be a living room and bedroom like a studio. Each one would have a large walk-in closet.

Commissioner Duren referred to 5.40.4. Mr. Giner stated that is the core area and this is not in the core area. The core area is defined in the beginning of the regulations and is basically the old downtown area where commercial on the first floor is being encouraged.

Commissioner Duren stated from the library down on Pearl Street is really looking great and people have done a good job.

Chairman DiPace stated at the last hearing the Commission talked about increasing the density to try to keep things affordable. This is one way to make some improvements and get better quality as far as apartments. There will be a full sprinkler system. Chairman DiPace referred to what Mr. Binns has done on High Street. He doesn’t know what else could go in this building.

Mr. Giner stated the use of the third floor storm windows and the use of the first floor room came in after the Enfield Revitalization and Strategy Committee commented on the application. The Commission could have Mr. Binns come back with a new application for the storm windows or approve it with the condition that ERSC approval be obtained.

Mr. Binns stated he would like to put storm windows on the third floor like the rest of the building.

Chairman DiPace stated Mr. Binns would have to come back to the Commission for the use of the large room. Mr. Giner stated the ERSC did not review that.

Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.

Eleanor Binns, 1174 Blossom Street, stated she has been involved in this project with her husband. They are really interested in saving all the architectural features of the building. As far as the apartment sizes, they worked with the architect to modify some of it so that these really nice windows would stay intact. They want to try to make it so that the walls are really in keeping with the architectural features of the building and keeping that large room open for events. It is a beautiful room and they didn’t want to make it into apartments. This was the thought process that went into this. Some of the square footage is not that large because they are trying to work within the existing framework.

Karen LaPlant stated as a former member of the Enfield Revitalization she thinks the Commission is possibly ready to make another mistake of converting another building in downtown Thompsonville into more than four units. She believes there should be no more than four units on a conversion. If this is going to be a mixed use building and the hall is going to remain open with an occupancy of 49 people, there has to be parking provided for that. This should be part of the application. Ms. LaPlant felt the Commission should deny this application as presented.

Shiela Munroe, 3 Stacy Lane, stated she used to live at 146 Pearl Street which is a two-family. It was owner occupied and they bought it and renovated it. When they moved into that area, there were a lot of rentals. Now, it has changed to be a lot of single-family homes like the Rinaldi Post. She thinks the Commission should get away from rentals and really encourage home owners to go in there. They take pride in their buildings. There are also two other buildings for sale in the area and this application might be setting a precedent and the rentals would continue down. Ms. Munroe felt owner-occupied is more the thing to do. She referred to the Rinaldi Post and the house next door which are beautiful. She is against tonight’s proposal.

Mr. Giner stated the Commission has a letter from ERSC in their packet and a memo with proposed conditions.

Commissioner Sarno asked for an explanation about the conversion to more than four units. Mr. Giner stated there are two sections that cover it. Under A, Section 4.30.7, says existing buildings may be converted from one-family residential or from other use buildings to two, three or four family buildings with a minimum building size of 1,600 floor area after the conversion. Section g. also says that conversion of non-residential buildings such as industrial mill buildings to multi-family dwellings may take place under this section. Mr. Giner stated in the past the Commission has allowed more than four families to come in under that section g on a case by case basis. The Leete-Stevens building was approved under this section. Chairman DiPace stated the primary use of the building was for a Masonic hall.

Peter Bryanton, Community Development Director, stated the Commission has the letter from the ERSC that they are in support of the conversion. He would like to say from a staff point of view that he went out and toured the facility with Mr. Binns. He noted the building is made for this type of use and it lends itself to the type of use Mr. Binns is looking to do. ERSC felt this one lent itself to being converted to these types of apartments. Mr. Bryanton cannot foresee what else could go in this building. He added maybe offices but it would be a stretch.

Chairman DiPace asked what is the total square footage of this building. Mr. Binns stated 8,024 square feet which includes the large room of 2,000 square feet.

Mr. Binns acknowledged 125 Pearl Street which was made into seven apartments right next door to this building. He is talking about a similar situation of less apartments in a bigger building with a mixed use.

Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.

Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve PH#2610 to approve PH #2610 – Special Use Permit for conversion of existing rooms into five additional apartments at 127 Pearl St, Zoned TVC, Map 22, Lot 9, Richard Binns, Applicant, Masonic Building Association, Owner, subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:

Referenced Plans:

“Zoning Location Survey Prepared for Richard Binns, 127 Pearl Street, Enfield, Connecticut”, Scale 1”=20’, by Gary B. LeClair, LLC, dated 6-19-07.

“Floor Plans, Proposed Apartment Building, 127 Pearl Street, Enfield, Conn.” Scale 1/8”=1’-0”, by Architectural Design, dated 6/11/07.

Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:

1. Two sets of paper plans, with the signature of the appropriate person that prepared them and any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.

2. The floor plans shall be revised to label each bedroom clearly.

3. Final Fire Marshall approval shall be obtained.

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.

General Conditions:

5. The total number of apartment units in the building is limited to six (6).

6. 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.

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. Any necessary permits for the construction or operation of the use as approved must be obtained within a year of the effective date of this approval or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

9. Any use of the ballroom floor space would have to come back to the Commission.

10. The third floor storm windows would have to be reviewed by the ERSC and approved administratively and if not approved by them, they would have to come back to the Commission.

Commissioner Duren requested a change to condition #1 to add the appropriate person that prepared the plans. Commissioner Duren also asked about condition #3 and he questioned why the Fire Marshall couldn’t approve the application before hand. Chairman DiPace noted the letter sent out about a year or two ago giving the Fire Marshal the opportunity to respond and if the Commission does not hear from them, they are going to assume everything is all set.

The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting.

Chairman DiPace stated Mr. Binns has demonstrated his practice as far as the quality of work being done in Thompsonville. He thinks he will do a fantastic job with this project and it is an improvement. If the owner does any future changes to the large room, he will come back to the Commission. Chairman DiPace felt his track record speaks for itself.

Commissioner Duren stated he voted for this because he would hate to see a derelict building in the middle of that area. He thought it would take quite a while to find one individual who would purchase this building and live in it. It is an extremely large building and he cannot foresee anyone that would be able to afford the heating of the building.

b. PH#2613 – Special Use Permit for conversion of vacant building into five apartments at 56 Asnuntuck Street, zoned TVC, Map 24, Lot 31; Charles and Mary Ann Dixon, Owner/Applicants. (Deadline to close 10/4/07)

Charles and Mary Ann Dixon, 44 Wheeler Drive, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.

Commissioner Duren stated this is a conversion to five units.

Mr. Giner stated this building at one time was a hotel. It is now a derelict building that has been totally gutted.

Commissioner Duren asked that Mr. Giner quote the reasons why the Commission can allow five apartments. Mr. Giner stated this is coming in under Section g. It had been used as a hotel previously and some commercial uses might have been in there at some point. It is coming in under Section g that allows the Commission to approve multi-family dwellings.

Mr. Dixon stated the building has been vacant for ten to fifteen years and was built as a hotel in 1887. At some point, some of the owners stripped all the petitions, the wiring and the plumbing and heating. The building is empty inside with steps going up to the third floor. The floors are there and the main walls are intact. Mr. Dixon presented pictures of the way it looked as a hotel.

Commissioner Duren asked about third floor access. Mr. Dixon stated there is a fire escape.

Chairman DiPace asked about the exterior of the building. Mr. Dixon stated it has been vinyl sided on the second and third floors. The first floor is cedar siding.

Commissioner Duren asked if the building would be sprinklered. Mr. Dixon stated it is not necessary to do the whole building. According to the Building Inspector, the only area that needs to be done is the storage area and the basement utility area where the furnaces are.

In response to a question from Chairman DiPace, Mr. Dixon stated he is not proposing any changes to the exterior of the building. The only thing that really has to change was done for him about a week and a half ago. Someone took the front porch right off of the building. There will be a handicapped ramp and Mr. Dixon is working with Community Development to see if they can install a lift rather than a ramp. If the ramp goes in, the front door would have to be on Prospect and it is an existing door. Mr. Giner stated the ramp is required by the Building Department because they would have to have an accessible unit on the first floor.

Mr. Dixon stated there will be a total of five units. The first floor would have one unit, the second floor would have two and the third floor would have two. The smallest apartment would be on the third floor which would be 719 square feet. The largest apartment is on the first floor which would be 1,075 square feet.

Commissioner Duren stated this applicant previously did a conversion on Pleasant Street, the old bakery.

Chairman DiPace asked if the Enfield Revitalization Committee is in favor. Mr. Giner stated the Commission has a letter from them with some recommendations. They are looking at the feasibility of installing a lift rather than a ramp. If possible, they would like the applicant to remove the wood siding on the ground level to reveal the original brick work where practical and feasible. They recommend the applicant apply for the tax abatement program to offset some of the costs. The ERSC voted unanimously for this conversion with the stipulation that any future changes to the property be subject to review.

Commissioner Duren stated this sits on its own property and will need about ten parking spaces. Mr. Dixon stated it does sit on its own lot and it’s a very tiny lot. There is twelve feet in back of the building and about four feet between the side of the building and the next property. There is a town parking lot directly across Prospect Street which has parking for in excess of fifty cars. It has been Mr. Dixon’s observation that very little of this lot is used. Some of it is used near Caronna’s Market on the opposite side of the parking lot but it is hardly used at all on the other end. Commissioner Duren recalled that the same thing was done for Mr. Dixon’s other unit.

Commissioner Sarno asked about heating. Mr. Dixon stated there will be separate gas and hot water units located in the basement. The renters will not have access to the basement. The electric meters will be in the apartments and there would be no need to go to the basement.

Chairman DiPace stated his concern is the facade. While allowing five apartments, what does the town get out of it? Chairman DiPace would like to see Thompsonville improved and he questioned if there is anything on the outside Mr. Dixon would be willing to do. Mr. Dixon stated the building right now needs a lot of structural work inside. It is eventually going to deteriorate to the point where it is going to come down. It has had some work but it hasn’t been done properly. There are wood piers which are not going to last forever. He is talking about going into a building in a distressed area that is kind of a gamble and make it into five nice apartments. Three of them will have a bath and a half and the others will have washer dryer setups. It will be like going into a new house on the inside.

Chairman DiPace is referring to the section of the building facing Asnuntuck Street. Ms. Dixon stated the character is still there except where somebody wrote on it. Mr. Dixon stated there’s been some vandalism. There are quite a few of the brand new windows that are broken. The siding is all new but no one ever finished it. The roof is in real good shape. Chairman DiPace stated looking at the pictures, all the character is gone. Mr. Dixon stated this is the way it was when they looked at it a few months ago.

Chairman DiPace stated perhaps some shutters would add to the building.

Mr. Dixon stated they want to work within the parameters of what they can do.

Commissioner Lefakis had a question about the number of windows in the building and proposed balancing the windows.

Mr. Dixon stated one of the two store fronts was a beer room when it was first built.

Commissioner Duren asked that whoever prepared the plans designate east, west, north and south on the plans.

Commissioner Lefakis asked if the side designated common space/tenant storage is the side that faces Prospect Street. Mr. Dixon confirmed that it is.

Mr. Giner stated the Commission has a proposed motion and the ERSC approval. There is a waiver of the site plan being requested because the property occupies almost the entire survey. Regarding parking, the Commission can allow parking within municipal lots within 500’ of the property.

Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.

Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve PH #2613 – Special Use Permit for conversion of vacant building into five apartments at 56 Asnuntuck St., Zoned TVC, Map 24, Lot 31; Charles & Mary Ann Dixon owner/applicants, subject to conformance with the hearing record and the following conditions:

Referenced Plans:

“1^st Floor Plan, Proposed Renovation of 54 & 56 Asnuntuck St.” Sheet 1 of 3, by P. Bouchard, dated 5-9-07, revised 8-23-07.

“2^nd Floor Plan, Proposed Renovation of 54 & 56 Asnuntuck St.” Sheet 2 of 3, by P. Bouchard, dated 5-9-07.

“3^rd Floor Plan, Proposed Renovation of 54 & 56 Asnuntuck St.” Sheet 3 of 3, by P. Bouchard, dated 5-9-07.

Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:

2 Final Fire Marshall approval shall be obtained.

3. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.

General Conditions:

4. The total number of apartment units in the building is limited to Five (5).

5. This approval is for the specific use and structures identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structures will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.

6. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.

7. Any necessary permits for the construction or operation of the use as approved must be obtained within one year of the effective date of this approval or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

8. The directions of east, west, north and south shall be included on the site plans.

Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to waive the site plan requirements of Section 9.10.2 because the information is not necessary in order to decide on the application’s conformance with the regulations. The waiver was approved by a 6 – 0 – 1 vote. Commissioner Hickey abstained.

Chairman DiPace did not feel that town staff did their job and Enfield Revitalization did not do their job. The applicant should not be penalized but if we’re going to take these buildings and make improvements, the appearance inside and outside should be improved. The town is giving five apartments in a building that has none and this was a perfect opportunity for exterior improvements to be made.

The main motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 1 vote. Commissioner Hickey abstained.

c. PH#2615 – 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 and 16, Powder Hill Sand and Gravel, LLC, Applicant/Owner. (Deadline to close 10/4/07)

Chairman DiPace read a letter from Michael Bonanno regarding PH#2615. Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to accept the withdrawal without prejudice of PH#2615. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting and Commissioner Hickey present.

Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, that the additional fees other than the base fee be waived for PH#2615. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting.

Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, for a recess. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission recessed at 9:50 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 10:00 p.m.

Commissioner Cooper left the meeting at 10:00 p.m.

d. PH#2616 – 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 and 104, J&L Builders LLC, Applicant/Joseph and Nancy Ingram, Owners. (Deadline to close 10/4/07)

Commissioner Sarno did not participate in this hearing.

Laurie Longhi from J&L Builders appeared before the Commission regarding this application. She is representing the owners, Joseph and Nancy Ingram.

Ms. Longhi stated she submitted the original lot of record. This was originally three lots. One of the lots, the middle lot, merged. The Ingram’s owned all three parcels. Two are merged together and one is separate. Back in 1961 the property had been in the family and the middle lot had a lot line adjustment to 12 South Road of 13.30’. That was added into their deed to make their lot approximately 13’ larger. Lot 13 was merged with Lot 12. What she is trying to do tonight is unmerge Lot 13 from Lot 12. In order to meet the requirements to make all three lots fit within the median, they needed to have a lot line adjustment from the original 13’ of 10’ so that it makes all three lots conforming with the median with some adjustments that the Commission has authorization to do.

Chairman DiPace asked if the 13’ feet is on the map. Ms. Longhi stated it is and it was the deeded part that was put into the other 12 South Road back in 1961. Chairman DiPace asked if there is a house on 12. Ms. Longhi stated there is a house on 12 South Road and on 10 South Road. Mr. Giner stated what is shown as lot 14 had an address of 12 South Road.

Mr. Giner stated the Commission needs to grant a waiver of ten percent which is within the purview of the regulations. One of the lots is going to be larger than the median and two are going to be slightly under. One is going to meet the frontage and two are going to be at 10%. There is a 10% waiver for the newly created lot and 12 South Road. They are going to be at 67 and a half for the frontage. There’s a three percent waiver of the lot area requirements for 10 South Road and a one percent waiver of the lot area requirements for the new lot that will be created. The Commission can grant up to a ten percent waiver under the regulations. Mr. Giner summarized there are two frontage waivers and two lot area waivers being requested.

Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve PH #2616 – 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. This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:

Referenced Plans:

“Neighborhood Map Prepared for J&L Builders, Enfield, Conn.” Scale: 1”=80’, by Aeschliman Land Surveying, dated 7-23-07 and revised to 8-28-07.

Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:

1. All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.

2. The street address for the new lot shall be obtained from the Engineering Division in consultation with the E-911 coordinator. The addresses shall be shown on the final plans submitted for signature.

3. The file number “PH 2616” shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.

4. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this motion shall be placed on the final plans submitted for signing.

Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:

5. One set of mylars and 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.

6. 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.

7. Final approval of site layout and grading for shall be obtained from the Engineering Division for the proposed house.

8. Final approvals shall be obtained from the Water Pollution Control Division for the sewer hook ups.

9. If necessary, a Separate Erosion and Sediment Control Bond shall be submitted in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.

Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :

10. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.

11. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director unless waived by the Commission.

General Conditions:

12. This approval is for the specific use identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.

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. 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 Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to allow a 10% waiver for the frontage requirements for the newly created lot and #12 South Road pursuant to Section 3.20.2(G.) of the Zoning Regulations, to allow a 3% waiver of the lot area requirements for #10 South Road and to allow a 1% waiver of the lot area requirements for the new lot pursuant to Section 3.20.2(G.) of the Zoning Regulations. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Commissioner Sarno not participating.

The main motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Commissioner Sarno not participating.

e. PH#2618 – Initiative by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission for a text amendment to Section 8.60E to permit internally lit signs in the King Street/Enfield Street Design Overlay District. (Deadline to close 10/4/07)

Mr. Giner stated in the previous discussions, the Commission had discussed two different ways of permitting internally lit signs in the King Street/Enfield Street Design Overlay District. Mr. Giner drafted two options for the Commission to consider. One was to remove the language of being illuminated externally and leave it at that. The second option provides more control by saying the Commission may approve an internally lit sign as deemed appropriate in design for its setting during the application review process for newly expanded businesses. An applicant for a sign permit may also request Commission review and approval of an internally lit sign for an existing business that does not otherwise have a pending application before the Commission.

Mr. Giner sent both options to CRCOG and he did receive a letter back saying that the staff of the Capital Region Council of Governments has reviewed this referral and finds no apparent conflicts with regional plans and policies or concerns of the neighboring towns.

Mr. Giner stated right now there are preexisting lit signs and the feeling was that perhaps new businesses were being punished. Mr. Giner previously presented regulations from other towns that do allow internally illuminated signs with Commission review.

Commissioner Duren stated he prefers Option B. He would like to tighten it up a little bit. He would add “for its setting, location, and proximity to residential areas.” Commissioner Duren saw a need to take the residences into consideration because some of the signs can be pretty bright.

Commissioner Lefakis asked if the intent was for both internally and externally illuminated signs. Commissioner Duren stated this only deals with internally lit signs. Commissioner Lefakis suggested a statement at the end of option B reading in the case of all signs. Mr. Giner stated presently you can come in with an externally lit sign and not have to go through Commission approval. He asked if the Commission wants people to come in for all signs.

Commissioner Duren stated this section only goes with internally lit signs. He felt Commissioner Lefakis’ suggestion would be alright. Mr. Giner stated the question is whether the Commission wants all signs to come before the Commission. Some discussion followed regarding glare from signs.

Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against the application. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.

Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve PH#2618 with Option B with the additional wording as follows: “The Commission may approve an internally lit sign that is deemed appropriate in design for its setting, its location, and its proximity to residential areas during the application review process for new or expanded businesses” The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting. An effective date was set for September 25, 2007.

Chairman DiPace noted the Edge Tattoo Parlor has been closed for over two years and he would like to see the sign taken down. Mr. Bickley contacted them and they said they were going to be reopening but that was four months ago. Chairman DiPace would like the Zoning Enforcement Officer to contact the owner regarding this sign removal.

BOND RELEASES

1. PH#2504 – Request for release of Galaxy Development (Walgreen Pharmacy) Engineering Bond in the amount of $456,000, Erosion and Sediment in the amount of $7,200 at 2 Shaker Road.

Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to release the engineering bond for PH#2504, Galaxy Development (Walgreen Pharmacy) in the amount of $456,000. Reference is made to a letter from John Cabibbo dated Thursday, August 2, 2007. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting. There was no release of the Erosion and Sediment bond pending clarification from Mr. Cabibbo.

2. SPR#1230 – Request for release of D&G Cordon Associates landscape bond and Erosion and Sediment Bond. Landscape and E&S were combined into one amount of $7,977.00 for building at 145 Hazard Avenue.

This bond release was tabled due to lack of information regarding the landscaping.

3. PH#2462 – Request for release of Troiano Professional Building (Enfield Federal Savings & Loan) landscape bond for $16,700, Engineering Bond for $235,000, and Erosion & Sediment Bond in the amount of $3,000 for 851 Enfield Street.

Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to release the landscaping bond in the amount of $16,700 for PH#2462, Troiano Professional Building (Enfield Federal Savings & Loan). The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting. There was no release of the engineering bond or the erosion and sediment control bond.

NEW BUSINESS

a. 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. (Deadline for decision 9/20/07 meeting)

This application was tabled because the applicant was not present.

b. SPR#1415 – Application for a business and professional office building with access driveway, parking area and detention/basin rain garden, 35 Oliver Road, zoned I-1, Map 47, Lot 6, Brendan M. Begley, Applicant/Owner. (Deadline for Decision 9/20/07 meeting)

Thomas Bulzak, a professional engineer and land surveyor, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. What they are proposing to do is to construct a professional office building on a lot which is approximately 41,457 square feet. The building will occupy approximately 2,800 square feet of useable floor area. Associated improvements include a bituminous concrete driveway and a parking area consisting of fifteen parking spaces. On the site plan presented before the Commission, they identified that the lot is located within the flood plain zone A for which the flood elevations were not determined. Through the process of review with the Planning Department, the Engineering Department and the Wetlands Commission, they developed a detailed plan to mitigate any potential impact both to wetlands and also to the flood zone. That mitigation includes elevating the proposed building. The finished floor elevation will be approximately 118’ with the limit of flood plain being 114’.

Mr. Bulzak stated the site will receive a detention area rain garden with appropriate plantings. The detention area and rain garden will also serve as the pre and post construction mitigation to any increases in the runoff resulting from creating additional impervious areas. The plans before the Commission also include wetland conditions and modifications.

Mr. Bulzak stated the building is a single story building and there is a set of drawings on file which show the use of the four sides. Commission members did not have the plans before them and Mr. Bulzak shared his copy with the Commission.

Mr. Bulzak stated this will be a professional office building. The history is the properties on both sides of this lot are owned by Mr. Begley or his family. On the west side, he presently has his public accountant business and he would like to expand the business and use the new proposed building for that purpose or any other rental in the area of business or professional use. No one will live in this building.

Chairman DiPace stated the building has a two car garage and it has all the characteristics of a residential house. Mr. Giner stated if it was a residence, it would have to come before the Commission because it is in an industrial zone. Mr. Bulzak stated this entire area is a residential area and in order the maintain the character of the neighborhood, they are proposing this configuration.

Commissioner Ladd asked if the fireplace would be in the conference room and Mr. Bulzak stated that was the idea. He visited Mr. Begley’s business at 33 Oliver Road and it is a converted residential building. The new building would be a potential expansion with leasing or renting part of it. Mr. Bulzak stated there are other business use types of buildings in close proximity across the road. East there is a veterinarian’s office and there is also the original building where Mr. Begley conducts his business.

Commissioner Duren asked that north, south, east and west be added to the plans.

Commissioner Duren stated he saw a memo tonight from John Cabibbo noting he still had some problems. Mr. Bulzak stated Mr. Cabibbo did indicate he would require a composition of the walkway they are proposing on the site plan and through an oversight it was not presented previously. It is on the latest set of drawings. It is a concrete walkway. Mr. Bulzak is referring to the 7/16 set of drawings. The plan subsequent to that has the concrete walkway. Mr. Giner suggested adding that as a condition.

Mr. Giner stated John Cabibbo suggested a final as built topographical to T-2 accuracy. Commissioner Duren stated it is also calling for an A-2 accuracy on the boundary. Mr. Bulzak stated the A-2 accuracy is already on the plans. He directed the Commission to the title block which clearly states the boundary is certified as an A-2 on the plans. Right above the stamps and seals of the engineer, there is a certification and the third from the bottom line reads: “In accordance with the accuracy standards of an A-2 survey.”

Mr. Giner suggested two additional conditions that should be added to the motion. They include that the plans submitted for signature shall also contain the walkway detail as requested by John Cabibbo and that all topographical plans be certified to T-2 accuracy.

Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve SPR#1415 for a business and professional office building with access driveway, parking area and detention/basin rain garden, 35 Oliver Road, zoned I-1, with the following conditions:

Conditions to be met prior to signing of plans:

1. All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.

2. The application number (SPR#1415) shall be displayed on the plans in or near the Title Block area of each sheet.

3. 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:

4. 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.

5. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town staff shall be held.

6. An Erosion and Sediment Control land Site Restoration Bond shall be submitted in the form of cash or a check, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.

7. 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:

8. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance. The as-=built plan shall also contain a certification by a Professional Engineer that they have inspected the site improvements and that they have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. Any deviations or omissions must be noted.

9. An as-built topography plan verifying net zero fill within the floodplain shall also be submitted prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

10. 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.

11. 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.

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 from the Building Official.

General Conditions:

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.

16. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by September 6, 2012 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

17. 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.

18. All topographic plans shall be certified to T-2 accuracy.

19. The plans submitted for signature shall also contain the walkway detail as requested by John Cabibbo.

The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting.

c. FLD #22 – Application for development permit for Special Flood Hazard Area (Flood Plain Zone Designation A) in conjunction with SPR#1415.

Mr. Giner stated the flood plain maps that FEMA puts out have two types of flood hazard areas. Everything will be flood proofed at one foot above the calculated flood elevation as required by the town’s regulations.

Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve FLD#22 – Application for development permit for Special Flood Hazard Area (Flood Plain Zone Designation A) in conjunction with SPR#1415 at 35 Oliver Road, Map 47, Lot 6, Brendan M. Begley, Applicant/Owner and the Commission finds that the applicant has met the requirements to flood proof to at least one foot above the 100 year flood elevation. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting.

OTHER BUSINESS

a. Request by Equity Industrial Enfield LP for reconsideration of certain conditions imposed on SPR#1405 – Application for conversion and re-striping of parking lot off Print Shop Road to accommodate parking of trailers at Lego Campus at 555 Taylor Road, zoned I-1, Map 99, Lot 11, Equity Industrial Enfield LP, Applicant/Owner.

Commissioner Hickey noted the last time this application was held, it went to a public hearing and the Commission allowed public input. Chairman DiPace stated if there are any major changes, it would have to go back to another public hearing.

Hunter Emerson appeared before the Commission with a request for modifications from Hasbro to Conditions 14, 15 and 18. Mr. Emerson sent an email to Mr. Giner on August 22, 2007 specifying the issues with each of the conditions.

Mr. Emerson stated in condition 14 the approval is limited to only four jockey trailers. When they came to the last meeting, they thought they were armed with the most accurate information provided by the Director of Real Estate of Hasbro. However, they were lacking certain specific details that were integral to the effective operation of the distribution facility. Gene Orzokowski from Hasbro was also present before the Commission to respond to questions.

Mr. Emerson stated Hasbro doesn’t need any more than four jockey trailers but they have other carriers that come in and that’s where the disconnect occurred in communication. In the email it says they can have as many as six or eight and possibly ten.

Mr. Orzokowski stated regarding other carriers, what happens is when they ship their product, they drop trailers. They come in with empty trailers, drop them and then they load the product and they come back and pull them off the property. They have their own jockey trailer coming in and out in addition to the four that are for Hasbro.

Chairman DiPace stated when they talk about jockey trailers, they are talking about trailers that are parked on the lot that will be moved from one spot to another. If someone is just driving in, dropping his trailer and leaving, he is not a jockey trailer. Mr. Orzokowski stated he might have six or eight trailers on the property. Chairman DiPace stated he is not moving them around on the property so this is not a jockey.

Mr. Emerson stated on Condition 15, he found out from Hasbro that they only own two twenty-foot trailers which they store in their East Longmeadow location. All of the trailers that are on the Enfield site are leased. To the extent that they own trailers and keep them in Enfield, they would have no problem registering them.

Commissioner Duren asked about the jockey trucks. Mr. Emerson stated they would be stored at East Longmeadow as well.

Mr. Emerson stated the last change would be condition #18, hours of operation. Chairman DiPace stated the Commission made the hours quite clear and even gave a little extra time. Mr. Emerson presented a Hasbro distribution calendar to the Commission.

Mr. Emerson stated he did not realize that Hasbro is also very busy at the end of each quarter or March, June, September and December. There are some weeks during the period of time which was approved by the Commission that Hasbro doesn’t need to operate twenty-four hours. What they are asking for is to keep the total number of weeks out of the year where they would be operating on a twenty-four hour basis to fifteen weeks.

Commissioner Duren stated it is not the weeks but the time of year. Chairman DiPace stated they did not want twenty-four hours in the summer time when people are out in their yards. Commissioner Duren stated you have a quality of life for these people who have invested quite a lot of money in these homes. He could not sit with his windows open in March, June and September and listen to those beepers. He would be really opposed to that. They are already complaining about incidents that are further away.

Commissioner Sarno stated the Commission already approved September 1 through December 15. The only other two months they are adding in would be March and June.

Commissioner Hickey noted the Commission had a public hearing because they were aware the community would want some input. Now late in the game, they are coming in with the actual operations person and it would have been beneficial to have him here at the time of the public hearing. Mr. Emerson agreed and he stated he was relying on information from the Hasbro Real Estate Director.

Commissioner Duren stated Lego has been a good neighbor and this will really tear the neighborhood apart in his opinion.

Mr. Emerson stated Hasbro does not need the first two weeks in October. He compared that to the last two weeks of March when it is colder than in October. They have given up the first week in September which we are in right now and it’s going to be 88 degrees tomorrow in exchange for two weeks in June.

Chairman DiPace suggested that Mr. Emerson file a new application with another public hearing. He thinks the Commission stretched it quite a bit with the last approval and he wouldn’t bet too much on another approval. Commissioner Duren thought the Commission compromised quite a lot on the number of trucks and the times.

Chairman DiPace stated the changes proposed are rather drastic and would require submittal of a new application. The next hearing date would be the first meeting in October.

Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to extend the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.

b. Discussion on banner size and location.

Chairman DiPace requested that this be added to the agenda because currently in the regulations businesses can come in for a banner to be placed on a building but there is no size limit. He noted the present situation with Namco and the large size of their banner. Chairman DiPace felt the Commission needs to take a look at this and have Mr. Giner proceed to see what kind of limitations can be put on banner size and location. The consensus of the Commission was to proceed in this manner.

c. Discussion on Regulations

1. Letter from Mark Griswold re: 544 Hazard Avenue

Commissioner Duren stated approval was given for the building with the plumbing company with his knowledge that that street is to be closed off. There were state plans to close that and he has given a copy to Ken Nelson. The Capitol Region Council of Government has plans for 190. Anyone going in there knows that is one of the recommendations. Mr. Giner stated the street is a town road and the Council would have to approve it. Commissioner Hickey recalled this zone change and the Commission was all cognizant that they were not changing the zone to allow the plumbing store but that it made sense as a business piece of property as opposed to residential. Mr. Giner stated it was noted in the record that there may be something coming down from the state in the future. Mr. Giner stated Mr. Griswold left a message and his request was to have the Commission reconsider zoning it back to what it was.

2. Hazardville Design District

This item was tabled to a later meeting.

3. Boulevards

This item was tabled to a later meeting.

b. New Applications to be Received/Set Public Hearing Dates

The following applications were received by the Commission:

Public Hearings:

PH #2617 – Petition for zone change from R-44 to R-33, Map 69, Lots 296, 266, 267, 268, for 91 Simon Road, Villages LLC Applicant/Villages LLC and Frank Legienza, Owners.