|
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 20, 2007
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, September 20, 2007 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Elizabeth Ballard
Jeffrey Cooper
Charles Duren
James Hickey, Jr. (left the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and returned at 8:50 p.m.)
Jason Jones
Charles Ladd, Alternate
Nicles Lefakis, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve the Minutes of September 6, 2007. The Minutes were corrected on page 13, second paragraph. “Petitions” should be “partitions.” The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a 5 – 0 – 2 vote. Commissioners Ballard and Jones abstained.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of information from the Capitol Region Council of Governments.
COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Notice of Action dated September 4, 2007, and seminar information from the American Planning Association. Also received was information from the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Agency regarding aquifer protection and level A mapping. Mr. Giner stated the Commission has until February to include this on their zoning map. Mr. Giner added some changes to the regulations were also received. He will check to see whether these changes require any amendments to the town’s regulations. Some changes concern time frames. Chairman DiPace requested an Aquifer Protection Agency meeting for the first meeting in November. Mr. Giner stated the target date for the regulations is either January 1, 2008 or when the town hears back from the Commissioner.
Additional Commissioners’ Correspondence included a copy of a letter regarding Wetlands Permit 493-02, Hallmark Cards, 25 Bacon Road and a modification to a Wetlands’ approval, referrals from the Capitol Region Council of Governments received September 13, 2007, and a letter from the Villages, LLC, signed by Dave Fredrick. Mr. Giner stated the latter item is a letter sent to all the neighbors. Chairman DiPace asked that Mr. Giner read this letter during the public hearing at the next meeting.
Commissioner Ladd requested an update on Raffia Road. Mr. Giner stated he will do it in his next Planner’s Report.
Chairman DiPace noted that Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley is on vacation this week and he asked who is covering zoning enforcement in his absence. Mr. Giner stated he does and Virginia Higley is also doing some things. Chairman DiPace felt that if the Zoning Enforcement Officer is out, someone should be covering his duties. Mr. Giner stated it is being covered. Ms. Higley has been appointed the Zoning Enforcement Technician and Mr. Giner is also designated to issue cease and desist orders. Chairman DiPace mentioned the new alert system in place.
Commissioner Cooper asked about the status of the car dealership approved on the corner of Broad Brook Road and I-190. Mr. Giner stated the gentleman who got the permit has not filed a special use permit yet. Commissioner Ladd stated the property was never sold and remains as it was. Following some discussion of the need to clean up this property and the trailers on the property, Mr. Giner stated he will inform the Zoning Enforcement Officer to check on this. He will be dealing with the original owner.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2614 – Special Use Permit for a 42 unit Senior Residential Development with related site work to be located east of Mayfield Drive, North of Westview Drive and west of Shaker Pines Lake, zoned R-44, Map 79, Lot 11, Stonegate Associates, LLC, Applicant, Angelina McGillivray and John and Marnie Dyer, Owner. (Must close by October 18 meeting)
Alternates Ladd and Lefakis will be sitting in for this public hearing.
Chairman DiPace read the Chairman’s rules for this public hearing and asked anyone wishing to speak to place their name on the sign-up sheet.
Wes Wentworth from Wentworth Civil Engineers in Lebanon appeared before the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He presented a 100 scale overall map and noted to the west are the Dartmoor Condominiums and Mayfield Drive comes in from North Maple Street. The north property line is the Massachusetts state border. To the south is the West View Drive and Pine Hill Road intersection and West Shore Drive and to the southeast is Shaker Pond.
Mr. Wentworth stated they have a 61.8 acre parcel of land with 42 units proposed in a senior residential development for residents fifty-five and over. They have been working on this project for the past two to three years. The last time around they went to Wetlands with a 73-unit, 95 acre layout which was essentially what is proposed with an additional 31 units located to the east. Chairman DiPace asked if there are two separate parcels. Mr. Wentworth stated there will be because they are going to be dividing the land for conservation purposes. The land to the east is going to be donated to a not-for-profit land trust and under Connecticut State Statutes, you have the right to divide land for conservation purposes and you are not required to go through subdivision. When this is approved, at the same time this land will be split off and donated to a land trust. Presently they are working with the Northern Connecticut Land Trust and they are very interested in receiving this land.
Mr. Wentworth stated they had a 73-unit layout previously and part of that proposal involved requesting waivers from this Commission to minimize impacts to wetlands. They had the two wetlands crossings shown on the map and a third cul de sac that crossed the wetland. They have reduced snow shelf widths at the crossings and they changed the layout so instead of having two crossings in a loop type fashion, they went to a one road crossing and asked for a cul de sac. In conformance with the subdivision and zoning regulations for street standards, a 600’ cul de sac is allowed which could potentially be waived up to 1,200’. They had waivers requested and received their approval from Wetlands for a 73-unit proposal. When they came before this Commission, on March 1, 2007 this Commission denied those waivers – specifically those involving the reduced snow shelf widths at these three crossings and the cul de sac length which would have been in excess of 600’. As a result of those denials, they have come back with an altered plan. They have lopped off the eastern portion and eliminated thirty-four acres and 31 units and they are now going to be donating that land to a not-for-profit land trust.
Mr. Wentworth stated they have had formal contact with the land trust and have offered it. It looks very good at this point.
Mr. Wentworth stated they are now at 42 units. As part of this layout, they are requesting no waivers of the subdivision street standards with the exception of a request for cape cod curbing rather than a standard curb. That waiver was approved in the previous application.
Mr. Wentworth stated all roads proposed to service this development are to be private. Points of access are an extension of Mayfield Drive and coming in and having an intersection looping back around and coming to the intersection of West View Drive and Pine Hill Road. There is no permanent access through to West Shore Drive; however, they are providing the town with a temporary construction access easement. There was one in place on this property in the past when they did town sewers. They are providing a temporary emergency access easement at the request of the public safety officials in the same area.
Mr. Wentworth stated this will be a common ownership condominium development with individual units consisting of single family homes. Everything outside the buildings will be owned in common by a homeowners’ association and they will receive the maintenance for all those facilities. None of that burden will fall on the Town of Enfield.
Roads are proposed to be twenty-four feet in width as per town standards. Sidewalks are proposed on one side throughout the development and they are now extended all the way out to the intersection of West View Drive and Pine Hill. In the prior application they were internal to the site and there was concern that they weren’t connecting to this neighborhood. They have now extended the sidewalk out to the intersection. The Town Engineer has reviewed this and Mr. Wentworth noted he is looking for them to continue across the frontage to connect the existing sidewalk and they will be making that revision.
Mr. Wentworth stated public sanitary sewers and public water will be provided to the site. Connecticut Water Company is providing water and they have stated they have adequate flows for fire protection on the site. Throughout the last review process, the Fire Marshal reviewed all hydrant locations and that statement from Connecticut Water and signed off on the approval at that point. Chairman DiPace asked if Connecticut Water Company has been notified as far as the aquifer because this is a separate procedure. Mr. Wentworth will check on that.
Mr. Wentworth stated fire lanes will be provided on both sides of the streets. Hydrant locations have already been reviewed through the last application procedure. They will be connecting into an existing sanitary sewer within West Shore Drive. If you go southwesterly on West Shore Drive, there’s an existing pump station that services this end of West Shore Drive. It’s in poor condition right now and historically has had problems. The WPC for the Town of Enfield has contracted a third party engineer to review the upgrades required there and has designed upgrades to that pump station which are all internal to the structure. They have agreed with the WPC that they will provide all the necessary upgrades to improve the situation for the neighborhood.
Mr. Wentworth stated conservation easements are proposed on the site. He has outlined them in orange on the plans. There is over sixty acres of land with 42 acres being dedicated conservation easements. In addition, if you take the thirty-four acres into account as overall land that will be protected, you end up with 76.5 acres of 95 acres which will be protected either by land trust or conservation easement. That is just shy of 80% of the entire site.
Mr. Wentworth stated they have submitted detailed storm water calculations for both storm water quantity and quality. On the quantity, they have provided three detention basins and they have run storms through there two to one hundred years and provided or reduced peak outflow. There will be no increase in peak flow downstream as a result of this project. They are aware there are concerns and existing flooding issues with Shaker Pond and they will make sure that they do not aggravate that situation.
Chairman DiPace stated while there will be no increase in peak flow, what about the amount of volume. Mr. Wentworth stated volume will be increased as with any development but he could not give a number regarding the increase. Storm water quality is designed into the project and they meet all minimum requirements set forth by the Department of Environmental Protection 2004 storm water quality guidelines. They have a number of design measures in place. Their detention basin is also doubling as storm water quality renovation wetlands. They use other features such as four-foot sumps in some of the catch basins and storm water quality basins. They are discharging about thirty percent of the roofs from units to individual rain gardens for ground water recharge. They are also using vegetative swales and filter strips. They have a very detailed erosion and sediment control plan for the construction phase of this project and they are in conformance with the 2002 E&S Guidelines as set forth by the State of Connecticut. They have gone through and provided detailed construction narratives, erosion and sediment control narratives, and details of sensitive areas especially in terms of wetlands crossings.
Mr. Wentworth stated there is a storm water management plan which spells out long-term maintenance once these facilities are installed that the homeowners association can refer to. It gives a schedule as far as road sweeping, inspection, cleaning out of catch basins, detention basins and repair of these facilities.
Commissioner Duren noted when they came before the Commission previously, the Commission had them report to the town. He asked if the same procedure would be followed where they had to report yearly to the Planning Department. Mr. Giner will check on this. Commissioner Duren stated because it is a sensitive area, this should be a condition of approval.
Mr. Wentworth stated there is a detailed management plan for the overall maintenance of the entire facility including water quality monitoring. There is a landscape integrated pest management plan which calls out for no phosphorus fertilizing to ensure that they don’t add any phosphorus which is the limiting factor in algae blooms for downstream receiving waters. It also calls for doing the minimum amount required in an orderly manner.
Commissioner Duren asked if there should be a condition that they show the type of fertilizer that they use so that it’s a non-phosphorus type of fertilizer. Mr. Giner stated there would be a need for the maintenance company to provide a list of fertilizers. Commissioner Duren stated they could provide what they have used or a sales agreement.
Mr. Wentworth stated they have provided a traffic study which was prepared early on for eighty units. There have been studies done and these type of units are an excellent addition for areas of other single-family dwellings because a majority of the residents are in a retired state and not coming out in the morning and the evening. Any peak flows are minimized based on the type of use that it is and it has been shown that there’s no adverse impact to traffic in any of the surrounding roads.
Mr. Wentworth stated because they are required to widen their two wetlands crossings and with the elimination of a third wetlands crossing and some other details to the plans, they have been before the Wetlands Commission for a modification to their wetlands permit that’s in place. As part of those revisions, they had 36 units located easterly before and they have eliminated 31 of those and relocated five additional units. The Wetlands Commission has some staff review comments and they will be providing some revisions on these plans that will be submitted early next week. One of the concerns the Wetlands Commission had was in their prior 73-unit layout, there wasn’t two units located in a particular area. They have concerns about the connectivity between the wetland areas and felt the two units really don’t fit in this location. Mr. Wentworth questioned if this was within their jurisdiction but he noted they will be removing these two units and the revised plans will be submitted early next week. Those will be out and they will be coming back with a 40-unit layout. In addition, the conservation easement will be expanded to provide that connectivity.
Mr. Wentworth felt the present proposal is much less in scope and disturbance over their prior submittals and will have less impact from a Wetlands and a Planning and Zoning standpoint. They are before the Commission tonight not requesting any of the waivers previously denied. They have taken and grossly reduced the number of units from 73 down to 40. They will expand the conservation easement a little more and that will bring them up over 80% of total area being protected for open space.
Mr. Wentworth stated they feel there are no adverse impacts to public health, welfare or safety as a result of the approval of this project.
Commissioner Duren asked why they are tying into the pump station instead of going down and tying into the sewer on North Maple. Mr. Wentworth stated they can only get gravity sewer to a certain point. There are sewers on West View Drive but they are too shallow.
Commissioner Cooper asked if any of the units are going to be located where the water table is six feet. Mr. Wentworth stated yes. They have common footing drains throughout and will be providing gravity flow out. They had three units that would require sump pumps and two of those are now being eliminated.
Commissioner Ladd asked with the transfer to the association, is there a fund that gets transferred with that for the additional startup. Attorney Dennis McCormick, the attorney for the applicant, addressed that question. There is a provision and what happens is $400 per unit will be set aside totaling $16,000. This is called a capital reserve fund that gets the association going and funds items and there will be the monthly charges after that.
Attorney McCormick stated he was involved in the Autumn Fields project in Enfield and was involved in the management plan which Commissioner Duren was speaking about concerning how the provisions can be maintained and monitored by the town. There was a formal management plan that was filed on the land records. It is referenced in every deed and is binding on the association in terms of what their obligations are. That is all put up front in any public offering statement. Before any unit owner purchases a unit, there is a summary of a public offering statement. They have to include any things that would be different from normal situations.
Lori Parker, 105 Cottage Road, stated she is on the board of the Shaker Pines Lake Association. She asked if they have to ask again for consideration of intervener status. Mr. Giner stated they should because this is a different application. Ms. Parker asked again for consideration of intervener status. She would also ask that all of the information from the previous application to the Commission be brought forward into this application. She noted there was a lot of good information including environmental reports and reports from engineers they had hired.
Chairman DiPace stated as far as transferring items from the previous public hearing to this one, this is a much smaller application and doesn’t include the entire acreage that was there or the impact to the environment. Chairman DiPace does not think it would be fair to transfer all that information because it was a separate hearing. He noted Ms. Parker could submit information from that hearing that is applicable to this application. Chairman DiPace felt these are two separate applications and it would not be fair to put them together.
Chairman DiPace noted Ms. Parker is a board member of the Shaker Pines Lake Association and an officer. Ms. Parker stated she submitted a letter to Inland Wetlands requesting intervener status but she did not realize that they also had to bring it here. She doesn’t have a copy of the letter but can bring it to the office tomorrow. Ms. Parker stated the president of their association is here. Mr. Giner confirmed they did submit a letter to the Wetlands Commission signed by all the Board members. Chairman DiPace noted this is a separate agency. Chairman DiPace stated until the Commission has a letter granting intervener status, Ms. Parker cannot proceed. He noted a need to do things by the book.
Ms. Parker went over some of the points. She brought up the goals of the Enfield Plan of Conservation and Development again and, in particular, the land use goal number one and open space goals number six and eight. She wonders if the units proposed will fit in with the character of the neighborhood. She also wonders who the seniors are that will be expected to be purchasing these homes. Will they be Town of Enfield seniors or out-of-town seniors coming in? Can the Town of Enfield’s resources provide the additional services to these seniors like Dial-a-Ride.
Ms. Parker heard at the Town Council meeting on Monday night that there’s a lot of drainage issues in town and the town doesn’t know how they’re going to fund these problems. Ms. Parker stated they also have great concerns over the pumping station. The town putting the pumping station in that location rendered their beach lot useless. They questioned whether other pumping stations in the area have been looked at as alternatives. Stonegate explained that adding more flow through a pumping station is actually better; however, Ms. Parker sees it as greater potential for more flow into the lake in the event of a problem. She would think less flow would be less of a problem to manage. They have had problems before where sewage has leaked into the lake and that is a great concern.
Ms. Parker had a question regarding a property at 56 Pine Hill Road referenced as map 79, lot 13. That map and lot is referenced in the Inland Wetlands application but it is not on this one. She asked about it at the January 7, 2007 Planning and Zoning meeting if this property was part of the plan and was told that it was not. However, looking at the map, it is there and there is a road going through that area. Ms. Parker went to the Town Clerk’s Office and got a copy of the deed. It was recently sold in June and the parcel was split into two pieces, parcel A and parcel B. It said the map for the split was on file in the Town Clerk’s Office. However, they could not find the map. She was sent to the Assessor’s Office and the Assessor told her that subdivision was not approved. She noted it appears that there is no subdivision.
Ms. Parker wanted to note that they spoke about some of the concerns Inland Wetlands had with the change of the plans. They had great concern with the land trust which also requires the installation of a parking lot. She doesn’t know where that parking lot would go and what impact that might have.
Ms. Parker stated they want to see the best use of this land and they have many concerns on the impact to the eco system, the flooding, the lake, the neighborhood, the traffic and many related issues. She will get additional information together for the next hearing session.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.
Alan Levitz, 57 Dartmoor, stated he is on the Board of Directors of the Dartmoor. His concerns are the same as he has had for the last year and a half. Mayfield Drive is a one lane street with one entrance and one exit. We are looking at a potential 345 units among the three communities all being serviced by this one road. He questioned if this has the potential as a fire hazard. North Maple Street is very narrow and Mr. Levitz questioned how will cars that are trying to get into Mayfield Drive co-exist with cars that are trying to get by them. There isn’t enough room to get by them. Will there be a bottleneck on both sides of the road? Mr. Levitz stated Dartmoor maintains the road and they are concerned that a couple of years of truck traffic will destroy it. Who will pay for the repairs? They are already in a three-year litigation with the prior owners of the American Inn because they have not paid for any of their share of snowplowing or repairs. Mr. Levitz stated they are afraid they will be faced with a new problem in collecting monies from the new proposed project. Dartmoor has to lay out the money and then they collect from everybody else.
Mr. Levitz felt Mayfield Drive will be the choice for Stonegate residents to enter and exit. No one would want to exit on to the lake area from Stonegate with its narrow, winding and child-populated streets. Dartmoor and Mayfield Drive will bear the brunt of all the traffic. They are concerned with the current housing slump that they will see both ends of Mayfield Drive lie semi-vacant for a long time. Mr. Levitz noted the new Mayfield Park project has been extremely slow in doing any construction and he questioned if they are going to have to endure dessert like conditions for the next two years. Mr. Levitz stated Mayfield Park has been at a standstill for the last four or five months and they are afraid this is going to happen up here too. Their biggest concern is the tearing up of Mayfield Drive and who is going to pay for it. He asked that the Commission vote no again. Some discussion followed about the lack of progress in the Mayfield Park development.
Charles Page, 1 Bridges Road, read a letter from Lisa Lacone in opposition to this application. Mr. Page submitted the letter to be included in the record of this hearing.
Mike Minola, 57 West Shore Drive, has several concerns with this development. One is traffic at the corner of Pine Hill and West View. He feels a lot of the homes will be using that as the entrance in and out. When he moved into the area in 1984, the town had just completed its sewers and had worked on the substation in the area. The substation is classified as being too small as it is and now they want to pump more into there. That will require putting in a bigger tank. When the town put in that substation, they rendered the beach useless. They put the sewer pipes for the existing houses on the lower lots underneath the beach area. To retain the beach, they put in steel bars so that it wouldn’t wash away. To retain the steel bars, they put ten feet out of six inch rip rap. To cover the rip rap they put sand. Mr. Minola noted that was fine for the first two or three years and as soon as the sand washed away, the result was a useless beach. The only thing you can do with it now is go fishing. You can’t do any swimming. If this does go through, there needs to be a plan where the residents can reclaim their beach. As it is right now, it is on the deed of 42 back lot owners and it’s supposed to be an addition to their property. Mr. Minola noted he is against this proposal.
Patricia Holden, 67 West Shore Drive, opposes this development for many of the reasons she mentioned last time. She is concerned about her well and the wildlife that’s back there. She is the third generation and she wants it to be there for future generations. She also understands there are problems with the project on Taylor Road. The development at Fermi thirty years ago was great and now there are problems there. If something happens to this land in ten years or thirty years, we will never get it back. While this may be a wonderful development, Ms. Holden doesn’t think it’s in the right place.
Chairman DiPace asked if there was a lot split up in the front.
Attorney Dennis McCormick stated it has not been split up. 56 Pine Hill Road was owned by the applicant up until three or four months ago. There was a decision made at that time to sell 56 Pine Hill Road. It was sold to the Dyers who are listed as the owners of 56 Pine Hill Road. The entire parcel was sold and the only situation is that they do have an agreement with the Dyers that if this development is approved and if there is an access way into that area, there will be a town road along their frontage such that they will have a conforming town lot. It has not been illegally divided and it is not a subdivision that required any kind of approval.
Chairman DiPace asked if there is an easement across the property for a right of way fifty feet wide. Attorney McCormick stated there will not be an easement if this development is approved. The first portion of it will be a town road. The Dyers will have their frontage on that road.
Chairman DiPace noted they will build a 30’ wide road for that frontage and it will narrow down to 24’ wide. Mr. Wentworth stated it is designed now as a 24’ wide road which is in conformance with town standards.
Chairman DiPace stated on private roads it was changed to 24’ but on public roads it has always been 30’ with a 50’ right of way. Mr. Wentworth stated there is a 50’ right of way. Chairman DiPace is trying to make sure there is no subdivision split.
Attorney McCormick stated there will be no subdivision of this parcel. If the Commission grants approval, a portion of that lot will be sold or reconveyed to the applicant. The remaining portion will be a fully conforming lot to all town standards. It does not require subdivision approval. All they are doing is conveying excess land. As long as that lot remains a conforming lot to all of the standards, it does not require a subdivision.
Chairman DiPace stated they are allowed a one time split or moving of the line. Mr. Giner confirmed you can convey excess land without going through a subdivision. The definition of subdivision by the state is only if you create a lot for sale or building purposes.
Chairman DiPace stated they are going to take that piece off, they are going to make it a road and then they are going to deed it to the town. Mr. Giner stated it won’t create a new building lot. Chairman DiPace stated but it will transfer ownership. It’s going to be for a public road for another parcel. Mr. Giner read the technical definition of subdivision in the state statutes.
Chairman DiPace stated it is to allow access for development. Mr. Giner stated he can ask the Town Attorney if that is a subdivision. In the past the Town Attorney has stated that was not a subdivision and he gave the Parkman School situation as an example.
Chairman DiPace asked if there is going to be a future parking lot with this land trust property. Mr. Wentworth stated that was raised Tuesday night by the Chairman of the Inland Wetlands Commission. That is a good question and one they had not anticipated. Mr. Wentworth is planning on contacting the president of the Northern Land Trust tomorrow and asking if this is the type of use where they will want a parking lot. If it is, he has scaled out a five-car gravel parking lot in the flat area without any grading. Mr. Wentworth needs to propose this to the land trust and make sure that is something they need to do. He is hoping to get a quick answer back from them and, if so, it will be on the next set of revised plans submitted.
Commissioner Duren stated there was some concern by the people that spoke about the land trust. He asked that the applicant furnish the Commission with the background of the proposed land trust group. Attorney McCormick stated he does have a letter that was written by them as well as a brochure showing the other land parcels that are currently in trust, their operating budget, their mission statement and their annual report. Mr. Wentworth stated the cover sheet is their letter offering the property to the land trust and the remainder of the copies include information about the land trust.
Attorney McCormick stated the Northern Connecticut Land Trust was brought to the applicant’s attention by the Inland Wetlands Commission. They had heard good things about this land trust and they appear to be very active in terms of preservation and stewardship of different properties that they own. Attorney McCormick spoke to the President of the land trust and he is very interested in the parcel. A formal response is expected shortly. By the time of the next meeting, they should have formal information.
Some discussion followed on parcels the land trust owns. Attorney McCormick stated they presently have about thirty-five different properties in trust and the president indicated they were interested in expanding their holdings in Enfield.
Mr. Wentworth brought up the impact to town services. They have submitted an impact analysis as part of the record.
Chairman DiPace noted the main entrance is coming off North Maple Street and that is a state road. He asked if the state needs to be notified. Mr. Giner will find out as there are certain things that trigger the State Traffic Commission involvement.
Commissioner Ladd stated this site is still under litigation with this Commission and he is not sure he understands the status. Chairman DiPace stated it does not affect this hearing as this is a separate application.
Commissioner Duren asked about the reasons the Wetlands Commission wanted the two homes eliminated. Mr. Wentworth thought they liked the idea where before they had a constant conservation easement connecting the two wetland areas and providing an undisturbed corridor. Mr. Giner stated they were concerned about wildlife getting between the two wetlands areas. Mr. Wentworth stated recent court cases have proven they cannot consider wildlife moving outside of wetlands.
Chairman DiPace asked if there are drawings showing the architecturals of the buildings. Mr. Wentworth stated he can have those for the next meeting.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience again. There was no further public input.
Chairman DiPace noted the Commission needs an opinion from the Town Attorney, an aquifer protection letter from the water company stating they have no problem with that and the intervener paperwork.
Mr. Giner stated this hearing does not have to be re-noticed but the signs have to remain up. Chairman DiPace stated the Commission may want to re-advertise this hearing because there will be 40 units instead of 43 units. Commissioner Duren agreed that it would be better to re-legal notice this application.
Chairman DiPace continued this public hearing to October 18, 2007.
b. PH#2620 – Special Use Permit for the installation of lights at the Little League field located behind Asnuntuck Community College located at 170 Elm Street, zoned R-33, Map 57, Lot 315; Thompsonville Little League, applicants; Town of Enfield, Owner. (Must close by October 18 meeting)
Tom Arnone, President of the Thompsonville Little League, and Scott Munroe appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Arnone stated they are before the Commission with a proposal for field #3 behind Asnuntuck Community College. He pointed out on the map where the fields are located. There is one senior field and two small twelve-year-old Little League fields. The project is field #3 which is the field farthest away from the school. There is an apartment complex with a pool house in the area. They intend to install four field galvanized poles sixty feet high with lights in the areas shown on the map. There will be two poles in the back of the field and two by the pitcher’s mound in front of the field.
Mr. Arnone stated these lights are engineered by Granite City Electric. The luminants are all positioned toward the field. They come from the factory that way to make sure the light stays on the field and no place else. These are state-of-the-art lighting systems and they are all manufactured to keep the light trespass down to the minimum. He pointed out on the site plan the end of the light trespass. About 180’ away from the field there will be no light trespass at all. The apartment area is already intensely lit because it is a pool area and lit until 11:00 p.m.
Mr. Arnone presented a drawing showing where the poles will be and how each individual light is pointed at the field and towards the field. They will be digging, with help from the town, a trench along the border and fence line between the apartments. There is already a power source there and they are going to snake through the power source that is there. They have a 200 amp service at the ball field now and this requires a 300 amp service. The town will supply the labor and they will supply the materials to install a new service to the lights of the field.
Mr. Arnone stated they have been before the Town Council regarding this project and the Town Council approved it. At the end of this project they will be taking ownership of the lights and they will pay the cost of the power for the lights. This is a community project trying to get the field lit for Little League purposes. At this point, there are no youth sports in the Town of Enfield that have any lights at all. They are working with Granite City to get these things done for the kids.
Mr. Arnone stated they go through rigorous standards from Little League to make sure these lights meet their standards. Mr. Arnone stated the lights meet or exceed all of the Little League standards for safety and aesthetics.
Mr. Arnone stated they need to drill four holes. Northeast Utility donated their time and they will drill the holes similar to those for telephone poles. They will erect the poles into the ground and there is direct burial. Regarding completion, they would like to have completion by the spring. They have the lights paid for and have somewhat of an issue for the power. They had asked the Town Council to supply the money for the power and they did not. At this time they are raising money through the community and are about half way there right now. They should have no problem completing the cost of the copper wire.
Chairman DiPace asked what is the cost for running that line. Mr. Arnone stated with the town doing the work, they are looking at $8,000 for the cost of the wire, the cost of the final hookup for the electrician and a labor charge.
Commissioner Cooper stated there is a college team in Manchester and this area would be perfect for such a team. Mr. Arnone stated their lighting is very similar to what they are proposing. This will be a real asset for the town behind Asnuntuck and will be used by soccer and football teams as well as baseball.
Chairman DiPace stated the town still owns the property now but it is being sold to the state. Mr. Arnone stated the state has agreed and the paperwork is being done to lease the property back to the town. They don’t want to maintain it and they will make a lease back to the town. Thompsonville Little League has been written into the lease as being able to use those fields.
Commissioner Cooper asked if the town will be responsible for maintaining the fields. Mr. Arnone stated they will and they will take over complete ownership of the lights when the project is completed.
Chairman DiPace stated the Planning and Zoning Commission has an open space fund and when applications come in, money goes into this fund for open space recreation. In lieu of open space, the wording and the writing is for recreation, passive and active, or to improve the quality of recreation. Chairman DiPace asked if this Commission deems it appropriate that this is an improvement to recreation, would it be proper for this Commission to request that the Town Council allocate the $4,000 that is needed to complete this project which is long overdue for the kids of the Town of Enfield. Chairman DiPace stated the last time he checked there was over $600,000 in this account. Mr. Giner stated there are state statutes that cover what the money can be used for. Chairman DiPace felt this is an improvement to the quality of recreation. Mr. Giner will find out whether it can be used for this purpose.
Mr. Arnone discussed Little League being split into two separate leagues because of the limit of 20,000 people in each league.
Chairman DiPace asked if the Commission is interested in pursuing whether the open space fund can be used to improve the quality of recreation if allowed. Commissioner Hickey felt this is an outstanding idea. It was the consensus of the Commission to pursue this. Chairman DiPace stated it will be a request from this Commission to the Town Council because they are the ones that will have to allocate the funds. Mr. Giner stated he will do a formal resolution for the next meeting.
Mr. Munroe stated he was glad to hear such funds may be available.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against the application.
Mr. Giner stated because this was within 100’ of wetlands, it did get a wetlands agent approval on September 17, 2007.
Commissioner Duren stated there are no suggested conditions. Mr. Giner stated it is straightforward. It is filing a special permit on the land records. It will be in accordance with the record submitted.
Mr. Arnone presented additional information on the light trespass and exactly how the lights are installed.
Commissioner Lefakis stated he is an employee of Asnuntuck Community College. He has no personal gain in this and also is not voting on this particular item.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve PH #2620, Special Use Permit for installation of lights at the Little League field located behind Asnuntuck Community College located at 170 Elm Street with the standard conditions that are applicable to this application and in accordance with the record submitted. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Ladd voting.
OLD 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)
Mohammad Siddiqui appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated the proposal is to add the window and outside seating for One Stop.
Chairman DiPace stated the window has been in for quite some time and it was done without a building permit or any approvals. Mr. Siddiqui stated it was done by a licensed person but they have not been using it. He was not aware of the need to apply for this window.
Chairman DiPace stated directly across the street the Commission had a request for a window and denied that request. Commissioner Ballard stated the proposal is a walk up window and not a drive through.
Commissioner Duren noted the letter from Debbie Corona dated September 4, 2007. Mr. Siddiqui stated they have storage out back which will be used for the seasonal tables and chairs and other storage.
Chairman DiPace asked if there was something on the outside for the sale of fruits and vegetables. Mr. Siddiqui stated they have dropped that plan.
Mr. Giner asked if Mr. Siddiqui got a permit from the Zoning Enforcement Officer and he responded he did. In response to a question from Commissioner Duren, Mr. Giner showed on the map where the existing shed is located.
Commissioner Duren asked if the tables and chairs would be set into the cement. Mr. Siddiqui stated they will not be and they will be movable and stored in the winter.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper to approve 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, subject to conformance with the submitted record and the following conditions:
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
1. 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.
2. Final North Central District Health Department approvals shall be obtained.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
3. A Final Inspection is required.
General Conditions:
4. 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.
5. Any additional changes to the exterior of the building or site require further approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
6. The outside seating area shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. Staff shall patrol the area to ensure that no waste is blown off the premises.
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. This project as approved must be completed by September 20, 2012 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
9. 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 Duren asked that who drew the plans and that the person who drew the plans should be included in the conditions.
Commissioner Hickey 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 these Regulations. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Ladd voting.
The main motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Ladd voting.
BOND RELEASES
a. PH#2504 – Request for release of Galaxy Development (Walgreen Pharmacy) Engineering for $456,600 and Erosion and Sediment Bond in the amount of $7,200 at 2 Shaker Road.
Mr. Giner stated there was a transposing of figures and the wrong amount was initially approved.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to release the engineering bond in the amount of $456,600 for Galaxy Development (Walgreen Pharmacy), PH#2504. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Ladd voting.
There was no action on releasing the Erosion and Sediment Bond.
b. 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.
Mr. Giner stated at the last meeting there was an okay from John Cabibbo on the erosion and sediment control but the Commission did not want to release it until the landscaping was addressed. The Commission now has a memo from Steve Sadlowski regarding the landscaping and recommending approval.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to release the landscape and erosion and sediment bond for SPR#1230 in the amount of $7,977.00. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Ladd voting.
c. PH#2462 – Request for release of Troiano Professional Building (Enfield Federal Savings & Loan) Engineering bond for $235,000 and Erosion and Sediment Bond in the amount of $3,000 for 851 Enfield Street.
Commissioner Duren noted receipt of a memo from Steve Sadlowski regarding the landscaping and recommending the release of the landscaping portion of the bond in the amount of $16,700. Because no information was available on the total bond, the Commission tabled this bond release.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR#1416 – Application for proposed construction of a 28,000 square foot distribution facility on the northern portion of the lot at the corner of Moody Road and Taylor Street which will include associated grading, paving and 31 parking spaces, zoned I-1, Map 100, Lot #11, Jeff Mitchell, Top-Knot, LLC, Applicant/Olympia Sales, Inc., Owner. (Deadline for decision 11/01/07 meeting.)
Jeff Mitchell of Top-Knot, LLC, and Jon Solecki of Sage Engineering appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Solecki stated the site they are applying for is located at the corner of Moody Road and Taylor Road. It’s a 23.67 acre lot in an Industrial-1 district. The parcel is currently used for cow corn. There are wetlands located on the site on the western and southern portions. Mr. Solecki pointed out these areas on the site plan.
Mr. Solecki stated a full property line survey of the property was completed by Heritage Surveys. Currently the site has two watersheds. The first is on the eastern portion of the site. The watershed is roughly ten acres and it drains into an existing swale and then into wetlands. The other watershed is roughly four acres. That watershed sheet flows into the western wetland.
Mr. Solecki stated test pits were performed by Sage Engineering on July 16, 2007 and soil was evaluated to have good permeability.
Mr. Solecki stated the proposed project is a 28,000 square foot distribution center. It is to be divided into two tenant spaces, one in the front and one in the back. It’s going to be a pre-engineered steel building with a standard seam roof and metal wall panels. The building will be gray. Commissioner Duren asked if they brought color samples and he noted the Commission usually likes earth tones.
Mr. Solecki stated the overall height of the building is approximately 20’ 6”. Adjacent to the building is a parking area that is broken up into three pods. The two end pods are for the two separate tenants so they have access to the building. On the site there will be associated utilities, grading and a water management system. There will be three loading docks on the eastern part of the site for truck traffic. All exterior lighting is to be building mounted and it is shown on Plan C-3. The parking area contains 32 parking spaces. Twenty-eight spaces are required by the regulations. They do have two handicapped accessible parking spaces, one for the northern tenant and one for the southern tenant. This application does meet the 15% requirement regarding landscaping for a parking area. There is only one curb cut access to the site. The building does meet all regulations regarding setbacks from the residential district, frontage requirements, lot coverage requirements, lot area requirements and side and rear yard setbacks. All that is shown on Plan C-2.
Mr. Solecki stated the placement of the building was very important to them to try to limit the impact to the site. Currently there is a ridge that runs along the site and that ridge was used to average out where the finished building will be. There are only two places on the site you can put a building economically. The first is on the area they chose and the other is up the hill to the east. The problem with the latter is it is up towards the residential neighborhood. The benefit of the proposed location is it limits the cut and fill on the job.
Mr. Solecki stated the have been to Inland Wetlands and received an approval this past Tuesday. They submitted a storm water management report by a licensed engineer. It explains that for the two year, ten year, twenty-five year and one hundred year storm event over a 24-hour period it will not increase the flow on the site going to the wetlands. The swale to the eastern portion of the site is for the parking area. The water will run off the parking area into this swale by means of three separate curb cuts. The curb cuts are shown on plan C-4. In the vegetative swale, there will be filtration of the water before it makes it to the detention basin. They have also included two rip rap check dams for additional filtering of the water. As it flows down the site, it makes its way into the extended detention basin to the southeast of the site. The front of the extended basin features a four-bay for sediment filtration. That area can be cleaned and it is included in the maintenance plan. One of the suggestions from Inland Wetlands was to add wetland plants and a wetland seed mix to the extended detention basin.
Mr. Solecki stated the western portion of the building is treated by a separate swale for the runoff coming from the roof. This swale is going to be rip rap against the building which is shown on C-4 and it will have a conservation seed mix in it and it will be a vegetative swale.
Commissioner Duren stated they show on the plans an area for future expansion and this would mean moving the whole thing when they do it. He asked would they be better off designing it now with the swale further away. Mr. Solecki stated they did put on their plan for future addition to limit the amount of wetland impact they would have by putting an additional swale closer to the wetlands. They used a gutter system with underground HDPE to a detail that would swale over to their water quality treatment basin. The intention of that was to limit the amount of impact they would have near the wetlands as the building would be getting closer. One of the conditions of their Inland Wetlands approval was not approving the future addition to date but it is something they would still like to do in the future.
Frank Demarines stated they are not encroaching on the wetlands or having a direct impact to the wetlands. It was just an encroachment on the buffer zone. What they did is provided a storm drainage piping system.
Commissioner Jones stated there are two different warehouses and he asked how many people are going to be working here. Jeff Mitchell stated the main warehouse section is being built for International Configurations. About five years ago, they created another division by the name of World Court Sets which handles special sets. Their product is mainly 4,000 plus items that are sold off the shelf where a customer can call in and order the product. They spun off the custom division because the custom product takes an enormous amount of time. The World Court Sets has about six employees and International Configurations has nine employees. Commissioner Jones stated he was wondering why the parking was distributed the way it was.
Mr. Demarines stated there is a section in the center that has dual parking for the employees of both businesses. Regarding the size of the parking lots, Mr. Solecki stated the front and back businesses have similar amounts of employees and there is ample parking for both.
Commissioner Hickey asked if it is going to be a basic corrugated elevation. Mr. Solecki pointed out the elevations. The entrance is going to have a small canopy structure about fifteen feet wide. The client had wanted them to accent the building a little better so that it wasn’t just a straightforward building. He wanted a metal strip around the building and store front glass on the front of the building. Overall it would be a solid color on the front except for that accent strip and the canopy entrance.
Mr. Solecki stated originally the client had parking in front of the building. One of the ways they decided to dress up the building was to add some green area in front of it. They have added extra landscaping so that it looks a little nicer.
Mr. Solecki stated he spoke to Water Pollution Control and they asked for a clarification as to where their sanitary sewer connection was meeting up with the existing road service. They are going to be connecting directly to the sewer manhole. The Water Pollution Control approved this and submitted a letter to the Commission today.
Mr. Solecki did speak with Hazardville Water Company. Hazardville Water assured them they were fine with the lines as shown on the site. The water company did submit comments.
Mr. Solecki stated there is an underground gas line entering the building. He also showed where the electrical will run on the plans. It is roughly 140’ down the building and it will be screened. There will be a few HVAC condensers on the eastern side of the building and those will be screened as well.
Mr. Solecki stated they do have a snow removal area that’s located to the north of the swale.
Frank Demarines stated they spent a great deal of time and energy putting these plans together. They met with Mr. Giner and the various department heads to work out all the details prior to coming before this Commission.
Chairman DiPace stated as you travel down Taylor Road, the area drops off. The building will therefore be down somewhat. Mr. Demarines showed the existing tree line on the plans. The flat area is where the building will be located.
Mr. Demarines stated they can submit color samples to the Commission for their approval. There are plenty of earth tones to choose from. Chairman DiPace would like to see a tan or a brown.
Mr. Mitchell stated the building will be a great distance away from the tree line. He feels it will be a nice location for their employees because it is cornered in. For this reason, they didn’t put any rooftop units on the building. As for the color of the building, Mr. Mitchell would not want a color that is an eyesore.
Chairman DiPace recommended approving this application with a condition that the building be either tan or brown tones.
Commissioner Ladd asked how much truck traffic is anticipated. Mr. Mitchell stated they have daily deliveries and pickups by UPS and Fed Ex. They deliver in the morning and the afternoon. As for large truck traffic, they have six to eight tractor trailers a week. They bring items in large quantities and their clientele purchases them in small quantities.
The bigger trucks will be coming in during the day after l0:30 or 11:00 a.m. There are no night hours.
Mr. Giner stated when he wrote the conditions he had not yet received the letter from Dan Parisi. He confirmed that on Tuesday evening they received their wetlands permit.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve SPR #1416 – Application for proposed construction of a 28,000 sq. ft. distribution facility on the northern portion of the lot at the corner of Moody Rd. & Taylor St. which will include associated grading, paving & 31 parking spaces, Zoned I-1, Map 100, Lot #11, Jeff Mitchell, Top-Knot, LLC, Applicant/Olympia Sales, Inc., Owner. This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“C-1 Existing Conditions Plan”, Sheet C-1, Scale: 1”=50, by Sage Engineering, LLC, dated 8-20-2007 and revised to 9/18/07.
“C-2 Proposed Site Layout Plan”, Sheet C-2, Scale: 1”=50, by Sage Engineering, LLC, dated 8-20-2007 and revised to 9/18/07.
“C-3 Enlarged Landscaping & Lighting Plan ”, Sheet C-3, Scale: 1”=30, by Sage Engineering, LLC, dated 8-20-2007 and revised to 9/18/07.
“C-4 Grading & Utility Plan”, Sheet C-4, Scale: 1”=30, by Sage Engineering, LLC, dated 8-20-2007 and revised to 9/18/07.
“C-5 Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Plan ”, Sheet C-5, Scale: 1”=30, by Sage Engineering, LLC, dated 8-20-2007 and revised to 9/18/07.
“A-1 Preliminary Floor Plans ”, Sheet A-1, Scale: “As Noted”, by Sage Engineering, LLC, dated 8-20-2007 and revised to 9/18/07.
“A-2 Preliminary Elevations ”, Sheet A-2, Scale: “As Noted”, by Sage Engineering, LLC, dated 8-20-2007 and revised to 9/18/07.
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. For all sewer pipes, show on the drawings the length, diameter, slope, location and type of pipe; for inverts show elevation in and out, and for frames show elevation at the top. Sewer system shall conform to Town of Enfield, Subdivision regulations, revised as of February 12, 2002, and on the Town of Enfield Public Works Department drawings titled Typical Details I, II and III.
3. A note shall be added that “WPC shall be notified 24 hours in advance for all inspections required for installations of sewer systems. Please call 860-253-6450 – if no one is there, please leave a message.”
4. The plans shall show a cleanout every 100’ and a detail for sanitary sewer saddle.
5. The plans shall include a sanitary sewer detail as provided to the applicant by the WPC.
6. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns, a copy of the Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated on the plans submitted for signing.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits: |