ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2003
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, November 20, 2003 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Vice Chairman Charles Duren called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Charles Duren, Vice Chairman (Chairman James Howard is presently away on military duty.)
Anthony DiPace
Robert Egan
James Hickey, Jr. (arrived at 7:40 p.m.)
Karen Krebs
Jeffrey Cooper, Alternate
Karen Weseliza, Alternate
ABSENT: Nicles Lefakis
Joseph Jedynak, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
CORRESPONDENCE
Vice Chairman Duren read a communication from Attorney Herbert A. Krasow regarding SPR#1244 at 1559 King Street (Sound Enfield Group, LLC [Bernie's] requesting withdrawal of this application. They will file a new application for site plan approval shortly. The Commission will take formal action on this request later in the meeting.
Vice Chairman Duren read a letter from Raymond Warren, Director of Economic Development, regarding PTI Industries, Inc. with a request for this application to be considered on the next available agenda to allow expeditious action at this late stage of the season.
Vice Chairman Duren noted receipt of correspondence regarding the bond release request for Grandview Drive.
Vice Chairman Duren read a letter from Alan K. Tracy regarding PH#2409 requesting postponement of this matter until January, 2004.
Vice Chairman Duren noted Correspondence also includes a letter regarding the modifications made by Inland Wetlands regarding 5 Peerless Way, a cease and desist order for 23 North Main Street, a memo from Dan Vindigni to Town Manager Scott Shanley regarding the World Ward II Honor Roll and the additional work that has to be done, and two cease and desist orders for 6 Rocket Run.
COMMISSIONERS' CORRESPONDENCE
Commissioner Cooper apologized to Mary Ann Turner, the Commission and the audience for a comment he made at the last meeting which was out of line and did not show proper respect.
Commissioner Egan brought up the retention basin on Abbe Road. The Commission received a complaint some time back that it was not a dry basin and it was full of water. There is a memo dated July 16, 2003 that has been brought to his attention from Neil Angus that indicated he had inspected the basin and had determined the outlets are not properly constructed. Commissioner Egan requested that prior to the Town accepting this that someone go out and take a look at this area. Mr. Giner noted the Town Engineer would have to sign off on the acceptance of this retention basin.
Vice Chairman Duren reported receipt of an economic land use booklet published by the Connecticut Institute. Commissioner DiPace requested that the Commissioners receive copies of this booklet.
Vice Chairman Duren stated in the Inland Wetlands Minutes of November 5, 2003 on page two, Mr. Flagg states he has been to the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission. Vice Chairman Duren stated he has not been before this Commission on the matter discussed in those minutes and he asked if he has had meetings with town staff. Mr. Giner confirmed that town staff has had several staff meetings. Vice Chairman Duren requested that these Minutes be corrected to show Planning and Zoning staff and not this Commission.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2413 - Application for a Special Use Permit for demolition of existing building and additional paving for storage of auto dealer inventory at 543 Enfield Street, zoned BL, Map 33, Lot 267, Artioli, LLC, Applicant/Owner. (Hearing may be continued to December 1, 2003.)
Attorney Thomas Tyler, Dana Steele of J. R. Russo, and Attorney Kate Tyler appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Attorney Thomas Tyler stated this application was before the Commission previously. It was withdrawn in order to accommodate the suggestions of the Traffic Safety Officer, Commission members, and the neighbors regarding the flow of traffic and the loading and unloading of automobiles. The latter will now be done completely on site and there will be no further loading or unloading of vehicles on Enfield Street, Freemont or any of the other side streets.
Dana Steele, an engineer with the firm of J. R. Russo and Associates, East Windsor, stated this application is for property at 543 Enfield Street immediately to the south of the existing Artioli Dodge dealership. It is located on the east side of Route 5 just above Montano Road and south of Freemont Road. Previously this property, as well as all of the Artioli properties, were proposed for a zone change to Business General which this Commission approved. This brought the existing use into conformity with its current use. The building that was previously at this location was the former Journal Inquirer building. Following purchase by Mr. Artioli, the building has since been demolished. They are now seeking approval for the conversion of this site to the storage of vehicles for the purpose of the sale of motor vehicles. This use will be combined with the existing dealership and that will be accomplished by the removal of the two property lines and the joining of the two lots to form one large parcel.
Mr. Steele stated the current site has two curb cuts on Route 5. The proposal is to eliminate the southerly most curb cut to improve traffic turning movements. Mr. Steele stated an additional concern from the Commission was the loading and unloading of vehicles. As suggested by town staff, they have prepared a plan which shows how the vehicles will be loaded and unloaded. This is included on Sheet 2 of the plans presented.
Mr. Steele stated as shown on the plans, the area where the building was will be paved and joined with the existing paved area. The curb cut to the south will be eliminated and the pavement along the south property line will be reduced to provide the proper setback for the side yard. A variance was obtained regarding the front setback of this paved area. There is still a 24' grassed area between the Route 5 pavement and the pavement of the Artioli dealership. Currently the site has approximately eight feet to the north. The parcels on Freemont that they were in about previously have a fifteen-foot strip. The application requests a change of use and paving of a small area although the overall impervious area of the site will be reduced. The drainage patterns are not changing and everything will continue to function as before.
Mr. Steele stated they show a couple of ornamental trees in the area where the pavement is to be removed to improve the aesthetics of the site. There was a maple tree that was removed because it was conflicting with the use of the site. There is additional lighting that has been added to the plans. There are two poles and some additional lighting on the CL&P pole. Town staff requested that they add a note to the plan making it very clear that those lights are not to glare on to adjacent properties and have to be angled in such a way that the light source is not visible. The applicant has agreed to do that and a note has been added to the plans.
Mr. Steele noted the area that was of the biggest concern and the one that will have the most dramatic improvement to the overall area is the vehicle delivery plan. In addition to the parcel for which this application is submitted, they are also requesting the approval of this change of use. The applicant is proposing to restrict all delivery of vehicles to occur on the site. That will be accomplished with trailers heading north on Route 5, entering the site, crossing through the front of the parcel in front of the main Artioli building, and then exiting through the second curb cut further to the north. There is sufficient room for the trailers to pull in and pull out according to the analysis that was done. It will be necessary to keep this area clear so that this loading and unloading can occur and the applicant is willing to do that. The vehicles shown on the plan are shown for demonstration purposes. Mr. Steele also pointed out the vehicles that will be displayed for the purpose of being sold. No customer or employee parking places are located in this area and the 18' clearance is more than sufficient.
Mr. Steele stated there is a lighting plan and a lighting detail included with the plans. The staff also asked for a photometric plan and, because of time constraints, they were not able to include that in the plan package previously submitted. Mr. Steele submitted the photometric plan to the Commission at this time. He noted the plan incorporates not only the parcel in question but it calculates the foot candle levels on a grid pattern throughout the property to demonstrate the intensity of light at each spot. There is a slight difference between what is proposed on the plan presented tonight and on the site plan. The site plan had lighting on the pole and two lights and this plan shows three pole mounted lights. The applicant is willing to go by this plan for the amount of foot candles to the satisfaction of town staff if that is satisfactory to the Commission. However, if they prefer to see another plan, that can be worked out as well.
Commissioner Hickey asked Mr. Giner if he has a recommendation regarding the lighting plan. Mr. Giner stated this is the first time he has seen the foot candle plan. His concern is that the light source comply with the required regulations. He asked if a flood light will be installed on the CL&P pole. Mr. Steele stated that was the intention and it would be similar to the first triple pole with the three lights on it. The use to their south is Moore Rug Company and not a residential property.
Commissioner Hickey asked about the light located in the state right of way. Mr. Steele stated he has spoken to Mr. Artioli who has confirmed that that light that was a concern has been removed.
Commissioner Cooper asked how much more inventory will there be with the new area. Mr. Artioli stated there are fifty spots now for vehicle parking and behind that there is employee parking. He also confirmed the light that was shining on Freemont was removed.
Commissioner Egan noted originally the Town Engineer had some questions related to drainage and the increase in impervious area. He asked if the Commission has received anything regarding this. Mr. Giner reported the notes from the ART indicate the Town Engineer requested a lighting detail which has been provided. The Town Engineer further indicated the impervious coverage was being lowered and he had no concerns. Mr. Steele stated there is about a 2,000 square foot reduction.
Commissioner Hickey stated the Planning and Engineering staff members have recommended sidewalks and he asked if the plan reflects the installation of sidewalks. Mr. Steele stated there are no sidewalks proposed. The reason is there are no sidewalks on this side of Route 5. Sidewalks are located on the opposite side of Route 5. There are no sidewalks on the Artioli site or the Moore Rug site. Mr. Steele stated it did not seem to provide a sufficient benefit to the town to propose sidewalks and the installation of sidewalks would significantly reduce the benefit to Artioli for the use of this area. Trying to use this site to the maximum extent was what motivated Mr. Artioli to pursue the zone change and it was important to the feasibility of this project that the area be used to the maximum for the intended use.
Vice Chairman Duren noted that the North Thompsonville Fire Department requested a full set of plans for emergency planning purposes. Mr. Giner stated the intent was to have the entire property on one plan to view site circulation. Vice Chairman Duren suggested submittal of this plan be part of the conditions of approval.
Vice Chairman Duren asked if a memo has been received from the Traffic Safety Officer. Mr. Giner stated he was on vacation at the time and he informed him he was happy with the plan as long as the vehicles were being loaded and unloaded on the Artioli property.
Attorney Thomas Tyler stated he met with the Traffic Safety Officer and the Chief of Police this morning regarding this property. If the Commission wishes to make it a condition that the Traffic Safety Officer submit a written memo, that is fine with the applicant. Attorney Tyler stated this initiated with the Traffic Safety Officer's suggestion to try to get the traffic off Route 5 and he is happy with the present plan.
Vice Chairman Duren opened this application to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Commissioner Egan stated he would like to hear from the Town Planner on his memo with reference to the Enfield Street design. Mr. Giner stated this area falls within the design district and the guidelines do say to provide landscape areas where possible.
Mr. Giner stated town staff would recommend sidewalks. They recommended them on the other parcels and the Commission chose not to require them. Mr. Giner stated he has been attending some of the Northgate hearings and the people in that area complain that they cannot walk past the Route 91 area towards Route 5 on that side of the street. The lack of sidewalks was also a concern at some of the public information meetings that were held. Mr. Giner stated Serv-U is in the process of applying for a zone change and all of these are opportunities for sidewalks. In the future, if there is a decision to install sidewalks, the town will have to pay for them. The Commission required others, like Lia, to install sidewalks where appropriate.
Commissioner DiPace stated if you go north, there are no sidewalks until you cross over I-91 and a lot of the area was deemed undevelopable as far as installing sidewalks. There is the sewage treatment plant in the area and if you go in the opposite direction, you have the other stretch where Great Brook runs through. Commissioner DiPace asked where going south is the closest place with sidewalks. He noted there are sidewalks in front of Russo's Bakery. Commissioner DiPace noted on the other side of the street, there are sidewalks running all the way through.
Mr. Giner stated there are plenty of places in town where the Commission has required sidewalks that do not go anywhere. In the future, if the state should redo the right of way, there may be opportunities to connect.
Commissioner DiPace stated the only parcel being discussed at this time is the parcel where the Journal Inquirer building was located. Mr. Giner confirmed that to be the case and stated the staff recommended sidewalks further north and the Commission chose not to require them. There are subdivisions that get approved all the time where the sidewalks end at the property line. At some future time, there may be the necessary connections resulting in a sidewalk system.
Attorney Thomas Tyler stated from the first time they came here, they have always asked to have no sidewalks there and made their arguments known as to why there shouldn't be any. On previous applications, the Commission has seen fit to either waive the sidewalks or remove the unsightly sidewalks. Attorney Tyler stated to require installation of sidewalks on this parcel at the end of a comprehensive plan which cleaned up this entire area and removed the loading and unloading of vehicles from Enfield Street seems to them unreasonable. Attorney Tyler noted that no member of the audience came up and commented negatively or favorably.
Vice Chairman Duren again opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Vice Chairman Duren closed this public hearing.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2413 - Application for a Special Use Permit for demolition of existing building and additional paving for storage of auto dealer inventory at 543 Enfield Street, zoned BL, Map 33, Lot 267, Artioli, LLC, applicant/owner, subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
"Improvement Location Survey, Map Showing Conversion to Inventory Holding Area 543 Enfield Street Enfield, Connecticut, Prepared for Artioli Dodge, 525 Enfield Street Enfield, Connecticut", Sheet 1 of 2, Scale: 1"=20', by J.R. Russo & Associates , dated 5-2-03, revised to 11-13-03.
"Vehicle Delivery Plan, Map Showing Conversion to Inventory Holding Area 543 Enfield Street Enfield, Connecticut, Prepared for Artioli Dodge, 525 Enfield Street Enfield, Connecticut", Sheet 1 of 2, Scale: 1"=20', by J.R. Russo & Associates , dated 11-13-03.
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. Final plans to be reviewed by the Water Pollution Control Division, Town Engineer, and Fire Marshall.
3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of a Zoning Permit:
4. One set of mylars and five 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. 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
6. The applicant shall post a bond for Site improvements in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney.
7. A Separate Erosion and Sediment Control Bond shall be submitted in the form of a passbook, pledged to the Town, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
8. A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
9. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
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.
General Conditions:
11. This approval is granted with the express condition that all automobile delivery and unloading shall occur within the designated areas shown on the plan. No parking, loading or unloading of vehicles shall take place on any Public Street.
12. All light sources shall be shielded or aimed so that the source is not visible from adjacent properties.
13. No outside speaker system is approved with this application.
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. A zoning permit for this project as approved must be obtained by November 20, 2004 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission in accordance with the Enfield Zoning Regulations.
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. The North Thompsonville Fire Department shall receive a full set of plans for the entire Artioli property.
19. A letter from the Traffic Safety Officer shall be included in the file of PH#2413.
Prior to the vote on the above motion, Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to waive sidewalks for PH#2413.
Commissioner Hickey stated the applicant satisfactorily addressed the concerns regarding sidewalks.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternates Cooper and Weseliza voting.
The main motion regarding PH#2413 was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternates Cooper and Weseliza voting.
b. PH#2415 - Application for modification of approved Special Use Permit for Quizno's Subs Restaurant (next to Starbucks) at 9 Hazard Avenue, zoned BR, Map 45, Lot 1, Westfield Corp., applicant/owner. (Hearing may be continued to December 18, 2003.)
Dave Ziaks of F. A. Hesketh appeared before the Commission regarding this application. Also present was Paul Pavelco, the Manager of the Westfield Shops Mall, and Steve Hinkus, representing Quizno's, the prospective tenant.
Mr. Ziaks stated they were before the Commission in May under Public Hearing #2379. At that time they were proposing to install a Starbucks on the easterly side of the former Webster Bank. They also discussed at the time the possibility that the Heritage Valley Tourism Board might locate in the westerly portion of the building. At the time, there were budget discussions at the state level and it was uncertain as to whether or not funding for this move would be available. At the time of the first public hearing, that side of the facility was left empty until a firm tenant was available. They are now not locating here and Westfield has been looking for a new tenant compatible with Starbucks.
Mr. Ziaks stated the site plan brought before the Commission earlier this year proposed to increase the parking on the site from 15 spaces to 46 spaces. There were also some other layout and landscaping revisions which included a new water service and some grease traps. Most of that work has been completed. Because of the loss of the green space on the site, they were required to balance that loss with additional small landscaped islands at the main mall parking area. This is consistent with previous applications since all of these properties are considered under one large master plan. The small islands proposed would be located around the Filene's Men's Store and the movie theaters in the rear. As a result of the addition of those landscaped islands, they are proposing to enlarge the existing compensation area located on the south end of the perimeter driveway.
Mr. Ziaks stated the Tourism Center chose not to locate at this site and Westfield is proposing to locate a Quizno's Sub Restaurant on the westerly side. If approved, Quizno's would begin their renovations very quickly and would hope to open some time in February.
Mr. Ziaks stated the only modification to the building at this time would be to add another canopy sign for Quizno's which would conform to town standards and some improvements at the front door and glass entrance similar to what Starbucks has already done.
Mr. Ziaks stated the change to the site plan before the Commission this evening is they are looking to reduce some of the improvements. They would like to reduce the parking to 38 parking spaces since they do not believe the 46 will be needed any longer. That number was driven by the Tourism Board locating at this site. They ran the calculations using the town's ordinance two different ways and disregarding the fact that this site is part of the entire mall calculation requiring 4.5 spaces per thousand square feet for this 3,000 square foot site. Thirty-eight parking spaces is sufficient and both tenants are satisfied with that. Mr. Ziaks stated the work on the southerly side of the site has been ninety-nine percent completed. They have just started to add the landscaping and began reseeding the lawn. They are also working on a water vein connection in the mall driveway which is expected to be completed in the next day or so. Mr. Ziaks stated everything on the northerly side of the red line shown on the plans would stay as it was when it was the bank. The line striping will be redone and new handicapped parking and signage will be added. The traffic pattern on the site would remain the same as it was with the bank with additional parking at the southerly end of the site. Mr. Ziaks noted following a review by town staff, there were no concerns with the revised site plan.
Mr. Ziaks stated they held off doing the improvements on the actual main mall site. They have reduced them a bit because they no longer have to make up for as much green space. They also did not want to do the work until they had an approval from this Commission. Mr. Ziaks noted because Starbucks is ready to open, they would request the Commission add an additional condition to allow Starbucks to be given a c.o. while they continue to complete the landscaping improvements at the mall. There is also a condition that an as built plan be submitted to the Zoning Enforcement Officer when all the work is complete prior to the issuance of a c.o. They would request that this be a condition of the Quizno's opening and not the Starbucks opening. They will prepare the survey as soon as all the improvements are made on the mall site but they cannot prepare the as built because the work has not yet been done. Mr. Ziaks noted everything is bonded and the intent is to do the work prior to the middle of December. However, they have held off doing this work until this plan was approved by the Commission. In summary, the as built survey should be prepared and given to the Zoning Enforcement Officer when the Quizno's is ready for occupancy in February and not be required for Starbucks.
Commissioner DiPace asked if all the site work for the Starbucks part of the site would be completed. Mr. Ziaks confirmed that it would be. Commissioner DiPace requested that Mr. Ziaks submit an as built for only the Starbucks portion of the site. They would then submit another as built when Quizno's is completed.
Mr. Giner suggested amending Condition #11. He noted there are no critical building elements because this is an existing building.
Vice Chairman Duren asked about grease traps. Mr. Ziaks reported the grease trap for Starbucks is installed and approved. Quizno's will install another one in the ground. Mr. Ziaks stated the questions regarding the interior will be covered by the Building Department.
Mr. Giner reported the Traffic Safety Officer attended the ART meeting and there were no new issues raised by him. No comments were received from the Fire Department. Mr. Giner noted the driveway is not changing.
Mr. Ziaks stated Mr. Censki has been at the site inspecting the Starbucks.
Vice Chairman Duren opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH #2415 - application for modification of approved Special Use Permit for Quizno's Subs Restaurant (next to Starbucks) at 9 Hazard Avenue, Zoned BR, Map 45, Lot 1, Westfield Corp. applicant/owner subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans
"Former Webster Bank Building Conversion, Planning & Zoning File PH 2379" List of Drawings, dated March 26, 2003 and revised through October 7, 2003.
"Master Plan (4.5 Ratio) Prepared for Westfield Shoppingtown Enfield, Hazard Ave. Elm St., & Freshwater Blvd. Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet MP-1, Scale 1"= 100', BY F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 03-26-03, revised through October 7, 2003
"Layout Plan Prepared for Westfield Shoppingtown Enfield, Hazard Ave. Elm St., & Freshwater Blvd. Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet LA-1, Scale 1"= 20', By F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 03-26-03, revised through October 7, 2003.
"Layout Plan Prepared for Westfield Shoppingtown Enfield, Hazard Ave. Elm St., & Freshwater Blvd. Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet LA-2, Scale 1"= 40', By F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 03-26-03, revised through October 7, 2003.
"Layout Plan Prepared for Westfield Shoppingtown Enfield, Hazard Ave. Elm St., & Freshwater Blvd. Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet LA-3, Scale 1"= 40', By F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 03-26-03, revised through October 7, 2003.
"Landscape Plan Prepared for Westfield Shoppingtown Enfield, Hazard Ave. Elm St., & Freshwater Blvd. Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet LS-1, Scale 1"= 20', By F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 03-26-03, revised through 10-07-03.
"Landscape Plan Prepared for Westfield Shoppingtown Enfield, Hazard Ave. Elm St., & Freshwater Blvd. Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet LS-2, Scale 1"= 40', By F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 03-26-03, revised through 10-07-03.
"Landscape Plan Prepared for Westfield Shoppingtown Enfield, Hazard Ave. Elm St., & Freshwater Blvd. Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet LS-3, Scale 1"= 40', By F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 03-26-03, revised through 10-07-03.
"Grading & Erosion Control Plan Prepared for Westfield Shoppingtown Enfield, Hazard Ave. Elm St., & Freshwater Blvd. Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet GR-1, Scale 1"= 20', By F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 03-26-03, revised through 10-07-03.
"Flood Compensation Area Plan Prepared for Westfield Shoppingtown Enfield, Hazard Ave. Elm St., & Freshwater Blvd. Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet GR-2, Scale 1"= 40', By F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 03-26-03, revised through 10-07-03.
"Utility Plan Prepared for Westfield Shoppingtown Enfield, Hazard Ave. Elm St., & Freshwater Blvd. Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet UT-1 Scale 1"= 20', By F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 03-26-03, revised through 10-07-03.
"Site Details Prepared for Westfield Shoppingtown Enfield, Hazard Ave. Elm St., & Freshwater Blvd. Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet SD-1 ,Scale "as noted', By F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 03-26-03, revised to 05-14-03.
"Site Details Prepared for Westfield Shoppingtown Enfield, Hazard Ave. Elm St., & Freshwater Blvd. Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet SD-2, Scale "as noted', By F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 03-26-03, revised to 04-28-03
"Site Details Prepared for Westfield Shoppingtown Enfield, Hazard Ave. Elm St., & Freshwater Blvd. Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet SD-3 Scale "as noted', By F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 03-26-03, revised to 05-14-03.
"Site Details Prepared for Westfield Shoppingtown Enfield, Hazard Ave. Elm St., & Freshwater Blvd. Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet SD-4, Scale "as noted', By F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 03-26-03, revised to 04-28-03.
"Notes Prepared for Westfield Shoppingtown Enfield, Hazard Ave. Elm St., & Freshwater Blvd. Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet NT-1, Scale "None", By F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 03-26-03, revised to 04-28-03
"Topographic Survey property of Enfield Square L.L.C. , Hazard Ave. & Westfield Shoppingtown South Entrance, Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet T-1, Scale: 1" =20', By F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 03-26-03.
"Preliminary Architectural Elevations and Floor Plans Prepared for Westfield Shoppingtown Enfield, Hazard Ave. Elm St., & Freshwater Blvd. Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet SD-2, Scale "As shown", By F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 03-26-03, revised to 04-28-03.
*Revision dates subject to change with final mylar approval.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Mylars and Certificate:
1. All mylars submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
2. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
3. The conditions of this approval shall be incorporated onto the final mylars submitted.
4. The final plans submitted for signature shall include the current PH Number (PH 2315) on the sheets.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
5. One set of final mylars and four sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Development Department for signature of the Commission. The signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk prior to the Special Permit becoming effective.
6. Final Fire Marshall, WPC and Health Department approval shall be obtained.
7. 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.
8. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
9. The applicant shall post a bond for Site improvements in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney.
10. A Separate Erosion and Sediment Control Bond shall be submitted in the form of a passbook, pledged to the Town, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
11. 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 :
12. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance and c.o. for Quizno's and not Starbucks. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit to the Planning Director, final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
13. All traffic and fire safety signage shall be installed prior to the issuance of the certificate of zoning compliance.
General Conditions:
14. The "Area reserved for possible future connection" to the Enfield Commons property notation on LA-1 is for reference only. No connection is approved at this time. Any actual connection would require a separate review and approval by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
15. All individual signs must obtain permits after review of plans that comply with current sign regulations.
16. 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.
17. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval. A building permit for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained May 15, 2004 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
18. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternates Cooper and Weseliza voting.
c. PH#2416 - Application for a Special Use Permit for a monument sign for Starbucks Coffee at 9 Hazard Avenue, zoned BR, Map 45, Lot 1, Westfield Corp., Applicant/Owner. (Hearing may be continued to December 18, 2003.)
Dave Ziaks of F. A. Hesketh and Paul Pavelco, Manager of Westfield Shops Mall appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Pavelco stated the original sign approved for this location included the Starbucks logo with wording noting "Starbucks" underneath. The new sign would have only the Starbucks logo. The sign would be a monument sign in the location shown on the site plan.
Commissioner DiPace asked if they have a color rendering of the sign. Mr. Pavelco stated he does not but the color would be the green and white of Starbucks. Mr. Giner stated the sign proposed tonight is slightly larger than what was originally submitted. However, if the position of the sign stays parallel to the road, it doesn't make a difference. Mr. Giner will cite the plans approved this evening instead of the ones cited in his memo.
Commissioner Egan cited Roger Alsbaugh's memo which stated the need to get verification from the applicant that the proposed sign is 125' away from the other freestanding sign. Mr. Pavelco confirmed there are no other freestanding signs and this would be the only one.
Vice Chairman Duren opened this application to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Vice Chairman Duren closed this public hearing.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve to approve PH #2416 - Application for a Special Use Permit for a monument sign for Starbucks Coffee at 9 Hazard Avenue, zoned BR, Map 45, Lot 1, Westfield Corp. applicant/owner, subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans
"Pylon" portion of a plan entitled "Starbucks Coffee Enfield, 561 Hazard Avenue, Enfield, CT 06082" Sheet C2.0, revised to 11-20-03. 8-03.
*NOTE that address is wrong on submitted plans. The property address is 9 Hazard Avenue NOT 561.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Mylars and Certificate:
1. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
2. Four sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.
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.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
4. The location of the pylon sign shall be shown on the as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit to the Planning Director, final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
General Conditions:
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. A building permit for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained November 20, 2004 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
8. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternates Cooper and Weseliza voting.
d. PH#2404/SPR#1240 - Application of The American Inn for a Special Use Permit to allow a residential retirement community with assisted living facilities and congregate care living on property located easterly of North Maple Street just south on the Connecticut/Massachusetts border and along a private street known as Mayfield Drive, zoned R-44, Map 78, Lot #30, and Assessor's Map 79, Lot #95, The American Inn, Owner/Applicant. (Hearing may be continued to December 18, 2003).
Vice Chairman Duren read a memo from John Cabbibo in Engineering dated November 20, 2003 with a note that Engineering has not received the full submittal of plans for drainage calculations.
Vice Chairman Duren asked if the hearing could be held open until Engineering receives the necessary information. Mr. Giner confirmed this hearing can be continued until December 18, 2003.
Wilson Alford, Jr., an engineer with Alford Associates in Windsor, Connecticut, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. Also present were Ted Perez and his wife, Eleanor, and the proposed developer, Scott Nielson.
Mr. Alford stated the property is on the east side of North Maple Street. The developed area is shown in green on the plans. The property consists of approximately seventy acres which includes the area to the south of Mayfield Drive. The proposal is the same as it was in 1996 and in 1999 and consists of 159 senior residential units. There are 44 units in the main building located in the center of the site in beige. The other units are cottage type units to the north, east and west of the main building. The property is reasonably level. It is wooded and in the early 90's or late 80's a nursing home had been approved, construction began and then was stopped. There are water and sewers available to the property. The storm drainage goes to the south into an area which is a detention basin.
Mr. Alford stated the discussion with the Engineering Department is they have submitted to them all the analysis available regarding the size of the pipes. They reviewed these calculations in both 1996 and 1999. They are looking for an analysis of the storm water detention basin located to the south. In 1996 and 1999, Mr. Alford noted he submitted a letter to Engineering stating that the nursing home was approved by another engineering firm prior to this application. It had gone through the analysis for the detention basin and the conclusion was there would be a smaller runoff off the piece of property after development than before. Mr.Alford noted this development has less impervious coverage and he wrote a letter informing Engineering that since they have less impervious than the previous application, they would have less runoff than the previous application. Engineering does have complete drainage calculations for all the pipes.
Mr. Alford stated this application is identical to the application previously submitted. The approval has lapsed and they are requesting re-approval.
Commissioner DiPace stated when the application lapsed, building permits were not issued and the full set of files may not be available. Also, town staff had the calculations for a different building.
Mr. Alford stated he reviewed the information and there was an analysis done. Engineering requested a full analysis. His opinion was that since the application in 1990 reduced the flow off the property and their application has even less coverage than the previous application, they would have even less water off the property. Vice Chairman Duren stated Engineering would like to be shown that.
Mr. Giner stated Mr. Cabbibo in Engineering is saying that the Commission is relying on something that is now almost thirteen years old and done by someone else. At some point, he wants to be comfortable with the analysis since he is the one signing off on it.
Mr. Giner stated this is a continuing care facility and it is not under the senior residential development regulations. The concept is to have a progression of continuing care. There would be services in the main building.
Mr. Alford stated if you bought into one of the cottages, you also could participate in either care in your home or in the sharing of meals in the main building.
Commissioner Cooper brought up the concerns of the EPA. Mr. Alford stated they have been in contact with them. They are aware of this application and Mr. Alford is aware of the concerns that have to be addressed with them. Whatever protection is necessary for the species that are there will be done. When the concerns are addressed, a permit would be issued prior to the development proceeding.
Vice Chairman Duren stated this application received wetlands approval in October.
Vice Chairman Duren asked if there is anything from the Traffic Safety Officer or Fire Department. Mr. Giner stated this has not changed and all previous applications were approved. Vice Chairman Duren noted that traffic patterns do change.
Vice Chairman Duren noted the need for a letter from the Connecticut Water Company. Mr. Giner stated the application is referred to the water company and if they do not respond in thirty days, it is just a referral. Connecticut Water Company would respond if they had a problem.
Vice Chairman Duren noted the residents in East Longmeadow and Longmeadow were also notified of this hearing.
The residents of the area in the audience requested that they be able to view the map.
Vice Chairman Duren opened this hearing to the audience.
Alan Levitz, a resident of Dartmour and also a member of their Board of Directors, spoke on behalf of the Board of Directors and a majority of the Dartmour residents stating they are in full support of this project. It can only be an asset all the way around.
Eric Pease, 45 Westview Drive, asked if the EPA concerns have been made public. Mr. Giner stated it is part of the file and a copy may be obtained by members of the public from the Planning Office.
Alan Soua, 27 Dartmour, spoke in favor of this application. He noted if anyone has had an opportunity to view the American Inn in Southwick, they would be very impressed. He reiterated that 99% of all the residents of Dartmour are in favor of this project.
Cindy and Michael Marcuttcio, 41 Westview Drive, appeared before the Commission. Cindy Marcuttcio stated their back yard will abut where this project is being built. She noted the area floods all the time and she is wondering if this will make the existing situation worse. Vice Chairman Duren noted Engineering has requested a report regarding the water runoff.
Cindy Marcuttcio stated she is also concerned about the traffic because right next to their yard is the fire road that runs in off Westview and goes all the way back into the woods. She asked what will be done with this road.
Commissioner DiPace stated that is strictly a fire road and will remain a fire road. Mr. Giner confirmed this proposal will not approve any changes to the road.
A resident stated the town presently cannot take care of the roads where he is living and he asked how they are going to take care of the proposed roads in this project. The Commissioners informed him these are private roads.
Mr. Giner stated in 1996 John Cabbibo made the exact same comments about the drainage calculations not being submitted. At that time, the Commission, as a condition of approval, required that such calculations be submitted. He wrote a memo dated May 20, 1999 and that was referenced in the original approval.
Peter Kula, 47 Westview Drive, stated he visited the Planning Office and viewed an enlarged map that showed where the project will be located. It showed the power lines and where it was in relation to his home and his neighbors' homes. He did not feel the plan presented gives an accurate description of exactly where this development is going to be located. It is north of Mayfield Drive on the plan tonight and in the map he viewed in the Planning Office, it was a little different. Vice Chairman Duren stated it is the same map but they just did not come all the way over.
Mr. Giner showed the access road that goes out to Westview Drive and reviewed the plans with the Commission.
Vice Chairman Duren asked for additional public input. Hearing none, he continued this public hearing to December 4, 2003 at 7:30 p.m.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, for a recess at 8:55 p.m. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission recessed and reconvened at 9:08 p.m.
Commissioner Karen Krebs left the meeting at this time.
e. PH#2412 - Initiative by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission for a text amendment to the Zoning Regulations, Sections 2.30, 3.30.13 (new), Table 4.20, 5.20.2; 6.10.2, and 10.10.1 regarding the parking of commercial vehicles. (Hearing may be continued to December 18, 2003.
Mr. Giner stated there is a draft of this amendment that the Commission had authorized to go before the Capitol Region Council of Governments. It was emailed to some members of the public and copies are available this evening.
Mr. Giner stated the current regulations will not allow vehicles over a ¾ ton net capacity to be parked on residential lots. This amendment would change that standard to 11,000 pounds gross vehicle weight and add a height restriction and a box length of 10'to those vehicles allowed with only a permit from the Zoning Enforcement Officer. It also allows anything that exceeds those limits but falls within 26,000 pounds with other standards as noted in the regulations to come in for a special permit on a lot-by-lot basis. It would be up to the Commission whether such vehicles would be appropriate taking into consideration the size of the lot and other relevant factors.
Mr. Giner stated the amendment was sent to CRCOG and it has been over thirty days. Effective October 1, 2003, they have thirty days to act. They meet tonight but, technically, the town does not have to wait for their action since the thirty days have elapsed. Mr. Giner stated the Town Attorney has submitted comments which do not change the amendment but change some of the language.
Commissioner DiPace stated he did receive an email from CRCOG and this item was on their agenda for tonight. In his opinion, the Commission should wait for CRCOG to act. Vice Chairman Duren noted the timeliness of this item because of the approaching winter season. Mr. Giner stated CRCOG's comments are advisory only. Also, if time is of the essence, the Commission could always amend the ordinance again to include CRCOG's comments if there are substantive changes.
Commissioner Cooper stated the proposed regulation is more comprehensive than what was in place. However, he thought during the workshop session that tow trucks were addressed. Commissioner Egan stated they are subject to the same regulations as all commercial vehicles. Commissioner Egan stated at a subsequent meeting where Commission members raised the limits, those limits would apply to tow trucks as well as commercial vehicles. It was further noted that the only way they may not comply is if they were loaded with cars or if they exceeded the height limit.
Commissioner Weseliza noted the Commission received a letter from a woman who had a concern about tow trucks. Vice Chairman Duren confirmed that the requirement that there be no loading or unloading of vehicles would address her concerns.
Mr. Giner stated the only item the Town Attorney changed that may be of interest to the public is item xi. It previously stated: "Only commercial vehicles that indicate on their Department of Motor Vehicle registration that they are taxed as property in the Town of Enfield shall be permitted. A copy of any permit issued shall be forwarded to the Tax Assessor." Mr. Giner reported the Town Attorney advised that the first sentence be eliminated because it cannot be enforced.
Vice Chairman Duren opened this public hearing to the public.
Kathleen Shepard, 1 Belinda Lane, stated tonight the residents come before the Commission after months of trying to discuss the necessity of making a change to an ordinance that is decades old. After attending numerous town meetings, both at the Town Council as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission, a draft of a new text for that change was discussed and agreed upon for submission to CRCOG. Ms. Shepard stated this is a change needed for the Town of Enfield to recognize and accept that the town has many residents whose livelihoods require their use of commercial vehicles. Ms. Shepard noted the text of the new ordinance is realistic and reasonable and will continue to allow the Town of Enfield to have control with requirements stated for obtaining a special permit. In addition to that, it will also generate money to the town for those special permits. Ms. Shepard asked that the Commission consider accepting the new proposed text for this ordinance. She reminded the Commission that time is of the essence with winter coming and the additional concerns to remove commercial vehicles from being parked on the residential streets.
Ms. Shepard asked about Item b., ii. It states no commercial vehicles shall exceed 13'6" in height from the base of the wheels to the top including any cargo. She asked if that is the limit for highway underpasses. Mr. Giner stated that is where the figure was derived.
Ms. Shepard asked if the Commission is looking at a 26,000 gross vehicle weight, shouldn't something also be included in that section regarding length. Commission members stated such applications would be by special use permit and the specifics would be reviewed.
Ms. Shepard submitted a petition on this date, November 20, 2003, with in excess of 500 signatures of residents who are in favor of the ordinance being changed.
Pat Kolka, 70 Fairview Avenue, discussed eighteen wheelers that like to park in front of his house and noted he has brought this up previously. He has had to call the police several times because a particular truck driver likes to park in front of his house because of the exact length of the area for this truck. He pointed out to the police that it is dangerous for him to back out of his driveway. The police said it was up to this Commission to do something. Mr. Kolka pointed out the danger factor but was disappointed in the police reaction. Mr. Kolka stated he lives in a house where once in a while this truck parks overnight. With a truck of this size, the truck takes up all the space in front of the house but the police say the driver is not breaking the law. Mr. Kolka asked how to resolve this.
Vice Chairman Duren stated there is a section of the amended ordinance that states you cannot block the visibility. Also, the Council is considering a new ordinance regarding parking on the streets.
Commissioner DiPace stated this amendment will pave the way for trucks currently parking on the street to be parked on properties. Once this is done, the Council will begin addressing parking on the street.
Vice Chairman Duren recommended that Mr. Kolka call the Zoning Enforcement Officer regarding this truck parking in front of his home. Mr. Giner stated it is necessary for the Council to pass the ordinance first and then the police can take action.
Mr. Kolka stated he will go to another Town Council meeting and bring this up. He felt this is causing a real danger and the town could be held liable if something happens. Mr. Kolka also has a son who is blind who had to move because Enfield is not a place for a blind person to walk. He was home recently when this truck was parked in front of Mr. Kolka's home and he did not know the truck was there. He tried to cross the street and Mr. Kolka felt this caused his son an unsafe situation. He asked that the Commission take such factors into account.
Scott Gould, 3 Silver Lane, thanked the Commission for their amendment to the ordinance. He asked if this does go through, how soon can it be changed again. Vice Chairman Duren stated if it was raised by someone again, the Commission would have to go through the whole process again. He did not see the Commission going through a total revision.
Mr. Gould stated there is a fee that will be required for the permit and he asked the amount. Mr. Giner stated the minimum fee for special use permits is $200 by town ordinance. The fees cover the cost of holding the public hearing and the advertising expenses involved for legal notices. Further discussion on the fee schedule followed.
Mr. Gould asked if this amendment is approved, how soon can residents start filing permits and how soon are they going to be acted upon. Mr. Giner stated if the Commission adopts this amendment tonight, it can go into effect as soon as it is published in the newspaper and given to the Town Clerk. Mr. Giner stated if a significant number of applications are received, he may have to discuss having an extra meeting with the Commission.
Mr. Gould asked if the Zoning Enforcement Officer is going to be aware that permits are in the works so that residents are not cited for violations. Mr. Giner stated there are a lot of violations in the town and if someone is attempting to comply with an application, he did not feel there would be action until there is a resolution.
Dave Ragen, 22 Celtic Court, asked if the fee will be a one-shot fee. Vice Chairman Duren stated it would not go with the property. If a resident moved and a new owner came in with a truck, that owner would have to file a new application. Further discussion followed.
Fred Goodman, 4 Rocket Run, stated the Commission is familiar with his complaints regarding his neighbor and he hopes it is in the process of getting resolved. Mr. Goodman stated he is concerned with the devaluation of property next to these trucks. While Commissioner DiPace cited a truck owner with $200,000 worth of tools in his truck, there is $1 million worth of property on his street being devalued. He felt this has to be taken into consideration. The Commission is making a rule that will affect every homeowner in the Town of Enfield. A truck driver with a big vehicle could move in at any time like what happened on Rocket Run causing a devaluation of property. Mr. Goodman stated if things do not change on Rocket Run, when re-evaluation comes up, their entire street will go to that Commission and state they cannot tax the amount given because their property has been devalued. Mr. Goodman stated he has had two real estate agents look at his property. After the home and the price, the third consideration is the surrounding area. He stressed he is concerned about further devaluation of homeowners' property in the Town of Enfield. Mr. Goodman thanked the Commission for their efforts.
Randy Baker, 7 Arrow Street, stated he is in favor of the proposed text amendment. He noted there have been people that have been denied after paying fees and now they have to go through the process all over again with new fees. He stated people do not have any more money and everyone keeps wanting more money. He doesn't know where people will get the money and he noted it is a tough fee for everyone.
Commissioner DiPace stated there are a lot of people that will be coming before the Commission requesting special use permits. He asked about who has the authority to waive the fees. Mr. Giner stated the fees are charged by ordinance. The Town Council has the authority to waive the fees or to amend them. There is a provision for reducing fees but only for applications that were withdrawn and resubmitted for the same thing.
Commissioner DiPace asked if it would be possible through this Commission or through the Town Council to waive the fee for any applications that come in regarding this new amendment through the first quarter or until March, 2004. Commissioner Hickey noted many of these applicants have already gone to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Vice Chairman Duren requested that Mr. Giner approach the Town Manager about this request. Mr. Giner stated he will do so but he noted the ultimate authority regarding fees is the Town Council.
Commissioner DiPace confirmed his request is that the Commission waive the fee from January to March, 2004. Mr. Giner stated reaching that point may take some time and, possibly, there could be some mechanism for refunding the fee. Mr. Baker suggested the permits not be special use ones. Commissioner DiPace stated a special use permit requires a public hearing. Mr. Giner will research this fee request.
Ms. Shepard asked about the application process noting that there are going to be hundreds of applicants involved. She further noted she has paid to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and her signs were stolen and now she has to pay again. Vice Chairman Duren confirmed that the entire legal process has to be done.
Bob Tkacz, 1300 Enfield Street, asked what the definition of commercial vehicle is because according to the Department of Motor Vehicles, it is by the registration. A combination plate is a commercial vehicle according to the DMV. Also, automobiles can be registered as a commercial vehicle and Mr. Tkacz asked if that is a commercial vehicle according to this regulation. Also, some people have more than one automobile designated as a commercial vehicle in the Town of Enfield and some people have driveways that are closer than ten feet to the property line. He felt a definition of commercial vehicles is in order to pass this regulation.
Mr. Giner stated a definition is included. He stated regardless of registration, if a vehicle is under 5,000 pounds, nothing has to be done. Anything between 5,000 and 11,000 pounds is automatically considered a commercial vehicle and the owner would have to register with the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Commissioner DiPace read the definition of a commercial vehicle on page 4 of 5 of the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Tkacz asked about driveways that are less than 10' from the property line. Vice Chairman Duren stated that is included in the amendment and such residents would have to come before the Commission. Mr. Giner stated it is critical to note that not everyone will be able to meet the standards. Mr. Giner added that the current regulations require vehicles to be parked behind the front building line and he would argue that 10' from the property line is more lenient than what is presently in effect. He cautioned residents that if they do not have the 10', they are unable to meet these regulations.
Joseph Bosco, 49 Steele Road, felt any emergency vehicle should be exempt from these regulations. His wreckers are mandated by the police department to get to the scene of a call within one-half hour. Also, in the middle of the night, people would not want their family members at the scene of an accident any longer than they have to be. He discussed a recent case which emphasized the need for a tow truck to be available in a timely manner. He stated the requirement for ten permits will be difficult for him. He also has employees that leave and others take over meaning that additional permits may be required. He submitted a copy of the police department regulations.
Commissioner DiPace discussed tow truck procedures. He also brought up previous complaints from residents regarding tow trucks. Some discussion followed on a specific situation regarding a tow truck.
Mr. Bosco saw a need to maintain some kind of safety factor. Also, a police man will be sitting waiting for a wrecker and will not be able to attend to anything else.
Vice Chairman Duren asked how this ordinance will affect Mr. Bosco. Mr. Bosco stated most of the new trucks now are at 25,000 gross vehicle weight. A carrier will have from a 16' to a 21' bed. On a wrecker, it is not as much of an issue but the way the regulations are changing with the state for weights, you cannot tow a 10,000 g.v.w. truck any more with a 10,000 g.v.w. wrecker. With all the larger vehicles, the wreckers are also getting bigger. Vice Chairman Duren stated this may be one of the areas that was missed, but rather than hold this up, it could be amended at a later date.
Commissioner Egan stated there was a lot of discussion and tow trucks were specifically excluded from being designated as not being able to park in a residential area. They are subject to the weight limits and this is why the 26,000 pounds was recommended. That was the information that was presented. Wreckers are increasing in size. Commissioner Egan stated if some time down the road that changes, Mr. Bosco would have every right to come back and petition the Commission to change the ordinance. Right now there is nothing that would prohibit one of Mr. Bosco's wreckers on a weekend or whatever. The special use permit now gives the neighbors and the Commission some control so that if there are abuses, there is a mechanism to deal with it. Also, fire and police vehicles have been exempted in the ordinance. Emergency vehicles are exempt and the Commission has tried to address the concerns that have been raised at the workshop. There is opportunity at a later date to come back and request an ordinance change.
Mr. Bosco stated he has a specific problem in that all his trucks are different. He also questioned if a driver brings a tow truck home one or two nights a week, would a permit be needed. He suggested a temporary type permit. He noted none of the trucks will ever be permanent because no driver is going to be working seven days a week. The trucks would come in one or two nights a week on a rotating schedule. He asked if this would fit the proposed ordinance amendment. He added if there is a problem, the Commission has the regulations and enforcement action can be taken. He would have no problem with a temporary permit because no one will take a truck home seven days a week.
Mr. Giner stated if a truck is parked two days one week and maybe two days another week, the intent is to have that person come in and be subject to the regulations. It states the parking of commercial vehicles and does not list a specific time limit. Mr. Giner noted many of these commercial vehicles are on the road and not parked at the specific location all the time. If it is a two-day one-time only, that is a one time occurrence but if the Zoning Enforcement Officer sees such a vehicle on a regular basis, he will initiate enforcement.
Mr. Bosco stated he has a problem with getting permits for ten vehicles at a cost of $2,000. He will get a permit for himself but he cannot ensure that his help will be with him tomorrow. Vice Chairman Duren suggested Mr. Bosco check where the drivers live and see what he can assign so that drivers do not have to take large trucks home. Vice Chairman Duren further suggested Mr. Bosco talk to Mr. Giner about his specific concerns and how to resolve them.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission is talking about land use and the impact on the neighborhood whether it is ten people working for one business or ten individuals on their own. The Commission has to review the impact to the neighborhood to assess whether that type of truck fits that type of neighborhood.
Mr. Bosco suggested if one of the neighbors do have a complaint, that the Zoning Enforcement Officer can recommend the special use permit. If that vehicle fits the special use permit, it would be approved and if it does not, the truck would not be allowed to park there. Mr. Giner stated that would leave too much discretion. A regulation has to have standards that trigger certain things. If it is left to the discretion of someone whether the regulation is activated, it becomes a constitutional issue of due process.
Mr. Bosco stated he will not be able to get a driver to go from one neighborhood to the garage and back to the neighborhood for the current rate of pay. If the driver gets several calls, he would have to make all those trips back and forth and would either be starting the truck or starting his car. Such vehicle starts will be just as disruptive to the neighbors. Mr. Bosco felt this ordinance will impact his business.
Michael Barrett, 31 North Maple Street, stated he was the gentleman that a tow truck was parked next to and the gentleman woke him up every night that he went out. He had the truck running for hours and was dropping cars off at his own house at midnight. Mr. Barrett complained to the Zoning Enforcement Officer a number of times. The driver used to park on the side of the road. Vice Chairman Duren requested that Mr. Barrett speak to the ordinance. Mr. Barrett stated having a large truck next door to a residence wakes people up. It blocks people's view of the road. He would like to see something where this would not affect him. He feels the ordinance is good and should have some teeth in it so that people are not bothered. He should be able to live in his home and not have to deal with such noise every night. It is also a safety issue with such vehicles parking on the road because drivers almost hit such trucks. Mr. Barrett stated permits should be limited because residential areas should stay residential areas.
Diane Duggan, 168 Post Office Road, stated she resides right next to Belinda Lane and the Shepards. She is a homeowner and does not feel her property has been devalued with the truck next to her home because the property is well maintained. The truck is out of the way and not bothering anyone.
Mr. Giner stated the final document for approval would include the suggestions made by the Town Attorney.
Vice Chairman Duren closed this public hearing.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve PH#2412, Initiative by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission for a text amendment to the Zoning Regulations, Sections 2.30, 3.30.13 (new), Table 4.20, 5.20.2, 6.10.2 and 10.10.1 regarding the parking of commercial vehicles with the changes in language suggested by the Town Attorney.
Commissioner Egan stated this ordinance addresses the issues from both sides and has been a compromise that has not sacrificed jobs. He feels the residents' concerns have been addressed along with the rights of property owners which will be protected under the special permit provision. The neighbors will have the opportunity if they wish to come to a public hearing and address their concerns. If there are concerns, it gives this Commission the opportunity in setting special permit conditions to address those concerns. He felt everyone has benefited from this ordinance amendment.
Vice Chairman Duren thanked the people that came out to several Commission meetings. It shows what can be accomplished by working together.
The motion was approved by a 6 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternates Weseliza and Cooper voting.
Mr. Giner stated this amendment would be effective in accordance with State Statutes.
OLD BUSINESS
a. Bond Releases
1. PH#2151 and 2158 - Request by Spazzarini Construction for release of $300,600 Engineering Bond and $20,650 for Erosion and Sediment Bond for Grandview Drive Subdivision (Riverview Estates off Old King Street).
Mr. Giner recommended tabling this bond release because there are some issues with the area and it needs to be re-inspected. Commissioner Egan requested the as built plans, the original plans as submitted and a letter from the Town Engineer stating the as built plans are as the original plans approved by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Leonard, a previous speaker regarding Grandview Drive, spoke to the Commission and stated the homeowners from this area have waited all evening and now this bond release is being tabled. Another homeowner requested that the homeowners be notified when the bond release is on the agenda for action. Vice Chairman Duren suggested they call the Planning Office the day of the meeting and find out the status of the bond release. Mr. Leonard stated Mr. Angus has not reviewed the property as was previously discussed. He stated he has a lot of outstanding concerns regarding this development. Mr. Giner stated it is not a wetlands issue but an engineering issue and the Town Engineer would be the proper person to view the property. Mr. Giner will present a written report to the Commission when all the staff comments are received.
b. Site Plan Review
1. SPR#1244 - Application to allow first phase redevelopment of an existing 112,800 square foot structure for use as a warehouse distribution facility at 1559 King Street, zoned SDD, Map 17, Lot 39, Sound Enfield Group,. LLC, Owner, Applicant. (Deadline for action is tonight unless withdrawn or extension granted.)
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to accept the withdrawal without prejudice of SPR#1244. The motion was approved by a 6 - 0 - 0 vote.
APPLICATIONS TO BE ACCEPTED
The following applications were accepted by the Commission:
PH#2420 - Application for special use permit for restaurant liquor permit at 7 Hazard Avenue, Bickford's Family Restaurants, Inc., Zoned BR, Map 45, Lot 10, Bickford's Family Restaurants, Applicant/Ronald J. Abdow and George T. Abdow, Owners.
A public hearing will be scheduled December 18, 2003.
PH#2421 - Application for zone change from BL to BG at 481 Enfield Street, zoned BL, Map 33, Lot 256, Lia Auto Group, Applicant/Enfield Street Properties, LLC, Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for January 24, 2004.
PH#2422 - Application for a special use permit for installation of two 10 ft. x 10 ft. storage sheds to house outdoor play equipment for Head Start Program at 1270 Enfield Street, next to Enfield High School, zoned R-33, HR-33, Map 19, Lot 59, Town of Enfield - Public Schools, applicant/owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for December 18, 2003.
Mr. Giner noted that the Council's exemption lasted until this Head Start building was constructed and given a certificate of occupancy. Anything additional would be subject to the zoning regulations and come before this Commission.
PH#2423 - Application for repositioning Wireless Datacomm Antenna along window at 100 High Street (former Senior Center), Zoned TVC, Map 25, Lot 131, Town of Enfield, Applicant/Owner.
It was the consensus of the Commission to allow Mr. Jose Giner to handle this application administratively.
SPR#1249 - Application to construct a 33,212 square foot manufacturing and office facility with associate site improvements at 2 Peerless Way, zoned I-1, map 94, Lot 53, R&H Realty Associates, LLC, applicant/CJK Realty LLC, Owner.
SPR#1250 - Application to open and operate a restaurant at 535 Hazard Avenue (former Holistic Center building), zoned BL, Map 101, Lot 189, Daniel Poggie, Applicant/Owner.
SPR#1251 - Application to erect a 30' x 60' shed at 5 Peerless Way, Zoned I-1, Map 94, Lot 68, PTM Realty, LLC, Applicant/Owner.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Karen Krebs, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|