|
|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 5, 2002
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, September 5, 2002 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Howard called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
PRESENT: James Howard, Chairman
Charles Duren
Robert Egan
James Hickey, Jr.
Karen Krebs
Nicles Lefakis (arrived at 6:40 p.m.)
Jeffrey Cooper, Alternate
ABSENT: Anthony DiPace
Karen Weseliza, Alternate
Joseph Jednak, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to approve the Minutes of the July 25, 2002 Special Meeting. The Minutes were approved by a 6 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Cooper voting.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve the Minutes of July 25, 2002 - Regular Meeting. The Minutes were approved by a 6 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Cooper voting.
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to approve the Minutes of July 31, 2002. The Minutes were approved by a 5 - 0 - 1 vote. Commissioner Cooper abstained.
STAFF COMMENTS
a. Town Attorney (in writing only)
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer (in writing only)
c. Director of Planning and Community Development
Chairman Howard led some discussion regarding when staff members should appear in person before the Commission. Commissioner Krebs stated the Zoning Enforcement Officer responds immediately to questions from the Commission. Commissioner Egan noted that staff members should come to meetings to get questions from the Commission on the public record. There are enforcement items that should be recorded in the Minutes. Following additional discussion, the consensus of the Commission was to have staff members appear on a quarterly basis in person.
Mr. Giner reported on the status of the Assistant Town Planner position recently vacated by Jay Northrup. A candidate has been selected and is scheduled to begin on November 1, 2002.
Commissioner Cooper asked if the sign has been up for PH#2323 and PH#2322 on Taylor and Moody Roads. Mr. Giner confirmed that this is reviewed by Mr. Bickley and he has not informed the Commission it was not posted.
Commissioner Egan brought up the outstanding order concerning Rich's Oil Service that is not contained in the staff reports. This has been going on since February 20, 2002. The Zoning Enforcement Officer has referred it to the Town Attorney and he does not see any mention of this in the Town Attorney's report. Commissioner Egan requested a status report on Rich's Oil Service.
CORRESPONDENCE
Commissioner Lefakis brought the Commission's attention to an item regarding Asnuntuck Community College that is before the Commission. Mr. Giner noted there have been questions in the past and the Town Attorney has ruled that it is a state facility and is therefore exempt.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued from July 31, 2002 Meeting
a. PH#2323 - Application for subdivision of 7 frontage lots and remaining land located east of Taylor Road, south of Moody Road, and west of Somers Road, zoned R-44, Map 111, Lot #234, 245 and 246, H.I.O. Trust, Inc. Trustee, Applicant/John and Mary Leveille, John Shlatz, Cybulski Estate, Owners. (Must close by September 19)
Chet Ladd, Sans Aeschliman and Len Norton appeared before the Commission regarding this application. It was decided by the Commission to discuss both PH#2323 and PH#2322 simultaneously.
Mr. Aeschliman stated at the last public hearing session there were a couple of outstanding items. One was the extension of the water service to include the triangle to the north of this property. They have received a letter from the water company stating that they can service this development without exceeding their capacity from the DEP and also that it will become a high pressure system. This means that the pressure on the north side of Moody Road will be increased. They have shown the water main that was not shown on the previous set of plans.
Mr. Aeschliman stated the other outstanding item was a question on who was going to be responsible for the maintenance of the detention ponds. They have included a note on the plans that the developer and/or the association will be responsible and there will be semi-annual inspections.
Mr. Aeschliman stated there was a question on Taylor Road and whether it was a state or local road. He confirmed it is a local road until you get to north of Shaker Road and it then becomes Route 220.
Commissioner Cooper stated he never received a copy of the traffic report. Chairman Howard stated the report was received in a previous meeting packet when Commissioner Cooper was on vacation.
Chairman Howard brought up the draft of the new regulations for the association. Mr. Ladd stated their legal people cannot put that together until the application is approved. All the conditions from this Commission will then get put into that document. They will be happy to submit that to the Planning Department. Mr. Giner stated he has included this as a condition of approval.
Commissioner Krebs asked if sidewalks are proposed in front of the seven homes and in the senior development. Mr. Aeschliman confirmed there will be sidewalks in both areas.
Mr. Aeschliman stated they are requesting one waiver regarding the road grade. The town regulations require a maximum of eight percent and they have one small section of nine percent in order to meet the safety requirements of the Engineering Department. This would come under PH#2322.
Commissioner Egan stated one of the requirements is open space. There is a requirement that they provide 2,500 square feet per unit. He asked if that requirement has been met. Mr. Aeschliman stated they have met and exceeded that requirement. There is a zoning table on the front page of the plans and the open space is not in the fifteen percent slope areas.
Chairman Howard opened Public Hearings #2323 and #2322 to the public.
Eleanor and Tom Ennis, 240 Moody Road, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Innis reiterated the traffic concerns in this area and asked if a study had been done by the Police Department regarding the effect of this development. She noted they cannot get out of their driveway now. She discussed the prisons and industrial development in the area along with the high school and noted that all have an effect on the traffic. She felt this proposed development will also increase the traffic and she asked what will be done for the existing residents. Ms. Ennis stated her daughter also lives on the corner of Moody and Taylor and has similar problems getting out of her driveway. Mr. Ennis asked if the traffic study has taken into consideration lowering the speed limit. Commissioner Duren advised the Ennis' to contact the Police Department and also communicate with the Council person for their district. Chairman Howard stated the applicant will further discuss the traffic following public comment.
John Devanaro, 23 Somers Road, stated this application contains a retention pond. He would like to put it on the record that the homes at 23 and 25 Somers Road have been under water since 1967. Every spring except for this year and a couple of other particularly dry seasons, these homes get flooded to the point where you cannot even flush the toilet. He was informed by the town in 1983 that they would try to put in sewers but that has never happened. When he built the home in 1967, he was told to put the septic tank in the front yard because there would be sewers. Mr. Devanaro asked about this water that is coming back over this hill into this retention pond and if the plan proposed will keep him from getting additional water. He noted at this point there is no value in these two homes. He cannot sell his home to a family and his taxes are approximately $3,400 per year. He asked if the proposed septic tanks will affect their wells.
Mr. Devanaro stated it was confirmed by past town officials that they are definitely located in the wetlands. He understands that the retention ponds will hold back the water from up above. He stated the town just did the road over about five years ago and now he gets six feet of water up his driveway when before it used to go by.
Mr. Devanaro confirmed that the water is unbelievable in this area and he would like to bring it to the town's attention.
Commissioner Duren suggested that Mr. Devanaro address the Town Council under public comment regarding this matter since they also act as the Sewer Commission.
Chet Ladd stated they knew at the outset in trying to develop this property that Mr. Devanaro had an existing problem. If there were anything they could do to help him, they certainly would. In their planning, Mr. Ladd made it clear to the engineers that he wanted the pipes oversized and adequate for the area so that there would be no adverse effect on Mr. Devanaro's property or his neighbor's property. If the pipe was low enough so that he could get into the sewer, that would be a help but Mr. Devanaro's property is quite a bit above it.
Mr. Aeschliman stated as far as the traffic is concerned, their traffic study did not address any studies on Moody Road. Their entrance is on Taylor Road and that is where the study concentrated. They are adding approximately seventeen trips per hour in the morning peak hours and 31 at the evening peak hours. Presently there are 386 northbound trips in the morning and 473 trips in the p.m. peak hour. Mr. Aeschliman added that Lieutenant Boula noted he knows of no traffic study that has been done for Moody Road.
Commissioner Egan stated there will be an emergency entrance on Moody Road but that will not be for through traffic. Mr. Aeschliman stated there will be a break away chain and the area will be seeded with pavers underneath. The curb will also not be broken.
Commissioner Cooper asked if the oversized detention ponds will have a positive effect on the resident's property. Mr. Norton stated they will not have a negative effect. He presented the pre and post development flow rates to confirm this. The easterly watershed will decrease slightly for the smaller storms and there is a greater decrease for the larger storms. The detention basins will hold back the water and regulate it out at a slower rate so there is no flooding downstream. They do not anticipate any problems but Mr. Norton did not know how much help they would be to the existing residents.
Mr. Giner noted receipt of a memo from John Cabbibo along with correspondence from the Fire Marshal.
Chairman Howard closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2322 - application for a Special Use Permit/Site Plan Review east of Taylor, south of Moody and west of Somers Road for a 77-lot Senior Residential Development, zoned R-44, Map 111, Lot #234, 245 and 246, H.I.O. Trust, Inc., Trustee, Applicant/John and Mary Leveille, John Shlatz, Cybulski Estate, Owners. This approval is subject to the plans as referenced in the memo dated September 5, 2002 from Jose Giner to the Commission and to the following conditions:
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. A finalized Management Plan based on the one presented at the public hearing shall be offered for staff and Commission review and approval. Any subsequent changes to the terms of the Management Plan shall require the Commission's approval as an amendment to the approved Special Permit.
3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this motion shall be incorporated in to the final mylars submitted for signature.
4. The Public Hearing file number "PH2322" shall be displayed prominently on all final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
5. One set of final mylars and two 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. The applicant shall also submit to the Planning Director, final plans as approved by the Commission in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
6. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land Records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
7. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
8. An Engineering bond for each phase, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer, shall be submitted prior to the issuance o0f any building permits for that phase with the exception as follows: An Engineering Bond for Phase 1 shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a second Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 1. The first Certificate of Occupancy issued will be limited only for the applicant's use for a model to be shown to the public.
9. A Separate Erosion and Sediment Control Bond for each phase shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits for that phase in the form of a passbook, pledged to the Town, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
10. A Landscaping Bond for each phase, in an amount to be determined by the Department of Planning and Community Development, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits for that phase with the exception as follows: A landscaping bond of Phase 1 shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a second Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 1. The first Certificate of Occupancy issued will be limited only for the applicant's use for a model to be shown to the public.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
11. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
12. All street signs and traffic safety signage shall be installed prior to the issuance of the second certificates of zoning compliance.
General Conditions:
13. 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.
14. This project is approved, and shall be maintained, as a Senior Residential Development, subject to the requirements and limitations of Section 4.30.19 of the Zoning Regulations.
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 building permit for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained by September 5, 2003 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
17. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant, 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.
b. PH#2322 - Application for Special Use Permit/Site Plan Review east of Taylor, south of Moody and west of Somers Road for a 77 Senior Residential Development, zoned R-44, Map 111, Lot #234, 245 and 246, H.I.O. Trust, Inc. Trustee, Applicant/John and Mary Leveille, John Shlatz, Cybulski Estate, Owners. (Must close by September 19).
This public hearing was heard in conjunction with PH#2323 as listed above under that application.
Mr. Giner noted this is a phased project and the phasing of the bonding is included in the conditions.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to waive the road grade from eight percent to nine percent on PH#2322, application for a senior residential development. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2322, application for a Special Use Permit/Site Plan Review east of Taylor, south of Moody and west of Somers Road for a 77-lot Residential Development, zoned R-44, Map 111, Lot #234, 245 and 246, H.I.O. Trust, Inc. Trustee, Applicant/John and Mary Leveille, John Shlatz, Cybulski Estate, Owners. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans as listed in the memo from Jose Giner dated September 5, 2002 and the following conditions:
Conditions to be met prior to signing 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. A finalized Management Plan based on the one presented at the Public Hearing shall be offered for staff and Commission review and approval. Any subsequent changes to the terms of the Management Plan shall require the Commission's approval as an amendment to the approved Special Permit.
3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this motion shall be incorporated into the final mylars submitted for signature.
4. The Public Hearing file number "PH 2322" shall be displayed prominently on all final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
5. One set of final mylars and two sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Department for signature of the Commission. The signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk prior to the Special permit becoming effective. The applicant shall also submit to the Planning Director final plans as approved by the Commission in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
6. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land Records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
7. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
8. An Engineering bond for each phase, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits for that phase with the exception as follows: An Engineering Bond for Phase 1 shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a second Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 1. The first Certificate of Occupancy issued will be limited only for the applicant's use for a model to be shown to the public.
9. A separate Erosion and Sediment Control Bond for each phase shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits for that phase in the form of a passbook, pledged to the town, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
10. A landscaping bond for each phase, in an amount to be determined by the Department of Planning and Community Development, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits for that phase with the exception as follows: a Landscaping Bond for Phase 1 shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a second Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 1. The first Certificate of Occupancy issued will be limited only for the applicant's use for a model to be shown to the public.
Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
11. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
12. All street signs and traffic safety signage shall be installed prior to the issuance of the second certificates of zoning compliance.
General Conditions:
13. 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.
14. This project is approved, and shall be maintained, as a Senior Residential Development, subject to the requirements and limitations of Section 4.30.19 of the Zoning Regulations.
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 building permit for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained by September 5, 2003 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
17. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant, 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.
c. PH#2320 - Application for a rear lot (Lot #11) in a proposed open space subdivision on property off Bridge Lane and Riverview Street (Meetinghouse Lane), zoned R-33, Map 19, Lot 10, Margaret R. Pappas/Hampden and Beech Inc. Applicant/Margaret Pappas, Owner. (Must close by September 19).
b. PH#2321 - Application for a rear lot (Lot #24) in a proposed open space subdivision on property off Bridge Lane and Riverview Street (Meetinghouse Lane), zoned R-33, Map 19, Lot 10, Margaret R. Pappas/Hampden & Beech Inc., Applicant/Margaret Pappas, Owner. (Must close by September 19) Commissioner Lefakis did not participate in this application.
c. PH#2319 - Application for a Special Use Permit for 24 lot open space subdivision on property off Bridge Lane and Riverview Street (Meetinghouse Lane), zoned R-33, Map 19, Lot 10, Margaret R. Pappas/Hampden & Beech Inc. Applicant/Margaret Pappas, Owner. (Must close by September 19). Commissioner Lefakis did not participate in this application.
d. PH#2318 - Application for a 24-lot resubdivision on property off Bridge Lane and Riverview Street (Meetinghouse Lane), zoned R-33, Map 19, Lot 10, Margaret R. Pappas/Hampden & Beech Inc., Applicant/Margaret Pappas, Owner. (Must close by September 19). Commissioner Lefakis did not participate in this application
Commissioner Lefakis did not participate in these applications.
Dave Fredrick, Tim Coon with J. R. Russo, and Stephen Mitchell appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Coon stated this hearing was continued from July 31, 2002. He addressed some of the issues brought up at the last public hearing session. He previously submitted a letter to the Commission on August 21, 2002 which summarizes these issues.
Mr. Coon stated the first issue is regarding runoff from the Head Start property and the Enfield Street School located across Riverview Street to the east of the site. Currently, the drainage system at the Enfield Street School discharges to an eighteen-inch metal pipe across Riverview Street and on to the subject site to an eighteen-inch metal pipe. It is located within an easement in favor of the Town of Enfield and this easement continues down to where the water runs to a swale and discharges into the pond. There was a question at the last session as to whether this runoff was addressed in the drainage report and Mr. Coon confirmed it was. He stated the Head Start project which is under construction will have a positive impact on the runoff that comes on to their property. The system proposed with this Head Start project will take and divert a portion of the runoff which currently comes through that eighteen-inch pipe on to their property and send it off to the high school drainage system which discharges directly into the Connecticut River. Based upon the drainage report submitted by the engineers for that project, there will be a seventy to eighty percent reduction in the peak flows that come through that pipe on to the subject property and into the pond.
Mr. Coon stated regarding their own discharge to the pond, they are proposing an additional detention basin in addition to the existing detention basin to the south. The runoff from the extension of Meetinghouse Lane will be split. A portion of it will be connected to the existing detention basin and the remainder will be diverted to the proposed basin. These two basins will be connected with an equilibrium pipe so that they will act as a single basin. Each will be equipped with its own outlet built in a similar fashion so that it discharges water to the pond. With both basins acting as a single basin, it will allow them to utilize both basins in order to make the post-development discharge into the pond no greater than the pre-development discharge. Mr. Coon stated these plans have been reviewed by the Engineering Department and they have stated in their latest memorandum that all their concerns have been addressed.
Mr. Coon stated a third issue that was brought up was regarding potential sewer backups on Bridge Lane and how this project may impact that sewer. As stated in his letter, Mr. Coon noted when the first four lots were constructed on Meetinghouse Lane, a new eight-inch sewer main was constructed across the site from east to west which ties into a thirty-six inch trunk line which runs north to south adjacent to their western property line. Their system is not connected at all to the Bridge Lane system. Twenty-three lots, in addition to Meetinghouse Lane, will utilize the eight-inch main which discharges into the trunk line. Only the one rear lot off Riverview Street will pump up into the sanitary sewer in Riverview Street which does flow into the Bridge Lane system. They do not expect that that will have an impact to create any further problems with the sewers on Bridge Lane.
Mr. Coon addressed their request for a sidewalk waiver. They are requesting a waiver from the subdivision requirements to install sidewalks on one side of the street. Their justification for this is that this subdivision is isolated and there are no sidewalks in the area. If they put in a sidewalk, it will not connect to any other sidewalk. Despite the proximity to the schools, all elementary students in this area are picked up on Bridge Lane and bused to the schools.
Mr. Coon noted a recent subdivision which was approved in April, 2000 on Grandview Drive, a sixteen-lot subdivision with an 1,100 foot long cul de sac, where a sidewalk waiver was granted. Mr. Coon believes this is a similar case because Grandview Drive connects to Old King Street which also has no sidewalks.
Steve Mitchell, the Manager of Transportation and Engineering for F. A. Hesketh and Associates in East Granby, presented the findings of their traffic report. He stated there was some confusion at the July 14, 2002 meeting regarding prior submittals of the traffic report. The traffic report was dated January 14, 2002 and it was part of the original submittal. Mr. Mitchell provided additional copies of this traffic report to the Commission. There was also a supplemental report dated August 19, 2002 which was prepared in response to many of the specific comments that the public had at the July 24, 2002 meeting.
Mr. Mitchell stated it was mentioned at the July 24, 2002 meeting by Attorney Otis that he felt that the January 14 report did not meet the requirements of Section 4.40.2, paragraph c. regarding traffic reports. They have done a thorough review of that section of the regulations and confirm that the January 14 report does meet all the requirements of that regulation even though the subdivision technically does not require it because there are only twenty-four lots.
Mr. Mitchell stated a number of the residents talked about safety and operation on Bridge Lane. The overall implication of the residents was that there was something unusual about Bridge Lane. It was unusually unsafe and cars went unusually fast. There was an unusual amount of traffic and congestion. One person said that any more traffic and it would probably be designated a state highway. Mr. Mitchell stated they had not seen that in their original study and they delved further into it. He confirmed that the facts of traffic operation on Bridge Lane do not bear out any unusual operation at this location.
Mr. Mitchell stated their original traffic study did traffic counts in October and November when school was in session. There was a question that perhaps those were low because the boating season might generate a large number of vehicles. New counts were done the week of July 26 through August 7, 2002 and they found that the two sets of counts were very similar. The morning peak hours have between 65 and 89 vehicles on Bridge Lane and in the afternoon, there are between 83 and 108 vehicles. The average daily traffic on Bridge Lane is about 1,000 vehicles per day total in both directions. This is what they would expect for traffic on Bridge Lane taking into consideration the eighty existing residential homes and the intersecting streets that use Bridge Lane all the way down to the curb at Parsons.
Mr. Mitchell stated the speed posted on Bridge Lane is twenty-five miles per hour. They did a speed study and the design speed that they use is called the 85th percentile speed. This is the speed that 85% of the observed vehicles are going at or slower. The observed 85th percentile was 39 miles per hour. 87% of the vehicles were going less than forty miles per hour. 96% of the vehicles were going less than 45 miles per hour. This observation took place over a week long period. Those observations were done close to Meetinghouse Lane so that they didn't have the effect of people slowing down as they approached Route 5. Mr. Mitchell did not feel these types of speeds were unusual for this type of straight road.
Mr. Mitchell stated school buses and pedestrian operations were discussed at some length. He stated other than high school students, all students are picked up either in front of their homes or at the intersection of their street with Bridge Lane. None of the students are required to walk along Bridge Lane. The pedestrian activity on Bridge Lane is not necessary.
Mr. Mitchell stated there are three buses and between three and five minivans per day bringing students to the Enfield Street School. The buses all enter and exit the school using Bridge Lane and Mitchell Drive. The vans all use Enfield Street. Any parent pickups and drop offs also use Enfield Street. All Enfield High School buses use Enfield Street and not Bridge Lane. There are three buses doing pickups on Bridge Lane. One is the bus going to Enfield Street School and the other two are going to J. F. Kennedy and St. Bernard's School. In the future, there may be a fourth bus to St. Martha's School if there were students on the street attending that school.
Mr. Mitchell stated in the initial report, they investigated accidents to the degree that they looked at the state's listing of high accident locations. They found that Bridge Lane and Route 5 in the vicinity of Bridge Lane are not on the high accident frequency list. They gathered data for a three-year period and found there were only three accidents in three years on Bridge Lane. They concluded there was not a high accident incident and they did not do a thorough accident investigation at that point. As a result of the comments from the public about the safety issues along Bridge Lane, Mr. Mitchell stated they did a much more in depth study. From the State of Connecticut they were able to gain an additional amount of data from January to September, 2001. During that time, there were a total of four accidents including one that was a vehicle striking a deer on Route 5. In the last six and a half years, according to the Town of Enfield data, there have been nine accidents on Route 5 itself in the vicinity of Bridge Lane. From January, 1996 to July 30, 2002 on Bridge Lane itself there have been two accidents. Both were single vehicle accidents and none involved pedestrians. One was a DWI and the second was a car skidding on a wet road. There were also two accidents on Parsons near Bridge Lane. One was right at the curve and there was a two-vehicle accident approximately one-third of a mile south on Parsons.
Mr. Mitchell stated during the entire six-and-a-half-year period, there were no pedestrian accidents and there were no serious injuries on the road. He concluded that the operation of Bridge Lane was very normal.
Mr. Mitchell stated they did a deeper investigation into the sight lines from what was originally published in the January report. The sight lines available at the access to Bridge Lane are good for an average running speed of 47 miles per hour.
Mr. Mitchell noted as far as the new homes, because the road is proposed to be constructed to current town standards, students would be picked up at the intersection of Meetinghouse Lane and Bridge Lane. This is true whether or not there are sidewalks within the subdivision.
In conclusion, Mr. Mitchell stated their study indicates that this additional residential development which is in a larger residential area would generate approximately twenty-eight morning peak hour trips and thirty-three afternoon peak hour trips. This is about one trip per house and is what is seen in the existing Bridge Lane area for the existing eighty homes. At the present time, if you stood on Bridge Lane, you would see a vehicle go by about every forty seconds in the morning and about every thirty seconds in the afternoon. They are adding about another car every two minutes. The frequency would become about every thirty seconds in the morning and about every twenty-eight seconds in the afternoon. Mr. Mitchell did not feel an extra car every two minutes is going to change the character of the road or the safety considerations on the road. The fact that Bridge Lane is on the narrow side width wise is helping to keep the speed down. They do not see anything that the operation of these additional residential units will change the character of the area.
David Fredrick, the co-applicant, addressed two issues. The first issue is support for the subdivision and the second issue, which surfaced July 25, 2002, is in regard to the value of the homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Fredrick stated the Commission has a packet of letters supporting the subdivision from the neighbors in the area. He pointed out that in attendance this evening there are two families who have moved to Phase I, River Meadows, and they are in support of the future development of River Meadows.
Mr. Fredrick stated there is an agreement that the future homes in Phase II will be a minimum of 2,000 square feet with a two-car garage on similar sized lots to Phase I. This will preserve the value of the neighborhood. Mr. Fredrick researched the records at Town Hall and viewed the street cards for the assessed value of the homes on Bridge Lane from Meetinghouse Lane west and Riverview from the Pappas home north to the end of Riverview. The average assessed value of the average home on Bridge Lane going from Meetinghouse Lane west to the end of Bridge Lane is $88,403. On Riverview, if you were to go from the Pappas home north, 70% of the assessed value of those homes comes up to $124,081. Seventy percent of the assessed value of the three homes on River Meadows, Phase I, is $212,937. Mr. Fredrick stated the values on Phase II of River Meadows will certainly meet or exceed the values of River Meadows Phase I.
Commissioner Egan had some questions regarding the drainage. He asked what is the depth of the water table. Mr. Coon responded the water levels based on test pits which were performed in the area of Phase I were comparable to the level of the water in the pond. The water in the pond is the result primarily of ground water discharge.
Mr. Fredrick stated there are three existing homes in Phase I. One can drive down to Phase I and view how much concrete is showing on those homes. With the first three homes that are built and with the home currently being built, there is eighteen to twenty inches of concrete showing on a full concrete 7'10" wall. Mr. Fredrick estimated five feet of concrete is under ground.
Commissioner Egan asked what is the water table level. Mr. Fredrick stated they have not hit it yet. Mr. Coon stated the conceptual basement elevations are shown on the plans. They were based on the knowledge of both the water level in the pond and the water level in the test pits that were done for Phase I. They have not done test pits for this second phase.
Commissioner Egan stated in the drainage calculations, they make reference to the design of the detention basins and then there is a statement that the design point for the drainage study was chosen to be the inlet into the existing pond - not the outlet. Thus the overall watershed and detention characteristics of the pond were not analyzed. Commissioner Egan asked how they can tell this Commission that this pond is going to handle all of the runoff that will be brought in from two retention areas. He questioned why they didn't look at the outlet to see if that could handle the flow from all of that property and the additional that will be coming down from the school property.
Mr. Coon stated there is going to be a reduction from the school property of approximately seventy to eighty percent of what comes down from the upstream watershed. He noted this is new information from the last hearing session. He is referring to the entire upstream watershed of the eighteen-inch pipe which discharges on to their property. This includes the school property all the way up to Route 5. Those calculations were done by the engineer from the Head Start project that show the seventy to eighty percent reduction. The applicant's numbers, based on discussions with the Town Engineer, have the inlet into the pond as their design point. They are not going to be increasing their flows into the pond and, therefore, they should not have an impact on what is going out of the pond.
Commissioner Egan asked if it wouldn't be good engineering practice to know about the outlet of where they are draining their water. Mr. Coon stated they are not detaining in the pond. They are detaining in their retention ponds. They will not be adding any additional flow to the existing outlet of the existing pond. He once again stated to Commissioner Egan that their project should not have an impact on that pond outlet.
Commissioner Egan stated it depends how well the detention basins are maintained. If the developer is going to maintain them on a semi-annual basis, the Commission should know that. But regarding how well that pond drains and the retention, there are only calculations done based on a twenty-five year storm. Mr. Coon stated they have done calculations up to the fifty-year storm. They are not increasing the discharge into that pond from predevelopment levels.
Commissioner Egan asked how the railroad drainage swales fit into this plan. Mr. Coon stated to the rear of their property, a small portion drains in that direction and goes off toward the railroad. Commissioner Egan asked if they have gotten permission from the railroad to drain on to their property. Mr. Coon stated it drains there now and they are not increasing any flows into that area. Commissioner Egan felt this Commission would want to know that the railroad has no objection to this applicant draining on to their property. There have been issues with the railroad on other projects and they have denied drainage rights to developers. If this applicant is relying on that area to capture the runoff, they need to address that with the railroad. Mr. Coon stated he does not believe there is a need for drainage rights to the railroad property. A good portion of the site now drains on to that property and they will not be increasing the discharge on to that property.
Commissioner Egan asked about the twenty-four foot road and noted the Fire Department is not happy with this road width. Mr. Giner stated the twenty-four feet road width is included in the town's current subdivision regulations. He added there is a waiver request regarding sidewalks.
Commissioner Egan stated the cul de sac issue has been addressed and this may or may not fall within the definition of a cul de sac. Cul de sacs can only be 600'. Mr. Giner stated an interpretation was asked of this Commission at some point and it was determined that this was not an issue. There was some question on staff's part and the determination was made by the Commission that because it was a loop road, it was not technically a cul de sac and did not exceed the town's 600' requirement.
Commissioner Egan asked if the area becomes blocked, how does the fire department get to the house at the end. He asked if Mr. Giner has heard anything back from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Giner stated he talked to Mr. Shirley and the issue regarding the loop road came up. He was concerned with the 24' width of the road. Mr. Giner noted the trend in newer subdivisions is that the driveways are long enough and people do not park in the street. Also, there would be no parking posted on one side of the street so that there would be plenty of room for fire truck access. Mr. Giner noted some of the turning radii were checked to alleviate some of the concerns about the narrowness of the road. The Fire Department was satisfied as to the turning radii.
Mr. Fredrick stated he heard Commissioner Egan's concerns at the July 25 hearing session. On July 29, Ed Richards came to Neelans Road and Mr. Fredrick asked him if he had any concerns about this loop road. His response was his only concern was the fact that the water has to be looped and he has no concerns regarding fire about this subdivision. Commission Egan would like to see something in writing from the Fire Marshal.
Commissioner Egan stated there is a comment in the text that there are no noise issues and that the railroad is not significant. He asked how that conclusion was reached when he can hear the railroad at his home ten miles away. Commissioner Egan stated this statement was included in a letter from J. R. Russo dated November 19, 2001 and he read from that letter. Commissioner Egan stated one of the issues addressed by this Commission is the noise impact on the residents.
Mr. Fredrick noted the individual who moves into Lot #7 will be fully aware of the fact that abutting the home on the west side will be the railroad tracks. Mr. Fredrick stated there is a marketing question and a quality of life question. If an individual chooses not to live next to the railroad tracks, then obviously that person would not buy a home there. Mr. Fredrick stated there are a number of homes that abut the railroad tracks in the Town of Enfield. Commissioner Egan stated these are probably the closest and these residents will be back before this Commission asking why this application was approved when they knew a railroad track and trains were going by there. He stated the town does take some responsibility for that even though the developer might not be around to answer the questions.
Commissioner Cooper asked if the problem with the house numbering has been addressed. Mr. Coon stated the numbering system was brought up at one of the ART meetings and at that time they agreed to do the system that is shown on the plans presented. That decision was made with the input of Engineering and Public Safety. Commissioner Cooper questioned if there wouldn't be future problems if this is not shown properly on the deed. Mr. Fredrick stated it is shown according to the Engineering Department's recommendations in terms of the address. The deeds do reflect the appropriate addresses. They are aware of the fact that normally on the right side would be the even numbers and on the left side would be the odd numbers but as it turned out the Engineering and Public Safety people chose not to do this. Because the first home was sold with the present numbering system, the address numbering is pretty much set in stone.
Commissioner Duren referred to the memo done by Intern Gillian Burns regarding the street and deed addresses. Mr. Giner stated that was cleared up during a previous ART and he did not think Ms. Burns was aware of that. The street and deed addresses were corrected with Officer Chadderton's agreement. They are somewhat different than the normal but all consistent within this subdivision.
Commissioner Duren asked if the people's deeds are correct. Mr. Giner stated he believes they are and that the numbering has been approved by Bob Chadderton.
Commissioner Duren read other excerpts from Intern Gillian Burns' memo. She states in the notes of the plans detailing the amount of land to be conveyed to each current owner, the street numbers change. He asked if all this has been taken into account and corrected. Mr. Giner stated the original plans did show one numbering system but when they were deeded out, for whatever reason, the numbers were changed around. What the intern was referring to was the original plans and she was not aware of the current plan changes.
Mr. Coon stated the error Ms. Burns is referring to is a typographical error. On sheet three of 19 of the resubdivision plan, the lot is listed as property now or formerly of Brian and Jamie Levine, 3 Meetinghouse Lane. Immediately below that it says the area of the cul de sac 2,177 square feet to be conveyed and combined with now and former Brian and Jamie Levine, 4 Meetinghouse Lane.
Commissioner Duren stated the street address on the deed is 4 Meetinghouse Lane. Mr.Coon stated he has not seen the deed. Mr. Fredrick stated Engineering and Public Safety reversed the numbering process over which they had no control. The first closing occurred with the Perillo's and there was some controversy about why John Perillo and Lynn Perillo should be 4 when they would normally be 3. Engineering was steadfast and stated the odd numbers are on the right side and it should have been the even numbers. The numbering of this project is reversed from the norm.
Commissioner Duren stated Ms. Burns' memo states 2,177 square feet of the current cul de sac will be conveyed and combined with 3 Meetinghouse Lane now or formerly of John and Lynn Perillo who are listed as the owners of 4 Meetinghouse Lane on the same plan. Mr. Coon confirmed that is a typo from when the original plans were submitted. Commissioner Duren requested an affidavit that this is correct. He is concerned about the people that own the homes and the confusion that may result when they go to sell their homes.
Commissioner Duren stated he would like to know if everything contained in the memo from Intern Gillian Burns has been checked and has been corrected. Attorney Arvantely stated when the deeds were drafted, the deeds refer to lot numbers. The lot numbers are shown on the map that was approved and recorded in Volume 246. There is a reference in that memo to that recording. The deeds contains references to lot numbers, lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, and the deeds also contain a description. The street addresses are similar to the color of the house. What governs would be the lot number as shown on the approved map that was filed and the description. This map was checked out by Attorney Arvantely's office and the individual attorneys who represented the individual buyer's purchasing the property. They were also checked by title searchers and each of these lots have title insurance through Connecticut Attorneys Title Insurance Company. Attorney Arvantely suggested if the intern who prepared this memo has any questions, the best solution would be to contact Connecticut Attorneys Title Insurance Company and determine if they've made an error in the street address.
Mr. Giner stated the typo may be on the plans. He referred to Sheet 3 of 19 and noted there is an inconsistency there. Within the lot it says 3 Meetinghouse Lane and below it, it says 4 Meetinghouse Lane. Mr. Giner stated the plans need to be corrected.
Attorney Arvantely stated there is no inconsistency. The lots and legal descriptions have been reviewed by at least three attorneys on each lot and insurance has been issued.
Commissioner Duren asked about the reference in the memo where Ms. Burns states to require the plans submitted for the extension to conform to the pattern already established. Mr. Giner stated the numbering is reversed and the ones that have been submitted do conform to the pattern established. The right side is now odd numbering and the left side is even numbering. There are a couple of notes on the plans that reference 4 Meetinghouse Lane that should be changed. The addresses within the lots are the ones that are correct.
Attorney Arvantely stated these deeds are proper. They have been checked through three law offices and there is title insurance on each of the deeds.
Attorney Arvantely requested an opportunity to respond to a comment made by Commissioner Egan. Chairman Howard asked that he not do so.
Chairman Howard asked if the entire property in question has been before Planning and Zoning previously. Mr. Giner stated it has. There was a previous subdivision. Chairman Howard asked if any of the issues are reoccurring. Mr. Fredrick stated it was a forty-nine lot subdivision in 1986. Mr. Giner stated it was approved but was withdrawn because of a wetlands concern. There were some changes made and because of them, the application had to go back to the Conservation Commission before the Planning and Zoning Commission could act on it. Mr. Giner stated while there may have been similar issues expressed, this application has different drainage, road patterns, lot sizes and density. He did not feel the Commission had to review that previous application.
Commissioner Egan stated he was on the Wetlands Commission at the time. There were statements being made that they were only going to build four homes in this area and one of them was going to be owned by Mr. Pappas. They requested this to build their own house. This was what was discussed at the Inland Wetlands meeting. There was a determination that there were wetlands there and there were water table problems. At that point, there was a concern about the wetlands. Water discharge was an issue and it was a larger development.
Mr. Fredrick stated the 49-lot subdivision was in l986. The four-lot subdivision was around 2000.
Commissioner Egan stated previously the concerns of the Commission were expressed about developing the rest of the property and assurances were given that there would not be any more development. They were only looking to build a house for Mr. Pappas and a couple of other homes. The approvals were received and now the developer is back for development of the rest of the property.
Mr. Coon stated the areas they are developing are not infringing on the wetlands and they have gone through the Wetlands Commission.
Commissioner Egan stated his question on the water table level has not been answered and they have not answered the question on the drainage level. Mr. Coon stated there were test pits done as part of Phase I and this is a new phase with a similar water table. Regarding the wetlands, based on discussions with the Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commission, the source of water for those wetlands has been taken away since the fields at the high school were developed. This was part of a much larger wetland and since that time, the wetlands have degraded and there is no longer a water source. They are now relic wetlands from a time when the area used to be wet.
Chairman Howard asked if Bridge Lane is on the list to ever be widened. Mr. Giner stated there are no current plans by the town to widen Bridge Lane. The pavement width of Bridge Lane presently varies from 20' to 25'.
Mr. Giner distributed a letter from the Fire Marshal. They were not happy with the 24' road width and were concerned about the turning radii.
Mr. Fredrick stated they just had a brief discussion regarding the sidewalks on the new subdivision and it is their opinion that if the Commission determines there should be sidewalks in the total River Meadows Subdivision, they will certainly comply with this request. Mr. Fredrick stated he is withdrawing his request for a waiver of sidewalks.
Chairman Howard opened this public hearing to the audience.
Attorney Thomas Tyler, 18 Bridge Lane, is speaking for both himself and his wife, Marilyn. This afternoon he received a phone call from Attorney Kathy Eldergil of Beck & Eldergil and she asked that he put forth some information on behalf of her client, Halina Hepp.
Attorney Tyler stated he has offices at 92 High Street and is experienced in real estate transactions and, particularly, zoning matters. He has served as an expert witness on behalf of Ms. Eldergil and he has also taught law and lectured at seminars on zoning and real estate related issues.
Attorney Tyler stated his wife moved to the Bridge Lane area in 1955 when her Mom and Dad bought a lot. They built their house on the corner of Bridge Lane and Riverview and it is 18 Bridge Lane. Attorney Tyler and Marilyn Tyler bought the house from Marilyn's father and moved there in 1974.
Attorney Tyler stated as a result of their observations and his experience as an attorney as well as having an opinion as to the fair market value of his own home, there is no question in his mind that should this application be approved in its present form that it would have a serious detrimental impact on the fair market value of their home at 18 Bridge Lane. Attorney Tyler heard Mr. King speak in July and he talked about the detriment it would have to his house on Bridge Lane and he backs up to the subdivision. The response that Mr. Fredrick gave in terms of the value of the homes that he is going to construct is irrelevant in regard to the drainage problems this will cause Mr. King and the increased traffic that will detract from both Mr. King's and their property.
Attorney Tyler brought up Beech Road. The houses on Beech Road back up to houses on Glendale. They were built at or about the same time, they cost at or about the same price and they had at or about the same value. However, subsequently, the Mark Twain facility was put in on Beech Road and the increased traffic from that facility has detracted from the fair market value of the homes on Beech Road as compared to Glendale. Attorney Tyler felt the same impact will occur on Bridge Lane with the addition of twenty-eight more homes on to what basically is a driveway for one home.
Attorney Tyler stated when Mr. Fredrick and the Pappas' came before the Commission last year for four lots, they did not get up in arms because they concluded it was only four lots and they could live with that. Attorney Tyler stated he is not about to argue with the traffic expert on a report that he has not yet seen but several of the comments that were made reminded him of smoke and mirrors. He talks about eighty houses that currently generate about 1,000 cars a day on Bridge Lane. He fails to see how one-quarter of those or twenty-eight new homes are only going to generate about sixty trips a day. The percentages do not add up.
In connection with the prior history that Chairman Howard asked about, Attorney Tyler felt it is extremely relevant. He pointed out in 1951 the prior owners of this property sold the drainage rights to the Town of Enfield to permanently drain water on to this property into the pond which accounts for exacerbating the high water table that exists there today. He made a part of the record a copy of the deed from the Land Records of the Town of Enfield, Volume 111, Pages 317 through 320. It is a deed from Mary and Anthony Molinski to the Town of Enfield and Attorney Tyler quoted from page 319: "together with the permanent right from the Town of Enfield to drain surface waters and then in a generally westerly direction running into the pond." Attorney Tyler distributed this document to the Commission.
Attorney Tyler discussed the history of this property in the eighties when the subdivision was initially approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. An appeal was taken and the decision was reached on March 28, 1989 in Case No. 325426 in Hartford for the Judicial District of Hartford/New Britain in the matter involving Thomas J. Tyler v. Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission. What the Court found in that case was that the Planning and Zoning Commission had acted illegally and in abuse of its discretion and for that reason the subdivision was invalidated and the appeal was sustained. The judge said in view of this conclusion, it is not necessary to decide the additional grounds of appeal. There were a number of similar type issues that are before the Commission this evening. Attorney Tyler noted this land has not changed in the last half century. The characteristics of this property were discussed previously and it was part of the appeal. The court never had to reach that issue because it already found the P&Z had acted illegally in sustaining the appeal. Attorney Tyler made this a part of the record for this hearing.
Attorney Tyler stated one of the main problems in the eighties and ever since Mr. Molinski passed away has been the reluctance of the property owners, the Pappas', to recognize that the ownership rights to the pond do not exclusively rest with them. Attorney Tyler has heard the pond referred to previously as the Molinski Pond. Attorney Tyler discussed the previous names for the pond and noted now it is the Halina Hepp pond because Mrs. Hepp owns a portion of that pond. The Pappas' have refused to recognize the ownership in reparian rights issues to the point where another lawsuit was filed in the late eighties after the approval by Planning and Zoning that was overturned. It is called Raymond Belletti v. Margaret Pappas and Shadmire, Inc. It is Case No. CV87-0328962 and judgement in that case was rendered in favor of the Belletti's. It was ruled that they owned a portion of the pond. Attorney Tyler stated the Town of Enfield and several other people also own a portion of this pond. The decision that was reached found that the Belletti's were entitled to the reasonable use and enjoyment of the waters of the entire pond even though they only owned a portion of the pond. Attorney Tyler stated the Belletti's subsequently transferred their property together with what they owned of the pond to Halina Hepp. He submitted as an exhibit a copy of the judgment in the case of Belletti v. Pappas which was rendered in 1992 along with a copy of the warranty deed from the land records of the Town of Enfield from Mr. and Mrs. Belletti to Halina Hepp.
Attorney Tyler spoke on behalf of Halina Hepp and stated she would like to say that if the Commission has the mistaken belief that she is in favor of this application on her property, she would like to withdraw that application. Attorney Tyler noted the Commission should recognize that she hasn't even been consulted on this. She is very upset over someone doing activity that will have an impact on her property and she is committed to follow through and stick up for her property rights.
Commissioner Duren requested that Attorney Tyler identify the pond on the map. Attorney Tyler stated the pond is on the easterly boundary line of the property where you go in off Bridge Lane on to Meetinghouse Road on the right. Mrs. Hepp owns into that pond. Attorney Tyler stated the exhibits he has presented are actually part of the land records in the Town of Enfield. He further noted that the town was involved in some of this litigation. He hoped that the town would not be involved in further litigation about an approval that has an impact on someone else's land when they are not in favor of it.
Attorney Tyler stated to finalize the Hepp situation, Kathy Eldergil faxed to him a copy of the memorandum of decision in the Belletti v. Pappas case (and Hepp substitutes for Belletti here). Attorney Tyler would like to make this an exhibit since it goes through and explains what happened with the development of this property in the mid eighties. After the approval was granted by Planning and Zoning, Ray Belletti had to go to court and got an injunction stopping them from developing until the case was fully heard. By the time the case was fully completed, the judge in the case found that the defendants had interfered with the reparian rights of the plaintiffs and further found that the defendants should pay for the restoration of the plaintiffs' shoreline so no further erosion would occur. He read the judgement for the Commission's information.
Attorney Tyler stated he did not hear any reference to the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Officer for the Town of Enfield. Commissioner Duren stated they have a memo from the Traffic Safety Officer. Attorney Tyler stated if there are now going to be sidewalks on Meetinghouse, that means the children walking on those sidewalks will be put out on to Bridge Lane which is a sub standard street where there are no sidewalks. Some students will be walking to school and this will create liability for the town in connection with these children that are now put on to Bridge Lane. Attorney Tyler stated he heard about an accident on Bridge Lane in which a pedestrian was killed and it was not all that long ago.
Attorney Tyler noted the need to add sidewalks to Bridge Lane. In order to put sidewalks on Bridge Lane, it is a substandard street and the town would have to condemn more property from individual property owners. Some of the trees would have to be removed and this would, in Attorney Tyler's opinion, destroy the character that has long since been established of this entire neighborhood. On that basis, it would violate the spirit of the comprehensive plan and the Commission would be well within their jurisdiction to deny this application. The reasons are it does not further the general health, safety and welfare of the community, it would depreciate the property values and the drainage concerns are insurmountable.
Chester Siemionky, 14 Bridge Lane, stated he has lived on Bridge Lane for over fifty years. He is concerned for the school children that have to walk on this street. As far as the water level, he was a resident both before and after the pond. The water went over Bridge Lane once before. Mr. Siemionky discussed the traffic and stated he had two mailboxes knocked down and he witnessed an accident across the street. He felt Bridge Lane is an unsafe street and he reiterated his concern for the school children that may walk on the street.
Richard Augustus, 3 Bridge Lane, congratulated whoever had the authority to call off all the town trucks when this traffic count was taken. During the entire week, there wasn't a truck from the town, from construction or from anything else. Mr. Augustus also noted Mr. Fredrick's comments about assessments and stated if he is paying as much taxes as he is paying for a house that is valued at $88,000, he asked where he should go to get a tax refund. Mr. Augustus did not feel his home would be worth as much with the increase in traffic. He stated the residents of Bridge Lane can look forward to the possibility of losing some of their property, an increase in taxes and traffic all for the honor of having sidewalks to shovel when it snows. Mr. Augustus noted that Mr. Fredrick thought it was being selfish of the residents to deny other people the right to enjoy the beauty of their neighborhood. He suggested they do as others have done and purchase homes on Bridge Lane when they are for sale. The residents are not against progress on Bridge Lane but they feel they have done more than their share and there are other areas in town that can handle this development a lot better than Bridge Lane.
Michael Miller, 31 Bridge Lane, stated he has lived on Bridge Lane for 42 years. He commented on items heard tonight and stated he found it interesting that children on Bridge Lane are pedestrian traffic that is not necessary. He understands that the elementary school children are bused but he noted that high school students do not always take the bus. He discussed kids on his street and stated coming to the meeting this evening, he passed six children out on the road. He also agreed with the previous comment that it was amazing how the town trucks disappeared from the street the week the traffic count was taking place. Regarding the values of the homes, Mr. Miller noted there is more to the value of a home than dollars. There is also quality of life. If you can't go out in your front yard and rake the dirt off the edge of the road where the town has not swept it up yet because you are afraid of getting run over, that is a loss of value to your home. He felt traffic also affects the value of your life on the street. Regarding the depth of the foundation, Mr. Miller stated when the third home was built, when they dug the hole for the foundation, it filled up with water. They filled the hole somewhat and poured the foundation almost on top of the ground and back filled around it so that it was not down in the water table. He questioned the amount of foundation showing and noted that the foundation sticking out of the ground was poured on top of soil that was brought in prior to pouring the foundation. As for widening Bridge Lane and putting in sidewalks, Mr. Miller agreed it would seriously damage the character of the neighborhood. He stated the town is interested in preserving the historic characteristics of the town and Bridge Lane is right off the historic district area. It goes down to a historic site, the old covered bridge site, and there is a historic home right on the corner next to where the bridge was. Part of the charm of Bridge Lane is the trees and widening the road will destroy them.
Mr. Miller stated there may be a list of people going around that states that they supported the building of the homes. He advised the Commission to be careful when examining that list to be sure that it is a list of people who support this proposed subdivision or people who supported the initial four homes. He thought the Commission would find that many of those signatures were from people who thought they were in support of the four homes so that there would be no further development.
Jeff Kertanis, 17 Bridge Lane, stated at the last public hearing session, Mr. Fredrick stated he would donate the yellow strip of land to the town. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Kertanis noted this is a pretty large piece of land and could probably be used for additional development. Commission members noted it is open space and wetlands. Mr. Kertanis stated Mr. Fredrick will give this land to the town and the town will be left with any problems that arise. When he built the other subdivision, he would have increased the size of the water main to support all the other homes in this area so that he would not have to dig up the road. Mr. Kertanis stated he has three small children and just moved to the neighborhood. He had a concern about the fifty additional cars and the increased chances of his children getting hit on that road.
Bill King, 36 Bridge Lane, stated he has lived on Bridge Lane for twelve years. He has three young children. He has concerns because Bridge Lane is 20' wide and 24' in some areas. He hopes the Commission takes into consideration that this road gets plowed more than any other road in Enfield because of the pollution plant down the street. He questioned how a plow and car would be able to go down the street together or even two normal sized cars. He discussed the fact that his kids do not walk up the street themselves due to traffic concerns. He did not feel Bridge Lane was made for increased traffic.
Mr. King asked if there will be twenty-eight homes. Chairman Howard stated the total is twenty-four homes. He questioned how the Fire Marshal can say it is safe to build twenty-four more homes when the fire truck can barely make it down Bridge Lane by itself. He also noted the odd numbers on the right and the even numbers on the left and the fact that the numbering is supposed to be reversed. Bridge Lane will have numbering one way and the new street the opposite which will be confusing to safety personnel.
David Becker, 54 Bridge Lane, stated he kept hearing that there is going to be drainage going downward and it is going to flow over into the railroad property. His home is very close to this area and he questioned if this will have an impact on his basement. Mr. Becker stated his home is close to the railroad tracks and he stated this is definitely an impact. He does not know if he would do the same thing again because of this home's close proximity to the railroad tracks. Mr. Becker stated the neighborhood also has many dogs and residents are always walking them. He hopes that with the increased traffic that this part of the Bridge Lane community is not disrupted. Mr. Becker stated you can always put a price on a house but you cannot always put a price on a home and a lot of the residents are saying just that.
Dr. Charles Dugan, 18 Riverview Street, stated he abuts the proposed development. He confirmed that in the 1970's there was a proposal to build low-income high rise housing in this area. This was rejected by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Regarding the Head Start, their access is through the high school so there would be no problem there. Concerning the comments of the engineer from F. A. Hesketh and his definition of the width of the road, at one area at one time in his career, Dr. Dugan measured the width of that road at eighteen and a half feet. It might have been widened out with a shovel full of patch here and there since that time.
Dr. Dugan stated there has been a lot of discussion about picking up children at the corner of the street. No one has talked about Riverview Street. When the high school is in session, there are at least two dozen students that walk down that street in the morning and afternoon. In the afternoon there is probably more, because the traffic backs up at the gate in front of his home and his neighbors' home. There is a substantial amount of traffic and a lot of pedestrian traffic in this area both on Riverview and Bridge Lane. Dr. Dugan stated he also has a problem with no police protection. He knows he can bring it up at a Town Council meeting and stated it is a concern of his which leads to the issue of his piece of mind while living in his home at 18 Riverview. He is sick of coming before this Commission and listening to the Pappas' propose certain things. He would like to make a proposal that the developer reduce the number of homes, put the development in and contain the drainage on their property so that it won't impact Mrs. Hepp's pond which was formerly his father-in-law's pond in the center of the site.
Doug Lush, 9 Bridge Lane, countered Dr. Dugan's statement and stated he does not want any houses.
Attorney Thomas Tyler stated he was not aware that the area in yellow on the plans is intended to be given to the Town of Enfield as open space. If that is correct and it is the new detention basin that is going to overflow into Mrs. Hepp's pond and cause a problem there, he, as a taxpayer in the Town of Enfield, does not want the Town of Enfield taking over that liability and responsibility with that open space. He sees no worthwhile purpose and noted open space as it was initially presented through the legislature was to provide an area in a subdivision where people in that subdivision could go and enjoy passive recreation. In this situation, where the landowners' ancestors have sold the drainage rights to the town already, to take the surface water and put it there, they now want to put all the water in that one area and then give the liability back to the town. Attorney Tyler stated he does not think this is fair and would feel differently had the land been donated many years ago. However, this land was bought and paid for by the town. To now put this development here, dump the water there and give the liability for that water and the drainage issues to the town would be an unfortunate mistake.
Attorney Thomas Arvantely, representing the developer, responded in rebuttal to a couple of points raised concerning the reference made to the Hepp pond and ownership rights by one of the complainants, Mrs. Hepp. He stated with regard to the ownership rights of the pond, that was an issue that was thoroughly covered before the Wetlands Commission. There is an opinion that he had prepared that is on file with the Wetlands Commission concerning this application. Attorney Arvantely stated he did not think it was the purview of this Commission to discuss ownership rights of the pond and it could be a question that could be referred to the Town Attorney if the Commission had a question about ownership rights and, specifically, reparian rights. Attorney Arvantely noted that reparian rights are rights to use a body of water in a certain way by abutters. They have acknowledged throughout and consistently with the Wetlands application that there were owners surrounding the pond in addition to Mrs. Hepp who had reparian rights to the pond. If there is a question about the applicant usurping someone else's ownership rights in the pond, it is a question that should be referred to the Town Attorney's Office. The Town Attorney would have access to the Wetlands file concerning this matter. Regarding some of the items mentioned by Attorney Tyler such as the judgement in the case of Belletti v. Pappas, they took the initiative to file those documents with the Wetlands Commission. They are aware of the judgement and Attorney Arvantely did file a copy of a deed which he had prepared from Matthew Alaimo to Raymond Belletti, the predecessor and title to Mrs. Hepp. The deed does provide for reparian rights to Mr. Belletti. The difference between reparian rights and ownership is more of a sophisticated legal question and Attorney Arvantely would prefer that not be discussed here.
Steve Mitchell of F. A. Hesketh stated Attorney Tyler indicated that he said something to the effect that there would be sixty trips generated per day. That is not true. What he said was each of the morning and afternoon peak hours would have thirty trips. That is only two hours of the day and there are twenty-two more. On a daily basis, the report indicates the development would generate about 300 trips per day. That is very close to what is generated on the street. They would expect about ten trips per day from a standard house and about one trip in each of the peak hours for a standard house.
Mr. Mitchell stated there were a number of issues raised about kids walking on Bridge Lane. He reiterated the current school bus activity is such that any kids on Bridge Lane except for the high school kids are picked up either at their door or at the intersection of their street with Bridge Lane. They do not walk on Bridge Lane and are not required to walk on Bridge Lane. That is also true of any children that would be in the subdivision. They would walk down to the corner of Meetinghouse and Bridge Lane and would be picked up at that location. They would not have to walk along Bridge Lane.
Mr. Mitchell acknowledged that on any residential street you will find people walking and kids playing. There is no question that Bridge Lane is by today's standards a narrow street and it is 20' wide in a number of spots, 24' wide in a number of spots and 25' wide in one place. Mr. Mitchell did not find any places that were narrower than 20'. The traffic levels on the street are such that the accident experience shows there have not been a lot of traffic incidents on the street. Pedestrian accidents are always reported accidents. To put sidewalks on the street would physically be possible. The existing right of way is about 50' and would not require acquiring land from the property owners. However, Mr. Mitchell questioned if that is necessary for this type of a residential street. It was implied that this development might make that necessary. Mr. Mitchell stated they are talking about an additional vehicle every two minutes. He did not feel that this development will change the character of the street traffic and does not create a need for widening the street or adding sidewalks to the street. If the residents feel strongly enough that sidewalks should be added and the street widened, they should petition the Town Council and be added to the list of streets that are regularly upgraded in this town.
Mr. Fredrick stated one individual suggested there was a comparison between Bridge Lane and Beech Road. He felt that was a big stretch comparing the two areas. They are two different areas with two different compositions. The drainage was addressed by the Engineering Department. Wetlands addressed the concerns that they had regarding drainage. Mr. Fredrick noted that one individual suggested that one of the foundations filled up with water. He reminded the Commission there are a number of inspections that the town inspectors perform when a home is being built. The first inspection is the inspection of the hole when the footings are in place. Everything was fine. Mr. Fredrick stated you cannot import sand and put this in a hole. It has to be on virgin ground to be able to place the footings on the ground. The Building Inspector inspected this and they passed.
Mr. Fredrick stated he cannot think of anything that was more straightforward than the individual who said this evening that we do not want any more houses. He felt that sums up the attitude fairly accurately.
Mr. Coon addressed Attorney Tyler's comments about the drainage rights of the property being sold to the town. He stated the town does have drainage rights across the property. They have an easement to carry the drainage from the Enfield Street School to the pond. However, in that same document, the successors and assigns from Molinski also retain the right to drain to the pond as well. Their current detention pond discharges to that pond in a similar fashion as the existing detention pond which was approved in the subdivision for Phase I a few years ago.
Mr. Coon stated another issue that was brought up was the drainage to the railroad property. He stated based on their drainage analysis, there will be no increase in the peak discharge to the rear of the property on to the railroad property. The same can be said for the discharge into the pond.
Mr. Coon stated there was a question on the open space and why does the town want it and why didn't they develop it. As the Commission is aware, for this type of subdivision, there is an open space requirement of twenty-five percent. They are giving 7.75 acres to the town and of that, two and a half acres are required to be upland and they are giving 3.85 acres of upland as part of that open space.
Chairman Howard stated it is his intention to close this hearing but he noted that the Commission will be allowed to get reports from the Town Attorney. Mr. Giner stated it is possible to get one additional extension to September 19.
Chairman Howard requested an opinion from the Town Attorney's office regarding the pond. He would also like an opinion based on past practice with this land as to where the Commission is and where they can go. He questioned if precedent has been set in the past and is the Commission looking at the same thing.
Mr. Giner confirmed that the Commission would like an opinion on the issues raised by Attorney Tyler with the deeds and also to review the record of the Wetlands Commission. Mr. Giner stated Attorney Arvantely noted there was a legal opinion that he rendered and it might have been reviewed already by the Town Attorney.
Chairman Howard also requested that guidance be given from the Town Attonrey's Office regarding the open space land proposed and if it is something the town does not want to accept for liability reasons.
Chairman Howard stated a comment was made that if sidewalks are put in and they empty out on to Bridge Lane, who is responsible. He questioned if there is a liability issue here. Chairman Howard did not think so but if it could be an issue, the Commission should know about it. Mr. Giner stated his experience is the town has required sidewalks that dead end all the time.
Commissioner Cooper stated he would like to know, because of the past cases on this property, will this Commission be subjecting the town to liability they do not want to get into. Mr. Giner stated the question would be do the past cases have any impact on this case.
Commissioner Egan stated when the Commission considers this application, they have to consider these plans, this application, and the facts that have been presented to the Commission. If the past case is made part of the record, the Commission can then consult that record. Commissioner Egan stated he doesn't understand the necessity for legal opinions when the Commission members can read the case and come to a conclusion. In his opinion, this Commission seems to be going to the Town Attorney to do their job. Commissioner Egan felt the time situation was an issue and the decision has to be based on the record presented.
Commissioner Egan stated if the Town Attorney is going to be contacted on the reparian rights, that was an issue with the Wetlands. The other issue that he would include in that is who is going to be responsible for the maintenance of the inlet and the outlet since the outlet is the problem. The applicant has not addressed that issue other than to say that they have no impact. There is a maintenance problem with that drainage and someone needs to address that issue. This is an issue that should also be addressed by the Town Attorney's Office.
Commissioner Duren questioned who does the drainage at the outlet of the pond now. Mr. Fredrick responded it is done by the town. Mr. Giner will confirm this.
Chairman Howard closed this public hearing.
Comments followed from Chairman Howard and Commissioner Egan regarding the necessity of legal guidance.
Commissioner Egan stated he respectfully disagrees with the Deputy Fire Marshal on the wording of his letter which states "there is no apparent concern with regard to the Fire Department access and mobility." He does not think this letter is what he requested. He asked that they specifically address what contingency plans they would have if the house located on the back lot was in flames and they could not get down that road. How would they put that fire out? That has not been addressed and those have been issues that have been before this Commission before and permits have been denied on that basis. Commissioner Egan stated he is concerned and would like this resolved in his mind prior to his vote.
Chairman Howard requested copies of all the documents referred to in tonight's public hearing.
Chairman Howard stated the Commission will not be voting on the four applications this evening and they have sixty-five days to take action.
The Commissioner recessed at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2328 - Application for Special Use Permit for electronic amusement devices (computer gaming center) at 604 Enfield Street, zoned BL, Map 32, Lot 7, Eduardo Jose B. Curameng, Jr., Applicant, James S. Viola, Robert T. Mercik, Frank J. Troiano and Anthony Troiano, Owners. (Must close by October 3)
Eduardo Curameng, Jr. and Joseph Lenucci appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Curameng stated this is an application to conduct a computer gaming center where they would have personal computers rather than the coin operated systems. This will allow them to offer a wide variety of games along with internet research and competition.
Commissioner Krebs asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Curameng stated they are proposing 2:00 p.m. until midnight six days a week and from 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sundays. There will be two employees.
Mr. Curameng stated the location is 604 Enfield Street or the site of the former College Formals.
Commissioner Krebs asked if there is a need for this type of business. Mr. Curameng stated this is their second location. They also have one in the Buckland Hills Mall. Responding to a question from Commissioner Duren, Mr. Curameng stated the hours at Buckland Hills are Monday through Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. and on Sunday from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Commissioner Duren asked why they would want to keep this business open to midnight on weekdays. Mr. Curameng stated they have a lot of competitions that occur between different states and they would like to be open a little bit later because of the time zone changes. This will give them an opportunity to have a large crowd of people competing against each other across the nation.
Commissioner Duren had a concern about students staying up until after midnight and attending school the next day. Mr. Curameng stated competitions are not every day. The later hours also give people an opportunity to check their emails.
Commissioner Duren stated reading the newspaper regarding on line chatting, he questioned what type of controls will be in place. Mr. Curameng stated they have software in place on every computer that will monitor and not allow patrons to visit x-rated sites or download such material.
Commissioner Duren noted the lack of parental monitoring with such a business. Mr. Curameng stated they do not provide anything that someone would not have access to at home other than the high speed internet access. Commissioner Duren discussed the fact that young teenagers could use this to chat with someone on the internet when they were told at home that they could not. Mr. Curameng acknowledged that this is a possibility.
Commissioner Egan asked about the age limit. Mr. Curameng stated the literature indicates 14 to 45. Commissioner Egan asked if there are time limits for certain age groups. The applicant stated they do not have such limits. Mr. Curameng stated they pretty much know which areas not to touch on the internet but as far as questioning individuals, they do not do so.
Commissioner Krebs noted the policies of this business and the fact that they will be advertised by the applicant.
Chairman Howard stated each person is assigned an individual computer and if there was a concern, that could be researched.
Commissioner Egan asked if there is any wagering on these games. Mr. Curameng stated they cannot download casino games.
Mr. Hickey asked about the lease in Manchester and if it contains restrictions on their operation. Mr. Curameng stated they do have a lease in Enfield in regard to sites that are not appropriate because the landlord required they include that in their lease.
Mr. Giner stated this is a new use, computers, but it has been classified as electronic amusement devices. There is also a similar activity at Enfield Square and the Zoning Enforcement Officer made a determination that both uses would require a special use permit.
Commissioner Cooper asked how long the applicant's Manchester store has been open. Mr. Curameng responded since September 15, 2001. Commissioner Cooper asked who is monitoring the store this evening. Mr. Curameng stated a brother-in-law was in charge of the store tonight while they were before the Commission.
Commissioner Duren asked if there are memberships. Mr. Curameng stated they have memberships but the store is open to both members and the public.
Commissioner Egan asked if the Commission were to check with the Manchester Police Department, would they have any records of calls to their establishment. Mr. Curameng stated not to his knowledge.
Commissioner Hickey asked about the ages of the patrons. Mr. Curameng stated the oldest user he has seen is in their thirties. They advertise this business for ages 14 to 44.
Commissioner Hickey asked how much instructional time is involved and can people sign up to take courses. Mr. Curameng stated that is not yet implemented but it is something they would like to do in the future. They would like to offer computer repair, computer maintenance and diagnostics.
Chairman Howard opened this hearing to the public.
Daryl Peters, 26 Prospect Street, spoke in favor of this application. He thinks this is a good facility for younger teenagers. It keeps kids off the street and is something he personally is interested in. He noted the store is a safe environment and he never sees anyone on the internet. The games are the primary focus. He did not feel this business was a threat to the community and he wanted to put in a good word for this business.
Stephen Potman, 27 Green Valley Drive, spoke in favor of this application. He stated he has been treated like a friend at this business and not like a customer. Until now, he has had no where to go and the games that they play at this location are things that he would like to do at home but he cannot afford an internet connection or the necessary hardware. It is a fun place to be and he looks forward to going here. Mr. Potman noted most school activities involve sports and this has been different. It is a place he can go with friends. He noted his mother is also happy that there is some place that she knows where he is. She has been to the business, met the owner and is happy with what goes on.
Chairman Howard asked if the business is currently operational and Mr. Curameng confirmed that it is.
Commissioner Hickey asked about the termination clause in the lease. Mr. Curameng stated the town has a copy of the entire lease. Mr. Giner stated the lease includes the standard clause of ninety days' written notice.
Commissioner Egan stated he does not see anything from the property owner authorizing them to come before the Commission. Mr. Giner stated the Commission has a signed lease. Commissioner Egan noted he only received one page of that lease and it does not say it gives them approval to appear before the Planning and Zoning Commission to obtain a special use permit to do what they are doing.
Mr. Giner stated the applicant is before the Commission due to an enforcement action. The property owner allowed them to move in and knows they are there.
Commissioner Egan requested a copy of the full lease describing the activity. Mr. Giner will supply the Commission with a copy of this lease. Mr. Giner also noted that this has to be filed on the Land Records and the Secretary has to sign the special use permit.
Commissioner Cooper asked if the applicant would be willing to make an adjustment to the proposed hours of operation for certain age groups. Mr. Curameng agreed to this. Commissioner Duren suggested a 10:00 p.m. time limit for younger patrons on school nights. Commissioner Cooper suggested these younger patrons be designated as age fifteen and under.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2328 with the following conditions: (1) patrons ages fifteen and under are only allowed on the premises until 10:00 p.m. on evenings when school is in session the next day; (2) the applicant shall submit a full lease and/or a letter from the property owner describing the activities that will occur. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
b. PH#2330 - Application for a 2 lot subdivision at 173 Weymouth Road, zoned R-33, Map 69, Lot 231, William Flagg, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by October 3)
William Flagg, 276 Hazard Avenue, stated he has a 5.14 acre parcel on Weymouth that he is proposing to subdivide into two lots. There is an existing house on the proposed Lot #1 that will remain for the most part unchanged except for the demolition of a small shed. The shed is not in very good condition and it would be encroaching on a lot line requirement if it were to stay. They are proposing to take this shed down. The house would remain on a .76 acre lot. It is serviced by water and sewer. Lot #2 would be a 4.38 acre lot and it has an existing barn on it. He has had some discussion with Planning regarding this barn. Mr. Flagg stated there is a revised set of plans done a couple of days ago which brings the house location forward.
Commission members reviewed the new plans and compared them to the old plan. Mr. Giner stated there were some comments made by the Fire Marshal and Engineering. Mr. Giner also spoke with Fire Marshal Ed Shirley who confirmed verbally he had no problems with this new plan. He did not, however, confirm this in writing.
Mr. Flagg stated he had proposed originally for the house to be set back 200' from the road. That would have allowed the barn to remain. The staff brought to his attention that he cannot create a new lot that had a barn on it because it would then be an accessory use to a non-existing primary use. In other words, he needed to have the house before the barn. The amended plans show the barn being demolished and placing the house about where the barn is located.
Mr. Giner stated you cannot have by law an accessory structure without a primary structure. Commissioner Duren stated it is too bad that the barn has to be destroyed. Mr. Giner suggested there could be a condition where the Commission accepts a bond and makes sure the house is built in a certain period of time. He stated what is not wanted is for the barn to be rented out and become a commercial operation.
Mr. Flagg stated at this point the application is to demolish the barn and replace it with the house. If he were to place the house behind the barn in such a way that they can save the barn, he would certainly like to try to do that. If he does not build the house and were to sell the lot, they would have to come in with a new site plan and get approved. He does not want to make a representation tonight on what someone else would do. He would, however, prefer to keep the barn if he is allowed to do so.
Commissioner Duren stated the applicant is not building this home for himself and he cannot say what the barn would be used for. Mr. Flagg confirmed that to be the case. He would be building on speculation if he did anything at all and he would probably place the house so he would be able to save the barn. However, that does not mean that the buyer who he may talk to next week or next month would want the same plan. They may wish the barn demolished and he cannot be sure.
Chairman Howard asked about the original plan for the house to be constructed behind the barn. Mr. Flagg stated the original plan had a proposal to locate the house back about two hundred feet. Mr. Giner stated the only concern of the Fire Department regarding that plan was the distance from the road but it is not a rear lot. Mr. Flagg stated he placed the house in such a way that from the house you didn't see the barn. There's a huge pine tree on the parcel that buffers the barn and offers a very private setting on four plus acres.
Chairman Howard stated what is being recommended has a little character. Mr. Giner stated the Commission needs to deal with the issue of the accessory structure.
Chairman Howard asked about the condition of the barn. Mr. Flagg stated the barn is in need of some repair but it would be a nice accessory to the proposed home. He noted it might be the desire of whoever ultimately buys this lot to take the barn down. He does not want to make a representation tonight that the barn will always be there.
Commissioner Egan stated the barn would require building code updates if it was used for anything other than a barn. Mr. Flagg stated it would be an accessory use and he would not try to create housing out of the barn. Mr. Flagg further noted three acres would allow a farm use.
The consensus of the Commission was they liked the location of the house in the back as proposed.
Mr. Giner suggested putting on a condition that says the existing barn may only be used as an accessory structure to a residential use and until such time as the principal use is established, it cannot be used for anything.
Some discussion followed regarding the regulations in force. Commissioner Egan stated if Mr. Flagg was going to personally build a house there, it would be a situation that could be justified. However, he does not feel there is a justification for that barn to remain based on the regulations.
Mr. Giner stated what the Commission is being asked to approve is the subdivision. The exact location of this home is there as a representation. The Commission would not be approving the exact house location. If the house is proposed within 100' of wetlands, it would have to go before Inland Wetlands at the time of the building permit.
Chairman Howard opened this hearing to the public.
Mike Halgas, 172 Weymouth Road, stated he lives across the street from this property. He is confused about the Commission's discussion about the barn. If it is a rule, it is a rule and he thinks the barn has to go. He stated he does not want to be looking at people's junk in that barn. Also, if Mr. Flagg is going to build the houses that he has built, the home will have a garage and will not need the barn. Mr. Halgas noted the barn looks like it needs some help anyway. He was also glad to hear that the chicken coop is being demolished because that is also a hazard. There is no one in the house currently and there are a lot of children in this neighborhood with the possibility of accident or injury on this property.
Mr. Halgas stated he is not totally against Mr. Flagg building a house on this property. However, the sidewalks that go down that property are in such condition that it is almost better to walk on the road. They are asphalt sidewalks which are wavy and out of control. Mr. Halgas would like to know if these sidewalks will be upgraded.
Mr. Halgas stated he doesn't know where the driveway of the home is going to feed into Weymouth Road but Deepwood is right across the street from this property. He has witnessed at least four head-on collisions at this intersection. There are also a couple hundred kids a day that go through this intersection as it is a crosswalk for Parkman School.
Mr. Halgas stated his last concern is the fire department has a school a little bit east of this property. Over the years he has noticed that they have a number of aerial trucks that are always shooting water just about in the barn. He wondered if this proposal will cut back the training capabilities of the fire school.
Mr. Halgas reiterated he is not against what Mr. Flagg is trying to do.
Mr. Flagg stated he was not intending to rebuild the existing sidewalks that are now in front of the property. The chicken coop will be removed. He was not aware the fire house was watering down the barn. He has had a discussion with the fire district about their possibly acquiring this property. As far as a driveway access to the proposed house, what is proposed here now was revised just a couple of days ago. It is shown to be right opposite Deepwood which probably is the safest location for the driveway.
Commissioner Duren asked if Mr. Flagg received the memo from John Cabbibo dated September 5 which included a concern that the survey showed some of the existing sidewalk on private property. He suggested that the survey be revised or a sidewalk easement granted by the property owner. Mr. Flagg stated Mr. Cabbibo informed him that there is a little encroachment of the town sidewalk on the property and he would grant the town an easement for that area.
Mr. Giner stated his proposed conditions for this application contain such a sidewalk easement. He stated the other issue he raised was the fact that there was no open space proposed. It is a minor subdivision and the Commission has the option of requiring an appraisal with a fee in lieu of or a waiver of the regulations can be granted with a three-quarter vote required. Mr. Giner stated in this case they would normally get an appraisal and request ten percent of the appraised value of the property prior to subdivision and then pro-rate it by lot. Commissioner Duren noted Mr. Flagg is only selling one lot. Mr. Giner stated there are two lots that will ultimately be sold.
Commissioner Egan stated the owners of property off South Road paid a fee in lieu of open space and he would not be in favor of waiving this fee.
Regarding the sidewalk, Mr. Giner stated the town would like an easement for the sidewalk located on private property.
Because a fee was required based on an appraisal, Chairman Howard continued this public hearing to the September 19, 2002 meeting.
b. PH#2332 - Application for a Special Use Permit for Class 1 permit for beer and wine at a restaurant (El Sarape) at 917 Enfield Street, zoned BL, Map 26, Lot 78, Eduardo A. Chavez, Applicant, Julie Lai, Owner. (Must close by October 3) - Because the applicant was not present, this public hearing was continued to the September 19, 2002 meeting.
The applicant was not present for this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren asked about the distance of this from the school and whether it meets the distance requirement. Commissioner Lefakis noted there is a package store located across the street.
Commissioner Lefakis stated a couple of the neighbors there had a concern about some of the roof equipment being noisy at night since the restaurant opened.
This public hearing was continued to the September 19, 2002 meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
a. Bond Releases
1. PH#1915 - Request for release of three (3) landscaping bonds in the amounts of $6,619.02*, $4,000**, and $4,000** for Hampton Chase Condominiums (*Phase II and **Phase III).
Regarding the bonds for Hampton Chase Condominiums, Mr. Giner reported the Association has taken over this project and they are satisfied with the existing landscaping.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to release the three landscaping bonds in the amounts of $6,619.02, $4,000 and $4,000 for Hampton Chase Condominiums. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
2. SPR#1055 - Request for release of $178,740 Engineering Bond and $650 Erosion and Sediment Bond for Kohl's Department Store at 95 Elm Street.
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to release the $178,740 Engineering Bond and the $650 erosion and sediment bond for Kohl's Department Store at 95 Elm Street. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
3. SPR#1094 - Request for release of $1,000 Landscape Bond for Enfield Federal Savings and Loan, Hazardville Office at 268 Hazard Avenue.
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to release the $1,000 landscape bond for Enfield Federal Savings and Loan, 268 Hazard Avenue. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote. Commissioner Duren asked if the propane tank on the premises was previously approved. Mr. Giner will check on this.
NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Egan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to amend the agenda and add Receipt of New Applications. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
Receipt of Applications
The following applications were accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission:
PH#2334 - Application for a Special Use Permit to operate a driving school at 139 Hazard Avenue, Unit 11, zoned BP, Map 65, Lot #76, Philip J. Michaud, Owner/Applicant.
A public hearing will be scheduled for October 3, 2002.
PH#2335 - Application for a Modification to PH#2224 to add additional fire lane area around new school addition at Henry Barnard Elementary School on Shaker Road, zoned R-44, Map 64, Lot 61, Town of Enfield, Owner/Applicant. (Administrative approval)
PH#2336 - Application for a modification to PH#2335 to add an additional 34 parking spaces to the west side of Prudence Crandall School at 150 Brainard Road, zoned R-33, Map 62, Lot 65, Town of Enfield, Owner/Applicant.
A public hearing will be scheduled for October 3, 2002.
PH#2337 - Application for a modification to PH#2226 to add a paved access from an existing parking area to the rear of the school for emergency vehicles at the Harriet Beecher Stowe School, Post Office road, zoned R-33, Map 54, Lot 6, Town of Enfield, Owner/Applicant. (Administrative Approval)
PH#2338 - Application for a modification to PH#2225 to add an additional driveway access to a parking area located at the east end of the parking lot adjacent to Parkman School on Weymouth Road, zoned R-33, Lot 60, Town of Enfield, Owner/Applicant.
A public hearing will be scheduled for October 3, 2002.
PH#2339 - Application for modification to PH#2259 to construct a gazebo and associated site work to be located at the rear (east) of the new Senior Center at 299 Elm Street in an I-1 zone. Map 075, Lots 0102 and 0051, Town of Enfield, Owner/Applicant. (Administrative Approval)
PH#2340 - Application for a Special Use Permit to allow for electronic amusement (cybernet games) at a unit of the Westfield Shoppingtown located at 90 Elm Street, zoned BR, Map 43, Lot 17, Irfan Raheez, applica | |