|
|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
JULY 11, 2002
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, July 11, 2002 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Howard called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
PRESENT: James Howard, Chairman
Anthony DiPace
Charles Duren
Robert Egan
James Hickey, Jr.
Karen Krebs
Nicles Lefakis
Karen Weseliza, Alternate
Jeffrey Cooper, Alternate
Joseph Jedynak, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to approve the Minutes of June 20, 2002. Commissioner Duren made an addition to these Minutes on page 21. The third paragraph should read: "Commissioner Duren asked if Mr. Northrup checked the logging operation on Washington Road." The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a 6 - 0 - 1 vote. Commissioner Lefakis abstained.
STAFF COMMENTS
a. Town Attorney
Assistant Town Attorney Mark Cerrato reported the Commission has received a written report from the Town Attorney's Office with the three outstanding items.
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer
Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley noted the Commission had some questions at the last meeting about the status of the Botticello gravel pit. He stated he has nothing pending with them at this time. The biggest item was a trailer that was placed on the property line and they have moved it. They had installed a temporary road and some cement pits to contain gravel and chips. Mr. Bickley stated in his discussion with Mr. Giner, it was determined that an approval from this Commission was not required for that. There hasn't been any activity at this gravel pit since the approval two years ago. Botticello's is coming in tonight requesting a re-approval of this gravel pit.
Mr. Bickley discussed the status of Rich's Oil Service. That was sent to the Town Attorney's Office. The owner is presently looking for another location for this business.
Mr. Bickley stated there were some concerns about the Slanetz Construction Company yard and some improvements that had been done to satisfy the Conservation Commission. They paved an area that was an existing parking lot at the bottom of the building and installed some drainage. Up in the back, the owner had tried to do some improvements on his own and had installed some concrete barriers vertically. This was brought to Mr. Bickley's attention by Commissioner DiPace. Mr. Slanetz is cooperative and will do whatever the town requests. He has not done any other improvements other than what was required by the Wetlands Commission. Commissioner DiPace discussed the appearance of the concrete barriers and felt this site could be handled by a minor revision through the Director of Planning. Mr. Giner stated he will meet with Mr. Slanetz on site regarding the removal of these concrete barriers.
Mr. Bickley stated there was a complaint previously about Saturn of Enfield and their landscaping. He checked the site and there were two white pines missing in the back that had died and were not replaced. Mr. Bickley talked to the Manager who said they would be replaced. Since they had not been replaced after two weeks, Mr. Bickley sent the owner a letter. Chairman Howard stated there also was a complaint that the existing landscaping is not being maintained. Mr. Bickley stated the grass had been mowed and the number of plantings, with the exception of the two missing trees, conforms to the plans.
Commissioner DiPace asked if all the public hearing signs for tonight's hearings have been up the required amount of time. Mr. Bickley confirmed that they were all up except for the sign at 452 South Road. Mr. Giner stated the sign at 452 South Road was reinstalled for the second hearing session and was up for the required number of days. Mr. Giner noted these public hearing signs have to be posted for ten days and removed by the applicant within five days after the close of the hearing. Commissioner DiPace suggested including something on applications that when hearings are continued, the signs need to remain up.
Commissioner Weseliza asked when the curb cuts will be completed for Artioli Dodge. Mr. Bickley stated the town still holds the bonds and the work will be completed in the near future.
c. Director of Planning and Community Development
Mr. Giner stated Mr. Alsbaugh had requested on behalf of the ZBA that the Commission participate in a one-half hour joint meeting on July 25 to discuss the gas station application. There are dual jurisdictions between the Zoning Board of Appeals that acts as an agent of the Department of Motor Vehicles for location approval and this Commission that approves the application based on the standards in the ordinance. Mr. Giner stated there is really no guidance in the state statutes as to what kind of issues the ZBA should be looking at. The ZBA would like to have staff work up some ideas and discuss them at this meeting. Chairman Howard and the Commission were in favor of the proposed meeting. Mr. Giner will send a reminder indicating the July 25, 2002 meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Giner stated there was some discussion about the light office uses being a part of Hazardville. Mr. Giner also has someone interested in purchasing Dr. Kalva's chiropractic office on Elm Street and installing a similar use. He doesn't want to have to live there and he may be applying for one light office use on Elm Street. Mr. Giner questioned if the Commission wanted to review the entire Elm Street area or only hear this one application. Following a brief discussion, the consensus of the Commission was to hear this one application only.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission has been requiring digital plans to be submitted at the time that the mylars are submitted. It was pointed out to Mr. Giner by Public Works during the review of the elementary schools that it would make a lot more sense to require the digitized plans at the time of as built. Many times there are minor changes to the plans and what is received when the mylars are submitted may not be the same as the as built plans. Mr. Giner will pursue this change and request that the schools prepare the digital plans after the as builts in order for the town to have an exact record. Instead of requiring the plans before the permits are issued, for future applications they would be required after the certificates of occupancy are issued. Chairman Howard would like documentation so that there is a notation whenever there is an approved deviation to the original plan. Commissioner Egan asked if the approval would be reflected on the as builts. Mr. Giner stated that he can require that any changes from the original plan be noted on the as built. Following further discussion, Mr. Giner stated this will require a regulation change. He will advertise it and bring it back with other change requests at a later date.
Mr. Giner reported the public hearing for the outdoor dining amendment to the ordinance will be on the next Commission agenda. The applicant would like to submit a concurrent application in case the amendment is approved so that it can go forward the same evening. Normally the procedure is to wait until the amendment is adopted. Chairman Howard stated this matter was initiated in March. Other Commissioners noted the fifteen-day appeal period required after any amendment is approved.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Howard reported receipt of a notification from the Town of Longmeadow about the Mobil Gas Station.
COMMISSIONERS' CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Howard reported receipt of information on signs for the schools with a request for approval by this Commission. Commissioners discussed individual school signs. Chairman Howard noted the Harriet Beecher Stowe sign and the fact that there should be some uniformity among these signs.
Commissioner Duren's opinion was if the town's citizens have to obey the sign permit requirements, the local government should also. The proper procedures were not followed and the signs were just installed. Commissioner DiPace stated if the signs were not properly approved by the town staff or the Commission, then these signs should be removed. Commissioner Duren further noted that some of these signs may have been on the original plans. Chairman Howard directed Mr. Giner to have these signs reviewed to see what signs have been authorized. Mr. Giner will have Mr. Alsbaugh submit a report to this Commission regarding the status of all elementary school signs.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued from June 20, 2002
a. PH#2312 - Application for a Resubdivision to create a separate 1.06 acre lot for an existing house, a Parcel 9F (not a building lot) 7.788 acres, and a Parcel 9G (not a building lot) 4.078 acres, as part of an estate settlement for property zoned Residential 44, located at 52 South Road, Assessor's Map 73, Lot 94, Debra Schlatz, Applicant, Estate of Edward Sidor, owner.
Commissioner Lefakis withdrew from this public hearing since he was not present at the first public hearing session. Alternate Joseph Jednak will be the voting Alternate.
Penny Urbanowitz appeared before the Commission along with Debra Schlatz regarding this application.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission had requested that he ask the Town Attorney about the issue of whether the interpretation that was discussed regarding the subdivision of land not being exempt was correct. Mr. Giner stated the Assistant Town Attorney informed him if there is consideration involved, they are not exempt even though it may be an immediate family member. The Commission requested an appraisal to determine what the figures would be and suggest some way of apportioning that should the open space be waived again. Mr. Giner stated the land value used in the appraisal was that the six acres of tillable land were appraised at $10,000 per acre. Mr. Giner took the acreage of that property along with the acreage of the Zarcaro property. The calculation was the four and one-half acres of land at $10,000 per acre which is $45,000 added to the value of the property without the house on it since state statutes require pre-development costs. The seven acres that Mr. Giner accessed from the current application calculated to a value of $70,000. The five acres of wetlands existing on the property were an extra $2,000 per acre or $10,000. Added to that would be the $45,000 value of the Zarcaro parcel. The total value is $125,140 which is the face value of the pre-development value of the property based on the April, 2000 appraisal. Mr. Giner stated that would be divided among the undeveloped lots. You could split that value down the middle and it would be $6,027 per lot or you could determine the cost based on the amount of wetlands on the property. If it was prorated by developable land, lot 9F would be $5,081 and lot 9G would be $7,433. Mr. Giner stated he has included these prorated amounts in the possible conditions of approval.
Mr. Giner stated the issue before the Commission is whether they want the open space now or at some future date.
Commissioner Duren stated he doesn't mind putting the open space off again. This is a family estate settlement and he does not see them making any money. He felt it would be proper to assess each lot if they should sell and develop at a later date.
Commissioner Egan stated he would agree with the postponing of the open space requirement because it was stated that it is going to remain open space anyway. He noted the property may never get developed.
Commissioner Duren requested that the applicants be provided with the map delineating the open space requirements should the land be developed.
Mr. Giner stated there was a request to waive sidewalks and this area is a heavily traveled one. If the Commission decides to waive sidewalks at this time, Mr. Giner suggested a note be added to the plans that if there is a subsequent development, that sidewalks are provided due to the proximity of the school. Condition #2 addresses the sidewalk issue.
Ms. Urbanowitz stated they are in agreement with what is being suggested tonight. They have no plans for any development at this time.
Chairman Howard opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Commissioner DiPace asked for a confirmation that if this property changes owners, that information will be on the Land Records regarding future development. Mr. Giner stated the conditions will be filed on the Land Records. Any subsequent owners would be on notice of their obligations regarding open space.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DiPace, to approve PH #2312 - Application for a Resubdivision to create a separate 1.06 acre lot for an existing house, a Parcel 9F (not a building lot) 7.788 acres, and a Parcel 9G (not a building lot) 4.078 acres, as part of an estate settlement for property zoned Residential 44, located at 52 South Road, Assessor's Map 73, Lot 94, Debra Schlatz, Applicant, Estate of Edward Sidor, owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans, as may be required to be modified by this motion, and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
"Resubdivision Plan, Prepared for the Settlement of the Estate of Edward Sidor, #52 South Road, Enfield, CT." Scale 1"=50' Sheet No. 1 of 1, by William W. Symonds, Sr., land Surveying, dated Jan 11, 2002 and revised to May 7, 2002.
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. That a note be placed on the mylars submitted for filing on the land records that "The requirement for sidewalks has been waived for this application only. Any subsequent resubdivision or development of the parcels shall require the construction of sidewalks along the South Road frontage in accordance with the Enfield Subdivision Regulations.
3. That the final mylar contain the following language to be located within the bounds of Parcel 9F: "This parcel is subject to a fee in-lieu of open space equal to $5,081 which will be due to the Town of Enfield upon the subsequent development of the property."
4. That the final mylar contain the following language to be located within the bounds of Parcel 9G: "This parcel is subject to a fee in-lieu of open space equal to $7,433 which will be due to the Town of Enfield upon the subsequent development of the property."
5. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this approval shall either be incorporated onto the mylars submitted for signature or filed separately on the land records of the property.
6. The Public Hearing file number "PH 2312" shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheet either in the title block or in the area around it.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
7. Two sets 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.
8. Signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk no later than ninety (90) days from the expiration of the appeal period or this approval shall be null and void. The applicants shall provide such mylars to the Planning Department sufficiently in advance of this deadline to allow for review of the plans and the arrangement for the Commission Secretary to sign the mylars. The applicant may request an extension of the filing deadline in accordance with Section 8-25 of the CT. General Statutes. Any extension requests must be received in time to allow the Commission to act on them before the original deadline expires.
General Conditions:
9. This approval is for the expressed purpose of settling an estate. No new building lots are created other than the one containing an existing home. Any subsequent development on the parcels shown as "9F" and "9G" must obtain approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Jednak voting in place of Commissioner Lefakis.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2314 - Application for a Resubdivision to create a 4.12 acre (+/-) lot for industrial development off an existing 18.76 acre parcel located off Mullen Road in an Industrial 1 (I-1) District, Map 16, Lot 3, Glassworks Ltd., Applicant/Owner.
Frank Borawski appeared before the Commission representing Glassworks Ltd. for this resubdivision. He stated it is a simple split off of the one lot off the main parcel. It was recommended by staff that the open space be designated at the bottom of the parcel and treated as a conservation easement. Mr. Borawski stated the applicant is in agreement with this recommendation.
Mr. Borawski stated one issue was the Engineering Department requested information about future development of the large parcel. The other parcel that is being split off is in front of the Commission as a separate application. Mr. Borawski stated they are not planning to do anything with the larger parcel at this time. To try to create a large detention basin to handle the proposed future maximum development of this parcel would not be a good thing to do at this time because the parcel may be split further into smaller parcels at a later date. To try to combine detention basins with multiple users is not a good practice for the owner or for people who may purchase these lots. Mr. Borawski asked for a simple subdivision and to let the other lot be developed as shown on the plan before the Commission on the agenda later on this evening.
Commissioner Duren noted the absence of location maps for this application. Mr. Giner stated there is a subsequent application, SPR#1173, and that information includes the location map.
Mr. Giner added the open space recommendation was made by the applicant and agreed to by the town staff. This is one of the options allowable under the town's Subdivision Regulations for passive recreation. Mr. Giner was not sure there is any open space land in this area that the town would want to own.
Commissioner DiPace noted the possibilities for open space and the fact that the Commission can choose which is the most appropriate and in the town's best interests.
Mr. Giner stated this is an industrial subdivision rather than residential. The regulations say the Commission shall determine the manner in which the open space is conveyed. The options include a conservation easement, both passive, with no public access required, or active with public access granted. The Commission would be granted an easement to make sure the property stays open space. The ownership and liability would stay with the property owner.
Commissioner DiPace questioned if there was a parcel of significant value that the town would want for passive recreation. Mr. Borawski stated it is industrial land and it will be developed as an industrial building. Mr. Giner stated the property adjacent to this property to the south is also zoned industrial. The farmland to the east is also totally zoned industrial. Mr. Giner presented a map showing the location of this property and responded to a question from Commissioner DiPace that the property is quite a distance from East Windsor.
Chairman Howard opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Howard closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2314 - Application for a Resubdivision to create a 4.12 acre (+/-) lot for industrial development with the proposed conservation easement of an existing 18.76 acre parcel located off Mullen Road in an Industrial 1 (I-1) District, Map 16, Lot 3, Glassworks Ltd., Applicant/Owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans, as may be required to be modified by this motion, and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
"Glassworks Limited Mullen Road,, Enfield, Connecticut, Property Resubdivision Plan." Sheet C-100 Scale 1"=60', by Borawski Engineering, revised to 6-28-02 and certified on 7/01/02.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Mylars:
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. That the final mylar contain language identifying the Open Space as an easement in favor of the Town of Enfield with the responsibility for maintenance and liability to remain with the property owner.
3. The easement documents shall be submitted, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney.
4. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this approval shall either be incorporated onto the mylars submitted for signature or filed separately on the land records of the property.
5. The Public Hearing file number "PH 2314" shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheet either in the title block or in the area around it.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
6. Two sets 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.
7. Signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk no later than ninety (90) days from the expiration of the appeal period or this approval shall be null and void. The applicants shall provide such mylars to the Planning Department sufficiently in advance of this deadline to allow for review of the plans and the arrangement for the Commission Secretary to sign the mylars. The applicant may request an extension of the filing deadline in accordance with Section 8-25 of the CT. General Statutes. Any extension requests must be received in time to allow the Commission to act on them before the original deadline expires.
General Conditions:
8. 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.
9. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
Commissioner DiPace led some discussion agreeing with the conservation easement suggested by the applicant.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
b. PH#2325 - Application for a Special Use Permit for a division of merged lots under Section 3.20.2 of the Zoning Regulations to create two building lots of 6,000 square feet each on property south of 2 Westford Avenue in a Residential-33 District, Map 39, Lots 28 and 29, Joann Bennici, Applicant/Owner.
Carm Reale, 15 Ryefield Drive, and John Bennici, 48 Edgewood Drive, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Commissioner Duren stated the maps presented are not clear as to which properties are being subdivided and where the property lines are going to be. Mr. Bennici pointed out on the map the two properties proposed to be subdivided.
Mr. Giner stated he met with Phyllis Demers who could not be present this evening. She spoke to Mr. Giner about this application and he had the map revised. There is currently an existing house which has 100' of frontage. The parcel is 100' x 100' and is owned by the same family but not the exact same ownership as the adjoining piece of land which is the remainder. They came in for an unmerging and when they did the neighborhood analysis, they had the necessary area but not the necessary frontage. They came up with only 50' of frontage which did not meet the median and was not within the ten percent variation allowed. Since it was the same family, Mr. Giner suggested Ms. Demers go back and see if she could obtain 40' from the existing house at 2 Westford and she did so. There are two new lots proposed. The existing lot would be cut back by 20' and the new lots would more than conform to the median. There is an exchange of property involved and giving more property to the same family.
Commissioner Duren asked about the two lines through Parcel C. Mr. Giner stated those lines are the original subdivision lots of record. There were eight lots of record, four for each lot, that were merged. The house was built on four of those lots. With the new lots, they can come in with the 60' frontage which is still not the median but the regulations do allow a ten percent reduction.
Commissioner Duren stated the requirement is a 500' radius of the area. Mr. Giner stated the 500' neighborhood requirement is not a radius. It has always been the 500' of the developed lots that front on the road that is being developed. He noted Westford is a short road and you could have something within 500' on the other side that is totally different.
Mr. Giner stated the house property is currently 100' x 100' and there is a remaining piece of land that is 100' x 100'. The abutting lot is giving 20' of frontage to the adjacent lot which will increase the frontage of the two lots by 10' each.
Mr. Giner stated the proposal is for a division of the merged lots. He discussed the history of such parcels which had many lots when formed in the 1920's.
Mr. Bennici stated the building lots used to be 50' x 50' in the area when first developed. Mr. Giner stated the neighborhood analysis has been that you take the developed lots on the street and take the median of those lots with an allowable deviation of ten percent. The proposed lot areas more than meet the median. The frontage on the existing house exceeds the median and the two new lots would have 60' frontage or a ten percent deviation.
Chairman Howard questioned why this is being done. Commissioner DiPace felt this should have been a subdivision rather than unmerging of lots. He stated the unmerger is when you take the lot lines that were there originally and you unmerge those lots from the ones they are attached to. By shifting the lines over, Commissioner DiPace felt this would be a new subdivision.
Mr. Giner stated the definition of subdivision according to state statutes is the separation of property into three or more lots. The applicant now has two lots and they are trying to get three lots. They are creating two new building lots. Mr. Giner stated the applicant has one lot and a piece of property. They could do a property transfer without having to come for subdivision or resubdivision as long as they do not create a new lot. This lot is creating two new building lots and is technically not a subdivision. There is a lot line change as part of the application but it would still be taking merged lots of record, splitting them and taking one lot and making two.
Commissioner DiPace discussed past practice where applicants would go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance on lot frontage to 50'. Mr. Giner stated in the past ZBA has approved variances for this section and this Commission has denied the application when it came before them. Mr. Giner stated the family owned the adjacent lot and he suggested the transfer of 20' of frontage to make the lots conform. Mr. Bennici stated it is a hardship because of his mother's fixed income from Social Security. If she can get as much as she can for the lots, it will help her. Mr. Bennici stated she has paid taxes on three lots for many years. Mr. Giner and Commission members noted the hardship would have to go with the property and not with the person.
Ms. Reale asked if the lots could go to 50' x 100'. Chairman Howard stated there would have to be another application. Mr. Giner stated they would have to reapply to the Zoning Board of Appeals and a variance would have to be granted. Chairman Howard was in favor of the option being presented this evening. The other option is an uncertainty. Following additional discussion on whether to go to ZBA or proceed this evening, Mr. Giner explained these options were presented to the applicant previously. The applicant decided to stay with this original application.
Chairman Howard opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Howard closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2325 - Application for a Special Use Permit for a division of merged lots under Section 3.20.2 of the Zoning Regulations to create two building lots of 6,000 square feet each on property south of 2 Westford Avenue, in a Residential-33 District, Map 39, Lots 28 and 29, Joann Bennici, Applicant/Owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans, as may be required to be modified by this motion, and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
"Special Use Map, prepared for Frank D. Legienza, Roy Street and Booth Road, Enfield, Connecticut." Sheet l, Scale l" = 20', by Dennis G. Rehmer, dated June 30, 1999.
Conditions to be met prior to signing of mylars:
1. All mylars submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of plans.
2. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
3. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land Records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
4. Two sets of final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted for signature to the Commission. One set of signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk and one set shall be retained by the Planning Department.
Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of a Zoning Certificate of Compliance:
5. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
6. No certificates of compliance shall be issued until the Enfield Water Pollution Control Authority has inspected and approved the sewer connection for the project.
General Conditions:
7. This application is not a subdivision or resubdivision as defined by regulation.
8. 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.
9. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DiPace, to recess. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 9:12 p.m.
c. PH#2313 - Application for Special Use Permit/Site Plan Review for Shaker Recreation Area, Phase II athletic field improvements, to include: three new soccer fields, new gravel parking area, new nature trails (including boardwalks), at site of existing Shaker Soccer Field Recreation Area, Zoned I-1, Map 99, Lot 13, Town of Enfield, applicant/owner.
Assistant Town Manager Dan Vindigni and David Dixon from Milone and MacBroom appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Vindigni stated this is one of several projects the town is looking to include in a recreation referendum to be held in November. They have not yet completed the wetland application process but wanted to try to get the permit process completed so that when the Council meets at the end of August, they will be able to set the referendum questions.
Mr. Vindigni stated they have had two public hearing sessions before the Wetlands Commission and they are hoping for a vote at their July 16, 2002 meeting.
Mr. Vindigni stated Milone and MacBroom is the contracted firm that is developing this project. Before the Commission tonight is the original site plan plus several alternates that have been developed based on feedback received from Council members and agents from the Wetlands Commission.
Mr. Dixon, a licensed landscape architect and Senior Project Manager with the firm Milone and MacBroom, Cheshire, Connecticut and Jennifer Carrier, Traffic Engineer made a presentation regarding the proposed plans.
Mr. Dixon stated the site is approximately 36.5 acres in an I-1 zone. About 19 acres of the total site are wetlands and 17% is upland. The site is bordered by the prison property to the east and north, by Lego to the south and by the State of Connecticut railroad property to the west. The existing park has a paved parking lot, three soccer fields, a concession building and two storm water management ponds in the front of the site.
Mr. Dixon reviewed the original approved plan from 1994. At that time, the Conservation Commission reviewed and approved the plan and it then moved to this Commission which approved it. What was approved in 1994 was for the most part what was built. There is a paved parking lot, a concession building, and a paved entrance drive with a curb cut located near the northwest corner of the property. The 1994 plan was a phased plan and all six fields were on this plan and were approved. However, Phase I of the project consisted of the two larger soccer fields in a north/south orientation. The remaining four fields were intended to be built at some point in the future. In the process of doing the earth work for the construction of these two fields, an area just to the south of these two fields was graded off. Mr. Dixon stated what occurred is there is actually a third field there now and he showed the location on a map before the Commission.
Mr. Dixon stated the two larger fields are irrigated and the third field is not. It is the intent that eventually there would be not only that additional third field formalized but also three additional fields.
Commissioner Duren asked if the field near the parking lot is a smaller field. Mr. Dixon stated that is correct and what was built was a smaller field. Mr. Dixon stated utilizing the plan, he does not understand why one of the original two fields may have been downsized.
Mr. Dixon distributed an 11"x17" plan of tonight's proposal to the Commission for their information.
Mr. Dixon stated in 1991 there was a town wide recreational needs assessment and a master plan was developed for all the facilities in the town. What was proposed as a result of their analysis regarding the Shaker Road property was at a minimum the addition of two more soccer fields, additional parking associated with those fields and a wetland nature trail system throughout the park. The original plan showed the trail as a component of phase two of this park.
Mr. Dixon stated what is being proposed tonight is the addition of three fields. The existing field three shown on the plans needs to move over a little to the east in order to accommodate field number four. Mr. Dixon noted while field three is an existing field, it doesn't have the infrastructure formalized. Field number five would be the field that was in the original proposal and field number six was not part of the original approval. Field six is proposed to go in a location just south of field number five. To get to field number six, there would be a need to cross a small portion of wetlands. They would do so using a prefabricated bridge, concrete wing walls and a thirty to forty foot long, ten-foot wide structure . There would also be an emergency vehicle access drive that would be gated and would provide access down to field number six in the event that need is ever required.
Mr. Dixon stated there is also a trail system that is proposed in the upland areas. It would be stone dust and where it crosses the wetlands, it would be a boardwalk. The existing wetland is a wet meadow and not standing water. As a result, this boardwalk would probably not exceed two feet in elevation from the surface of the walking area to the actual wetland. In addition, with the fields, they needed to come up with additional parking. What they propose doing to achieve that is to expand the existing paved parking lot, formalize it and square it off. In doing this, they are able to extend the existing island out forty to fifty feet and add additional parking spaces.
Mr. Dixon stated a new gravel parking lot is proposed 400' to 500' down the road from the existing curb cut. The reason for the gravel parking lot is the proximity to the wetlands. The gravel would permit some permeability of the storm flows. The first 40' to 50' of the curb cut would be paved and then it would transition into gravel. Additionally, they have proposed mitigation plantings and new shade trees due to a lack of existing landscaping. There will also be the creation of a wetland buffer and mitigation plantings along the edges. Also proposed is the introduction of a timber guardrail along the entire frontage from curb cut to curb cut. Mr. Dixon stated parking in a parallel fashion has occurred over the years in an unsafe manner along the entire frontage. This is not due to a lack of parking but due to ease of access. They have proposed blocking that area off along the frontage.
Mr. Dixon stated regarding engineering, the site is so flat that it was going to be a struggle to get any additional detention. They obtained the original engineering report prepared by Mark Friend. They reviewed his calculations and he had sized his basins to accommodate the entire development of phase one or all of the fields. Mr. Dixon stated they performed an analysis on the site again and arrived at the same conclusion. They believe there is adequate detention to handle any increased storm flows on the site.
Mr. Dixon stated they wanted to make sure that the location of the new curb cut did not interfere with something that was existing. Jennifer Carrier reported to the Commission on the results of the traffic study.
Jennifer Carrier, a transportation engineer with Milone and MacBroom, distributed a memo to the Commission from Robert Bass of their office entitled Traffic Study dated July 11, 2002 re: Shaker Recreation Study, Shaker Road. She noted they have studied the traffic circulation. Shaker Road is north of the site and is approximately 28' to 30' wide and provides two lanes of travel, one in each direction, and there are shoulders. Immediately west of the driveway, there's an at-grade railroad crossing that is inactive. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour and 85% of the traffic travels at or below 51.5 miles per hour traveling east bound and 49.8 miles per hour traveling west bound. The average daily traffic volumes from the Connecticut Department of Transportation for Route 220 indicate there are 10,400 vehicles on that road on a daily basis. The existing driveway is stop sign controlled. To the north and the east of the existing driveway, there is some existing metal beam rail. They have noticed it has been damaged and it looks like the turning radius to that site presently is inadequate.
Ms. Carrier stated they are proposing an additional curb cut east of the existing one. Passing is permitted along Shaker Road and it begins approximately 340' east of the existing driveway and it ends approximately 410' east of the proposed driveway. The Connecticut Department of Transportation publishes guidelines when addressing intersection site line distances. They used the 85% speed at this location and the intersection site distances exceed the minimum for the state or are well in excess of 700'. That is measured fifteen feet back from the edge of pavement.
Ms. Carrier stated they are recommending modification of the existing passing zone along Shaker Road. This will need to be coordinated with the Connecticut Department of Transportation district office because it is a state road. They feel in combination with that, a lot of people are parking on Route 220 off to the side. The installation of the proposed reinforced timber guardrails and the improvement to the northeast corner radius of the existing driveway is recommended. They will also modify the existing metal beam rail. They are also recommending relocating the existing stop sign closer to Shaker Road and installing a stop bar and a short segment of a double yellow line. The new proposed driveway will be striped and signed.
Mr. Dixon stated they have developed three alternate plans at the request of the Conservation Commission. These would be considered feasible and prudent alternatives to minimize or negate and mitigate activities within the upland review area or actual direct wetland impacts.
Mr. Dixon stated usually this Commission would not see the alternate plans but because they are before the Commission prior to the Conservation Commission closing their public hearing and voting on this project, they are still possibilities. Mr. Dixon presented the various alternatives and described each of them.
Mr. Dixon stated Alternate A would eliminate field #6, the field across the wetlands, and all wetland and boardwalk crossings as well as the emergency vehicle drive and the prefabricated bridge. Alternate B eliminates field #6 but the boardwalk remains. Alternate C eliminates the boardwalk but keeps field #6. Each plan has an associated reduction of wetland and regulated activity associated with them.
Mr. Dixon noted since making their original submission to the Conservation Commission, they have presented two options. Mr. Dixon distributed copies of those. One option shows an optional vegetative filter detail to further mitigate any runoff from the gravel parking lot in the direction of the wetlands. A second option shows an optional playground area. Because there is not a safe location for a playground in the immediate area, if they wanted to locate one, they would have to do so in a small area of upland surrounded by wetlands. There would be a split rail fence or similar option surrounding that playground.
Mr. Dixon reported they received staff comments from Engineering only. John Cabbibo outlined four items requested. He is looking for additional details on the boardwalk and the pedestrian bridge. He would like to see the detail for the proposed gravel driveway and the parking lot revised so that the gravel base could act as a sub base in the event that the town decides to pave that area. Also, the walks need to be modified to meet town standards and some spot grades should be added at the new curb cut to insure that the storm water generated on Shaker Road does not have the ability to flow directly into the gravel parking lot. Mr. Dixon stated they have no problem addressing those concerns and the necessary changes will be made to the plans.
Commissioner Egan stated with relation to the detention ponds and the existing ponds, there have been some concerns about safety and the possibility of children getting into those ponds. He asked if that has been addressed. Mr. Dixon stated it has not. Mr. Dixon stated they have not proposed any new detention basins. Those have been there since 1994 without any type of protection. If the Commission would like that addressed, they would have to look at how they can do it tastefully. They would like to enhance the area with additional landscaping because of the beauty of the site. Commissioner Egan asked that this be addressed.
Commissioner Weseliza asked about the striping of the gravel parking lot. Ms. Carrier stated there will be a bituminous apron the first fifty feet and they will probably stripe twenty-five to fifty feet and put in a stop bar. Mr. Dixon stated they have included concrete end islands and it will be readily evident when you enter the site how people should park.
Mr. Dixon noted the handicapped parking spaces are in the front and will be signed.
Chairman Howard opened this hearing to the public.
Walter and Casimer Kruzel of Peerless Tool located just down the street spoke regarding this application. Walter Kruzel stated they travel this section of road daily. He discussed the present soccer field site noting that the parking is not sufficient. With the addition of three to four soccer fields, he questioned if there will be enough parking. He felt it seems like the people that presently park on Shaker Road will park in the new parking lot. Mr. Kruzel questioned if proper studies were done about turn off lanes to access these parking lots. He noted Route 220 is a four-lane road up to North Maple Street. What they would like to see is a widening all the way up to the prison due to the heavy traffic in the area. He asked if that could be considered.
Casimer Kruzel added at the top of the hill Route 220 goes in three different directions. The present area of Shaker Road is very narrow and is a heavily traveled road. He questioned why the widening that was done stopped before the area of Lego and the prison and he noted this is an opportunity to widen the road.
Walter Kruzel stated they are not against the fields and they both like them. They are concerned about the job being done right. Casimer Kruzel added the plans do not include turn-off lanes for this site.
Mr. Dixon addressed the question about whether there is sufficient parking on the site. They currently have 100 parking spaces and the proposed plan would double the parking to just under 200 parking spaces on the site. When it comes to distribution of parking for park facilities, there are no guidelines that indicate how many parking places per field are required. The number they shoot for based upon experience is 30 to 35 spaces per field. What has to go along with that proposal is the Recreation Department needs to schedule the use of the fields to permit some down time between scheduled games. They also believe that the elimination of the parking along Shaker Road is going to improve the safety of the site.
Ms. Carrier stated she has not looked at any accident patterns along Route 220 and she will look into the accident history to determine if there is a significant problem and if a turning lane or some widening is needed. Ms. Carrier stressed a lot of the ball fields are generating traffic off peak. When they do traffic counts, they look at peak hours. The games will be scheduled between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m. A lot of the traffic conflicts usually seen during peak periods will not be present during this off peak time.
Ms. Carrier stated this project does not meet State Traffic Commission requirements for determination. They will be working closely with the district. The rail they are proposing on Route 220 will be within the state right of way and they will also be coordinating that with the state. They will also discuss the restriping for passing in this area. Passing is permitted in front of the proposed site driveway now and there is some speed going on. They could install additional signage and will look at this.
Chairman Howard asked about the turn-off lane and if it is a possibility. Ms. Carrier stated for the most easterly drive because of the way people parked, it is already worn down. She stated the possibility may exist. She felt the advanced signing may be mitigating at first and then if it becomes a problem or accident history shows the need, then they can look into doing some widening.
Chairman Howard questioned where the overflow parking would be located. Mr. Dixon stated he has not been at the site when they are parking along the road. He questioned if such parking is because of a lack of parking or because of convenience.
Mr. Dixon stated the indications they are receiving from the Conservation Commission are that they seem to like Alternate #1. This will eliminate field #6 and the boardwalk and nature trails. They would then be at almost forty parking spaces per field.
Commissioner Cooper brought up the huge soccer tournament held in town in the fall. He questioned what will happen regarding parking during this event. Mr. Vindigni stated in the proposal, there is no parking allowed on both sides of Shaker Road. Regarding the tournament, they have used abutters in the past for alternate parking. This is something that has to be worked out with the Soccer Association and it only occurs once a year. They would look at alternate parking sites and whether or not they need to look at some form of shuttle for off-site parking.
Chairman Howard continued this public hearing to the July 25, 2002 meeting.
d. PH #2316/ FLD #014 - Application for a Special Use Permit at 170 Elm Street to install 4 light poles at the little league ballpark that is located at Asnuntuck Community College at 170 Elm Street, Zoned R-44, Map 57, Lot 315, Town of Enfield & Thompsonville Little League, applicants / Town of Enfield, owner.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to accept the withdrawal of PH#2316 without prejudice. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
OLD BUSINESS
a. PH #2310 - Application for a Special Use Permit to allow the construction of an auto dealership with related site work at property located in a Business General (BG) District at 140-148 Elm Street, Map 57, Lots 322, 324, 326, 327 and 328, LIA Auto Group applicant/owner.
Commissioner Duren withdrew from this application as he did not participate in the previous hearings. Commissioner Cooper will be voting alternate for this application.
Commissioner Egan stated based upon the provisions of the special use permit section of the zoning regulations, the permit can be denied based upon it not fitting in with the character of the neighborhood. There is a residential neighborhood across the street and Commissioner Egan noted this type of facility will be intrusive to the neighbors. An automobile dealership gets their business from high visibility and the design of this building is to attract attention. This conflicts with the character of the neighborhood and the residents. Commissioner Egan also does not think this meets the intent of the Plan of Conservation and Development. There were meetings with the neighbors on Elm Street in the past and discussions took place regarding future development. The suggestions are incorporated in the Plan of Conservation and Development. Residents were looking for a prudent and smart approach to the development of this area. Commissioner Egan does not feel this complies with the provisions and with the input received by the neighbors. Commissioner Egan stated the Commission heard from a neighbor who has resided in the area for forty-seven years and he indicated when Palomba Drive was designated as the area for automobile dealerships. This was also noted in the old plan of development for the town as well as there would be no further retail or shopping malls past where the Big Y is located. Locating this dealership on Elm Street is in conflict with these dealerships being confined to certain areas. Commissioner Egan noted the alternative of locating on Palomba Drive and he expressed his opposition to this application.
Chairman Howard questioned what will go at this location if the dealership does not locate there. The applicant has already purchased the property and they have agreed to address every item suggested by the Commission. There won't be any off loading on the road. Chairman Howard stated he never did agree with the back entrance but he conceded it is perhaps the only alternative. He also noted this use does connect to other car dealerships.
Commissioner Egan stated there are other uses that could locate here that would be less intrusive to the neighborhood. This type of business is known for its visibility and attracting people to the dealership. This is not conducive to the residents. He felt it is about time this Commission and the town gives the residents some consideration. Commissioner Egan stated something could locate on this site that will not have 85 cars and balloons on the site. He noted the applicant removed all the trees before coming to this Commission and before getting a permit and there might have been a way to resolve the situation. Commissioner Egan felt it was time for this Commission to represent all of the people of this town and not only the businesses.
Commissioner DiPace brought up the point by Commissioner Egan that before this application came to the Commission, the owners leveled the site. He discussed other projects that have left mature trees and the building occurred around them. Commissioner DiPace felt in the future the Commission should take action to get these people to come to discuss their plans prior to taking action.
Mr. Giner stated the regulations do not prevent someone from cutting trees on their property. They encourage people to retain mature trees and give credit for the landscaping. However, the only trees that are inspected at this time are those located in the public right of way.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve to approve PH #2310 - Application for a Special Use Permit to allow the construction of an auto dealership with related site work at property located in a Business General (BG) District at 140-148 Elm Street, Map 57, Lots 322, 324, 326, 327 and 328, LIA Auto Group applicant/owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans, as may be required to be modified by this motion, and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
"LIA Auto Group 140-148 Elm Street Enfield, Connecticut" Drawing Index and Location Map, Owner/Applicant LIA Auto Group P.O. Box 5789, Albany, NY 12205-0789, by J.R. Russo & Associates, Dated Rev. 6-6-02.
"Property Survey, LIA Auto Group , 140-148 Elm Street Enfield, Connecticut , Prepared For: LIA Auto Group P.O. Box 5789, Albany, NY" Sheet 2 of 10, Scale 1"=40', by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 4-10-02, revised to 06-06-02
"Site Layout Plan, LIA Auto Group , 140-148 Elm Street Enfield, Connecticut , Prepared For: LIA Auto Group P.O. Box 5789, Albany, NY" Sheet 3 of 10, Scale 1"=40', by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 4-10-02, revised to 06-06-02.
"Site Grading & Erosion Control Plan, LIA Auto Group , 140-148 Elm Street Enfield, Connecticut , Prepared For: LIA Auto Group P.O. Box 5789, Albany, NY" Sheet 4 of 10, Scale 1"=40', by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 4-10-02, revised to 06-06-02
"Site Utility Plan, LIA Auto Group , 140-148 Elm Street Enfield, Connecticut , Prepared For: LIA Auto Group P.O. Box 5789, Albany, NY" Sheet 5 of 10, Scale 1"=40', by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 4-10-02, revised to 06-06-02
"Landscape & Lighting Plan, LIA Auto Group , 140-148 Elm Street Enfield, Connecticut , Prepared For: LIA Auto Group P.O. Box 5789, Albany, NY" Sheet 6 of 10, Scale 1"=40', by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 4-10-02, revised to 06-06-02.
"Erosion & Sediment Control Notes, LIA Auto Group , 140-148 Elm Street Enfield, Connecticut , Prepared For: LIA Auto Group P.O. Box 5789, Albany, NY" Sheet 7 of 10, Scale: "As Shown", by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 4-10-02, revised to 06-06-02
"Detail Sheet, LIA Auto Group , 140-148 Elm Street Enfield, Connecticut , Prepared For: LIA Auto Group P.O. Box 5789, Albany, NY" Sheet 8 of 10, Scale: "As Shown", by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 4-10-02, revised to 06-06-02
"Detail Sheet, LIA Auto Group , 140-148 Elm Street Enfield, Connecticut , Prepared For: LIA Auto Group P.O. Box 5789, Albany, NY" Sheet 9 of 10, Scale: "As Shown", by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 4-10-02, revised to 06-06-02
"Detail Sheet, LIA Auto Group , 140-148 Elm Street Enfield, Connecticut , Prepared For: LIA Auto Group P.O. Box 5789, Albany, NY" Sheet 10 of 10, Scale: "As Shown", by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 4-10-02, revised to 06-06-02.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Mylars and Certificate:
1. All mylars submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
2. The detail for the walks proposed along Elm Street shall be revised to meet the new Town Subdivision Standards for walks. The walks should be 5 feet wide with a 8" depth of processed stone base, not "or bank run gravel" and the expansion joints should be placed every 20 feet on center.
3. The detail for the proposed pavement shall be revised to have the processed aggregate base increased to 8" depth to match the detail section for the permanent pavement patch.
4. On the erosion control plan, the silt fencing shall be shown extending north along the east property line just past where the proposed regrading is shown.
5. The final mylars shall show a raised island to deter left turning movements into and out of the driveway on Elm Street. The detail for the island shall be approved by the Town Engineer prior to the signing of the mylars.
6. Driveway access easements between this property and the one along the southern boundary line shall be indicated on the plans and the language of such easements shall be submitted for review and approval.
7. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
8. The Public Hearing file number "PH 2310" shall be displayed prominently on all final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
9. The conditions of this approval shall be incorporated onto the final mylars submitted.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
10. 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. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit to the Planning Director, final plans as approved by the Commission in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
11. 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. These conditions shall also be filed on the Land records of the property located to the south of this parcel (10 Palomba Drive).
12. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
13. The applicant shall post a bond for Site improvements in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney.
14. A Separate Erosion and Sediment Control Bond shall be submitted in the form of a passbook, pledged to the Town, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
15. A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
16. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
17. All traffic safety signage shall be installed prior to the issuance of the certificate of zoning compliance.
18. There shall be no parking, loading or unloading of car carriers along any public right of way at any time.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. A building permit for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained by July 11, 2003 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
22. 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 6 - 1 - 0 vote. Commissioner Egan voted nay.
BOND RELEASES
1. PH #2085 - Request for release by Konover for Erosion & Sediment Control in the amount of $840, Engineering in the amount of $75,100, and Landscaping in the amount of $23,010 for TGI Friday's Restaurant on Elm Street.
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DiPace, to approve the release of the Erosion and Sediment Control bond in the amount of $840, the landscaping bond in the amount of $23,010 and the Engineering Bond in the amount of $75,100 for PH#2085, TGI Friday's, Elm Street.
Commissioner Lefakis noted a couple of the evergreens behind TGI Friday's Restaurant are dead and some of the shrubs facing Freshwater look like they are under stress. He would not vote to release the landscaping bond.
Stan Glantz, Konover Development Corporation, 16 Munson Road, Farmington, Connecticut addressed Commissioner Lefakis' comment. They walked the site with Jay Northrup and addressed those evergreen trees and they have been replaced along with additional plantings. Mr. Konover noted Mr. Northrup should have sent correspondence to the Commission indicating that. They replaced at least six evergreens within the last two weeks. Commissioner Lefakis stated these plantings should have received more water with the hot weather because some of them are wilted. Mr. Glantz stated most of the plants have been there for over a year and they are being subjected to a current dry spell.
Chairman Howard stated if this bond is released tonight, the applicant has agreed to address the current landscaping. Commissioner DiPace suggested holding ten percent of the landscaping bond to address any replanting. Mr. Giner stated holding the landscaping bond for a year is in lieu of requiring a maintenance bond.
Mr. Giner stated the property has to be maintained and if the trees do die, the town can issue a cease and desist. Commissioner Egan was against using town legal staff and funds to get applicants to do what they are supposed to do.
Following further discussion, the bond release was approved by a 5 - 2 - 0 vote. Commissioners Egan and Lefakis voted nay.
2. PH #2228 - Request for release by Konover for Erosion & Sediment Control in the amount of $1,000 and Engineering in the amount of $170,180 for Petco at 25 Hazard Avenue.
Commissioner Duren noted Mr. Cabbibo's memo dated June 7 states if the site changes have been approved by this Commission, he recommends release. Commissioner Duren did not remember anyone coming in for site changes. Mr. Giner stated the only site changes were locating a recycling dumpster on a concrete pad and the lighting poles were relocated. The lighting changes were a couple of flood lights and these were shown on the approved plans. There was also a question of whether the fire hydrant was protected and it was determined that it was protected.
Commission members requested a memo from Mr. Cabbibo confirming the changes and recommending release. Mr. Glantz stated they have addressed the dumpster question with the tenant. If they cannot resolve the situation, they will have to come back before this Commission to request a second dumpster pad.
Later in the meeting following receipt of a memo from John Cabbibo supplied by Mr. Giner, Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve Bond Release PH#2228 and FLD009 as stated in the memo from John Cabbibo dated Thursday, July 11, 2001 in the amounts of $1,000 for Erosion and Sediment Control and $170,180 for Engineering.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
3. SPR 1055 - Request for Release of $8,930 Landscaping Bond for Kohl's Department Store improvements on property located on Elm Street.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve release of the $8,930 Landscaping Bond for Kohl's Department Store, SPR#1055. Reference is made to a memo dated June 25, 2002 recommending release. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
4. PH #2086 - Request for release of $3,200 Landscaping Bond for Bank of Boston ATM Kiosk at Stateline Plaza.
The Commission took no action on this bond release pending replacement of the plantings as noted in a memo from Jay Northrup. Commissioner Lefakis stated on the corner of that driveway in the vicinity of Ames, there is also a dead tree.
5. 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).
Commissioner Duren did not recommend release and staff has noted the trees need replacement. Commissioner DiPace requested additional clarification on the recommendations of staff and whether the trees will be replaced by the applicant.
6. PH #1900 - Request for release of $2,000 landscape bond for Taylor Rental on 130 Enfield Street.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve release of the $2,000 landscape bond for Taylor Rental, PH#1900. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 -0 vote.
7. PH #1438.05 - Request for release of $5,600 landscape bond for Parts America, 54 Hazard Avenue.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to release the $5,600 landscape bond for Parts America, PH#1438.05. The motion was denied by a 0 - 7 - 0 vote. Commissioner Duren noted there was supposed to be a great deal of planting that has not been completed. There is also the issue of the paving in the rear area.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR #1173 - Application for construction of a 12,000 sq. ft. Industrial Building and associated drainage and utilities, Lot 17, Mullen Road, Zoned I-1, Map 16, Lot 3, DLA Enterprises applicant/Glassworks, owner.
David Irons of DLA Enterprises,Tim Cune from J. R. Russo and Rod Dimick from Aero Capital appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Irons stated DLA Enterprises has been doing business in Enfield for over five years. They are currently located in the old Nutmeg Building on Depot Hill Road where they lease 6,000 square feet. Their lease is terminating and they have been looking into developing this project since December of last year.
Mr. Irons stated they have been working with the town agencies and have had good cooperation. They hope the plaln before the Commission tonight has implemented everyone's recommendations in the town. Connecticut Wood Group, which is going to occupy the building, is a company owned by Mr. Irons and his wife. They employ six people full time and three people part time. The business is they bring in kiln dried lumber from throughout the eastern United States and break it down into smaller component pieces and ship it to furniture and cabinet makers in Europe, the Pacific Rim and throughout the United States.
Mr. Irons stated they do not do any finishing or assembly. They only break down lumber and make moldings and flooring. Their waste system is set up so all the sawdust and shavings are contained in a closed loop system, dropped out into semi-trailers and these are hauled off-site and used for agricultural bedding or other purposes. Their solid wood waste is currently bagged and recycled as firewood for the general public.
Mr. Irons presented a computer rendering of what they propose for the building. They have left a lot of the mature trees on the site. Even though it is all agricultural land or industrial land in the area, they have still used the natural buffers that are existing. The building is representative of what the colors will be but it is a lot more open than the computer rendering. The total project will cost in the neighborhood of three-quarters of a million dollars including the infrastructure and the machinery.
Commissioner Duren asked if there will be any mechanicals on the roof. Mr. Irons stated nothing will be mounted on the roof and they will have a pad-mounted air conditioner. The air conditioning and heating will only be for a l,600 square foot office area. The shop itself will be heated by overhead gas fires.
Commissioner Duren asked if the air conditioning units are screened. Mr. Irons stated the air conditioning unit will be the size of a household unit.
Commissioner Duren requested that the plans show a clean out schedule for the oil separators, the trash grate, splash pan and detention basin.
Commissioner Duren asked about the pumping station which is their responsibility because it is on their property. Mr. Giner added that it will be subject to the permitting of the Water Pollution Control Authority and they would have to comply with all their requirements.
Commissioner Duren asked if the noise filtration system will meet the town noise ordinance standards. Mr. Irons stated it is an industry-accepted system and the air is actually brought back into the building. He is certain any noise regulation relative to their construction will be followed. Commissioner Duren suggested this be a condition of approval. Mr. Irons added the system is a fairly quiet one.
Tim Cune from J. R. Russo identified the note existing on the plan regarding the maintenance of the storm water. It is listed on Sheet #3 of 8, note #14. This note states the applicant or ongoing owner shall be responsible for the maintenance of all on site drainage improvements; in particular, catch basins, sumps and the detention basin shall be inspected on an annual basis and accumulated sediment removed as necessary.
Commissioner Egan requested the specs regarding the air filtration system. He stated there must be specifications on noise. He brought up the use on Hazard Avenue by Bridges which has an air filtration system that is quite loud. Mr. Irons stated their system is more contemporary with filtration bags catching the dust and it is much quieter.
Commissioner Egan expressed a concern about runoff to the other people's property and asked for a description of where the runoff goes. Mr. Cune stated all the runoff from the impervious area as well as runoff collected in a swale at the western edge of the parcel will be diverted to the detention basin. The detention basin will be equipped with a culvert outlet which will control the flow. The water will trickle out and over the property line.
Commissioner Egan stated a well will be installed and he asked for a clarification of the memo received by the Commission that this well will not be subject to the DPUC Regulations. Mr. Giner stated there was some miscommunication and DPUC thought they were instituting a private water company. He talked to the DPUC and was told because it serves less than twenty-five people, it would fall under their regulations.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve to approve SPR #1173 - Application for construction of a 12,000 sq. ft. Industrial Building and associated drainage and utilities, Lot 17, Mullen Road, Zoned I-1, Map 16, Lot 3, DLA Enterprises applicant/Glassworks, owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans, as may be required to be modified by this motion, and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
"Resubdivision & Site Plan, Mullen Road Enfield, CT" Drawing Index and Locus Map, by J.R. Russo & Associates dated revised 5-16-02."
"Glassworks Limited Mullen Road,, Enfield, Connecticut, Property Resubdivision Plan." Sheet C-100 Scale 1"=60', by Borawski Engineering, revised to 6-28-02 and certified on 7/01/02.
"Topographic Plan, Mullen Road, Enfield, Connecticut, Prepared For: DLA Enterprises, LLC, 103 Snipsic Lake Road, Ellington, Connecticut" Sheet 3 of 8, Scale: 1"=40', by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 05-01-02 and revised to 5-16-02.
"Landscape & Lighting Plan, Mullen Road, Enfield, Connecticut, Prepared For: DLA Enterprises, LLC, 103 Snipsic Lake Road, Ellington, Connecticut" Sheet 4 of 8, Scale: 1"=40', by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 05-01-02 and revised to 5-16-02.
"Erosion & Sediment Control Notes, Mullen Road, Enfield, Connecticut, Prepared For: DLA Enterprises, LLC, 103 Snipsic Lake Road, Ellington, Connecticut" Sheet 5 of 8, Scale: "As Shown"', by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 05-01-02 and revised to 5-16-02.
"Details, Mullen Road, Enfield, Connecticut, Prepared For: DLA Enterprises, LLC, 103 Snipsic Lake Road, Ellington, Connecticut" Sheet 6 of 8, Scale: "As Shown", by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 05-01-02 and revised to 5-16-02.
"Details, Mullen Road, Enfield, Connecticut, Prepared For: DLA Enterprises, LLC, 103 Snipsic Lake Road, Ellington, Connecticut" Sheet 7 of 8, Scale: "As Shown", by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 05-01-02 and revised to 5-16-02.
"Details, Mullen Road, Enfield, Connecticut, Prepared For: DLA Enterprises, LLC, 103 Snipsic Lake Road, Ellington, Connecticut" Sheet 7 of 8, Scale: "As Shown", by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 05-01-02 and revised to 5-16-02.
"Elevation 'A-1', Elevation 'B-1', Elevation 'C-1'" Scale 1/8"=1'.
"Floor Plan" Scale 1/8"=1'.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
2. The SPR file number "SPR 1173" shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it
3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
4. 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.
5. In accordance with Section 16-8.6, 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. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
7. The applicant shall post a bond for Site improvements in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney.
8. A Separate Erosion and Sediment Control Bond shall be submitted in the form of a passbook, pledged to the Town, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
9. A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
10. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
General Conditions:
11. This approval is for the specific use and structure identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structure will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
12. 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.
13. Any changes to the existing vegetation line or other landscaping as approved on the plans will require additional reviews and approvals.
14. A building permit for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained by July 11, 2003 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission in accordance with Section 16-13 of the Enfield Zoning Regulations.
15. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this application.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
b. SPR #1177 - Application for Modification of Plans previously approved to allow the construction of an 8 x14 cold storage unit on existing asphalt adjacent to an existing trash enclosure at the Wendy's Restaurant located at 90 Elm Street in a BR District, Map 43, Lot 17, Cedar of New England, Applicant; Westfield America, Inc. Owner.
John Mack, Division Vice President for Cedar of New England, the franchise group for Wendy's, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. They propose having a prefabricated freezer unit brought in and installed on the existing concrete pad of the trash enclosure currently there.
Mr. Giner stated there was some confusion on whether this freezer would go on existing pavement or on the existing concrete pad. With the installation on the existing concrete pad, Mr. Cabbibo had no engineering concerns. They are also replacing the fence and there were no concerns about this change.
Commissioner Duren asked if the bun freezer would be separated from the trash bin. Mr. Mack stated there is an existing divider which they plan on using.
Commissioner Duren asked if the Health Department had any concerns. Mr. Giner stated he has not received any comments but they would have to sign off on any building permit. He suggested this be a condition of approval that this change is approved by the Health Department.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve SPR#1177, application for modification of plans previously approved for Wendy's Restaurant, 90 Elm Street, with the condition that the Health Department approve the plans. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Request for extension of Earth Removal Special Use Permit issued under PH #2191 for activities at 112 Broad Brook Road, Botticello, Inc.
Commissioner Duren stated the Commission previously requested a list of violations since the last approval for Botticello, Inc. The Zoning Enforcement Officer stated earlier that they had not been in operation but Commissioner Duren noted there was something going on with the Zoning Board of Appeals in response to a cease and desist. Mr. Giner stated they also had a wetlands issue. The only zoning violation was that they were cited for the trailer on the property. The trailer was partially on someone else's property and has since been removed. Commissioner Duren stated the Commission would like to receive a list of all violations in writing. Commissioner Egan stated if the Commission is considering reissuing a special use permit, they should have the history of the applicant.
b. Discussion with Tunxis Management regarding landscaping for Brookside Plaza. - No action.
The Commission took no action regarding this agenda item.
c. Section 8-24 C.G.S. Referral regarding proposed capital improvements to the Shaker Recreation Area, Phase II athletic field improvements, to include: three new soccer fields, new gravel parking area, new nature trails (including boardwalks), at site of existing Shaker Soccer Field Recreation Area, Zoned I-1, Map 99, Lot 13, Town of Enfield, applicant/owner.
This application was tabled to the next Regular Meeting.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to extend the meeting to complete the balance of the agenda. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
d. Section 8-24 C.G.S. Referral regarding proposed capital to install 4 light poles at the little league ballpark that is located at Asnuntuck Community College at 170 Elm Street, Zoned R-44, Map 57, Lot 315
This application was tabled to the next Regular Meeting.
OTHER
a. Applications to be accepted.
The following applications were accepted by the Commission:
Note: SPR #1178 - Application CHANGED TO PH #2327 (Kentucky Fried Chicken) which was accepted at the June 20th meeting
SPR #1179 - Application to allow construction of a 12 ft. x 18 ft. concrete block power station building on 40 Booth Road by Connecticut Water Company, Zoned R-33, Map 59/62, Lot 59/10 Connecticut Water Co. applicant/owner.
SPR #1180 - Application for modification to approved site plans for Ruby Tuesday Restaurant to construction a 6 ft. x 6 ft. enclosure for trash cans next to the kitchen exit door of the existing restaurant on 90 Elm Street (Westfield Shoppingtown) Zoned BR, Map 43, Lot 16, Ruby Tuesday C/O Tom Chisholm, applicant/Westfield America, owner.
SPR #1181 - Application for modification to approved site plans for Innovative Medical Imaging to open an MRI at 137 Hazard Avenue Zoned BP, Map 65, Lot 71, Innovative Medical Imaging, applicant, Gaetan Letourneau, owner.
SPR #1182 - Application for site plan review for Golds Gym - Health Club with tanning business and signing (former site of Hardware /pet supply store) at 585 Hazard Ave. Scitico Plaza, Zoned BL, Map 110, Lot 12, Frank Rinaldi, applicant / P&D Realty, owner.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________
Karen Krebs, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|
|
Last Modified: 11/5/2004 4:05:20 AM
|
|
|