|
|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
JULY 25, 2002
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, July 25, 2002 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Howard called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
PRESENT: James Howard, Chairman
Charles Duren
Robert Egan
James Hickey, Jr.
Karen Krebs
Karen Weseliza, Alternate
Jeffrey Cooper, Alternate
ABSENT: Anthony DiPace
Nicles Lefakis
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to approve the Minutes of July 11, 2002. The Minutes were approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternates Weseliza and Cooper voting.
COMMISSIONERS' CORRESPONDENCE
Commissioner Duren noted the public hearing sign for the town building on High Street is still up and he would like it removed. Also, the grounds of that property need to be maintained. Mr. McAlmond from Public Works stated the family resource center grounds are being addressed tomorrow. He will see that the sign is also removed.
Commissioner Duren asked about the logging operation on Washington Road. Mr. Giner reported Mr. Northrup viewed the site and noted they are not in violation of any wetland permit. Regarding the existing logs on the property, Mr. Giner stated he will have the Zoning Enforcement Officer review this site. If it becomes a blight issue, it can be addressed through that process.
Commissioner Duren asked about the upcoming telecommunications application and noted the balloon was not flying yesterday. Mr. Giner stated they were planning to fly it today from 12:00 noon to 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Duren stated the regulations say it should fly for three days prior to the meeting. Mr. Giner stated this application will be on the agenda for July 31, 2002 and not on tonight's agenda. Mr. Giner confirmed from the ordinance that a balloon is to fly at least three days prior to the public hearing but it does not give a duration for this activity. Mr. Giner willl call the applicant and see if they can fly the balloon again on Tuesday of next week. He will inform the Commission if this will occur. Commissioner Krebs suggested a change to the regulations to include the length of time the balloon is flown should be three days.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued from July 11, 2002 meeting
a. 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, and 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. (MUST CLOSE BY JULY 31)
David Dixon and Jennifer Carrier from Milone & MacBroom appeared before the Commission regarding a continuation of this application.
Mr. Dixon reported on July 16, 2002, the Conservation Commission approved Alternate A of the plans presented to the Commission at their last meeting. Mr. Dixon noted the primary difference in this Alternate A plan is that, in an attempt to minimize the impacts on the adjacent wetlands and regulated area, Field #6 to the south was eliminated. The nature walk, trails and boardwalk through the wetlands were also eliminated. As a result of the elimination of the trail and Field #6, there is no longer a need for the pedestrian bridge crossing the wetland or the emergency vehicle access drive.
Mr. Dixon stated modest modifications to the internal trail system were made in order to make more of a complete internal circulation that previously did not exist on the original site plan. The Conservation Commission also requested that they supplement some of the mitigation plantings along the wetland buffer next to proposed fields three, four and five and next to the proposed gravel parking lot.
Mr. Dixon stated they would like to discuss some of the issues or concerns that were raised not only by this Commission but also by several members of the public. One of those issues was it was suggested that they consider the inclusion of fencing around the detention ponds. There are two ponds located adjacent to the driveway up near the northwest corner of the property. Under the proposed conditions, these ponds will not increase in size. The original engineering of the approved site plan in 1994 engineered those ponds to handle both phases of the Shaker Recreation Area. The complete Phase II plan that was approved in 1994 called for six fields but because of recently mapped wetlands, the number of fields was reduced to five fields.
Mr. Dixon stated the question was asked if they considered fencing around the ponds for the safety of the children. They looked at this very carefully. Since 1994 there are no reported incidents of any problems at these ponds relative to children entering the ponds or accidental drowning. If they believed that the conditions as they exist today warranted some type of protective fencing that would prohibit children from entering this area, they would be proposing it. They looked closely at it and they do not believe that the conditions warrant this type of fence.
Mr. Dixon presented a photograph entitled "Detention Pond, Shaker Recreation Area, Enfield, Connecticut." He noted that the side slopes as you approach the edge of the pond are very shallow. If those slopes had been one to one or graded at two or three to one, they might have considered some type of protective measure. There is probably an eight to ten foot shelf around these ponds that is probably no more than about six inches supporting the cattails and other wetland species that inhabit this pond. Additionally, the ecology of the area has grown to adopt these ponds and there is wildlife in these ponds. One of the last things they would want to do, unless it was absolutely necessary, is to try to block the wetland corridor that would prohibit or limit the movement of animals to and from this pond that use it and require it in order to survive.
Mr. Dixon stated should the Commission not agree with their assessment of this type of an approach to the ponds and require some type of fencing, he sees two options. The first would be something that would prohibit a small child from ever reaching the pond or the inclusion of a chain link fence. They do not believe that the provision of such a chain link fence as a site feature would enhance in any way the sense of park atmosphere. Another option that would be less intrusive would be the inclusion of a split rail fence or some type of rustic fence. They do not believe it is necessary to include this type of a feature and it is better left to the parents to control their own children in this area. Mr. Dixon stated another option might be the inclusion of some type of interpretive educational sign that would actually cause the patron to stop and read the sign.
Mr. Dixon stated one of the other issues they were asked about was do they have adequate parking on the site. Under the original proposed site plan, they had approximately thirty-three parking spaces per field. They believe this is adequate for facilities such as this. With the elimination of field six, they have not lost any parking spaces and now have forty parking spaces per field.
Mr. Dixon noted members of the public commented on traffic patterns on Shaker Road. He introduced Jennifer Carrier, their traffic engineer, for comment regarding the concerns expressed at the last meeting.
Jennifer Carrier stated they have had a chance to look at some of the concerns that were brought up at the last meeting. One was the accident history along Route 220 in the vicinity of the site. The latest information available from the Connecticut Department of Transportation revealed that there were a total of seven accidents within a three-year period that occurred between the railroad crossing and the Lego driveway. Five of those seven accidents occurred between the railroad crossing and the Lego driveway and two accidents occurred right at the Lego driveway. Of those five accidents, two involved vehicles parking along Route 220.
Ms. Carrier stated they plan to install some guardrail along Route 220 to prohibit parking. They feel that will eliminate parking within the right of way and reduce conflict points.
Ms. Carrier stated sixty percent of the accidents that occurred were the result of people following too closely or traveling too fast. She further noted the 85% speed or the speed people are traveling at or below was approximately ten miles per hour higher than the posted speed limit. Ms. Carrier stated the town may want to think about installing a temporary trailer that displays the speeds of passing vehicles which is a traffic calming tool. That in combination with intermittent police control could help to reduce speeds in the area.
Ms. Carrier reviewed some of the traffic volumes. There were questions about parking, peak periods and having a bypass capability. The highest volume of traffic along Route 220 occurs between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. based on information from the Connecticut Department of Transportation. That volume of traffic is 1,000 vehicles. The p.m. commuting traffic which occurs between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. is 990 vehicles. Ms. Carrier stated it is expected that the peak of the Shaker facility will occur between 5:45 p.m. and 6:45 p.m. and at that time period, the traffic volume count is approximately 655 vehicles.
Ms. Carrier stated in reviewing the data, they are still recommending that they install some advance warning signs noting park entrance ahead. There could be flashers added and they would recommend one such sign in each direction prior to each driveway. Due to the close proximity of the railroad, there are still certain requirements they have to meet to improve the track crossing even though it may be inactive. There are requirements to widen the actual track crossing and that, in combination with the drainage and wetland impacts, could result in excessive cost with minimal benefit.
Ms. Carrier stated questions were asked regarding whether the State Traffic Commission would get involved in this application. The Connecticut Department of Transportation District Level will be involved in the review because it is less than 200 parking spaces. They will be looking at the driveway locations prior to issuing an encroachment permit. If they have any concerns, they will raise them.
Ms. Carrier stated there was an ART meeting conducted on May 5, 2002 and Lieutenant Boula, the Traffic Safety Officer, was present. He reviewed the plans and expressed no concerns or made no further comments related to the widening of Route 220.
Ms. Carrier gave a brief review of the proposed improvements for the benefit of Commission members not at the last meeting. They are proposing to modify the existing passing zone along Shaker Road and they will be coordinating that with the Connecticut DOT. They will be improving the northeast corner radii of the existing driveway and modifying a metal beam rail. They will be relocating the existing stop sign closer to Shaker Road and installing pavement markings consisting of a stop bar and double yellow center line. On the new drive, they will be installing stop bars and stop signs and a double yellow center line. They will also be installing a steel-backed timber guardrail across the site frontage on Route 220.
Chairman Howard opened this public hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Commissioner Egan stated he previously raised the issue regarding the pond. He noted it is troubling to hear that there have been no problems there so there won't be any problems there. Commissioner Egan still has concerns about the pond. He understands the applicant not wanting to destroy the beauty of the park but there have been a number of Commissioners and others that have contacted the Commission that have seen children playing around the existing pond. Commissioner Egan felt there are some things that could be done to address safety. There are a lot of attractive things that can be done with either a chain link or split rail fence that would keep the children from the pond.
Mr. Dixon stated he respects Commissioner Egan's opinion and concern for the children using the facility. While aesthetics are a concern, they do not override the need to design for the safety of the users. Mr. Dixon stated there is nothing included in the various code books that would require them to do this but that is not to say that they shouldn't consider some measure. Mr. Dixon stated the reasons for not proposing the fence include the fact that they do not want to eliminate or reduce the ability for animals that also use those ponds. However, if this Commission deems it appropriate to add a fence, that is what they will do.
Commissioner Cooper felt a fence would take away from the recreational enjoyment of the area.
Commissioner Duren stated he is sorry to see the removal of the trails which would have enhanced the area for recreation. He noted that other conservation groups allow people into their conservation areas to walk and enjoy what is there. The Town of Enfield is closing off a great area and he doesn't understand it. People have asked previously for places to enjoy this kind of thing and the Conservation Commission has not allowed it. There is nothing to stop people from going out there and the initial plan would have offered some control.
Commissioner Weseliza stated she would not like to see a chain link fence around the ponds. There are enough chain link fences along that road and this is one area where you can explore the area. While it does present a safety hazard for some young children, she believes most children are at this location with their parents. Commissioner Weseliza would like to see this site remain as open as possible.
Commissioner Cooper asked about the depth of the pond. Mr. Dixon stated at its deepest point, it was designed to be approximately four feet.
Commissioner Egan noted the town requires swimming pools to be certain heights in order to prevent children from climbing into them. With regard to a chain link fence, he is not suggesting that be the solution but he believes with the applicant's planning ingenuity, they could come up with something that wouldn't be as ugly as a silver chain link fence. Commissioner Egan stated the parents do have a responsibility but there are always those occasions where a child gets away from a parent. Commissioner Egan stated he thinks this is a great project and he understands the actions of the Conservation Commission. The wetlands are important to filter the drinking water which supplies Hazardville Water. While he would not vote against the project on the basis of measures to address the ponds, he strongly feels that pools in people's backyards are regulated and four feet of water is a significant amount of water for a young child.
Chairman Howard stated he would not want to see a chain link fence and he doesn't want to stop the animals from accessing the ponds but he feels there is something of beauty that can be done to satisfy all concerns. Chairman Howard does not want an absolute lock out but the reason given that nothing has happened in the past was not what he wanted to hear. As far as the parking, he is not sure there is sufficient parking and the Enfield Soccer Association will have to schedule more efficiently. As far as the traffic, he agrees with Lieutenant Boula that signs in the area are probably a good idea.
Chairman Howard opened this public hearing to the public.
Steve Mitchell, 7 East Forest Drive, pointed out as a regular user of this park that there is at the moment a fence around the pond. It is a wood rail fence about two feet tall. It stops the cars from driving out of the parking lot. It also really is not possible for a young child to wander into the pond at the present time and a small child would have to go under that fence. That may do some of what it is that the Commission pointed out. Mr. Mitchell stated this is one of the nicest retention ponds he has ever seen and to restrict usage of it by installing a fence around it would be a big mistake.
Commissioner Egan asked for confirmation of which plans are being approved. Mr. Giner noted the Commission is approving Alternative "A" and one of the conditions is that all the plans shall be revised to reflect the proposed alternative. All plans are referenced including Alternative "A." Commissioner Egan noted a fence is not shown on the plans but it could be a condition of approval.
Chairman Howard closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve PH#2313 - application for Special Use Permit/Site Plan Review for Shaker Recreation Area, Phase II athletic field improvements, at site of existing Shaker Soccer Field Recreation Area, Zoned I-1, Map 99, Lot 13, Town of Enfield, Applicant/Owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the plans submitted, as may be required to be modified by this motion, and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
"Regulatory Submission Shaker Recreation Area Phase II Athletic Field Improvements Enfield Connecticut May 16, 2002" Cover Sheet with List of Drawings, Location Map and Misc. Notes, prepared by Milone & MacBroom, Inc.
"Topographic & Existing Conditions, Shaker Recreation Area Phase II Fields Additional Parking, Shaker Road, Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet 1-A, Scale: 1"=40', prepared by Milone & MacBroom, Inc., dated May 16, 2002.
"Topographic & Existing Conditions, Shaker Recreation Area Phase II Fields Additional Parking, Shaker Road Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet 1-B, Scale: l"=40', prepared by Milone & MacBroom, Inc., dated May 16, 2002.
"Site Plan - Layout & Landscaping, Shaker Recreation Area Phase II Fields Additional Parking, Shaker Road Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet 2-A, Scale: l"=40', prepared by Milone & MacBroom, Inc., dated May 16, 2002.
"Site Plan - Layout & Landscaping, Shaker Recreaton Area Phase II Fields Additional Parking, Shaker Road Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet 2-B, Scale: l"=40', prepared by Milone & MacBroom, Inc., dated May 16, 2002.
"Site Plan - Alternate 'A' Grading and Utilities, Shaker Recreation Area Phase II Fields Additional Parking, Shaker Road Enfield, Connecticut Alt-A-1, Scale: l"=40', prepared by Milone & MacBroom, Inc., dated 6-28-02.
"Site Plan - Alternate "A" Grading and Utilities, Shaker Recreation Area Phase II Fields Additional Parking, Shaker Road Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet Alt-A-2, Scale 1"=40', prepared by Milone & MacBroom, Inc. dated 6-28-02.
"Sediment and Erosion Control Details, Shaker Recreation Area Phase II Fields Additional parking, Shaker Road Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet 4, Scale: "As Noted", prepared by Milone & MacBroom, Inc. dated 5-16-02.
"Details, Shaker Recreation Area Phase II Fields Additional parking, Shaker Road Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet 5, Scale:"As Noted", prepared by Milo0ne & MacBroom, Inc., dated 5-16-02.
"Details, Shaker Recreation Area Phase II Fields Additional Parking, Shaker Road Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet 5, Scale: "As Noted", prepared by Milone & MacBroom, Inc., dated 5-16-02.
Conditions to be met prior to signing of plans:
1. All the plans shall be revised to reflect the approved Alternative "A" layout.
2. The applicable details for the chosen alternative shall be added to the plans as requested in the comments dated July 11, 2002 from John Cabbibo, Assistant Town Engineer.
3. All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
4. 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:
5. One set of 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.
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.
Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
8. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
9. The applicant shall also submit to the Planning Director final as-built plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
General Conditions:
10. This approval is for the specific use and improvements identified in the application as modified by this approval. Any change in the nature of the use or the site layout will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
11. 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.
12. Construction of facilities as approved must commence by July 25, 2003 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternates Cooper and Weseliza voting.
a. PH #2317 - Application for a Special Use Permit to convert the existing third floor of a two family to a third apartment at 18-20 Grant Avenue, Zoned R-33, Map 22, Lot 37, Leeann Bergeron applicant/owner. (MUST CLOSE BY SEPTEMBER 19)
Leeann Bergeron, owner and resident of 18-20 Grant Avenue, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. She stated she has a two-family home with a third floor that is not in use. It was formerly used as bedrooms in the past. She purchased this property in February, 2002, and prior to her purchase, someone starting installing plumbing and electrical to make a bathroom and a kitchen on the third floor. She would like to continue this and convert the whole third floor into another apartment.
Ms. Bergeron noted there are front and back stairwells that already go to the third floor.
Commissioner Duren asked about the ability for the people on the third floor to have access in case of fire. Ms. Bergeron stated there is a front stairwell that goes all the way down from the third floor and is common for the second and third floor apartments and is separated by a doorway. Commissioner Duren asked if someone coming down from the third floor would have to go through the second floor apartment. Ms. Bergeron stated they would not. The stairway goes up and there is a landing. You go up to the second floor apartment from that landing and you continue up another stairwell to the third floor. In the back, there are two separate stairways and she will have to punch out a door for one of them. Currently, there is a stairway that goes from the third floor all the way down to the first floor apartment and the door enters into the first floor kitchen. If she turns the door, it will enter the back landing. The second floor has its own stairway.
Commissioner Duren noticed a two-car garage and he questioned where the residents occupying the third floor would park. Ms. Bergeron stated she can fit three cars in the driveway. Commissioner Duren had a concern about blocking the cars in the garage. Ms. Bergeron stated they would ask people to move their cars and she further noted that right now they park on the street.
Mr. Giner stated Fire Marshal Censki inspected the site today. He has no problems with the upstairs itself. He noted the entry that goes into the kitchen would need some work but the access could be done. In his opinion, the layout of the apartment is not a problem because it has two ways of access. Mr. Giner noted since nothing in writing was received from the Fire Marshal, this could be a condition of approval. Mr. Giner added it is typical of many two or three-family homes in the neighborhood that there is back to back parking and Ms. Bergeron does have a long driveway. Ms. Bergeron added if it is necessary for cars not to be on the street because of plowing, she can fit six cars in the driveway.
Commissioner Hickey asked how this relates to the lot area requirements. Mr. Giner stated the lot is .165 acres or approximately 5,000 square feet. Chairman Howard noted the need for land is not being changed. Mr. Giner added the homes in the area have similar sized lots. Also, behind and across the street, there are four three-family homes.
During further discussion, Ms. Bergeron stated she plans to reside in the third floor apartment.
Chairman Howard opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2317 - Application for a Special Use Permit to convert the existing third floor of a two-family house to a third apartment at 18-20 Grant Avenue, zoned R-33, Map 22, Lot 37, Leeann Bergeron, Applicant/Owner, with the following conditions:
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
1. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
2. 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.
3. Final plans must be approved by the Fire Marshall and other relevant code professionals.
Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
4. Final inspection and signoffs from relevant code professionals shall be obtained.
General Conditions:
5. Adequate on-site parking for the tenants shall be maintained at all times.
6. This approval is for the specific use and structures 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.
7. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the plans and the record documents submitted with the application. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
8. 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 with both Alternates Cooper and Weseliza voting.
a. PH #2320 - Application for a rear lot (Lot#11) in a proposed open space subdivision on property off Bridge Lane and Riverview St. (Meetinghouse Lane), Zoned R-33, Map 19, Lot 10, Margaret R. Pappas/Hampden & Beech Inc. applicant/Margaret Pappas, owner. (MUST CLOSE BY SEPTEMBER 19) - This public hearing was continued to the Wednesday, July 31, 2002 Meeting.
b. PH #2321 - Application for a rear lot (Lot #24) in a proposed open space subdivision on property off Bridge Lane and Riverview St. (Meetinghouse Lane), Zoned R-33, Map 19, Lot 10, Margaret R. Pappas/Hampden & Beech Inc. applicant/Margaret Pappas, owner. (MUST CLOSE BY SEPTEMBER 19)
c. PH #2319 - Application for a Special Use Permit for 24 lot open space subdivision on property off Bridge Lane and Riverview St. (Meetinghouse Lane), Zoned R-33, Map 19, Lot 10, Margaret R. Pappas/Hampden & Beech Inc. applicant/Margaret Pappas, owner. (MUST CLOSE BY SEPTEMBER 19)
d. PH #2318 - Application for a 24 lot resubdivision on property off Bridge Lane and Riverview St. (Meetinghouse Lane), Zoned R-33, Map 19, Lot 10, Margaret R. Pappas/Hampden & Beech Inc. applicant/Margaret Pappas, owner. (MUST CLOSE BY SEPTEMBER 19)
Following some discussion on the best way to proceed with the four public hearings, PH#2320, PH#2321, PH#2319 and PH#2318, Mr. Giner stated there is a request for a waiver of sidewalks. If this does not pass, the plans would have to be changed and tabled until September. He suggested the Commission take testimony on this issue first which is to be considered under PH#2318.
Commissioner Howard suggested beginning with the first hearing of the four and referencing the testimony from one hearing to another to avoid repetition.
Commissioner Duren stated the Commission received revised maps tonight and he would like to know what is the revision. Mr. Coon stated he would like to replace the revised maps with a new set of plans tonight.
Mr. Coon stated he apologizes for the late submittal of these plans but they only received comments from the Engineering Department this Tuesday in regard to the cover on some of the drainage pipes. They had to make some adjustments to some of the pipes in order to achieve that cover. They did not anticipate these late comments from Engineering.
Mr. Giner stated the layout is the same except for the technical specs of the piping for some of the drainage on the revised plans. He has not has a chance to check these revised plans. Mr. Coon confirmed the plans are the same as previously except for the drainage pipes which John Cabbibo has reviewed.
Dave Fredrick appeared before the Commission representing Hampden & Beech Inc. and Margaret Pappas as co-applicants for the twenty-four lot subdivision to be known as River Meadows, Section 2. There were four lots approved in River Meadows, Section 1, sometime ago and there are two existing homes in River Meadows and the third lot is presently under construction. The fourth lot will be built in the very near future.
Mr. Fredrick stated last Tuesday it became apparent to Engineering that they were not happy with the coverage of one of the pipes. Since Tuesday, these new plans were generated to address John Cabbibo's concerns about coverage of the electrical pipe. Tim Coon with J. R. Russo has had discussions with John Cabbibo. Mr. Giner confirmed a letter was received from John Cabbibo today that he had seen the revisions.
Mr. Fredrick stated they are before the Commission tonight because they are hoping the near forty-acre parcel of land will be able to sustain a total of twenty-eight new homes. There is a certain percentage of land which abuts the Enfield High School property to the north which is going to the Town of Enfield.
Mr. Fredrick shared letters from the abutters in the neighborhood as well as correspondence from people who live immediately in River Meadows. Mr. Fredrick also shared with the Commission an additional letter he received a few days ago from Paul and Elli Thorogood whose house they are currently building on Lot #1.
Tim Coon of J. R. Russo, the engineer for the applicant, gave an overview regarding River Meadows, Section 2. He stated the site is approximately 31 acres in an R-33 zone located to the north of Bridge Lane. It will be an extension of Meetinghouse Lane and the existing four lots which have already been developed. It is located to the west of Riverview Street. It is abutted to the north by the Enfield High School athletic fields, to the west by a section of railroad and on the other side of the railroad the Connecticut River, to the south by residential properties off Bridge Lane and to the east by residential properties off Riverview Street.
Mr. Coon noted the applicant was present before this Commission on December 7, 2001 and they presented preliminary plans for an informal review in accordance with the ordinance. At that time, they presented a twenty-seven lot subdivision which included a cul de sac off Riverview Street. This cul de sac has since been eliminated and replaced with a single rear lot. They have also reduced the number of lots from 27 to 24.
Mr. Coon stated based on the positive feedback they received from the Commission at that time, they moved forward. The project now is 24 lots and consists of a single loop street. There is a rear lot which will be Lot #11 coming off the loop street and a second rear lot off Riverview Street. Those two lots both require separate special use permits.
Mr. Coon pointed out the open space on the map. As part of this open space subdivision, they are proposing 7.72 acres of open space be dedicated to the town. The open space is a mixture of field and wetland area. All the drainage on the loop street will be directed and discharged to one of two detention basins. There is an existing detention basin to the east of Meetinghouse Lane and a second detention basin to the north of the four lots. These two basins will collect the runoff from the loop street and will be connected by an equalization pipe so that they act as a single detention basin. Each will have an outlet structure that is constructed with similar inverts and these basins will provide detention for the entire subdivision.
Mr. Coon stated a third detention basin is provided to the west of the rear lot to capture overland runoff and control the runoff that gets into the stream and then enters the pond. The post development peak runoffs will be slightly less than the pre-development runoff.
Mr. Coon confirmed that they have received approval from the Wetlands Commission. A traffic report prepared by F. A. Hesketh was done and submitted previously. At that time, the report was completed for a twenty-seven lot subdivision. The conclusions of the traffic report were that the subdivision would have no significant impact on traffic safety and operations on the local roadways in the vicinity of the development. Because of the reduction in lots to 24, whatever impacts anticipated are going to be less. Steve Mitchell of F. A. Hesketh is present to respond to questions regarding the traffic report.
Mr. Coon stated they are requesting a waiver from the sidewalk requirement of the subdivision regulation because sidewalks within the subdivision would be isolated. The street is not a through street and has no connection to sidewalks on any additional streets. There are no sidewalks on Riverview Street or on Bridge Lane. Therefore, they do not feel that sidewalks at this subdivision are really required because they do not connect to anything.
Mr. Coon stated they have had three ART's with the town staff and have addressed all their concerns. They feel that the proposal before the Commission meets all the requirements of the subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance and it complies with the requirements for a special use permit.
Commissioner Duren asked that Mr. Coon address PH#2320 only which is one of the back lots.
Mr. Coon stated PH#2320 refers to Lot #11 and is a rear lot of the proposed twenty-four lot subdivision. It will meet the rear lot requirements. They are proposing to meet the town standards for a rear lot driveway and are also proposing to put in residential sprinkler systems as recommended in the zoning ordinance for the rear lots. The rear lots meet the size requirements and they feel these rear lots should be accepted.
Chairman Howard brought up procedure regarding this hearing. He noted that PH#2320 is just Lot #11 and they are looking for a waiver of sidewalks on the front of it. Chairman Howard opened PH#2320 to the public.
Some discussion followed regarding the revised plans received and the need for the Commission and town staff to review them. Chairman Howard noted this hearing will not be closed tonight due to the receipt of these revised plans.
Bill King, 36 Bridge Lane, stated his property abuts this project. The problem he has is the town has gone ahead and let this four-lot subdivision go in and now they want to open it up to the twenty-four lots. He noted they are going to go to that back lot and put one house in. They will put the road in and now they will open it up and put in the other twenty-three homes. Mr. King stated the developer is trying to get this one house in PH#2320 in so that he can get the rest of the houses in. Chairman Howard stated they could have heard the individual hearings in a reverse order and then it would be the opposite. He then decided to hear testimony on all four hearings because the public comments address all of them.
Mr. Giner stated the votes would have to come individually. He agreed that the hearings are interrelated because you cannot talk about the rear lots without discussing the rest of the subdivision. Mr. Giner noted each rear lot has to meet certain criteria and the whole subdivision has to go together.
Following this first public comment, Chairman Howard decided to hear testimony on all four hearings tonight. Commissioner Krebs read the necessary legal notices for PH#2321, PH#2319 and PH#2318 and previously read PH#2320.
Mr. Coon requested that his previous comments on PH#2320 be carried over to each of the public hearings.
Chairman Howard requested input from the audience regarding the four applications.
Bill King 36 Bridge Lane, stated his property will be abutting the proposed subdivision and he has some concerns. He does not understand when or how the traffic report was done. He has three children, a nine, six and four-year old, that will be going to Enfield Street School and they presently cannot walk up the street with the traffic never mind the addition of 24 homes with 48 more cars. Mr. King also noted the area of the proposed subdivision was wetlands. He questioned why it is no longer wetlands. He questioned if there will be runoff on his property from these new homes and he is concerned about his basement.
Derek Oatis, Beck & Eldergill, 447 Center Street, Manchester, Connecticut, stated he represents Dr. James Hepp and Halina Hepp who are abutting landowners. He is also representing the interests of a number of area residents who are here tonight. He submitted a list of 49 individuals on Riverview Street and Bridge Lane who are in opposition to this subdivision. Attorney Oatis added that since this list was prepared, a number of individuals have joined and are present tonight. He also made it clear that his comments are directed to each of the four applications currently before the Commission, the two rear lots, the subdivision and the resubdivision, PH#2320, 2319, 2318, and 2321.
Attorney Oatis stated the general concern here is one of traffic. Reference was made to a traffic study which was conducted in November, 2001 and submitted in February, 2002. He stated the traffic study as submitted is not a traffic analysis as per the regulations. Regulation 4-42 requires a number of analyses that are not present in this traffic study. That study was prepared for a twenty-seven lot subdivision which under the regulations is required for a subdivision of twenty-five units or greater. Attorney Oatis requested that the Commission consider the concerns of the residents in the area regarding the traffic, the fact that this is a twenty-four lot subdivision, and the fact that two units previously approved in the four-lot subdivision are still under development and were not considered in the traffic study submitted. He requested that the Commission require a traffic analysis as per regulation 4-40.2 before rendering a decision on these applications.
Attorney Oatis noted that Bridge Lane is a historic, narrow and substandard street without sidewalks. There are a number of traffic issues not only from residents but from a lot of town vehicular traffic, traffic from the boat launch and the newly constructed Head Start building. The traffic study submitted, while saying there is no significant impact, really does show at least a thirty percent increase in traffic over existing traffic. Attorney Oatis stated this is significant for a street without sidewalks and pedestrian protection.
Attorney Oatis stated approval of this subdivision as it exists now, without a proper traffic analysis, could pose a risk to the health and safety of the residents within this community. Also, approval of this subdivision would affect the character of the neighborhood and have a detrimental impact.
Chairman Howard requested that Attorney Oatis speak for the audience present tonight. Attorney Oatis stated he represents only Halina and Dr. James Hepp. He was asked to submit the general list of those in opposition.
Commissioner Cooper asked how Attorney Oatis made the determination that it is going to have a negative impact on the fair market value of homes in the area. Attorney Oatis stated the first speaker came to the same conclusion. Aesthetically, there certainly is a problem. This is an area of a certain character that will be diminished. There was a concern expressed at the Wetlands Commission that while this area is not a pristine, undisturbed natural space, it is a previous agricultural space that has been allowed to revert to more of a natural character and that will be diminished. A greater concern is that for any of these residents to leave this area, they spend a lot of time at intersections. This is a very congested and dangerous area and these were things that were not addressed in the traffic study. Attorney Oatis noted that other things have occurred that have made a bad situation worse and this application is perhaps the last straw.
Commissioner Egan stated there was a reference made to a traffic study and he asked that the Commission receive a copy of that traffic study. Mr. Giner stated there is a traffic study included in the preliminary file.
Commissioner Hickey asked if this application is being considered under the new regulations. He stated there are some references to the prior regulations. Mr. Giner confirmed that this is being considered under the new regulations and Section 4.40.2, special development districts, is included in the new regulations.
Mr. Giner stated the regulations under Section 4.40.2 require a traffic analysis for any development of twenty-five units or more and it specifies the issues. The application includes the other four units and the ordinance says the Commission may require such a traffic analysis for anything under 24 units. If the other four units are added, such a traffic analysis would be required.
Chairman Howard asked for any additional input from the public.
John Hogan, 15 Bridge Lane, stated his home is just across from where Riverview exits on to Bridge Lane. He stated he was here in the late 1980's when residents went to the Superior Court in Hartford and defeated a similar proposal for 42 homes. He came before this Commission a couple of years ago and one of his comments was this is for four lots and soon there will be more units. He felt small bites of the apple is what is taking place here. Another thing that seems to be taking place is whoops. Back in the 1980's the brook was widened without permission and property was taken away from someone on Bridge Lane that lived across from the brook. That was done without P&Z approval or without going before Wetlands. Tonight the Commission received plans that they did not expect. He questioned what will happen next. He sees twenty-three homes and over to the corner on the right is one additional house. This leaves the area open for some additional homes in the future. Mr. Hogan has been on Bridge Lane for seventeen years and he discussed the traffic. Normal everyday traffic is not good and if the town trucks use the road, traffic has to stop and pull over to the side to let them by. The speed limit is 25mph but it is a downhill street from Route 5 and traffic picks up speed all the way and requires braking. The boat launch traffic is there in the spring and summer. He discussed the daily traffic and the possible future traffic increase from CRT. Mr. Hogan spoke about the past problems in the area with sewage and drainage and his concern that this could reoccur.
David Becker, 54 Bridge Lane, stated he is a new resident to this quaint, little historic section of Enfield. He addressed the traffic in the area and cited some accidents that have occurred on Bridge Lane. He is afraid there will be more people not stopping and more accidents that will occur. Mr. Becker stated when he purchased this home he did not know about this subdivision. He noted the importance of this section of Enfield and the importance of preserving the parts of town that are the legacy of Enfield. Mr. Becker also discussed the eagles in the area and the fact that people come and bird watch right outside his home all year round. He questioned the impact to Bridge Lane with more homes in the area.
Doug Lesh, 9 Bridge Lane, purchased a home on Bridge Lane three years ago and at that time noticed the four-lot subdivision and the increasing traffic. He noted the desirability of Bridge Lane and the fact that people walk, bike and jog on the street. Mr. Lesh had a concern that Bridge Lane would be a cut through because of the two entrances proposed for the new development. The residents do not know the impact of the future Head Start traffic. Mr. Lesh discussed how the increased traffic to the area will affect the safety of the street. He discussed past accidents on the street, the fact that cars speed down the street constantly and that any additional traffic will affect the safety of the residents. He also had a concern about additional homes beyond what is proposed this evening.
Halina Heff, 7 Riverview, stated she moved to this location eleven months ago. It was a quiet, lovely area and she was told the four-home development was going to be it for the area. She is concerned about the safety of pedestrians in the area. She noted it is a very narrow street and she does not see how this area will be able to accommodate the additional traffic. Ms. Heff stated there is also traffic from Enfield High School. People are constantly coming down the street, dropping their children off at the back gate and picking them up causing a lot of additional traffic. Also, a lot of children are walking to and from school because the parents are dropping the children off on the corner and they are walking down. She also questioned the safety for the many small children in the neighborhood.
Mike Miller, 31 Bridge Lane, stated many people have discussed the traffic and it certainly is an issue. He is a life long resident of Bridge Lane and walks on Bridge Lane to Enfield Street constantly. He noted that the Bridge Lane walk always causes him concern because of the traffic. Also, a number of children cut through the woods from the other side and come out on Bridge Lane and walk up Bridge Lane to go to the high school. Mr. Miller brought up the retention pond in the area and past problems with sewage. He stated the pond was dredged and the stream was dredged and for a few years after that the situation was greatly improved. However, no one has done anything to take care of the stream since then and the pond these days fills up rapidly and does not drain off quickly. He questioned what will happen if the drainage from the new street and properties drains into this pond with an outlet that is not clear.
Richard Augustus, 3 Bridge Lane, stated when he first moved to Bridge Lane seven years ago it was a very quiet area. Now he has to listen to trucks going up and down the street and residents going to the Head Start location to drop off their children. He is concerned about the small children and that someone will get hurt.
Bob Vasseur, 16 Bridge Lane, stated he has lived on Bridge Lane for thirty-five years and it is a nice street. He discussed his experiences on Bridge Lane as a child and the fact that he doesn't walk on Bridge Lane any longer because there are no sidewalks. He noted the town is installing sidewalks all over town but there are none on Bridge Lane. Mr. Vasseur also noted the area of the proposed homes was wetlands. He also discussed the eighteen trucks that went by his home in one day recently bringing in fill for the area. He noted this area should not be filled because it is a wetland. Mr. Vasseur asked what is being done at Enfield High School and isn't there a referendum about a wetland in the back that borders this property. He noted this water cannot run off now and when that area is all filled up, he questioned what will happen.
Michael Bock, 12 Riverview Street, discussed Stratford, Connecticut, where the water concentrates in certain areas due to asphalt and building in the town. He noted sometimes things not immediately on the property can increase the amount of runoff. He stated many of the residents really believed that the four homes initially proposed in the Bridge Lane area were going to be it for the development. His opinion is adding a couple of dozen additional homes is overdoing it.
Lois Dingman, 8 Bridge Lane, stated she has lived here for twenty years and purchased this home for a retirement home. They were under the impression that their back yard was abutted by wetlands. They woke up one morning to four homes being built. The one that abuts their home is built so that the cellar is up in the air and not under ground which infringes upon their privacy. There are school buses on Bridge Lane which go to Enfield Street School and take a right to Mitchell. She has a corner lot and in the winter time, most of these buses are over the curb and on to their lawn and then down the street. There are also town trucks, boats, and speeders on Bridge Lane. She doesn't believe there is a need to widen Bridge Lane or install sidewalks but there needs to be some law enforcement regarding the speeders. She questioned why the boat launch people use Bridge Lane. She did not feel Bridge Lane needs any additional traffic and it should be left the way it is - a very beautiful spot.
Robert Taft, 16 Riverview Street, remembered in 2001 when the four new home lots were approved being told that this was going to be it. There were a lot of concerns about the fact that this was a wetlands area and no plans had been made to handle the drainage. Mr. Taft was assured at that point that there were no plans for future development of the area. He has been on Riverview Street for approximately nine years and liked the quiet atmosphere of the area. They have watched the change and the push for additional development with the land offered to the town being land that cannot be used rather than giving valuable land. He noted the present sentiment seems less about keeping the neighborhood and more about making a dollar. He cannot support the proposed development.
Chairman Howard noted this hearing cannot be closed tonight and the Commission needs to finish the balance of tonight's agenda. He asked for comments from the Commission regarding this application.
Commissioner Egan stated he has some questions he would like to address to the applicants and the hearing should continue this evening. Also, if there are questions tonight from the Commission, it will give the applicant ample time to address them. Commissioner Krebs was in favor of closing the hearing at this time and continuing at the next meeting. Commissioner Duren suggested giving the applicant an opportunity to respond to the residents' comments.
Mr. Giner stated one of the items that was brought up was whether or not the Commission wanted a full traffic analysis. Chairman Howard requested one. Mr. Giner stated under Section 4.40.2 c. of the regulations, the Commission is requesting a traffic analysis.
Mr. Giner asked if the Commission wants to consider making a decision on sidewalks this evening so that the plans can be revised. The consensus of the Commission was that they did not want to make that decision this evening.
Mr. Giner asked about the continuation of this public hearing. Chairman Howard, with input from the Commission, requested that this hearing be continued to July 31, 2002. Mr. Giner noted if an extension is necessary beyond July 31, 2002, the Commission will require an extension from the applicant to keep the hearing open.
Commissioner Egan stated in his opinion the applicant has been incomplete due to the submittal of revised plans tonight. The Commission could take a vote and deny the application and let them resubmit and start the time clock again. Mr. Giner stated with an extension from the applicant, there could be a continuation of this hearing to September 5, 2002. Commissioner Egan was not in favor of granting the applicant an extension because they have provided plans tonight. He has a number of questions and he doesn't think they can be addressed in two weeks. He would support a denial of the application and let them resubmit and follow the process on a timely basis.
Thomas Arvantely, the Attorney for the applicant, responded regarding the issue of the incomplete plans. He understands from the engineers at J. R. Russo that the plans were actually submitted May 29, 2002. It is further his understanding that this past Tuesday, or the day before yesterday, J. R. Russo received a call from the town staff indicating that the Town Engineer was not happy with two minor matters and requested that the plans be amended. The Commission has the amended plans per the request of the Town Engineer. Attorney Arvantely does not agree with Commissioner Egan's comments. He would suggest that the applicant go along with the request for an extension. He does not feel the applicant should be bound by what town staff did two days ago and that it is unfair to the applicant.
Commissioner Egan asked why this public hearing is scheduled with only two weeks remaining. Was it a delay on the applicant's part or on the town's part? Mr. Giner responded the problem really is because this Commission is not meeting in August. He cannot speak for the Engineering Department but he can look into what caused the delay.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission can only keep the hearing open for thirty-five days but the applicant can grant an extension for an additional thirty-five days to keep the hearing open.
Commissioner Egan questioned why this hearing was not scheduled earlier. Mr. Giner stated this was due to the number of applications before the Commission. During discussion on whether Wetlands had acted, Attorney Arvantely stated the wetlands approval was granted on May 21, 2002.
Chairman Howard stated he has heard from the applicant and from the public and he asked that the Commission members comment on the application at this time.
Commissioner Duren requested the traffic officer's report on accidents and any other activities on Bridge Lane or in that neighborhood. This was bought up by some of the people that spoke tonight. He also requested an updated traffic count or that it be contained in the traffic report being requested. Attorney Arvantely stated they do have a traffic expert present who is prepared to comment regarding traffic.
Commissioner Duren stated comments were made about sewage problems in the past. He asked that the applicant or someone from the town state where the sewage flow connectors are. He questioned if they are going to bypass the sewers on Bridge Lane and if they are they going down to the main connection. Mr. Giner will check with the Water Pollution Control Authority regarding the sewer issues in this area. Commissioner Duren would like to know where they are going to connect.
Commissioner Egan stated he would be interested in hearing from the Fire Chief of that district about the design of this loop road with one access in and so many houses that are going to be on that road. He questioned whether there should be another exit or entrance road through the facility.
Commissioner Egan stated when this first subdivision of the four homes came through the Inland Wetlands, he was on that Commission at the time and there were several discussions about how wet this area is. This Commission while not considering wetlands issues is considering storm water runoff and that was a major problem then and Commissioner Egan sees that is a major concern now that needs to be addressed. He added there was some implied discussion that those four units were going to be the only units there. It was because Mr. Pappas was going to build his home there and there was agreement that this area was wet. There were no discussions of any increase in this subdivision plan. Commissioner Egan stated he needs to disclose this because some of the information that he has learned from those public hearings and that application are going to determine his questions and influence his decision.
Chairman Howard thanked the public for their comments and for working with this Commission.
Dave Fredrick responded to the comments made this evening. He stated they have a traffic expert that will be speaking to address some of the concerns of the neighborhood. He noted he is a resident of Mulberry Lane, the first new street on the very top of Bridge Lane or west of the subdivision just immediately off Route 5. He and his wife have lived there since 1998. One of the concerns was the fair market values of the homes in the area and the possible diminished value of the homes in the area. Mr. Fredrick noted that the value of the homes on Meetinghouse Lane range in price from the high $200,000's to the low $300,000's. He noted this is not diminishing the value of most of the homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Fredrick stated the homes to be built will be the same and will be at least consistent with or exceeding the value of the existing homes.
Mr. Fredrick addressed the concern of his credibility. He stated he was here several months ago to explain why the new proposed houses have come along as soon as they have. It is market demand. The people who spoke embracing Bridge Lane were speaking because it is a desirable area. People that have bought his new homes on Bridge Lane like the area and they are trying to keep the desire of the area consistent with the advent of these new homes.
Mr. Fredrick stated the wetlands commission saw the value of this subdivision and it is not violating any of the wetlands where the twenty-four homes are being proposed. They received wetland approval at the end of April.
Mr. Coon of J. R. Russo stated one of the issues that was brought up was sewage in the basements. He clarified where the sewage is running from the proposed subdivision. They have sanitary mains in the proposed street. There is currently an existing sewer main which services the four houses at the end of the existing Meetinghouse cul de sac which ties into a thirty-six inch town trunk line which carries it to the sewage treatment plant parallel to the railroad tracks. They will be tying into that existing main and trunk line. There should be no impact to the existing homes on Bridge Lane.
Mr. Coon stated another issue that was brought up was the eagles in the neighborhood. The comments were received by the Inland Wetlands Commission from the DEP personnel with regard to endangered species which include the eagles in the vicinity of the site. There was a determination that this project would have no significant impact on any endangered species.
Mr. Coon noted another person mentioned that he believed that this could be a through street because it has two entrances. He confirmed that it is a single loop street with only one exit out on to Bridge Lane. Regarding Commissioner Egan's remarks about the Fire Marshal's comments, a representative from the Fire Department was at two of the three ART's and they had no comments in the negative as far as the layout of the loop street. They have had positive comments from the Fire Department and there is a memo to that effect in the file.
Commissioner Egan would like the applicant to talk to the Fire Chief that has to run fire trucks up and down the street and say that is a concern. Mr. Giner will reiterate this concern to the Fire Marshal.
Mr. Coon stated one of the things they did to address the Fire Marshal's initial concerns and the concerns of the Police Department was to prohibit parking on one side of the street to allow for better access around the loop street for emergency vehicles.
Regarding the issues of drainage and runoff, Mr. Coon stated their drainage report concludes and demonstrates that there is going to be no increase in peak discharge to either the area along Bridge Lane or the pond. They are detaining in the detention ponds prior to any input into the pond. Therefore, there will be no increase in discharge to the ponds and there should be no impact on flooding.
Commissioner Duren asked if this takes into account the Head Start water flow. Mr. Coon stated they did look at the Head Start facility and the result is going to be a decrease in flow through a drainage pipe which runs through a drainage easement down from Riverview Street on to their property and into the pond. That is going to be diminished because a good portion of the runoff from Head Start and the elementary school will be collected and sent of with the high school drainage.
Commissioner Egan stated he has not reviewed the drainage calculations regarding capacity. He would like to go back based upon the prior history and prior numbers to see what has changed. Commissioner Egan noted the area designated as open space was one of the most wet parts of that whole parcel because of the flow from the high school. Commissioner Egan would like to know what has changed for Mr. Coon to be able to make the statement that there will be no difference in runoff.
Mr. Coon stated they looked at their drainage area and some of the runoff from the high school property does come on to this property. There is a fence along the northern property line and on the other side of the fence is a swale which actually intercepts water from the field and carries it off in that direction. What is coming on to their property from the high school is a limited drainage area in a portion of the high school site.
Commissioner Egan asked what has made that change from the past or within the last three years. Mr. Coon could not respond to that.
Commissioner Cooper asked about the open space area noting this area is only a couple of feet higher than the river. Mr. Coon stated he believes it is considerably higher than the river. Commissioner Cooper asked if it would be more of a water table problem than a runoff problem. Mr. Coon stated that area was delineated by a soil scientist and the conclusion was that it is more or less a relic wetlands from when the entire area which is now the high school athletic fields was filled in during the 1970's. When they filled that area in, they cut off the water that used to supply water to the wetlands on this property. The wetlands that presently exist no longer have a source of water and are no longer vibrant wetlands. The only real vibrant wetlands are located close to the brook. They did, however, delineate the area as wetlands and went before the Wetlands Commission and received their approval that way. They are not in the flood zone of the river. There were some test pits done previously for the first part of the subdivision which indicated that the ground water level is pretty much at the elevation of the pond or lower than the rest of the subdivision.
Commissioner Duren asked if State Archeologist Nick Bellantoni is interested in this property. Mr. Fredrick stated Mr. Bellantoni walked this piece of property and put in writing his findings that his parcel has no significant Indian artifacts or items of interest to him. He was previously invited to walk this property with his graduate students.
Commissioner Weseliza asked about the location of the retention basin and whose property it is on. Mr. Coon stated that will be located in the open space that will be dedicated to the town. He pointed out it is the preference of the town to either own it or have a maintenance easement to it so that they can maintain it.
Commissioner Weseliza questioned why the town wants to take this on. Mr. Coon stated it is part of the drainage system of this street which will be taken over by the town.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if this is considered a walking school district. Mr. Fredrick confirmed there will be a population of students who walk to both the high school and Enfield Street School. Commissioner Weseliza questioned if sidewalks shouldn't be considered because of this.
Commissioner Egan stated regarding the detention basin ownership, he recalled for the first four homes there was a lot of discussion on drainage, rights and ownership of the pond. He asked if that has been resolved. He stated it looks as though they are running into the existing detention basin and that is draining back into the pond. Mr. Coon stated both of the basins are connected and they do discharge to that pond. The ownership rights are the same and the issues have been resolved. Mr. Fredrick stated it was addressed by the wetlands and an opinion was given by Attorney Arvantely. Mr. Fredrick stated no one is denying that there are rights with the abutters. They are not denying any kind of access to the pond. Commissioner Egan noted they are discharging into the pond and Mr. Fredrick confirmed that to be the case.
Mr. Fredrick asked if the Commission would like to hear from their traffic expert. Commissioner Duren questioned if the traffic report includes the twenty-four new homes plus the four initial new homes. Chairman Howard stated unless the report is going to fit the request of this Commission, not at this time.
Steve Mitchell, the Manager of Transportation and Engineering from F. A. Hesketh, asked for the opportunity to clarify some items. He stated he is a resident of the Town of Enfield. There was a traffic report that was filed and it is in the record. There is some confusion as to whether the correct report is before the Commission and where it might be. He will get extra copies of the traffic report to everyone in the new few days. The report was done according to all regular normal standards for a full blown traffic report. He will make sure that anything that has not been addressed according to the regulations is addressed and that will be issued to the Commission as an addendum if necessary. He will also include the accident history. He pointed out there are actual traffic counts included in the report.
Diane Taft, 16 Riverview, stated her property is located right across the street from the entrance to the single lot in back of Mrs. Pappas' house. Her comment on the traffic analysis is she thinks it should be done when school is in session rather than rushing to do it now. She thinks one thing that is not taken into account is these homes will be nice homes and there will be a lot of deliveries and a lot of lawns being mowed causing a lot more traffic.
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to continue PH#2320, #2321, #2319, and #2318 to Wednesday, July 31, 2002. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternates Cooper and Weseliza voting.
e. PH #2329 - Initiative by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission to Amend Article V (Business Uses) of the Enfield Zoning Regulations to permit outdoor dining as an accessory use under certain conditions in business zones. (MUST CLOSE BY SEPTEMBER 19)
Mr. Giner stated the Commission received a copy of a letter from the owner of the former Christine's Restaurant on Route 5 regarding an amendment to the Enfield Zoning Ordinance to permit outdoor dining as an accessory use under certain conditions in business zones. Mr. Giner stated he has prepared an amendment for the Commission's consideration borrowing some of the language from the regulation in effect in South Windsor. He excluded the Business Professional Zone because restaurants are not allowed in that zone. He also had this reviewed by Mr. Blitz who requested that there be an addition that all trash containers would be self-closing in response to concerns from the Department of Health.
Commissioner Cooper brought up item #12, signage on umbrellas. The consensus of the Commission was to remove this requirement. Commissioner Duren felt such umbrellas add color to the area.
Commissioner Egan stated the Commission is designing an ordinance to meet a certain purpose and where the Commission always seems to get into trouble is when they allow for exceptions. This proposed ordinance says more than four tables and sixteen seats will be allowed outside based upon certain criteria. Mr. Giner stated there are some limitations because they cannot exceed fifty percent of the floor area and cannot exceed fifty percent of the number of tables and chairs within the indoor dining area. There is a limitation noted so that the outside area is clearly an accessory to the main restaurant. Commissioner Egan noted the possibility of getting a restaurant with 1,000 seats and he noted the possibility of opening this up to a banquet facility.
Commissioner Weseliza stated dining would only be outside from June to August and she did not have a concern about size.
Commissioner Egan stated the reason the Commission is doing this is in response to a request. If this is opened up to a 1,000 seat restaurant, there would be other issues like noise and signage. He questioned the need to open this up to everyone. Commissioner Duren felt the ordinance amendment covers such concerns because there would be a need for additional parking of one space for every four seats.
During discussion, Commissioner Egan saw a need for the ordinance amendment to include the definition of restaurant. He suggested referencing the definition of restaurant that is included in the ordinance in this section to avoid future controversy.
Mr. Giner stated included in the town's regulations regarding the definition of restaurant is reference to the Connecticut General Statutes, Webster's 9th Collegiate Dictionary definition, the New Illustrative Book of Development definition and it is included in the glossary of zoning development planning terms.
Chairman Howard opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Howard closed this public hearing.
An amendment was made to the proposed language submitted by Mr. Giner for this change to the ordinance to include outdoor restaurant "as defined per the town's regulations." Item 12 regarding umbrellas will be deleted and the Commission will allow administrative approval for four tables and sixteen seats outdoors.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2329 amending Article V (Business Uses) of the Enfield Zoning Regulations to permit outdoor dining as an accessory use under certain conditions in business zones with the elimination of proposed article xii regarding outdoor umbrellas and the following addition in item F: "In any Business District, except BP, the Planning and Zoning Commission may grant approval for seasonal outdoor dining areas for restaurants, as defined in the Enfield Zoning Ordinance, as an accessory use, subject to the following conditions:" This amendment shall also allow administrative approval for four tables and sixteen seats or less outdoors. This amendment would be effective per State Statutes after publication. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternates Cooper and Weseliza voting.
9. Old Business
a. Bond Releases
1. PH #2086 - Request for release of $3,200 Landscaping Bond for Bank of Boston ATM Kiosk at Stateline Plaza.
No action was taken on this bond release.
2. 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).
No action was taken on this bond release.
3. SPR #1132/1066 - Enfield Carpet, 302 Enfield Street - Request for release of landscape bond in the amount of $5,000
Frank and Barbara Stripek, the owners of Enfield Carpet, appeared before the Commission with a request to release their bond. He commented that he would not recommend to anyone to locate their business in Thompsonville because of the time it has taken him regarding his own business.
Mr. Stripek stated also present tonight is Mrs. Secondo, his neighbor. He stated his plans originally stated arborvitae six inches high. Because this was the first commercial building his builder had ever put up, he went all over trying to find six-inch shrubs thinking that is what was needed. The shortest thing he could find is approximately four feet. These are the trees that are abutting Mrs. Secondo's property that are in question. He also noted the bond amount is not $5,000 but $10,734. He encouraged all Commission members to look at his property. Commissioners complimented Mr. Stripek on the appearance of this building.
During discussion about the trees, Mr. Stripek stated if any of the trees do die, he will replace them.
Mr. Giner stated a letter was sent on August 9, 2000 to the applicant and in that letter it specified six-foot high trees. Mr. Stripek stated the trees were planted prior to that or in May, 2000. He also called earlier in the year and spoke with Jay Northrup and was told that their trees and shrubs were not planted correctly. Mr. Giner stated the recommended bond amount was based on the letter sent by Jay Northrup dated August 9, 2000 and in that letter he specified the size of the plants. Mr. Giner presented photographs to the Commission and he did point out a break in the plantings. Mr. Stripek stated there is a maple tree in the center of the break.
Mr. Giner pointed out an extra dumpster on the property but noted it is not part of the landscaping. The Commission requested that Mr. Bickley review this dumpster and whether it meets the ordinance requirements. Mr. Giner advised the applicant that he would need to have the dumpster on a concrete pad and screened and would need an amendment to his site plan to allow this dumpster.
Mr. Stripek discussed the requirement for the drainage basin next to his building which he was told was needed to facilitate the water runoff from their parking lot. He noted during the most torrential rain there is never any water in that drainage basin which cost him approximately $80,000 to build. Mr. Stripek brought up additional items of concern to him.
Following further discussion, Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to release the landscaping bond for Enfield Carpet, SPR#1132/1066, in the amount of $10,734. The motion was approved by a 4 - 3 - 0 vote. Commissioners Howard, Hickey, Weseliza and Cooper voted in favor; Commissioners Duren, Egan and Krebs voted nay.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to extend the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m. to finish the bond releases and some site plan applications. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
4. PH #2067 - Shaw's Supermarket, Brookside Plaza Hazard Avenue - Request for release of landscape bond in the amount of $8,000.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve release of the landscape bond for Shaw's Supermarket, Brookside Plaza, Hazard Avenue, PH#2067, in the amount of $8,000. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 -0 vote.
5. PH #2212 - Request for release of $10,000 Landscaping Bond for Savings Bank of Rockville ATM Kiosk at Scitico Plaza.
The Commission took no action on this bond release.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR #1179 - Application for construction of a 12 ft. x 18 ft. concrete block pump station building at 40 Booth Road, Zoned R-33, Map 59/62, Lot 59/10, The Connecticut Water Company applicant/owner.
John King, representing the Connecticut Water Company, appeared before the Commission regarding this request for approval of a 12' x 18' concrete block pump station building at 40 Booth Road. This location is adjacent to the spot where they received approval last year for a new treatment facility. This pump station would replace an existing old well building that was part of the CL&P system with a new well that provides potable water to the Town of Enfield and surrounding towns.
Commissioner Duren noted the second map shows a generator but it does not show it in relation to the total plot plan. He asked where these buildings would be located. Mr. King showed the location of the generator and the building they are replacing.
Commissioner Duren asked if there is any noise from this pump station. Mr. King stated it is a vertical turban pump and there would be a humming noise within twenty feet of the building.
Mr. Giner reported John Cabbibo has no concerns regarding this application.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve SPR#1179 for construction of a 12' x 18' concrete block pump station building at 40 Booth Road, zoned R-33, Map 59,62, Lot 59/10, for the Connecticut Water Company. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to take items out of order and consider item d. under Other Business at this time. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
b. SPR #1180 - Application for modification of original site plan to construct a 6 ft. x 6 ft. enclosure for trash cans next to the kitchen exit door of the existing Ruby Tuesday Restaurant (Westfield Shoppingtown) at 90 Elm Street, Zoned BR, Map 43, Lot 16, Ruby Tuesday, applicant/Westfield Shoppingtown, owner.
The Commission did not hear this application.
c. SPR #1181 - Application for operating an MRI at 137 Hazard Avenue which represents a change in use (former beauty salon site), Zoned BP, Map 65, Lot 72, Innovative Medical Imaging, applicant/Gaetan Letourneau, owner.
This Commission did not hear this application.
d. SPR #1182 - Application for a health club with a tanning business at 585 Hazard Avenue (Scitico Plaza - former site of hardware store), Zoned BL, Map 110, Lot 12, Golds Gym, applicant/P&D Realty, owner.
The Commission took no action on this application.
10. 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.
Attorney John Labelle, Jr. and Mark Zessin from Anchor Engineering appeared before the Commission regarding a renewal for the Botticello gravel permit under PH#2191. Attorney Labelle stated this permit has been in effect for approximately twenty years.
Attorney Labelle stated in the interim there were some changes to the regulations but he noted Mr. Zessin will assure the Commission that this site is in compliance with the regulations as adopted since the last permit renewal.
Attorney Labelle stated there has been very little activity on this site in the last two years because it is a special material used during the closing of landfills.
Mr. Zessin stated they went through the Wetlands Commission in the fall of 2001 and received a renewal of their permit from them.
Chairman Howard presented a memo dated July 22, 2002 from Jay Northrup, Assistant Planner, regarding the wetland violation history for Botticello. Mr. Giner noted since the memo was written, Mr. Northrup spoke to someone at DEP who reported the wetlands remediation was done. The remaining issues are with the state consent order.
Mr. Zessin reported on March 5, 2002 Mr. Northrup visited the site and confirmed that the drainage channel on the west side of the property had been installed as agreed.
Mr. Zessin stated regarding the state order, they have been out many times in the past five months. They have seeded the stock piles of soil in the last couple of weeks which was one of the last items on the state punch list. Mr. Zessin stated the state had an employee turnover and there is a new enforcement officer, Ms. Patel. They have worked with Ms. Patel to resolve the remaining couple of issues.
Mr. Zessin presented some pictures showing the channels that are referred to in Jay's March letter.
Chairman Howard stated since he has been involved with Planning and Zoning and prior to, Enfield has spent a lot of tax money with Botticello attempting to get things done properly through enforcement.
Mr. Zessin stated one cease and desist was for a trailer on the property and at this time all the employees in that trailer are gone.
Chairman Howard noted issues on Taft Road with the trees that were cut in the back. Mr. Zessin stated the buffer Botticello agreed to put in about four or five years ago was installed.
Commissioner Weseliza confirmed that Mr. Botticello has not been easy to work with in the past and he has not complied immediately with any of the requests made. Attorney Labelle disagreed and stated this site is almost in complete compliance. Commissioners noted the length of time it has taken for this to occur.
Attorney Labelle discussed differences that occurred between Inland Wetlands and this Commission. They came in with a complete plan two years ago and had put things on the plans at the request of the ZBA and at the last minute Inland Wetlands had a problem. The problem was that there were things shown on the map that the ZBA asked Botticello to update for this Commission that were not on the wetlands map that had been approved. Commissioner Duren confirmed that this Commission requested a map that showed exactly what was out there because there were things on the site that were not documented. Attorney Labelle stated the Wetlands Commission is now happy with the plans.
Mr. Zessin stated there has been very little work done at this site in the last two years and it has been an equipment site for decades prior to it being residentially zoned. There are five industrial neighbors to this property and Mr. Zessin cannot see it being a residential zone.
Attorney Labelle stated two years ago the regulations did not deal with interim operations at all. What Mr. Botticello had done represented best engineering practices and he installed a road along the side and pitched the water off that road back into the pit to be picked up by the drainage facility. This was all done to try to eliminate some of the problems they had with the coloration that came out of this pit during a heavy rainstorm. Every engineer that reviewed this plan said it made perfect sense but Attorney Labelle noted the objection from Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley was that Mr. Botticello did not come before the Commission and request a permit for this activity.
Commissioner Egan stated he was on the Wetlands Commission for five years and for five years that Commission tried to get the issues resolved at this site. The work was not being done. There were a lot of issues that were presented that were not complied with and there were a lot of problems during this time. The state was on the property as well and the state had indicated that they were going to address all of those issues. The town asked that this occur quicker because of the filling in of the wetlands. He does not feel that Mr. Botticello has restored or mitigated any of those wetlands. Mr. Zessin confirmed that the mitigation was done. The state enforcement person was out there in January and March and stated he was satisfied. There was another enforcement officer and she stated she was not satisfied. What they have done since then is work to satisfy Ms. Patel, the second enforcement officer. The hydroseeding on the stock piles was the last item completed.
Mr. Zessin agreed that these issues took some time to resolve.
Commissioner Egan questioned why an extension of the permit is needed if there is no activity on the site. Mr. Zessin stated there have been two projects using the material on this site in the last six years. One was the close of the Ellington landfill and one was the close of the East Hartford landfill. While there is not a lot of demand for this type of material, on occasion there is. It is not, however, on an ongoing basis.
Commissioner Egan stated there is some substantial residential development occurring in the area and this site may have an impact. Mr. Zessin stated the subdivision was constructed in 1998 and the residents have not complained to his knowledge.
Commissioner Egan stated the Commission has not received sufficient information about this application. They are not aware of the operating conditions, the capacity of the fill that is there that can be removed and if the area has significantly changed or will change. Mr. Zessin responded in early June he spoke to Jay Northrup, the Assistant Town Planner, regarding this and what needed to be done to get the renewal permit for another two years. He directed Mr. Zessin to submit a request letter by June 12, 2002 which is what they did. Since that time, he has talked to both Mr. Northrup and Mr. Giner about this permit. After the last meeting on July 17, he submitted twelve new sets of plans and the excavation was shown to be the same as submitted to the town in the 1980's by Fuss & O'Neil and again by them in 1998 and 2000. The only addition to those plans is the additional erosion controls measures that he discussed. The amount of removal of materials is the same as it was in the early 1980's, 1998 and 2000 and the same as on the wetland plan in 1997 and again in 2001. Approximately 60,000 yards have been excavated from the site and there are 160,000 yards remaining. The operating hours have been changed. The computations were reviewed in 1998 by John Cabbibo and their permit was renewed in 2000.
Attorney Labelle stated the problems that existed were much worse two years ago. The site has been cleaned up as requested by the Zoning Board of Appeals. They have done everything and there may have been some delays but over the last two years, there has been consistent improvement to the site.
Mr. Zessin stated they have addressed everything that they were directed to and the trailer that was the subject of a cease and desist order has been removed.
Following further discussion, Mr. Giner stated any extension for Botticello would have to have the exact conditions of previous approvals. Mr. Botticello would like an approval of the permit in place should the market materialize for this product. Mr. Zessin stated Suffield will be closing their landfill and this is the type of material that is used for such a closing.
Mr. Zessin requested a permit for an additional two years and noted all facilities would have to meet the new state requirements.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to approve the request for extension of the Earth Removal Special Use Permit issued under PH#2191 for activities at 112 Broad Brook Road, Botticello, Inc. for two years. The motion was denied by a 0 - 6 - 1 vote. Commissioner Cooper abstained.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve the request for extension of the Earth Removal Special Use Permit issued under PH#2191 for activities at 112 Broad Brook Road, Botticello, Inc. for one year. The motion was approved by a 4 - 2 - 1 vote. Commissioners Howard, Duren, Hickey and Krebs voted in favor; Commissioners Egan and Weseliza voted nay; Commissioner Cooper abstained.
b. Discussion with Tunxis Management regarding landscaping for Brookside Plaza.
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.
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to favorably recommend to the Town Council the 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, Lot 13, Town of Enfield, Applicant/Owner. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
d. Section 8-24 C.G.S. Referral regarding proposed purchase for $1.00 of 6 Gorman Avenue, demolition of existing derelict house with proposed future use of parking lot for town.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to recommend approval to the Town Council regarding the proposed purchase for $1.00 of 6 Gorman Avenue, demolition of existing derelict house with proposed future use of parking lot for the town. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
e. Applications to be accepted
The following applications were accepted by the Commission:
PH #2328 - Application for Special Use Permit for premier public usage computer center in which individuals may use high tech computers to access the internet and/or play games with others nationally and internationally at 604 Enfield Street, Zoned BL, Map 32, Lot 7, Eduardo José B. Curameng, Jr., applicant, James S. Viola, Robert T. Mercik, Frank J. Troiano and Anthony Troiano, owners.
PH #2329 - Town of Enfield application scheduled for this evening's agenda.
PH #2330 - Application for a subdivision at 173 Weymouth Road, north side of Deepwood Road intersection, Zoned R-33, Map 69, Lot 231, William Flagg applicant/owner
PH #2331 - Application for a Special Use Permit for modification of plans previously approved to allow construction of a 7,234 S.F. addition to the existing car dealership building at 20 Palomba Drive, Zoned BR, Map 57, Lot 335, LIA Auto Group, applicant/owner.
PH #2332 - Application for a Special Use Permit for class 1 permit for beer and wine at a restaurant at 917 Enfield Street, Zoned BL, Map 26, Lot 78, Eduardo A. Chavez, applicant, Julie Lai, owner.
PH #2333 - Application for a Special Use Permit for an expansion of a nonconforming use at 66 Fletcher Road, Zoned R-88, Map 118, Lot 3.
SPR #1183 - Application to allow addition of walk-in cooler at rear of restaurant (Pizza Palace) at 524 Enfield Street, Zoned BL, Map 33, Lot 65 James Balis, applicant/owner.
SPR #1184 - Application for modification of plans previously approved for adding on to office building at 29 Oliver Road, Zoned I-1, Map 47, Lot 5, Brendan Begley, applicant/owner.
SPR #1185 - Application for conversion to six unit apartment dwelling at 125 Pearl Street (old Leete Stevens Funeral Home building), Zoned TV, Map 22, Lot 125.
SPR #1186 - Application for modification of plans for handicap ramp at 304 Hazard Avenue, Zoned BL, Map 83, Lot 39 - Administrative Approval.
SPR #1187 - Application to add a rear porch 6 ft. x 9 ft. at 399 Enfield Street, Zoned BL, Map 33, Lot 235, Vincent A. Corrado, applicant/owner.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 11:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Karen Krebs, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|
|
Last Modified: 11/5/2004 4:06:55 AM
|
|
|