|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 20, 2002
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, June 20, 2002 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Howard called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: James Howard, Chairman
Anthony DiPace
Charles Duren
Robert Egan
Karen Krebs
ABSENT: James Hickey, Jr.
Jeffrey Cooper, Alternate
Joseph Jednak, Alternate
Nicles Lefakis
Karen Weseliza, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Egan, to approve the Minutes of June 6, 2002. The Minutes were approved by a 3 - 0 - 2 vote. Commissioners DiPace and Duren abstained.
At the request of Mr. Giner, Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to add two items to tonight's agenda. They include item c. and d. under Other Business as follows: c. Receipt of Applications and d. Discussion of Administrative Approvals. The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE
Following some discussion of the necessity to schedule a special meeting to address the time frames on already received applications, the Commission set a Special Meeting for July 31, 2002 in the Town Hall Council Chambers. The Commission directed Mr. Giner to schedule this meeting for August 1, 2002 if the Council Chambers are not available on July 31.
Chairman Howard noted the Commission received material from Mr. Giner regarding running a meeting which was very informative.
The Commission also received the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Notice of Action.
COMMISSIONERS' CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Giner informed the Commission of a July 18, 2002 Mark Twain riverboat trip sponsored by the Connecticut Chapter of Planning Associations.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
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. (Must close by 7/11)
Chairman Howard gave this applicant the option of being heard tonight since only four Commission members are present. (Commissioner Duren did not participate in this hearing as he was not present for the first public hearing session.) The applicant chose to proceed.
Dana Steele of J. R. Russo and Eric Forish of Forish Construction Company appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Steele stated they are representing Lia for construction of a Volkswagen dealership. This parcel was previously the location of five homes which have since been demolished. The total acreage is just under 2.5 acres. The site slopes from the north to the south away from Elm Street and is bordered to the south and east by Stateline Plaza and to the southeast by Enfield Honda. Across the street is a Residential zone.
Mr. Steele stated the utilities being provided include city water, sanitary, gas and electric. The Fire Department requested that a hydrant be placed near the entrance which they have provided. The Water Pollution Control Authority requested that they take a look at raising the oil water separator which provides floor drains in the service area. The building will be divided into two areas with a sales area on the right side and a service area on the left with nine service bays. Cars would come in under a canopy in the front and through the building and would exit on the west side of the building. There is parking provided around the building for customers and employees and they meet the town requirements. There is also additional paved areas around the perimeter of the site for display of cars. There is parking along the front and an area where there would be double or triple stacking of vehicles to hold their inventory.
Mr. Steele stated the additions to the plan were presented at the last minute and the Commission did not have an opportunity to review them. Changes included the addition of a connection between the proposed Volkswagen site and the Honda site to the south. That connection has been provided and is in the plans submitted to the staff and Commission.
Mr. Steele stated the other change discussed was regarding the access on to Elm Street and whether there would be left hand turns in and out. After talking with the Traffic Safety Officer, Mr. Steele noted it was decided they would limit it to right hand out only and right hand in. The signs have been posted and the striping has been provided to direct traffic in that regard. The access to the south is in place and they received a memo from Lieutenant Boula, the Traffic Safety Officer, stating that these changes address his concerns.
Mr. Steele stated they have also submitted along with this application an application for signage. There will be a freestanding sign located in the northwest corner of the parcel. Details of these signs have been submitted and a colored rendering has been submitted to the Director of Planning. There will also be signs on the building including a Volkswagen logo sign over the front entrance, a service area sign and the LIA nameplate.
Mr. Steele stated because this site is across the street from a Residential zone, an "A" buffer yard of 25' is required. They have shown a 25' buffer with canopy trees, under story trees and shrubs in accordance with the regulations. The landscaping plan lists all the quantities, types and sizes of the proposed landscaping and they satisfy the requirements of the regulations.
Mr. Steele stated there were some comments brought up during the ART which they have addressed. They include a request from the WPCA regarding the water separator and a concern from the Fire Department regarding hydrants and drainage calculations requested by the Engineering Department. Those have been submitted. Mr. Steele also provided the Commission with the drainage report as requested.
Mr. Steele added some additional information to the plans. He wanted to show exactly where the islands on Palomba Drive are located. He stated part of Lieutenant Boula's reasoning for wanting to see the access come around was that the access does not provide a good outlet for the carriers or customers who wish to make a right hand turn on to Palomba Drive. Other alternatives were discussed regarding location and they deferred to the suggestions of the Traffic Safety Officer.
Chairman Howard stated he is pleased to see the applicant took the advice of the Traffic Safety Officer. He stated he personally finds it hard to believe that a customer will go to the back of the building to get out to the main road. His concern is if someone is coming from I-91, they will not have a problem getting to the site but they will have problems getting out of the site. He is not convinced that everyone will use the back and he also had a concern that someone may hit the parked new cars during the winter.
Commissioner Egan asked for some clarification on the drainage summary. The drainage calculation summary mentioned that there was a drainage agreement with Stateline Plaza. He asked if that was presented to the Commission. Mr. Steele stated he did not provide the Commission with a document but they would be happy to do so. They have provided the Commission with an A-2 survey that shows that easement recorded on the plans. If the Commission would like to see the deed on file, they would be happy to provide that. Mr. Steele stated this is recorded on the deed as an easement in lieu of an agreement. The agreement is something that was referred to in the previous drainage study for Pep Boys.
Commissioner Egan noted the statements that the runoff is going to be less from the site after development than before development. He asked if you stop at the outlet, there is no discussion about the volume or capacity of that retention basin that they will be using. There was a lot of discussion with Stateline about that retention basin when they went before the Wetlands Commission. Mr. Steele stated the site could be divided into three drainage areas as shown in the report. The first area is that which is draining to the Stateline property. The second is that which is draining towards the Honda property. The third is the front portion of the site where some of the driveways of the homes were which is sloped toward Elm Street. There is a narrow strip along Elm Street that drains toward Elm Street and a portion that goes to Honda and a portion that goes to Stateline. What they did with their calculations was they showed the pre and post peak flow rates for the various storm events that the Engineering Department requested for each individual drainage area and also collectively for the entire site. The town's requirements deal with the entire site. However, the applicant recognizes the sensitivity of this area where they are tying in and they do not want to increase to this individual area. That is demonstrated in their report.
In regard to the capacity of the detention system, Mr. Steele stated there is a table in section two of the drainage report that highlights the storage capacity of the detention system and how they modeled that system to take the different storm events. They used a computer program. Commissioner Egan asked if they have looked at the storage capacity for Stateline. Mr. Steele stated they did not because they have provided for zero increase in runoff to the input to the Stateline Plaza so there should be no change.
Chairman Howard asked about landscaping. Mr. Steele stated they will conform to the town's requirements.
Commissioner DiPace asked for a brief description of the architecturals since he was not present at the last meeting.
Eric Forish pointed out the showroom area which is a combination of glass and stucco with an entry canopy. The Commission has a colored rendering showing the building will be white with yellow accents. The balance of the building which is the service area is also stucco and it is white. The heating equipment will be screened from view.
Chairman Howard opened this public hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Commissioner DiPace read the memo from John Cabbibo dated June 20, 2002 which notes there is some confusion with the plans. Mr. Steele stated he just received this memorandum and it appears that these issues deal with the detail sheets and some of the technical standards that the Engineering Department would like them to meet. Regarding the sidewalk standard, it is the applicant's intention to meet the town's standards and provide whatever sidewalk the town would like. Mr. Steele noted the sidewalk to the west and the sidewalk to the east that they are connecting into are both four feet wide. They would then have a four-foot sidewalk that widens to five feet and then back to four feet. This is why it is not shown that way but they would be happy to provide whatever the Commission and Engineering would like.
Chairman Howard's opinion was because this dealership will be located on a busy road, the extra width would be beneficial because it would provide a snow bank in the winter.
Mr. Steele stated they would be happy to do the five-foot sidewalk. The other issues are technical in nature and they can be easily addressed. They would be happy to comply with these requirements. Chairman Howard stated these could be part of the conditions.
Commissioner DiPace would like to see the plans modified to address the curb at the entrance. Mr. Steele stated they had discussed whether to have a painted island or curbing. Their main concern was with the car carriers coming in and if they would be able to negotiate that turn. They are willing to provide a curbed island if that is the Commission's desire. They did speak with Lieutenant Boula and he felt the painted island was sufficient but the curbed island would provide an additional deterrent. If this is the Commission's preference, they would be happy to provide something of that nature and would work it out with the town's Engineering staff. Chairman Howard stated he personally would like to see the island but he has a concern that a year from now this island may be all broken up. Mr. Steele stated they would provide a low profile island that cars could drive over.
Chairman Howard asked that the drawings be amended to reflect these changes regarding the curbed island and that they be reviewed by town staff. Mr. Giner suggested including this change in the conditions of approval and that the changes would be shown on the final mylars.
Commissioner Egan asked if the applicant has considered doing away with the drive on to Elm Street and running the entrance and exit both from Palomba Drive. Mr. Steele stated they looked at all the possibilities in consulting with their traffic engineer. They were advised that a driveway location anywhere between this entrance and the corner of Palomba Drive would not be acceptable to the town. It is not a safe location for a driveway being so close to the intersection. Lieutenant Boula also referenced some of the accident history in his first memo and to introduce a driveway in that location, in Mr. Steele's opinion, is not the safest location and they would discourage that approach.
Commissioner Egan questioned the existing driveway. Mr. Steele stated the problem with the single outlet is introducing all of the traffic through this existing site is asking for a lot of logistical problems. They wanted to keep those to a minimum. There will be times when Elm Street is not as busy but they wanted to provide a way so that people who wanted to go towards I-91 can go through the Honda site and take a left. To put all the traffic this way would put too much of a strain on the Honda site and it was not a feasible alternative.
Commissioner DiPace noted the existing driveway through the Honda dealership is twenty-four feet wide. He questioned if this size is sufficient. Mr. Steele stated they have proposed additional signage to direct people and there also needs to be coordination between the employees directing them. Commissioner DiPace asked if this driveway could be widened. Mr. Steele stated they could widen it but it becomes a question for what purpose. Commissioner DiPace felt a wider driveway would encourage the traffic to go around and out the back. Mr. Steele stated they tried to provide a driveway that was wide enough to accommodate the two-way traffic and he noted a tractor trailer can negotiate this turn.
Eric Forish stated as they have developed further the flow of traffic through this parcel in conjunction with Lia, they now see the benefit of creating a workable situation for the traffic to flow through. Since they met with the Traffic Safety Officer and this was the final solution, they have adjusted the grades along the rear so that the car carriers can easily negotiate through the area. It is their intent to be able to use this as a flow through not just for this dealership but also for the Honda dealership where they have had problems in the past due to unloading on the street. They plan to maintain access through there and they want to encourage their customers and sales staff to move vehicles that way. The operators of the dealership are supportive of this and twenty-four feet is a standard two-way flow traffic situation.
Mr. Steele stated the width is not as critical as the radii they are providing and those were sized to accommodate the turning of car carriers.
Commissioner DiPace asked what will be done to relieve the parking across the back of the Honda dealership. Mr. Steele stated there is room for a line of vehicles along the side and there is room for the twenty-four foot aisle to continue around. Commissioner DiPace noted it is so overcrowded in the lot that it would be difficult to drive car carriers through the area.
Mr. Forish stated one of the problems of a business that sells cars is their inventory. This is why they discouraged the development of any flow through on the side of the building. He noted this site does have an adequate drive. The rear area, even with cars parked fully along the back wall and along the building, has more than twenty-four feet of drive and the distance is more than sixty-four feet. Mr. Forish agreed that the north side of the property is congested. He stated the applicant's intent is to be able to utilize this for car carriers, employees and customers. He noted there is adequate room but it needs to be maintained.
Chairman Howard stated he now understands the plans more fully and he noted that once this dealership opens, people are going to be more careful. Commissioner DiPace stated if the area should become blocked, the Commission will send the Zoning Enforcement Officer out to enforce this.
Mr. Giner stated most of the outstanding issues of this application can be handled with conditions. The remaining outstanding issue is how to handle the rights of people to go between the properties. The applicant did not want to put an easement on the other property. Mr. Giner stated he would be concerned that there was no easement because then the other property could be sold and the access could change.
Mr. Steele stated one of the reasons they were delayed in coming back to the Commission with an access is the owner was very uncomfortable with encumbering the Honda parcel with some type of easement. If he were to sell the other dealership, it would make it difficult for two different owners to have a connection there. What was discussed was making this access a condition of the Special Use Permit. What that would mean is because this is a Special Use Permit, conditions can be attached and this access is being provided because of the specific use. If the Volkswagen property were to be sold and someone wanted to come in with another use, then they would need to get a new Special Use Permit and try to determine how access would be provided to the site. Mr. Steele stated that was the concern the owner had and thought that the Special Use Permit solution would provide sufficient controls.
Chairman Howard noted the constant changes in car dealership owners and, for the betterment of the Town of Enfield, he noted the need for an easement.
Commissioner DiPace stated his opinion is he would vote against this application without the easement provided
Mr. Giner noted if the easement is provided, it can always be taken away. If the condition of sale was that important that this easement be left, they could always come in for an amendment to the Special Use Permit to lift that easement with the Commission's approval prior to the sale of this property. Without the easement on the land records, the property could be sold without anyone knowing about it. If another use came in and it was less of a traffic generator, the Commission could consider lifting the easement.
Mr. Steele stated they have discussed this matter and the owner prefers that it be a condition of approval. However, if this Commission is more comfortable with an easement, they will provide it.
Commissioner Egan brought up the resident living next door to this site that raised some questions. The resident noted some years ago when they were proposing all the dealerships on Palomba Drive, it was indicated that all the auto dealerships would be confined to Palomba Drive. Now, they are being located on Elm Street and opening up additional concerns. The resident acknowledged that the residents of Elm Street were told that all the car dealerships would be confined to Palomba Drive. Commissioner Egan stated the resident also noticed they started to work on this site before they received the necessary permits. His question was did they violate any of the zoning regulations prior to coming for site plan approval.
Mr. Giner stated they did not violate any of the zoning regulations. They called ahead of time and were told they could clear the site without digging into the ground. Anyone can cut down trees on their own property. Mr. Giner stated the zoning regulations try to encourage dealerships to locate on Palomba but it also left auto dealerships as a permitted use in the Business General zone. There are some on Elm Street and Hazard Avenue. Commissioner Egan noted they are asking for a special use permit to operate in a Business General zone and this can be denied. Mr. Giner confirmed this to be the case if the proposed use does not fit in with the neighborhood or does not meet the criteria of the Special Use Permit regulations.
Chairman Howard opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Howard requested that Mr. Giner prepare the conditions for this application to be considered at the next Regular Meeting.
Mr. Giner summarized the conditions. Commissioner Krebs requested a condition stating there will be no parking of vehicles anywhere but on the site to prevent car carriers from unloading on the street. The Commission requested an easement between the two parcels along with the technical changes requested by the Town Engineer and the curbing. Mr. Giner will request that the conditions of approval be filed on both the Volkswagen and Honda properties. Chairman Howard requested that the Commission receive these conditions prior to the next Regular Meeting.
Mr. Steele responded to the issue about the neighborhood. This site is in a Business General zone and a car dealership is allowed by a Special Use Permit. The site is also adjacent to the Business Regional Zone and all the other car dealerships. There is also a car dealership across the street, Saturn, which does have frontage on Elm Street. Saturn is the same type of situation except for the driveway. That issue had to do with safety and traffic and they have tried to address that as well and also address the concerns of the Traffic Safety Officer. They have located the site in an area that is in agreement with the surrounding properties.
Chairman Howard closed this public hearing. This application will be acted upon at the July 11, 2002 Regular Meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
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. (Must close by 7/25).
Penny Urbanowicz, 58 South Road, and Deborah Schlatz, 42 South Road, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Ms. Urbanowicz stated they are before the Commission requesting a resubdivision of a parcel containing twelve acres of land. This was the estate of her uncle, Edward Sidor. When Mr. Sidor was living, the house was never taken out as an individual lot. At this time, they need to put a lot with the house which is the 1.06 acres. They are also creating two parcels of land - one consisting of 7.8 acres and a second which is four acres. Ms. Urbanowicz stated she will be purchasing the 7.8 acre parcel to help with the settlement of the estate. The other portion, the four acres, Deborah Schlatz will be keeping as her part of the estate. Her cousin Stephen will get the house.
Ms. Urbanowicz stated this land has been used as an agricultural use and they want to continue this use. They are seeking this approval in order to settle this estate.
Commissioner Duren stated he recalled when the other lots on Olmstead Road were broken off, the Commission did not ask for any open space. The Director at the time said there would come a time when the Commission would look at open space. This property has been subdivided several times, some of it to family members. Ms. Urbanowicz stated this resubdivision is still to family members.
Commissioner DiPace stated the Commission previously waived the open space but said that any future subdivision would require the open space. His concern was if this property is divided without the town receiving open space, the result will be small parcels and the open space will be difficult to obtain. Commissioner DiPace further noted a school abuts this property.
Mr. Giner discussed the Zarcaro file which was approved in 1996. It was a three-lot resubdivision. It was approved with two conditions. The second condition stated the requirement of open space land equal to ten percent of the area of the three proposed building lots is postponed until the next resubdivision of the remaining land. Mr. Giner stated this was anticipating the next resubdivision would involve construction.
Mr. Giner stated the regulations say the open space requirements of the section shall not apply if the transfer of all land in the subdivision is to a parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle or first cousin for no consideration. Mr. Giner stated the open space would be not only for the land proposed to be developed but also for the previously developed land. He suggested if this application is only for settlement of an estate, that the Commission may want to consider restating the condition to go on the land records of these properties. In this way, if anyone did sell their land to a developer, that developer would be on notice that there is open space to be considered.
Commissioner DiPace questioned if the Commission can condition it on all the lots the Commission is subdividing should any type of building occur. Mr. Giner stated they would still have to come back to this Commission for a resubdivision because the plans now read not for building purposes. Technically, the two lots are not lots for building purposes.
Commissioner DiPace asked if the property is subdivided and there are different owners, who will be responsible for the open space. Mr. Giner suggested a condition be put on that the owners of the two parcels coming in for development would be on notice that they need to provide open space.
Commissioner DiPace asked how this would be divided between the two parcels. Mr. Giner stated it would be the responsibility of the first party requesting development. Commissioner Duren felt this would be a guarantee that the property will never be developed.
Ms. Urbanowicz stated the property would be difficult to develop because most of it is wetlands and development would be quite restricted.
Chairman Howard asked if the four parcels of property on the left on Olmstead are owned by family members. Ms. Urbanowicz stated that property was once part of her uncle's land and the existing residents purchased the property from her uncle.
Chairman Howard asked if the present transfer is for money or no money. Mr. Giner stated the regulations say if it is for no consideration, they are exempt. If it is for money, it could be an immediate family member and they would not be exempt from the open space.
Deborah Schlatz stated the estate is presently going through probate. Her father left a will that each of the three children get a share of the land. However, her sister doesn't want any part of keeping the property and wants to be compensated for her share of the property. In order to get the money, Ms. Urbanowicz is purchasing part of the property. Ms. Urbanowicz stated this is extremely important to her family. The family has been farming since 1926 and they want to keep it a farm. There will be no selling and the property will continue as an agricultural use.
Commissioner Egan noted if it is coming out of the estate and it is owned by the estate and the will is going through probate and there is no consideration, the three people would in essence be the beneficiaries of the will. With the distribution, there is no consideration.
Commissioner DiPace noted there is a subdivision and Ms. Urbanowicz is buying out the party that is not interested in continuing ownership of the land.
Chairman Howard's opinion was money is being exchanged so the open space comes into play. He does not see a problem keeping this as a farm.
Ms. Urbanowicz stated it is important for the Commission to remember that they are not developing anything. If they were to develop it, they would have to be back before the Commission with plans.
Ms. Urbanowicz stated this plan was requested by Probate Judge Susan Warner. This is the only way these people can get out of the estate which has been going on for two years. She asked for the Commission's assistance in getting this resubdivision done.
Commissioner Egan noted the person receiving the money does not have a name on one of the lots. She would get a parcel of land from this and then she is going to turn around and sell it. Ms. Urbanowicz confirmed that to be the case and she is selling the land to her. This has been agreed to by Judge Warner.
Mr. Giner suggested keeping that condition on the land records of all the lots saying if they do want to develop the property and even construct one house, they have to somehow account for the open space. Commissioner DiPace questioned how this will be accomplished.
Mr. Giner stated it was the Commission's intent when the Zarcaro property was divided that there would be a ten percent open space requirement of the whole parcel.
Ms. Urbanowicz suggested putting the restriction on both parcels. That would be agreeable to them.
Mr. Giner noted if someone has sixty percent of the land, their obligation should be sixty percent of the fees in lieu of open space and the remainder would be responsible for forty percent. Mr. Giner stated without any development occurring, it is difficult to predict the future.
Commissioner Duren stated when the Zarcaro lots were sold, there was a reason the Commission could not get the open space. Ms. Urbanowicz stated her cousin's parents had both been ill for years.
Chairman Howard requested a reading from the Town Attorney regarding the transfer since money is changing hands. There is the open space issue and once this property is broken up, sidewalks will come into play.
Ms. Urbanowicz stressed that they are not planning to develop the property. The land is clearly marked not a building lot.
Mr. Giner confirmed that the only use for the parcels at this time would be farming. They could not build one house without coming back to this Commission. The only new lot that would fall under the subdivision is the house lot.
Commissioners Krebs and DiPace both agreed that the Commission needs something from the Town Attorney confirming that this is the correct way to proceed.
Commissioner DiPace stated with the original resubdivision that occurred, the Commission worded a condition saying that any other subdivision that came in would have to provide the open space. Now, the Commission is considering waiving the open space again. He requested that it be worded properly for the next time.
Commissioner Egan suggested with the agreement, that the wording be put into the deeds on all of the parcels and that would address all the concerns. Anyone that purchases a parcel of land from them will be doing a title search and they will then be told that they have the obligation to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Egan stated the Commission could approve it and leave it up to the Town Attorney to give the wording for the restriction on the deed as far as future development. He felt this would resolve the present issue.
Mr. Giner asked if the property has been appraised. The applicants stated it has. Mr. Giner requested a copy of the appraisal and stated perhaps there is a way of evenly distributing the open space. It could be put on the land records that if the parcel is pink is further subdivided, it shall be liable for x amount of dollars for the fee in lieu of open space. If the parcel in yellow is subdivided, it would be liable for x amount of dollars. The owners could decide what would be equitable between the two parcels taking into consideration the existing wetlands and the opportunities for development. Mr. Giner noted the town's regulations require a copy of the appraisal.
Chairman Howard asked for public input regarding this application. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Mr. Giner suggested continuing this public hearing to July 11. In the interim, he will prepare a suggested motion based on the research he does.
Chairman Howard noted this property is being subdivided for the purpose of settling an estate. He questioned if that transfer is the same. Mr. Giner stated if it is for no consideration since the town's regulations are based on what the state statutes say.
Commissioner Egan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to continue PH#2312 until the next Regular Meeting, July 11, 2002. The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote.
OLD BUSINESS
a. Preliminary discussion with Enfield People for People, Inc. to explore the possibility of amending the Town Zoning Ordinance to allow one low-to-moderate income, planned unit development per year of not more than 15 units.
Michael Camerota, 232 George Wood Road, Somers, Connecticut, the Vice President of Enfield People for People, appeared before the Commission. He noted People for People is a non-profit housing corporation based in Enfield. They are volunteers with no paid staff. Both the Secretary and Treasurer are in the audience tonight.
Mr. Camerota stated in the past eight to ten years, Enfield People for People has developed two cooperatives on the sweat equity model of low to moderate income housing for people who could not otherwise afford to enter the housing market. He presented pictures of their two existing developments, Pine Grove and Pleasant Street.
Mr. Camerota stated Pine Grove is an eight-unit development and the picture before the Commission shows four of the units. The second development on Pleasant Street was previously three boarded up homes. He pointed out the homes were gutted and rehabilitated and he presented a picture of that project. Each of the homes was converted into two two-bedroom and two four-bedroom units.
Mr. Camerota stated under the sweat equity model, Enfield People for People purchases the property, selects the families that are going to be living there and those families contribute four hundred hours of their own sweat equity. This may include either rehabilitating the property or building if it is a new development. They may do painting, install insulation or have contact with contractors. They also receive training in how to manage a cooperative. The cooperative is formally incorporated much like a condominium project with bylaws and a declaration. They have house rules and ultimately the entire property, once completed, is turned over to the cooperative. The cooperative pays its own mortgage, taxes and insurance and makes its own decisions. At that time, Enfield People for People backs out of the development completely.
Mr. Camerota stated they have completed two developments and for the last few years have been looking to start a third development. They have not been able to find three or four more buildings available all together. As an alternative, they would like a smaller new development similar to what they did at Pine Grove.
Mr. Camerota stated they have found a parcel but at the time they found the parcel, the town had a moratorium on planned unit developments. The Commission has since initiated a provision against planned unit developments. Mr. Camerota stated they would like to develop a project of eight to fifteen units. He asked whether the town would consider a limited amendment to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Camerota stated it could be limited to low or moderate income families or one development per year or one development every two or three years. It could also be limited to a maximum size of fifteen units.
Mr. Camerota is requesting this amendment so that People for People can continue with their valuable work in Enfield which is adding to the low and moderate income housing stock. They provide an opportunity for families to take a stepping stone where based on their income, they can have an ownership interest. Mr. Camerota noted that most of the people that participate in these developments ultimately own their own home. At the time they move out, another family moves in and the process starts over again.
Commissioner Egan asked how this is different from Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Camerota stated Habitat for Humanity purchases a piece of property and has a family that comes in and contributes sweat equity but then the property is then turned over to that family. The family can then put the home on the open market when they decide to purchase another home. A home is rehabilitated but at the time the family moves out, it is not another low to moderate income family that occupies the home because the home is for sale as part of the housing stock. In the People for People model, when the families move in and contribute their sweat equity, they do not have a full ownership interest that they can put on the market and sell. Rather, they have a limited ownership interest in the cooperative so that they have the right to live in their unit for as long as they want. The Pine Grove development has two original owners who have occupied the units for approximately ten years. The others have all moved on. If they decide to move, they cannot put the unit on the open market. It is limited by deed in the declaration that they must sell their unit back to the cooperative for the value of their sweat equity which is typically approximately $1,500 plus an interest factor. The next family moving in would put down the $1,500 to $2,500 or in some cases they have been allowed to contribute their own sweat equity with ongoing maintenance. In this way, the units remain part of the low to moderate income housing indefinitely.
Commissioner Egan stated he noticed all officers are from Somers and he asked if they had any projects in Somers. Mr. Camerota stated at the time the organization started, all officers resided in Enfield. Ed Mikewicz was their first President and a resident of Enfield. Mr. Camerota was Vice President and resided in Enfield at the time. Two of the officers belonged to St. Bernard's Church and there was that connection. The second tie was the first parcel of property they used was originally owned by St. Bernard's Church.
Commissioner Egan felt this is a good program and it gives people a chance to own their own home. Mr. Camerota noted both projects are also very well maintained.
Commissioner DiPace stated the Enfield People for People program is great for Enfield and it also helps the Enfield revitalization. His opinion was if there is a way the Commission can get more projects like this in different areas of the town, it should be considered because it does help rehabilitate neighborhoods.
Commissioenr Duren asked about a time frame between allowing this type of project and completion of the project. Mr. Camerota stated the organization has five regular members at this time and when they do a project, they bring other people in. They have no paid staff. It has generally taken five to six years from the time they identify the parcel, obtain the state funding, grants and donations, actually develop the property, select the families, train the families and turn the property over to them.
Mr. Camerota stated their second project was completed over three years ago. They have been actively looking for land for two years. Their first choice would be existing homes but they have not been able to find three or four homes together. Also, with the zoning ordinance the way it is, they are unable to develop on new land.
Mr. Camerota suggested limiting an amendment to the ordinance to one development every five years because practically that is all they are going to be able to do. If the Commission is amenable to considering an amendment, Mr. Camerota stated their plan was to continue the discussion with Mr. Giner and ultimately a plan will be proposed to the Commission.
Chairman Howard felt Enfield People for People's work is an asset to the community. He questioned why they would need two or three homes together and why couldn't they just do single-family homes. Mr. Camerota stated this model has been used around the state. In order for it to work, if you have just four families and one or two of the families are not successful, it is too easy for the project to fall apart. With eight to fifteen families, you can have one or two vacancies or have one or two families having difficulties, and the project will still succeed.
Chairman Howard felt there was more of a benefit to the Town of Enfield with rehabilitating existing housing rather than building new. Mr. Camerota stated there is a benefit to adding to the low and moderate income housing stock of the community. He added the families they target are the single-parent family or families with three, four or five children.
Commissioner Egan noted in Enfield's regulations there are specific provisions for non-profit entities. He asked if there is something specific in the regulations that Mr. Camerota would like to see changed. Mr. Camerota stated as he understands it, after meeting with Mr. Giner, the type of development they would like to do would be considered a planned unit development and it is presently prohibited by the ordinance.
Mr. Giner stated multi-family homes are allowed in the Thompsonville Village Center but that is the only zone where they are allowed. The regulations also allow housing for the elderly and it is a narrowly defined type of planned residential development. Senior Residential Developments are also allowed but they have to be single-family detached and target a specific age group.
Mr. Giner stated the benefits to the Town of Enfield with a project like People for People is proposing is these are restricted to low and moderate income families. As such, they qualify as units by the state. Presently, Enfield is exempt from the affordable housing statutes because over ten percent of their housing stock is affordable units. With the continuing development of single-family units, at some point the town may be approaching that ten percent. When the low to moderate income housing dips below the ten percent, the town then loses a lot of control over development. Any developer can come in and if he proposes to do twenty percent affordable housing, can take any parcel of land and develop it. The burden of proof now is on the developer's shoulder and that would change under the state affordable housing development. The burden of proof is then put on the Commission to state why a project was denied.
Mr. Giner summarized to have a program that permits additional, deed restricted housing that is affordable helps the town in the long run.
Commissioner DiPace would like to see the town remain above ten percent for affordable housing. Also, Enfield People for People has a good track record. Both developments look great and the town has not had any problems. Commissioner DiPace suggested Mr. Camerota meet with Mr. Giner and that Mr. Giner prepare an amendment to the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Giner stated a proposed amendment would have to go to a public hearing and be adopted by the Commission. There would then have to be a public hearing to consider the project if the amendment is approved. He is looking for a consensus from the Commission that they want this pursued.
Commissioner Duren suggested limiting it to so many units with a span of time between the construction of such units.
Mr. Giner stated with the Commission's agreement, he will begin research to prepare such an amendment to the ordinance. The consensus of the Commission was to have Mr. Giner prepare a proposed amendment for consideration by the Commission. Chairman Howard had a concern about how this amendment would be used by others. Commissioner Duren felt a limitation to eighteen units would not make a project worthwhile to a major developer. Mr. Giner will investigate what other towns have done and also ask for an opinion from the Town Attorney.
Chairman Howard requested a summary paper for the benefit of the Commission as to the significant points that were considered in deleting planned residential developments from the Enfield Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Egan, to recess. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission recessed at 9:25 a.m. The Commission reconvened at 9:35 p.m.
Bond Releases
1. PH#2176 - Kids Kare Daycare, 601 Hazard Avenue - Request for release of site bond in the amount of $101,130, and landscape bond in the amount of $8,219.
Mr. Giner reported the Town Engineer had a concern with releasing this bond because what was built by Kids Kare Daycare was not exactly what was shown on the plans. The applicant had come in and requested not building the new parking lot since the regulations were about to change and she did not need the additional parking. At that time, the Commission agreed with the change to remove the parking lot and authorized the Planning Department to issue a certificate of compliance. There has been no problem with the use and the present parking is well in excess of what is needed.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to release the engineering site bond in the amount of $101,130 for Kids Kare Daycare, PH#2176. The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote. No action was taken regarding the landscaping bond.
2. PH#2040 - Request for release by George Colli of Your Home LLC of Engineering Bond in the amount of $31,830 and Erosion and Sediment Control in the amount of $3,600 for Katie Lane Subdivision (off Hazard Avenue)
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to release the engineering bond of $31,830 and the Erosion and Sediment Control bond of $3,600 for PH#2040, George Colli of Your Home LLC. The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote.
3. PH#2085 - Request for release by Konover for Erosion and Sediment Control in the amount of $840 and Engineering in the amount of $170,180 for Petco at 25 Hazard Avenue.
Stan Glantz of Konover Development stated it is his understanding the landscaping bond has already been released. They previously met with Jay Northrup and Mr. Northrup sent a memo to the Commission verifying that the landscaping had been completed. Mr. Glantz stated the erosion and sediment control work was done when TGI Friday's opened and there were no issues from Engineering.
Release of this bond was tabled to the July 11, 2002 meeting pending receipt of a memo from the Town Engineer recommending release.
4. PH#2228 - Request for release by Konover for Erosion and Sediment Control in the amount of $1,000 and Engineering in the amount of $170,180 for Petco at 25 Hazard Avenue.
Release of this bond was tabled to the July 11, 2002 meeting pending receipt of a memo from the Town Engineer recommending release. Mr. Stan Glantz stated it would be helpful to clear this matter up before the project changes hands.
5. PH#1410 - Request for release of $3,872 bond for landscaping associated with a sign on Mullen Road frontage of the Carriage House PRD.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve a landscaping bond release for PH#1410 in the amount of $3,872. The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR#1174 - Application for a modification to previously approved plans for a martial arts studio and a sign at 9 North Main Street, zoned TV, Map 24, Lot 59, Myron Levy, Applicant, Francis Padrevita, Owner.
Mr. Giner stated the applicant is not present this evening. The Revitalization Committee has no problem with the use. Regarding signs, staff is working with the owner to come up with revised signage at the request of the Enfield Revitalization Committee.
Commissioner Egan asked about parking. Mr. Giner stated this was previously a retail use. There is no possibility of adding parking and the parking is not getting any worse. Mr. Giner did not see a problem with the present use and the present amount of parking. Commissioner Egan had a concern that this may establish a precedent for other businesses. Mr. Giner stated it would not. In any other zone, if someone came in for a change of use and did not increase the parking requirements, it would be a staff review only. However, in the Thompsonville area, the Commission has requested that they see such applications and that they also be forwarded to the Enfield Revitalization Committee.
The consensus of the Commission was to have Mr. Giner handle this application administratively since it met with their approval.
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.
Chairman Howard asked about Botticello, Inc. and how many cease and desist orders have been issued since the original permit was issued and the number of complaints.
Commissioner Egan asked if there are any open DEP issues for this site.
Commissioner DiPace asked about the date of expiration for the Botticello, Inc. permit. Mr. Giner stated the permit expires July 11, 2002. Commissioner DiPace stated he would like a public hearing held on this special use permit for Botticello, Inc. Commissioner Duren agreed.
Michael Dion, an Engineer with Anchor Engineering Services, appeared before the Commission regarding this request. He stated that Mark Zessin, the lead engineer, was unable to attend tonight's meeting. Mr. Dion stated Botticello, Inc. has been interacting with the DEP recently. There have been improvements made to the site. There has been very little removal of material since the last renewal.
Mr. Dion stated Botticello, Inc. has diminished many of its activities. In the previous renewal in the year 2000 compared to what they are asking for in 2002, activities have diminished, improvements have been made, they are interacting with the DEP and very little material has actually left the site. This is a request for another renewal for the excavation permit.
Mr. Dion stated many years ago there was a question if there ever was a permit. There was eventually a permit issued and there was a recent Inland Wetlands approval process in 2001 or the spring of this year. Mr. Dion has plans that demonstrate some of the improvements that Commission requested. As a whole, he believes the site is in much better condition than it was two years ago.
Commissioner Egan asked what are Botticello's plans for the future use. Mr. Dion stated he cannot really determine that. He noted most of their operations have moved to a different municipality. The gravel has a commodity value and that is the reason they would like to maintain the site.
Commissioner Egan asked if the activities on this site have been minimal, why would Botticello want an extension. Mr. Dion stated because of the gravel. He noted over the last two years they have not moved a lot of material from the site.
Commissioner DiPace would like to see the record of this site from the last two years. Depending on what that shows, if there is going to be a continuation and there have been serious problems, there should be a public hearing. He would like to receive the report first and then decide on the action by the Commission regarding a public hearing.
Mr. Giner recommended the Commission consider this request at the July 25, 2002 meeting.
The Commission requested an enforcement history since the original approval both state and local re: Botticello, Inc.
b. Discussion with Tunxis Management regarding landscaping for Brookside Plaza.
Mr. Giner stated there is a new manager at Brookside Plaza and he has also not received anything from John Reveruzzi regarding the original site plan.
Chairman Howard stated he has not changed his opinion regarding this site and he felt there is very little landscaping removal that needs to be done other than to clear around their sign. He would not like to see the mature landscaping removed.
This item was tabled to the next Regular Meeting.
c. Receipt of Applications
Chairman Howard asked about the restaurant that was locating on Enfield Street that previously requested a deck. He has not seen this application on the agenda. Mr. Giner will work on the proposed amendment and try to get this on the agenda for the July 25 meeting.
Mr. Giner noted the following applications all have to be considered before the Commission recesses for the summer:
Applications to be accepted by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission:
PH#2324 - Application for Special use Permit for Communication Facility at the Shaker Pines Fire Department, 37 Bacon Road, zoned I-1, Map 94, Lot 62, Shaker Pines Fire Department, Applicant/Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for July 31, 2002. Mr. Giner noted the possibility of scheduling this hearing for July 25, 2002.
PH#2325 - Application for Special Use Permit to unmerge two lots of record at Westford Avenue, zoned R-33, Joann Bennici, Applicant/Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for July 11, 2002.
PH#2326 - Application to construct a fueling facility in the southwest corner of the main parking lot of 54 Hazard Avenue (Stop & Shop Plaza), zoned BR, Map 56, Lot 56, Hazard Avenue Associates LLC, Applicant/Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for July 31, 2002.
SPR#1175 - Application for Hallmark Cards free children's exhibit entitled Kaleidoscope to be held August 14 - August 19 at Westfield Shoppingtown, zoned BR, Map 57, Lot 325, Hallmark Cards, Applicant/Westfield America, Owner.
The Commissioner directed Mr. Giner to handle this item administratively.
SPR#1176 - Application by Minit Car Wash for a car wash and signage at 585 Hazard Avenue, zoned BG, Map 110, Lot 12, Alan K. Tracy, Applicant/P&D Realty, Owner.
SPR#1177 - Application for modification to approve site plans for Wendy's Restaurant to place an International Cold Storage (ICS) unit measuring 8 feet x 14 feet on existing asphalt adjacent to existing trash enclosure, run electrical service to same, and fence unit in with wood shad box fencing at 90 Elm Street (Westfield Shoppingtown), zoned BR, Map 43, Lot 17, Cedar of New England d/b/a Wendy's, Applicant/Westfield America, Owner.
SPR#1178 (The Commission requested this be changed to a public hearing) - Application for modification to approved site plans for Kentucky Fried Chicken to change facade to conform to KFC Corporate image 6000 series by removing existing mansard, change to stucco and relocate signage to reflect KFC/A&W at 16 Hazard Avenue, Brookside Plaza, zoned BR, Map 56, Lot 22, Springfield Foods System, Inc., Applicant/Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled at the discretion of the Director of Planning.
d. Discussion of Administrative Approvals
The Commission directed Mr. Giner to handle Joey's Pizza, Hazard Avenue, administratively.
The Commission determined that no further action was necessary by them regarding the Enfield Gardens Condominium Project on Post Office Road.
Commissioner Egan brought up the sale of fireworks. Mr. Giner stated these are retail sales and the use on Hazard Avenue has an open sales permit for no more than thirty days. If they choose to extend the use beyond the thirty days, they would have to come before the Commission.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission previously had a letter from Paul Fox regarding the property on Kalish Avenue. He received notice that the Town Council had abandoned the right of way but were still waiting for a map to be filed on the land records. Mr. Giner presented the map they are proposing to file. He stated that Mr. Fox suggested previously that before this property goes to this property owner, that the Commission change the zone in one small section to commercial. Commissioner Krebs stated she would like to see a formal proposal. Mr. Giner stated the Commission could hold its own public hearing to change the zone. Commissioner Duren stated it was his understanding that the Town Council wanted to abandon this as a road but keep this area so that they could plant it and install signs. Mr. Giner stated under law, according to the Town Attorney's Office, when this right of way map is filed, the property is abandoned and reverts to the abutting property owners. Commissioner DiPace suggested the land be sold instead of abandoned. The consensus of the Commission was they are not inclined on their own to change the zone of this property.
Commissioner Duren asked if Mr. Northrup checked the logging operation.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DiPace, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Karen Krebs, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|
|
Last Modified: 11/5/2004 4:08:29 AM
|
|
|