|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
MAY 2, 2002
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, May 2, 2002, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman James Howard called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: James Howard, Chairman
Anthony DiPace
Robert Egan
James Hickey, Jr.
Karen Krebs
Nicles Lefakis
Jeffrey Cooper, Alternate
Karen Weseliza, Alternate
ABSENT: Charles Duren
Joseph Jednak, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
EXECUTIVE SESSION - 7:30 P.M.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to go into Executive Session to discuss the pending Head Start appeal with Attorney Matt Willis. The motion was approved by a 6 - 0 - 0 vote with Chairman Howard and Commissioners DiPace, Egan, Hickey, Krebs, and Cooper voting. (Commissioners Lefakis and Weseliza arrived at approximately 7:35 p.m.).
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to come out of Executive Session. Following a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Weseliza voting, Executive Session ended at 7:55 p.m. Chairman Howard stated there were no votes taken or decisions made during this Executive Session.
REGULAR MEETING
Chairman Howard requested a moment of silence to remember Mary Lou Flynn, the Town's Registrar of Voters, who passed away early this morning.
STAFF COMMENTS
a. Town Attorney
Assistant Town Attorney Maria Stavropolous reported the Commission has received the Town Attorney's report dated April 26, 2002. The Office is awaiting word on one of the cases and should be hearing about it shortly. Other than that, there are no changes.
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer
Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley reported on concerns the Commission had at Artioli Dodge on Enfield Street and the use of their property to park cars. They received approval for the use but they haven't done the site work yet. Mr. Bickley contacted the engineer who is doing the work for them and he reported they sent the application to the DOT seven weeks ago and they are still waiting for a response. The approval from the DOT may require some changes to the site and they will have to come back to the Commission if that is the case.
Mr. Bickley stated he talked to George Pane from the DOT this morning about the lighting that is on the telephone poles in the front of Artioli Dodge and within the state right of way. Mr. Bickley, at Mr. Pane's request, will notify Mr. Artioli and his engineer that these lights should be toned down and shielded. Chairman Howard stated that was a condition of approval because of complaints from the abutter. Mr. Bickley stated because the lights are in the state right of way, he first has to notify Mr. Artioli and if no action is taken, then Mr. Bickley will send it to the DOT.
Mr. Bickley reported on Rich's Oil Service at 179 North Maple Street. The attorney requested an extension to the middle of March. Mr. Bickley called him and stated another extension will have to be requested in writing. He did not receive anything and sent Rich's Oil a cease and desist order last week.
c. Director of Planning and Community Development
Chairman Howard tabled this item until after the public hearings.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Phil Sidel, North Maple Street, stated a Jehovah Witness Kingdom Hall was built next to his home. He was told at the time of the application that the town would make sure that he got a buffer zone between the church and his home. Mr. Sidel stated the landscaping has not been completed. All winter he has dealt with lights sweeping his home and he has mentioned this to church officials. It is an issue since the church was built facing Mr. Sidel's house and they built their parking lot right on the very edge of his property with no buffer zone. There are a few ground plants but nothing to block the lights. Mr. Sidel stated the Commission had said he would receive a buffer zone and to date that has not occurred. Also, a fence was installed on the other side of the church but not on Mr. Sidel's side. Chairman Howard directed Mr. Giner to review the plans and determine if the site is conforming to the plans that were approved.
Frank Chenego, 316 North Maple Street, one house over from the Jehovah Witness Kingdom Hall, stated nothing has been planted and all he sees is the church parking lot.
Mr. Sidel stated whether a buffer zone is in the original plans or not, he was told they were going to modify the plans so that he would have some type of buffer zone. Chairman Howard requested that Mr. Giner also review the Minutes of this application to see what was said. Mr. Sidel stated he is getting the run around from church officials regarding the plantings.
Mr. Sidel added the water from the Jehovah Witness church runs across his neighbor's property across the street and the water from the parking lot runs like a waterfall into his yard and is digging a trench in his yard. Chairman Howard stated that will be looked at by town staff.
Mary Ann Turner, 7 Meadow Road, reported yesterday's newspaper article concerning the mistaken face lift that halted the vinyl siding being put on for a home in the Thompsonville area. Ms. Turner stated this is a perfect example of another time when the Planning Department doesn't know their whole job. She had a similar problem when Pheasant Hill was coming in getting permits for decks and sheds. When this started, the Building Department did not know Pheasant Hill could not have these items. Ms. Turner felt it is time for the Planning Department to make sure that their people are educated on their jobs. If Mr. Alsbaugh is supposed to be the liaison with the Enfield Historic District, then somehow he needs to know when someone comes in for a building permit. If he knew, he would have put the red flag up that this house was a historic property. It should not be the end users' job to know what they do not know. Ms. Turner felt while this is not the Commission's purview, this was the only format to bring this to the town's attention.
Mary Ann Turner suggested that the Zoning Enforcement Officer and the representative from the Town Attorney's Office might wait until after public participation is completed. This will give them an opportunity to hear what the people have to say that may some way impact them. Ms. Turner gave Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley a pat on the back for his efforts regarding Pheasant Hill.
Ms. Turner discussed the trees that need to be planted at Pheasant Hill as part of the approved plan. Mr. Bickley is aware of this. Ms. Turner noted the Pheasant Hill residents may plant two-inch trees now and these trees should have been planted two years ago. She suggested if any such work comes before the Commission in the future, it should get bonded.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Howard reported receipt of an invitation for a course to be held on May 14 and 15 from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. He also reported receipt of information regarding the Artioli Dodge site. There were also Notices of Action from the Zoning Board of Appeals and Historic District Commission.
COMMISSIONERS' CORRESPONDENCE
Commissioner DiPace brought up the recently approved Mobil canopy application for the station on Hazard Avenue. He missed the meeting where this was acted upon and he had brought up safety issues regarding the gas station driveway. Mr. Giner stated the Commission received a report from Lieutenant Boula saying that the canopy at that time was not an issue. There was an ART meeting yesterday with Bohler Engineering to discuss driveway openings since the DOT is doing some work in the area. Mr. Giner will be setting up a meeting with the ConnDOT engineers to discuss the driveway configuration.
Commissioner DiPace stated he brought up this safety concern because one of the patrol safety officers had asked him if this driveway ever came before the Commission to try to close off this driveway due to safety concerns. Commissioner DiPace brought up a recent article in the Enfield Press noting an accident in this area. Chairman Howard stated the vote was made with the guidance of the Enfield Police Department. Commissioner DiPace stated this Commission's job is to promote the health, safety and welfare of the community and this site is a safety issue.
Commissioner Egan stated a determination was made that it was not part of the application and a consideration of those issues was a separate issue. If that issue was an issue, the Zoning Enforcement Officer should go out and take a look from the zoning regulations. However, the sign application was for the sign and was unrelated to anything else. Mr. Giner stated he has seen the preliminary plans from ConnDOT. That driveway is under ConnDOT's jurisdiction since it is their curb cut. There is some litigation involved between ConnDot and the people on the corner over the plans to expand. There are some takings occurring on the corner. The plans Mr. Giner reviewed were in need of further refining to address safety and staff plans to meet with the engineer for the project regarding these plans. The present plan calls for maintaining two curb cuts and bringing the back curb cut closer to the intersection. Staff would like to see just one curb cut all the way back on Hazard Avenue and that it be restricted with no left hand turns in or out.
Commissioner DiPace felt when there are safety issues, the time to address them is when the applicant is before the Commission requesting a change. Chairman DiPace stated this was not done.
Chairman Howard stated he feels Commissioner DiPace did the right thing bringing this safety concern to the Commission's attention. He stated the Commission also did the right thing by holding off their vote until they received guidance from the Police Department. Once the Commission received positive guidance from them, the Commission took action.
a. PH#2304 - Application for a modification of plans previously approved for a special use to allow decks, fences and sheds on each unit of a previously approved PRD and a fence around the perimeter of the property located at 15 Grove Street in an R-33 District, Assessor's Map 92, Lot 33, Pine Grove Manor Incorporated, Applicant/Owner. (May be kept open until May 2.)
Debbie Ashworth from Pine Grove Manor Inc. appeared before the Commission regarding this application along with Attorney Patricia A. Ayers of Glastonbury representing Pine Grove.
Ms. Ashworth stated they were before the Commission two weeks ago requesting a special use permit to allow the decks, fences and sheds. The Commission requested further review and Mr. Giner personally viewed the site. They have also done some research in the past two weeks. They reviewed the zoning map of their area and determined who has sheds located around their perimeter. There are approximately fifteen homes abutting this development that also own sheds on their property. They viewed the Pheasant Hill development and one of the things they noticed is that per house, Pheasant Hill has very small yards where their development is located on four acres of land. Many of the units at Pheasant Hill are very close together and the units are all different and not uniform like Pine Grove Manor. Because there were comparisons made to Pheasant Hill, Ms. Ashworth stated their intent was to find out about this project.
Ms. Ashworth stated the Commission has the letters previously submitted at the initial public hearing session. They are present for a resolution of this application.
Attorney Patricia Ayers stated her area of practice is cooperative condominium and planned community law. She thought it would be useful for the Commission to have information on how Pine Grove is different from communities like Pheasant Hill and what protections they have in the association itself to prevent unsightly buildings or to monitor and control the structures and improvements that are made on their property. Attorney Ayers submitted a two-page document for the Commission's information.
Attorney Ayers stated Pine Grove is a cooperative which is very different from a condominium or a planned community. In a cooperative, the entire property is owned by the association itself. The association is made up of the individual members. Because they are members of the association, they have the right to live in a unit under a lease situation. This is a special type of cooperative called a limited equity cooperative. There are only two cooperatives in the Town of Enfield and they are very special circumstances. The idea of a limited equity cooperative is to allow people who have limited incomes and, in the case of Pine Grove, who have children, to step into individual home ownership. How it is set up is the owners and members work together as a group to lessen their costs so that they can afford to have housing. Usually there is a grant from a state agency and it is developed by a nonprofit corporation. Everybody in the cooperative works together to manage, maintain and operate the cooperative. There is no board. Everything is voted on by every member. The members mow their own lawns and take care of their own maintenance. They do all their own bookkeeping. All this is done to keep their costs down.
Attorney Ayers stated one important thing in a cooperative is anything that is done has to be approved by a vote of everybody in the cooperative. That means no one can go out and make their own improvements. No one can go out and put up sheds or flower beds or anything else without all the neighbors approving.
Attorney Ayers stated another important thing is that only the cooperative can come to obtain permits and make applications to the town to do any actions whatsoever. There is an extra level of control and insulation to make sure that the people do things that are consistent with the community and with their neighbors' wishes and also consistent with the town regulations. The cooperative can adopt regulations that specifically follow the town's own regulations. They can tailor their documents so that they are consistent with the town's requirements.
Attorney Ayers stated this cooperative was created under a special permit. A special permit has broad guidelines and as long as whatever is going on is consistent with those broad guidelines, there is discretion in setting conditions on how things are done. In looking at a special permit, you are looking at the individual property and how the modifications, changes and improvements fit within this individual parcel. You are looking at it independently to see if it fits within your guidelines. This gives the Commission some discretion.
Attorney Ayers brought up Pheasant Hill which has been mentioned several times. It is a planned community and they have a structure in which the individual people own their buildings which are freestanding from the ground up and have limited use areas in which they are allowed to do what they please within certain restrictions. Attorney Ayers stated you don't have this in a cooperative. This cooperative is eight units on four acres and they are clustered together in the middle so there is a great deal of open space and buffer area between them and the other neighbors. Also, the people that are in these units are upwardly mobile people. They are here because they want to have their own homes eventually. They want their children to go to good schools and they want to live in a community and be good neighbors. They are very interested in complying and fitting in with the neighborhood. They don't want to be seen as different. They want to fit in so that they can then purchase their own homes. Because of the lower payments, they have a chance to save up money and to buy something else. Most of the people in this development move on to their own homes and it is a good opportunity for them to learn.
Attorney Ayers suggested the Commission could attach conditions that would help monitor what their requirements are and the residents would also be willing to incorporate those into their documents.
Attorney Ayers stated the individual issues have been addressed by the Town Planner in his recommendations. She noted she will respond to questions and there is one unit owner who did wish to speak separately regarding the fence that goes out into the middle of the parcel from behind the unit.
Sean Manly, 6 Fairmont Circle, spoke before the Commission. He stated he is here to speak about the fence that he installed which was done not to divide himself but because he has a large dog. He has younger than two-year-old and three-year-old children on either side of him. The fence is a buffer so that when the children play in the back yard, they do not inadvertently come around the corner and play with the dog and get tangled up with the dog. Mr. Manly stated the dog is not a harmful dog but the fence is a safety measure for the children. He stated the fence will be removed when he goes or when the dog goes, whichever comes first. The fence is presently fifty feet out from either side of his building. If he has to take it down partially or remove half of it, there are hundreds of feet still open. There is an entire common area and it is not an issue of running into the fence or related occurrences.
Debbie Ashworth stated the residents have received the memo from Mr. Giner and she asked if Commission members have his recommendations. Chairman Howard assured Ms. Ashworth they do.
Chairman Howard opened this public hearing to the audience.
Mary Ann Turner, 7 Meadow Road, stated she understands why these folks want what they want but, in her opinion, it is a stretch. Even though Attorney Ayers described their condominium as a cooperative, the PRD's and the condominiums all have the same type of regulation. Ms. Turner has read Mr. Giner's recommendations and she was in agreement with them. She can understand why the gentleman needs to do something with his dog but she stated the fence cannot do the job because a fence at this location will mean the same problems that have occurred at other condominiums. Those other developments have had to remove their fences and they had the same reason as this gentleman with the dog. Ms. Turner stated as for making the building space look the same, they are given guidelines when they are built of what they need to follow and what they need to look at. Ms. Turner discussed when Chi Chi's was repainted at the Commission's request because they were not in compliance with their site plan approval. She stated there is a need to follow the rules that were in place when the projects were originally built. The same thing applies to condominium parity or cooperatives. Ms. Turner felt whatever decision the Commission makes on this application, it will carry over to other ones that will come before the Commission. Ms. Turner stated she does not feel the residents should expand the sheds because that will become a problem in other areas and they should also not expand fences. Ms. Turner noted it doesn't make any difference how many sheds are surrounding this cooperative, they are a condominium.
Attorney Patricia Ayers addressed some of the issues just raised on behalf of Pine Grove. She stated once a community is built, no matter how good the developer may be, you can never figure out all the angles and needs of the community when it starts operating. That is why with a cooperative or condominium, the rules and regulations are easy to change. As people start living there, their needs change and the community develops. It cannot stay static and meet the needs of the people. She gave the example of satellite dishes which were not a concern when the community was built. Because this cooperative does its own maintenance, Attorney Ayers stated the do require a place to keep their lawnmowers, tools and other objects that are needed for maintenance. She felt that keeping such items in a shed is a better alternative than keeping them outside. It preserves the value of the items and also is more aesthetically pleasing.
Attorney Ayers stated the association is very much in agreement with the recommendations from Mr. Giner and is willing to comply with them. Tonight is the first time they have seen the fire district report, but if the sheds need to be moved to comply with the Fire Marshal's recommendation, that could be a condition.
Attorney Ayers stated another thing about the cooperative is no individual owner can change the external appearance of any buildings or any of the landscaping without a vote and specific permission from the other members to do so. Their application process to make these changes is very similar to the application process that the Commission uses. They have an application, they ask for permission, they have to get specifications, colors, locations and designs and satisfy the association that it is not going to change the character negatively and that it is consistent with the rest of the community. Residents can do whatever they want on the interior.
Attorney Ayers also noted there is a map that was prepared showing the location of all the little sheds that are in the neighborhood. This shows what is being proposed is consistent with the rest of the community in which the cooperative is located. Attorney Ayers submitted this map for the record. There are also specific addresses of properties in the neighborhood that have freestanding portable movable sheds.
Chairman Howard stated at the last meeting, the main thing was to have staff take a look at the area and give the Commission guidance. The problem that exists is permits were never taken out to do the work that was done.
Attorney Ayers stated the residents understand that and whatever permits are necessary could be applied for at this point and they will be happy to have the appropriate inspections and permits issued. She noted it was an oversight. When the people were educated about their responsibilities in the cooperative, the people that educated them, people from the state, emphasized the cooperative rules and documents without giving them an overview of Planning and Zoning. She noted they plead ignorance at this point and they are willing to do whatever is necessary to correct things and come into compliance.
Mr. Giner noted receipt of the report from the Fire Marshal. He also pointed out the shed behind unit #4 which was designed to match the existing architecture and is the one he would prefer regarding the style. He also noted the common shed used for the storage of equipment. He suggested that shed could be relocated to the back of the property without any harm done. Mr. Giner pointed out a shed located right on the property line and another metal shed that doesn't quite fit in. Mr. Giner also pointed out the shed that will be removed because the occupants are moving out.
Commissioner DiPace asked if all the sheds contain mowers and gasoline. Ms. Ashworth responded the resident referred to by Mr. Giner has already moved out and they will be taking the shed with them in the next two weeks. Regarding the metal shed, the owner would like to keep it and is willing to paint it to match the specific color of the home siding. Regarding the sheds, Ms. Ashworth stated they contain lawn equipment and furniture and one has a mower.
Chairman Howard asked about gas grills. Ms. Ashworth stated hers is left outside with a grill cover on it. Chairman Howard asked if there will be any containers of gasoline stored in the sheds. Ms. Ashworth stated there would be no gas or propane stored in the sheds. The only one storing gas is the cooperative shed and that shed is located away from the houses. Chairman Howard asked if the Fire Marshal knew there was no gas being stored in the sheds. Ms. Ashworth stated she was not aware he visited the site. Mr. Giner confirmed the Fire Marshal did not know about gasoline not being stored in the sheds and just assumed it was for residential use.
Attorney Ayers offered to prepare rules and regulations regarding the storage of items within the sheds and submit them to the Commission or to the Town Planner for approval that would specifically prohibit the storage of flammable materials. It would also permit the association to fine any individuals who violated that regulation. Chairman Howard noted the need to close this hearing tonight.
Commissioner DiPace stated the Fire Marshal's concern was regarding gasoline in the sheds and also the fire department's ability to get around the houses. If a shed is in the way, it may be detrimental and the sheds should really be located so many feet away from the homes. Attorney Ayers stated the Commission could make a condition of the modification that it is done according to the approval of the Fire Marshal. They could also submit changes to their own documents that would satisfy the Town Planner.
Chairman Howard asked if the Fire Marshal was aware that the sheds would not contain propane or fuel, would he still recommend that the sheds be relocated to the boundaries. Mr. Giner suggested closing the hearing and if the shed is okay in the location proposed by the Fire Marshal, he could prepare a motion based on what he has heard at this hearing and he would incorporate any comments the Fire Marshal may have. The Commission could then at the next meeting either act on the proposal or change it.
Chairman Howard stated he is not comfortable with the metal shed and painting it is a good idea. Regarding the fence, it was Chairman Howard's opinion it has to be removed. Ms. Ashworth asked if the fence could remain if the owner was willing to shorten it.
Chairman Howard closed this public hearing.
Chairman Howard directed Mr. Giner to draft a motion with conditions and recommendations for the next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2305 - Application for a Special Use Permit for expanding a nonconforming structure, the addition of a 14' x 16' room to an existing structure (224 square feet) family room at 47 Shaker Road, zoned BL, Map 64, Lot 64, Richard G. and Josephine Ouellette, Applicants/Owners - (Must close by 6/6)
Richard and Josephine Ouellette appeared before the Commission regarding this application. Mr. Ouellette stated he would like to add a family room/ sunroom to the side of his home measuring 14' x 16'. Mr. Ouellette stated his home is an older home with small rooms and his family is growing. The setbacks are not a problem. Town approval is necessary for Mr. Ouellette to obtain a building permit.
Commissioner DiPace asked if this meets all the requirements because it is in a BL zone. Mr. Giner confirmed it is a mixed used in a Business Local zone and residential uses are not permitted. The setback is no problem. The only issue is the section that allows changes to nonconforming uses subject to special use permit by the Commission.
Chairman Howard opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Howard closed this public hearing.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve the Special Use Permit as heard in Public Hearing #2305 for expanding a nonconforming structure, the addition of a 14' x 16' family room to an existing structure (224 square feet) at 47 Shaker Road, zoned BL, Map 64, Lot 64, Richard G. and Josephine Ouellette, Applicants, Owners. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Weseliza voting.
b. PH#2308 - Application for subdivison for 7 frontage lots and 1 open space parcel on south side of Post Road, R-44 zone with sewer and water service, zoned R-44, Map 54, Lot 74, Joseph Aloisa and David Fredrick, Applicants/Estate of Francis D. Glista, Owner. (Must close by 6/6)
Co-Applicants Joseph Aloisa and David Fredrick appeared before the Commission, along with their engineer, Edward Lally of Windsor, Connecticut, regarding this application.
Mr. Lally stated this is a piece of property that is located on the south side of Post Road containing approximately thirty-two acres. His office has been working on a proposed plan for the develoment of this property for some months. They began by doing a topographical survey and asked a soil scientist to flag the wetlands on the site. They found that the site consists primarily of a large field that has been filled in the past. The rear of the property is predominantly wooded with a mixture of uplands and wetlands and some intermittent and permanent water courses in the area.
The property has significant frontage along Post Road and is vacant at this time. It is crossed by a sanitary sewer that goes along Post Road and cuts through the property. There is no water or power currently available to the site.
Mr. Lally stated the proposal is to create seven frontage lots. In starting to put together this plan, they noticed that not only do they have to bring in water and power but there is also a fairly significant row of trees along the property line right at the edge of the street line. The improvements that the Engineering Department was requesting and that are a part of the town's regulations would cause significant damage to or require the removal of all of those trees. Mr. Lally has been working with staff for some time to ensure that should they receive approval on this subdivision and install the proposed infrastructure for the subdivision that most of these trees are saved.
Mr. Lally stated they had the tree warden visit the site and identify the trees and indicate which ones should be saved. There are some sumacs and small maples that would be removed at his suggestion and also to allow the more significant trees to flourish.
Mr. Lally discussed with staff other needed improvements besides the sidewalks installed on the property. They have shown on the plans the installation of a curb line to the entire frontage and improvements to the drainage that exists in the street. To ensure that the trees would be for the most part undisturbed, they have come up with a plan where the sidewalk has a normal cross section bringing the street into substantial compliance with the subdivision regulations across the frontage of lots 6 and 7. In the area of lots 3, 4, and 5, where the trees are more substantial and the grade of the land is such the sidewalk needs to be moved back from the street in order to save the trees, they have created an easement for the sidewalk. This easement which would go across the front of those lots to the rear of the property while still maintaining the standard street cross section. In the vicinity of lots 1 and 2 and the open space parcel, the sidewalk would continue in this easement so that it would be on the lot side of these trees. The trees would be retained and there would be a slightly modified cross section which both they and the Engineering Department felt would provide for safe pedestrian access and save the trees.
Mr. Lally stated they have also been working with the utility company. Their plans show overhead electrical service because the entire street has overhead electrical service with the exception of this part of the street frontage. The inclination of the utility company is to stay above ground and to extend the overhead service. The town's subdivision regulations indicate the utilities should be buried. The proposal has been modified so that the utilities are buried in the right of way behind the trees on the lot side of the street line with a separate easement. This will allow maintaining the vegetation without disturbance.
Mr. Lally stated the end result will be an improved Post Road with a new curb along the entire frontage including the parcel they are proposing for open space. Also included is a new sidewalk along the street with its location modified to meet wherever possible the town's standards and where they do not to save the trees and have safe drainage of the sidewalk. The result will be seven lots with frontage on the existing road. All of the lots conform to the R-44 regulations and all are in excess of the minimum lot size.
Mr. Lally stated the sanitary sewer existing in the street was installed at a significant depth averaging seventeen to twenty-three feet. All of the lots can utilize existing chimneys or laterals which were installed during the construction of that sewer with the exception of one which will have the new chimney placed on the sanitary sewer. The Water Pollution people have reviewed their plans and are satisfied with the details.
Mr. Lally noted water will have to be extended and some new hydrants installed. They have been talking to the water company and the location of the hydrants and the details of the water main extension have all been agreed upon.
Mr. Lally stated the Fire Marshal has reviewed the plan and is satisfied with the two new hydrants that will be located on the property.
Mr. Lally stated the property is rather unique and while there are thirty-two acres, they are proposing that twenty of them be open space. They had their soil scientist go out and flag the wetlands. They also asked an environmentalist to do a review of the property to determine where the important habitat areas were and where the important storm water detention areas were. They have said that the rear portion of the property which has been used for agriculture had high value. They felt it appropriate to offer this to the town as open space. If the Commission feels this area is inappropriate for open space or the Town Council rejects it as open space, they would offer it to a land trust or some similar agency. If that turns out not to be possible, they would then encumber the property with conservation easements so that the property remains protected. Mr. Lally noted the fact that the property is next to the Harriet Beecher Stowe School indicating the town may have some use for this open space.
Mr. Lally stated a conservation easement has been created across the backs of the lots about ninety feet from the back of the houses leaving adequate space for a yard. The edge of the conservation easement is going to be delineated in a number of ways to make sure the environment is protected. They plan to mark with iron pins the edge of the conservation easement as if it was a property corner. The second thing they will do is to put up small sections of fences at the intersection of the line of the conservation easement and the side property line. The side property line will go back and end in a t-shaped piece of fence and there will be a visual delineation of that limit of development. There will be a row of trees which will be a mix of different trees to provide some shelter and also food for song birds along this conservation easement area. Behind that, there will be a series of mitigated plantings consisting primarily of whips which are small plants which are planted fairly heavily through this area. The reason for this is that the soil and water table vary from one spot to another and these plants will thrive where the conditions are right for them. By planting a mix, there will be a natural selection of plants that are beneficial for the habitat and for food value for song birds and small mammals. The balance of the site would remain undisturbed and protected by an easement.
In order to ensure that people know that the conservation easement exists, they have voluntarily entered into a requirement that the person who is purchasing the property at the time of the first sales contact will sign a document. This document will indicate that they have been provided with the conservation easement literature, that they are aware of it and they understand the rights are restricted in the very back part of their property. This is then given to the town staff and they keep a copy on file so that there's a record that property owners were informed about the conservation easement.
Mr. Lally stated they are also providing a scenic easement to each buyer on the adjacent lots or the other lots in the subdivision conservation easement area. One of the things they do not want to do is burden the town with requirements to police these areas. By providing an easement to each individual lot owner, someone among the seven will be looking out for the environment, will be concerned about what happens and self-police or advise the town or neighbors if they are doing something that they shouldn't.
Mr. Lally stated they have tried to preserve all the trees with the creation of the seven lots. They have provided upgrades in the utilities - the drainage, the water, the sewer and the power - to meet the town's standards. They have met with town staff on a number of occasions to resolve outstanding issues.
Mr. Lally has talked to town staff today and they said while the plans still show overhead power, they are still asking for underground power. Mr. Lally confirmed they are now saying they will provide underground power. This would require that the poles shown on these plans be located out toward the street so that the street lights show on the pavement. The poles would thus have to be relocated forward.
Mr. Lally stated the town staff has requested they change the detail on the catch basin. After discussions today, it was decided they would install a regular DOT catch basin at the end of the drainage pipe and extend the drainage pipe slightly on to the property creating a sump for catching silt and sediment.
Mr. Lally stated they have obtained their wetlands permit. Also, there are some minor changes to the plans such as the sidewalk detail that needs to be modified. Mr. Lally stated they will meet any concerns from the Engineering Department which appear to be relatively minor.
Mr. Lally stated this is a plan that is sensitive to the site and protects the most environmental portions of the site. It met with the Inland Wetland Commission's concerns and they are providing a standard road and sidewalk cross section with standard underground utilities.
Commissioner Lefakis asked when a sidewalk intended to be for town use is placed on privately owned property, who is ultimately responsible for its repair and maintenance in the future. Mr. Giner responded they will be getting easements on the private property and the town would be responsible for the maintenance.
Commissioner DiPace questioned if the sidewalk is that close to the property line, why wouldn't you move the property line back four feet. Mr. Lally stated the property line would have to move back approximately fifteen or sixteen feet because the trees have a zone of influence. If you disturb the roots within that zone of influence, the trees would die in a few years. In order to put the sidewalk in and not destroy the street scape which is right on the street line, it is necessary for the sidewalk to be located where proposed and obtain easements. Mr. Lally stated Post Road is also relatively straight and the traffic moves at a good speed. The people who buy these homes will have children using the sidewalk to walk to school. By separating the sidewalk from the street as much as possible, they have also enhanced the safety of the area. Mr. Lally stated the staff has been flexible on this to make it work but they have still adhered to the town's standards.
Commissioner Hickey asked who the conservation easement would be in favor of. Mr. Lally stated it is in favor of the town and also in favor of each of the owners. If the person on lot three is looking out the back of their window and they see the person on lot four out there with a chainsaw, they have a right to say their scenic easement is being disturbed. Mr. Lally stated the conservation easement in favor of the town would be on the individual lots when purchased. Mr. Lally stated this benefits the town because it buffers what they hope will be twenty acres of town-owned open space. It also buffers an important environment. These lots are predominately an open field but it is an open field where the wetlands were in part filled in at the back part of the lots. This is an effort to bring that area back.
Commissioner Hickey asked if language has been drafted for the proposed easements. Mr. Lally stated they have done so and this was shared with and reviewed by Inland Wetlands. Mr. Lally suggested that any approval include that the conservation easements be approved by the Town Attorney.
Chairman Howard opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke regarding this application. Chairman Howard closed this public hearing.
Mr. Giner will prepare a motion with conditions for the Commission's next meeting. Chairman Howard tabled action on this application to the next meeting.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to recess. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission recessed at 9:07 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 9:23 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
a. PH#2295 - Application to operate an addiction recovery community house not operated for profit at 143 Pearl Street (formerly the Rinaldi-Fede Post), zoned R-33, Map 22, Lot 81, Enfield Sober Housing, Inc., applicant / 36 Pleasant Street, LLC, owner. Deadline for Decision: June 1, 2002 (May 16 meeting)
Commissioner Lefakis previously abstained from this public hearing and did not participate in the vote. Commissioner Lefakis left the meeting at this time.
Mr. Giner reported this hearing was closed with a request to receive some information from the Police Department. The Commission has received a read out from the Police. Mr. Giner also received an email from the applicant's attorney today clarifying some points. This was presented to the Town Attorney. Mr. Giner stated he does not think this adds anything that was not discussed at the public hearing and it provides some clarification regarding the police report.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2295 - application to operate an addiction recovery community house not operated for profit at 143 Pearl Street (formerly the Rinaldi-Fede Post) zoned R-33, Map 22, Lot 81, Enfield Sober Housing, Inc., Applicant/36 Pleasant Street, LLC, Owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the application record submitted by the applicants and the following conditions:
Conditions to be met prior to signing of plans:
1. All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
2. Any final site plan requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be incorporated in the final plans.
3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
4. 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.
5. In accordance with Section 16-8.6, the applicant shall also submit to the Planning Director final plans as approved by the Commission in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
6. 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. Final Fire Marshal approval for any interior code requirements shall be obtained.
8. 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:
9. Final inspection and signoffs from relevant code professionals shall be obtained.
General Conditions:
10. This approval is for the specific use and structure identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structure will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
11. In accordance with the applicant's representation, no person shall be allowed admittance into the Community Home that has a pending criminal case.
12. In accordance with the applicant's representation, no person shall be allowed admittance into the Community Home that has been released from the custody of the Department of Corrections.
13. In accordance with the applicant's representation, no person that is on parole from the Department of Corrections shall be allowed admittance into the Community Home.
14. In accordance with the applicant's representation, (and with a change made by this Commission), the maximum occupancy for the home shall be eight occupants plus a manager and an assistant manager.
15. In accordance with the applicant's representation, no sign shall be erected identifying the use.
16. In accordance with the applicant's representation, only persons recovering from alcohol dependency shall be admitted and no person shall be allowed admittance into the Community Home that is recovering from a drug dependency.
17. In accordance with the applicant's representation, there shall be twenty-four hour managerial supervision provided at the Community House.
18. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced 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.
19. A building permit for the construction or renovation of facilities as approved must be obtained by May 2, 2003 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission in accordance with Section 16-13 of the Enfield Zoning Regulations.
20. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
Commissioner Egan stated after extensive and careful review of the applicant's application, attachments and oral statements and the relevant testimony from the speakers during the public hearing, he noted the testimony that dealt with the specific laws, the regulations and the ordinances that govern the decision of this Commission. One such law is the Fair Housing Act. Commissioner Egan thought that Attorney Fahey emphasized this Act throughout his presentation and Commissioner Egan got the sense that that was his presentation - that the Fair Housing provisions were there and the Commission had no options. However, Commissioner Egan felt the Commission does have options and the Fair Housing Act is not a zoning regulation. It does, however, bar discrimination and looking at who the occupants would be in the facility. Commissioner Egan stated in the applicant's presentation there were a lot of things lacking. He did not feel he received a lot of answers. He saw a lot of inconsistencies. He noted the questions relating to the admissions' policy and the fact that the applicant presented five short items that constituted their admissions' policy. Commissioner Egan is not sure, based on what was presented, that all of the occupants would fall within the Fair Housing Act protection. He asked that question specifically during the hearing as to drug related occupants that would be there. The Fair Housing Act does not cover drug dealers or people who have been convicted of selling drugs. He never really received an answer to that question.
Commissioner Egan stated other issues relating to the Fair Housing Act were raised. Attorney Fahey brought up the court case from West Haven which Commissioner Egan did not feel is relevant to this application. The West Haven case was an existing situation and an existing house and there were some actions taken by the town and the community that did appear to be somewhat discriminatory. Commissioner Egan does not feel that is the case here and the facts are not the same.
Commissioner Egan stated Attorney Fahey mentioned some accolades for the town and this Commission in allowing and getting a lot of these social facilities and group homes into the Town of Enfield. This is quite contrary to what Attorney Fahey presented in the West Haven case and tried to convey to the Commission that it had some bearing on this application.
Commissioner Egan stated the other issue is there is a provision within the Fair Housing Act that does allow Planning and Zoning to take a look at the character of the neighborhood and look at the plans that have been presented by the town and the various agencies in the town. Thompsonville Revitalization has a program specifically designed for Pearl Street. There is a plan. There are guidelines that have been established for what appearance Pearl Street should have and it certainly doesn't lend itself to a parking lot of sixteen cars. Commissioner Egan felt that was a valid concern of one of the neighbors and in discussion about parking, the applicant was willing to give up two parking spaces but stated during the hearing that there would only be four or five cars in the lot at any one time.
Commissioner Egan stated the other laws that the Commission needs to base its decision on are the town's zoning regulations. The applicant came before the Commission as a nonprofit organization and has relied on Section 9-1.2 of the regulations. He provided a certificate that was registered with the Secretary of State's Office as a non-stock corporation but Commissioner Egan noted that is the first step in becoming a nonprofit. He thinks in the testimony Attorney Fahey agreed to that and said if Planning and Zoning were to approve the application, they would go back and file the appropriate papers with the Internal Revenue Service. There were other steps involved and there was a question in Commissioner Egan's mind if they are really and truly a nonprofit organization.
Commissioner Egan noted there are inconsistencies on ownership of the property. The property was in Pleasant Street LLC and the Commission did not see that referred to in this application.
Commissioner Egan felt there was an overall lack of information to the Commission. Also, Section 16-1, in the special permit regulations, it does give this Commission the charge, in doing a special permit, to look at special provisions. Commissioner Egan stated Attorney Fahey presented a newspaper article to the Commission and they, in fact, had listed some conditions that this Commission might consider putting on the application. Commissioner Egan noted in his opinion in reading the regulations and going back and reviewing court cases, this Commission doesn't have that discretion to make those types of conditions. Restricting the occupancy of the facility would be in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
Commissioner Egan stated he is not against these facilities and he works for an organization that leases homes to groups such as the applicant's group. He thinks there is a need and he commends people for trying to straighten out their lives, but the emotion and "I don't want it in my back yard," as Attorney Fahey told this Commission, is not a basis to deny the application. In evaluating the testimony and the information and evidence that was put into the public record, Commissioner Egan stated there was a lot of emotional testimony on both sides. Commissioner Egan stated he will vote against this application and he would urge his colleagues to do the same.
Commissioner DiPace stated there is currently a liquor license on the premises and he had asked if this was approved, would the applicant be willing to surrender the liquor license. He agreed to do so. Commissioner DiPace asked if this is approved, would the liquor approval for this property go away or would it still stay with the property. Mr. Giner stated the Commission is approving this without a liquor license. The liquor license would no longer exist. If, at some future date, someone wanted a liquor license, they would have to come back to this Commission for a special use permit.
Commissioner DiPace stated his biggest concern is currently at 143 Pearl Street there is a liquor permit. They would not need to come back to this Commission if they wanted to open a private club with memberships. They would only have to apply to the state and they would get a liquor license and be up and running. Commissioner DiPace questioned if such a club would be compatible with the existing neighborhood. In his opinion, it is not. He questioned if the proposed use is more or less compatible with what is existing in the neighborhood. The Commission would be taking away a liquor permit and putting in people that are sober. Commissioner DiPace noted fears alone cannot be the reason for denying this application. In his opinion, if you weigh the two uses, the more compatible use for this property would be this application before the Commission tonight rather than the existing liquor permit. If the Commission denies this application, the applicant could apply to the state tomorrow and get a liquor license and within a couple of months have a private club at this location. There is nothing this Commission could do to stop this.
Commissioner Egan stated that liquor license had to be purchased by the property owner. It was a separate asset and does not go with the property. Mr. Giner confirmed the applicant would have to return to the state. The use of this property as a private club stays with the land. The applicant would have to apply to the Liquor Commission for transferring of the license. The Commission's approvals go with the land and not with the person so if the entity changes, they do not have to come back to the Commission. Commissioner Egan asked if they don't do anything within a year, is the use abandoned. Mr. Giner stated the law has changed and the passage of time in itself cannot be a basis for abandonment. There has to be an act of abandonment which would be a conversion. An interim use is also considered by the courts a sign of abandonment of the liquor license. Commissioner Egan stated there would be a public hearing by the Liquor Commission because it is a new licensee and the procedure is not as simple as opening the doors.
Commissioner DiPace stated the Commission would not have any say regarding the club use. If the applicant decides to keep it as a private club, he would not have to come back before this Commission. He would have to go to the state but the Commission would have no say in this matter.
Commissioner Weseliza questioned the number of people that would be allowed to live in the residence which, according to the motion, is twelve. The home's square footage is approximately 2,700 square feet and she would be in agreement with this application if the number of occupants was reduced by two, or ten people instead of twelve.
Commissioner Weseliza also noted that case law prevails and there is case law that suggests that the Fair Housing Act could be used in this case.
Commissioner Weseliza made an amendment to the motion, seconded by Commissioner DiPace, to amend condition #14 of the conditions and change the figure from ten occupants to eight occupants with a manager and assistant manager.
Commissioner Egan stated there is case law but there is a memo from the Department of Justice and he quoted from that memo. "The Fair Housing Act prohibits a broad range of practices that discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familiar status and disability. The Act does not preempt local zoning laws. The Fair Housing Act is not a land use or zoning statute. It does not preempt local land use and zoning laws." Commissioner Egan stated he would vote against the application because it is the zoning laws that concern him. He acknowledges the fears but what he is not seeing here is all the information that he thinks is needed in this application to make people comfortable. Commissioner Egan noted the regulations say if an application is incomplete, the Commission can vote against it. The regulations say if it is not compatible with the plan for that particular area, the Commission can vote against it. Commissioner Egan stated to take Attorney Fahey's one court case example and say that is case law and that is it is not considering both sides. There is law that supports the issues Commissioner Egan has stated and he is, therefore, voting against this. Commissioner Egan did not feel anyone wants to discriminate against anyone and that was not an issue in his mind. It was the application, the attachments, the inconsistencies and the lack of information that is the basis for Commissioner Egan's opinion.
The amendment was approved by a 5 - 0 - 2 vote. Chairman Howard and Commissioners DiPace, Hickey, Weseliza, Alternate, and Cooper, Alternate, voted in favor of the amendment; Commissioners Egan and Krebs abstained.
Commissioner Hickey commented that the Commission has had a lot of testimony from both sides on this issue. He thinks that the adjacent property owners and residents of the area made it very clear how they felt about the proposed use. In looking at the ordinance that was in place at the time, it stressed that the proposed use "shall be of such location, size and character that in general it will be in harmony with the appropriate orderly development of the district." Commissioner Hickey noted the residents spoke very clearly as to how the proposed use impacted them and they gave some persuasive testimony. On the other hand, Commissioner Hickey stated the use that is proposed is a very commendable one and every one that spoke in favor of it also articulated some very important issues that need to be addressed and underscored the fact that such facilities are needed. Commissioner Hickey stated what he was looking to hear from the applicants, and he did not really hear it, was any expert testimony as to how the use would be harmonious and how it would impact the property values, a concern expressed by the residents. Attorney Fahey previously stated he did not feel there would be an adverse impact on property values but Commissioner Hickey would like to have seen some expert testimony from a real estate appraiser or other expert that would have bolstered that claim. Commissioner Hickey would have liked to have heard input from a planning consultant as to how they felt the use, even with restrictions, would impact the area. He felt that given the strong feelings on both sides, he is more persuaded by the residents of the area as to whether or not it is a harmonious use as is called for under the ordinance.
Commissioner Krebs stated her issues were with the regulations and the applicant's policies which were never, in her opinion, clearly defined by the applicant. Also, a lot of fear was placed on the Commission with the use of the Fair Housing Act.
Chairman Howard stated one thing stands out very clearly. The Commission does not like the way this application was presented to them. Chairman Howard addressed some of the issues that led him to this opinion and most notably was the initial lack of responses to questions that were asked during the public hearing. Chairman Howard acknowledged that good testimony was provided on both sides. He viewed the property and stated in his opinion, as the home is now, it does not fit into the neighborhood. With some work, it will look more compatible to the area. Chairman Howard stated he was concerned about this use being nonprofit and because it is, where would the money come to improve the home. Chairman Howard was not pleased with some of the actions by representatives of the applicant which were uncalled for. Chairman Howard stated if this is approved, the Commission previously discussed whether the application could be reviewed in one year's time. Chairman Howard asked Mr. Giner if this is possible and what are the Commission's options. It was determined in discussion that, based upon previous applications, this was not an option.
Chairman Howard saw a need for public relations in an issue like this. He stated he has heard the neighbors and he has heard them loud and clear. However, he has also looked at the zoning regulations and he does not think a bar, a liquor license or a club fits in this neighborhood as well as the proposed use could. He believes the proposed use suits the town's planning and zoning better than what is there today.
The main motion, as amended, was approved by a 4 - 3 - 0 vote. Chairman Howard and Commissioners DiPace, Weseliza, Alternate, and Cooper, Alternate, voted in favor; Commissioners Egan, Hickey and Krebs voted nay.
The reason for approval, as given by Commissioner DiPace, is this use is more compatible with the existing neighborhood than the use that is currently at this location.
b. Bond Releases
1. PH#2239 - $18,460 Engineering Bond Release request for Engineering at 126 South Road, Getty Station.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Egan, to approve the engineering bond release in the amount of $18,460 for PH#2239, 126 South Road, Getty Station. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Weseliza voting.
Director of Planning and Community Development Report
Mr. Giner reported receipt of a letter from People for People, Inc. They are a nonprofit group that looks for opportunities to provide cooperative startup facilities and they have certain requirements for pieces of land. They were concerned regarding the town's PRD regulations which prohibit almost all multi-family uses. They would like a chance to come before the Commission and discuss if there is any way of promoting affordable housing in Enfield. They have met with Mr. Giner but wanted an informal discussion at an upcoming meeting to get a sense as to whether the regulations can be amended to allow certain types of multi-family affordable cooperatives.
Mr. Giner noted by removing PRD's from the regulations, other than senior housing, there is presently a segment of housing that Enfield does not offer. He recommended the People for People group be put on the Commission's agenda for the June 2 meeting under New Business at the end of the meeting. The Commission agreed.
Mr. Giner stated there are some properties for sale on North Road. A seventy-acre parcel where the driving range is located is for sale and the property is zoned industrial. Right next door, there is a farm house, under totally separate ownership, for sale. Mr. Giner reported he had an ART yesterday with a company interested in a sports complex. There are no sewers and water in the area. This company wanted to install an inflatable dome, which is permitted under the regulations, where soccer or golf could be played. Mr. Giner noted there is a requirement in the regulations listing separation distances between commercial and recreational uses of 2,500 feet. There is such a recreational use right next door and across the street. Mr. Giner recalled that the original outdoor recreation was set up because of a minor league stadium possibility and the 2,500' may be a carry over from that. Mr. Giner stated this company wanted to know if this is something the Commission would be amenable to changing. He offered to come up with language to delete the 2,500' requirement.
Commissioner DiPace stated approximately nine or ten years ago, there was an organization that wanted to put in a Triple A baseball stadium across from Fermi High School. This section of the ordinance was designed to accommodate that use. There was another large parcel of land next to the proposed use and there was a concern about two similar uses.
The consensus of the Commission was to present them with proposed language for a possible amendment to the ordinance regarding the 2500' separation.
Some discussion followed on the inflatable dome proposed.
Mr. Giner reported on Monday, June 24, John Shima of the Capitol Region Growth Council will be in Enfield to meet with the Town Council and various boards regarding the education of public officials on economic development.
Mr. Giner stated the mall came in with a request to put up a tent for the sale of rugs in their parking lot. He informed them that outdoor sales are only allowed in BG and, under a new regulation, such sales are only allowed on vacant land. They asked for consideration regarding changing the regulations to allow this use. Mr. Giner did not recommend doing so. Commissioners expressed their opinions against such a zoning ordinance change.
Mr. Giner stated Commissioner Lefakis had asked about the road classifications. Mr. Giner reported "RT" is a through local road, "RE" would be a dead end local road, "AR" would be an arterial road and "C" would be collector roads.
Chairman Howard noted the need to have the Minutes in the meeting packet.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the meeting ended at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Karen Krebs, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
|