|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 16, 2002
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, May 16, 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
Robert Egan
Karen Krebs
Jeffrey Cooper, Alternate
ABSENT: Charles Duren
James Hickey, Jr.
Nicles Lefakis
Karen Weseliza, Alternate
Joseph Jedynak, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DiPace, to approve the Minutes of April 18, 2002. The Minutes were approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote.
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DiPace, to approve the Minutes of May 2, 2002. The Minutes were approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote.
The Commission also accepted the Corrections to the Minutes of March 28, 2002.
CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence included the following:
A letter from Paul W. Fox dated May 8, 2002 regarding 110 Enfield Street, B&M Realty/U-Save Auto Rental.
The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency Notice of Action dated April 16, 2002.
The Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda dated May 20, 2002.
COMMISSIONERS' CORRESPONDENCE
Commissioner DiPace asked if an application goes to the Wetlands Commission for approval and they make changes and modifications that require changes to the parking lot for a site located in an Industrial zone, shouldn't this come to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a site plan review afterwards. Commissioner DiPace stated this would be the addition of a blacktop parking lot where there was not one previously. Mr. Giner stated this should require approval from this Commission.
Commissioner DiPace stated this has been going on for years where items go to Wetlands and do not come back to this Commission. He cited the expansion of the parking lot on North Maple Street as an example.
Commissioner Egan stated the North Maple Street site was cited by the Wetlands Commission because of the erosion going into the stream. This was actually a problem created by the State of Connecticut. The solution was to install a catch basin down below and the paved area is to collect the runoff so that it doesn't create the sediment going into the pond. Commissioner Egan noted they did actual construction on the top. Commissioner DiPace felt this should have come back to this Commission for a site plan review. Commissioner Egan stated this was a violation that was reported to the Wetlands Commission and they were dealing with the wetland issues.
Following a brief discussion on how to resolve this problem in the future, Mr. Giner stated he will bring this to Jay Northrup's attention. Commissioner DiPace felt even if it is a minor revision, Mr. Giner should review any changes and report them to this Commission. Mr. Giner will report back to the Commission at the next meeting regarding the outcome of his discussions with Mr. Northrup regarding the North Maple Street site.
a. PH#2307 - Application to petition to change zoning district classification from Business Local to Business General for the southeast portion of 585 Hazard Avenue (Scitico Plaza) inclusive of the Hazard Avenue/CT Route 190 vehicular entrance driveway, the land leasehold area occupied by McDonald's Restaurant, and the vacant lot east of McDonald's abutting Allen Lawnmower on the east, zoned BL, Map 110, Lot 1123, Alan K. Tracy, Applicant/P&D Realty, Owner. (Must close by 6/20)
Attorney Charles Parakilas, Paul Fox, and Alan Tracy appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Attorney Parakilas reported the signs were posted more than ten days prior to the hearing.
Attorney Parakilas stated the applicant is seeking a change of zone from BL to a BG zone for a 2.4 acre portion of the real property owned by P&D Realty known as the Scitico Plaza on the north side of Hazard Avenue. This 2.4 acre parcel of land for which the zone change is sought consists of three parts. He referred to maps ZC-1 and ZC-2 prepared for Alan Tracy by Hesketh Associates dated March 28, 2002 which show the first parcel is intended for an automatic car wash facility to be leased and operated by the applicant. The second part is a parcel leased and operated as a McDonald's restaurant. The remaining portion of the 2.4 acres consists of the entrance way from Hazard Avenue into the Scitico Plaza Shopping Center and two non-exclusive access easements which service the McDonald piece and the proposed car wash property.
Attorney Parakilas stated the net result is this facility would be between McDonald's Restaurant and Allen Lawnmower. There would be no requirement for a curb cut because access to the property proposed for the car wash would be through the main access leading into the shopping center and to the parking lot.
Attorney Parakilas added that the maps he cited earlier also show all properties within a radius of 500' of the proposed change of zone. He stated this is not a proposed subdivision because the uses in the shopping center are all leases and there is no ownership.
Attorney Parakilas stated the reason for the request for this change of zone is because the applicant wants to develop that portion as depicted on the map as a car wash facility which is not permitted in a BL zone. The entire Scitico shopping center is in a BL zone. They would like to extract the 2.4 acres, which includes the restaurant and the access areas and entrance ways, into one BG zone. The maps they have presented to the Commission labeled as CZ-3 and CZ-4 are for information only and they demonstrate what the proposed car wash facility would look like. However, the technical specifications are really the subject of another application to be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Attorney Parakilas stated the applicant has procured consents from both P&D Realty Company and from McDonald's in order to bring this application before the Commission.
Attorney Parakilas noted Mr. Tracy has tried for over two years to put up another car wash facility on Hazard Avenue. They were previously before the Commission approximately two years ago for 126 Hazard Avenue, the location of the previous Gasland site across from the Enfield Professional Park. Mr. Tracy expended a lot of money doing plans, surveys and engineering and received approval for a change of zone for that location along with a special use permit for the car wash. At the end when they went to the lender to apply for a commercial mortgage, the lender required an in depth environmental study of the parcel. They found the parcel was so badly contaminated they would not touch it. Attorney Parakilas stated they knew the parcel was contaminated because information was furnished to them from the 1970's and 1980's when the requirements were less stringent.
Attorney Parakilas stated they are before the Commission tonight after a frustrating two years and Mr. Tracy would like to install a state of the art car wash in Enfield. They are now under a time constraint because they would like to get this set up prior to the winter. Unless there are some very detailed economic problems or environmental problems, Attorney Parakilas requested the Commission's cooperation to look at this change of zone favorably. He did not see where granting this change of zone would be inconsistent with the town's land use policy and it will have no impact on the immediate abutting properties. Attorney Parakilas felt this would be a tremendous asset for the area and not requiring a curb cut and asking traffic to come in via the normal entrance to the shopping center would be uplifting for the shopping center and the area.
Commissioner Egan asked if this is all one parcel where the McDonald's and the proposed car wash is located. Attorney Parakilas stated for the change of zone. The request for the change of zone is the McDonald's parcel, the entrance access coming into the shopping center and two non-access easement areas for servicing the McDonald's portion and the car wash portion. It is three parts consisting of 2.4 acres.
Commissioner Egan asked how the boundaries are defined. Attorney Parakilas stated there is one owner and the boundaries are defined by these plans. Commissioner Egan noted the applicant is not saying it is a subdivision and they are not separate parcels of land. Attorney Parakilas confirmed that is the case.
Commissioner DiPace questioned why the application is not to rezone the entire shopping center. Attorney Parakilas stated that is an ownership problem and they do not want to ruffle management's feathers. Attorney Parakilas stated he cannot speak for the owners of the center.
Mr. Fox stated at the next stage, there will be a class A-2 plan drawn to define the area to the same degree of precision as if you were defining property lines.
Commissioner DiPace stated he was curious as to why just a portion of the shopping center was proposed to be rezoned rather than rezoning the entire shopping center. He noted most shopping centers are zoned BG or BR and this is one of the few that is BL. Attorney Parakilas noted this was the first shopping center in the Town of Enfield.
Chairman Howard opened this application to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this zone change proposal.
Mr. Giner presented the Commission with maps showing the current zoning in the area, the existing land use and the Plan of Conservation and Development. He stated the Statutes currently read that the Commission has to consider the Plan of Conservation and Development. When the Plan of Conservation and Development was adopted, Mr. Giner stated the whole surrounding area is shown as being residential. The next couple of maps show the existing land uses which are predominantly commercial except for the condominium project. Beginning July 1, the Commission will have to address why some of these areas are shown on the Plan of Conservation and Development as residential when they are commercial. The legislature just passed a statute that says that zoning has to be consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development. If this application came in after July 1, 2002, it would have required two applications. One application would be to amend the Plan of Conservation and Development and the second application would be the zone change. Mr. Giner noted the Commission may want to look at those areas where there are conflicts with zoning and make some decisions.
Commissioner DiPace stated the maps show what is existing and that the land use plan is that they want to see it residential. However, it is not. It is a shopping center. Mr. Giner stated the Plan shows residential. Mr. Giner stated the new statute will state that any zoning changes have to be consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development. This does not mean you cannot change the zone but if it is not in the Plan of Conservation and Development, you have to amend the Plan at the same time.
Commissioner DiPace asked that Mr. Giner take a look and see how many areas are like this so they can be straightened out. He would like to see the results in September so that the Commission does not run into this problem in the future.
Mr. Giner stated the statute reads presently that the Commission shall consider the Plan of Conservation and Development. He recommended if the Commission votes to approve the zone change that they note reasons for deviating from the Plan.
Chairman Howard closed this public hearing.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2307, application for a zone change from Business Local to Business General for the southeast portion of 585 Hazard Avenue (Scitico Plaza) inclusive of the Hazard Avenue/CT Route 190 vehicular entrance driveway, the land leasehold area occupied by McDonald's Restaurant and the vacant lot east of McDonald's abutting Allen Lawnmower on the east, zoned BL, Map 110, Lot 123, Alan K. Tracy, Applicant/P&D Realty, Owner. The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote.
The reasons for approval are the zone change is in line with the existing land uses and the town's present Plan of Conservation and Development is incorrect in this area. Also, the proposed zone change will be in harmony with the neighborhood and land use patterns.
Mr. Giner stated the effective date of this zone change is when this zone change map is filed on the Land Records or fifteen days after that.
b. PH#2309 - Application for a Special Use Permit under Section 4.30.19 and Section 9.20 for a Senior Residential Development consisting of 57 units with related site work to be located on property zoned Residential 44 located on the southwest corner of Elm Street and Moody Road, Assessor's Map 75, Lot 1, Elm Development, LLC, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by 6/20)
John Reveruzzi and Dana Steele, an engineer with J. R. Russo and Associates, 1 Shoeham Road, East Windsor, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Steele stated this application is for a senior residential development to be known as Autumn Fields. The property is owned by Elm Development LLC. They propose to construct an age restricted housing complex on this property.
Mr. Steele stated this parcel is an 81-acre parcel located on the corner of Elm Street where Elm Street meets Moody Road. It is across the street from the Safety Complex. This property proposed for development is the former site of what was known as Oldefield Farms, Phase II. Oldfield Farms which has access to Hazard Avenue was constructed with the plan for additional condominiums in this area. The construction had begun with the construction of some detention basins but the work was never completed.
Mr. Steele stated this project is divided into two halves. A little over half of the project which consists of quite an extensive amount of wetlands is going to be placed into conservation. This application has been before the Inland Wetlands Commission and has received approval. There were a number of conditions to that approval which they have met and included with the application for the Commission's review.
Mr. Steele stated the conservation area is 42.8 acres. This area will be considered open space and it was discussed during the Wetlands Commission process whether or not this property should be given to the town, given to a land trust, or kept as a conservation easement under the ownership of the association. Mr. Steele stated the applicant is more than willing to accommodate any of those requests.
Mr. Steele stated the conservation area creates a nice buffer from the abutting development. The project will include fifty-seven units and is served by two roadways. The first is Quail Hollow, which has two entrances on to Elm Street, one to the north and one to the south, and is approximately l,800' in length. Phase II of the project is Partridge Run which is a cul de sac approximately 850' in length. This is a total of 2,650' of roadway. The project is located across the street from the proposed Senior Center. During the ART process, it was requested that they relocate their southern driveway so that it is directly across from the Senior Center and this has been done.
Mr. Steele stated this site will be serviced by public utilities, public water from the Connecticut Water Company, public sewer from the town sewer system and storm drainage will be provided in the roadway. Detention will be provided from the existing detention areas. When Oldfield Farms, Phase II, began construction, they began work on some detention areas. There is a detention area located to the north next to Freshwater Brook and the detention basin was constructed for the purpose of serving a development in this area. This project will be utilizing that detention basin for the northern portion of Quail Hollow to discharge storm water in that area. The second drainage area which is Partridge Run will discharge overland which eventually runs into Freshwater Brook. There is no detention basin in this area and the reason for that is the constructed detention basin was larger than required. When Oldefield Farms originally came in, they were looking at a much larger development. The basin is oversized for their needs and they are able to utilize the basin more completely and over compensate for any increases. They have satisfied the Engineering Department's requirements regarding storm drainage.
Mr. Steele stated the third outlet location is for the circular portion of Quail Hollow and a small portion of Partridge Run. The outlet drains into the existing pond which is referred to as "detention pond #1." Mr. Steele pointed out the outlet for that basin is an access way across with an existing town sewer easement that runs through it. That outlet goes into detention basin #2 which provides some additional detention. Mr. Steele noted detention basins #2 and #3 were never completed. It is not necessary for them to touch detention basin #2 but they have had to make some minor modifications to detention #3 for their use.
Mr. Steele stated snow removal, garbage collection, landscaping maintenance and drainage maintenance of the detention basins will be the responsibility of the association. They have submitted a sample management plan for the Commission's review demonstrating how this type of arrangement can be made. These roads will be privately owned and maintained. They are also providing sidewalks on one side of the road and lighting which is shown on the plans.
Mr. Steele stated they have met with staff at an ART. They had submitted revised plans to address staff comments and they feel they have met all the requests for information and clarifications that were mentioned. The Water Pollution Control Authority asked for sanitary manholes to be labeled and that was done.
Mr. Steele presented the plan to give the Commission a detailed view of the property and the limits of disturbance and the areas that will remain untouched.
Mr. Steele submitted a letter from the Mobil Oil Pipeline Company. The Water Pollution Control Authority in this area is going to be crossing an oil easement that runs through the property diagonally. Mr. Steele identified on the plans the area where the road and sanitary sewer would be crossing. The Water Pollution Control Authority asked for a letter from the oil company stating they had no objections to that crossing. Mr. Steele stated when they first submitted the plan to Mobil, they were told they had to meet certain requirements. They revised their plans and provided for their requirements and Mobil then sent this letter noting they were satisfied with the revised plans.
Mr. Steele stated there was a request that the sanitary laterals be moved because some were going directly into manholes. Staff wanted them all going directly into the main line instead of manholes.
Mr. Steele stated the Engineering Department had a comment regarding bonding and inspection. They added Note #31 to the plans at the request of the Engineering Department.
Mr. Steele stated the comments from the Wetlands Commission included a clarification regarding one area of special concern to them. It was discussed how the vegetation would be handled and a plan was submitted which shows some additional plantings. The plans also show that no trees are to be removed within this area.
Mr. Steele stated there was a question about the landscaping plan. The landscaping plan shows plantings all along the area and they are not shown on the main plan. However, the landscaping plan identifies substantial landscaping along Elm Street and around each of the units. The quantities listed on the landscaping plan do reflect all of the plantings. Mr. Steele noted the plantings along the road are different from the ones around the buildings. Mr. Steele stated they have adjusted information regarding the height and spread of those plantings to meet the town's regulations.
Mr. Steele stated they have submitted a revised traffic report. They had a traffic report prepared approximately a year ago by Traffic Engineer Bruce Hilson from Traffic Engineering Solutions in Glastonbury. This report has since been revised. The conclusions of those reports are that the existing roads, Elm Street, Moody Road and the intersections, are operating at a level of service "B". The report shows that the new roadways will operate at a level of service "A" and the addition of these fifty-seven units will not change the level of service on Elm Street and, therefore, there is no impact.
Mr. Steele stated the site line requirements are exceeded at both of the driveways. The revised traffic report was also submitted because the driveways were moved. One driveway coordinates with the Senior Center and the second was moved further away from the intersection. Mr. Steele felt the changes made enhanced the project from a traffic standpoint.
Commissioner Egan referred to Sheet 2 of 16 which shows the property line extension for the existing detention pond #1 is on the Oldefield Farms site and is over the property line. Mr. Steele confirmed this to be the case and a portion of it is in Oldefield Farms I. It is an existing pond and it services the Oldefield Farms development as well as this one.
Mr. Reveruzzi stated that pond was created for the development of Phase I of Oldefield Farms and for the future development of the next two phases which were about three hundred plus units which never got built. The size of that pond is about 330,000 square feet. Their addition and any runoff they are adding to it would be extremely minimal. Commissioner Egan asked if there are any property rights with using that detention basin. Mr. Reveruzzi stated Oldefield Farms is using the detention basin on their property as well.
Chairman Howard asked about maintenance of this detention pond. Mr. Reveruzzi stated presently Oldefield Farms is maintaining this detention basin by themselves. This is going to be a planned unit development which will be managed by the unit owners through a management company. That plan describes who is responsible for what activities in terms of maintaining the property. They can incorporate into the plan the responsibility for maintaining a portion of the pond the way Oldefield Farms is maintaining a portion of it now. Between the two developments, there will be a direct entity to resolve any maintenance issues and the town will not be responsible.
Mr. Reveruzzi stated the association will maintain the detention basin and also pick up any responsibility in maintaining that large detention pond. Mr. Reveruzzi pointed out the discharge for that pond is on to and through their property so there is a sharing of the responsibility in terms of maintaining the pond.
Commissioner Egan asked about units #3 and #23 which are to have sump pumps connected to fitting drains and if there are some water problems there. Mr. Steele stated they tried to keep all the units above the water table and there were a couple of units that could not by gravity get into the storm drainage system. This created the need for the sump pumps. Commissioner Egan had a concern about a responsibility by the town if these homes should take on water. Commissioner Egan asked if borings have been done in these areas. Mr. Steele stated they did do some test pits to get an idea of the water table. That information is listed on page four of the plans.
Commissioner Egan asked if the applicant is planning only fifty-seven units and will never add additional units at this location. Mr. Reveruzzi stated they cannot build any more. They had to give up to the Wetlands Commission the forty-two acres under the conservation easement and the only areas they can disturb are the green areas shown on the plan. They are only developing sixteen acres of the remaining forty acres that they can build on. They could never get additional development through wetlands. Commissioner Egan noted the Commission has heard this before. Mr. Reveruzzi added if the Wetlands Commission totally changed and all the regulations changed, there could be additions.
Commissioner Egan stated they are showing 119 units but only fifty-seven units proposed on page two of the plans. Mr. Steele stated that is based on the amount of area and according to the density requirements, how many units could be put in. They began with a proposal of sixty-five units and it has been reduced to fifty-seven units. This calculation is shown for the purpose of demonstrating that they do not exceed the density requirements.
Commissioner Egan asked that the applicant state for the record that they will never put more than fifty-seven units at this location. Mr. Reveruzzi stated they will never put more than fifty-seven units here if this is all they could ever build here. Mr. Reveruzzi stated he can understand the concern about overdeveloping a piece of property but at the same time, this is the type of development that doesn't add to the infrastructure costs to the Town of Enfield, brings in property taxes, and doesn't bring in children. The Commission created this special use zone for residents age fifty-five and over. Children are not allowed in this development unless they are over age twenty-one. Units cannot be rented unless they are rented to a family member with the exception of a limited time short-term rental of three months. Mr. Reveruzzi stated this is a very restricted zone. In the worst case situation, if the remaining thirty acres dried up and could be developed, you would build another twenty-five or fifty units. He does not understand what the detriment would be to the town.
Commissioner Egan stated it had been a practice to fill in the wetlands and then come back and state the wetlands had been disturbed and they can now build in the area. He asked if the applicant would be willing to agree to a condition on a permit to limit the number of units to fifty-seven. Mr. Reveruzzi stated his answer would be no but after spending a year and a half trying to get this project through Wetlands, if the only way he could get it approved was with that type of condition, he would have to accept it. He appreciates the question but does not understand why the Commission would add such a condition for someone who owned a piece of property, had the ability to use it for more without creating a problem and it fell within the zoning regulations. Commissioner Egan cited his five years' experience on Inland Wetlands hearing developers come forward and make promises and five to ten years later come back to develop the property.
Mr. Reveruzzi stated they could not develop the rest of the property because whatever land does not go into the conservation easement is now owned by the planned unit development and the association. They would have to vote on it. Once they sell out of the deal, the developers are not part of the ownership of any of the remaining property. Mr. Reveruzzi stated the Commission will have a piece of property that he cannot develop but he is unwilling to take that right away from the people that are part of the association who may want to develop additional property.
Commissioner Cooper asked for further clarification on detention basin #2. Mr. Steele stated this detention basin is partially constructed and doesn't have an outlet. They looked at the possibility of completing that detention basin by creating an outlet structure similar to detention basin #3 but their calculations showed it was not necessary. Also, the Wetlands Commission was not in favor of the use.
Mr. Reveruzzi stated the proposed homes will all have full basements and two-car garages. They are all single residences and will either have two or three bedrooms. Some homes may have an expansion on the second floor for additional living space. The approximate square footage is 2,000 square feet.
Commissioner Krebs asked if there will be outside decks. Mr. Reveruzzi stated there will be. Decks were added so that there would not be a number of individuals in the future asking for decks. As part of the approval process, they had to show that the decks were outside of the regulated area. Another thing they have done is in the management plan for the association, it states only the management company can come in for any modification. The association itself is the only entity that can make an application for a change and individuals are restricted from doing that.
Chairman Howard opened this hearing to the audience. There was no audience comment.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission has all the comments from staff regarding the technical part of this application. There were a number of ART's on this application and most of the issues were wetland issues. There were previous designs showing alternative road layouts and working with the applicant, the entrances and exits are at the optimal point for traffic safety and also line up with the new Senior Center driveway.
Mr. Giner stated they did discuss the issues of decks and this is why they are included in the plans. They also brought up whether or not there will be any sheds and the applicant stated no. If sheds are requested in the future, it would have to be through the management company.
Chairman Howard noted it was stated that the roads would be owned by the association and also trash pickup and snow removal would be private. He asked if this is subject to change. Mr. Giner stated the regulations state that the streets may be public or private and in either case, they have to be constructed to the standards of the town's subdivision regulations. They do meet all the subdivision requirements for streets. However, the way the project is proposed, they could not be accepted as public roads because they would not meet the setbacks. Mr. Giner stated the sidewalks will also be constructed according to the subdivision requirements. He referred the Commission to page 30 of the new regulations, Section 4.30.19.
Mr. Giner stated the sample plan received was a sample plan from East Windsor. If this application is approved, he recommended that there be a condition that the management plan be in compliance with the town's regulations, be reviewed by the Town Attorney and come back to the Commission before the Commission signs off on anything.
Some discussion followed on whether to keep this hearing open. Mr. Giner offered to prepare a list of conditions for the Commission's next meeting.
Commissioner Egan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to continue PH#2309 until the Commission's next regularly scheduled meeting (June 6, 2002). The motion was approved by a 4 - 1 - 0 vote. Commissioner DiPace voted nay.
OLD BUSINESS
a. PH#2304 - Application for a modification of plans previously approved for a Special Permit Use to allow decks, fences and sheds on each unit of a previously approved PRD and a fence around the perimeter for property located at 15 Grove Street in an R-33 District, Assessor's Map 92, Lot 33, Pine Grove Manor Incorp., Applicant/Owner.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to modify and approve PH#2304 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, with the following conditions:
Conditions to be met prior to the issuing of permits:
1. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners and their successors and assigns.
2. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate, signed by the Commission Secretary, on the Land Records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
3. Final inspection and signoffs from relevant code professionals shall be obtained.
General Conditions:
4. Any future decks are to be constructed as follows: only 20' x 26' decks of the same materials and color as those existing for each individual unit with the option of connecting the decks as is the case behind units 3 and 4.
5. Any fences other than the perimeter fence are not allowed. The fence attached to an existing unit shall be removed.
6. The existing community storage building will be permitted to be moved to the location specified on the plans outside the required buffer zone.
7. Any existing sheds located near the units are not approved and shall be removed as recommended by the Fire Marshall.
8. In lieu of individual sheds, the Association may place an additional storage building for the storage of individual tenants' property adjacent to the community storage building allowed under Condition #6 above. Such structure shall be of the same architectural style and color as the community storage building. If the Association pursues this option, it shall provide additional screening in the form of an evergreen hedge or a stockade fence along the two sides of the building facing adjacent residential properties. Any plans for an additional storage building and details of the proposed screening shall be approved by the Director of Planning prior to obtaining a building permit.
9. This approval is for the specific use and structures identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structure will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
10. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the plans and the record documents submitted with the application, as modified by this approval. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
11. All existing structures not specifically approved shall be removed from the property no later than the issuance of a certificate of compliance for the additional storage building or by July 1, 2002, whichever comes first.
12. This approval does not relieve the requirement that Building Permits be obtained for any existing or future decks and storage structures.
13. A building permit for the construction or relocation of facilities as approved must be obtained by May 16, 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.
14. That the 50' buffer area shown on the plans and required by the regulations in effect at the time of original approval be maintained without encroachment of any buildings or other structures.
15. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
Commissioner Egan asked about the April 2 and May 10, 2002 memos and whether there are any additional changes. Mr. Giner stated he took the comments and put them all into the conditions he drafted. The motion reflects the earlier memo and he put it into more specific terms.
Commissioner DiPace noted that each PRD has to be looked at differently because they are all unique. There are some very close to property lines and some like this one that have 200' from an abutting residence. He felt in this case they are not encroaching on anyone and he does not see any reason why this application should not be approved.
The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote.
The reasons for approval are it conforms with the existing neighborhood and will not negatively impact the neighborhood.
b. PH#2308 - Application for subdivision 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.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2308, application for a subdivision for 7 frontage lots and 1 open space parcel on the south side of Post Road, zoned R-44, Map 54, Lot 74, Joseph Aloisa and David Fredrick, Applicants/Estate of Francis D. Glista, Owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans as may be required to be modified by this motion and the following conditions:
Conditions to be met prior to signing of mylars:
1. The final mylars shall have "PH 2308" imprinted on each sheet either in or just above the Title Block.
2. The Town Engineer shall review and approve the final plans.
3. The sidewalk detail shall be revised to meet Enfield town standards, which does not call for doweling and that the distance between expansion joints should be 20 feet.
4. The plans shall be revised to indicate underground service as required by the Subdivision Regulations. There should only be poles for the proposed street lighting and those poles should be located within the right of way.
5. Note #19 on the "Layout Plan" shall be removed as it does not apply to subdivisions.
6. The "Construction Schedule" which appears on both "Grading and Erosion Plans" and the "Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan" shall be revised to address timing of the proposed public improvements such as water, sewers, drainage, curbing and sidewalks.
7. The detail for the proposed catch basin should be revised to a standard D.O.T. "C" type catch basin with a 2-foot deep sump.
8. All mylars submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
9. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this approval motion shall either be incorporated on to the final mylars or separately filed on the land records prior to the signing of the mylars.
10. The applicant shall post a bond for site improvements in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer with surety acceptable to the town.
11. A Separate Erosion and Sediment Control passbook shall be submitted in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
12. A Landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department, shall be submitted to the Town.
13. A developer's agreement shall be required for any on-site or off-site public improvements, which agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney, and which shall be executed and may be recorded in the Town Clerk's Office prior to the filing of mylars.
14. Any deeds or easements for public improvements or land dedication shall be submitted, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney, to be held in escrow until completion and acceptance of the improvements by the Town.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits or the start of construction:
15. Two sets of final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted for signature to the Commission. One set of signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk and one set shall be retained by the Planning Department. Final plans reflecting the approval of the Commission shall also be submitted in a digital format prescribed by the Director of Planning unless waived by a three-fourths majority of the Commission.
16. Signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk no later than ninety (90) days from the expiration of the appeal period or this approval shall be null and void. The applicants shall provide such mylars to the Planning Department sufficiently in advance of this deadline to allow for review of the plans and the arrangement for the Commission Secretary to sign the mylars. The applicant may request an extension of the filing deadline in accordance with Section 8-25 of the Connecticut General Statutes. Any extension requests must be received in time to allow the Commission to act on them before the original deadline expires.
17. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
18. No building permits may be issued and no lots may be sold within the subdivision prior to a final approval being filed on the Land Records.
Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of a Zoning Certificate of Compliance:
19. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
20. The required street trees shown for the individual lot shall be in place unless seasonal conditions preclude such in which case they shall be planted at the earliest planting opportunity.
21. No certificates of compliance shall be issued until the drainage has been completed.
22. No certificates of compliance shall be issued until the Water Pollution Control Division has inspected and approved the sewer conditions for each lot.
General Conditions:
23. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
24. All public improvements in connection with this subdivision shall be completed by the times specified or by May 16, 2007, whichever comes first, or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission in accordance with State law and its regulations.
25. 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 there were some issues with the open space and he doesn't think those issues have been clarified. There were some questions he had concerning that open space and the provisions of opening it up to the public. Commissioner Egan stated this applicant came forward and said this open space land was going to be open to the public and, in particular, to the school children in the area. Commissioner Egan discussed previous projects where the people that buy the homes start complaining and there are then signs posted stating "no trespassing."
Commissioner Egan stated he would like to make a statement. The applicant has represented in this hearing that the land would be available to the townspeople to use. Commissioner Egan would certainly hope the applicant would honor that commitment and that when the houses are being sold, that the prospective buyers be told that area is town land and it is open for public use.
The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote.
The reason for approval is it conforms to the Master Plan of Development.
a. Bond Releases
1. PH#2176 - Kids Kare Daycare, 601 Hazard Avenue - Request for release of Site Bond in the amount of $101,130, Erosion and Sediment Control Bond in the amount of $1,800 and Landscape Bond in the amount of $8,219.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to release the erosion and sediment control bond in the amount of $1,800 for PH#2176, Kids Kare Daycare, 601 Hazard Avenue. The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote. The engineering bond will be considered for release at the Commission's next meeting. Mr. Giner will confirm the change regarding the reduction in parking that the Commission approved and inform the Engineering Department of this change. The landscaping bond has to stay in place until next year.
NEW BUSINESS
a. FLD #013 - Application for development permit for special flood hazard areas on Cooper Street right of way by the Town of Enfield.
Mr. Giner stated this comes under the town ordinance that says this Commission must approve all applications within the flood hazard areas. This is part of the Road 2000 improvements to Cooper Street that the town is doing including driveway replacements. Portions of the work happen to be in the 100-year flood areas. Mr. Giner added he expected a representative from the Engineering Department to be present this evening. He added that the Wetlands Commission has approved this application.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve FLD#013, application for development permit for special flood hazard areas on Cooper Street right of way by the Town of Enfield. The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. 8-24 Referral for storm drainage easement located west of University Place
Mr. Giner stated this 8-24 referral is in regard to a storm drainage easement located west of University Place that the town needs to acquire.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Egan, to recommend approval to the Town Council of the 8-24 referral for a storm drainage easement located west of University Place. The motion was approved by a 5 - 0 - 0 vote.
b. Discussion with Tunxis Management regarding landscaping for Brookside Plaza
John Heflin from Tunxis Management, the property management company for Brookside Plaza, and Peter Ellef from LF Design appeared before the Commission for a discussion regarding the landscaping at Brookside Plaza.
Mr. Heflin stated Brookside Plaza has been in existence for approximately eighteen years. Over that time, the plantings that were initially installed have grown too tall, too full and are the source of complaints about visibility from the tenants. Mr. Heflin stated he is constantly hearing from tenants requesting that some of the landscaping be removed so that those driving on Hazard Avenue can see the stores.
Mr. Heflin stated he would like to review some of the things they would like to do within the shopping center to address the tenants' concerns and at the same time keep the center looking as nice as it is. The plan they would like to institute would be accomplished over three to eight years and would involve taking sections of Brookside Plaza and removing some of the existing trees and replanting those with smaller items that will not grow as tall or thick.
Commissioner DiPace asked if they will be starting with the area that has already been cut down. This is why they are here. As they were removing some of the landscaping, the Zoning Enforcement Officer was driving through and saw the work being done. Mr. Heflin stated in September, 2000, they had just completed a similar project on the Berlin Turnpike. One of his associates had talked with officials from the Town of Berlin and found out that it was not a town issue but a state issue. When they came to Enfield, it wasn't that they said they were going to skip the process. They started to remove two large sycamores and two large pines and they were going to be replacing them. They have not yet been replaced because they want to keep that same theme throughout the entire plaza if they were to continue with the other side.
The Zoning Enforcement Officer directed them to Mr. Giner. They met with Mr. Giner and discovered there are no formal drawings of the existing site plan. They met with him and presented photos and concepts to come up with a scheme over a three to eight year period.
Mr. Heflin stated they plan to remove and replace all the trees shown in orange on the plan submitted. The yellow would show the installation of ornamental trees or those that grow in the twenty to thirty foot range. They would use dogwoods, crabapples, cherries and birch trees. They are considering the installation of disease resistant species. Their reason for instituting this new landscaping plan is to increase the visibility to the store front properties.
Mr. Ellef stated the area near D'Angelo's is one of the big areas of growth that they would like to remove for visibility and safety reasons.
Mr. Heflin stated there is one juniper tree that is completely surrounding a light pole. The pines in front of Staples present a safety issue by reducing visibility.
Commissioner Cooper asked who would be doing the work. Mr. Ellef stated they would be doing most of the work. LF Design has been hired by Tunxis Management for this project.
Mr. Heflin stated the biggest area of concern was in the area of the main entrance way and right around the Brookside Plaza sign. They plan to remove the existing pine trees and replace them with ornamental trees and shrubs.
Chairman Howard disagreed with this proposal. He stated he recently visited Brookside Plaza and upon driving out noticed that the Plaza landscaping looked good. He had no problem distinguishing the individual stores. He stated if everything is removed, there will never be maturity.
Mr. Ellef stated they have tried the thinning out process for the trees and reducing the height but more of a combination of selective removal and replacement is needed. They are not suggesting the removal of all the mature trees. He further noted that a 40' tall pine tree becomes a maintenance issue.
Mr. Heflin questioned how many shopping centers have 30' to 40' trees. He receives calls every week asking what can be done and when is he meeting with the Town of Enfield regarding increased visibility to this shopping center. When he met with Mr. Giner and Mr. Bickley, they knew the tenants' locations. He acknowledged that a lot of Enfield residents know who is located at this plaza but this is a large shopping area and sometimes, if you are just driving by from the east, the area is totally blocked. You approach the shopping center and the whole area is inundated with large trees and they are trees that create a visibility issue.
Chairman Howard stated if you are looking for a store, chances are you have looked in a newspaper or the phone book before driving to the store. Prospective shoppers will drive into the parking lot and see the plaza. In Chairman Howard's opinion, he does not feel that the shopping center has to be seen as clear as a bell. He can understand the safety concerns but noted in his opinion there is nothing there that has to be cut down.
Mr. Heflin stated he totally agrees from a design point of view but they are looking to be the middle person between the aesthetics to the shopping center and the functionality.
Chairman Howard stated he finds it hard to believe that this shopping center has finally reached some maturing and the proposal is to remove what is existing. He is not in favor of this.
Commissioner Cooper stated the proposal sounds like they will be pretty selective in their tree removal. Chairman Howard noted recently in one area everything was cut down.
Mr. Heflin stated they are proposing a step by step plan which will not be done all at once. From the standpoint of visibility, the landscaping is overgrown. If they do not remove some of the existing trees, they will only get larger in width and taller. Mr. Heflin stated he has tenants that have called and threatened that when their lease expires, if nothing is done, they are not going to stay here.
Mr. Heflin stated one of the reasons Barnes and Noble is moving is because of site visibility.
Commissioner DiPace stated the gentleman that was here earlier tonight that did the presentation for the senior development, John Reveruzzi, presented the application for Brookside Plaza when it was initially built. One of the conditions that was placed on that application was that the color going across the front of that mall was all supposed to be the same. Now, the front of the mall is nothing like what was originally approved and it is all different colors. Commissioner DiPace compared Brookside Plaza to the plaza across the street where they all have signs inside uniform sign areas.
Mr. Heflin stated if you compare Brookside to every other center, Brookside is one of the oldest and has not had a rehab since it was built. Commissioner Krebs asked that they work on that. Mr. Heflin stated Shaw's did their own rehab. He has made recommendations to the land owners to consider improvements. He has a meeting with them in two weeks. They will look at what Shaw's has done and will consider improvements. Mr. Heflin stated this is something he has recommended since he has been the property manager.
Commissioner DiPace stated now that there is a mix of signs in the mall, the trees kind of hide things. He agrees there are quite a few trees that should come down due to visibility problems and safety concerns. Commissioner DiPace stated this is not so much for vehicle traffic but for concerns regarding inviting theft with the many places to hide.
Commissioner Egan agrees with all the comments that have been made and he stated a solution may be to remove the trees in the area of the Brookside Plaza sign. He felt there is a need to look at the aesthetics and comply with the original plans. He is against removal and noted it is possible to trim. In his opinion, the whole issue here is financial. It is cheaper to put in these plants that you don't have to take care of. Commissioner Egan stated he would agree to some trimming around the sign so that the plaza has some visibility, people know the mall is there and they can go into it.
Mr. Ellef stated it will actually cost them more per year to maintain with the types of trees proposed and it is not a financial issue.
Chairman Howard stated he could live with very selective tree removal. He understands the need for visibility for the sign. It was his opinion the plaza looks very nice as is and he is not in favor of changing it.
Commissioner DiPace stated he would not favor doing anything tonight. He felt the plans presented are very vague and he would like to see the landscape plan that was approved for the shopping mall. Mr. Giner stated it is not in the town records. Commissioner DiPace suggested Mr. Giner contact John Reveruzzi for a copy of the plan. He will also research his personal files.
Mr. Heflin stated this plan was done in 1985. Commissioner DiPace stated the plan was modified in 1988.
Commissioner DiPace stated if a copy of the landscaping plan can be found, he would like a plan submitted to show what is there plus what was cut down and have an overlay as to what is being proposed. This will allow a comparison of the before and after landscaping plan.
Commissioner Krebs requested that they work on the plaza facade in order to attract shoppers. She compared this mall to the one across the street and noted the differences.
Mr. Giner will do additional research to try to obtain the original landscaping plan for Brookside Plaza and also contact John Reveruzzi.
c. Acceptance of applications
The following applications were accepted by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission:
PH#2312 - Application for resubdivision plan for the settlement of estate of Edward Sidor at 52 South Road, zoned R-44, May 73, Lot 94, Debra Shlatz, Applicant, Estate of Edward Sidor, Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for the June 20, 2002 meeting.
SPR#1171 - Application to install lifts to do automotive repairs at 33 Palomba Drive, zoned BR, Map 57, Lot 343, Daniel Kossick, Enfield Ford, Applicant/Manchem LLC, Owner.
c. Other
Commissioner Egan noted the haste to get PH#2308 approved this evening. He stated the plans just received tonight were not reviewed by the Commission. He questioned how can the Commission approve an application without sufficient time to review the plans. Mr. Giner discussed the past practice of the Commission and stated the Commission has allowed applicants approvals when the engineer said there were minor issues left. Mr. Giner stated the mylars state subject to conformance with the referenced plans as may be required to be modified by this motion. Those changes are specified in the conditions. Commissioner Egan questioned shouldn't the Commission have an opportunity to review the final plans. He added this evening the Commission did not have an opportunity to review the changes made to these plans before the motion was made and seconded. Commissioner Egan stated it will be interesting to see what the permit issued says. In the future, he would like the Commission to be asked if they have any questions before the motion is voted upon. Chairman Howard stated he doesn't want anyone to be forced into a vote. Further discussion followed. Chairman Howard directed Mr. Giner to review meeting procedures.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Karen Krebs, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|