|
|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
MARCH 28, 2002
A Special Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, March 28, 2002 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Howard called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: James Howard, Chairman
Charles Duren
Robert Egan
James Hickey, Jr.
Karen Krebs
Nicles Lefakis
Karen Weseliza, Alternate
Joseph Jednak, Alternate
ABSENT: Anthony DiPace
Jeffrey Cooper, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued from March 7, 2002 Meeting
a. PH#2298 - Application for a Modification of Plans previously approved for a Special Permit Use to allow a facade change including the installation of one "Mobil" canopy legend, and the addition of a two-foot high internally lit blue band to existing canopy fascia for a gasoline station located in a BL District at 76 Hazard Avenue, Assessor's Map 56, Lot 16, Bohler Engineering, Applicant; Mobil Oil Corporation, Owner. (May be kept open until April 4).
John Stitzer from Bohler Engineering appeared before the Commission regarding the continuation of this application. He stated there were concerns expressed by Commission members regarding traffic at this site. He spoke to Lieutenant Robert Boula and he had no complaints. Reference is made to the email sent regarding this application from Mr. Boula dated Wednesday, March 27, 2002. In that email, Lieutenant Boula stated "the location of this station has been a safety issue for some time but changing of the canopy is not going to matter at this time. In the future, the State DOT is changing the intersection and making a right turn lane on to Middle Road and at that time they may request closing of the driveway on Hazard Avenue for the safety of the public."
Mr. Stitzer stated it is his understanding that the state will not allow the current three accesses to the site. They will probably restrict this site to two accesses in the future and, at that time, all the concerns will be addressed.
Chairman Howard noted that Commissioner Cooper had some concerns about the canopy not going all the way around the building. Commissioner Duren stated the residential area is to the south. Mr. Stitzer stated they would add the band to only three sides.
No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Chairman Howard closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2298 for a Special Use Permit at 76 Hazard Avenue to allow a facade change including the installation of one "Mobil" canopy legend and the addition of a two-foot high internally lit blue band to existing canopy fascia on the north, east and west sides of the canopy. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Krebs voting.
b. 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 Pearl Street, LLC, Owner.
Because the applicant's attorney had not yet arrived, the Commission took a ten-minute recess prior to proceeding with this public hearing.
Commissioner Lefakis stated he will recuse himself from this hearing.
Attorney Thomas Fahey appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated at the last meeting there were a number of comments made by those speaking both in favor and against this application. He will address those and also address the compliance of their application with Enfield's regulations and respond to Commission questions.
Attorney Fahey stated the comments that were made by the neighbors amounted to a great deal of speculation as to the use of the house and fear that the individuals who were going to occupy the house, recovering alcoholics, would somehow present a danger to the community. Attorney Fahey thinks those fears and generalizations are unfounded. In the two other direct examples that were given at the last hearing session, there have been no incidents at these other locations of that kind of danger to the community. One house has been open for twelve months and the other for eighteen months.
Attorney Fahey stated he was impressed with some of the comments by those speaking in favor of this application. One of the comments that was made by Mr. Giddings was that revitalization of the neighborhood includes its people as well as the bricks and mortar. Another comment that was significant was made by two individuals who spoke against the application. That was by expressing concern for the potential impact on her children, Mrs. Baker stated she knew there were two of these houses in the neighborhood and she knew the location of one but not the other. That same comment was offered again at the initial meeting of this Commission by Mrs. Reardon. Attorney Fahey stated the fact that these homes were anonymous and residents were not aware they were there speaks to the fact that they could not have been troublesome in the neighborhood.
Attorney Fahey stated the comments that were made by Leona Flynn were important for this Commission to consider. She does have a master's in social work and she is directly familiar with recovery houses and this applicant's experience operating them in the Town of Enfield. She indicated that this applicant and his operations were highly regarded by the community that is directly involved with recovering alcoholics. A relevant comment was by not providing this type of recovery house, it will not get rid of the individuals but only remove their support.
Attorney Fahey stated a point that cannot be emphasized enough is the fact that they are not asking this Commission to bend the rules in any way. They are asking for something that is specifically permitted in the regulations. That is, as defined in Section 9-1.2 - a community house not operated for profit. These are specifically permitted in the zone they are located in. Because they are specifically permitted, their obligation is to come before the Commission to obtain a special permit and to show how they comply with the regulations. Attorney Fahey stated they have submitted a site plan and made specific comments about it at the last hearing session. There were comments that were addressed by the staff including the Fire Marshal, the Town Engineer, the Building Inspector and others. They complied with those but stated if there are any conditions that need to be added to the application to assure their compliance and that certain things appear on the site plan, they would agree to that.
Attorney Fahey felt it was important to show how they address the regulations in Chapter 16 dealing with the specific requirements of the Special Use Permit application process. The application will show that they comply with height and area requirements, the parking requirements, and the landscaping requirements. The sewer and water are adequate based upon the information in the record. They addressed fire safety, the driveway and the parking requirements as they apply to this application. Section 16-8 deals with traffic access, circulation, landscaping, character and appearance. Attorney Fahey noted all those items with respect to this application are in compliance. Regarding the general and specific considerations set forth in Section 16-7, that is where police and fire safety are addressed. Attorney Fahey believes there is adequate information on the record to show they comply with that section.
Attorney Fahey stated the generalized statement contained in Section 16-7.2 and Section 16-7.3 is where the focus of the application is. That deals with the issues of the character and general harmony with the orderly development of the district or, neighborhood compatibility. Attorney Fahey stated they are a single-family house and it is a single-family neighborhood. Being that it is an older neighborhood, there are various instances where there are nonconforming uses. They acknowledge that this area includes a number of homes where homeowners are making efforts to upgrade their homes. Attorney Fahey noted that going from a social club in an aging condition with a liquor license to a building where the company is going to invest to make it a welcome single-family home by upgrading it would result in an improved single-family home. He acknowledged that the return to society in a single-family neighborhood is an important part of the family requirement for recovering people.
Attorney Fahey stated Commissioner DiPace requested that they prepare a rendering to show how this dwelling will look when siding and window treatments are done and landscaping is added. He presented a computer-generated rendering of how the building will look. Attorney Fahey noted they have used materials and a look that is similar to homes in the immediate area.
Attorney Fahey addressed the Fair Housing Act, a federal law. The Fair Housing Act recognizes alcoholism as a handicap. Because it is recognized as a handicap, towns are required to provide reasonable accommodation to applicants who bring zoning applications for handicap facilities such as the one this evening. Under the town's present regulations, there could be five individuals completely unrelated who could move into any house and could establish that they are living in a common arrangement with a common cooking area, sharing of meals, and assigned tasks. Under the Fair Housing Act, the reasonable accommodation comes in when applicants have more than five people. If they can establish that they are under the handicapped status and are asking for the reasonable accommodation, courts have established that towns are then required to give relief to that applicant as a reasonable accommodation. Most recently, there was an article in the New York Times on March 17 dealing with sober houses and it keyed on two Connecticut cases, one from West Haven and one from North Haven. In a ninety-page decision issued by the Federal Court in December, 2001, the Court ruled West Haven had actually discriminated against an applicant by denying them reasonable accommodation and allowing them to have seven individuals where their town's particular definition of family only allowed three. In this case, the town had taken action and there was a neighborhood group that filed petitions and persuaded the zoning enforcement officer to try to get an injunction. As a result of that case, the town lost the case and had to pay significant sums in damages and fees.
Commissioner Egan stated it was his understanding that Attorney Fahey was supposed to be addressing specific concerns of the individuals that spoke regarding this application and not to give another presentation that the Commission has heard before. Chairman Howard agreed and stated he is not sure that Attorney Fahey is addressing the questions from the public. Chairman Howard stated while the information Attorney Fahey is providing is relevant, he does not feel the public is getting the answers they requested. Chairman Howard asked that Attorney Fahey continue with his presentation.
Attorney Fahey stated he must at this time raise an objection to the attempts of this Commission to deprive the applicant of a full opportunity to present his case. They are the applicants and he says this with a background representing municipalities for many years and advising land use commissions. Attorney Fahey stated the applicant has to have the opportunity to present his case. They determine what information needs to be put on the record to support their application. Chairman Howard questioned if this should not have been done at the initial presentation. Attorney Fahey stated this public hearing is still open. He did not intentionally get into this information regarding the ramifications of the Fair Housing Act at that time. He does not have to at that time and in many cases Attorney Fahey stated you want to see what evidence is put before you. Another important piece of information is the Commission is the one who asks the questions. Attorney Fahey stated it is not appropriate for direct give and take between members of the public and the applicant. At the last meeting, Chairman Howard indicated he did not want to hear repetition. He recalled that the Chairman allowed Mrs. Reardon to get up again and give exactly the same presentation as the previous meeting and the Commission did not say a word about it. Attorney Fahey stated he senses this Commission is trying to stifle the applicant.
Commissioner Egan stated there is no attempt by this Commission to stifle the applicant's testimony. The way the public hearings are run is the public has an opportunity to present their questions and the applicant has an opportunity to respond. The applicant will then have another opportunity at the end of the public hearing to make statements. Commissioner Egan stated it is not fair to the public for the applicant to be taking up all of the time without letting them raise their questions so that they can be addressed. Commissioner Egan felt the applicant should be interested in their concerns and how they could be addressed and this is not being done. He stated the applicant will have ample opportunity to present their case but, also, the public has a right to give their case.
Attorney Fahey responded at the last meeting he stated it has always been his understanding that the applicant puts his case on, the public gives their comments and the applicant rebuts and that is the end of it. He was told by Chairman Howard that that is not the way it is done in Enfield. The applicant goes on, the public gives their comments, the applicant comes back, the public gives their comment and the applicant comes back again. That procedure is totally unfamiliar to him.
Chairman Howard asked if he has changed Commission policy. Mr. Giner stated the Commission's bylaws do call for second and third comments from the public.
Commissioner Krebs stated Attorney Fahey is being asked to answer the questions the public had at the last hearing session. When he gets his next rebuttal, he can respond to tonight's questions.
Attorney Fahey stated he does not know what questions are being referred to. He noted the public was demonizing these individuals and saying they were going to be molesting their children. Commissioner Egan stated they had very good questions concerning the quality of managers, the parking, the lights and the regulatory oversight. Commissioner Krebs asked that the questions regarding the concerns about the children be addressed.
Attorney Fahey stated this is precisely what the Fair Housing Act is all about. People are assuming because these people are recovering alcoholics, that they are a danger to the children. Commissioner Egan stated that is not what is being targeted. The Commission has the zoning regulations to look at, and the Fair Housing Act says no one should be treated any differently and there should be reasonable accommodations made. He asked how the Commission can make reasonable accommodations if they don't have all the facts and Attorney Fahey won't answer the questions or is giving inconsistent answers. Commissioner Egan asked that Attorney Fahey give the people responses to their questions.
Attorney Fahey stated he is not sure what questions the Commission would like him to answer. Chairman Howard stated what he heard was people asking what do you do when someone comes home and has been drinking. He heard two different answers. One was their suitcase was on the back step and a second response was they are taken to a detox center. Chairman Howard stated people need to know what does happen.
Commissioner Duren stated the statement of purpose was two lines. He has been on the internet and noted some of these homes have rules consisting of three or four pages. The Commission has only received a few lines and not the rules of the house. He saw a need for the Commission and the people to know the rules of this house.
Chairman Howard asked that Attorney Fahey continue with his comments.
Attorney Fahey asked if there are any other questions the Commission would like him to specifically address at this time. Commissioner Weseliza asked for a further explanation of the Fair Housing Act. Attorney Fahey stated under the Fair Housing Act, with individuals who are handicapped, once you meet that condition, you have a preferred status and the town has to make reasonable accommodations to your application. Attorney Fahey stated if the rule was you could only have five or less individuals and they were asking for seven, that has been ruled to be a permissible reasonable accommodation because of the Fair Housing Act. The town then has to show how this single-family unit is going to be inconsistent with some plan that it has in the area itself or that it is going to be some kind of financial burden to the community.
Attorney Fahey stated they are not asking that the Commission go beyond what is already permitted. The regulations under Section 9 regarding a community house do not state a particular number of people that would be allowed. There is no maximum number of related people and you can have as many as you want of related people. They are asking for a specific permit for a community house operated by a nonprofit and there is no specific number of individuals as long as they meet the requirements of the building code for the house itself. They are not asking for something more than is already permitted.
Commissioner Weseliza asked for a definition of the difference between a sober house and a community house. Attorney Fahey stated community house is the general definition and in this case it happens to be a sober house. You could have a community house for some other form of handicap.
Attorney Fahey stated in the regulations regarding nonprofit community houses, there are no specific standards. He noted the Commission is scrutinizing their bylaws but he does not see in the regulations where there are standards in that regard. Attorney Fahey stated he feels he is making a relevant point because there are legions of cases which require boards to relate their decisions to standards that might be in the regulations. They presented a valid set of bylaws and a certificate showing there is a not for profit corporation.
Commissioner Egan asked if they have filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Attorney Fahey stated they have not. They do not have to be a 501C-3. Commissioner Egan stated to be a nonprofit foundation, you have to file. Attorney Fahey stated it does not say nonprofit foundation but instead nonprofit corporation. You file a nonprofit corporation first and if you want to then become an IRS type of thing, that is unrelated to the zoning regulations, but you can choose a 501C-3 if you'd like or you can choose a different type of foundation. Attorney Fahey stated they have not filed with the IRS yet and if they do not get approved, it will cast a different light on the whole application. Attorney Fahey stated they can be a not for profit corporation and do not have to be a foundation but can still operate as a not for profit corporation on the basis of their filing so far. The certified copy of this filing was given to the Town Planner at the last hearing session.
Commissioner Egan asked if there is an intent to file with the IRS for non profit. Attorney Fahey stated if the application is approved, they will file. He felt Commissioner Egan is trying to get him to say that they have not done all they have to do for a not for profit corporation and this is incorrect. Enfield's regulations talk about a not for profit corporation and they have done that. It does not talk about certain tax exemptions and that is a whole different level of concern. Commissioner Egan asked if this corporation has been approved by the Secretary of State and Attorney Fahey reported it has.
Commissioner Hickey asked for a clarification regarding Attorney Fahey's statement that the town's regulations do not have any standards. Attorney Fahey stated he did not say that. What he said is that the standard of inquiry that the Commission developed through questions was going into details regarding why they are not an Oxford House, why didn't they use their model and how come their setup is different. The Commission is looking at the details of their bylaws and questioning what is and is not in them. Attorney Fahey is saying in a generic form that if an individual is meeting the zoning regulations under the definition of a community house not operated for profit, they would not know what is required because it is not included in the regulations. Attorney Fahey stated you cannot hold someone to a standard that doesn't exist in the town's regulations with respect to the non-profit corporation. Commissioner Hickey stated he thought Attorney Fahey was referring to the proposed use. Attorney Fahey clarified that he is referring to the not for profit aspect. The standards for the proposed use are the general considerations the Commission has for all special use permits. This is where the interplay of the Fair Housing Act comes in. What it means is the people that are going to operate the recovery house, recovering alcoholics, have to be treated as people. Their status as alcoholics cannot be used in a decision to give a greater level of scrutiny than it would be for any other individual.
Attorney Fahey stated he listened intently to the public comments and a lot of those comments that he heard were all related to treating these people as having a different status. This is why they have the Fair Housing Act. This should be treated no differently than a house coming in occupied by people. Their status as handicapped individuals cannot be singled out as a reason for denying the application or treating it in any form of discriminatory fashion. Commissioner Egan thought the questions need to be asked to see if this applicant fits into that category of the Fair Housing Act standards. He noted a lot of these questions have been directed to getting to that point in addition to considering some of those reasonable accommodations. Commissioner Egan stated the Commission needs to have all the facts and they need to have the straight facts before an intelligent decision can be made. He is speaking personally and stated all the facts and information that is presented should be consistent and factual so that it can be based not only on the town's zoning regulations but, in this case, the Fair Housing Act which overrules to a degree some of the zoning regulations. There is a provision within the zoning regulations that the Commission has to protect the health and well being of the citizens of the Town of Enfield. Commissioner Egan stated their concerns may not be concerns to the applicant but they are real concerns made to this Commission. The Commission needs to weigh their comments with regard to the zoning regulations and the Fair Housing Act and make a determination.
Attorney Fahey stated the Commission has to address the health, safety and welfare concerns of the community. In saying that, Attorney Fahey heard from the community that because this is a recovery house and because recovering alcoholics are going to inhabit this house, that somehow that presents a greater danger to the health, safety and welfare of the community than it would be if the house was purchased by a family of twelve people. Attorney Fahey stated that is precisely what is prevented by the Fair Housing Act. Commissioner Egan stated that is exactly what he said and he further said the Commission would sift through what is appropriate to the Fair Housing Act and what is appropriate to the zoning regulations.
Attorney Fahey stated as far as some of the specific items, the question has been raised a couple of times in terms of the operation. There is twenty-four hour management. He added the proposed manager spoke very eloquently at the last meeting.
Commissioner Egan brought up an inconsistency. The manager said he would be on the premises twenty-four hours and that he is going to buy a house. Attorney Fahey stated he is going to buy a house as an investment property to rent. He is a successful individual and he demonstrated how he took himself from an abject situation in New York City, went through a recovery house and turned his life around. He owns several pieces of property. He is going to live in this house. Attorney Fahey responded to Commissioner Egan's comments that he did not realize this wasn't clear to the Commission. The manager is going to live on site and Attorney Fahey has no problem with a condition, if the Commission feels it is necessary, that there be a twenty-four hour on-site manager. Attorney Fahey previously told the Commission there was going to be a manager and an assistant manager twenty-four hours a day. Attorney Fahey stated they also told the Commission there was going to be no drugs and that they do not take people from the Corrections Department. Commissioner Egan asked if they take convicted felons. Mr. Olschafskie responded they do not if they have a court case pending.
Commissioner Duren asked about dual diagnosis. Attorney Fahey stated people with drug addictions do not go to this house and are referred to Manchester.
Commissioner Duren noted the Commission has not been given a list of the house rules and what they are and are not doing. He wants it confirmed that they are actually going to operate a sober house. Attorney Fahey confirmed that they are.
Commissioner Duren asked if the bylaws submitted previously are their final bylaws. He noted it still has El Paso Court listed in the document. Attorney Fahey stated that has been changed and the Commission has not received the final copy.
Chairman Howard stated the public hearing itself speaks to addiction recovery community house. Attorney Fahey stated that phrase "addiction recovery" came from an ART meeting when the staff used that phrase. He stated alcohol is an addiction and they have made every attempt they could to be as clear as possible that they are focusing on alcohol at this house. He suggested that if the Commission wanted to ensure that is the case that they, in the special use permit, say it is for alcohol. They have tried to do that and a number of people have commented on it. Attorney Fahey also noted that two of the individuals that deal with people in the State of Connecticut have indicated it is very difficult to get into this house because of the screening process that the applicant does in taking people. They have said they reject a lot of the applications and that is important information in terms of how this house will be run.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if those people that qualify for residency at this house have a contract and goals or standards to achieve. Attorney Fahey stated they do. You cannot drink or use drugs at this house. You have to be employed. You have to attend regular meetings and there is a minimum of five AA meetings per week. In addition, there is a weekly meeting at the house with the manager. There are specific chores residents are assigned to do. There is a common dining facility and a kitchen. They take no referrals from the Department of Corrections, no people on methadone, no people with pending court cases and no people on parole. These are people that have been through in-patient and halfway house and now they need a single-family environment to get acclimated back into the community. Regarding the success rates, the statistics show that for people that stay in such a house for twelve months or longer, the recovery rate of staying sober is over eighty percent. For the people who don't go through the sober house experience, the total recovery rate is twenty percent or less.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if a resident was in violation of the house rules, what would be the next step. Attorney Fahey stated if you violate the rules, you are out of the house. There are no second chances. One of the questions that was asked previously was if someone shows up at the facility at night and they have been drinking and there were two different answers. One of the responses was you could take that person to a detox facility. The other answer might be, and it is a question of degree, that the person is out of the facility immediately. Attorney Fahey stated in both cases, if you take a person to detox, they still might be out of the house because the rules have been violated. Attorney Fahey stated out of the house does not mean that the person will be put on someone's doorstep but the person would not be welcome to come back and there is a process. The process can't be the same every time. Also, it doesn't happen that often.
Commissioner Egan asked how many times does it happen. He stated an audience member received an answer that it doesn't happen and he noted that maybe it hasn't happened. Commissioner Egan asked how many times at the other facilities has it happened where they have had to remove someone, ask them to leave or taken them to detox. Commissioner Egan stated Attorney Fahey has brought up percentages of success and he retracted his statement when it was compared to the other facilities when it was asked what is your success rate compared to the others. The response was we have a better success rate and Commissioner Egan felt this was another inconsistency. Commissioner Egan would like to get the straight answer. Attorney Fahey has just raised the percentage again. Commissioner Egan asked if there is percentage of success that can be documented from their other facilities or even a general category.
Attorney Fahey stated he would like to clarify what he said and that is for people in sober houses, be they Oxford Houses or other types of sober houses, that stay thirteen months, it is his understanding that the success rate is in excess of eighty percent. For people that do not go to a sober house but go to detox and go back into the community or to a halfway house, it is Attorney Fahey's understanding that the success rate for them remaining sober is somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty percent. Attorney Fahey stated Commissioner Egan's next part of the question was in relation to the specific experience of this applicant. Attorney Fahey stated it was very inspirational to him to see some successful graduates speak at the last hearing session that not only have graduated from the program but also wrote business plans and conducted successful businesses.
Mr. Olschafskie was asked if he had specific information regarding his facilities by Attorney Fahey and he responded it would be easy to do but he does not have that information this evening. Commissioner Egan would like this question answered. Attorney Fahey responded that he can tell the Commission there have been times when they have had to take people to detox but the Commission will be surprised at how few those incidents are. He would be happy to document them for the Commission.
Commissioner Krebs asked why Attorney Fahey cannot put these rules and regulations on paper for the Commission listing what people have to do when they enter this house and what happens if they violate these rules. Attorney Fahey stated they certainly can do that. Commissioner Egan noted the rules received consist of five items and more have been mentioned this evening. Attorney Fahey stated he will give the Commission an answer. He was not anticipating that it was a requirement of the regulations but he knows it is important. Commissioner Krebs stated it will help the Commission with their decision.
Attorney Fahey stated the other two facilities owned by Mr. Olschafski have, up to this point, been operated through as of right uses because they have five or less people in a single common dwelling. Attorney Fahey further noted that since this application was filed, they have been served with a cease and desist order challenging their right to operate the house on Asnuntuck Street. Commissioner Egan stated it was mentioned previously that there were eight or nine residents in the two facilities. Attorney Fahey stated they are two-family houses.
Attorney Fahey stated he would like the record to show that regarding Pleasant Street, that is a nonconforming use of record as a rooming house. It was a rooming house before the zoning laws changed to make rooming houses containing that many residents not appropriate. You cannot have a rooming house with nine people under today's regulations but you could at the time the Pleasant Street house was originally operated. When the applicant bought the property, it was operated as a rooming house and not a recovery house. Because it was a rooming house with nine people, it is entitled to keep the nine people in that house in a single-family district as a continuation of an existing nonconforming use. The Asnuntuck Street house is a two-family house and is entitled to have up to five individuals in each of the two-family's homes and as long as it does that, it is their position that it qualifies as a family of unrelated individuals. It is the Asnuntuck Street property that has since been served with a cease and desist order since this hearing began.
Commissioner Hickey stated Attorney Fahey has emphasized throughout his presentation that the program is by and large very successful and it is unusual to have a situation where someone is taken to detox. Attorney Fahey has also said there is a zero tolerance for drinking. It was also stated by one of the proposed managers that if someone did lapse and had come home to the residence after having been out, that that person's belongings would be on the front porch and he or she would be immediately ejected. Commissioner Hickey asked if that is actually how such a situation would be handled. Attorney Fahey stated that is in effect what happens but the belongings may not be moved that instant. What they may do, and Attorney Fahey referred to previous testimony from the managers, is to assess the particular condition at that instant. It may require driving someone to a detox facility and then returning. There are not a lot of belongings that these people have but they do have some. The point is that they can't come back into that facility because they have violated the rules at that point in time. The point they are trying to make is there are not that many situations where this happens. However, if it were to happen and because the residents know they would not be able to continue to live there, they do not violate. When they get to this house, they are pretty committed to this. The rule not allowing them to remain there serves as a tremendous deterrent and is key to their success. All of the sober house models have that rule - one strike and you're out.
Commissioner Duren asked if this would be a three-quarter house. Attorney Fahey responded the reason they are using the term three-quarter house is to distinguish the home from a halfway house which is a totally different situation. The point is that it is the next step before individuals are living totally independently. Commissioner Duren asked if that is standard terminology in the business and Mr. Olschafskie responded it is.
Commissioner Duren noted they are not licensed by the State of Connecticut or anyone else. Attorney Fahey confirmed this to be the case and stated these are private non-profit corporations.
Commissioner Duren stated they will not, therefore, be accredited by any association or group. Attorney Fahey stated that is correct. It is his understanding that the private nonprofit corporations do not have an accrediting organization. Attorney Fahey stated the individuals who spoke at the last hearing session who have many years of experience working for state organizations and recovery hospitals spoke well of the facility and how it was run. Attorney Fahey felt that should give some comfort to the Commission. He also reported the nonprofit will look to continue seeking advice from these individuals in an advisory capacity. Some of the people that came here that have longstanding experience and working relationships are used as a sounding board for operational activities and will continue to be in the future. This is how you network and continue to develop your service.
Commissioner Duren asked if the counselors will be required to be certified as alcohol drug counselors by the State of Connecticut or any other licensing agency. Attorney Fahey stated in regard to the managers, they will not be required to have any specific license. It is life experience and the fact that by the time they get to the house, they have been involved in counseling and intervention with people who have degrees and training in that area. In some cases, they will continue to do that as well as going to their meetings.
Attorney Fahey stated he will save any additional remarks for the end of this hearing following input from the public. He also distributed the New York Times article and indicated that the lead case referred to in this article is the West Haven case which was decided by the U. S. District Court in December, 2001. The docket number for that case is U. S. District Court, New Haven, #3:98CV01316. It is also listed on the U. S. District Court web site.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if the residents of this house will be from the Enfield community or other communities. Attorney Fahey stated at the last hearing session, one of their witnesses testified that when people are in-patients, they are located throughout hospitals in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York. They try to relocate people to the communities in which they came from. There was a lot of testimony about the need for additional sober houses and the fact that there is not enough to accommodate the Enfield residents. In this case, Attorney Fahey noted almost all of the occupants are Enfield residents. However, this does not mean that someone from another town cannot be in the house. It just happens that based upon the interaction with the facilities that place, there seems to be enough cases for them to be fully occupied by Enfield residents.
Chairman Howard opened this public hearing to the public. He asked that people try to limit their comments to five minutes and that they not repeat the same things they cited previously regarding this application.
Joseph Petrillo, 1431 Enfield Street, spoke in favor and stated alcoholics, especially those in need of recovery, are not bad people. They are people that live with a disease and they are trying to get better. He thought there is a large success rate among alcoholics nationwide and in Connecticut there is a very large recovering community. Because of what he feels is some of the stigma he has witnessed during this hearing, people in the recovering community have stayed in the closet for many years to avoid the accusations that get made regarding children in the neighborhood and similar comments. He can understand community members wanting to keep their children safe but he confirmed again that alcoholics do not have a reputation for harming children in the neighborhood. It has been insinuated several times in the course of these three public hearing sessions. Mr. Petrillo noticed as Attorney Fahey was addressing issues regarding the managers, parking and lighting tonight and informing the Commission that he was meeting the town requirements, he felt that Attorney Fahey was getting somewhat pounded. Mr. Petrillo stated he is sure there are other hearings that occur for similar homes throughout the state and everyone knows there is a need but no one wants it in their backyard. Yet, every family in the state is affected by the disease. If no one wants it in their backyard, where will these people go? He questioned what is wrong with someone that has a felony on their record in a recovery house. He would rather have them in a recovery house than paying prison costs. Mr. Petrillo discussed people that have relapse episodes and he knows of one case where the person was taken to Motel Six and the house paid for the room for the night because there was not a detox room available. He felt it tests the intelligence of the recovering community to suggest that someone's belongings would be put out on the front porch and the person is under the influence and is expected to walk down the street.
Mr. Petrillo stated the individual that testified at the last hearing session and said he was going to be the manager of the house has a history of running these houses. Regarding the question about whether licensed alcohol counselors are going to be responsible for running these houses, he stated there are non-recovering licensed alcohol and drug counselors. However, the value of one alcoholic helping another is unparalleled because they understand and know the supports that have to be in place on the path to recovery. Mr. Petrillo stated sober housing falls under recovery support services. Recovery support services include job training, mentoring, and, in women's sober houses, babysitting services. If people just come out of treatment and have no support, the percentage rate of failure increases greatly. Mr. Petrillo stated he is here in support of a person seeking recovery having the same opportunity to live in this town as any other person.
Mr. Petrillo felt it is very upsetting to sit in three different hearing sessions and witness the type of stigma that the recovering community gets thrown at them time and time again.
Wayne Ferguson, 13 Brentwood, stated he is representing his parents. At the last meeting, Attorney Fahey said he could wrap this up in three minutes and he has now spoke for over an hour again. The big concern is nonprofit but there is money changing hands somewhere here and he asked where it is going. The other thing is people are not against recovery but they are against the location. There are already two similar houses operating and he questioned the need for a third in this area. He is also concerned about his parents because they live right next door to where this facility will be located.
Kevin Reardon, 138 Pearl Street, spoke against this application and noted the testimony given which he does not feel is all that relevant. Also, there have been some inconsistencies about what has been said. One of his main concerns was they asked how we can judge these people and then they say that every one of us has one in their family. Mr. Reardon stated he is not here to say what they are doing is not a good thing but he personally does not want it that close to his house. He noted all the work that has been done to properties in the area and he feels it takes away from their property. People who come to purchase property in this area come from Enfield. This facility was not there when he purchased his property and he felt it could have been a major factor in the decision he made to locate in this area. He again brought up the conflicts by the applicant, the numbers not coming up the same and the fact that the houses are not as anonymous as the applicant states they are. Everyone that lives in the area knows where they are. He does not know what goes on in the way of trouble but when it comes to being across from his home, he does have something to say about it. Mr. Reardon stated they say you can't judge a book by its cover with these people but then they hand out a picture showing how pretty they are going to make the property look. It does not seem to him that the house should be located here. The former club just looked like an old building that was waiting for someone to come along and take care of it. In his opinion, it would have been nice to see a family go in there.
Mr. Reardon emphasized he does not want this sober house at this location. He does not feel it is something that is going to bring up the values of the property and help the neighborhood. The money they say that will be brought into the town he doesn't feel will amount to that much. They have said everyone has seen this and you have it in your family. Mr. Reardon noted that is how most people are making their decisions about the kind of people that would go into this house. Mr. Reardon felt the applicant's answers have changed as the Commission questions changed. It didn't seem like they had all the answers that the residents were looking for.
Shiela Reardon, 138 Pearl Street, stated she is speaking to defend herself. She takes offense to Attorney Fahey saying she repeated herself because she does not think anyone repeated themselves more than he did. She spoke two or three times and when she spoke last month, she may have repeated herself but did not feel she had. Ms. Reardon stated they are concerned and have a right to be concerned. They are concerned about their property, their family and their children. She is not saying that these people are the derelicts of the town but, unfortunately, they have a problem. They are telling residents that these people are disabled and residents are not against that. They are not against providing homes for any of these people. She saw an article in a Vernon newspaper stating a fifteen-person group home was moving from one position to another. She stated the neighbors are being made out as the bad people here because they are complaining and want their property values kept up. The person that complained in Vernon was the Rockville Bank. She stated people have a right to voice their opinions. She noted Attorney Fahey used the word compatible at least five times. Ms. Reardon stated Commissioner Duren previously raised the concern about whether this house was compatible for the location. She still says it is not compatible for the location since this will be the third such home within a mile. Attorney Fahey brought up the word harmony. She stated she is concerned about property values. They talk about being anonymous and discussed other locations of group homes in the community. In this situation with ten people living in the house with a manager and an assistant manager, she questioned whether there would always be twelve happy people or whether there would be problems.
Ms. Reardon stated Attorney Fahey keeps bringing up the Fair Housing Act and quoted from the paper comments by Ray Warren, Economic Development Director, regarding where the Town of Enfield is going against Fair Housing. She does not think there is a person in this room that is against Fair Housing. They keep bringing up that these people are disabled and yes, maybe they are. She is not against them having homes but just does not want ten of them across the street from her property. Many other people that are not here tonight because it is a holy night are also concerned. Residents have every right to be concerned. Ms. Reardon stated when Attorney Fahey talked about Fair Housing, he said it was up to the Commission to let them have reasonable application for such housing in town. She thinks the Town of Enfield has done a good job. If there are two recovery homes here already and there is a third one coming, and there are other group homes in town, the town is doing its job. She doesn't think the town is doing anything against Fair Housing and she doesn't think that should even be brought up.
Ms. Reardon stated as far as the Oxford House, she looked at the Oxford House. At this location, she is interested in who the manager is going to be and who the assistant manager is going to be. She asked if this is strictly for alcoholics. She asked if the two present locations are for both drugs and alcohol. She is concerned about people living in this home that have felonies and people in management positions if they have this background. She stated it only takes one bad apple. Also, the applicant is quoting all these figures and the homeowners have no way to get such figures. Attorney Fahey knows just where to go and the residents cannot come in here as just people in town concerned about their property and verify the statistics. Ms. Reardon stated she is opposed to this use and the town does not need another such house in Thompsonville.
Ms. Reardon stated Mr. Olschafskie deserves a lot of credit since he is an enterpreneur and has done very well. However, residents are concerned about their little piece of property and what is going to happen to their property. As far as the people that have gotten up to speak before the Commission, she thinks it is humiliating to them and does not think it is fair to ask these people to come before the Commission. She knows they believe in a cause and it is part of their ten step program but the people are coming forward and laying their life on the line and she thinks it is humiliating.
Ms. Reardon reiterated they are, as concerned citizens and taxpayers, concerned about their property and what goes around it. She suggested this house be used for a flower shop or a real estate business instead of the proposed use.
Patrick Ward, 104 Wynwood, spoke in favor of this application. He has lived in Enfield all his life. He noted recovering alcoholics are not unique and there are a lot of them. He stated whichever way the decision goes, there will be children affected. The children that will be affected are the children of the people that want recovery. If their parents can get recovery and get healthy, these children will benefit. If there is no recovery available, the parents will be denied recovery and it will affect their children.
Mike Green, 48 Garden Street, stated the issues surrounding this application are not about alcoholics in recovery or any other disabled persons that want to reside at 143 Pearl Street. To him, the issues are how many people will live and work under that one roof in a residential neighborhood, how much noise will they generate, how much traffic will they generate, and how many cars will be parked in the parking lot which is a backyard to everyone else. The entire backyard of this property is a parking lot. He asked how many errands does the average person run in one day to and from work, to the store and back and to meetings. Multiply that by how many residents and staff will be under that one roof and that is a lot of cars, a lot of traffic, and a lot of noise. Mr. Green stated he would not even be up here tonight if the total number of residents and staff did not exceed a reasonable number of six people. In his mind, ten residents and two staff members are too many unrelated people under one roof.
Mr. Green stated the home's occupants will be paying a weekly rent, sharing bathrooms, the kitchen and the living room facilities. Looking at those facts, this is really just a boarding house with a lot of people in it - much more than their neighborhood deserves.
Mr. Green stated everyone has heard Attorney Fahey tell them that the average number of boarders will be lower than the maximum capacity. Mr. Green questioned how likely that is and he asked if anyone knew of any landlord that is happy when he has a vacancy. Mr. Green stated he is a father of two young children, ages three and six, and he doesn't see any issues with their safety here. This is more about noise, traffic and congestion in his backyard.
Attorney Fahey stated he went through his file and found the rules and regulations that are in place at 36 Pleasant Street. He submitted them to the Commission. He noted they will probably be used as a model and maybe be fine tuned for the Pearl Street location. Mr. Giner asked that following a review by the Commission of these rules, that he be given the copy for the applicant's file.
Attorney Fahey stated regarding the traffic, noise and congestion, he referred to comments made at the last meeting. There is adequate parking to fully occupy the building because the backyard is paved and has been used by the Rinaldi-Fede Post. As a practical matter, most of the people that are occupying the home will not have cars. Based upon the example of the existing houses, they are anticipating there will be four to six cars on average in the parking lot. Attorney Fahey stated one of the attractions of the site, as they indicated previously, was that people can walk to the AA meetings at the church, to the store for groceries and to get bus service to get to their places of employment. He felt it was fair to say that the actual traffic and congestion issues would be less than it would be if it continued to be a club with a liquor license and less than if it was occupied by a family that had several children with cars.
Attorney Fahey stated in comparing uses, there has been a lot of discussion about felons. He stated there is no prohibition to five felons living in this house. They would not need any permit to do that. There would not be twenty-four hour supervision with a manager and an assistant manager. They could simply do that as of right. There also could be an unlimited number of related people since there is no maximum number that could live here.
Attorney Fahey stated there were a number of comments made at the last meeting about the fact that this is a profit making venture. He clarified that and stated Mr. Olshafskie is committed to this project. He gets a great deal of benefit from operating the other two facilities he has and hopes to do the same here. This is a nonprofit organization which incurs rents but there are also operational expenses. There will be considerable expense in terms of upgrading the house, insurance expenses and operational expenses since the managers will be paid a salary. In terms of the benefit to him personally, although it is not a specific requirement, he is entitled to apply for a tax benefit under the Internal Revenue Code if he can qualify for it, and he is able to do something of a charitable and beneficial nature. It may not generate him reams of profit but to the degree that it renders him some tax relief, you could consider that to be an enterpreneur. Attorney Fahey stated a lot of the incentives in the tax code are generated to encourage charitable contributions and this is another one of those.
Attorney Fahey stated the other point that was raised had to do with radius or concentration requirements. That is, that there are already two such homes in the Thompsonville area. As Attorney Fahey indicated, there is nothing in the regulations that precludes them from applying or requires them to be any particular distance from another home. The Fair Housing Act specifically precludes using concentration in an area as a reason for denial and that seems to be over and over again, one of the key points raised by the opponents.
Attorney Fahey stated there was some testimony at the previous hearing session by the opponents dealing with neighborhood property values. He stated they did offer other neighborhoods in which other recovery homes exist. They are on the Land Records and could be found with some research. Attorney Fahey felt it would be fair to say that those neighborhoods containing those homes have not suffered any detriment because of the existence of a recovery home. Attorney Fahey stated specifically there were comments made by several of the neighbors that they were either having difficulty selling their homes or that property values had depreciated in the area here. If they had, Attorney Fahey stated they depreciated with the existing use, the Rinaldi-Fede Post, and they did not cause this depreciation. He finds it hard to believe that someone going in and investing in the property, taking away the liquor license use, and upgrading the property by making it look like more of the upgraded properties in the area would cause a depreciation. He felt this proposal is more consistent with the idea of upgrading the properties consistent with what Mr. Warren was looking for in his previous comments. Attorney Fahey emphasized they are not taking a raw piece of property and putting a building on it. They are taking an existing piece of property that is in somewhat of a deteriorated condition used in a nonconforming manner and making it conforming. Attorney Fahey stated like it or not the Fair Housing Act says that a group recovery home is a single-family home in terms of how it is to be considered. There are individuals living in a family environment as a family and that is a single-family home just like the neighbors on either side.
Attorney Fahey stated another point that was raised was how come these recovery homes are not in the historic areas. He knows for a fact that there is a recovery home in the Main Street area of Suffield which is their historic district which also happens to be very close to an existing bed and breakfast and very close to some of the more upgraded properties in the historic district of Suffield. He stated you can compare the main street in Suffield to the main street in Enfield so recovery houses can be in neighborhoods and exist compatibly and not cause any great deal of depreciation of property values.
Attorney Fahey stated he found the testimony that was provided by those that came forward and spoke on the applicant's behalf to be some of the most inspirational testimony he has ever heard. It was courageous and it was very pithy and to the point. What he hoped that the Commission would get out of that is independent verification from people who work in this area. These were not people that just had fears and speculations but people who work every day in the community and who can testify specifically to what this applicant has done and how successful he has been and how carefully they do screen the people.
Attorney Fahey stated they are not as big as an Oxford House and do not intend to be. Mr. Olshafskie is an Enfield guy and he's doing this in Enfield and he is doing it very successfully. They do have a lot of knowledge of the other models and he thinks they have given the Commission enough to indicate they are serious about their intentions. They put before the Commission that there have not been problems or arrests or complaints in the area. The community itself has said, in many cases, that they were not aware until this hearing where some of these places were.
Attorney Fahey stated if the Commission were to see some of the existing facilities as some of the Council members have regarding how they are maintained and kept up inside and out even compared to some of the homes in the immediate neighborhood, they would be very impressed. They are the type of neighbors you would want. If the Commission sees fit to approve the application, Attorney Fahey felt they would be very proud of the efforts the applicant will make in providing a needed service. They will comply with all the town's regulations to the best that they can and Attorney Fahey thought the Commission had been given enough information to approve this application. This is a special use permit and the Commission has the option of imposing reasonable conditions. There are reports from town staff and they feel they have addressed all those things on their plan. To the extent that they may not have, these can be conditions of approval.
Commissioner Duren asked how residents of the house would receive their food and whether it is served as a family or would individuals be cooking for themselves. Attorney Fahey stated there is a kitchen and generally every Sunday there is a meal together and one night during the week there is a meal together. The kitchen facility has a dining room. However, is someone is working, they may grab a sandwich. He emphasized the house is not a series of rooms with a hot plate in each room. The rooms also have no refrigerators. There is one common kitchen just like a regular house. Shopping could mean coffee or sandwiches and those that do buy food keep it in the kitchen.
Commissioner Duren asked if the residents are responsible for buying their own meals and cooking it. He questioned if there are any disturbances over food. Attorney Fahey stated there are three refrigerators because of the number of people. Sunday there is a common meal and there are occasions where people buy they own meals and cook them.
Commissioner Duren asked if the Commission has received a report from the Police Department regarding the other two facilities. Mr. Giner stated Commissioner Egan asked about the incidents where people came back to the house intoxicated.
Mr. Giner stated he has read about the Fair Housing cases in West Haven but in regard to the statement that the Act prohibits any type of regulation that would impose separation distances, Enfield does not have those. However, in state statutes, under Section 198507A, Community Residences for Mentally Disabled Adults, which are obviously a disability, the state allows separation distances of 1,000' feet from any community residence. He read the statute further and stated he doesn't know of anyone that has brought any action saying that violates any federal statutes.
Attorney Fahey stated he noticed in the town's new regulations they have used the statutory language for the community houses and those that the general statutes require that you have in the regulation, the town has provided for such as homes for the mentally disabled. The town eliminated the definition they have here. That section that Mr. Giner referred to does not refer to recovery houses for alcoholics. It is a specific community house that is proceeding under that section of the statute which many towns have adopted as part of their regulations. With respect to the case law as its developed, the reason that case in West Haven is so significant is that it is Connecticut's first Connecticut District Court explication of the law in this area in terms of what reasonable accommodation means with respect to recovery houses for alcoholics. It is Attorney Fahey's understanding that as that Federal District Court was evolving with respect to the concentration requirements for recovery houses for alcoholics, that it is not a permissible concern. The legislature could create something like that in the future and if they did, it could be legitimately in the town's regulations but Attorney Fahey does not believe it is there now nor does he believe it is relevant to this review.
Commissioner Jednak stated he has reviewed this application and also read about some of the AA organizations. He stated some of the AA organizations within this community not only handle alcoholics but they also handle people with other problems and they help those people. He asked if this applicant would be doing the same thing or is the home just strictly for alcoholics.
Attorney Fahey stated that was something they addressed early on because they anticipated there would be a great deal of concern in the community. He noted there is a lot of dual addiction but the experience that this applicant has is with alcoholics. During the screening process, and this was testified to earlier in the hearing and verified independently by the people who do referrals, if people are involved with drugs, they are told they are not welcome at this home. Commissioner Jednak stated he does not mean drugs but other problems like family problems and a history of mental problems. Attorney Fahey asked if Commissioner Jednak was referring to homeless people. Commissioner Jednak stated there are families that need help that come to organizations like AA looking for help.
Attorney Fahey stated people that have gone through these facilities have been through an inpatient program and maybe a halfway house and need a place to live and are from this area. They are constantly referred to the applicant from the state and that is how they get to this house. The reason they are successful is they have a good way of screening who is going to make it through the program and who is not.
Attorney Fahey asked if he is referring to mental illness. Commissioner Jednak stated yes but he is also referring to family problems. He has had friends who have had family problems and they have gone to AA meetings looking for help and they have gotten help and they are not alcoholics or do not do drugs. He asked if the applicant will help these types of people.
Attorney Fahey stated everybody at the home attends five meetings a week and sometimes more. With the meetings in the house, they meet as a group and reinforce and support based upon the meetings they have been to and the progress. The screening process with respect to mental illness - that is screened out before they come in. If there is a defined mental illness, they do not come to this house. As far as family social problems, Attorney Fahey stated they may come to one meeting a week but this is pretty much housing. The counseling functions come from the other meetings they attend. Commissioner Jednak stated his concern was the family of the alcoholic that also needed help. Attorney Fahey stated to come into this house, you have to be an alcoholic.
Commissioner Hickey stated Attorney Fahey stated he is not asking for a zone change but that the proposed use is specifically permitted under the ordinance. He asked if the Fair Housing Act would define the proposed use as a single-family home which is a permitted use. Also, is it Attorney Fahey's position that the use is permitted under the ordinance.
Attorney Fahey clarified that in Enfield there is an existing procedure. Nonprofit community houses are permitted in the residential zones by special use permit. What he was trying to show by way of illustration is they could be here if the town did not have that regulation making the same presentation claiming that they are entitled to do this even though there was a maximum number of five unrelated individuals living together. It would be a reasonable accommodation to allow more than five people because under the Fair Housing Act and the case referred to previously, they are entitled to a reasonable accommodation on the issue of how many unrelated people can live in the house. They do not have to do that because Enfield has in place a mechanism which they can comply with. The reference to the Fair Housing Act was to show that in terms of the classification that was being offered by those opposing this - that somehow these people were a danger to the community and a danger to the children or there was an over concentration of them - that the Commission has to view the occupancy of this house as having regular people. They are regular people that have a handicap but the whole purpose of the protected status of the handicapped is to remove that so-called stigma and just view this as a regular application with individuals living in a house. Once they get by that issue, they simply have to comply with the town's regulations with respect to the operation and make sure the comply with Section 16. He thinks they have done that and they are not questioning the jurisdiction of the Commission. However, the Fair Housing Act preempts or modifies the Commission's regulatory authority. Attorney Fahey has not seen anything presented by the opponents to support the fact that there is going to be any kind of decline in the community. He has not seen anyone say that there is any danger to the community or any independent verification of any of these things. If they did not think the Commission had the authority to regulate the application, they would not have submitted the application and applied for the special permit. In regulating it, the Commission has to be mindful of what the requirements are of the Fair Housing Act.
Commissioner Egan stated he wanted to clarify what plans the Commission will be approving. Following a determination of the most current plans, Commissioner Egan stated the plans that are dated 12/03/01 received March 6, 2002 are the most current plans.
Commissioner Duren asked if Attorney Fahey has met all the requirements of the Fire Marshal. Attorney Fahey stated he has. He also confirmed the plans are dated 12-03-01 and they were revised on 2-27-02 with respect to the lights and handicapped space and the Commission received them on March 6, 2002. Attorney Fahey stated they met with Fire Marshal Censki on site and complied with all of his issues for the site plan. He has requirements regarding the building code.
Commissioner Egan questioned why there are so many parking spaces. Mr. Giner stated that is the way the site currently exists. Attorney Fahey stated they were told because of the size of the building and the number of rooms, that this is what they need for parking. They were told to mark them. They do not think all these spaces will ever be used at one time. Although the occupancy is ten plus the two managers, in actuality if you took an average at the end of the year, the average daily occupancy will be between six and seven. This is due to certain intake requirements when one person leaves and another person arrives. There are days when the house is not fully occupied and that calculation given to the Commission is based upon the applicant's experience at his other facilities.
Commissioner Egan asked about visitors. Attorney Fahey stated the visitor parking would be in the same area and he was unsure how much visitor parking was necessary. He felt there was more than adequate parking. Commissioner Egan stated he was thinking about making more of a back yard for those folks in the back. Attorney Fahey stated they would be happy to decrease the area if the Commission could waive the parking requirements. If three or four spaces were removed, they would still have plenty of parking and that would give the home more green area. They worked with what was already there and already paved.
Commissioner Krebs asked if there are specific visitor times or are visitors allowed any time. Mr. Olschafskie stated visiting usually occurs on Saturday or Sunday when residents' children may come to visit. During the week, the occupants are working and going to meetings and there is really no time for visitors.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if the bylaws presented are for all three facilities of the applicant. Attorney Fahey stated no, those are specific to this particular house. They are not sure whether the other two homes will go under that umbrella or not at this time.
Mr. Giner stated for the record he would like to identify some of the items submitted since the last hearing session. There was a letter from the Paskins submitted this evening. There were references to the plan for the Thompsonville Revitalization at one of the hearing sessions that he included in the record in case anyone wishes to refer to them. He referred to a document entitled "Setting the Stage for Thompsonville's Revitalization" done by Phillips, Price and Shapiro, July, 2001.
Chairman Howard asked if there is any reason to keep this hearing open. Mr. Giner stated there are a couple of items requested that are factual in nature. One was the actual number of people who had been sent out from the existing homes during their operation for violating the rules. The second request was to check to see whether the Police Department had any incidents. Those are both factual and Mr. Giner did not see a need to keep the hearing open. Chairman Howard closed this public hearing.
Chairman Howard asked what the Commission's preference is regarding this application. There can be a vote this evening or the Commission could act within the next sixty-five days. Commissioner Duren and Commissioner Krebs stated they were not prepared to vote this evening. Commissioner Egan stated the Commission needs to make sure they have the correct site plan and he would like to receive the additional information prior to voting.
Chairman Howard asked if the Commission needs to declare at which meeting they would take action on this application. Mr. Giner stated this item will be carried on the agenda under Old Business. At each meeting, the Chairman should ask if the Commission members are ready to take a vote on the application. Chairman Howard requested that the Commission receive the minutes from tonight's meeting in the next meeting packet.
Mr. Giner stated this item will next appear under Old Business on the April 18, 2002 agenda. Following some discussion about this item not being on the agenda for the April 4, 2002 meeting, Commission Egan suggested that Mr. Giner file an amended agenda with the Town Clerk. Other Commissioners would like to have the Minutes from this evening prior to action. Mr. Giner stated there will be an amended agenda and it will be on the next agenda. However, he did not anticipate the Commission would consider this item until the April 18, 2002 agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Karen Krebs, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|
|
Last Modified: 11/5/2004 4:38:36 AM
|
|
|