|
|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 7, 2002
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, March 7, 2002, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Howard called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: James Howard, Chairman
Anthony DiPace
Charles Duren
Robert Egan
Karen Krebs
James Hickey, Jr.
Jeffrey Cooper, Alternate
ABSENT: Nicles Lefakis
Karen Weseliza, Alternate
Joseph Jednak, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Town Planner
MINUTES
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to approve the Minutes of February 21, 2002. The Minutes were approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Cooper voting.
STAFF COMMENTS
a. Town Attorney
Assistant Town Attorney Maria Stavropolous stated the Commission has received the Town Attorney report forwarded to the Planning Office last week. There have not been any changes since last month. In addition, the Commission received
an answer to the question sent to the Town Attorney's Office recently.
Commissioner DiPace noted the response from the Town Attorney was that it is public information regarding who the Commission members are and he states it is not right that Commission members are contacted outside of public hearings. Chairman Howard requested that this letter from the Town Attorney be forwarded to the Town Council.
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer's Report
Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley responded to Commission questions. Commissioner Egan brought up 179 North Street and stated the letter regarding this was in the Commission's packet. Mr. Bickley stated he received a concern about the oil business located at 179 North Maple. It was found to be in violation and they were sent an order. Mr. Bickley received a request for an extension from their attorney which he honored. Mr. Bickley will be looking into this further in the next few weeks and he will report back to the Commission.
Commissioner Duren noted that Frank's Nursery is closed and the signs are still up. Mona Lisa Pizza Place has been closed for over a year and the freestanding sign is still up. Mr. Bickley stated this restaurant will be opened by a new owner and there will be a change of signs in the near future.
Commissioner Duren stated there are a number of tractor-trailers parking at Serv-U. Mr. Bickley stated there is an order against them right now and he has taken pictures and there are six or seven different companies involved. This will be referred to the Town Attorney's Office.
c. Director of Planning and Community Development
Mr. Giner stated he has distributed a copy of the new Subdivision Regulations.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission has received the Special Meeting Notice for March 21, 2002. He asked that everyone attending meet at the Town Hall at 4:00 p.m.
Mr. Giner stated he has been requested to handle some items administratively for work in the interior of Westfield Mall. Nino's Pizza is relocating at the corner in the area of Ruby Tuesday's and the arcade. It is the former McDonald's location. Mr. Giner stated he has reviewed the floor plans and Nino's has a restaurant liquor license.
Mr. Giner stated the second change is the cinemas. They are taking the lobby area and cutting it in half and creating some interior space. When you walk in right now, there is a ticket booth to the right and you have to walk to the right and around to get into the theaters. They want to take from the ticket booth and cut it, install a wall and remove the right hand ticket booth. All they are doing in other areas would go towards the middle and they would open up the middle. Access to the theaters would be in the area of where the concession area is now. Commissioner DiPace asked if they will lose visibility of the gaming area. Mr. Giner stated they will have one ticket booth and the games will be moved to the main corridor. Commissioner Duren asked if they will still be able to monitor the game area from the ticket booth. Mr. Giner stated they will be able to do so even better because the games will be in close proximity to the remaining ticket booth. The space that the theater will be giving up will be targeted as a future tenant area. No games or seats will be added.
Chairman Howard asked if when the Westfield Mall gets a tenant for the empty space, will this Commission be notified. Mr. Giner stated the Planning Office is notified of the tenant that will be occupying the space and he would check it against permitted uses in the mall. If there is any exterior work to be done, Mr. Giner would bring that before the Commission with a request to approve administratively.
The consensus of the Commission was that it was not necessary for the Westfield Mall officials to appear before the Commission regarding the change outlined by Mr. Giner.
Commissioner Duren brought up the letter from the State of Connecticut pertaining to the Enfield Street School project. He stated the proper place for this letter would be to the Town Council and not this Commission. Mr. Giner stated he will make sure the Town Council receives this correspondence.
Mr. Giner stated a meeting will be scheduled the fourth Tuesday in April to meet with all the boards and commissions regarding the status of the town's Plan of Conservation and Development.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Howard reported receipt of the new Subdivision Regulations and the Inland Wetlands Notice of Action. He also noted the correspondence recently received is on the table tonight for Commission review.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued from February 21, 2002
a. PH#2295 - Application to operate an addiction recovery community house not operated for profit at 143 Pearl Street (formerly Rinaldi-Fede Post) at 143 Pearl Street, zoned R-033, Map 22, Lot 81, Enfield Sober Housing, Inc., Applicant/36 Pleasant Street, LLC, Owner. (May be kept open until March 21.)
Chairman Howard noted that Alternate Cooper will be participating in this application tonight.
Attorney Thomas Fahey appeared before the Commission representing the applicant, Enfield Sober Housing, Inc. and Michael Olschafskie. Mr. Olschafskie was also present.
Attorney Fahey stated the Commission has received updated plans that include the dimensions of the rooms and a couple of changes that Fire Marshal Censki requested. There was a site meeting on this application a couple of days ago. Attorney Fahey also presented the guidelines and he will discuss those in his comments.
Attorney Fahey stated this application is brought under Section 9-1.2 and Section 16.2.4 of the Enfield Zoning Ordinance which defines a community house not operated for profit. Attorney Fahey stated he and Mr. Olschafskie were both shocked and disturbed to hear some alleged comments that were made to Mrs. Reardon's husband as she stated in the last presentation. They do not condone those and they have no place in any kind of an application. Attorney Fahey noted that Mr. Olschafskie is a successful businessman and he hasn't gotten that success by engaging in that type of conduct or behavior. Attorney Fahey acknowledged that the issue itself raises concerns in the neighborhood and they intend to address those this evening. They hope tonight's presentation will dispel any fears and apprehensions that may exist.
Attorney Fahey stated this application requires them, under the regulations, to obtain a special permit. 143 Pearl Street is an existing dwelling and has been used as a social club for many years. It had a club license and the previous club also had a liquor license. It is in a Residential Zone. The intent is to create a sober house. A sober house is an alcohol free family environment. In this instance, the nonprofit corporation will lease the premises from the owners for the specific purpose of operating the sober house. This entity, the LLC, also will operate two existing sober houses. Attorney Fahey noted that people at the last hearing session stated they were unaware that these other homes existed. Attorney Fahey stated one of the other two sober houses has been in operation for eighteen months and the other has been in operation for twelve months. Also, they have heard of no arrest incidents or complaints at either house.
Attorney Fahey added it is important for the Commission to know that there are at least six other facilities of a similar nature known as group homes. Those are scattered throughout Enfield in neighborhoods. These include the St. James area off Elm Street, the Hazardville village area, the Elm Shaker area and in the area that's referred to as Buckhorn and Neelans. These are all heavily developed residential areas. Also, those six have been in operation for approximately eighteen years. They have, to his knowledge, never presented a neighborhood problem or served as a basis for arrests. They have been operated successfully because they have been like any other house in the neighborhood in terms of appearance and how the home is maintained. Attorney Fahey credited the Town of Enfield for recognizing and permitting for many years in the zoning regulations recognized group homes or those that got started because they were a family under the definition of family in the regulations.
Attorney Fahey stated some of the concerns that have been evidenced have to do with the mission statement and one of the Commissioners also asked about that at the last hearing session. Attorney Fahey stated the briefest mission statement that they could provide would be that it does provide a safe and supportive atmosphere to alcoholics rebuilding their lives. The key to the control factor has to do with a very strict admissions' policy. There is a very successful model that exists throughout the country called the Oxford House which has twenty-six facilities in the State of Connecticut. This home will be based somewhat on the Oxford House model but this program and the two other homes that Mr. Olschafskie is involved in have modified that plan very successfully. In their admission policy, before one is admitted, the applicant must have completed a detox and alcohol treatment program. They must be able to obtain full-time employment within two weeks of arriving at the house. They do not take anyone who is on methadone. If there is someone who is drug dependent, they do not take them at this home but they refer them to a facility in Manchester. This home is for alcohol recovery only.
Attorney Fahey stated this home does not take individuals who have pending criminal cases. They do not take people who are from the Department of Corrections being released and they do not take people that are on parole. There is a very strict policy. The Enfield residents are what this program is about. There is enough demand from Enfield residents to populate this facility. They do have the ability to take applicants from outside of Enfield but they intend to service the Enfield population. One of the reasons is they do get calls from different facilities throughout Connecticut that have people who are from Enfield. They like to place them back in their community. Also, there is such a need that they do not have the ability to handle the number of Enfield people requiring this service with the existing homes.
Attorney Fahey stated the neighborhood itself works very well. The maximum capacity of this house will be ten individuals plus a manager and an assistant manager. The manager will be at the home twenty-four hours a day. The Commission will hear from the proposed recovery manager for this facility later in the evening.
Attorney Fahey stated the property is on a bus route and is convenient to grocery stores and church. St. Patrick's Church has four AA meetings per week and St. Adalbert's has two. At least fifty percent of the occupants of the home will not have licenses. Although there is plenty of parking, they would expect there to be only four to five cars in the lot. He noted the convenience for applicants being able to walk to their meetings. Attorney Fahey noted the interaction of the people in recovery and the support they provide to each other and the commitment to the program as well as the strict rules and regulations of the house are all necessities. Those rules include a mandatory meeting every week in which people support each other and attending five after care meetings per week such as AA meetings usually held in Enfield. In addition to that, they are assigned chores and they have rules and regulations they have to follow. The most important rule is that there is no use of alcohol or drugs. One offense and that person is out of the home. There is no second chance. There is also random testing in the house.
Attorney Fahey stated while the maximum capacity is ten occupants plus a manager and assistant manager, the way the intake works and the population is handled, on the average they anticipate there will be six to seven people in the house plus the two managers.
Attorney Fahey stated these sober homes and recovery homes are necessary because people in recovery many times have no place to go. They are at a sensitive time after being discharged from in-patient care or a halfway house and they need another step to support their recovery. In many cases people have lost their jobs and they need a place for mutual support pending re-employment. They have not had a problem in getting jobs for any of their residents.
One of the things Attorney Fahey felt will fit within the regulatory scheme regarding the neighborhood harmony requirement is that this property will be upgraded. It will be landscaped much more than it is now. There will be some driveway repairs and new siding installed on the building. There will be no sign. There will simply be an address plate so it will look like any other house in the neighborhood. This is true for all the group homes existing in Enfield. One of the biggest problems people in recovery have is stigmatization. It is very difficult for people in the critical stage of recovery to be stigmatized. This is one of the reasons that the successful homes have always been in residential neighborhoods where they can be anonymous.
Attorney Fahey stated there were a number of technical issues that were raised. The revised plan submitted yesterday addresses the comments. Most of the comments were from the Fire Marshal. Staff wanted them to show a handicapped accessible ramp to be installed on the building. That is shown on the revised plan. They wanted them to show the location of handicapped parking stalls and that is also shown on the revised plan. They wanted the floor plan to indicate actual bedroom arrangement and use. That was handed out to the Commission earlier tonight and was requested by Fire Marshal Censki. Fire Marshal Censki also wanted to bring a fire engine to the site to make sure there would be no problems accessing the site and to make sure the pavement would withstand the fire engine. It is Attorney Fahey's understanding that they were satisfied after bringing a fire engine to the site. Fire Marshal Censki also had suggestions regarding compliance with code issues. They have rearranged some of the bedroom locations from the initial plan. They wanted parking lot lighting and exterior exit lighting being proposed shown and in the revised plan, the lighting is shown. They wanted the parking lot pavement markings to be shown on the plan and that has been done. The home has an existing fence in the back. They have shown the proposed landscaping on the plan and are amenable to any landscaping additions the Commission may feel would be appropriate.
Attorney Fahey addressed the comments made by Ray Warren, the Redevelopment Director. Those comments were in the Minutes of a Special Meeting dated December 3, 2001 on page two. At the bottom of that page, it reads: "Mr. Warren suggested an over concentration of social agencies and social activity along Pearl Street is counterproductive to private investment that is taking place on that street. He stated his belief is it is advisable that they come to grips with the plans as it relates to places like the Higgins building and the Strand Theater building and take advantage of those assets and perhaps discourage some of the flight from Thompsonville by their own public agencies and others in the neighborhood. He noted they tended to move people out and centralize them but it is at some expense to the neighborhood." Attorney Fahey felt it is important to address these comments because he thinks those comments missed the mark for a couple of reasons. Enfield and the Commission have been at the forefront of recognizing social priorities and didn't really need the Fair Housing Act to tell the town that it needed to accommodate these types of activities in their regulations. However, Attorney Fahey stated some of what Mr. Warren says is contrary to law. The Fair Housing Act is intended to prohibit the use of special permits that would have the effect of limiting the ability of handicapped people to live in the residence of their choice in the community. Under federal law, alcoholics are handicapped people. They have been recognized as that under the Fair Housing Act and under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under those Acts, towns cannot administer, require or review applications with a different standard because people are recovering alcoholics. Attorney Fahey noted the comments and the suggestion that the Commission consider using a different standard by singling out social agencies and suggesting that there is an unneeded concentration in the Thompsonville area.
Further on that point, Attorney Fahey added regarding the undue concentration, some towns have tried to pass regulations that would state one house cannot be within a certain distance from another house and those have been struck down. The reason they have been struck down, as Attorney Fahey understands it, is that there have been no rational basis for those provisions because they were discriminatory in that they treated the handicapped class in a different manner. The town could not put a restriction on how many two-family homes they have in a neighborhood. Attorney Fahey felt Mr. Warren's analysis suggests that the Commission deny the application because of this over concentration. Attorney Fahey felt this would be an illegal reason for denial.
Attorney Fahey introduced Joey Petrillo to address the Commission.
Joseph Petrillo, 1421 Enfield Street, stated he personally is in recovery from alcohol and drug addiction. He holds a position as a recovery manager with advanced behavioral health in a facility located in Middletown, Connecticut. It is a statewide contract from the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. He is aware of how active the diseases of alcoholism and drug addiction are in Connecticut. In all the communities across the state, his agency has an obligation to support the residents of the town with whatever issues they live with. Mr. Petrillo stated he is a registered voter in Enfield and takes an opportunity to vote at every state and local election. Mr. Petrillo discussed his personal addiction and stated he was at one time homeless and without a job. It has been through a series of support services that he has been able to reach the level of sobriety that he has which is nine years. He is now back in the community and able to help the sick and suffering alcoholics still active in the community. Mr. Petrillo stated one of the things vital to his own recovery was sober housing. He asked that as a community there be support for sober housing because people have to come home from treatment and live somewhere in the community.
Mr. Petrillo stated he speaks of alcoholism as a disease because it is a disease. The American Medical Association recognizes alcoholism and drug addiction as a disease. That means it fits the criteria for being progressive, incurable, and can be fatal. Mr. Petrillo questioned if everyone says not in my back yard, where will they go. They have to go somewhere. As a resident of Enfield, Mr. Petrillo questioned why should he have to move to another community because somebody doesn't want this sober house in their back yard.
Mr. Petrillo stated that several residents of the two existing sober houses on Pleasant Street and Asnuntuck Street had never previously reached one year of sobriety. They are now reaching a year or more of sobriety and are individuals that are getting employment in this community. They are spending their paychecks in this community and supporting the local businesses.
Mr. Petrillo stated in the south central region of Connecticut, he is familiar with an organization called Catapault. Catapault provides recovery support services for individuals seeking treatment and they also provide sober housing. They began sober housing after taking a survey of people who had relapsed in the south central region of the state. This survey identified housing as the major reason for their relapse. He asked that the Commission seriously consider letting a third sober house open to support people coming out of treatment and seeking long-term recovery.
Mr. Petrillo stated he case manages individuals throughout the state that are still caught in the grips of addiction. One of the biggest problems he has as a case manager is placing people in housing. He stated it doesn't make sense to treat people and then not support them coming out of treatment.
Attorney Fahey introduced John Shea to speak to the Commission. Chairman Howard stated he is hearing pros and cons and not zoning issues at this time. He felt this should be under public participation. Attorney Fahey stated he limited the speakers to address specific comments because there were issues raised at the last hearing session regarding safety and compatibility. Chairman Howard stated he would prefer to hear the speakers under public participation. Attorney Fahey stated he felt the issue of an on-site manager was important because someone raised the issue of safety. However, if the Commission would rather hear such comments under public participation, he will agree to that.
Attorney Fahey stated he has a few more comments regarding the regulations. There was a review standard in Section 16-7 talking about property values. He thought it was important to note that he previously told the Commission about six other areas in the community where there are group homes. He thought this would come as a surprise to a lot of people. By maintaining the anonymity and the residential appearance, there is no reason for such places to have anything but a positive effect on property values. Attorney Fahey noted in this case, it is even clearer because there is a situation where you are in a residential zone and the existing use, a social club with a liquor license, is nonconforming to the area. Attorney Fahey stated if this application is approved, the use will become a residential use. There will also be the advantage of it going from more nonconforming with a liquor license to less nonconforming. Once this use begins, the club use legitimacy will terminate.
Attorney Fahey stated the Commission had asked for a certified copy of the articles of the corporation. He submitted those to the Commission.
Chairman Howard stated he read in the information that there will be twelve people and Attorney Fahey mentioned six. He asked what the definite number will be. Attorney Fahey stated there will be times when there will be twelve people at this location. The capacity of the building is twelve, ten residents plus a manager and an assistant manager. Based upon their existing houses, the number of times they are at maximum capacity during the course of the year is probably twenty to thirty percent. This is because people move, relocate, or are in the process of reserving the rooms. A fair average would be six to seven people plus the Manager and Assistant Manager.
Chairman Howard asked what is the square footage of the actual house. Michael Olschafskie, 1242 Enfield Street, stated it is approximately 2,700 square feet.
Chairman Howard asked what is the shower capacity. Mr. Olschafskie responded there are four bathrooms in the house and each has a shower.
Commissioner Duren stated he has some questions about the bylaws. Under qualifications, he was wondering the reason for the statement that "at least one director shall be an American citizen." Mr. Olschafskie stated that has been removed. Attorney Fahey stated these were prepared by a tax attorney because of the non-profit status. He stated the tax laws regarding 501c3's at one time required an American citizen and that is why that was originally in there. He is not sure that is still the law.
Commissioner Duren stated the way he reads the liability for loans is that there will be the ability to make loans to one another from the organization as listed on page 5. He questioned why that would be included. Attorney Fahey stated this provision is a pretty standard provision. Commissioner Duren questioned why the directors would want to make loans to one another. Attorney Fahey stated this is a small non-profit corporation and there may be times when they need to make a repair and fix the building and they don't want to delay the repair if it is needed. It would facilitate that. Attorney Fahey stated they would have to comply with the federal laws regarding non-profits or they would lose their status.
Commissioner Duren brought up sections eight and nine of the bylaws and asked why do you have to petition ex parte chief judge of the Elpaso County District Court. Attorney Fahey stated these were done by a tax attorney and obviously he used a model set of bylaws and when he did his search and replace, he did not change Elpaso. Following a brief discussion with the applicant, Attorney Fahey reported this set of bylaws was submitted by him at the ART meeting quite some time ago and they were fresh off the press. He now understands that has been changed and they will provide the Commission with a revised set of bylaws.
Commissioner Duren brought up consent and waiver in the bylaws. It reads: "the actions taken at a special meeting which is not properly called and noticed will nonetheless be considered valid if the consent and waiver forms are signed by a member of the directors." Attorney Fahey stated that form, whether it is a non-profit or a sub-chapter s corporation, is a common thing and a convenience to the principals of the corporation to have that and to legitimize their meetings. Attorney Fahey stated this is particularly true of small corporations where there are only two or three people involved.
Commissioner Duren stated Attorney Fahey has stated there will be twenty-four hours of supervision. He asked what are the qualifications of the supervisor and the assistant. Attorney Fahey stated the Commission will hear from the resident supervisor tonight. Mr. Olschafskie stated this is what is called a three-quarter house. It is not like a halfway house and is for people with less need. The manager of the house will have nine years sobriety and have experience in running other sober houses. The assistant manager will probably have a year sobriety if this is approved. Commissioner Duren noted that life experience is the only requirement of the manager and there is no training. Attorney Fahey stated they have life experiences in the recovery community specifically with recovery homes. Commissioner Duren questioned if they would require a master's degree in social work. Attorney Fahey stated they would not and the Oxford House model doesn't either.
Commissioner Duren asked for a confirmation that the people residing at this home are not drug dependent and such people will not be admitted. Attorney Fahey stated that is correct. In the screening process, if there is a drug dependency, they are told they cannot come here and they are referred to homes that do that. This home will only be for alcoholics in recovery who meet the criteria outlined previously.
Commissioner Egan stated the application refers to a sober house. He has gone to the web site for this organization and he finds that there are at least six different classifications for such homes and they are in degrees of where one can live more independently than the other. Commissioner Egan asked what specifically is being proposed. He has seen three-quarter house in the application, he has seen sober house in the application and he thought he's even seen rooming house in the application. He asked that the applicant clarify exactly what is being proposed.
Commissioner Egan stated in researching throughout the State of Connecticut, there are several Oxford House programs. In their list, the only one that is not listed as an Oxford House is the Enfield Sober House. In doing research on the Oxford House program, they seem to have some built-in safeguards and a charter program. One applies for a conditional charter and then will earn a permanent charter once they've achieved some guidelines. There is outside oversight of these houses and Commission Egan does not see that in the program proposed here. As far as admission criteria, Commissioner Egan noted there is a three-page admission criteria for some of these places and yet the applicant has given the Commission five criteria. He asked why they wouldn't submit for a charter from the Oxford House and what regulations they do fall under.
Attorney Fahey stated the original application that was filed before this Commission and subsequently withdrawn was for a rooming house. This was before Attorney Fahey was retained. After meeting with Mr. Giner, Attorney Fahey noted the rooming house regulations in Enfield have a limitation on the number of people and would not fit their criteria. He discovered there was a category for the nonprofit entity community house. In terms of the use of the phrase sober house and three-quarter house, Attorney Fahey stated Mr. Olschafskie was using the terms sober house and three-quarter house interchangeably. Attorney Fahey stated there are some very good reasons why this home is not an Oxford House and Mr. Olschafskie will address that.
Mr. Olschafskie stated the Oxford House is based in Washington, D. C. He feels his homes are one level above that. The Oxford House model has a person come into the house, set it up and they run it for thirty to sixty days. Then whoever has the most sobriety in the house is in charge. You could have someone with only six to eight months sobriety running the house. Mr. Olschafskie stated they run their home as a dictatorship where residents do not have a choice and are told what to do. Many times they will have to come and clean out such an Oxford House because they're all at the casino gambling or people are drinking and the house is a mess. Mr. Olschafskie acknowledged that a lot of Oxford Houses work well but he feels their recovery rate and the way their house works is twenty percent better than an Oxford House.
Commissioner Egan asked if Mr. Olschafskie can make that comparison on their success rate as compared to the Oxford House available to the Commission. Mr. Olschafskie stated that he cannot do. A lot of the figures are anonymous and he stated maybe he should not have made the statement. He felt the way his house is operated, with a house manager and no democratic government, works much better.
Commissioner Egan asked what third party would regulate this sober house. In the Oxford House, there are third parties that will oversee such homes. Mr. Olschafskie stated the Oxford House's oversight is in Washington, D. C. and that is part of the problem. They send someone from Washington or from their network of people. Mr. Olschafskie stated if there is a problem, he lives a half-mile up the street and the other house manager is a half-mile down the street. He has not yet experienced such a problem in his eighteen months of operation.
Commissioner Egan asked how many people they have in their other facilities. Mr. Olschafskie stated the Pleasant House he believes has nine and the Asnuntuck House has eight people.
Attorney Fahey noted the Oxford House web site states one of the fundamental policies of the Oxford House model is that they don't apply for special permits. In communities that do not have a special permit process like Enfield, they set up an Oxford House and defend any attempt to stop them using the court system. This does not give the Commission an opportunity to have them come before them with plans. The other thing that is different is the two homes run by Mr. Olschafskie now, because they are private, the strict rules regarding drinking and curfew can be enforced. Attorney Fahey stated they will have an application that was not given to the Commission. They will have an application in addition to the rules and regulations.
Commissioner Hickey asked what is the current use of the property. Attorney Fahey stated it was the Rinaldi-Fede Italian American Club. They are not currently in operation. The property has been sold and this applicant has taken title to the property. The Club has no presence. The sale took place in late August and, under the laws, they could become a club again. They have a year before they lose their right to do so.
Commissioner Hickey asked if is currently a nonconforming use and it is now vacant. Mr. Giner stated social clubs and fraternal organizations are permitted as special permit uses. It is not a nonconforming use. Attorney Fahey stated Mr. Giner is correct under the legal sense of the definition but when they are talking about harmony what he was addressing was a residential use versus a club use with a liquor license. If you are talking about conformity being adjacent to residences or having a club interspersed among the residences, it would be nonconforming in that context. This is different from nonconforming because it is not allowed under the regulations.
Commissioner DiPace asked if currently there is a liquor permit with the premises. Attorney Fahey stated the social club can reapply within a year before their right terminates to have that license. Commissioner DiPace asked if the special use permit as far as the liquor permit would stay with these premises. Mr. Giner stated anyone that would want to have a liquor permit would have to come back to the Commission and show the use of the premises. It would be permitted, in his opinion, only if another fraternal organization came in and used the premises exactly as the previous club use. Mr. Giner stated according to the town's regulations, the liquor permit would stay with the property. Chairman Howard noted if someone else came in and took over this property as a club, they would automatically get the liquor license. Mr. Giner confirmed this to be the case as far as zoning but they still may have to go back to the State Liquor Commission and satisfy their requirements. As a land use, as long as there is no change in the floor plans or the operation, it could remain a club.
Commissioner DiPace asked if there is a way, if this is considered, for that special use permit on the property to be surrendered back to the town so that the liquor permit could not be used in the future. Mr. Giner stated if this is approved or another use is approved, the liquor permit would be gone because the previous special use permit would cease to exist. Mr. Giner stated even if they operated the house for a month and then wanted to turn it back into a club, that use would not be allowed. A change of use is considered an attempt to abandon.
Commissioner Duren asked if there is a plan showing the parking lot lighting. Attorney Fahey stated the lighting is shown on the plan and is actually on the building shining down on the parking lot. That is all they are planning. This is a compromise because they do not want to be intrusive to the neighborhood. The proposed lighting is also adequate for safety. The Fire Marshal was concerned that the entrances be lighted. He did not require lights in the parking lot.
Chairman Howard opened this application to the public. He noted if someone spoke previously, their comments are on the record and he asked that they not be repeated.
Commissioner Duren made reference to the letters that have been received regarding this application. There is a letter from the Ferguson family dated February 19, 2002, a letter from Todd Turner dated February 21, 2002 and a letter from Bigelow Commons dated March 7, 2002 signed by Diane Hamill, the Manager of Northland Investment.
Carol Paskins, 154 Pearl Street, stated she lives diagonally across and one house over from the proposed sober house. Three years ago they purchased their home to open a bed and breakfast. They had done their research about the Pearl Street area and heard the negative comments. Yet, they had been advised of a possible resurgence in this area which the Commission will better see if they take a walk down this street and see what people have done to their homes. For years this area of Pearl Street has been a blight to the town. The homes have now been improved at great expense to the homeowners and taxpayers. These homes are huge and residents have all invested large sums of money, time and effort in maintaining them. Ms. Paskins stated they are not without consideration for people that have difficulty with alcohol recovery and other forms of recovery. What she is saying is not not in her neighborhood, but not so many in this neighborhood. She suggested other parts of Enfield like School Street and Scitico could be used. She discussed the different ways a neighborhood can be destroyed and one way is with the intent of the use of the property that is before the Commission tonight. In Ms. Paskins' opinion, it is a step backwards to approve an addiction recovery community house on the very same street that they, as taxpayers, have worked so hard to improve. Ms. Paskins stated there are currently two more homes for sale on this street and she cannot help but wonder what people will decide and if they are not, in fact, waiting to see what the Planning and Zoning Commission will do. Ms. Paskins stated there are joggers and walkers in the area that pass by the neighborhood homes, feel comfortable to do so, and there have been positive changes that they have seen in recent years. Pearl Street also houses the Andrew Carnegie Library which is a historic building. Ms. Paskins reported their bed and breakfast has been a wonderful success. She shuddered to think how different it would be if the Commission permits the inclusion of an addiction recovery community house across the street. She requested that Pearl Street not be treated as the orphan child that is again being thrown scraps. She discussed the continued improvements she would like to make to her bed and breakfast. She asked that the Commission reject this application.
Patrick Ward, 104 Wynwood, stated he came tonight to show his support for this application. He stated he is a recovery manager and he works for the alcohol and drug recovery center in Hartford. He volunteers here in Enfield nights and weekends. He stated he and his supervisor were asked as part of his job in Hartford to come to Enfield and inspect the sober house that now exists. He found it to be immaculate and inspirational. The people there were sharp, clean and recovery oriented. Mr. Ward stated the type of people he works with all day are high utilizers and don't necessarily want recovery or believe it exists. They are deep in denial and would not be someone he would suggest to a sober house. Mr. Ward stated the types of people that choose to live in a sober house, such as the one in Enfield, are not the people constantly relapsing. Those people do not want anything to do with such sober houses. Mr. Ward stated he would also like to say, with no disrespect intended, that people in recovery jog, walk, wave to the neighbors and stay at bed and breakfasts.
Leanne Flynn, 30 Cora Street, spoke in favor. She stated it is true that a strong recovery support system has dramatically improved the chances of people with alcoholism to remain sober. Enfield also has its fair share of people who are afflicted with alcoholism. In addition to being a resident of Enfield for many years, Ms. Flynn stated she also holds a masters degree in social work and she does clinical work in this field. She is familiar with the Oxford Houses and urged the Commission not to be impressed with that third party because in her field the Oxford Houses are a place where they hope they do not have to refer people to and are used as a last resort. When they see people doing well, they look to the community that the people came from and many people come from Enfield. In her field, the sober houses in Enfield are highly regarded as being successful and places that they often will not get their clients into because they have to be highly motivated to sustain recovery and become a part of the community.
Ms. Flynn stated in addition to being a resident of Enfield, she worked at the Town Hall for over fifteen years and she had a family that was willing to provide her with a sober and living environment because she too is in recovery. She hopes the Commission will not remove the opportunity for a sober house in Enfield because there are a lack of services presently. Removing the sober house in Enfield won't get rid of the people who have alcoholism in Enfield but will only remove the support that could be offered.
Jack Paskin, Pearl Street, stated his wife spoke previously and he wants to go on record as opposing the approval of this alcohol rehab facility on Pearl Street. The Commission granted permission for their bed and breakfast on Pearl Street because it would provide both an enhancement to Thompsonville and an economic stimulus. It has accomplished this. They have had visitors from all over the world who have spent many thousands of dollars with local merchants and the image of Thompsonville has benefited. Mr. Paskin felt the gentleman who wants to open a drug, alcohol and rehab center on Pearl Street is not a philanthropist but, like them, he intends to make an income from this venture. However, his venture is not an enhancement to the community. There are already two similar facilities in Thompsonville and a third would only further denigrate the Thompsonville area. He urged the Commission to reject this request and go on with a positive program to revitalize Thompsonville.
Charlene McNally, 25 New King Street, stated she and her husband moved to Enfield six years ago. They moved to New King Street four years ago and bought a duplex there. She has chosen to stay home with her four children and not buy an expensive home in the other areas of the town. They have chosen this area in the hopes to change the way that Thompsonville is looked at. They have done some improvements to their home and would like for it to be a safe community for their children. They do a lot of policing on their own on the streets. She applauded Mr. Olschafskie's and Attorney Fahey's efforts to help those who need help in their recovery but she is concerned about the qualifications of those in charge of this home so close to the neighborhood children. Ms. McNally was also concerned with the comment Attorney Fahey made comparing alcoholics to handicapped people. She feels alcoholics have made a choice and have gotten themselves caught up in this choice. Most handicapped people did not choose to be that way. The two existing sober houses have only been open twelve to eighteen months and Ms. McNally did not feel that was long enough to say it has been positive for those involved. She stated just driving down Pearl Street, there are at least ten stores or bars that do sell alcohol and in the other neighborhoods mentioned where there are group homes, they are completely residential. She felt the anonymity would create suspicion for new residents. She was pleased to hear this will not be a drug rehab center but found it interesting when they said they could turn away drug addicted people but the residents cannot say they do not want alcoholics to live here. She questioned where these house residents are coming from. Ms. McNally has gone on line and found there are seventy plus other residences of a similar nature in Connecticut and well over two hundred treatment centers. She was also concerned where the residents would go if they are evicted from this home. She was pleased they are making repairs to this home but a residential homeowner would do the same thing. She further noted that the residents do not want this home in this neighborhood and she felt this would hurt the residents' recovery process.
Scott Giddings, 50 South River Street, stated he was afforded the chance last October when he was sitting on the Town Council to go to the sober house on Pleasant Street. He talked to the occupants and got a look at the house inside and out. He was very impressed. He is speaking about sober homes as opposed to group homes. Group homes have a stigmatism of people with psychological problems and people that are currently unstable whereas the sober home is for people who are actively seeking to improve their lives. Mr. Giddings felt there is a big difference between someone who is actively looking to improve and someone that is placed in a home by the system. Residents at the home include tradesmen, laborers, professionals, doctors, lawyers, priests and nuns. Mr. Giddings stated when he visited Mr. Olschafskie's other home he heard that sixty to seventy percent of all the residents in the house are Enfield residents, residents must be gainfully employed, and the town pays no money to these houses. There are approximately twenty residents between the two houses and every house has a manager and an assistant manager. The 11:00 p.m. curfew is strictly adhered to. As of last October, there had not been a single arrest and the police never had to come to the residence due to complaints. There is zero tolerance for drug and alcohol. People must be active in recovery. There's a one-year maximum stay and residents know they have a year to get back on their feet and find a permanent home. Mr. Giddings noted the support for each other that exists at these homes.
Mr. Giddings noted that the home he viewed, if someone did not tell you it was a sober house, you would not know it was any different than any other house on the street. The residents are people trying to do their best to survive and are fortunate enough to have a place like this to call home. They don't have wild parties. They just want to return to society. Mr. Giddings stated there was a comment that Ray Warren was quoted in the paper as saying this would go against the revitalization of Thompsonville. Mr. Giddings stated revitalization is not just bricks and mortar. You have to revitalize the people as well. He doesnt see any better way to revitalize people than to take those who are in need of a place to call home while they plan the rest of their lives. He would hate to see this application turned down and asked that the Commission approve it.
Michelle Baker, 146 Pearl Street, right across the street from this proposed home, stated her concern is for her children. She comes from a long line of alcoholics. She understands they need help in their recovery but does not think it should be in an area where there are so many children. A lot of the people that would inhabit the sober house do not have driver's licenses and that leads her to believe they have been arrested for something. A lot of these people would have police records. She realizes these people need help but is opposed to this home being at this location. There already is one on Pleasant Street and she doesn't think they should be located so close together.
Todd Turner, 132 Pearl Street, stated these people need some place to go but he did not favor putting them so close to all the elements that were actually troubling them in the beginning. He did not think they should be categorized among the handicapped. He also felt that Mr. Olschafskie and his attorney would be discriminating if someone wanted to stay in this home and was not allowed to because they were drunk. Another thing is the fact that there are no guarantees that the children in the area are going to be safe. Where this particular home is located, it is in an area where children congregate. He does not think locating a sober house in their path is a good idea. In regard to property values, his neighbor cannot sell her home because of the seedy characters that are believed to be living in Thompsonville.
Mr. Turner stated he personally has spent $30,000 on his house in the last three years. He just found out his home is worth less now than when he started. This Commission for the last few years has said they would really like to improve Thompsonville and remove the stigma that it has. He felt the town was doing this to Thompsonville. He has been a landlord for over thirty years and has always made it a point to rent his properties below market value. Now he finds at the end of his life that he has really been pretty stupid. In reality, if all the people in Thompsonville made it a point to get all that it is worth, what would happen is there would not be the drug-addicted people or alcoholics in the area. The rents would be too high. He stated the residents are not opposed to such uses and questioned how many of these are in Suffield, Granby or places without pedestrian access. He stated if alcoholism is a disease, it is the only one that we are selling and collecting taxes on. To compare alcoholism to cancer also personally offends Mr. Turner. Mr. Turner also noted there were many other residents in the area that wanted to speak tonight but did not come out of fear for their safety. He felt the responsibility is to the people trying to improve their homes and spending a lot of money doing so. He noted the residents of the area have heard lengthy comments on why this use ought to be here and the voices the people have heard do not live in this area.
Wayne Ferguson, 13 Brentwood Drive, stated he is speaking on behalf of his parents and also for himself. He stated he is presenting this objection to this application because his parents are the abutters to the south of this property. He read a letter they submitted. Their concerns are their home is adjacent to the property on Pearl Street. They have lived there for more than fifty years and have seen the changes on their street and in their town. They are happy to hear about the Thompsonville revitalization which encompasses Pearl Street. They feel this type of facility is not in keeping with the neighborhood at this time or in the future. They reviewed the public record to try to find out about this addiction recovery house. They questioned if it would be strictly alcohol addiction or drug related addiction and what types of drugs are they. They felt there are more appropriate areas of the town than among elderly residents who have already experienced the decline of this portion of town over the years with the numerous bars, the drugs and the crowds they attract. They suggested these recovery people be away from any nearby temptations. They do not feel the location is suitable. They questioned if the people inhabiting this home will be Enfield residents. They were also concerned with declining property values. They urged the Commission not to rush this decision and have all the questions answered so that the residents are not the victims of the consequences gone wrong and to protect the town and neighborhood from any possible aftermath. The letter questioned what are the backup plans for problems that might impact the neighborhood. Some of the questions are what are the qualifications and certifications of the people running and managing the house; what are their backgrounds and where do they come from; what do they have to gain; what do we have to lose; how beneficial is it to our town; will it impact on the revitalization. The letter requested that if this facility is passed, they would request a solid fence of maximum height between their property and this facility. They are also concerned about lighting, traffic and noise very early and very late. If this facility is passed, they would request the Commission withhold the right to review the special use permit after a period of time or in one year. Also, that the residents be notified of such a review at a public meeting.
Mr. Ferguson stated his other concern is Mr. Olschafskie purchased this property for a lot of money to get nothing back. He noted there is a private corporation which is going to lease it from the owner. He questioned who is the private corporation. He also presented a letter from his neighbor, Mary Ann Minukas, 11 Brentwood Drive, regarding his parents' home at 149 Pearl Street adding her voice to those opposed to the opening of a three-quarter house on Pearl Street.
Edward Ferguson, 149 Pearl Street, discussed the condition of the building that is the subject of this application. He stated it is one big mess, nothing has been done for over fifty years and he feels it should be condemned.
Gerry Taylor, 158 Pearl Street, stated he has lived in Enfield all his life. He continues to stay at his home and put tens of thousands of dollars into his home. He received his new tax assessment which has increased. He presented a picture of his home and discussed the improvements he has made. He stated he feels deeply about his home and the neighborhood and would like to stay at this house the rest of his life. He has heard if this sober house is allowed, his property value will drop at least twenty percent. He is against this application and thinks it would be unconscionable if the Commission granted this approval.
Ron Pasternak, 83 Pratt Street, Glastonbury, stated he is a recovering alcoholic and he is the person Mr. Olschafskie has asked to manage this house. He did not come here to be scrutinized. Twelve years ago he was eating out of garbage cans in New York City and sleeping in a cardboard box. He has never hurt a child and has had five of his own. He did not choose to be on the streets of New York. He is afflicted with the disease of alcoholism. He personally believes it is genetic. He lost the power of choice. He stated if it wasn't for places like this proposed sober house, he would still be in New York. He has spent the last nine years of his life working with alcoholics and has not profited from it. He thinks everyone together can make a difference because there are a lot of people out there like him. He discussed being in a treatment center in New York that had many people from Connecticut. They were not turned away because they were from out of state. Mr. Pasternak stated such a house is the only light at the end of a tunnel for a person who is afflicted with alcoholism. No act of the human will allows many alcoholics to recover. They need the treatment and support to recover. He is now thinking about buying a home in Enfield because he is a recovering person who has gotten his life back because of programs in after care that allowed this to happen.
Mr. Pasternak stated he does not have a degree in sociology but he has worked in Catapault and he has worked to get such housing in the city of New Haven. He lacks two credits for an associate's degree in electrical engineering. He has helped set up a halfway house in Madison, Connecticut. Alcoholics have to go somewhere and Mr. Pasternak felt the community has to be responsible and accountable to the people they serve. Mr. Pasternak has donated his time to this project for one year. He is here because he can be a small part in making a difference.
Art Hotten, 137 Pearl Street, spoke in opposition to this application. He is concerned about the children in the neighborhood and the children that pass through to the library and the schools. He is concerned about his property values. They just had an increase in taxes and he has heard from others that the property values in the area are going down. He does not feel this sober house will add to making this neighborhood a nice place to live.
John Shea, 248 Highland Avenue, Hamden, stated he was a drug addict and alcoholic and has been in recovery for seventeen years. He is a loving husband, a grandfather of two, homeowner, a taxpayer and a cancer surviver. He is presently the Associate Director of the Connecticut Community for Addiction Recovery. The services they offer include recovery houses. These types of services are very important. He is also a licensed alcohol and drug abuse counselor in the State of Connecticut and a certified clinical supervisor. He sits on several boards of directors and several organizational governing committees. He personally benefited from a recovery focused living arrangement in 1985 and 1986. He stated people with alcohol are not bad people who would be good people if they didn't have a problem with alcohol but they are people addressing a health care issue. The better system of support for a person dealing with a health care issue, the better the potential outcome. Mr. Shea stated the recovery community wants the Commission to know that recovery is already a reality in the lives of thousands of individuals and families.
Renzo Arietti, 101 Lake Road, stated he is a native of Enfield. If anyone wants to see Enfield revitalized, it is he. He discussed his roots and felt that everyone present this evening knows someone with an alcohol problem. Mr. Arietti stated he is a recovering alcoholic and lived at 36 Pleasant Street. While in that sober house, he wrote a business plan for a corporation. This would never have happened if he did not get into this sober house and turn his life around. He discussed his family and stated he would like to know why people think that alcoholics are a threat to children. His ex-wife had no problem letting his children stay with him overnight at this sober house. If the people in the neighborhood sit out on their porches, they would see a bunch of happy guys with their children and no one would know this is a sober house. They might even think it's a bed and breakfast. From his bedroom door at 34 Pleasant Street, it was twenty-four steps to the nearest bar and no one drank there. The only people that come to these homes are people that want to turn their lives around, get sober and make a difference. He discussed being the assistant manager and stated if someone came to the home drunk, he would offer to drive them to a detox center. He felt denying this application would deny a guy like him a chance to turn his life around.
Shiela Reardon, property owner of 138 Pearl Street, stated her concern is that this sober house not be put in this area. The children have been discussed. They are in an area where seventy-five percent of the people are walking. She is not saying that people in recovery are going to seduce the children or whatever the word is but they are saying they have a concern. They are parents, grandparents, homeowners and renters and all have a concern. Ms. Reardon stated there are three such homes within approximately a mile. They are before the Commission as the bad guys because they are supposedly against the people trying to recover. Ms. Reardon stated she is not against a person who is trying to recover. She would be the first one to offer them help. She discussed the other group homes in Enfield which if they are private homes can have four or five unrelated people living in them. The Commission is talking about a home that will contain ten people. She spoke to someone on Garden Street two nights ago who would not come and speak because of fear of being retaliated against. Her husband wrote a letter to the Commission and he was called and threatened and told if it didn't go through, they would rent it to a biker's club. Ms. Reardon is surprised that Attorney Fahey doesn't know that that liquor permit, when they bought the property, did not go with the property. It may be there and if another biker club goes in there, they would have to reapply through the state. The liquor license does not go with the sale of the property. Ms. Reardon noted Mr. Olschafskie lives at 1242 Enfield Street and it probably has at least four bedrooms. She proposed that he take two or three people into his home.
Ms. Reardon discussed the previous speakers and commended them. She did not feel Mr. Pasternak would like this use in Glastonbury. Commissioner Duren asked who were the managers and they didn't tell the Commission who the managers were at Pleasant Street and Asnuntuck Street. One is Patrick Malloy, the fellow that called her husband. She noted that is the quality of the people that are in this limited partnership and no one knows who they are. The residents have to look to this Commission to consider the people of Thompsonville. She stated there will never be a sober house on Enfield Street. She questioned why a recent home for sale on Enfield Street was not purchased for this use by Mr. Olschafskie. She stated why should he when he can buy a home on Pearl Street for $60,000 instead of $160,000.
Ms. Reardon stated the point here is not how clean the rooms are. All the people have heard from Attorney Fahey was about the Oxford House. When Commissioner Egan questioned him about it, that was a different story. There are all these conflicting stories but everyone's testimony tonight was from people who have done a terrific job.
Ms. Reardon stated what keeps surfacing is that the residents, because they oppose it, are the bad people and do not believe in this disease. Ms. Reardon stated there is not a person in this room that has not been touched by drugs or alcohol. She would be the first to say it is in every family. However, whether you choose to be an alcoholic or not is not the point. The point is this is going into an area where there are already two. Thompsonville and the Town of Enfield were here a lot longer than Enfield Street but Enfield Street is in the Historic District and there will never be one beside Mr. Olschafskie's house. Ms. Reardon stated this business is non-profit. She questioned if the other two houses are not for profit. The residents pay $110 a week for one person or $440 per month. Ten people pay $4,400 per month. Annually that is $52,800 but Ms. Reardon noted it is still not for profit. She felt there is a profit somewhere.
Ms. Reardon stated the homeowners are looking to the Commission to protect them. They don't have a lawyer and are going by their gut feeling. She acknowledged these people need help but questioned why do the Pearl Street residents have to help them. She asked why the people of Thompsonville have to take care of all these people. She questioned why Thompsonville has to have a community police. They feel there are some problems there. Ms. Reardon stated the people in charge have no credentials. If a person has an addiction, he comes home and if he is feisty and fighting, who takes care of him. She asked what gives them the right to be the enforcer. He said they don't believe in democracy. There are ten people living in the house and the residents have been told it is one big, happy family. Ms. Reardon stated try keeping four or five children happy. She asked what right they have to bring this use into this neighborhood when they already have two. If they are so inclined, let them buy a couple of houses on Enfield Street or on St. James. They don't even have to come to the town because they can have unrelated people living there. However, Ms. Reardon stated they feel because they can buy a house for $60,000 on Pearl Street that they have a perfect right to put in all the sober houses in the world that they want.
Ms. Reardon stated they are being told all the good things and she doesn't believe there is a treatment center in the State of Connecticut that doesnt have some problems. It is the most wonderful thing because it is not next to Michael Olschafskie or Mr. Pasternak. Ms. Reardon emphasized her opposition and stated this use is not compatible to the area.
Chairman Howard discussed the fact that because of the time, it will be impossible to complete this hearing this evening. Mr. Giner stated a continuation would require an extension from the applicant. He would request one because the Commission has just received updated plans and there has not been sufficient time for staff review. Chairman Howard stated he will hear two more speakers and then continue this hearing. The consensus of the Commission was to continue this hearing to Thursday, March 28, 2002.
Mary Joe Dawson, 139 Pearl Street, stated she is located next door to this recovery center. She has been painted as the bad guy because she does not want this sober house next door to her. She has had many deaths in her family due to alcohol and drugs and she commends all these people. She discussed her personal family history and stated at age fifty, she does not want to face what she faced in her growing up years. She watched relatives she adored kill themselves with alcohol. Having these people living next door to her has brought up a lot of pain from her childhood that she thought she had gotten over. She felt this sober house is a very bad idea and she would oppose it.
Delores Green, 32 Wagon Road, stated she is a school nurse in the Enfield School System. She works very hard to take care of the children in Enfield. There has been a lot of revitalization in Thompsonville and she applauds that but noted there are a lot of troubled families still in the downtown area struggling to survive. She is not opposed to people coming in and getting help for alcoholism. She is not opposed to the people who come into these homes and make it. Her concern is that sometimes she is getting the feeling that a pretty picture is being painted. One person got up and said he lives on Pleasant Street and there has never been any drinking there and in the next breath he said, when they come in drunk, one of us drives him to a detox center. She has a problem with that kind of a statement. Ms. Green stated it was also said that if someone comes in late, they put them out on the porch. She questioned if that person goes to sleep on the porch of the nearby bed and breakfast. Ms. Green stated the group homes that have been there for a long time are not in the Thompsonville area. They are in neighborhoods that are not conducive to bars and stores. The people in Thompsonville can get to their AA meetings but they can also get to the local bars and stores. Ms. Green stated the new manager has stated he will only be there a year. She questioned what happens after that. She discussed the burnout factor of other homes like Friendship House. Ms. Green stated there are a lot of little things being stated that are not coming truthfully across such as no drinking but when they come in drunk, we drive them to a detox center.
Commissioner DiPace asked if the Commission could get a set of plans. They have not seen the architecturals of the outside of this building. He has driven by and witnessed the building's appearance but he has also seen what some of these people have done to their homes. He asked if the applicant would be willing to show what could be done to enhance the appearance of this home for the neighborhood. If this application does pass, Commissioner DiPace stated he would like to see it look a certain way. He requested some plans showing what the building currently looks like and what the applicant would be willing to do to the exterior of the building. Attorney Fahey stated the architecture will remain the same. They plan to reside the building, install new windows and put on a new roof. Landscaping will be added to the front. Commissioner DiPace would like something that blends in more with the neighborhood. He asked that the applicant survey the surrounding neighborhood and show the Commission how they would be willing to make this building look.
Commissioner Duren questioned if this building has asbestos shakes on it and if the applicant proposes to go over this existing siding with new siding.
Chairman Howard asked if the Commission is going to receive an extension from the applicant. Attorney Fahey stated he could finish his comments in three minutes. Chairman Howard stated he would then have to go back to the floor and there is not sufficient time to complete this hearing. Attorney Fahey stated he will consent to a continuance to March 28, 2002 and he gave the Commission a written statement to that effect.
Chairman Howard continued this hearing to March 28, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. He also requested that an elevation plan be presented to the Commission at that time and that the applicant report back regarding the asbestos currently on the house. Chairman Howard apologized to the public present regarding this continuance.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH 2296- Application for a Modification of Plans previously approved for a Special Permit Use to allow a facade change including removal and replacement of 1 Mobil sign, the addition of 1 Mobil sign, and the addition of a 2 foot high internally lit blue band to existing canopy fascia for a gasoline station located in a BR District at 100 Elm Street, Assessor's Map 43, Lot 15, Bohler Engineering, applicant; Mobil Oil Corporation, owner. (May be kept open until April 4)
John Skitzer, 352 Turnpike Road, Southboro, Massachusetts, from Bohler Engineering appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He is present on behalf of Exon Mobil at 100 Elm Street. He noted he is present tonight with three very similar proposals. Chairman Howard stated due to the lateness of the hour, he would like to reference the information from this hearing and apply it to the other two hearings.
Mr. Skitzer noted the pictures previously sent to the Commission. At 100 Elm Street, Exon Mobil is looking to perform an image upgrade across the nation. There are three sites in the Town of Enfield that they would like to upgrade. Mobil would like to improve the character of all their stations and have them all look similar. Included with these proposals is the improvement of the canopy facia and they propose this improvement at all three stations
Mr. Skitzer referred to 100 Elm Street which has a large white canopy and a Mobil canopy sign which faces the rear of the property allowing the station to be identified from the shopping area behind the station. There is a freestanding identification sign at the front of the station which is located along Elm Street. He referred the Commission to page 4 of the plans which show a site plan of this location. This station has a long canopy with the gas pump islands underneath it.
Mr. Skitzer stated they would like to have one canopy sign on each side of the canopy so it is identified as Mobil and they are looking to have the colors blue and white in a similar fashion to page 3. Mr. Skitzer noted page 3 shows a Mobil station from Milford, Massachusetts, and this computer image should be virtually identical to what is being proposed at this station. Mr. Skitzer stated the Mobil sign is at the corner of the canopy and surrounding the rest of the sides is the blue band. Regarding how they are proposing the blue band that goes around the canopy, they do have a cross section on page 7. To the side of the picture would be the existing canopy facia and they are building out to the other side so that there is a pocket of the blue features and down lower they are looking to build out the white as well. Inside the blue is a fluorescent bulb fixture which provides internal illumination to the blue material. The illumination can be similar to holding the thick material over one of these bulbs. The blue color is the color that will be used and is consistent with the color Mobil uses. The purpose of the thickness of the material is it enables them to not be able to see the actual fixture behind the blue itself and it comes off as an even tone of blue. The material is thick enough so that there is a soft hue of blue coming out. The top of the fixture is a flat cover which prevents any lighting pollution from going up above the actual station. It reduces the illumination glare to the surrounding area.
Commissioner Krebs asked if the area would be lit twenty-four hours. Mr. Skitzer responded it will be lit only when the station is open.
Commissioner Egan asked about the station in Longmeadow on the Enfield line and if this station would look like that. He noted that one looks like it has been done like this. Mr. Skitzer stated that station does have the approvals but he was not sure it has been renovated.
Commissioner Cooper asked if the blue is lit all the way around. Mr. Skitzer stated it would be.
Commissioner Duren stated this means a large sign and he asked how far does it exceed the regulations. Mr. Giner stated the question is whether the band actually constitutes a sign. Commissioner Duren noted it is lit. Mr. Giner read the definition of sign from the regulations which includes illuminated devices. He stated if the Commission feels it does constitute a sign, then the bands would exceed the allowable sign area. Mr. Giner stated there is a sign up now that faces the parking lot and he was unsure how this received approval. Commissioner DiPace stated this is the only application he can ever recall that received an automatic approval because it was not acted on in the necessary time frame. Mr. Giner brought up the whole issue of signs on canopies. The way the current regulations are written does not appear to allow signs on canopies. Section 10.30.5 covers attached signs and such signs are allowed on buildings. Mr. Giner noted buildings are defined as something with four walls. Mr. Alsbaugh, the Assistant Town Planner, pointed out that canopies technically fall in a gray area. He stated the Commission may want to change the regulations since the regulations today do not allow signs on canopies.
Chairman Howard asked if what is being proposed on the canopy is different from what is existing. He noted the only thing the Commission is considering is the blue band and the Commission could decide to consider it a sign. Mr. Skitzer stated most of the gas stations he has been to usually only have one or two frontages but this station does have public access from three sides of it - the entrance from Elm Street, the entrance to the access road to the shopping plaza and the access at the rear of the station. He stated there is only one sign visible from the rear of the station which is the one on the canopy.
Chairman Howard stated the King Street Mobil station would be the same. You can see it from I-91, you can see it from the ramps, you can see it from the car wash and you can see it from the front.
Commissioner Duren discussed precedents and stated there is a Triple A building where the owner wanted additional signs. Chairman Howard stated he is unsure whether he considers the proposed blue band a sign.
Commissioner DiPace agreed. The blue band is background and contains no lettering and is being installed for an image type thing. He also would not classify it as a sign.
Chairman Howard noted the blue band would be a sign according to the regulations because it is an illuminated device. He stated there may be a need to change the regulations.
Commissioner Egan brought up the possibility of a business that faces residential and wants such a border around the whole canopy. He also doesn't think the blue band proposed constitutes a sign.
Mr. Giner stated this is a special use permit and part of what the Commission is looking at is where this building is located. If the Commission felt that this particular feature was not appropriate adjacent to residential homes as they did with the McDonald's speakers or the color of their roof, they could act accordingly. Mr. Giner suggested a change to the regulations changing the word "building" to "structure". He felt that would solve the problem. An alternative would be to have a separate section stating signs would be allowed on canopies since at this time they are only allowed on buildings.
Chairman Howard noted these should be taken on a case by case basis. In the applications tonight, none of them are located in residential areas. The closest to a residential is King Street and with the lights already there, this will not be an issue.
Mr. Skitzer stated they have addressed many Mobil stations across New England. There have been circumstances where Mobil stations are in residential areas. In the case where the residential area is to the rear of the site, many times they only propose to illuminate three sides and leave the fourth side dark.
Chairman Howard directed Mr. Giner to look at a change to the regulation and bring the proposal back to this Commission.
Chairman Howard opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Howard closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2296, application for a modification of plans previously approved for a Special Use Permit to allow a facade change including removal and replacement of one "Mobil" sign, the addition of one "Mobil" sign, and the addition of a two-foot high internally lit blue band to existing canopy fascia on four sides for a gasoline station located in a BR District at 100 Elm Street, Assessor's Map 43, Lot 15, Bohler Engineering, Applicant; Mobil Oil Corporation, Owner.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Cooper voting.
b. PH 2297- Application for a Modification of Plans previously approved for a Special Permit Use to allow a facade change including removal and replacement of existing Mobil canopy legends, and the addition of a 2 foot high internally lit blue band to existing canopy fascia for a gasoline station located in a BG District at 1594 King Street, Assessors Map 17, Lot 2, Bohler Engineering, applicant; Frank & Anthony Troiano, owner. (May be kept open until April 4)
Mr. Giner incorporated the comments from PH#2296 into this hearing record.
Mr. Skitzer presented a revised site plan for this application at 1594 King Street.
Chairman Howard opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Howard closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DiPace, to approve PH#2297, application for a modification of plans previously approved for a Special Use Permit to allow a facade change including removal and replacement of existing "Mobil" canopy legends, and the addition of a two-foot high internally lit blue band to existing canopy fascia on the north and south sides as proposed for a gasoline station located in a BG District at 1594 King Street, Assessor's Map 17, Lot 2, Bohler Engineering, Applicant; Frank and Anthony Troiano, Owner.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Cooper voting.
c. PH 2298- Application for a Modification of Plans previously approved for a Special Permit Use to allow a facade change including the installation of 1 Mobil canopy legend, and the addition of a 2 foot high internally lit blue band to existing canopy fascia for a gasoline station located in a BL District at 76 Hazard Ave., Assessors Map 56, Lot 16, Bohler Engineering, applicant; Mobil Oil Corporation, owner. (May be kept open until April 4)
Mr. Giner incorporated the comments from PH#2296 regarding the architectural features of the canopy facia to this public hearing.
Commissioner Cooper suggested this application may be one that the Commission would only want to consider the band for three sides. He noted the residences in the area of Middle Road.
Commissioner DiPace stated he would like a report from the Traffic Safety Officer on this location prior to approval. He noted there have been too many accidents in the area of this gas station. He has been told by the Traffic Safety Officer because of previous accidents that if anything ever comes in with this station, this area needs to be improved.
Mr. Giner stated this hearing can be continued to April 4 and in the interim he can request a report from the Traffic Safety Officer regarding this site.
Commissioner DiPace stated there has to be a change to one of the driveways since there is an accident at this location on a monthly basis.
Mr. Skitzer asked which driveway is a point of concern. Commissioner DiPace stated the driveway to the west is the concern, along Hazard Avenue and furthest from the intersection. Cars come out and make a left turn and cars are heading eastbound and the results is the cars heading eastbound are getting hit. Mr. Skitzer asked about the potential to install a sign stating no left turn. Commissioner Duren did not feel this would work and he pointed out the station in Longmeadow at the state line.
Commissioner Egan asked what does this have to do with the application for the sign. Commissioner DiPace stated the application involves this property and if they have a problem, this is the time to fix it especially if it is a traffic safety problem. Mr. Giner stated it has to be reasonably related. The Traffic Safety Officer may suggest some improvements. Commissioner Duren stated the applicant is not changing the building. Mr. Giner stated if the Commission thinks the lighting would impact traffic coming in and out of the site, that could be considered.
Chairman Howard suggested keeping this hearing open. Mr. Skitzer stated one of his concerns is the budget for this project. Whether it is relocating the access or something related, this would probably triple or quadruple the amount of funds that have been allocated for this site. Chairman Howard suggested approving this application with a condition that the traffic flow be reviewed. Commissioner DiPace did not feel this Commission should put a price tag on safety.
Mr. Giner will ask the Traffic Safety Officer if they have a state traffic certificate. Chairman Howad suggested approving this application tonight and having the traffic situation looked at in another way. Mr. Giner stated he doesn't know what the results of that would be. Mr. Skitzer suggested a condition to insure that the access is in conformance with the regulations of the town. Commissioner DiPace stated he would go along with a condition that the site is in compliance with the Traffic Safety Officer's recommendation. Mr. Skitzer stated they would request a maximum width of 30' for ingress and egress and if this access is much larger than that, it does introduce problems for traffic.
Commissioner DiPace stated the problem is the driveway should not be used for exiting. The cars coming out are crossing two lanes of traffic and going left. If the cars go the other way, they can come out to Middle Road at the traffic light and it is a much safer situation.
Mr. Skitzer stated in reducing the width of an access, what they would do is close the access so that it would be further away from the intersection. From what he is hearing, it sounds like the proximity to the intersection is one of the main concerns. The closer you are to the intersection, the worse the circumstance would be. If this access is all the way at the edge of the property, rather than install a sign, Mr. Skitzer recommended reducing the access to the allowable width of the driveway within the regulations and constructing it to the furthest point of the property.
Mr. Skitzer stated the only condition he has the authority to do would be to go to the maximum allowable by the zoning ordinance and he is unsure what it would be. Mr. Giner recommended going to the least width for the access. Commissioner DiPace stated there is a need for the cars to come in. The problem is with the cars that are coming out. They are coming out and going west. Mr. Giner recommended reducing the width of the driveway to allow only one car to come in. This would also reduce the likelihood of someone going out.
Commissioner Duren stated the state has discussed extending the median divider in this area but they have never done it.
Commissioner DiPace suggested obtaining a report regarding the accident rate at this intersection for the last twelve months. Mr. Skitzer asked who he should speak to regarding traffic concerns. Mr. Giner referred him to Lieutenant Robert Boula, the Traffic Safety Officer for the Enfield Police Department. Mr. Giner will also contact Lieutenant Boula.
Following additional discussion on the date to continue this hearing, Chairman Howard continued this hearing to March 28, 2002 and requested that this item be first on that evening's agenda.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DiPace, to extend the meeting to complete this evening's business. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DiPace, to take items out of order and consider SPR#1170 at this time. The motion was approved unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
a. PH #2278 - Request for filing deadline extension for the mylar of Maiolo Resubdivision at Bernadino and Kalish Avenues.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2278 - request for filing deadline extension for the mylar of Maiolo Resubdivision at Bernardino and Kalish Avenue.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Cooper voting.
Bond Releases
1. PH # 1947 Request for release of Erosion & Sediment Bond in the amount of $3,500 for Phase I of Misty Meadow Subdivision.
The Commission took no action on this bond release.
2. PH #1947 - Request for release of Erosion & Sediment Bond in the amount of $4,600 for Section III of Misty Meadow Subdivision.
The Commission took no action on this bond release.
3. PH #2209 Request for release of Lego Engineering Bonds in the amounts of $26,180.00 and $559,260.00 to cover Moody Road Warehouse and road improvements.
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve the release of the Lego Engineering Bonds in the amounts of $26,180 and $559,260 to cover the Moody Road warehouse and road improvements.
Some discussion followed regarding the tiger beetles. Mr. Giner stated the town is holding the $11,000 that is protecting those mounds.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
4. PH #2084 - Request for release of Ashmead Commons Engineering Bond in the amount of $122,100.
The Commission took no action on this bond release.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR #1170 - Application for modification of plans previously approved for construction of approximately 23,000 sq. ft. mezzanine floor within the distribution facility at 107 Phoenix Avenue, Zoned I-1, Map 46, Lot 29, Casual Corner Group, Inc., applicant/owner.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve SPR#1170, application for a modification of plans previously approved for construction of approximately 23,000 square feet mezzanine floor within the distribution facility at 107 Phoenix Avenue, zoned I-1, Map 46, Lot 29, Casual Corner Group, Inc., Applicant/Owner. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
The Commission accepted the following applications:
FLD #013 - Application for special flood hazard areas development permit for Cooper Street Right of Way, Town of Enfield, Applicant.
PH#2230 - Application for resubdivision for proposed 27 lot residential subdivision (conditional approval requested for bonding purposes) on west side of Meetinghouse Lane, 650 feet plus or minus north of intersection of Bridge Lane and west side of Riverview Street, zoned R-33, Map 19, Lot 10, Margaret R. Pappas, Applicant/Owner.
PH#2301 - Application for special use permit for proposed 27-lot single family open space subdivision, west side of Meetinghouse Lane, 650 feet plus or minus north of intersection of Bridge Lane and west side of Riverview Street, zoned R-33, Map 19, Lot 10, Margaret R. Pappas, Applicant/Owner.
PH#2302 - Application for special use permit for rear lot within a single-family open space residential subdivision (rear lot #10), west side of Meetinghouse Lane, 650 feet plus or minus north of intersection of Bridge Lane and west side of Riverview Street, zoned R-33, Map 19, Lot 10, Margaret R. Pappas, Applicant/Owner.
PH# 2303 - Application for special use permit for rear lot within a single-family open space residential subdivision (rear lot #12) west side of Meetinghouse Lane, 650 feet plus or minus north of intersection of Bridge Lane and west side of Riverview Street, zoned R-33, Map 19, Lot 10, Margaret R. Pappas, Applicant/Owner.
PH#2304 - Application for modification of conditions imposed on previous site plans or special use permits for decks, fences, and sheds on each unit as well as fence around perimeter of 15 Grove Street, zoned R-33, Map 92, Pine Grove Manor Incorporated, Applicant/Owner.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Karen Krebs, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|
|
Last Modified: 11/5/2004 4:41:04 AM
|
|
|