THESE MINUTES ARE PRESENTED IN DRAFT FORM AND HAVE NOT
BEEN FORMALLY APPROVED BY THE ENFIELD PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION. OFFICIAL COPIES OF MINUTES, WHEN APPROVED,
CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE TOWN CLERK OR PLANNING OFFICE.
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 1, 2010
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, April 1, 2010 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Charles Duren called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Charles Duren, Chairman
Elizabeth Ballard
Charles Ladd (arrived at 7:05 p.m.)
Nicles Lefakis (left the meeting at 8:20 p.m.)
Lori Longhi (arrived at 7:05 p.m.)
Kathleen Sarno
Michael Dumont, Voting Alternate
Ronald Gregory, Voting Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: José Giner, AICP, Director of Planning
FIRE EVACUATION ANNOUNCEMENT
Chairman Duren gave the fire evacuation announcement.
MINUTES
a. March 4, 2010 Regular Meeting
Commissioner Ballard made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve the Minutes of March 4, 2010. The Minutes were approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Dumont and Gregory voting.
b. March 18, 2010 Special Meeting
Commissioner Ballard made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to approve the Minutes of March 18, 2010. The Minutes were approved by a 4 – 0 – 2 vote. Commissioners Lefakis and Sarno abstained and Alternates Dumont and Gregory voted.
5. Staff Comments
a. Town Attorney (in person)
Assistant Town Attorney Mark Cerrato appeared before the Commission and gave a report on the pending litigation. Robbins v. ZBA includes two cases. Mr. Robbins was appealing the ZBA upholding of the ZEO’s order and the ZBA’s denial of the variance. That case went to trial on March 25, 2010 and the judge has 120 days to decide the case. The two cases were combined.
The second case is the Villages LLC for the subdivision appeal and the special use permit appeal. Those cases are in the process of being combined. The record was due on April 9 and the town requested a continuance on that. The town has until June 14, 2010 to get the record ready.
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer (in person)
Zoning Enforcement Officer Virginia Higley appeared before the Commission. She asked if the Commission found any benefit to her giving the Commission the building inspection breakdown. Chairman Duren complimented Ms. Higley on this and stated it is very good to see and to know what is going on in town. Ms. Higley will provide this every quarter or every meeting whichever way the Commission wants it. Chairman Duren stated it helps the Commission understand the work load Ms. Higley does for the Commission and the town.
Ms. Higley stated Stickley has had that box and sign up for some time. She has been working for several weeks with the manager of the store. She explained to him the town’s regulations and that they cannot have a container in the front and cannot have freestanding signage without a permit. The Manager explained to Ms. Higley that those are storage cubes. Every other week they get a shipment of furniture and it is the same type of system that Bob’s Stores uses. What they do is they bring the box in and they leave it and then the Stickley employees unload it and leave the empty box and take the box that was there back with them. Chairman Duren noted that quite often there are two boxes there. Ms. Higley stated the manager has been very cooperative. She met with him today on site and if you go around the back to where their loading dock is from the last loading dock to the telephone pole there is enough room for them to leave the extra box. The area has to be absolutely level and it has to be gravel and it has to be compacted. Ms. Higley asked the Manager how long this would take and he said a few days to a week. Ms. Higley will give him a month to make the change. After a month or so, the Commission won’t see Stickley’s trailer box out front any longer.
Ms. Higley stated 13 Lincoln Street had come to her attention as an illegal boarding house. The time is up. She had asked the owner to contact Fire Marshal Paul Censki to set up a date when they could go in to make sure it had been converted back to a single-family house. April 1 was the date by which this was to be done. Ms. Higley didn’t have a chance today to contact Paul Censki. She will contact him on Monday and see if he has gotten a call or a letter. If not, the next step will be taken.
Ms. Higley brought up the gentleman at 266 North Maple Street. The Commission had asked him to remove one driveway immediately. Ms. Higley was talking to the state gentleman and he told her that the owner of the property had the telephone pole moved so now it is directly in the middle of the two driveways. There is also a boat and trailer for sale on the property. Ms. Higley stated the end of March was the date the Commission gave him to remove the other driveways. She is assuming the Commission would now want her to pursue it which she will. She will start the proceedings.
Ms. Higley stated she did a little research about the owner of 266 North Maple Street. He has a home improvement contractor’s license for this address through the State of Connecticut. His telephone number on the side of the trailer is a Hartford cell phone number. He is having a home occupation from this site with no permission and Ms. Higley would not sign off on that. The owner would have to come to the Commission. Chairman Duren asked if the state could issue such a license without knowing if the town approved it and Ms. Higley stated that was the case. Ms. Higley decided to check and couldn’t find this gentleman’s business in Chicopee as he had stated previously. Ms. Higley will do one final drive through to make sure before sending letters out that the driveways are still there and that the equipment is still there. Chairman Duren stated it is still there. The gentleman took the fence and made a gate further south.
Ms. Higley stated she would like to stay for the meeting as the Commission is going to be discussing tag sale regulations. Chairman Duren did not know if the Commission was ready to discuss tag sales. Commissioner Longhi stated the Commission will be discussing the zoning enforcement procedures document and she would like Ms. Higley to stay for that.
Commissioner Longhi brought up 266 North Maple Street and stated she was the one that wanted to give him enough time to finish the house. She is glad the Zoning Enforcement Officer brought it up. Ms. Higley stated she appreciates the Commission’s support.
Chairman Duren stated in front of Dick’s the four clothing bins are still there. Ms. Higley stated she and Mr. Giner were discussing this and Mr. Giner noted they have had more than enough time and she will send this item to the Town Attorney for further action.
Commissioner Ladd asked when the Commission approved the tattoo parlor behind Panella’s. Ms. Higley stated the Commission didn’t and she gave a brief synopsis of the history. The tattoo parlor came in for something and Ms. Higley asked the owner about the approval. He said he didn’t need an approval. Ms. Higley suggested that the owner get in touch with Mr. Giner. Ms. Higley stated Muzzi Motor Sports is also back there and when she went back to look for the sign for the tattoo place, she noticed there was a motorcycle place. Someone had brought her a business card for Muzzi Motor Sports. On the web site, it stated they bought and sold used motorcycle parts. Ms. Higley stated this is not allowed in Business Local. Mr. Giner set up a meeting with the owner and Mr. Giner explained to him the business has to be either stopped or they have to come in and see if they could get a change to the verbiage of what is allowed in Business Local. This was a few months ago. Then the gentleman came in because Ms. Higley sent him a cease and desists. He was quite upset and stated he didn’t need a license to be there because it was an internet use and he was selling clothes. The business is being looked at by the state. The gentleman did try to get either Mr. Giner or Ms. Higley to sign off on the license and neither would do it because the use is not allowed. The state is working on this and Ms. Higley has backed off at the state’s request. When she hears from the state, she will let the Commission know what happens.
Ms. Higley stated regarding the tattoo parlor, it is her understanding he needs to come in. Mr. Giner stated he has been in and he knows he is supposed to submit a site plan application but he has not yet done so. Chairman Duren asked if he has a medical approval and all the legal items he needs. Ms. Higley stated that would come with the application. Because of the Commission’s concerns about the tattoo parlor doing business without medical assistance, Ms. Higley will send the owner a cease and desist on Monday.
Commissioner Ladd asked if the sign was approved for the tattoo use. Ms. Higley stated she talked to Roger about it. There is a glitch and she doesn’t know how to fix it. Mr. Alsbaugh looks at the signs and he approves them. If Ms. Higley tells him there is a violation, he doesn’t enforce the violation.
c. Director of Planning
Mr. Giner informed the Commission that the budget hearings for Development Services before the Town Council will be Wednesday, April 7, at 6:00 p.m. in the Enfield Room. This will include the Planning Department and the board and commission budgets. Usually no one needs to be there from the Commission but Mr. Giner stated Commission members are welcome to show up. Mr. Giner also noted this meeting will be televised. Chairman Duren requested that Mr. Giner send the Commission a notice of this meeting.
Mr. Giner stated Dunkin Donuts wants to change their color schemes. Right now they have pink and purple. They want to repaint their buildings brown and tan and Mr. Giner passed around the paint samples. They will change to a brown on two of their four buildings. The one at Brookside Plaza will be coming in for a site plan review because it is a facade change. Mr. Giner stated the awnings will be orange instead of the present striped. Mr. Giner showed the color for the upper part of the building and stated the brown would be the lower part. He reviewed the plans and stated the light tan would be for the building. Mr. Giner stated the painting would be for the stand alone Dunkin Donuts on Enfield Street, Elm Street and the one at Brookside Plaza. The Dunkin Donuts in Scitico is brick and would remain so. Mr. Giner requested administrative approval for the tan and brown color scheme.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Longhi, to allow Mr. Giner to administratively approve the new color scheme for Dunkin Donuts. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Gregory voting.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Duren stated the Commission has some correspondence from Commissioner Sarno who attended the Enfield Revitalization and Strategy Committee meeting. Commissioner Sarno reported she attended the first ERSC meeting and found it very informative. One of the things that the Commission will be concerned about is they are looking for a zone change for some homes in Thompsonville right now but ultimately they want to change the entire area to the Thompsonville Village Center Zone. Regarding the dog park, they have not decided whether it will be at Lafayette Park. Commissioner Sarno will be copied on the Minutes of the ERSC meetings and she will forward them to Mr. Giner to be included in the Commission’s meeting packet.
Commissioner Longhi stated she saw in here about the Thompsonville rezoning. If the Commission is considering rezoning the entire Thompsonville, she questioned why is the Commission considering this one street zone change now. Mr. Giner suggested Commissioner Longhi wait for the public hearing.
Chairman Duren reported the meeting on the Plan of Conservation and Development held on March 30 went well and the Commission received some input from the public.
Chairman Duren stated Correspondence includes material from the Eastern Connecticut Resource Conservation and Development out of Brooklyn, Connecticut, Capitol Region information, a Notice of Action from the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency dated March 2, 2010, information on some of the Wetlands Permits just granted, a report from Katie Bednaz on the plantings at Five Guys, and the normal mailings of magazines.
Commissioner Ladd stated in the emails the Commission received information from the American Planning Association about the Fundamentals of Economic Development seminar. He was wondering how many people would be interested in attending. It will be held at the Windsor Town Hall on April 29 and you have until April 6 to sign up. Mr. Giner stated if any Commission member is interested in attending, they should contact him.
Commissioner Longhi stated in the packets the exhibits are top to bottom with the highest number first and down to the lowest number. She asked if the Commission can get them in the proper order starting with one and going forward. Mr. Giner will implement this change.
BOND RELEASES
Chairman Duren asked about the list of bonds that were still being held by the town. Mr. Giner stated there were a lot of expired bonds and there was a request that the Commission sign off on them. Chairman Duren stated this was never done because there were questions and they never came back with the answers. Mr. Giner will ask the new Finance Director if she has a list of these bonds.
Public Hearings (New)
a. XZA #10-2 – Town of Enfield Planning Department Initiative for a proposed text amendment to the Enfield Zoning Regulations Section 3.30.14C.iii., Storage Containers, to allow temporary permits for up to sixty (60) days for containers that are to be used for temporary storage for municipal uses such as schools or libraries in residential zones.
Commissioner Gregory was designated as the Voting Alternate for this application.
Mr. Giner stated this was something that had been requested because the Friends of the Library hold an annual book sale. Leading up to that book sale, they get a lot of donations of books. They were storing them in the basement and the Fire Marshal said that wasn’t the proper place for such storage. They were looking to see if there was some way they could put one of those portable storage units in the back to temporarily store these books until the sale. Under the present regulations, it only covered residential uses but not really institutional uses in a residential zone. What is proposed is to allow for containers to be used for temporary storage for up to sixty days for municipal uses such as schools or libraries. If they need to go longer than sixty days, they would have to come to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval. Mr. Giner noted that at times the schools have needed containers for temporary storage.
Commissioner Longhi suggested having temporary storage for schools and libraries in residential zones and she asked why have it for municipal uses. She asked what other municipal uses there are. Mr. Giner stated at one time the town hall had a couple of storage containers in their parking lot because they were working on the vault. Another time they were redoing all their computer equipment. Mr. Giner is trying to anticipate what the temporary uses could be.
Commissioner Sarno asked if such temporary units would be monitored after sixty days. Mr. Giner stated they would flag their calendars to take a look at the area in sixty days. Commissioner Ballard noted it is only municipal uses.
Chairman Duren stated the change would be number three under Miscellaneous Provisions, 3.30.14.
Chairman Duren stated the change has been referred to the Capitol Region Council of Governments and it has come back. Mr. Giner stated he doesn’t think there are any municipal uses within 500’ but he wanted to be on the safe side so he notified CRCOG.
Commissioner Longhi asked who would sign off on this. Mr. Giner stated the Zoning Enforcement Officer or anyone in Planning.
Commissioner Longhi asked if there would be a limit as to how many times they could have a storage container. Ms. Higley stated her concern is if there is just a sign off after the sixty days and they don’t know where it is being put, there is the possibility that it would be blocking someone’s driveway view. Chairman Duren stated item 5 takes care of placement. He read from the proposed regulation change.
Commissioner Longhi asked if the Commission could add that they bring in a sketch to show where it is. Ms. Higley stated they are supposed to get Fire Marshal approval. There is a need to coordinate to make sure the town is getting the same information as the Fire Marshal is. Commissioner Longhi asked why can’t they do the assessor’s plot and locate where they want to put the storage container. Ms. Higley stated when they come in to sign up for the dates and have her sign off, they can show her where they are going to put it. Mr. Giner stated they will be asked to supply a plot plan showing where it is going to go. Mr. Giner stated while it doesn’t specifically say a plot plan, the applicants have to show that they comply with the regulations. The only way they can prove it is to provide a plot plan.
Chairman Duren requested input from the public on this application. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Duren closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Ballard made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve XZA#10-2 – Town of Enfield Planning Department Initiative for a proposed text amendment to the Enfield Zoning Regulations, Section 3.30.14C.iii., Storage Containers, to allow temporary permits for up to sixty (60) days for containers that are to be used for temporary storage for municipal uses such as schools or libraries in residential zones. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Gregory voting.
Chairman Duren stated this regulation change helps out a particular group at the library.
b. XZA#10-3 – Town of Enfield Planning Department initiative for a proposed zone change from Residential 33 to Thompsonville Village Center District for the following properties:
53 WINDSOR ST, Map 27, Lot 51, 53 Windsor Street LLC; owner; 90 CHURCH ST, Map 27, Lot 56, Alaimo, Judeth V., Owner; 15 ALDEN AVE, Map 27, Lot 61, Alden Corners LLC, Owner; 37 WINDSOR ST, Map 27, Lot 54, Andersen, Arlene, Owner; CHURCH ST, Map 27, Lot 168 and 33 WINDSOR ST, Map 27, Lot 55, Clarke, Kenneth A. & Donna L., Owners; 45 WINDSOR ST, Map 27, Lot 52, Crump, J. Ronald, Owner; 78 CHURCH ST, Map 27, Lot 58, Dineen, Lois, Owner; 59 WINDSOR ST, Map 27, Lot 50, Downs, William R. and Thorne, Karen D., Owner; 11 ALDEN AVE, Map 27, Lot 60, Drouin, Andre, Owner; 104 CHURCH ST, Map 27, Lot 169, J. Knapp LLC, Owner; 88 CHURCH ST, Map 27, Lot 57, Paulson, Christopher W. & Frances, owner; 98 CHURCH ST, Map 27, Lot 53, Provencher, Richard J. & Koski, Kathleen M., Owners; 41 WINDSOR ST, Map 27, Lot 6, Provencher, Richard J. & Missy C., Owners; 65 WINDSOR ST, Map 27, Lot 49; Silva, Alfred J. & Pauline B., Owners; 11 WINDSOR ST, Map 27, Lot 62; St. Amand, Patricia E., Owner; 5 ALDEN AVE, Map 27, Lot 59, Weaver, Robert Carl & Denise, Owners; 21 WINDSOR ST, Map 27, Lot 64, Wilder, Sean P., Owner; 27 WINDSOR ST, Map 27, Lot 65, Zawada, Richard H., Owner.
Chairman Duren asked if the residents were notified. Mr. Giner stated he believes so and Mr. Froment sent some letters.
Mr. Giner showed the area of the proposed zone change which shows up in orange. The existing Thompsonville Village Zone is shown in green. There is already a lot in that block that is currently zoned TVC and the surrounding area is R-33. The reason this application is here today is one of the owners of the lots had approached Development Services with an idea of possibly dong some redevelopment in the area. There was a finding that the regulations currently don’t allow it. Mr. Giner stated there was consideration to rezoning the entire area but the town has not had the time or money to hire an outside consultant to take a comprehensive look at the whole Thompsonville Village area. All the lots in question are currently zoned R-33 which is a 33,000 square foot minimum. Mr. Giner noted you would be hard pressed to find any lots in the area that meet the 33,000 square feet. What you have is a lot of preexisting nonconforming lots in those neighborhoods which limits what you can do on them in terms of even adding on to your home. Mr. Froment had approached Development Services with a plan for his lot. He had talked to neighbors and they were all on board. They thought this would be a good test area to try some different type of zoning without doing all the lots in Thompsonville at this time.
Mr. Giner stated Mr. Froment is here. There is also a companion text change later on in the agenda that would allow lots that are currently a minimum of 5,000 square feet to be 4,500 square foot lots. This is trying to bring the area up a little further. The Thompsonville Village area is somewhat split up between the core area and that little pocket.
Chairman Duren stated our discussion previously was that initially the zone had gone all the way up but for some reason when the maps were drawn, it ended up the way it is.
Mr. Giner stated the strange part is it came up into this block and it actually splits one lot into R-33 and TVC.
Mr. Giner stated Peter Bryanton, Ray Warren and a few other people are meeting with CRCOG to talk about opportunities for transit oriented development and comprehensive changes to the regulations in that area. This is to explore what the opportunities might be with the train station coming. There was discussion about using $50,000 from the Connecticut Home Program. They received the Commission’s approval and the Council’s approval to apply for a $50,000 grant to the State of Connecticut. However, the State of Connecticut has presently frozen all that money that they promised to the towns.
Mr. Giner stated rather than trying to stifle some ideas and since there are people that want to invest in the area, they thought it would be a good idea to bring this zone change forward. It is already adjacent to an existing TVC zone.
Chairman Duren read a letter from Chairman Darren LaMour of the Enfield Revitalization and Strategy Committee dated April 1, 2010 in favor of this zone change. The Committee believes that a change in zone will be beneficial to future revitalization and redevelopment in the area.
Commissioner Longhi asked why is the town bringing this forward and not the individual. Mr. Giner stated he didn’t feel that only one property was appropriate. They felt if it was good for the area, it was good for the neighborhood and it would attach to the TVC zone. The block is a contained block.
Commissioner Longhi stated the TVC District was basically brought to have multi-uses like businesses and residences. Now, it is being expanded to an all residential area with no possibilities of businesses under. She asked why not have another zone for these small lots. The area where the green is on the map looks like it is mostly the walking business district versus having this whole residential block. She wondered if these people realize that they now have to comply with design standards and if they do any work on their houses, they would have to go to the Enfield Revitalization because that is a part of the TVC zone. Mr. Giner stated the TVC zone is a mixed use area and people can come in and ask for site plan reviews but they are all small lots. Commissioner Longhi saw the letter that the gentleman sent out which was great but it didn’t inform residents that now if you do any work on your house, you have to go to the Enfield Revitalization and Strategy Committee to comply with design standards. Commissioner Longhi wants to make sure that these people realize that that is in page 51 of the Planning and Zoning book. Commissioner Longhi read this section for the benefit of the Commission and the public. She thinks it is great if the Commission does something but maybe it shouldn’t be the TVC zone. It should be a zone for the residents in that area because there are small lots.
Mr. Giner asked if the Commission wants to have some type of design control in those areas. Commissioner Longhi stated she doesn’t mind but she doesn’t know if the residents know this is part of the proposed zone change.
Chairman Duren stated if you take a look at upper Pearl Street and the investments that have been made, you can see what can happen in the TVC zone. They were rather lenient on the application where the porches were removed. Commissioner Longhi stated it is just one more barrier the residents have to go through. She is not sure that they were made aware of that.
Chairman Duren stated they are aware of it if they got the letters, called town hall or went on the internet. Mr. Giner stated no one called his office that he is aware of.
Chairman Duren discussed the little stores that were formerly in this area. It was a neighborhood and in the magazines the Commission has been receiving, the trend is back to mixed use neighborhoods.
Mr. Giner stated the trend is not the traditional zoning where you draw lines on a map and separate uses. The trend now is more toward performance and form based zoning which allows commissions to look at whether something fits into the neighborhood. A good example is the house on Pleasant Street where they wanted to incorporate a small coffee shop.
Commissioner Longhi stated if the future is that this whole area is the TVC district, then she can see doing that but she is not sure that the people that this affects realize that they now fall into another thing. She asked if the plan is for the whole area to be a TVC zone. Chairman Duren stated that has been the plan for many years.
Mr. Giner stated it doesn’t preclude us from later on coming back and retrofitting all the TVC. He is not going to say that the zoning is the same as it will be five years from now. Once the train station comes in, part of what they will be discussing with the Capitol Region Council of Governments is part of what the Plan of Conservation and Development talks about – having a more mixed use type of village. That is a big undertaking and it will take some study to do it to make sure it is done properly so there are no negative impacts to the area. What they are trying to do with this one small block is to try this as an experiment in this area to see how it works rather than throwing it all out there and maybe it’s not the right zoning for a thousand properties.
Chairman Duren stated you can see some of the remnants on Alden Avenue with the old shops that are boarded up.
Mr. Giner stated if it becomes a transit oriented area, then you want to encourage walking and having small neighborhood shops. This is the trend that most zoning is going for – to have a more mixed use pedestrian oriented type of area.
Chairman Duren opened this hearing to the audience.
Thomas Froment, 19 Nancy Drive, stated he is the person working on trying to clean up a blighted piece of property and he presented the plan he came up with. He sent out certified letters and he has the certified copy of all the people that were listed and he submitted this copy to Mr. Giner. Mr. Froment stated twenty letters were sent and he received back thirteen and they are waiting on the other seven. However, they have confirmation that all seven were sent out on March 19, the day before the legal notice was posted.
Mr. Froment stated in his packet which he sent out was a letter which the Commission has in their packet. Included was a copy of the legal notice and a copy of the map. He also may have copied the Commission on what the designs are and the area for the zone. Mr. Froment presented a map and stated where the lots are less than 5,000 feet at this time are shown in pink and in green. Some of them are down to 3,250 square feet with no driveways at all. Most average around 4,100 or 4,200 square feet. Mr. Froment clarified that on the map the Commission is looking at, the lots are showing up purple and green. Those are the existing lots that have multi-family houses that were subdivided either through redevelopment or have been existing since originally built. Coming down Church Street starting at the back side which is Lafayette, 104 – he indicated in orange that that would be a possible potential lot if the owner chose to do what he is proposing to do. Chairman Duren asked that Mr. Froment keep his discussion to the zone change.
Mr. Froment read a letter written by him requesting that the Commission extend the TVC District to include the odd side numbers of Windsor Street and the even side of Church Street. The purpose for the extension was to split the lots.
Commissioner Longhi asked for a clarification on the number of letters sent. Mr. Froment stated he sent out twenty letters to everyone listed on the legal notice. The corresponding addresses are on the white cards. On the green cards, they received back thirteen of them and they are still awaiting seven of them. They haven’t been picked up yet but they were mailed.
Darren LaMore, Chairman of the Enfield Revitalization and Strategy Committee stated he will answer any questions in response to his letter sent to the Commission. Commissioner Longhi asked if any of these residents realize the full ramifications of the zone change. Mr. LaMore stated he hasn’t talked to any of them individually. None of them attended the ERSC meeting or responded back to ERSC. Mr. LaMore stated the R-33 makes it so you can’t do anything to your home without going through a lengthy process at times. The one block is sort of a pilot program. Mr. LaMore stated the nature of business has changed from what it was. There would have to be guidelines to make sure that residential works with business. There has to be a balance. Mr. LaMore stated they tend to exclude a lot of property owners by the way it is zoned now. They put them in the position where there is not an incentive to do anything with their property. Mr. LaMore stated it is a good idea to start with this small block. The Committee talked about bringing in somebody to look at the whole area. Some of that could work through overlay zones and there could be other things that could fall into there but right now financially it is not going to happen. Mr. LaMore thinks this is a good move and the Committee did too. They will see what type of people come in, what they are looking for and maybe there are changes that need to be made. He noted we have to start taking steps and do what we can with what we have because time is critical and some of the properties are just going to get worse.
Chairman Duren stated he doesn’t know what else can be done to notify the people. There have been legal ads and letters sent to every resident. There have been meetings which have been posted in the paper. The Voices of Thompsonville discussed it at one of their meetings.
Commissioner Longhi would have liked to have seen in the letter the real details of what the Thompsonville Village District zone entails. In Mr. Froment’s letter to the neighbors, it would have been a little bit better for them if they knew what the zone was and what was in the Commission’s book. Chairman Duren stated as much was done to alert the neighborhood to what was going on.
Mr. Giner stated this notification is beyond what the law requires. The regulations and state statutes only require that it be put in the paper twice. Because it is a small area, they were able to send out individual letters.
Chairman Duren closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Ballard made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve XZA#10-03 with the listing of streets as read and as stated in the legal notice with an effective date of April 23, 2010.
Chairman Duren stated this is something that the people in the town have been talking about for a long time. It is something that will benefit the area and this will be a trial area for the rest of it because the town hasn’t been able to do the rest of it. If it goes along the way upper Pearl Street did, it should be a benefit.
Commissioner Ballard stated we have talked about doing something like this for a long time.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Gregory voting.
Commissioner Lefakis left the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Alternate Michael Dumont will be sitting in for him.
c. XZA#10-06 – Town of Enfield Planning Department Initiative for a proposed text amendment to the Enfield Zoning Regulations, Table 4.10 and Table 5.10; Sections 3.20.2 and 4.30.21 to allow the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission to reduce minimum lot sizes in the Thompsonville Village Center District under certain circumstances by Special Permit.
Mr. Giner stated this is a companion to the zone change that was just passed. One of the regulations was right now the minimum square footage of any lot in town is 5,000 square feet. This proposal allows the Commission by special permit to allow lots in the Thompsonville Village Center to go down to 4,500 square feet. This is solely for the purpose of having owner occupied dwellings.
Mr. Giner stated one of the exhibits illustrates what type of housing can be built. The intent is to show there are a number of lots currently under 5,000 square feet in the area. It would not be inconsistent with what the zoning is in the area. It will allow it under special circumstances by special permit. Some of the illustrations in Exhibit 4 show areas where there is an open space. It may be an extra lot but it doesn’t meet the minimum lot sizes of 5,000 square feet by 500 square feet or so. Mr. Giner pointed out the lots on a map that could possibly be created on the street under this regulation. It would have to come back for a public hearing and meet all the discretionary requirements for a special use permit.
Commissioner Sarno asked if any new lots would be created by making this change. Mr. Giner stated no. However, by making this change, you are allowing people to apply for a special use permit and to go through a public hearing process. There would be public hearing signs and the neighbors would know what is going on. The limited circumstances under that would be that the resulting lots could only have a maximum of a two-family, owner occupied dwelling.
Commissioner Longhi asked how the owner occupied is delineated. Chairman Duren stated we cannot require the owners to put it on the deed. It would have to be on the plans.
Mr. Giner read the proposed regulation for the benefit of the public.
Commissioner Longhi stated the Commission is trying to promote owner occupied homes in Thompsonville. Mr. Giner stated the idea is if it is owner occupied you will be more concerned about who you are renting to and how the property looks. Commissioner Longhi felt this part about it being owner occupied is a good thing because if you are going to adjust this downward, you’d want to have the benefit of having an owner occupied property. Mr. Giner stated that is correct. Chairman Duren stated that has been the goal of Peter Bryanton’s department and Revitalization to get owner occupied in the Thompsonville district. It is highly not owner occupied at the present time.
Chairman Duren asked for input from the public.
Chairman Duren read a letter from the Chairman of the Enfield Revitalization and Strategy Committee, Darrin LaMore, stating they feel this text amendment will allow the P&Z the flexibility it needs in the future to allow for growth and positive development.
Thomas Froment, 19 Nancy Drive, stated the text was being changed because there was an existing lot that was 9,775 square feet. He supports and worked with the Voices of Thompsonville and Peter Bryanton’s office and the ERSC in coming up with a concept that would be good for Thompsonville and the people of Enfield which is owner occupied. He stated dense building is something that was looked at as not a good idea in the past but some dense housing in today’s market done with the special permit leaving the Planning and Zoning Commission with the full right of authority to say yes or no is something they feel will enhance their project. They are in favor of and they are looking to do what the Voices of Thompsonville and the ERSC have been looking for.
Commissioner Longhi asked how Mr. Giner came up with the size of the 4,500 square feet. Was that figured out for the entire block? Mr. Giner stated we said let’s try an increment of 500. Those orange lots shown on the map would be able to be created with the 4,500 square feet. Commissioner Longhi stated it does make it so everybody in that area would then comply. Mr. Giner stated that is right. There may be some that are under 4,500 square feet and he pointed out one that is 3,200 square feet. They felt the 4,500 square feet was a round measure that they could work with.
Commissioner Sarno asked if the attorney has looked at this and approved the language. Mr. Giner stated the attorney normally would get it when it is adopted and let Mr. Giner know if there are any problems with it. The Town Attorney’s Office is the first one it is sent to before it is published to make sure that any procedural matters or any typos are taken out.
Chairman Duren closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to approve XZA#10-06 – Town of Enfield Planning Department Initiative for a proposed text amendment to the Enfield Zoning Regulations, Table 4.10 and Table 5.10; Sections 3.20.2 and 4.30.21 to allow the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission to reduce minimum lot sizes in the Thompsonville Village Center District under certain circumstances by Special Permit. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Gregory and Dumont voting.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SAN#1478 – Approval of Type “C” replacement signage including internally lit signs for an existing gas station located at 600 Enfield Street in a Business Local (BL) District within the Enfield Street Design Overlay District, Map 32, Lot 8, Christopher Algoo, Applicant; Troiano Realty Corp., Owner.
Christopher Algoo, 966 Silas Deane Highway, Wethersfield, Connecticut, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated they are reopening the gas station at 600 Enfield Street and it is going to take a new brand. It was formerly EXXON and now it is going to be Sunoco. They are just replacing the sign that was there before. It will become a Sunoco sign.
Chairman Duren stated Mr. Alsbaugh has seen this but because it is a type “C” sign, it needs the Commission’s approval. He read the memo from Roger regarding this sign dated March 19, 2010.
Commissioner Longhi noted it is the same sign but it is going to change from EXXON to Sunoco. Mr. Algoo stated it is not the exact same sign. They took the other sign down and are replacing it with this sign. It will be in the same location.
Chairman Duren stated it is good to see the business reopening. The ordinances require air and lavatories for gas stations. Mr. Giner questioned if that was the building department’s purview or is it this Commission’s. Chairman Duren stated it is up to this Commission. He noted that is one of the only stations in town that has free air. The zoning regulations of the Town of Enfield include air and lavatories for gas stations.
Mr. Giner stated the state regulates that you have to provide free air.
Mr. Giner read the regulations for the BR District and all other zones on page 47 which address the requirements of air and lavatories for gas stations.
Chairman Duren was in a certain gas station and they did not have free air. He turned the matter over to the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve SAN#1478, approval of Type “C” replacement signage including internally lit signs for an existing gas station located at 600 Enfield Street in a Business Local (BL) District within the Enfield Street Design Overlay District. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Gregory and Dumont voting.
b. SPR#1493 – Request for a sidewalk canopy between an existing medical building and mobile MRI unit located in a Business Professional (BP) District at 148 Hazard Avenue, Map 65, Lot 90, The Awning Place, Inc., Applicant; Johnson Memorial Corporation, Owner.
The applicant was not present for this application.
Mr. Giner presented a colored rendering of what they want to do. They have a mobile MRI unit which is located in the parking lot. The Commission got a copy of a site plan that shows where the mobile MRI is. As you go in, it is behind that first building on the east side of the drive. There’s a mobile MRI that gets parked there from time to time and they have a sidewalk that leads to it. They want to have a covering so that people are somewhat protected.
Chairman Duren asked what building is this on. Mr. Giner stated it is the first building on the left hand side. He pointed out the location on the map. The building is on the left hand side and you have to drive around. The only way you see this would be coming from the east.
Commissioner Longhi asked if Mr. Giner has the full site plan. Mr. Giner had only what they submitted and he said all they wanted was to install a canopy. Commissioner Longhi stated according to the picture, it looks like the canopy is taking up four parking spaces and then the unit is there. She questioned how many parking spaces are required and shouldn’t the Commission be thinking about that. She would be concerned if they are taking four spots for the canopy and the unit is taking up three or four spots and she questioned how much parking is available for that building. Commissioner Longhi also noted it looks like it is a handicapped parking area.
Mr. Giner stated they have to provide the proper amount of parking. The MRI unit has been there for a while. The MRI unit is blocking those four spaces anyway. Commissioner Longhi stated the spaces look like they are handicapped. Mr. Giner stated a building official would have to make sure that they have adequate numbers of handicapped parking spaces. Commissioner Longhi felt the Commission should wait and find out about the parking.
Commissioner Gregory stated the way you would enter that MRI is by going through the building. Most of the time when you go there, you have to register and you go through the building and when you go through the building, that is where you are going to meet up with that canopy to get to the back. All the parking is in the front of that building.
Commissioner Longhi stated she has actually parked in the back. She would be concerned about the handicapped spot.
Chairman Duren asked if the Traffic Safety Officer is in charge of handicapped parking. Mr. Giner stated the building official and building code regulates the number of handicapped spaces. Chairman Duren stated the pavement by the MRI is clearly marked and ramped.
Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to table action on SPR#1493. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Dumont and Gregory voting.
Chairman Duren directed Mr. Giner to find out about the handicapped spaces.
Mr. Giner stated the Fire Marshal has no problem with the MRI and the canopy. Chairman Duren stated there are handicapped regulations and they may want to make provisions for the handicapped parking elsewhere on the site.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Request by Robert R. Keenan of New Stream Capital for an informal discussion on the Mayfield Park project off North Maple Street.
Robert Keenan, 33 Ridgeway Road, Easton, Connecticut, appeared before the Commission for an informal discussion on the Mayfield Park project off North Maple Street. He handed out the original site plan to the Commission
Mr. Keenan stated he is with New Stream Capital. He wanted to spend a few minutes giving the Commission a history of the project. He introduced two specialists in senior housing, Matthew Witlock of Richard Ellis, and John Horton of Speech Associates who is a specialist in traditional market rate housing.
Mr. Keenan stated the original plan as approved by the Town of Enfield was for 69 acres with 115 cottage style condominiums and a central services building with 44 assisted living apartments. Those had the flexibility of a for sale or rental.
Mr. Keenan stated in November, 2006, New Stream funded a short-term bridge loan to M & J Developers to acquire the land and construct horizontal improvements for Phase 1, 46 cottage units. He pointed to the diagram he presented to the Commission and stated the area that is not hatched includes the core zone improvements he is referring to. There is the circular drive and the first coat of pavement, sewer, and all utilities for that rear section. As the site currently stands, that is what is in place.
Chairman Duren thought the Commission was told that the water and utilities were in in all areas. The fire marshal went out and checked the hydrants and they were active.
Mr. Keenan stated in 2007 the housing market softened dramatically. M & J was unable to obtain traditional construction financing which was to be the New Stream repayment. New Stream was intended to be a short term bridge facility for this asset. In December 2008, it is his understanding that the project approvals did expire and they would have had to come before this Commission to reinstate those. At that point in time, there was not a decision to go into the ground so they didn’t want to come before the Commission with something they were not going to go forward with.
Mr. Keenan stated in November, 2009, New Stream obtained title to this asset through a foreclosure. As it stands right now, the asset is wholly owned by New Stream.
Mr. Keenan stated he wanted to introduce himself and he noted this is a project that is halfway through or less. His background is one of working out restructures. He spent a majority of his career doing real estate. His function for New Stream is to make the best determination as to how to recoup the most dollars for the asset but unlike a bank, they have a little more flexibility. He has worked for many banks where their charge is to sell the asset at all costs where he is given the opportunity to grab experts in the field and make the determination of what is the best direction to now take the asset. One of the things he wanted to do was to spend a few minutes with the Commission and find out where their thoughts were on the original entitlements, what their hot buttons are and get some feedback from the Commission. Mr. Keenan noted there have been dramatic changes in market conditions across all senior housing. His experts in the field indicate to him that the market has changed completely and definitely changed in the senior housing area. He would like to get a sense of the town’s goals, flexibility and seeing where they might be able to take this project. It could end up being a disposition and the Commission would have a developer before them or it could be a joint venture.
Mr. Keenan stated there are three alternatives to the assets. The first is to go back and revisit the existing entitlements as is and put them before the Commission. The second is to scrap the prior plan and explore market rate residential options. The third is to consider a plan which is a hybrid of those two plans. One of the things that they are sensitive to is the fact that a significant amount of money has gone into the infrastructure so it drives you toward utilizing that.
Mr. Keenan stated the normal zoning is R-44 and the existing infrastructure wouldn’t sit very well for that as it is designed for cottages and cluster housing. He wanted to get a feel for the Commission’s feeling about cluster housing, market rate housing, and what the hot buttons are for the original entitlements.
Chairman Duren stated the Commission had talked about looking at the number of senior housing because they realized the market was going south on that. The Commission decided to let the market handle it rather than rezoning it. Chairman Duren talked to Mr. Giner about how to handle this property since the utilities were in. Chairman Duren would like to hear what could be done with this property. He has no idea. The electric lines are underground and probably stubbed and the water and sewers are stubbed.
Mr. Keenan stated one of the hot buttons that arose was to do market rate housing and there were concerns about the school children.
Commissioner Ballard stated her feeling is that she doesn’t think it is up to the Commission to tell Mr. Keenan what to do with the property. It is a matter of them deciding what they want to put in and where the lines are. Work up some plans and then come before the Commission.
Chairman Duren stated you have a good community. You have Massachusetts on the other side and you have a gas station, a market and a barber shop. Since the utilities are in, he doesn’t know what could be done.
Mr. Keenan stated the market is driving a lot of this.
Commissioner Longhi stated she was interested in knowing what ideas they had for the hybrid because it is not this Commission’s decision but she would be interested in hearing something new. It might not be something the Commission might think of but they may have some good ideas.
Mr. Keenan stated in terms of the hybrid, you might be looking at creating some senior housing but also some market rate housing with it.
Mr. Keenan stated he was told to take a look at the market conditions and determine what the demand is. You don’t want to see a project get started and half way through determine it was an ill conceived idea.
Chairman Duren stated this site abuts condominiums.
Commissioner Sarno stated she would like to see something along the lines of the original plan. She knows the 55 and over market has just crashed. However, we do not in Enfield have a lot of affordable senior housing. She would like to see something along these lines and would be open to some senior and some residential. There was a big opposition from the condos that were abutting originally but the Commission got past that and everybody seemed to be happy. Commissioner Sarno was not sure she would be in favor of all residential. She would like to see something that stays within the approved plans. She noted the town in general is very interested in some affordable senior housing.
Matthew Whitlock stated he is a partner with C.D. Richard Ellis in the senior housing division. They are a nationwide platform and his office is in Boston at 111 Huntington Avenue. Mr. Keenan contacted him about two years ago when the foreclosure proceedings had been initiated. He asked him to look at the site from a feasibility standpoint and get his comments relative to the market on a macroeconomic basis and also his thoughts relative to the site itself. Mr. Whitlock noted that Rob Keenan and his team have taken a proactive approach since the day he met him with respect to wanting to know all the possible options and what the potential market value is of the site.
Mr. Whitlock stated in 2007 there was approximately $6 billion worth of transactions, a combination of existing buildings and land being sold for the purpose of senior housing. In 2008 that was down to $1.6 billion. This year it is under $1 billion. So there’s been a pretty dramatic fall off. This project was conceived as a fee ownership condominium of 115 units with a centralized building with assisted living.
Mr. Whitlock stated in the fourth quarter of 2008 independent living or active 55 and over housing – the door was shut. Projects that were under development have already run into financial troubles and foreclosure. Fortunately for the industry, after Christmas and the holidays of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009, there was a rejuvenation of demand for assisted living. Since the first quarter of 2009 to the present there has been a stabilization of assisted living and other need based forms of senior housing. Independent living, specifically rental housing and fee based ownership, has been the hardest hit. When Mr. Keenan brought him out to the site, he showed him where the utilities had been put in and where roads had been put through. It was his opinion that a significant amount of infrastructure would be compromised if multiple dwellings were not put in. His comments are there may be some viability for the development of assisted living.
Mr. Whitlock stated one of the things that is in part really hampering the independent congregate living is the lack of available financing.
Mr. Keenan stated they are trying to identify what can be financed and ultimately rented and or purchased by consumers.
Mr. Whitlock stated he thinks the infrastructure is in place and it would be a shame if it had to be torn up. Having said that, he noted the end use as conceived originally is not a viable option currently.
Commissioner Sarno asked if they own the property. Mr. Keenan stated they own the property through a foreclosure.
Jim Coughlin, the CEO of the North Bridge Companies, stated they are a senior housing advisory firm. His partner Wendy is the President. They are a senior housing advisory firm and also an owner operator of assisted living facilities. Mr. Keenan contacted them to look at the site solely focused on the senior housing. He noted communities are looking at the patchwork approach to senior housing where there are some intergenerational opportunities and making it more of a community based center. He thinks one of the things they were trying to ascertain from today is whether that is a possibility. The site is of such a scale that it is very hard to consume with all fifty-five and over housing in today’s market. It really is going to take an approach of multiple different layers.
Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if he saw any restrictions.
Mr. Giner stated the regulations would need some tweaking. Right now all we do have to work with is what is there which is the type of continuing care assisted living. The regulations were changed over ten years ago and the state regulations have changed and the attractiveness of having this type of facility changed. American Inn had built a successful model in Massachusetts and it was their hope to replicate it in Connecticut but the market changed and the state regulations changed with respect to assisted living facilities.
Mr. Giner stated there is a special development district floating zone that if you meet certain criteria you can come in pretty much with your own project and overlay that. The criteria under the commercial zones is you have to have an existing building. This was used successfully at the time for Bernie’s. That building had been empty for years and it met the criteria of being 10,000 square feet or more. They came in with a mixed use concept where they wanted to do retail, industrial and corporate offices. The Commission allowed them to come in with a plan and that became the regulations for that parcel. This would be a big enough parcel and if you wanted to consider a floating zone concept or special development district concept, you could do so.
Commissioner Sarno stated the Sisters are doing well with their rental apartments.
Commissioner Longhi stated the Commissioners are all here for the betterment of Enfield and she thinks we’re trying to redo some of the zones for the benefit of the community. She would think the Commission would be open to ideas.
Commissioner Ladd stated the Commission doesn’t want that dust bowl there any longer than necessary.
Chairman Duren stated the Commission has talked about duplexes and he asked if this would be a place for such housing. Mr. Giner stated in the original proposal, the cottages went up to three units. There were duplexes and triplexes. Some discussion followed regarding the original proposal.
Mr. Giner stated it was always a requirement of the regulations that there be a central services building for assisted living.
Commissioner Ladd suggested they come up with a concept and the Commission can see how it fits in with their zoning requirements.
Commissioner Ballard stated the Commission is open to anything.
Chairman Duren noted the property is a border area to Longmeadow. Commissioner Sarno stated if you put the right development up, you can grab people from both Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Mr. Keenan stated he appreciates the Board’s time. Chairman Duren stated he is glad to see some activity there.
b. Report from Policy Review Committee
Commissioner Ballard stated she and Commissioner Longhi have done the first draft of the policy. What they want is for the Commissioners to look at it and to add to it or take things away if they don’t think things should be in there. She noted it is more for the applicant. After the next meeting and after they have made their additions, they will meet with Joe, Marie and Brian and see what they want to put in.
Chairman Duren requested that the Commissioners take home this Policy Book and review it for the next meeting.
b. Report from Signage Policy Review Committee
c. Discussion of Tag Sale Regulations
Commissioner Longhi stated the plan is to do signage and tag sales together.
d. Discussion of Draft Plan of Conservation and Development
Chairman Duren asked about a date for the public hearing. The plans are to have a joint hearing on the Plan of Conservation and Development with the Town Council. Mr. Giner proposed Wednesday, May 19, or Thursday, May 20, the regular meeting. The budget will be finished by May 18. Chairman Duren stated Mr. Giner should try to get a couple of dates from the Town Council and the Commission will go from there.
Mr. Giner asked about the Commission’s preference regarding May 19 or 20. Chairman Duren and Commissioner Longhi felt it would depend on what is on the agenda for May 20.
Chairman Duren asked about procedure and whether after the hearing, the Council has to vote on it. Mr. Giner stated they have to submit a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission recommending approval or changes or denial. Chairman Duren asked if a meeting is needed to have give and take between the two boards. Mr. Giner recommended having the hearing and seeing what the comments are. If the Council believes that would be helpful or if they have questions or issues, perhaps having such a meeting would be a good idea. The Commission is not under any kind of time crunch. They can hold one hearing, multiple hearings or say we need to talk and hold another hearing if substantial changes are made. Chairman Duren stated the Commission will have the hearing and if they have problems, the Commission and the Council will have to sit down face to face.
Commissioner Longhi asked if the March 30th meeting on the Plan of Conservation and Development was televised. Mr. Giner stated not live but it is on the TV schedule.
Commissioner Ladd asked what the Commission’s thoughts are regarding a design review committee because the town is getting some buildings like the hotel on Hazard Avenue, the Hampton Inn. It is not a pretty building. The Commission didn’t require a lot of things that they probably should have. Commissioner Ladd felt maybe we need a design review committee.
Mr. Giner stated with a design review committee, you really need to have some design review guidelines. Part of what happens is you need a committee that is qualified to review design. He stated when he worked in Westport, they had a design review committee and their recommendations were not binding on the Planning and Zoning. They encouraged people to go before them and there was give and take of the design professionals and the applicants. Commissioner Ladd stated he gets feedback from different people in town saying why did you let them put up that ugly building.
Mr. Giner stated if you have such a committee, you have to have people that are qualified to review the design and comment on it. Tastes are very difficult to regulate. Following further discussion, Commissioner Longhi stated there are design standards for Thompsonville. Commissioner Ladd is thinking he would like to have design standards for the entire town. Commissioner Ladd stated that is his position. He noted you go to other towns in the state and you see McDonald’s. Enfield has a rubber stamp McDonald’s but other towns have restaurants that look like an inn. Further discussion followed.
Chairman Duren gave a brief history of the McDonald’s in Enfield and how the Commission handled their requests.
Mr. Giner stated staff will take direction from the Commission. If the Commission wants him to look into what other towns are doing, he will do so. He noted Simsbury has design guidelines for their downtown. Commissioner Ladd saw a need to set some kind of a standard.
e. Zoning Enforcement Procedures
Commissioner Ballard stated while she and Commissioner Longhi were doing the Policy Book, they decided to review the Standard Zoning Enforcement Procedures because there were a number of things in it that bothered them. She brought up .20 in the Town Charter entitled Enforcement and Administration. It states: The Commission shall designate the individual who shall serve as the Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) who shall be responsible to the Commission. Commissioner Ballard stated she and Commissioner Longhi went through this Standard Zoning Enforcement Procedures document and she asked a couple of the Commissioners to make sure that they read this and if they had any corrections to put them in.
Commissioner Ballard stated the document mentions fines and it goes back and forth about them. Commissioner Longhi stated on page 15 it says the towns to seek injunctions or fines which was contradictory to each other.
Mr. Giner stated on fines there are two different concepts. The town doesn’t have fines in a sense that they can write citations. The statutes do provide and the town can go after civil fines through the Town Attorney’s Office. If the Zoning Enforcement Officer issues a cease and desist order, Mr. Giner stated we can’t go out and say you are going to be fined $75 per day for every day you are in violation. However, if the Town Attorney is requested to take a person to court, the statutes provide for civil fines that the town can collect so people are subject to fines. They would have to be court ordered fines. The second type of fines are the fines you can issue with citations.
Chairman Duren suggested reviewing the document page by page and making changes. Chairman Duren noted regarding the Zoning Enforcement Officer, the job description also says “serve as the designated agent of the Town’s P&Z in all enforcement action, works under the general supervision of the Director of Planning and Community Development and conducts inspections as required by P&Z and ZBA.”
The Commission had a discussion on the Standard Zoning Enforcement Procedures and made the following changes:
On page 3, under Goals, 1.2, the second paragraph, third paragraph and fourth paragraph should read “The Zoning Enforcement Officer” instead of the Planning and Zoning Department.
On page 3, under Goals, 1.2, paragraph four should have this addition at the end of the paragraph: “If done by the Director of Planning, any deviation should be reported at the next Planning and Zoning Meeting.”
On page 4, under 1.3 Enforcement Team it should read as follows: “The Zoning Enforcement Office has the primary responsibility for zoning enforcement. The Director shall also have the authority, upon the request of the Zoning Enforcement Officer, to assign specific tasks to other Department Staff. The Commission places emphasis on inter-departmental cooperation wherever possible. When appropriate, a suitable authority shall be contacted and meetings shall be conducted as necessary to carry out joint enforcement efforts.”
On page 4, Section 2.1, first paragraph, the Director of Planning should read the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
On page 5, Section 2.6, first and second sentences, the word “may” shall be changed to “shall.”
On page 6, the first sentence shall read the Planning and Zoning Commission rather than the Planning and Zoning Department.
On page 6, under B. Conditions, the first sentence should read: “A Consent and Abatement Order is the tool that may be utilized when a formal abeyance is offered by the Planning and Zoning Commission.”
On page 9, Appendix “A”, the letter should be signed: INSERT ZEO NAME and INSERT ZEO TITLE.
On page 11, Appendix “B”, the second paragraph of the letter should read: On DATE, the Zoning Enforcement Officer mailed you a Notice of Violation…
On page 12, the letter should be signed INSERT ZEO NAME and INSERT ZEO TITLE.
On page 14, number 3. should read: The Zoning Enforcement Officer shall have the authority… (Mr. Giner will check this language with the Town Attorney’s Office.)
On page 14, number 4. should read: If the Town Attorney seeks an injunction… (Mr. Giner will check this language with the Town Attorney’s Office.)
On page 14, number 5, should read: The Town Attorney may file a copy of this Consent and Abatement Order…(Mr. Giner will check this language with the Town Attorney’s Office.)
On page 14, it should read: By: Its Duly Authorized Zoning Enforcement Official.
Mr. Giner will make the above revisions and resubmit the document to the Commission.
Applications to be Received
The following applications were received:
Public Hearings: NONE
Site Plans:
XSPR10-05 – Exempt Site Plan review for a change of use from an existing industrial building to a Government Office/Facility at 1 Pearson Way in an Industrial-1 District, Map 75, Lot #2, Housing Authority of the Town of Enfield, Applicant; Platinum Finance, LLC, Owners.
This application is recommended for the April 15, 2010 meeting. Chairman Duren requested a response from Ray Warren or his Commission. Mr. Giner stated this is a site plan review and it is allowed as of right. Chairman Duren stated this is taking an industrial building that pays taxes and putting it into a public building. The Shapiro Report quotes that the public building shouldn’t be pulled from downtown and Chairman Duren suggested maybe we can put one in downtown. Chairman Duren would like other people’s opinions as he doesn’t like to see an industrial building going into a public building and being taken off the tax rolls.
SAN#1478 – Approval of type “C” replacement signage including internally lit signs for an existing gas station located at 600 Enfield Street in a Business Local (BL) District within the Enfield Street Design Overlay District, Map 32, Lot 8, Christopher Algoo, applicant; Troiano Realty Corp., Owner.
This application is on tonight’s agenda.
SPR#1493 – Request for a sidewalk canopy between an existing medical building and mobile MRI unit located in a Business Professional (BP) District at 148 Hazard Avenue, Map 65, Lot 90, The Awning Place, Inc., Applicant; Johnson Memorial Corporation, Owner.
This application is on tonight’s agenda.
SPR#1492 – Request for administrative site plan approval for minor modifications consisting of relocated doors and windows on the front façade for the Old Navy store in the Enfield Commons Shopping Plaza, 25 Hazard Avenue, in a BR District, Map 45, Lot 8; Old Navy, Applicant; Galileo Enfield Commons LLC, Owner.
Mr. Giner stated Old Navy wants to relocate its doors and windows. Chairman Duren asked what the Commission wants to do.
The Commission decided rather than an administrative approval that they would like to see this application.
SPR#1494 – Request for Administrative Site Plan Approval for minor modifications consisting of replacement and relocation of doors and windows on the north and west facades of an existing shopping plaza located at 604 Enfield Street in a BL District, Map 32, Lot 7, Enfield Retail Properties, LLC, Owner/applicant.
Mr. Giner stated they are just relocating doors and windows in the back.
The Commission decided rather than an administrative approval that they would like to see this application.
OTHER BUSINESS
Proposed Zone Change from Industrial 1 to Industrial 2 – 38 Post Office Road.
Mr. Giner brought up a possible zone change on Post Office Road. Commissioner Longhi recused herself from this discussion.
Mr. Giner stated the attorney had asked about the possibility of changing the property to I-2. This came in as a request for a second motor vehicle license on an existing I-1 property. The history of it is that currently it is a nonconforming use on the lot. It has a construction business on it under I-1 which is nonconforming. There is also an existing automotive dealers’ license which is also not allowed under I-1 but is allowed under I-2.
Chairman Duren requested that Mr. Giner bring this application in for a public hearing. Mr. Giner stated the other option is to change the text. They want to do a second license at the same facility that was approved for the first license in 1966. This would be a new company and they want to do wholesale of used trailers. Since it is a nonconforming use, the Town Attorney was asked if it was an expansion of a nonconforming use. It fits in but because it is not permitted in the zone it could raise the issue of being an expansion of a nonconforming use. An I-2 zone would bring both the existing car license as well as the construction use into conformance and allow the applicants to come in and apply for a second license.
Mr. Giner showed a map of the area of the proposed zone change.
The area is abutted by I-91 and the surrounding area is all industrial. Mr. Giner has been back and forth between the Town Attorney and their attorney, Tom Fahey, about how best to deal with the situation. The suggestion was a zone change to I-2 would bring it into conformance with what’s actually been there for over forty years. It wouldn’t be spot zoning because there are different variations of Industrial.
A public hearing will be scheduled for April 15, 2010 for a possible zone change to I-2 at 38 Post Office Road.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Ballard made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Peter Falk, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr |