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
MAY 6, 2010
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, May 6, 2010, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Charles Duren called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. following the Aquifer Protection Agency meeting.
PRESENT: Charles Duren, Chairman
Elizabeth Ballard
Peter Falk
Charles Ladd
Nicles Lefakis
Lori Longhi
Kathleen Sarno
Michael Dumont, Voting Alternate
Ronald Gregory, Alternate
Alan Drinan, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: José Giner, AICP, Director of Planning
MINUTES
a. April 15, 2010 Regular Meeting
Commissioner Ballard made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Falk, to approve the Minutes of April 15, 2010. Commissioner Drinan corrected the spelling of McLeod on page one. The minutes, as amended, were approved by a 6 – 0 – 1 vote. Commissioner Falk abstained.
STAFF COMMENTS
a. Town Attorney (in writing)
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer (in writing)
Chairman Duren stated the Zoning Enforcement Officer sent two letters to the Commission. The first is on the desk tonight. There is a potential problem that may arise on the Weymouth School Road rebuilding. The Zoning Enforcement Officer is looking for guidance from the Commission. A gentleman has an RV that is behind the front line of the house as he is required to do. However, if they put up the silt fencing, he will not be able to get his RV out and he wants to know if he can park it in his driveway. If he parks it in his driveway, it is going to be in front of the house. The Zoning Enforcement Officer wants to know if the Commission will allow people to do this type of thing while the construction is going on.
Commissioner Ladd felt a temporary permit seems to be a good solution because it is not something that a land owner can normally deal with. It is an exception. The town is ripping up the road in front of the property.
Ms. Higley stated the problem is the gentleman was cited by her about a year ago and she is sure that the person that complained will complain again. Chairman Duren stated the Commission doesn’t want a variance because then it goes with the property forever. Chairman Duren saw a need to help the people out in this area.
Commissioner Ladd made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Longhi, to allow the Zoning Enforcement Officer to approve a temporary permit for any resident who is affected by the construction project with regard to the parking of recreational and trailer park vehicles for the duration of the project. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
Chairman Duren brought up the staging of construction materials that has gone on in several places. There is a memo from the Zoning Enforcement Officer regarding staging areas and Chairman Duren read that memo. He noted there is also a letter from Ray Warren that states staging can be a problem. Chairman Duren stated staging can cause problems such as those that occurred over by the Senior Center.
Ms. Higley stated that there is no set procedure on how to choose a staging area. There doesn’t seem to be a set procedure in place for going to one agency, department or one person when it doesn’t come before the Commission or before Wetlands. They don’t pull a permit from one of the Commissions. They just go and rent a spot from someone. They will get permission from a property owner and put their staging area there. Usually it is on the job that they are working on but sometimes it’s in the general area. Ms. Higley stated Pearl Street really wasn’t a good fit for a staging area. There is a lot of walking traffic and a lot of disruption to the businesses. Mr. Giner and Ms. Higley have heard about a couple of other staging areas that they were unaware of. Ms. Higley stated they are trying to set up a procedure and eventually she would like to see it in the zoning regulations that if there is a need for a construction site, it has to be run past the Zoning Enforcement Officer if the Commission chooses her. If they don’t choose her, then it has to come to the Commission for approval. Ms. Higley felt it should be overseen by someone.
Commissioner Longhi stated most of the problems we have concern town projects. If the Commission spends months and months getting plans together, the staging areas should be on the plans before the project goes out to bid because they are town projects. It seems as though if it is the water company or a road job, it starts with the town’s own plans. Staging areas usually run the length of the job and it should be delineated on the plans where it is supposed to be.
Commissioner Longhi stated she thinks that the Commission will be putting the Zoning Enforcement Officer in an awkward position because she has a family member in construction. She thinks that the Commission should have it come back to them. Commissioner Longhi stated if there is a conflict, she can recuse herself but the Zoning Enforcement Officer can’t recuse herself. The Commission would be placing the Zoning Enforcement Officer in a very strange situation. Ms. Higley stated her husband is a one-man operation for sewers.
Chairman Duren stated he would prefer to have them come before the Commission or Wetlands if the staging area is not on the plans. Chairman Duren stated the staging area really should be on the plans.
Ms. Higley stated when things go out from the town for bidding, there is nothing in there to show a staging area. Chairman Duren stated the Zoning Enforcement Officer can issue a cease and desist as happened over at the old Senior Center. Chairman Duren stated if it’s an error and the contractor needs an approval, he can get four Commissioners together for a meeting and he needs twenty-four hours. Chairman Duren was not in favor of putting the burden on the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Ms. Higley stated the Commission might want to mention this to the Assistant Town Attorney, Maria Elsden.
Chairman Duren stated maybe the Commission should have something in the regulations that addresses the staging area.
Commissioner Longhi stated there is a need for staging areas. Anybody in construction knows they are part of the job. If it is not listed when you take out the plans, then you have to go and find one. But you have to follow the town’s regulations when you go to find one. She doesn’t see it as a huge problem. She stated the person should show where they would like to put the staging area and the reasons why they want to have it and if it is okay with the Commission. Mr. Giner stated the length of time and the hours of operation are needed.
Commissioner Longhi noted that staging areas sometimes move with the job as the job goes down the road.
Mr. Giner will check to see if any towns have any such regulations. Otherwise, he will come up with standards for the town.
Commissioner Longhi discussed particular projects like the Suffield Bridge and their staging areas. It is pretty much delineated what they do.
Ms. Higley stated Piya Hawkes has been the one doing it and he comes from the state. This is why we don’t have a procedure in place because when he was with the state on large projects, they would come in and he would say that’s a good spot. When he came to the town, that is what he had been doing and apparently it had been working up to a certain point. Ms. Higley stated we as a town have to hold ourselves to a higher standard and we want to set the example.
Commissioner Sarno asked why don’t the applicants know that the staging is part of the project and that they have to supply information about where the staging area is going to be. Further on in the project as they move, they should have their staging areas already set up to where they are going to go next. Ms. Higley stated it is not in the verbiage when a project goes out to bid.
Mr. Giner stated when they did various Road 2000 projects, they didn’t come before the Commission for specific approvals. This is when a staging area pops up and someone calls to ask what is going on. He stated perhaps they need to be more involved in the preconstruction process and they probably need to be involved up front.
Commissioner Longhi stated there usually isn’t a problem with private developments because their staging areas are on the plans. When doing the town jobs, someone has to pick a spot and state this is where the staging area is.
Ms. Higley stated it should be in the bid package.
Commissioner Longhi stated it is an easy solution. At this point, have them come to the Commission if they have to have a staging area.
Ms. Higley stated if it is in the bid package, as soon as the bid package is awarded, it could be said that they have one to two months to go before the Commission to show their staging area.
Chairman Duren brought up the High Street area and he asked how that was handled. Commissioner Longhi stated the Commission made them move and then they just picked up and went some place else. The next place didn’t complain.
Chairman Duren asked how the Commission got a particular staging problem. Mr. Giner stated there was a complaint and the town took the material out. Mr. Giner stated they can go to ZBA and appeal a cease and desist order.
Mr. Giner stated the way to handle staging areas is for the Commission to get them ahead of time and, hopefully, they would be put on the Commission’s agenda for approval. There will be standards and regulations that will guide the applicant so that it is not arbitrary.
Commissioner Longhi stated it is easy for Piya Hawkes when he is planning the job to just pick a spot and put it on the plans. The Commission would then not have any say in it because it is delineated on a town spot. Ms. Higley stated Piya doesn’t pick town spots. He lets the people go rent property. Mr. Giner stated the problem comes when the contractor goes out on his own. He thinks what we are looking for is some way of controlling the staging area so that if a complaint is received, it can be handled in the least disruptive manner possible.
Chairman Duren asked what is the procedure to get them in here. Ms. Higley stated in the bid verbiage. If they are awarded the bid, they would have to submit to the Planning and Zoning Commission within x amount of days their proposed staging area. It would come through Finance and the Town Manager but the Commission can request it.
Chairman Duren stated the procedure to get this done is what the Commission is after. The suggestion is to request the Town Manager have that put in the bid procedures.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Longhi, that the Commission request the Town Manager to change the bid verbiage to require a successful bidder to submit all details of the staging area they will be using including the duration to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review before the job is started. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
Commissioner Sarno asked what is a mobile tanning unit. Ms. Higley stated it is spray tanning done on the recipient’s premises. The person calls her, she comes to the home and the spray tanning is done.
c. Director of Planning
Mr. Giner reminded the Commission of a land use academy at Storrs on Saturday, May 22, 2010, from 8:30 to 3:30. Commissioner Dumont has signed up for it and if anyone else is interested in attending, they should contact Mr. Giner.
Mr. Giner stated he has been trying to firm up a date for the Plan of Conservation hearing. June 2 is not a good date because that night there is a Rotary meeting where some of the participants will be attending. Following some discussion on a particular date, the consensus was to have the hearing at the Commission’s Regular Meeting date on June 3. Chairman Duren requested that Mr. Giner send everyone a memo reminding them of this public hearing.
Mr. Giner stated he administratively approved one helicopter landing during the Fourth of July celebration this year. Life Star is not going to make it but the National Guard helicopter will.
Commissioner Ballard asked if another Commission wants a copy of the plans that the Commission gets, how do they go about getting it. Mr. Giner stated the regulations state who gets copies. The ERSC is a formal referral. It would either be a formal referral or it should be put into the regulations. He noted right now applicants have to provide fourteen copies of the plans.
Commissioner Longhi stated for the Conservation Commission, if they go to Wetlands, they are in an advisory capacity and if they don’t get copies of the plans to review, they can’t do anything. Mr. Giner stated it is up to each commission to decide who gets copies. It can be put in the bylaws. It is not whoever asks for one. Commissioner Longhi asked if the Conservation Commission could get notification that these things are there so that they know what is coming in. Commissioner Longhi would like the Conservation Commission added to those who receive the correspondence. Mr. Giner stated they should be getting everything. Mr. Giner will send them agendas and applications to be received and other appropriate material.
Chairman Duren asked Karen LaPlante what would help her commission. Ms. LaPlante stated at a minimum, a notification of what is going on. She stated Wetlands gave them the impression that they wanted the Conservation Commission to put this in their regulations so that they become another step in the process. She didn’t think that was a good solution. She doesn’t want to slow down the process but she does want to participate in the process as an advisory board. Ms. LaPlante stated there are certain things that they want to look at such as the impacts on the Scantic River, the Connecticut River and farming issues. Chairman Duren asked that the Planning Office send the Conservation Commission the agendas.
Mr. Giner stated the question is whether they can send out a full set of plans. They currently don’t receive enough plans to go around for every department. Chairman Duren stated Wetlands has to act before this Commission does. He stated what Ms. LaPlante would need would be the plans that go to Wetlands. He added the ads always say that they are available in the Planning Office.
Commissioner Longhi stated we have a town. We have planning copy machines in the Engineering Department. If she comes in and wants one copy of something, why can’t the town pay for the copy for another board that is part of the town? Mr. Giner stated every commission has their own copying budget. Ms. LaPlante stated she doesn’t want to cost the town any more money either. She suggested this may be something that can be discussed further in a small meeting.
Chairman Duren asked if they can add one additional set of plans to Wetlands. Mr. Giner stated it is whatever the Commission’s desire is. If the Commission says get them a set of plans, he will do it.
Chairman Duren reiterated that Mr. Giner should get an extra set of plans from the applicant for Wetlands to give to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Giner stated the direction has to come from the Commission. People often asked why the Commission refers the plans to ERSC and it is because it is in the regulations.
Chairman Duren stated it is up to Mr. Giner. He is the head of the Wetlands. Mr. Giner stated he will be happy to send them a copy. Further discussion followed.
Commissioner Longhi stated she was reading the CRCOG material and she noticed that one town was doing additional things in industrial zones. Ellington is taking away the age restricted cluster housing and adopting new cluster housing. She questioned why this is occurring and she asked if this is a trend. In the industrial zone in West Hartford, they want to add additional uses. In Ellington they want to change their regulations to adopt a new cluster housing without age restrictions.
Commissioner Sarno stated it is because they are not selling. She believes if there is an existing subdivision like that with covenants for people fifty-five and over, every one of those people that live there have to agree to change it to a no age restriction. Mr. Giner stated unless the developers reserved the right.
Commissioner Longhi didn’t know how many towns were doing this and she asked if Mr. Giner could find this out from the Capitol Region Council of Governments. Mr. Giner stated a lot of towns were being requested to do this because a lot of developments were approved and not built. He stated the one in West Hartford, it appears that the whole industrial park is proposed as a mixed use. He hasn’t seen the details of the West Hartford ordinance but by special permit they would allow banks, retail or restaurants.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Karen LaPlante, 166 North Maple Street, stated there was not a public participation on the Aquifer Protection Agency agenda. She stated the minutes and the agendas don’t appear on the town web site and they don’t come through on the Q notify system either. The only way she realized there was an Aquifer Protection Agency meeting tonight was because it was on the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. Chairman Duren requested that Mr. Giner add public participation to the Aquifer Protection Agency agenda.
Ms. LaPlante stated the new updated map for the northern region was posted on the DEP web site. That was sometime in November. She doesn’t know what the regulations are regarding how many days the Agency has to approve, accept or adopt the map. The applicants to be grandfathered only have 180 days. If it is from December 1, the 180 days is going to run out at the end of May before the next Agency meeting. She thinks Mr. Giner is right. There seems to be six or eight properties that seem to need to register.
Mr. Giner stated the 180 days starts from the date the map is adopted. Ms. LaPlante asked how long before you adopt the map. She thought it was sixty days. Mr. Giner will look it up. Mr. Giner stated the town goes the extra mile and tries to notify everyone which is not a requirement of the regulations. Getting that information together took some time. Mr. Giner believes it is 180 days from the time the Commission adopts the map.
Chairman Duren asked that Mr. Giner handle the Aquifer Protection as soon as possible. Mr. Giner stated that is why the Commission was given the map today. The public hearing will be scheduled for either May 20 or June 3, 2010.
COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Duren stated most of the pamphlets and booklets were on the Commission’s table tonight. Correspondence also includes information from the Capitol Region Council of Governments, a memo from Commissioner Sarno giving the Minutes from the Enfield Revitalization and Strategy Committee, and ZBA actions. Correspondence also includes the Notice of Action from the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency dated April 20, 2010.
Commissioner Ladd stated Commissioner Drinan did not receive copies of the bond releases in his meeting packet.
BOND RELEASES
a. PH#2594 – Request by Tim Fortune for release of $2,500 Erosion and Sediment Control Bond for 4-lot subdivision off Steele Road.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to release the $2,500 Erosion and Sediment Control Bond for a 4-lot subdivision off Steele Road, PH#2594 as requested by Tim Fortune. Reference is made to a memo from John Cabibbo dated April 12, 2010 recommending release. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2693 – Special Use Permit to allow an elderly residential complex consisting of 96 units in five residential buildings along with two office buildings at 153 South Road on property zoned Residential-44 and Industrial-1, Map 55, Lots 80, 93 and 99; Enfield Properties, Applicant; Anthony Troiano, Jr., Alan K. Tracy; Frank J. Troiano and Anthony Spazzarini, Owners.
Commissioner Longhi recused herself from this application. Commissioner Dumont will participate in her absence.
Commissioner Longhi left the meeting at this time.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission has in their packet an updated application control worksheet. If you look at page 2, what you see is the exhibits that were received after the packets go out. Mr. Giner stated we agreed that he wouldn’t put them on the Commission’s desk. Mr. Giner does have copies of all of those. The Commission can either choose to look at them tonight or he can send them along in the next meeting packet.
Chairman Duren stated he would prefer to have the correspondence start with what is fresh and not what’s gone on before. He gave the example of there are two ART reports. He doesn’t need the first ART report. He doesn’t need the first fire department report. The second one is the most recent and the first has been corrected. It is a lot of extra work to go through. Mr. Giner stated this is the type of guidance he would like. He is sure everybody would be happy not to make all those copies. Commissioner Sarno stated there should be a copy of it somewhere. Mr. Giner stated what he tried to do was in orange highlight things that he did copy for the Commission. Maybe those first letters he can highlight in orange and say we have them here. If you see something in the final comments where you want to see what the initial comments were, they would be available and he would be happy to make copies of them.
Chairman Duren asked if Mr. Giner can certify that the signs were posted. Mr. Giner stated the Commission has an affidavit that is notarized by the applicant. Chairman Duren stated the Zoning Enforcement Officer used to go out and check them. There should be a note from her stating she has seen them. Chairman Duren noted the Commission had trouble with a previous applicant who wasn’t aware that he had to have the signs up or in a certain spot. Mr. Giner stated for the record Exhibit 3 is the receipt of deposit.
Frank Troiano, the Principal with Enfield Properties LLC, appeared before the Commission along with Attorney Thomas Fahey, David Ziaks, and Jack Kemper. Mr. Troiano stated Enfield Properties LLC has submitted an application for two office buildings along with five residential buildings consisting of 96 elderly units for rental use only on South Road. Mr. Troiano stated the Commission may recognize the name of Jack Kemper of Kemper Associates as he was the chosen architect for the home that was recently on Extreme Home Makeover in Suffield.
Mr. Troiano stated they have seen a need for affordable quality housing within Enfield for seniors. A viable option for seniors should not solely be to purchase a home. These rental units would have a high standard of living that cannot be found currently in town. The units would consist of one or two bedroom units. The units are not and will not be for purchase in the future. This is a deed restricted application. This development will be a substantial increase in the tax rolls for these parcels. Finally, and very significantly, there will be no added town expenses for this project moving forward. There will be no road maintenance, property upkeep or trash collection and also educational expenses will be null and void because it is a senior project.
Attorney Thomas Fahey stated he wanted to make a brief comment at the outset. The Commission will see during the course of their engineer’s presentation that the project has been designed bordering on Barrett Road and including a portion of Barrett Road up to the center line that they currently don’t own yet. They hope to own it if the Council abandons Barrett Road in accordance with their petition to abandon. The status of that is there was a question based on a previous Council meeting as to whether or not the Council was going to auction the property. That was raised by the Chairman at the last meeting. Attorney Fahey had a couple of conversations with the Town Attorney and informed him that the town didn’t have the power to auction that land for a couple of reasons. Number one is this is not a deeded road. There is no deed to the town of Enfield for Barrett Road. It is shown as Barrett Road on a subdivision map and its status is really as a right of access in favor of the public. Those types of interests in land cannot be sold by the town at municipal auction. Attorney Deneen did check that out and informed him last week that he agreed with Attorney Fahey’s interpretation. He indicated this to the Town Council. Where it was left is that the Council now is going to have a public hearing in accordance with the statutory format for the abandonment of roads so that anyone in the community that is interested will have an opportunity to speak on it. Attorney Fahey stated the people that live on Barrett Road in the residential subdivision are very interested in supporting this abandonment. After that public hearing, it will be up to the Council to vote whether they want to abandon the road.
Attorney Fahey stated they know that this Commission cannot act finally in terms of approving this application until the Barrett Road issue has been resolved. They stand ready in the event that the Town Council decides not to abandon it, to withdraw this application and refile without that piece of road in it. They feel pretty confident that there is much benefit to be gained from the abandonment of Barrett Road and they feel confident the Town Council will do that but they haven’t done it yet. The public hearing has not yet been set but Attorney Fahey did tell town officials the parameters of this Commission’s review and their timetable. He expects that they will have the public hearing set and the vote will take place forthwith after that public hearing. Attorney Fahey wanted to state where that stood up front and what their position was on it.
Attorney Fahey stated at this time Dave Ziaks will give the Commission the nuts and bolts of their presentation in terms of how it complies with the Commission’s regulations for a special permit for this type of privately owned non-subsidized 62 and over rental housing.
Dave Ziaks stated his firm, F. A. Hesketh Associates, prepared the site plan package that has been submitted with the application. The plans that they are referring to are the ones the Commission should have received in their packet dated revised through April 23, 2010.
Mr. Ziaks stated the property in question is lots 80, 93 and 99 also known as 153 South Road. There was a house on this property for many years that has been removed and its address was 153 South Road. That address will probably be carried over in some fashion once the addresses are assigned for the project if approved. Mr. Ziaks addressed Sheet MA1 which is the master plan for the site and contains all the zoning data, parking space tabulations and coverages – all the types of things that the Commission likes to see. Mr. Ziaks pointed out the parcel on the map and where South Road and Barrett Road are. The real Barrett Road is located to the southeast of their site. There are three homes that are the closest abutters. The property is somewhat unique in that it has a split zone of Industrial 1 and R-44 and Mr. Ziaks pointed out the split line on the map. The industrial portion of the site is 14.82 acres and the R-44 portion is 11.97 acres. The total parcel is 25.99 acres in size.
Mr. Ziaks stated the proposal is to construct five apartment buildings which are shown in green on the map which would be all within the R-44 area and two commercial office building structures that they’ve indicated along South Road that will be located within the Industrial 1 area. The entrance to the combined site will be through the main driveway which is a sufficient enough distance away from the intersection of South Road and Freshwater Boulevard that it does not interfere with the operations of that traffic light. In working with the Fire Marshal and town staff on additional access to the apartment complex for the purposes of emergency and fire access they will be providing a gated fire lane to the constructed portion of Barrett Road and a secondary fire lane and gated access back out to South Road. Mr. Ziaks pointed out the locations on the site plan.
Mr. Ziaks stated the Commission may hear some discussion from time to time about the possibility of another access point out to the intersection with Freshwater Boulevard. This would require an agreement with the triangular piece of property to the east and they do not have that at this time. They have designed the project so that in the future that connection can be made as an additional full service driveway out to Freshwater Boulevard if it is made possible by future agreements.
Mr. Ziaks stated in total they are proposing 308 parking spaces. It breaks down to 160 parking spaces for the two office buildings and 140 parking spaces for the residential component. There is more than adequate handicapped parking distributed throughout the site. Standing alone both the commercial and residential meet the parking requirements. One is not dependent upon the other.
Mr. Ziaks stated the proposal is for 8.02 units per acre. Under the ordinance, they are allowed 16 units per acre. They have half the density that is allowed. A maximum of twenty-five percent building coverage is allowed and they are at 8.96% coverage.
Mr. Ziaks stated tonight they will focus mainly on the apartment portion of the site. That has been designed in detail including the architecture. For the purposes of master planning for the entire parcel, they have presented a site plan for two buildings with the appropriate parking and an interconnection between the two. As they discussed with staff at the ART level, they will make a recommendation for a condition on the final action that the site plan for the commercial portion of the project is a master plan or conceptual approval. The applicant will be required to come back to the Commission with the final details and layouts and landscaping of those buildings. They thought it was appropriate for both Wetlands and this Commission to show their intentions for the entire property and tie it all together so that everybody knows the full development on the site. Whether one building ends up at 25,000 square feet or 15,000 square feet or whatever the market conditions dictate, that will be dealt with in the future. The apartments are fixed and they will present the architecture for those shortly.
Mr. Ziaks stated there is public water and sufficient sanitary sewer capacity available and they would be bringing natural gas to the site that’s available off of Freshwater Boulevard. The landscaping plans are quite extensive and are shown on Sheets RS1 through RS4. Some of that landscaping detail has to do with mitigation plans that are incorporated for the wetlands application. There is quite an extensive amount of mitigation being proposed. As part of the overall project, they are setting aside 7.52 acres for permanent conservation and it is shown in a green highlighted area on the site plan.
Mr. Ziaks stated they do have a very extensive storm water plan that was carefully analyzed by the Wetlands Commission and town staff to make sure there was no negative impact to the Freshwater Brook watershed. This site flows in general to the north through the industrial park and then works its way over to Freshwater Brook. Through a series of water quality detention and storm water basins and other techniques that they have incorporated into the site, they will easily meet the DEP water quality standards for this type of project, both the commercial and the residential side, and they have achieved the goal of not having any negative impact on the Freshwater Brook watershed. Mr. Ziaks noted the Commission has some written comments from Engineering and it was extensively reviewed during the Wetlands application process.
Mr. Ziaks stated they have incorporated a site lighting plan shown on Sheet LT1. They are looking at very modest site lighting, residential scale site lighting. They are planning on using the CL&P program where you contract with them and put site lighting on your site and pay a small rental fee for the lighting which they take care of. The lighting is going to be dark sky compliant which means everything will be shot down to the ground and not outward or upward. The additional site lighting on the apartment buildings themselves will be very modest and will be security lighting at the front doors and the fire exits. The lighting will be residential in scale. The light poles are only 14’ high and the intent is to not have any spillage of light on to the neighbor’s back yards.
Mr. Ziaks presented the site plan superimposed over a relatively recent Google aerial photo. This gives a good idea of how the site plan fits in with the overall area. The paper street, Barrett Road, is an extensive wooded site with all residential to the east. Mr. Ziaks pointed out the end of Barrett Road and stated there is actually a third house. Regarding the three houses in the area, they had an opportunity to meet with those neighbors at one of the first Wetlands Commission meetings and in the field itself. They talked about improving the localized drainage issues they have in their back yards, some additional buffering in the form of fencing and some additional landscaping. That’s all been incorporated into the final plans before the Commission this evening. They have had no other comments from those neighbors and Mr. Ziaks thinks they have reached a resolution with them. All the work will be done at the expense of the applicant and it is included on the final plans.
Mr. Ziaks stated the rest of the site is pretty much shallow farm land. It was mowed once last year and it will probably be mowed again prior to construction. There is a small watercourse that cuts off on an angle through the site. That’s the main drainage feature on the site. The area to the south is in a conservation area and is heavily wooded and that will all be preserved. The wetlands corridor through this area will all be preserved. There are extensive mitigation plantings around the outside of the development. Mr. Ziaks felt the residential portion is providing a nice transitional use between an I-1 zone, heavier I-1 uses and the highway itself. It is providing a nice transitional use between the conventional subdivision and the commercial industrial uses and it’s taking advantage of the unique situation of the split zone and the wetlands configurations that challenge this property. Mr. Ziaks noted everyone agrees that a conventional R-44 development on this property is not very practical.
Mr. Ziaks stated they do have an extensive internal sidewalk system throughout the residential piece and it is shown in yellow on the site plan. Everywhere within the residential development there is a sidewalk and it all ties into the public sidewalk that exists on the southerly side of South Road. It will tie in to the commercial properties as well.
Mr. Ziaks stated there is an informal set of walking trails throughout the wooded areas that the residents can enjoy. There are plenty of opportunities to enjoy passive recreation on the site.
Mr. Ziaks stated they do have a full erosion control plan and phasing plan that was worked out with the town Engineering Department and the Wetlands Commission. They did provide a traffic report that was dated April 28, 2010 that was reviewed by the traffic safety experts. The Commission has a new memo from the Traffic Safety Officer indicating he has no concerns.
Mr. Ziaks stated they did work out an arrangement where they will re-stripe South Road along their frontage so that they can create a left turn lane heading westbound on South Road. It does not require any physical changes to South Road just a re-striping plan that they have worked out with the Police Department.
Mr. Ziaks stated there are two fire lanes provided in addition to the main driveway. They have had staff review consisting of two ART meetings, one for Wetlands and one for this Commission. The Commission has all new memos from the various staff members, engineering and planning. They don’t have any major concerns with the application. Mr. Ziaks stated they have been working closely with staff to bring in a complete application.
Mr. Ziaks stated they are in full compliance with Section 4.30.1 which is the special residential development criteria that’s in the regulations on page 36. There’s criteria one through nine that they are obligated to meet and prove to the Commission that they meet that criteria. The proposed plan is in harmony with the purpose of the zoning regulations. It is in harmony with the goals of the Plan of Conservation and Development. The Commission determined that when they created the zone in the zoning regulations. The natural features have been preserved in a natural state. They are setting aside the wooded areas and the wetland areas into permanent conservation. The character of the neighborhood will be maintained or enhanced. They believe this provides a nice transitional use between the existing subdivision uses to the south and to the east and the industrial land to the west. The abandonment of Barrett Road will permanently silence that road forever which is something that the Barrett Road neighborhood is very interested in.
Mr. Ziaks stated they believe the open space is very generous. It is of high quality and is acting as a great buffer to the residential neighbors to the south. They believe the scale of the buildings is compatible in that the residential is abutting a residential zone. Jack Kemper has done a great job in introducing materials into the residential apartment buildings that are compatible with the single family homes. The two apartments which were the closest have been turned perpendicular to the neighborhood so that the smallest facade is facing these areas.
Mr. Ziaks stated regarding public safety and emergency equipment, the access roads have been very carefully thought about, integrated into the site plan and reviewed by the town public safety officials. They have made connections to the adjoining streets. They have provided for a sidewalk system. All utility systems have been integrated into the site from the existing public service. As far as future populations and traffic, they have had a traffic report submitted. It’s been reviewed by the town’s public safety officials and they have agreed there won’t be any negative impact on these streets. There will be no impact to schools. There’s no negative impact on the infrastructure. There’s sufficient capacity of water, sewer and electric to handle this project.
Mr. Ziaks stated under Section 9.20.2, the special permit section, they believe the plans submitted are all in conformance with the general requirements of the zoning regulations. They think they have brought to the Commission a project that accomplishes what the Commission intended when they created the elderly apartment zoning ordinance. Mr. Ziaks noted the site has been a bit of a challenge in that there are a lot of natural features, wetlands, zoning requirements and strange angles to property lines. There is also the abandonment of a street. They think they have integrated all these nicely into the site. It buffers the existing residents to the south and to the east and the commercial portion is very consistent with the size of the developments that exist on South Road. They are looking at building two small size commercial office buildings at this location. There is still a piece of land that is available that is zoned I-1. They do not have any plans for that at this particular time but it is available for some additional development in the future.
Chairman Duren stated Enfield Fire District #1, Edward Shirley has sent a letter dated April 28, 2010 stating that the site plans have been reviewed and the plans have been found acceptable. There is also the approval from Inland Wetlands and it is #534. There were two concerns from Engineering. One dealt with the aggregate on the dumpster pad. There is a memo from John Cabibbo dated April 29, 2010. His office did receive Sheet LT2. Chairman Duren stated they relocated an entrance and it is acceptable. As Chairman Duren reads this, the Engineering Department is alright with these plans.
Chairman Duren stated they are supposed to meet with the Water Company. Mr. Ziaks stated they have had conversations with the Water Company and they are going to be meeting with them on the final design. They’re fine but there are a lot of technical items to work out with them. Chairman Duren noticed they were having sprinklers and he was wondering about the water pressure. He would assume the Fire Marshal would have said something if it wasn’t up to par. Mr. Ziaks stated if by chance some additional booster needs to be put in for fire protection on the upper floor, that would be a mechanical thing in the buildings. It is really not a concern.
Chairman Duren brought up the residential traffic mixing with the commercial. That is probably why they mentioned moving the access if it is possible at a later date. Mr. Ziaks stated he prepared a sheet to show the Commission what it would look like if the office buildings aren’t there and they don’t build a driveway out to Freshwater Boulevard. They would build a conventional driveway and landscape it and sign it out at that location for the apartments. It follows the driveway that they had designed through the office complex. It will be built to residential design standards. They would build a fire lane and a fire access and Mr. Ziaks pointed out the locations. With this arrangement, they are in the same position. They are set up for a connection out to the traffic light on Freshwater Boulevard if that can be worked out between the property owners.
Commissioner Drinan stated with the turning lane that they are proposing, there is an existing turning lane coming east for turns north on Freshwater. He cannot see where the stacking of that existing turning lane ends because that is where they would begin their left turn in. He asked would you have to take away from some of the stacking of the existing lane. Mr. Ziaks stated they are only looking at providing enough stacking for a couple of cars in that direction. Commissioner Drinan noted there would be more stacking for the left turn. Mr. Ziaks stated yes. That has been calculated out and it is something like 240’. Commissioner Drinan stated they would take away maybe one car’s worth of stacking. Mr. Ziaks stated yes.
Mr. Giner stated that is one of the plans that was submitted after the packet went out. He asked if the Commission wanted to receive it now or have it included in their next meeting packet. Chairman Duren requested that it be in the next meeting packet. Mr. Giner stated it shows the left turn lanes that Traffic Safety Officer Santanella mentioned in his memo that he would like to see. Commissioner Drinan stated it would show how much of the existing stacking lane is going to be shifted over to the new left turn lane. Mr. Ziaks confirmed this to be the case.
Commissioner Falk had a concern about the intersection with Freshwater. They talked that it may happen. He asked if this would have to come back for further approvals if they change that. Mr. Giner stated it would be a site plan amendment. At that point, it would have to come back. He pointed out where it would line up. Commissioner Falk stated from a traffic standpoint, this would be much better than what they are proposing. He would prefer that intersection because there is a traffic light there. With the other one, there is no traffic light and you are just asking for trouble somewhere down the road as more development comes in and there is more traffic. If at all possible, Commissioner Falk would like them to pursue that and come back with a revision when and if it happens.
Commissioner Sarno asked about guest parking for the apartments and if residents would be assigned parking. Mr. Ziaks stated there are 148 parking spaces for 96 units. They are not planning on assigning parking. With the elderly units, they are not looking at the full blown two spaces per unit. They do not think that is the parking need for this type of development. Commissioner Sarno asked if the need becomes so would they have the ability to add in parking spaces. Mr. Ziaks stated they could. Commissioner Sarno had a concern that if all the parking spaces are used by the residents, where are visitors going to park. Mr. Ziaks stated one of the nice things about this development is if they build the commercial center, there’s going to be another 160 parking spaces available with a short walk and that can be used as parking relief.
Regarding assigned parking, Mr. Troiano stated assigned parking is very difficult to monitor. They are hoping that people come to visit after hours and on weekends and that is the luxury of having office buildings next door. They most likely wouldn’t have any occupancy during those times and having the overflow would be a nice benefit to this project.
Commissioner Drinan stated this is designed to be a rental complex and he asked will the deed restriction allow future condominiumization of the apartments for sale or will it prohibit that. Attorney Fahey stated this is a unique deed restriction. He recalled when they were here for the change to the text. The Town of Enfield is actually the beneficiary so when they record it, it can’t be released unless the town releases it. They amended the existing elderly housing regulations which required that it be kept in perpetuity. They amended the text and also carved a deed restriction which runs from the property owner in favor of the Town of Enfield. Mr. Troiano and his successors and assigns are stuck with a 62 and over rental community now and forever. It is a different type of situation in terms of how the setup is for the active adult fee ownership housing. This is a one owner and since it is a one owner, he has the opportunity to put that restriction and to self-encumber his own property. Attorney Fahey will dig out the document so that the Commission can see that for the next hearing.
Commissioner Drinan noted that restriction would not allow it to become condominiums and would not allow sales of individual units. Attorney Fahey stated under the guideline they are on, it is a rental regulation.
Jack Kemper of Kemper Associates, architects, Farmington, Connecticut, made a presentation to the Commission regarding the architecture.
Mr. Kemper stated one thing they are trying to do is really make these nice buildings. There are two building types – an 18-unit building and a 24-unit building. They have tried to design them to have a residential character. The materials used are very low or no maintenance and he will pass samples around. They are using cedar shingles on the bottom, the siding and then the PVC trim at the top to really make the buildings fit nicely and have some grace to them. They are designed to step in and out. There is a nice entry and it is recessed in the building. Every unit has a balcony and they are cut into the building and not hanging off so that there’s a sense of privacy on each balcony. The buildings have an elevator. The units range from a little over 900 square feet to a little over 1,200 square feet. They are one and two bedrooms and some have dens. There is a common entry area. The floor plan is shown on Plan A-3.
Chairman Duren asked if the elevator is able fit wheelchairs. Mr. Kemper stated yes and that was one of the concerns at the ART.
Mr. Kemper stated all the units are designed to be convertible to handicapped accessible. All their clearances, door swings and radii would work for that. A lot of the bathrooms are bigger than we are used to seeing and that is the reason.
Mr. Kemper stated each unit has their mechanical systems separately in a closet on the balcony. This works architecturally also. It gives them access from the balcony and makes it a plus rather than a minus.
Mr. Kemper stated they are looking to make these buildings slab on grade and they are looking to put storage and extra mechanicals for the common spaces and halls in the attic. The attic is fully served by the elevator and two exit stairs.
Mr. Kemper presented the 24-unit building. They wanted to make sure that not every building is going to be the same. They expect the big decision items to be the same like the roof and the band of shingles and how the building is divided up. They would like the opportunity to play with the colors and the entries. The 24-unit building shows a different front entry and is on Sheet A-7. Instead of having the entry recessed into the building, there is actually a front porch in this building. There will be subtle changes to the buildings so that it is not monotonous but Mr. Kemper would like them to be consistent. They have done a couple of buildings like this and there is one in West Hartford called Laurel Hill which is a little bigger than these buildings. Mr. Ziaks presented a picture of it during one of the earlier presentations.
Mr. Kemper stated they anticipate that there will be some sort of common room in the 24-unit building over the foyer that will be available to everybody. Not every building will have this but there will be one common room in the complex. Mr. Kemper passed around the building materials.
Commissioner Sarno asked if the apartments are equipped with a washer and dryer. Mr. Kemper stated every unit will have its own laundry.
Commissioner Dumont asked how the attic storage areas are constructed. Mr. Kemper stated they would have walls around them. On page A-6 it shows there is a stair at each end. Each unit will have its own storage. There is also an opening to the slot in the building. There is a roof deck for air conditioning so they don’t have to put 18 condensers on the ground. The storage units are a little over 100 square feet.
Chairman Duren asked if the bathrooms are going to be equipped for handicapped. Mr. Kemper stated ten percent are actually handicapped and the rest of them are sized for it and will have the blocking so that if you need to add to them. Chairman Duren asked about the toilets and noted you want the height. Mr. Troiano stated the apartments are being built so that they can be converted to handicapped. They don’t want people to leave if they get into a situation where handicapped is necessary. They will have the ability for it to be compatible.
Commissioner Sarno asked if they all have showers and no tubs. Mr. Kemper stated some of them have tubs. A tub can be handicapped accessible. It has to be a five foot tub. Mr. Troiano stated it is really an active adult community and is not meant to be that type. For twenty to thirty percent of these people, it is a second home. It is active, safe and comfortable and not worrying about noise and families. People want to be with people their own age and their own like and their own style. Commissioner Sarno stated and they have two cars.
Attorney Fahey stated he did find the restriction and he will give it to Jose Giner to include in the Commission’s next packet.
Mr. Kemper presented the shingle sample for the roofs. They are looking at weathered wood and it is an architectural grade shingle.
Mr. Kemper didn’t know if they were ready for the exact color of the siding but he presented the cedar shingles. Chairman Duren would like to see earth tones for the colors. Mr. Kemper stated they envision that there will be a palette of colors. Mr. Kemper presented a sample of the siding. They generally prefer a smoother siding. Mr. Kemper did not have a sample of the PVC. He showed the Commission where it would be in the band across the top. He would envision that that would be common on all of the buildings and that the trim color would be common on all the buildings. The roof and trim will be the same and there will be a variety of colors for the shingles and the siding. Mr. Troiano stated the trim is similar on the St. Francis building and the New England Bank building.
Mr. Giner stated as mentioned by Mr. Ziaks, the big issue still out there is having the Town Council act on the abandonment of Barrett Road.
Chairman Duren read somewhere that there were concerns about height. Mr. Giner stated there is a provision for the Commission to allow a certain height. It is not a waiver. Attorney Fahey stated the regulations say 35’ or two and a half stories. The architect has designed it to 35’. Attorney Fahey read it as being either or.
Mr. Giner stated he had a question whether the Commission needed to act on it and their take was it is 35’ and therefore it doesn’t really matter. It is either 35’ or two and a half stories. They meet the 35’ so they can go up to three stories as shown. In any case, the Commission would have the authority to increase building height by not more than 40% which is a total of four stories. Their representation is the Commission doesn’t need to go with that step because they comply with the 35’ maximum that the regulations currently provide. That is from the mid point of the peak to the existing level which is the way we measure height. Attorney Fahey stated even if you didn’t read it that way, the building is well within the 40% parameter that the Commission has.
Mr. Giner stated the height issue was brought up at the ART.
Mr. Giner noted the Commission will see that the proposed building 1 does encroach into the I-1 zone and there is a provision in the regulations, Article 3, Section 3.00.5 which allows the application of the least restrictive into the more restrictive zone up to 25’. Mr. Giner stated this was used along Middle Road. It’s a very small portion of that building #l.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission also has on their table a letter from the WPC commenting on the revised plans. There is also a turning lane plan with a cover email from Scott Hesketh. There was just a slight change to page 4 of the last administrative review team notes. Mr. Giner stated they talked about addressing of the property. There was also some discussion about the elevator widths between the EMS Director and staff. The EMS Director had wanted some wider elevators to cover the cots. The building official said they were to ADA code at present and the way to go about it is to change the code in the future. The elevators are ADA compliant but the cots cannot be laid out flat. That was the issue the EMS Director had with the elevators. The cots could not be laid out flat but had to be angled a little bit. According to the building official, the plans as submitted are ADA compliant with the building code.
Mr. Troiano stated they will double check and look into the size of the elevators. A larger elevator will not hurt them. Mr. Kemper stated they have to look at the size of a stretcher. Chairman Duren stated Kevin Sullivan is the Chief of EMS for the Town of Enfield.
Commissioner Drinan stated it looks like the encroachment across into the other zone is a lot less than 25’. Mr. Ziaks stated it is less than 25’ and there might be a dimension on Sheet LA1.
Commissioner Ballard asked where the A-2 certification is on the plans. Mr. Ziaks stated only the property survey is certified by a land surveyor. It is Sheet 1 way in the back and in front of A-1. Mr. Giner stated note #4 on the last page. Commissioner Ballard asked if this is the only page that has to have it. Mr. Giner stated yes. The surveyor certified the property and the engineer certifies the design. The surveyor cannot certify the design. It has to be an engineer. An engineer can’t certify the survey. The proper certification is for the surveyor to certify the property survey and the engineers design it around that.
Mr. Giner stated it does show it was done to A-2 and T-2 for the topography.
Chairman Duren opened this hearing to the public. No one wished to speak regarding this application.
Mr. Giner stated he can hand the Commission the extra material or he can send it with the packet. Chairman Duren asked that Mr. Giner send it with the meeting packet.
Chairman Duren stated he will keep this hearing open and continue it to May 20, 2010.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR#1495 – Site Plan review for changes to the exterior elevations on an existing Dunkin Donuts located at 10 Hazard Avenue in a Business Regional (BR) District; Map 56, Lot 22; Carlos A. Caetano, Applicant; Equity One (Brookside) LLC, Owner.
John DiRosa, Project Manager from Homeland Builders, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated they are looking to do an elevation change on the Dunkin Donuts at 10 Hazard Avenue to straighten out the mansard. The mansard that is there now leans back a little bit. They are looking to put a stucco finish on in a tan color.
Chairman Duren asked if orange and sand are the colors that will be used. Mr. DiRosa stated there is a sand color and a darker tan color. Chairman Duren asked about the front part where the coffee cup is. Mr. DiRosa stated it is a darker brown where the coffee cup is.
Chairman Duren stated they have a coffee cup painted on the side and he would consider that a sign. Mr. Giner confirmed it would be a sign. Mr. DiRosa stated if you look at A-2 on the plans, it will show what they are trying to do. It is a sign that is fastened to the monolith that’s up there.
Mr. Giner stated he has a condition that states the sign has to conform to the regulations. Staff will make sure the sign complies with the regulations.
Chairman Duren stated the sign is as depicted in the photos given to the Commission for Nashua, New Hampshire. Mr. DiRosa stated it will not have the awnings. The colors are a beige and a darker tan. They plan to use earth colors. They will have a stucco finish which will be painted a light beige color with a cap on the top.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to waive the full submission requirements of Section 9.10.2 because the Commission finds that the information is not necessary in order to decide on the application’s conformance with these Regulations. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Dumont voting.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve SPR#1495 – Site Plan review for changes to the exterior elevations on an existing Dunkin Donuts located at 10 Hazard Avenue in a Business Regional (BR) District, Map 56, Lot 22; Carlos A. Caetano, Applicant; Equity One (Brookside) LLC, Owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the submitted record and the following conditions:
1. This approval is for the specific use and structures identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structures will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
2. All applicable Building and Fire Codes must be complied with prior to the issuance of any permits.
3. The sign shown on the plans is not part of this approval. Separate sign permits that conform to the regulations will be handled through staff.
4. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
Chairman Duren asked if the applicant had seen the conditions. Mr. Giner stated they were emailed to Mr. Caetano. Jack Freitas, a part owner, stated they have no problem with the conditions.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Dumont voting.
b. SPR#1498 – Facade renovation for Enfield Pizza at 106 Pearl Street in a TVCZ District, Map 24, Lot 114; Enfield Pizza, Applicant; Sachi Corp, Owner.
Because the applicant was not present, Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to table SPR#1498 until the next Commission meeting. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Dumont voting.
c. FLD#027 – Permit for conducting activities within the 100 Year Flood limit related to the reconstruction of the South Maple Street Bridge over the Scantic River South Maple Street/Powder Hollow Road, Town of Enfield, Department of Public Works, Applicant.
Mr. Giner stated there is also an 8-24 referral. He suggested hearing them concurrently and voting separately.
Piya Hawkes and Houcine Haouchine, Senior Project Manager of Tectonic, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Hawkes, the Director of Public Works, stated the town is looking to reconstruct the South Maple Street Bridge over the Scantic River. The bridge was built in 1925 and it was rehabbed three separate times. Presently the bridge is structurally and functionally obsolete. The bridge’s length is approximately 66’. It is a steel truss type of structure. It sits on masonry concrete abutments.
Mr. Hawkes stated about a year and a half ago the Connecticut Bridge Safety Division came out to the bridge and did a review of it. They determined the rating went from a ten ton to an eight ton limit. This year they came out on April 23, 2010 and did an evaluation of the bridge. Mr. Hawkes has not received any confirmation back from them on if the bridge needs to be reduced again. The bridge right now is one way alternating traffic.
Mr. Hawkes stated what they plan on doing is to do a rapid build on the bridge itself. What that entails is pre-cast elements. Footings are all pre-cast. Abutments and wing walls are also pre-cast. It’s going to be put together like a Lego bridge. Nothing will be poured in place. Everything is going to be done on site. It will all be preformed and they will set it in place and lock it in. They are doing it in this manner because they want to expedite the construction this year and have it completed by December, 2010.
Mr. Hawkes stated the bridge itself consists of eleven foot lanes going each way with four foot shoulders and six foot sidewalks on both sides of the bridge. On the east side of the bridge, the sidewalks will extend up to Dust House Road. There’s going to be new drainage systems throughout the area. The drainage will consist of four-foot sumps. Typically when they do drainage it is two feet but for this area they went with a four-foot deep sump with a hydro separator. This was requested at a public information meeting about a year ago by a person from the Conservation Commission. The DOT reviewed the entire design along with the DEP and they approved it. They went through many reviews for the project. They plan on creating seven additional parking spots for the park. Right now people park right at the edge of the road on the corner. They want to create a gravel parking lot in support of the park and to get people off the street.
Mr. Hawkes stated they have all the permits in place. They have the flood management certification from the DOT, the Inland Wetland permit just received this past Tuesday night, and the Army Corps Category 1 permit. The cost of the bridge is a little over $3 million and it will be funded through federal grants and by CIP local funding.
Mr. Haouchine showed the proposed bridge on the plan shown in pink. The green is the limit of construction. He pointed out the new parking lot and the drainage area. Mr. Haouchine stated the state requires either the four-foot sump or the hydro separator. They went with the two systems.
Chairman Duren asked about the location of the parking. Mr. Hawkes pointed out the gravel parking lot with the seven parking spaces. Chairman Duren asked why there are no parking any time signs with the arrows left and right. He asked if it is only going to be on the north side of it. Mr. Hawkes stated yes. There is a hammerhead at the very end so that you can back out.
Chairman Duren stated on Sheet #8 there is nothing to indicate parking. Mr. Haouchine pointed out the area. Chairman Duren would like to have a sign that just says “parking” with an arrow.
Commissioner Drinan stated right now the bridge is one way and there are stop signs there so that you can alternate the traffic. After they make this a two-way, will those stop signs be removed. Mr. Haouchine stated coming from the west to the east there will be two stop signs, one that is being added before the parking and a few feet later will be another stop sign as well. Chairman Duren referred the Commission to Sheet #8. Commissioner Drinan stated there is a new stop sign for the parking area as well.
Commissioner Drinan asked with the construction method they are using, do they have need of a staging area and if so, where will that staging area be. Mr. Hawkes stated the bridge will be closed completely to traffic so they plan on having the actual staging on the road leading up to Powder Hollow. The west side of the road will be closed. The east side will be open for people to park. They will have parking up at the top of the hill for people that want to utilize the park and they would walk down on the east side of the road. Chairman Duren stated the Powder Hollow Barn is there which is quite active. He questioned how are they going to get in and out. Mr. Hawkes stated he spoke to Mr. Sweet and they are going to keep his driveway open for him. He will have access. Chairman Duren asked if he will be able to have his people park there. Mr. Hawkes stated yes. Chairman Duren asked if Dust House Road will be accessible and Mr. Hawkes stated yes. They will have a jersey barrier right after Mr. Sweet’s driveway. People can still use his driveway to get in and out and they can still access Dust House Road.
Mr. Haouchine stated Sheet #9 shows the plan for access. Commissioner Ladd stated the plans show the barriers are at Dust House Road. Commissioner Falk noted the entrance to the parking lot is beyond that. Chairman Duren stated Mr. Sweet won’t be able to get into his building.
Mr. Hawkes stated they will have to push the jersey barrier back past his driveway. Chairman Duren would like to make sure that is in the conditions.
Commissioner Drinan stated the other jersey barrier at Abbe Road would block access to the Collins Creamery. He asked if they will be moving that down Powder Hill Road so that people can access the Creamery. There are houses beyond Collins Creamery going all the way down. Mr. Hawkes stated they are going to have to push the barriers past Spazzarini’s pit. Commissioner Falk stated the water company needs access to their property. They have an entrance down there too so it would have to be just beyond it.
Further discussion followed on the final placement of the jersey barriers.
Commissioner Dumont asked if they are going to put up any type of signage on the corner of Abbe Road and Powder Hill Road notifying people the road is blocked further down.
Commissioner Drinan stated they’ll need to know they can’t continue across because the bridge will be closed. Mr. Giner stated if you look at e on Sheet 9 there is a sign that says “closed at Scantic Bridge.” Chairman Duren noted that is on the barrier. Mr. Giner stated the sign would have to be on the side of the road.
Commissioner Sarno asked if they can run an ad in the paper notifying people that the bridge will be closed. Mr. Hawkes stated they plan on doing that. They typically put it on the web site, in a newspaper and on ETV. They are also sending out notices to all abutting residents notifying them about the project.
Commissioner Falk stated there’s usually a sign at the bridge saying that you are going to have it closed for a certain time on a certain date. He added maybe they need a sign on the bridge prior to closing the bridge to let people know that it’s going to be closed. Commissioner Drinan stated they should also give a time frame so that people have some knowledge about the duration that the bridge will be closed.
Mr. Giner stated under the 8-24 referral, the Commission can recommend suggestions to the Town Council. Under the flood application, the Commission is limited and is stating they have met the requirements for the flood hazard permit.
Commissioner Drinan brought up the stop signs on Sheet #8. It looks like they have two stop signs with the west bound traffic at the beginning of the bridge and at the end of the bridge because of the cross walks. He asked are you also going to need two stop signs for the east bound traffic at the beginning of the bridge and the end of the bridge. Commissioner Drinan clarified that for the cross walks at either end of the bridge, there are two stop signs for the west bound traffic and none for the east bound traffic. The north bound traffic has no stop signs entering the bridge or leaving the bridge but the southbound traffic has two stop signs at the two cross walks entering the bridge and leaving the bridge. He asked if there should be four stop signs or none but not the two. Mr. Haouchine stated they will look into the necessity of four stop signs. Further discussion followed on the exact placement of the stop signs. Commissioner Sarno questioned if the placement of stop signs is the Commission’s purview. Chairman Duren stated safety is one of the Commission’s charges. Commissioner Sarno stated the Traffic Safety Officer will review and approve the stop signs.
Mr. Haouchine stated they will look at the northeast corner because the southeast corner already has a stop sign.
Commissioner Ladd made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Falk, to approve FLD 027 – Permit for conducting activities within the 100 Year Flood limit related to the reconstruction of the South Maple Street Bridge over the Scantic River, South Maple Street/Powder Hollow Road, Town of Enfield Department of Public Works, Applicant. Findings:
a. That the permit requirements of the Ordinance have been satisfied.
b. That all necessary permits have been obtained from those federal, state or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is required.
c. That the proposed development does not adversely affect the flood-carrying capacity of the area of special flood hazard. For purposes of the Ordinance, “adversely affects” means that the cumulative effect of the proposed development when combined with all other existing and anticipated development will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
d. Section 8-25 Referral – Referral under Section 8-24 of the Connecticut General Statutes for various public improvements related to the reconstruction of the Scantic River South Maple Street/Powder Hollow Road, Town of Enfield Department of Public Works, Applicant.
Commissioner Ladd made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to recommend approval to the Town Council of various public improvements related to the reconstruction of the South Maple Street Bridge over the Scantic River, South Maple Street/Powder Hollow Road. The following recommendations were made to the Council: The jersey barriers need to be moved so that they don’t interfere with the parking at the Powder Hill Barn; the jersey barriers on the other side need to be moved down to where the entrance is to Dust House Road for the Connecticut Water Company access, and there should be signs at the beginning of Abbe Road and Powder Hill Road and on Hazard Avenue indicating that it is not a through road. Another recommendation is there should be signage going up prior to closing the bridge telling the public that the bridge is being closed during a certain window of time. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Dumont voting.
12. Other Business
a. Report from Policy Review Committee – Commissioner Ballard stated Commissioner Longhi was going to email the policy book to Jo Marie Nelson and Brian Peruta.
b. Report from Signage Policy Review Committee
c. Discussion of Tag Sale Regulations
d. Zoning Enforcement Procedures – Chairman Duren asked that Mr. Giner put the Zoning Enforcement Procedures in the packet for the next meeting. Mr. Giner stated he is giving the Commission a copy of the Town Attorney’s comments on them. He has incorporated them along with the Commission’s comments into the final document.
APPLICATIONS TO BE RECEIVED
The following applications were received by the Commission:
Public Hearings
PH#2694 – Proposed zone change from Industrial 1 to Industrial 2 for approximately 5.53 acres of land located at 38 Post Office Road; Map 47, Lot 51; Interstate Motors, LLC, Applicant, Post Office Road LLC, Owner.
Chairman Duren asked what are they looking to do with this application. Mr. Giner stated they are looking to bring what is out there, a construction company, into conformance. This application was previously withdrawn.
A public hearing will be scheduled for May 20, 2010.
Site Plans:
SPR#1496 – Site Plan review for changes of use to Personal Services (Hair Salon) for an existing commercial space at 654 Enfield Street, in a Business Local (BL) District, Map 32, Lot 6; Theresa Kovacik d/b/a Powercuts, Applicant; Michael T. and Dorothy Panella and Janice Banning Panella, Owners.
This application will be on the Commission’s agenda on May 20, 2010.
SPR#1497 – Site Plan review for parking, sidewalk, refuse and driveway improvements associated with new tenant occupancy at the former People’s Bank building located at Enfield Commons, 25 Hazard Avenue, in a Business Regional (BR) District, Map 45, Lot 8; Paramount Realty Services, Applicant/Paramount Commons at Enfield, LLC, Owners.
This application will be on the Commission’s agenda on May 20, 2010.
SPR#1498 – Facade renovation for Enfield Pizza at 106 Pearl Street in a TVCZ District, Map 24, Lot 114; Enfield Pizza, Applicant; Sachi Corp., Owner. (on tonight’s agenda)
This application will be on the Commission’s agenda on May 20, 2010.
SPR#1499 – Change of use for a Place of Worship at an existing commercial space located at 1593 King Street (Astro’s Plaza) in a Business Local (BL) District, Map 17, Lot 42; United Seventh Day Baptist Church, Applicant; Nicolas, Panagio & Constantinos Karapanos, Owners.
This application will be on the Commission’s agenda on June 3, 2010.
FLD#026 – Permit for conducting activities within the 100 Year Flood Limit related to the parking, sidewalk, refuse and driveway improvements associated with new tenant occupancy at the former People’s Bank building located at Enfield Commons, 25 Hazard Avenue, in a Business Regional (BR) District, Map 45, Lot 8; Paramount Realty Services, applicant/Paramount Commons at Enfield, LLC, Owners. (See SPR#1497 above)
FLD#027 – Permit for conducting activities within the 100 Year Flood Limit related to the re construction of the South Maple Street Bridge over the Scantic River, South Maple Street/Powder Hollow Road, Town of Enfield Department of Public Works, Applicant. (on tonight’s agenda)
Section 8-24 Referral – Referral under Section 8-24 of the Connecticut General Statutes for various public improvements related to the reconstruction of the Scantic River South Maple Street bridge/Powder Hollow Road, Town of Enfield Department of Public Works, applicant. (on tonight’s agenda)
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Peter Falk, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr |