ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

MAY 20, 2010

A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, May 20, 2010 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut.  Chairman Duren called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

PRESENT:              Charles Duren, Chairman

          Charles Ladd

                             Nicles Lefakis

                             Lori Longhi

                             Michael Dumont, Voting Alternate

                             Alan Drinan, Voting Alternate     

                             Ronald Gregory, Voting Alternate

ALSO PRESENT:     José Giner, AICP, Director of Planning

MINUTES

Commissioner Drinan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dumont, to approve the Minutes of May 6, 2010.  The Minutes were approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting.

Commissioner Ladd made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to temporarily adjourn the Planning and Zoning Meeting in order to convene the Aquifer Protection Agency.  The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting. 

Chairman Duren called the meeting back to order at 7:10 p.m.

STAFF COMMENTS

a.                 Director of Planning

Mr. Giner led some discussion about a meeting date for the public hearing for the Plan of Conservation and Development.  He stated because a notice has to be filed with the Town Clerk at least 35 days before the hearing, the June 3 date presently scheduled will not work.  The earliest the hearing could be held is June 17.  Some discussion followed on a convenient date for everyone.  It was the consensus of the Commission to tentatively schedule the public hearing for Tuesday, June 29, 2010 in the Town Hall Council Chambers.  Chairman Duren requested that Mr. Giner email the Commission about this hearing.

Mr. Giner stated there is an application to be received tonight from Eli Lilly and he requested that he be allowed to approve it administratively.  They want to install a six-foot high perimeter fence because of security concerns.  Mr. Giner met with the fence installer on site and what he would like to do is put up a fence around the perimeter with some security gates.  There will be an ornamental type of fence that will go along the front facing the street similar to what is on the Mass Mutual property.  When it gets to the point where it meets the woods, they would switch over to a green vinyl coated chain link fence six feet high.  There is a turn style that will be closer to the building and driveway gates that will be remotely controlled from interior security. 

Chairman Duren asked if the top of the fence would include barbed wire.  Mr. Giner stated there will be no barbed wire.  Mr. Giner stated they requested an administrative approval so they can get working on it as quickly as possible. 

Chairman Duren stated he would have no problem with the fence if they are using that green vinyl coated chain link fencing with iron fencing across the front. 

Commissioner Dumont made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Drinan, to allow Mr. Giner to administratively approve the perimeter fencing with security gates being installed at Eli Lilly, 150 Freshwater Boulevard.

Commissioner Longhi stated she would be more inclined to do this but after it is done she doesn’t want to see the same thing happen as did with Shaw’s.  They were just doing the color change and they also changed the doors.  Commissioner Longhi requested that Mr. Giner make sure this fencing is done right.  Mr. Giner stated he asked some questions and they said all the other improvements are internal.  Commissioner Longhi asked for something to the Commission after it is done so that the Commission knows exactly what was done.    

The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.

Chairman Duren requested that Mr. Giner and Mr. Warren meet with the Commission as well as Inland Wetlands and the Zoning Board of Appeals and explain the procedures the Commission is going to have to go through with the budget that was just set.  Mr. Giner stated he did have a discussion about this and they were trying to decide when the next Council of Chairs meeting was to be held and whether that would be a good time to have a chat with everyone.  Chairman Duren stated if we are hiring outside consultants, he should know the proper procedures for contacting them.  Mr. Giner stated there were a few amendments to the budget and once he knows the details, he will schedule a meeting.  Chairman Duren saw a need for Mr. Warren to meet with the land use boards to discuss procedures.  Mr. Giner confirmed that the plan is to meet with the commissions and boards to find out how best to gear up for this change.

CORRESPONDENCE

Chairman Duren stated the Commission received a brochure entitled Hot Topics and Land Use.  They have pictures of some windmills in that brochure and there is a registration form if anyone is interested in attending.  Correspondence also includes Capitol Region referrals.  There is one from Ellington and they are doing amendments to the Zoning Regulations with new zoning districts.  Correspondence also includes a Notice of Action from the Wetlands Commission and the normal mailings of magazines and newsletters.      

Commissioner Longi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dumont, to move FLD#28 up on the agenda and consider it at this time.  The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.

FLD#028 – Permit for conducting activities within the 100 Year Flood Limit related to the reconstruction of the Freshwater Boulevard/Cranbrook Boulevard intersection, Town of Enfield Department of Public Works, Applicant.

Pya Hawkes, Director of Public Works, and Kristen Faloway from Fuss & O’Neill appeared before the Commission regarding this application.

Mr. Hawkes stated they hired Fuss & O’Neill to do the design for the intersection of Freshwater Boulevard and Cranbrook Boulevard.  Presently the condition of the intersection involves two lanes north and south bound.  The intersection is in a retail commercial area which is very heavily traveled.  There have been a lot of accidents occurring at this intersection. 

Ms. Faloway stated as you can see on the map, north is oriented to the right.  She pointed out Freshwater Boulevard and Cranbrook Boulevard.  The flood plain limit is shown as a dashed dotted line that goes part way through the intersection.  They plan to remove the median and there will be some minor widening to allow for greater operation and better safety throughout the intersection.  This is a state project and they did receive a fund management certificate from Connecticut DEP.  There will be no net decrease in flood storage since this project is in the flood plain.  There will be no change to the flood storage and no alterations to any of the water courses north of there. 

Ms. Faloway stated there will be minor changes to the drainage.  They are changing one catch basin to a manhole and altering one other catch basin with minor widening.  There will be no change in profile.  The grades will all remain the same. 

Commissioner Dumont asked if they still will end up with two lanes going north and south.  Ms. Faloway stated that is correct and there will be an opposing left turn lane. 

Chairman Duren asked about the signalization.  Ms. Faloway stated there are two travel through lanes in each direction and then there are the opposing left turn lanes.  Regarding signalization, there will be an arrow.  Chairman Duren felt this will be a great help. 

Mr. Giner stated the Commission is just approving the flood permit.  He noted they are not acquiring any additional land. 

Commissioner Gregory asked if both islands are going to be removed on each side on Freshwater to allow for the wider lane correction.  Ms. Faloway stated that is correct. 

Mr. Hawkes stated the left hand turning lanes are ten feet wide and the through lanes are eleven feet. 

Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dumont, to approve FLD#028 – Permit for conducting activities within the 100 year Flood Limit related to the reconstruction of the Freshwater Blvd/Cranbrook Blvd intersection, Town of Enfield Department of Public Works, Applicant.  The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting. 

Chairman Duren noted this is a good project and it will make it a lot safer for the traveling public.

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS – From May 6, 2010

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 & 99; Enfield Properties, Applicant; Anthony Troiano, Jr., Alan K. Tracy; Frank J. Troiano and Anthony F. Spazzarini, Owners.

Commissioner Longhi recused herself from this application.   

Chairman Duren stated the Commission was waiting for a few items.

Mr. Giner stated after the last meeting, one of the items that was still up in the air was about the abandonment of Barrett Road.  He asked the Town Attorney for an opinion regarding whether or not the Commission could go forward and approve the application with a condition that relied on the actions of the Town Council at a later date.  If the answer was no, the second question Mr. Giner had asked was could we just close the hearing and wait for that opinion or should the hearing be kept open.  As of this afternoon, Mr. Giner had not received anything in writing from the Town Attorney’s Office.  He did receive a voice mail from Assistant Town Attorney Maria Elsden stating that Town Attorney Kevin Dineen had not yet weighed in on it.  She did receive an email that Attorney Thomas Fahey had submitted this afternoon with some items.  Her verbal commitment was that the hearing should probably be kept open.  Chairman Duren stated he would prefer to keep the hearing open. 

Commissioner Ladd asked how this will affect the deadlines.  Mr. Giner stated there are thirty-five days and it can be continued to June 3, 2010.  Unfortunately, the Town Council doesn’t meet until June 7 so the Commission would have to get an extension to be able to continue it to June 17.  The Council took this matter up on Monday and there was a technical glitch in the way the item was noticed on the agenda.  They will have to consider it at their next meeting on June 7, 2010.  This Commission meets on June 3 and they won’t have an answer from the Council by that meeting. 

Attorney Fahey representing the applicant stated what he provided for the Town Attorney today was the Supreme Court case law on the subject.  There is a case that is very similar to this, the Leary case.  It creates an exception when the Commission is acting in the capacity of a special permit.  In that case, they were also dealing with a special permit that was involved with actions by another municipal agency.  Attorney Fahey read a portion of the case for the Commission’s benefit.  It states “in many circumstances other municipal agencies may properly be reluctant to commit themselves to a course of action before knowing that if such commitment is made, it will meet such conditions as the zoning authority would deem advisable.  Such a stalemate is clearly undesirable.  Under such circumstances where cooperative action is necessary to accomplish a desirable result, a stalemate can best be avoided by approval which may be conditional.”  Attorney Fahey stated the court upheld the Commission in that case where they granted the approval conditioned upon the action of other agencies for a special permit.  In this case, it would mean that the Commission’s approval would be conditioned upon the approval of the abandonment of Barrett Road by the Town Council.  Attorney Fahey thinks there is authority to do this and the concerns of the Commission tonight are those that the Supreme Court was addressing when they rendered this opinion. 

Chairman Duren stated Attorney Elsden suggested the Commission keep the hearing open because there were other possible concerns.  Chairman Duren would prefer to keep the hearing open for that one item.  Attorney Fahey stated they would be happy to grant an extension. 

Attorney Fahey stated his concern was they didn’t want to get caught up in a ping pong match.  Mr. Giner stated he didn’t receive anything in writing because Attorney Elsden did not feel comfortable without running the opinion through the Town Attorney. 

Mr. Giner stated he has an extension form they can fill out tonight and the hearing can be continued to June 17.  Attorney Fahey felt the Commission could close the public hearing.  Attorney Fahey stated the Commission asked for comments on the textures and they will present those this evening.  There is nothing left other than the Barrett Road issue to address.

Mr. Giner stated Attorney Elsden advised the Commission to keep the hearing open.  Chairman Duren stated he would like to keep it open.

Attorney Fahey stated he interpreted it as not keeping the vote open and not necessarily to not close the public hearing.  Mr. Giner stated the Commission can keep it open without an extension to June 3 and he can clarify the Town Attorney’s Office recommendation. 

Chairman Duren stated the Commission doesn’t have a document in hand and they usually wait for documents while the hearing is open.  Mr. Giner suggested keeping the hearing open until June 3 without an extension.  He will clarify Attorney Elsden’s position.  If the Town Attorney says it is okay to close the hearing before the Council acts, the Commission can take that into consideration. 

Attorney Fahey stated they brought the architect back because the Commission had questions about the colors and the elevator. 

Chairman Duren stated Mr. Giner sent a letter to Town Manager Coppler on the status of Barrett Road.  There were some comments from the Water Pollution Control Authority on some of the engineering comments and details about sewer pipes.  Mr. Giner stated those are standard conditions that are always included on applications.  Chairman Duren stated he doesn’t know if they have changed them on the plans.  He’s thinking about when the Secretary signs the plans.

Chairman Duren stated the Commission received comments from the Traffic Safety Officer with the plans for the turn.  The Commission also received the Declaration and Restrictions and Covenants that were requested. 

Chairman Duren stated the Commission has a letter from the EMS Director and they also state there are no federal regulations regarding elevators.

Jack Kemper, Kemper Associates, stated he would like to see the EMS letter from Kevin Sulllivan dated May 3, 2010.  Mr. Giner provided him a copy of the letter.

Jack Kemper stated they would just make the elevator 86” long.  It’s wide.  A stretcher is two feet by seven feet and the EMS director is asking for 7’2”.  They are also six feet wide and Mr. Kemper thinks if they stipulate the elevator is going to be 86” long, they would be comfortable doing that.  They have the room. 

Mr. Kemper stated the other issue was the colors.  He put together a palette of the colors that will be used.  The roofs are all the same which is a timberline weathered wood with an architectural shingle.  There are two palettes of colors for the siding.  All the trim will be white.  All the panels are the same.  What they are changing is the clapboard and the first floor shingles.  The palette shown is pebble stone clay and sage.  It is a gray and a darker gray.  They were looking for earthy tones. 

Mr. Kemper stated the other color palette includes wicker and sawmill.  They are looking at two different palettes to go throughout the building.  They are not looking to do each building a separate color. 

Commissioner Ladd stated the colors look alright to him.

Attorney Fahey asked that Mr. Kemper state the elevator dimensions for the record.  Mr. Kemper stated the elevator will be 6’ x 7’2” or 72” x 86”. 

Commissioner Ladd stated in most places where there are elevators they say if you have a fire, do not use the elevators.  He was curious as to how they plan to get people in wheelchairs off the third floor.  Mr. Troiano stated they would recommend anyone in a wheelchair be on the first floor.  The handicapped accessibility is more that it is available if need be.  It is more for people to get around but for wheelchairs, they would recommend people relocate to a first floor unit.  Chairman Duren stated they are called places of refuge and the firemen know exactly where to go via signage if you have a person in a wheelchair on a floor.  Mr. Troiano stated the building is completely sprinklered as well and he hopes this issue will never come up. 

Regarding the sewers, Mr. Giner has stated it was taken care of in the conditions.  Chairman Duren wanted to know if the plans have been changed for the benefit of the Commission secretary. 

Attorney Fahey stated Chairman Duren mentioned a letter from Mr. Giner to Mr. Coppler.  He asked if Mr. Giner received a response to that letter.  Chairman Duren read the letter.  Mr. Giner stated it was advertised as a public hearing on the Town Council’s agenda and it wasn’t actually a public hearing.  It was to be a discussion on the actual abandonment of Barrett Road.  Because it was not advertised correctly, the Council tabled it to their next meeting.  The next Council meeting will be on June 7, 2010. 

Chairman Duren opened this hearing to the public.  No one spoke regarding this application.  Chairman Duren continued this hearing until June 3, 2010.

Public Hearings (New)

a.                 PH#2692 – Special Use Permit to allow a Tattoo and Piercing establishment in an existing commercial building at 654 Enfield Street, in a Business Local (BL) District, Map 32, Lot 6; John Improta, Applicant; Michael T. and Dorothy Panella and Janice Banning Panella, Owners.

John Improta appeared before the Commission regarding this application.  He stated they would like to open a tattoo and piercing facility at 654 Enfield Street. 

Chairman Duren stated this is the old Brainard Seed building. 

Mr. Improta stated he was under the impression that all he needed was a letter from the Health Department.  He acknowledged that this facility is open.

Chairman Duren asked about the hours of operation.  Mr. Improta stated they are open 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. seven days a week and they advertise twenty-four hours a day by appointment.

Chairman Duren asked about advertising for twenty-four hours.  Mr. Improta stated they have their tattoo artists work every other day and the ones that are off the half day can work the odd hours.  They haven’t really had the opportunity to have that late of a tattoo going on but they would just like to advertise it for people that work third shift.  Chairman Duren stated personally he has a problem with this use being open twenty-four hours.  Mr. Improta stated the gym in the vicinity is open twenty-four hours. 

Chairman Duren stated he doesn’t know the lighting situation at this location but his concern is a personal opinion.

Chairman Duren stated the Commission has not allowed other tattoo parlors to operate those hours.  Commissioner Longhi stated she wasn’t particularly fond of the twenty-four hour proposal.  Commissioner Longhi asked if they are having any other sales other than tattoos.  Mr. Improta stated there is piercing and there is jewelry that is included with the piercing. 

Mr. Improta stated they were located at 84 Pearl Street.  Mr. Giner stated the Commission allowed a couple of establishments on Pearl Street and this use was listed as B-52 on Pearl Street. 

Commissioner Longhi stated the Zoning Enforcement Officer had some correspondence that she had served the sheriff and gave them a cease and desist.  She asked if Mr. Giner had more information on that.  Mr. Giner confirmed there was a cease and desist.  The applicant is coming in to comply with the cease and desist in getting his permits.

Chairman Duren stated Mr. Giner administratively approved 84 Pearl Street in February, 2005.  On 2009 the Health Department alerted the Zoning Enforcement Officer that he was operating out of his house.  Mr. Improta stated that was never true.  He had a phone line coming to his house for Cox business and they put that address in the phone book.  He later had it removed.  His home office where he has mail sent ended up in the phone book. 

Chairman Duren stated on 5/09, the Health Department sent a non compliance for 84 Pearl Street.  Mr. Improta stated they were no longer there at that point.  Chairman Duren stated the Health Department sent a copy of the doctor’s inspection.  One thing he would like to see is the Health Department requires that they have a doctor on call.  Mr. Improta stated they do have a doctor listed on their doctor’s note on call.  Chairman Duren stated the letter he saw states he understands he has to inspect yearly.  Mr. Improta stated he has the doctor on his cell phone and he can call him any time.  Chairman Duren requested a letter from the doctor stating that he is on call.  He stated the Connecticut Statues require that the business have a doctor on call in case of a problem.  For safety purposes, Chairman Duren would like to see that letter.

Mr. Improta stated their doctor actually represents other tattoo parlors such as the one in East Windsor, Custom Creations. 

Commissioner Longhi requested more specific hours of operation.  Mr. Improta asked what hours is he supposed to change them to.  Mr. Giner stated on Pearl Street Mr. Improta was taking over another business and the hours were existing for that business.  It was not a piercing facility and therefore not a special use permit.  The tattoo parlor qualifies as a personal services site plan approval and no hours are set for site plans.  Mr. Giner stated the piercing makes it a special use permit and requires hours of operation. 

Mr. Improta suggested 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on the piercing. 

Mr. Improta stated as far as the twenty-four hours, he gets the calls and he can set the appointments at any hour of the day.  If he is required to have certain hours, that is fine but he just wanted to get the calls twenty-four seven. 

Chairman Duren stated they have the doctor certified technician.  If they leave today, what do they do for a new technician.  Mr. Improta stated he has two technicians that are on the existing doctor’s note.  He would have to run with one and find a new technician.  He would then have to have a doctor come out and recertify the technician.  He would also notify the Health Department.  Mr. Improta stated he had to do this once before.  He can’t have the technician tattoo until he is certified by the doctor and then the letter comes into the Health Department letting them know that the doctor has certified the technician to be tattooing at that address.

Chairman Duren noted it states that they take their medical wastes to Hartford Hospital.  He asked if that is a contract.  Mr. Improta stated the individual artists have a needles program where they can bring in and dispose of the needles.  The artists handle that on their own.  They had previously used Johnson Hospital.  Chairman Duren asked if that is up to the individual artists.  Mr. Improta stated the artists have their individual containers and there are a couple of different disposal services that they used but they found that Hartford Hospital works the best.  Chairman Duren stated Mr. Improta would not have control over the medical waste.  Mr. Improta stated he buys the equipment but the individual artists control the needles and dispose of them. 

Some discussion followed on the renewal process with the Health Department.

Mr. Improta brought up hours of operation.  He can do 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for the piercing.  He asked what is the Commission recommending.  The hours on Pearl Street were 12:00 noon to 8:00 p.m. and closed on Sundays.  They would like to open on Sundays at this location due to the location of the gym and the fact that it is open twenty-four hours. 

Mr. Improta stated with limiting the piercing, can he still do twenty-four hour appointments or does he have to schedule the appointments within particular hours.  Chairman Duren stated he would prefer that.  He doesn’t know the lighting situation down there.  Mr. Improta stated the area is very visible at night because of the new facility next door with all the lighting.  With the facility itself, there are lights on the building.  Chairman Duren stated he doesn’t see where they need to be open twenty-four hours. 

Commissioner Lefakis stated one of the alternatives he is requesting is can he answer the phone twenty-four hours but not to schedule an appointment every twenty-four hours.  He doesn’t see any issue with this.

Commissioner Longhi stated she thought he was saying he wanted to make appointments for patrons to come in at 10:00 p.m.

Mr. Improta stated that is what he needs to clarify because he does get people that get out of work rather late and some of them want rather large tattoos.  It is hard to fit them in in two or three hours.  Mr. Improta stated there are tattoos that take eight to ten hours and if he can’t fit them in to that 12:00 noon to 8:00 p.m. schedule, he is breaking the session up.  Mr. Improta stated he has never been regulated for hours before and he is not understanding what he needs to do.

Commissioner Dumont asked if Mr. Improta proposes to be open seven days a week.  Mr. Improta stated he would like to advertise setting an appointment twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.  He noted their busier days are Friday, Saturday and Sunday.  But he noted some tattoos can go over eight hours. 

Mr. Improta stated piercings are not a problem because they can be done in a short amount of time.  It is the tattooing that takes the time.  He noted in the summer the gym gets used more and people call later.  They never had a problem with the lighting.  Mr. Improta stated they do get calls later than 8:00 p.m. and some people just want to come right over. 

Commissioner Ladd suggested 12:00 noon to 10:00 p.m. for the hours of operation.  Chairman Duren stated that would not bother him.  It is the twenty-four hours that is his concern.

Mr. Improta asked if they can do 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight.  They can work such hours into their advertising. 

Commissioner Longhi stated she feels that the applicant has to tell the Commission what is needed.  Mr. Improta stated he wanted to do twenty-four seven.  Commissioner Longhi asked if they can work into 12:00 to 12:00.  Mr. Improta stated he thinks he can work with 12:00 to 12:00. 

Chairman Duren stated he doesn’t believe there are houses that are that close to this establishment.  There are houses across the street but most of them have offices in them. 

Mr. Improta stated their biggest draw would be from Gold’s Gym. 

Chairman Duren stated the proposal is 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight for the tattoos and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for the piercings.   Mr. Improta asked if he could do the same hours for both.  Chairman Duren stated this would mean 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight seven days a week. 

Commissioner Longhi asked if all the tattoos and piercings are done on the premises.  Mr. Improta stated they are.  The only thing he considered doing was a mock studio, a trailer that would have their artwork on display.  He would like to use this as a marketing tool for the business.  He has a trailer that he wanted to set up for marketing ads.  There are such things as tattoo shows and exhibitions and he has a trailer that he was going to bring to those to show their artwork. 

Mr. Giner stated he would take the trailer to different shows and not actually do tattooing.  Mr. Improta stated the trailer is stored at his house. 

Commissioner Longhi stated she saw Mr. Improta’s house address and she wanted to make sure that the tattooing and piercing is being done solely at the business.  Mr. Improta stated there is no tattooing at his house.  That was an ad that Cox Cable put inside the phone book.  Nothing goes on at his house. 

Chairman Duren stated the consensus is the tattooing and piercing hours will be 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight for both seven days a week.

Chairman Duren stated the Commission has limited other businesses that did piercing to only above the waist.  Mr. Improta stated he doesn’t have any intention of doing anything below the waist.  They do navels.  He wouldn’t object to a condition that piercing shall be above the waist only.  Commissioner Longhi stated that is already listed as item 4 in the proposed conditions. 

Chairman Duren stated Condition 6 will be hours of operation 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight for tattoos and piercing. 

Chairman Duren read a letter from the Department of Consumer Protection. 

Chairman Duren asked if there is any reason to keep this hearing open.  Commissioner Ladd asked if the Commission wanted to wait for the physician’s statement.  Mr. Giner stated condition #3 addresses that.  If that is sufficient, the hearing can be closed.  There is a letter from the doctor and we just have to clarify that he is on call. 

Chairman Duren stated before the staff signs off on this, the applicant will have to submit a letter that the doctor is on call for this tattoo shop.  Chairman Duren stated this letter should also be sent to the Health Department.  Mr. Improta stated one of the things that could happen is a fainting spell and the technicians have been trained in how to revive by the doctor. 

Mr. Giner stated the letter should confirm that the doctor is on call and he is serving as their on-call physician. 

Chairman Duren opened this hearing to the public.  No one spoke in favor or against this application.  Chairman Duren closed PH#2692. 

Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, 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 all alternates voting. 

Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to approve PH #2692 – Special Use Permit to allow a Tattoo and Piercing establishment in an existing commercial building at 654 Enfield St., in a Business Local (BL) District, Map 32, Lot 6; John Improta applicant; Michael T. & Dorothy Panella and Janice Banning Panella, owners, subject to conformance with the application record and the following conditions:

General 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.  This approval is only for interior change of use.  Any new exterior construction must obtain additional Site Plan approval from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.

3.  Copies of all required medical and Health Department certifications must be provided to the Planning Department and maintained throughout the time this use exists.

4.  Piercing shall be limited to above the waist.

5.  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.

6.  The piercing hours and the tattoo hours of operation are from 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight seven days a week.

Chairman Duren asked if Mr. Improta had any problems with the conditions.  Mr. Improta stated he had no problems with them.    

The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting.

The findings were that the premises were acceptable for fire and police protection and in general it is in harmony with the development of the area.  It shouldn’t be a problem with the hours of operation.   

b.                 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.

Commissioner Longhi recused herself from this application.

Attorney Thomas Fahey appeared before the Commission regarding this application along with Ed Spazzarini and Jay Usery from J. R. Russo and Associates. 

Attorney Fahey stated they are requesting a zone change this evening.  He presented the zone change map and stated what the Commission is looking at is the 500’ line.  The property consisting of 5.53 acres is located on the corner of Post Office Road where it intersects with I-91.  All of this property is currently zoned I-1.  On the other side of Post Office Road, there is some HR-33 residential property.  The intent of the application is to change the parcel to an I-2 zone. 

Attorney Fahey stated the parcel itself currently has an existing motor vehicle use to the rear and the present location of the applicant’s construction office which was built in 2008.  The reason they are seeking the zone change application is that in the course of their business, they frequently run into motor vehicles that they would like to sell on a wholesale basis over the internet from their existing facility.  Attorney Fahey stated there is currently a section of the regulations in Industrial-2 that allows that and it is limited to no more than five vehicles at any one time. 

Attorney Fahey stated Mr. Giner has indicated that their proposal is consistent with the existing Plan of Development and the future land use Plan of Development in that the property is already industrial and all they are doing is seeking a change from one zoning designation, I-1, to another, I-2. 

Attorney Fahey submitted the sign affidavit showing that the sign was posted.  Chairman Duren stated the Commission also has a certification from the Zoning Enforcement Officer. 

Attorney Fahey stated in 1963 the property was originally zoned Residence B and it was changed to Industrial.  At that time, the Commission had only one industrial zone.  In 1966 the Commission approved a site plan for the GMC truck sales which was called Cycle Truck and Equipment which is located in the rear of this site.  Subsequently they got their approval from the DMV in 1967 and they have been operating continuously at that site since that time.  There was another land use map done in 1976 which showed this area as an automobile commercial area.  At that time, this Commission changed its zoning table from one industrial zone to three industrial zones, an I-1, an I-2 and an I-P zone.  When they did that, by making this area an I-1 zone, it actually made the motor vehicle use nonconforming because it only allowed it for the wholesale limited to five cars in an I-2 zone. Attorney Fahey stated in 2008 the applicant got approval to build their current construction office on the front of the property and that is where Ed Spazzarini would like to operate this new business.

Ed Spazzarini stated their primary business is construction.  They go to a lot of construction equipment auctions and there are vehicles that they purchase and sell them through the internet.  They don’t plan to display cars.  They don’t want the cars out in front but plan to put them behind the screened in fence in the rear and indoors as needed.  It would be a small outlet for some vehicles that they come across in doing business.

Attorney Fahey addressed a common legal concept that is often brought up when you are trying to change the zone and that is the concept of spot zoning.  Spot zoning is illegal.  The best simple definition that Attorney Fahey can give is it is an attempt to wrench a single small lot from its environment and give it a new legal classification that disturbs the tenor of the neighborhood.  In order to have spot zoning, you need two things.  First, you need to have a small piece of land that you are seeking to change the zone on and you must also have a change that is out of harmony with the comprehensive plan for the good of the community as a whole.  You have to take all that into consideration in determining if there is spot zoning. 

Attorney Fahey stated there have been pieces of land as small as two acres that have been ruled as not being spot zoning because the second component of that change was actually inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.  In their case, they meet both of those.  They have a five and a half acre parcel which is not considered small according to spot zoning standards but, more importantly, the case that they are in harmony with is an easy one to make here because they are not changing a business zone to residential or an industrial zone to residential.  They have an existing industrial zone and they propose to change the classification from I-1 to I-2 and they already have the use on the property.  It is difficult to say in any way how that could change the tenor of the neighborhood or cause any impacts to the neighborhood.  Also, they are benefited by the fact that the break in the zones is buffered by I-91.  The residential property that is to the west is in no way impacted by this zone change.  It is uniquely located and very appropriate for this zone change.

Attorney Fahey stated the other factor is the Commission doesn’t have to be concerned too much about there being some major deluge of applications seeking the changes because there’s not a lot of I-2 property in the community.  Mr. Giner pointed that out in his memo.  It seems like all the factors that go into determining its consistency with the Plan of Development and the comprehensive plan are present in this application. 

Commissioner Ladd stated he doesn’t see how the use is going to change and he was in favor of the zone change.

Chairman Duren asked if the trucks are kept in the rear of the building.  Mr. Spazzarini stated they have screening on the new fence they have installed around the building and everything would be behind that. 

Mr. Giner stated if the zone change were to pass, they would still have to come in and get a special permit for the use.  The Commission would get a chance at that time to review where those vehicles would be parked. 

Chairman Duren stated this would be uniting two parcels under the same owner and instead of two designations, you would have one.  Attorney Fahey confirmed that and stated it would make the use more consistent with the existing zoning. 

Chairman Duren asked if this was a recommendation from the Legal Department.  Mr. Giner stated they had come in with a proposal to add a second license and they were considering that there was already a license on the premises.  Mr. Giner asked the Legal Department for an interpretation as to whether this would be an expansion and what would be the best way to accommodate it.  They discussed text changes but did not want to open the I-1 zone to I-2 uses and felt this would be the best way of accomplishing that.   Chairman Duren noted this is also a recommendation from the town’s Legal Department. 

Mr. Giner stated the Plan of Development doesn’t differentiate between types of uses but it just says industrial use.  Both the current and the future land use plan identify these areas as industrial uses.  It is up to the Commission to determine which varieties of industrial uses would go where. 

Commissioner Ladd asked why did they recommend that the back lot be put in also to make it conforming.  Mr. Giner stated that is all one piece of property. 

Attorney Fahey stated the entire parcel will be changed to I-2 although the use in the back is a preexisting use.  As long as they don’t abandon that use, they can continue using it in that capacity.  Mr. Giner stated we are allowing them to apply for the second license. 

Chairman Duren opened this hearing to the public.

James Brislin, Oakwood Street in the Sherwin Manor section of town, is here to speak in opposition to the application.  He challenged both fact and law.  With regard to fact, he begins his challenge of some of the facts asserted by the applicant and repeated by Mr. Giner in his memo; specifically, the preexisting use.  Mr. Brislin paid a visit to the Department of Motor Vehicles, dealers and repairers division, and he found out that a certificate of suitability had been granted to the Central Truck and Equipment Company on December 21, 1965.  However, it was not granted for 38 but was only granted for 40.  That would be the parcel in the back.  He is confused as to how the applicant is claiming a preexisting use on 38 when the ZBA had only granted that use for 40.  It is puzzling. 

Mr. Brislin stated contrary to the assertion of Attorney Fahey, this would be a classic example of spot zoning.  He read that spot zoning is a reclassification of a small area of land in such a manner as to disturb the tenor of the surrounding neighborhood.  Two elements must be satisfied before spot zoning can be said to exist.  First the zone change must concern a small area of land.  Second, the change must be out of harmony with the comprehensive plan for zoning adopted to serve the needs of the community as a whole.  Mr. Brislin stated this is a small area of land and it’s one parcel.  Unless the applicant were to subdivide, you couldn’t zone anything smaller within it.  As to the lack of harmony with the Plan of Conservation and Development, Mr. Brislin encouraged the Commission to look at the zoning map and consider how many other I-2 uses there are in that neighborhood.  There is a reason why the Commission changed its zoning regulations, how it did and what it did.  It’s because those particular parcels are at the edge between an industrial park and a residential area.  The reality is that the Commission wanted to limit the intensity of use on these parcels so as to protect the residential quality of the surrounding neighborhood.

Mr. Brislin cited David Grist, Planning and Zoning Commission of the town of Southington and he read an excerpt for the Commission.  In this case, they are seeking a use that would disturb a local neighborhood.  Unless guarantees can be put in place that the automotive use would always be limited to a very small shop with very few vehicles, Mr. Brislin would be opposed to it.  He thinks the Commission needs to look into the assertions of preexisting use.  The assertion of preexisting construction on this site is valid but he doesn’t believe the automotive is preexisting on this site. 

Mr. Giner stated he also visited the DMV to find out exactly what the permitted premises were in 1966.  He does have the file here from the Zoning Board of Appeals.  The address at the time was 40 Post Office Road; however, when he looked at the premises that was shown on the approved map, it is clear that what was known as 40 then is now known as 38.  There was some rearrangement of lot lines but it is clear from his investigation.  He had specifically asked the person at DMV whether the permitted premises was limited to the improvements shown which is the back or did it include the entire site.  They specifically told him at DMV that it was the entire site that they considered the permitted premises at the time.  That is on the land records and is signed by the Commission.  It is true that the address at the time was #40 but it since has been changed to #38 but in effect it is the same premises. 

Mr. Giner discussed spot zoning.  There are many other places in town that are smaller than this that are similarly zoned.  One that comes to mind is the gas station on the corner of Broad Brook Road in Hazardville.  It’s a Business General zone and it is a lot less than two acres.  It is the only BG on that zone.  The others that he would call to mind that are smaller than this parcel are the Raffia Road Service Center which is BL and down the road is Bosco’s Automotive Shop which is zoned BG and less than 5.3 acres in size.  Mr. Giner noted Mrs. Legienza’s property which was zoned from BR to BG because the mall wasn’t buying her parcel and she had no other use under BG.  That little corner was zoned Business General.  That was a stand alone corner.  Mr. Giner would agree with Attorney Fahey’s remarks that size doesn’t necessarily matter as long as it has similar uses surrounding it as part of your plan of development.  It’s identified as an industrial area. 

Chairman Duren noted Mr. Giner is saying that the discrepancy in the street address was a change of address.  Mr. Giner stated that is correct.  He believes the house is now #40.  That property didn’t exist until 1966 when it was developed.  The maps in 1962 didn’t show anything on the property.  Originally it was #40 and there were some lot line revisions and property was added and there were some revisions to the lot lines.  #40 became the house and #38 became the commercial property.  If you read the approvals from the ZBA, they just say Post Office Road.   The DMV does have it as #40.  He did go to the DMV personally and look in their files to determine what they consider the permitted premises were.   He knew they had to file a map with DMV and he wanted to make sure it was consistent with what we had and they confirmed that the premises included the entire parcel. 

Attorney Fahey stated Mr. Giner has correctly recited the issue with respect to the address.  The property at one time was all known as #40 when the original building was there.  As a result of lot line adjustments, this entire site became #38.  That portion of Mr. Brislin’s presentation is inaccurate. 

Attorney Fahey stated this application is for a change of zone.  All the discussion about the preexisting use part of it is irrelevant.  As the Town Planner said, he has checked the files in the Motor Vehicles Office and there is no question that the motor vehicle use to the rear’s license has continued to be licensed and will continue to operate as is even with the zone change. 

Attorney Fahey stated with respect to the Damick case, it is totally irrelevant to this case.  Even in his own presentation of the facts, he did cite the general rubrick that you have to have two things:  a small parcel and consistency with the comprehensive plan.  Attorney Fahey gave the case where there was a two and a half acre parcel which the Supreme Court ruled was not spot zoning because the change was to a classification that is consistent with the comprehensive plan and had no negative impact on the neighborhood.  Attorney Fahey doesn’t think he made a case that there is a negative impact.  If this was going to make an impact to the neighborhood, Attorney Fahey felt you would see a few people here saying I don’t want this in my back yard.  This is a unique site for this type of zone change. 

Attorney Fahey stated on May 11, 2010 Mr. Brislin filed a complaint with the Motor Vehicles involving something about improper use of plates with respect to the operation of Central Trucking in the back.  The Commission needs to take this fact into consideration when it weighs its testimony. 

Chairman Duren closed this public hearing. 

Commissioner Ladd made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to approve 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 effective May 28, 2010.

Chairman Duren did not see any spot zoning.  It is separated from the Residential by the highway.  The vehicles have been there for quite a long time and it is combining the two uses. 

Commissioner Ladd felt the proposed use is consistent with the land use plan. 

The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting. 

c.                  XZA 10-09 – Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission initiative to add the North Thompsonville Aquifer Protection area as approved and required by the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection to the Enfield Zoning Map.

Mr. Giner stated the Commission has the sheet with all the exhibits.   This was transmitted to the Town Clerk within ten days prior to the hearing as required by statutes for zone changes.  This is sort of a hybrid zone change.  It is really an overlay and it doesn’t really change the uses permitted.  It is something that the state statutes require the town to do once the DEP approves the designation as a Level A area.  This particular area protects the well fields off of Booth Road.  Exhibit #2 which is the overlay over the zoning map shows that most of it is over residential areas.  The two areas of commercial that are most affected are the areas along Route 5 north of the interchange.  To the south it overlays some of the properties off of Pearson Way.  There is a funeral home in a residential area there and Shaker Farms.  Out of all those commercial uses, the gas stations, the funeral home and two or three other uses would actually have to fall under the registration requirements of the act. 

Mr. Giner stated he included in the meeting packet a sample letter along with mailing labels to about thirty owners of commercial properties and a couple of residential properties that had commercial uses on them such as the funeral home.  He sent them a letter and the permit application form for registration along with instructions.  Mr. Giner received seven or eight calls and none of them looked like they were activities that needed to be registered.  There are some gas stations and repair shops right at the state line that would be affected and will have to register within 180 days. 

Mr. Giner stated car washes are not regulated if they are hooked up to the sewer. 

Chairman Duren saw some realtors there and he sees Abdows.  Mr. Giner got a call from them and he sent letters to the owners to make sure they notify their tenants.  If he doesn’t get a registration, he will follow up especially for the obvious uses like the gas stations. 

Chairman Duren discussed the car use at the state line and the fact that they are parking on the green.  He noted they have ruined the grass between the sidewalk and the street.  The grass is all torn up.  That is the garage south of the interchange. 

Mr. Giner stated there is State Line Motors and they probably do activities that have to be registered.  They did receive a copy of the letter. 

Mr. Giner stated people have until November to register for free and it is to the property owners’ benefit.  If the tenant doesn’t register, nothing happens to the tenant.  Only properties with regulated activities can then apply for any new activities.  So if you don’t have a regulated activity on that property and you are zoned industrial commercial and you want to do something that is regulated, under the Aquifer Protection Act, you are prohibited from doing any of those regulated activities.  If you have a premises that is registered, in zoning it would be a preexisting use.  Once you have a registered premises you can then apply to add more uses through a permit process that would have to come back through the Agency. 

Commissioner Longhi asked if an owner of a building can register themselves.  Mr. Giner stated yes, that is why he sent it to the owners.  It is to protect their rights because if their tenant leaves and they want to bring in another tenant that has a regulated activity, they would need to show that the premises has been registered. 

Commissioner Longhi asked if this map is on the web so that people can look at it.  Mr. Giner stated yes, it now becomes part of the town’s zoning map.  Right now what is on the web is the colored map with the overlays.  Commissioner Longhi stated if someone was curious to know if their property was affected, they could see the new overlay and know that they were in that area.  Mr. Giner stated the whole map is on the internet.   Once the Commissioner adopts the overlay, he will put it on there. 

Mr. Giner stated he may be able to generate a list of properties indicating that they are in an aquifer protection area.  This is something he will talk to the assessor about.  There may be zone change requests in the future.

Chairman Duren opened this hearing to the public.  No one spoke in favor or against this application.  Chairman Duren closed XZA-10—09.    

Commissioner Ladd made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dumont, to approve XZA 10-09 – Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission initiative to add the North Thompsonville Aquifer Protection Area as approved and required by the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection to the Enfield Zoning Map, effective May 28, 2010.  The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting.    

OLD BUSINESS

a.                 SPR#1498 – Facade renovations for Enfield Pizza at 106 Pearl Street in a TVCZ District, Map 24, Lot 114; Enfield Pizza, Applicant; Sachi Corp., Owner.

Hason Kuruca, 255 Moody Road, Enfield, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.  He presented before and after pictures to the Commission.  As of now, there is stucco which is breaking down and they want to renovate it with cream exterior siding.  He presented a sample to the Commission.  It has foam insulation to it.

Chairman Duren stated he has two photographs and one has iron bars.  Mr. Kuruca stated there are two kinds of facade treatments.  The shaded area designates where the windows and doors are. 

Commissioner Ladd asked if he is going to use the Torino.  Mr. Kuruca stated yes.  The appearance will not be that much different but the stucco is breaking down.  Chairman Duren stated it will add to the place and look much better.

Chairman Duren stated there were two recommendations from the Enfield Revitalization Committee.  Mr. Giner stated those are contained in the conditions as conditions 2 and 3. 

Chairman Duren asked if Mr. Kuruca saw the conditions.  Mr. Kuruca stated he did and he had no problem with them.   

Commissioner Dumont made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, 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 all alternates voting.

Commissioner Dumont made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve 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.  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.                 The proposed work shall consist only of the proposed siding as outlined in the application.  The siding shall be the “BellaStone” product as shown in the application.  No alternatives are allowed.

3.                 The work will be confined to the area shown within the application which consists of approximately 370 square feet on the subject storefront.  No other work shall be allowed under this application.

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.

The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting.  

NEW BUSINESS

a.                 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.

Theresa Kovacik and Shannon Young, 18 Dorothy Street, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.  Ms. Kovacik stated she is already in an existing business which was located at Health Tracks.  She is just moving to 654 Enfield Street next to the tattoo place. 

Chairman Duren stated he has a letter dated May 14 from the Director of Health.  Ms. Kovacik confirmed that she received that letter and talked to Mr. Blitz on the phone.

Mr. Giner reported something came in today from Debbie Korona.  He read the memo which contains the steps Ms. Kovacik has to do to obtain approval.  She has to apply for and obtain all required permits from the Town of Enfield departments and the fire marshal as needed.  Mr. Giner stated one of his conditions of approval was that any necessary approvals from the North Central Health District shall be obtained prior to the Zoning Enforcement Officer signing off on the final certificate of occupancy.  Mr. Giner felt the condition about obtaining all the required permits from the Town of Enfield Departments and the Fire Marshal should be added to his conditions. 

Mr. Giner stated they opened prior to receiving any of the necessary permits. 

Chairman Duren stated the Commission usually requires letters from the Fire Marshal.  However, the Commission didn’t get one for the tattoo parlor either.  Mr. Giner wasn’t aware they had opened.

Chairman Duren stated sometimes after the Commission gives the approval the Fire Marshal goes through the premises.  Mr. Giner stated in this case they have a cease and desist from the Health Department.

Commissioner Longhi stated there are two drawings that look similar.  Mr. Young stated one drawing is the basic layout of the shop.  The other one includes the dimensions.  He did do a parking plan for the area as well. 

Commissioner Longhi asked how many people are working in the hair salon.  Ms. Kovacik stated it is just herself and another girl.  She has two part-timers. 

Chairman Duren stated he was down there.  There is a motorcycle business, the tattoo parlor and the beauty parlor.  He saw the signs and asked if there are three entrances.  Mr. Young stated yes, everything is separate.  They are towards the gym, the tattoo parlor is in the middle and then the motorcycle place.

Chairman Duren asked if the site plan/floor plan is okay.  Mr. Giner stated it would require waivers.  The only reason he wanted dimensions was because he was trying to figure out what the parking demand was for the space.  There is 393 square feet of customer space.  This indicates it looks like there is adequate parking. 

Chairman Duren stated storage is shown on the plans.  Mr. Young stated there is a room that is upstairs.  You walk up some steps and it is just a big store room.  It is like a loft and it is accessed right through the shop.  There is a back door by the closet for access.  Chairman Duren asked about the area with the squiggles on Exhibit 3.  Mr. Young stated originally they had that whole room but they needed a bathroom.  They took part of that room to make a bathroom for the tattoo parlor.  There are four doors and Panella has a small office. 

Chairman Duren asked if the house in the front is a residence.  Ms. Kovacik confirmed it is a residence.  Chairman Duren stated the area included Brainard Seeds at one time which was a nationally known company. 

Mr. Giner asked if the Fire Marshal has visited the site.  Ms. Kovacik stated she talked to the Fire Marshal on the phone and he said it wasn’t necessary.  Mr. Giner hadn’t received anything from him.  Mr. Young stated they will call him and have him come and inspect the premises.  Mr. Giner stated the Fire Marshal was in looking at the files but he hasn’t received anything in writing from him. 

Ms. Kovacik stated she didn’t realize in moving her business from Health Tracks that she would need all these inspections.  Mr. Young stated at Health Tracks, the business was already there.  They didn’t realize they had to come in for these permits. 

Mr. Giner stated that is why he suggested a condition that they would need to apply and obtain all approvals from the Town of Enfield departments and the Fire Marshal prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy. 

Chairman Duren asked if the hand drawing is acceptable to Mr. Giner.  Mr. Giner stated it is and he believes everything is there already.  All they did was put in fixtures.  Mr. Giner is not sure when Panella subdivided that he got fire marshal approval. 

Chairman Duren asked about the hours of operation.  Ms. Kovacik stated 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday and closed on Sunday. 

Mr. Young discussed the lighting.  He stated the lights light up the whole area and their parking lot.  Ms. Kovacik stated having the tattoo parlor there is a good thing from a safety viewpoint as they are a bunch of nice guys. 

Chairman Duren asked if Ms. Kovacik had any problems with the conditions.  Ms. Kovacik stated she has no problems with the conditions. 

Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Drinan, 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 all alternates voting.

Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve SPR #1496 – Site Plan review for changes of use to Personal Services (Hair Salon) for an existing commercial space at 654 Enfield St., in a Business Local (BL) District, Map 32, Lot 6; Theresa Kovacik d/b/a Powercuts, applicant; Michael T. & Dorothy Panella and Janice Banning Panella, owners, subject to conformance with the submitted plans and the following conditions:

Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :

1.     The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.

2.     Any necessary approvals from North Central Health District shall be obtained prior to the Zoning Enforcement officer signing off on the final Certificate of Occupancy.

3.     A final Inspection will be required.

General Conditions:

4.     This approval is for the specific use and structure identified in the application.  Any change in the nature of the use or the structure will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.

5.     This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans.  Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.

6.     All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by May 20, 2015 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

7.     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.

8.     The applicant shall apply for and obtain all required permits/approvals from Town of Enfield departments and the fire marshal as needed prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy.

9.     The hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and closed on Sunday.

The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting.

Chairman Duren stated there is no problem with traffic access and there is plenty of parking.  It is accessible for the fire department and is a good use for the building.    

b.                 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.

John Mancini, a Principal with the firm BL Companies, 355 Research Parkway in Meriden, Connecticut, and Ray Gradwell, one of his colleagues and an engineer appeared before the Commission regarding this application. 

Mr. Mancini stated he was here before the Commission some months ago and he told the Commission at that time that Paramount Realty had been the recent purchasers of the shopping center.  At that time, they had asked this Commission to help them with changing the facade for Five Below.  They implemented that.  The developer owner is true in delivering what he set out to do. 

Mr. Mancini stated the center has a few vacancies.  One is the space they are working on which was People’s Bank and became T-Mobile.  The reason they are here is using the building for something else with the way the parking lot was configured in front of it and the drive through flow really needed to be cleaned up.  This is step one of the next step which will be to add another pad next to this area.  They needed to get this tenant going and couldn’t hold up the process. 

Mr. Gradwell, Senior Project Manager at the BL Companies, 355 Research Parkway, Meriden, presented the site plan.  The site is located at 25 Hazard Avenue in Enfield, Connecticut.  It is known as Enfield Commons.  The site itself fronts on Hazard Avenue.  He pointed out Freshwater Boulevard.  The vicinity where they are proposing their work is the former People’s Bank and he pointed out the location.   They are proposing to clean up the parking.  There is a divided boulevard and former drive through and landscaped island which will be removed to create some parking around the former People’s Bank.

Mr. Gradwell stated what they are proposing to do is remove the boulevard island, remove the drive through area, remove the landscaped island and then create a continuous parking field adjacent to that T-Mobile space with handicapped accessible parking at the front door.  A landscaped island would create the flow through that driveway and create a two-way drive aisle adjacent to that T-Mobile space.  They will connect those areas with a new sidewalk system and a new trash enclosure adjacent to or east of that T-Mobile space.  In the process of doing this work, they are proposing to clean up a couple of drainage problems that are out there.  There is a low point in the parking field west of the T-Mobile space which has been a continuous problem.  There is a four-inch pipe that drains that and they are proposing to clean that area up and create a drain leaving that and eliminate that pond that is in the corner of that parking field.  They will have a curb cut and a drain to that existing catch basin at the bottom of the hill.

Mr. Gradwell stated they are proposing plantings and landscaping throughout the parking field.  They are proposing to use deciduous shrubs within the islands and deciduous shrubs up against the building to enhance the facade of the T-Mobile space.  The parking configuration will increase the parking in the vicinity by 15 parking spaces. 

Chairman Duren asked if they received the note from John Cabibbo dated May 13.  Mr. Gradwell stated he did receive it.  Mr. Giner stated their letter states they have addressed the comments.  One of the comments Mr. Giner made was that they didn’t have a fully stamped set of plans.  He confirmed he did get a copy along with a letter from the BL Companies addressing the concerns.  Commissioner Longhi was happy about the receipt of the stamped plans. 

Chairman Duren stated Fire Marshal Paul Censki had problems with the stop signs.  Mr. Giner stated he had a question and they responded to it.  Chairman Duren stated his comment is it is a great improvement for flow and access to the building.  Commissioner Longhi stated she used to do banking there and it was a difficult area.  This is such an improvement to that section. 

Mr. Mancini relayed a story about the site.  He noted this improvement is one of many steps they are going to take to really improve the center.  Commissioner Longhi stated the island was in the way when you backed out.  It was a nightmare with the traffic congestion. 

Commissioner Longhi asked if the Commission will still use Mr. Giner’s memo with the conditions.  Mr. Giner stated yes. 

Chairman Duren noted the Commission is not approving the final expansion area.  They are just showing it. 

Mr. Mancini stated they are doing the site improvements to clean up the circulation and one or two spot drainage improvements on the site.

Mr. Gradwell stated the reason why they showed that note was one of the reasons why they not only tried to fix the parking but made sure they got extra parking for that future pad.  They will have to come back with their future plans and a site plan modification. 

Commissioner Longhi had a question on FEMA.  She knows the owners have to take out flood insurance but asked if they alert the tenants about this as well so that they are aware.  Mr. Gradwell stated it is on their covenant agreement.  Chairman Duren stated that area flooded two or three years ago.

Commissioner Lefakis stated there have been a couple of times when he has been shopping there and it is raining and there is the smell of sewage in front of the stores.  He asked if this drainage work is going to correct the problem.  Mr. Gradwell stated they are not going to correct any sewer smells.  It is probably because there are two restaurants with grease traps which can cause smells.  If there is a manhole area that is not sealed, just walking by you will notice a foul odor.  Commissioner Lefakis stated coming out of Barnes and Noble and Marshalls he has been able to pick up the smells.  Mr. Gradwell will be seeing the owners soon and they would love to hear that and they can correct that.  It could be as simple as lack of maintenance or the need to pump out the grease trap.  Commissioner Lefakis stated it appeared as though water was coming out of the cap.  Mr. Mancini stated there could be a blockage somewhere.  Chairman Duren asked if they were doing drainage work for Aldi’s.  That could be causing something. 

Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve 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 Ave. in a Business Regional (BR) District, Map 45, Lot 8; Paramount Realty Services, applicant/ Paramount Commons at Enfield, LLC, owners, subject to conformance with the referenced plans as may be required to be modified by this approval and the following conditions:

Referenced Plans:

“Enfield Commons Site Improvements 25 Hazard Avenue, Enfield,  Connecticut, Prepared for Paramount Realty Services 1195 Route 70, Suite 2000, Lakewood, NJ 08701” Cover Sheet w/ Vicinity Map, Location Map and Contents; By BL Companies, dated April 18, 2010.

“Existing Conditions, Topographic Survey Enfield Commons Hazard Road, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet EX-1; Scale: 1”=20’; by BL Companies, dated 4/7/10.

“Site Demolition Plan, Enfield Commons Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet DM-1; Scale: 1”=20’; by BL Companies, dated 4/18/10.

“Overall Site Plan, Enfield Commons Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet SP-0; Scale: 1”=80’; by BL Companies, dated 4/18/10

“Site Plan, Enfield Commons Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet SP-1; Scale: 1”=20’; by BL Companies, dated 4/18/10

“Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan, Enfield Commons, Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet GU-1; Scale: 1”=20’; by BL Companies, dated 4/18/10

“Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan, Enfield Commons Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet EC-1; Scale: 1”=20’; by BL Companies, dated 4/18/10

“Sedimentation and Erosion Control Notes, Enfield Commons Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet EC-2; Scale: 1”=20’; by BL Companies, dated 4/18/10

“Planting Plan, Enfield Commons Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet LL-1; Scale: 1”=20’; by BL Companies, dated 4/18/10

“Detail Sheet, Enfield Commons, Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet DN-1; Scale: “N.T.S.”; by BL Companies, dated 4/18/10.

“Detail Sheet, Enfield Commons, Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet DN-2; Scale: “N.T.S.”; by BL Companies, dated 4/18/10.

Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:

1.  Each sheet of the plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.

2.The detail for the pavement cross section should be revised to show a minimum eight inches (8") depth of processed crushed stone base and the minimum total pavement depth should be three inches (3").

3.  The detail cross section for the sidewalk should have a minimum eight inches (8") depth of processed crushed stone base.  The concrete should be 4000 psi strength at a minimum depth of five inches (5") and cross section for the sidewalk ramps should be a minimum concrete depth of eight inches (8") with wire mesh reinforcing.  Wire reinforcing is not required in the 5" depth sections.

4.        The dumpsters should be on a concrete pad with a minimum eight inches (8") depth of processed crushed stone base, a minimum eight inches (8") depth of 4000 psi concrete with wire mesh reinforcing.

5.                 Standard Town Notes b, c, d, e, f and h should be added to the plans.

6.                 The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns, a copy of the Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated on the plans submitted for signing.

7.                 The applicant should correct any conflicting signage as pointed out by the Fire Marshal on the final plans.

Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:

8.                 Three sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.

9.                 A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.

10.            An Erosion and Sediment Control and Site Restoration Bond shall be submitted in the form of cash or a check, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.

11.            A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.

Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :

12.            Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance. The as-built plan shall also contain a certification by a Professional Engineer that they have inspected the site improvements and that they have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. Any deviations or omissions must be noted.

13.            In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format consistent with the Town’s Guidelines for Digital submissions.

14.            No Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval may be issued until the Zoning Enforcement Officer has signed off on the final work. When minor site work cannot be completed because of weather or other pertinent reason, a conditional approval may be issued for a period not to exceed 180 days, providing satisfactory surety shall be posted with the Town of Enfield in an amount sufficient to complete the site work and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney and Finance Department.

15.            A request for final project review from the Planning Department must be made at least 10 days before a Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval is requested from the Building Official.

General Conditions:

16.            This approval is for the specific use and structure identified in the application.  Any change in the nature of the use or the structure will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.

17.            This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans.  Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.

18.            All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by May 20, 2015 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

19.            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.

The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with all Alternates voting.

Chairman Duren stated this approval improves the traffic flow and the safety of the area. 

c.                  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.

Mr. Giner stated this is pretty much the same as the previous application except that the Commission needs to approve it under the flood ordinance of the Town of Enfield.

Chairman Duren stated he saw where the applicant requested a waiver of the fee.  Mr. Gradwell stated they have since paid the fee.

Mr. Giner stated the Commission is acting under the town ordinance for this application.

Chairman Duren stated they are doing some drainage work at the pond and he asked if the Wetlands have to get into this.  Mr. Giner stated he doesn’t believe they are in a regulated area.  Mr. Gradwell stated their work is right adjacent to Hazard Avenue and they are well away from the wetlands.

Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve 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.  The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting. 

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.

OTHER BUSINESS

a.                 Report from Policy Review Committee

Commissioner Longhi requested comments from Commissioner Lefakis so that she can revise the brochure. 

b.                 Report from Signage Policy Review Committee

c.                  Discussion of Tag Sale Regulations

d.                 Discussion of Draft Plan of Conservation and Development

e.                 Zoning Enforcement Procedures

Chairman Duren stated the Commission was given the memo from the Town Attorney and the revised version of the Zoning Enforcement Procedures included only some of the comments from the Town Attorney.  Mr. Giner stated some of them were not applicable once he made the changes.  Chairman Duren stated 1.3. was not clear.  It says the Enforcement Team and inspections and research.  Something is missing between what the Commission has and what the Town Attorney stated. 

Mr. Giner stated he discussed this with the Assistant Town Attorney and he mentioned to her there were some areas that she had commented on that were very similar to what the Commission changed.  Some of the changes had gone so far that her comments didn’t make a lot of sense in the new section.

Mr. Giner stated he went over the Minutes and the notes he had made in revising the document.

Chairman Duren stated there was one place where it said choose one of the other.  There was Department Director and you said choose one or the other and they were both in there. 

Mr. Giner will sit down with Maria and go over it.  He will give the Commission a new copy. 

Chairman Duren stated when the Commission is ready to review the final copy that the Zoning Enforcement Officer be present for the final discussion.     

 APPLICATIONS TO BE RECEIVED

The following applications were received by the Commission:

Public Hearings:

PH#2659.02 – Proposed modification to approved uses for indoor recreational facility located at 138 South Road, in a Business Local District, Map 55, Lot 9, Skater City, LLC, Applicant; 138 South Road LLC, Owner.

Mr. Giner stated the owner would like more flexibility.  As an indoor recreation facility, he wants to do things other than skating in the skating area.  He wants to have it as an indoor entertainment facility where if he wants to rent it out to parties and they want to show videos, they will be able to do so.  Mr. Giner advised this applicant to include everything he thinks he will be doing at this location.   

Chairman Duren thought the police would want to have input where you have groups of kids congregating in one place.  Mr. Giner sent a referral to the Police Chief.  Chairman Duren noted the problems the town had at the old roller rink.

Mr. Giner stated he wants to have a stage and show videos and hold birthday parties at this location.  It went beyond the three uses the Commission approved. 

Commissioner Longhi asked that all the other material from the previous application be inclued in the Commission’s meeting packet.  Mr. Giner will copy all the other approvals.    

A public hearing will be scheduled for June 3, 2010.

PH#2646.02 – Modification to approved plans to allow three temporary portable classroom buildings at an existing Public Safety Charter School located at 227 Brainard Road in a Residential 33 District, Map 62, Lot 106, To Design, LLC, Applicant; James S. Bianco, Owner.

Mr. Giner stated they are actively looking for a site for a permanent facility.   In the meantime, they do need the portable classrooms.

Chairman Duren asked if their air conditioners are on the ground.  Mr. Giner will check on this.  Chairman Duren stated at Kennedy they were on the ground in back of the buildings so they weren’t visible.    

A public hearing will be scheduled for June 3, 2010. 

XZA #10-11 – Proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Regulations to eliminate the requirement for Zoning Permits to be issued on most projects that also require building permits and have the ZEO utilize the building permit form to sign off on such projects.  Town of Enfield Development Services Department, Applicant.

Mr. Giner stated the Council has asked when the state fees went up to $60 to eliminate the requirement for zoning permits only for those items that also require building permits.  In the past, the ZEO used to just sign off on building permits.  About eight years ago the Council was trying to raise fees and decided to go with a zoning permit.  The appropriate changes were made to the regulations and the Council passed a fee ordinance.  Mr. Giner’s understanding is that the Council at Monday’s budget meeting has increased the building permit fees $1 per thousand to try to make up for any lost revenues.  Mr. Giner stated we would still be issuing zoning permits for things we need to track that don’t get building permits like signs and temporary uses.  What that would do is save people the extra $60 fee that the state charges for every zoning permit the town issues.  One of the changes is for home occupations.  The town charges a $5 fee and the state tacks on $60 for that.  Instead of requiring zoning permits, they are going to require registrations and eliminate that $60 fee.

Mr. Giner recommended a hearing date of July 8, 2010 because this has to be sent to CRCOG.  If he receives something from CRCOG prior to the June 17, 2010 meeting, he will schedule this for June 17.   

A public hearing will be scheduled for July 8, 2010. 

Site Plans:

SPR#1500 – Request to install perimeter fencing with security gates at Eli Lilly warehouse located at 150 Freshwater Boulevard, in an Industrial Park (IP) District, Map 56, Lot 20, GMH Fence Co., Inc., Applicant; Lilly LLC, Owner.

The Commission granted Mr. Giner the ability to do an administrative approval on this application earlier this evening.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Giner went to a workshop today on Smart Growth and he has a brochure available from that workshop. 

Chairman Duren brought up the idea of having high school students on the Planning and Zoning Commission.  He felt it would be a good learning experience.  They would be ex officio members. 

Mr. Giner stated the only concern he would have is you want students to be able to ask questions during a public hearing but you run into trouble if they discuss items during the deliberations.  Right now alternates can sit in and ask questions during the public hearing portion but if they are not needed to vote, they cannot even participate in the discussion.  There was a recent Supreme Court decision about this. 

Commissioner Longhi stated she thinks this is an interesting proposal.  If students came and participated, they would learn a lot.  It could be students that are interested in architecture or engineering.  It opens up a whole new world to them just to see how it’s done.

Mr. Giner will check on this with the Town Attorney.  Chairman Duren stated the Commission does have a lot of legal difficulties.  Mr. Giner stated you have to make sure that it is not something that someone can use as a challenge. 

Chairman Duren asked that Mr. Giner also check with CRCOG on this suggestion.

Some discussion followed on the receipt of plans for the Troiano application earlier this evening.  Mr. Giner will pass them out again at the next meeting if needed.

ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dumont, to adjourn.  Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:10 p.m.

                                                Respectfully submitted,

                                                _____________________________

                                                Peter Falk, Secretary

                                                Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission

jmr