|
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
JULY 22, 2010
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, July 22, 2010 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Charles Duren called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Charles Duren, Chairman
Peter Falk
Charles Ladd
Nicles Lefakis
Lori Longhi
Kathleen Sarno
Michael Dumont, Alternate
Alan Drinan, Voting Alternate
Ronald Gregory, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: José Giner, AICP, Director of Planning
FIRE SAFETY ANNOUNCEMENT
Chairman Charles Duren gave the fire safety announcement.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
a. Discussion re: Villages LLC v. Enfield PZC (Thompsonville Room)
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Drinan, to go into Executive Session to discuss Villages LLC v. Enfield PZC. The motion was approved by a 7 -0 -0 vote and the Commission went into Executive Session at 7:02 p.m.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to come out of Executive Session. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote and the Regular Meeting resumed at 7:35 p.m. Chairman Duren noted no votes were taken or decisions made during the Executive Session.
MINUTES
a. June 29, 2010 Special Meeting
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve the Minutes of June 29, 2010. The Minutes were approved by a 5 – 0- 2 vote. Commissioners Longhi and Lefakis abstained.
b. July 8, 2010 Regular Meeting
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Drinan, to approve the Minutes of July 8, 2010. The Minutes were approved by a 6 – 0 – 1 vote. Commissioner Longhi abstained.
STAFF COMMENTS
a. Town Attorney (in person) – The Town Attorney was excused.
b. Director of Planning
Mr. Giner presented the Commission with a summary of the changes that were done to the medical office building on Hazard Avenue. They were caused by some DOT requirements during the site work. They were minor and the Town Engineer has reviewed them. Mr. Giner requested he be allowed to approve them administratively.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to allow Jose Giner to approve administratively the changes to the Enfield Medical Office building on Hazard Avenue. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Drinan voting.
Mr. Giner stated he had some communications from the architect who is doing some renovations at Lego. They are doing mostly interior work consisting of rearranging their offices. They are adding employees. One of the things they may be required to do, and they are still working this out with the Fire Marshal and the Building Official, is to provide additional exits that are required under the fire code. That may require them to punch a door in the façade and install a sidewalk from the front of their building to the parking lot so people can exit in case of an emergency. One of the other options they were looking at was an open exterior staircase from one of the upper floors. There would not be any new uses but it would be solely for the purpose of fire exiting. They have a very aggressive building schedule and they were hoping staff can sign off on those. Commissioner Longhi asked if Mr. Giner would show the Commission the plans afterwards. Mr. Giner stated he will report any changes at the next meeting. They would like to proceed with construction and it shouldn’t really be visible from the street. It is the building where the cafeteria is off of Moody Road. It is set way back and no one would notice the improvements. Commissioner Ladd asked if the Commission can see the elevation drawings. Mr. Giner will get elevation drawings from the architect to send to the Commission. Commissioner Longhi stated she is inclined to do this because the Commission is gone for a month.
Commissioner Falk asked how did this come about. Mr. Giner stated that Lego is consolidating some of their off site operations in Enfield and they will be rearranging the interior space to accommodate additional offices. Because they are rearranging the space, they will have more people in there and they need the additional exit per the fire code. Mr. Giner reiterated that Lego has two options. One is to punch a door on the side and the only site work would be a very short sidewalk over the berm. The other option would be an exterior staircase that would be open to evacuate people.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to allow Jose Giner to approve administratively the changes at Lego so that they can comply with the Fire Marshal’s request and that Mr. Giner come back with the plans at the appropriate time. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Drinan voting.
Commissioner Longhi felt the Commission has to be specific about just these two things. Mr. Giner stated we don’t get into facades for industrial buildings. They may be changing windows but it is an industrial building. Anything that would change the footprint would require an approval.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Duren stated he has a letter addressed to him from Ronald E. Lindman II requesting a reconsideration of a second driveway on the north end of his property. He stated all of his neighbors are okay with the second driveway. Chairman Duren requested that Mr. Lindman bring in signed notes from the neighbors. Mr. Giner will put this item on the September meeting agenda.
Correspondence also includes a summary of zoning, subdivision and POCD referrals from the Capitol Region Council of Governments. Chairman Duren stated he was interested in the one in Windsor. It says proposed change to the zoning regulations to add film studios as a special use in the industrial zone. He asked if anyone would be interested in that in Enfield. He noted Powder Hollow might make a nice place to do filming. Chairman Duren doesn’t know if the town of Enfield ever has done anything about going after some of these uses. Mr. Giner stated he can look into it and see if there is any interest. He doesn’t know if film studios are prohibited or not. He will take a look to see if this is something the Commission might want to take advantage of.
Chairman Duren stated correspondence includes a letter from Peter Bryanton regarding the formation of an Enfield Community Development Corporation Transition Committee. They are going to want two liaisons from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairman Duren requested volunteers. Chairman Duren appointed Lori Longhi and Kathleen Sarno to be the Commission’s representatives to the ECDC Transition Committee.
Chairman Duren stated Correspondence also includes the Notice of Action from the Wetlands Commission dated July 6, 2010.
Commissioner Longhi noted the Red Box outside Shoprite that she mentioned to the Zoning Enforcement Officer. The Zoning Enforcement Officer sent out a letter to Shoprite but it is still there and it looks like nothing has been done about it. Mr. Giner stated they are getting an application together and there is some movement on it. He was copied on some correspondence that they were hiring someone to bring in an application.
Commissioner Longhi addressed the perpetual tag sale on Parker Street. On weekends they are open for the tag sale but during the week they have tarps and tents up in the front yard. It was asked if this would be considered blight. She asked if this is something the Zoning Enforcement Officer can look into. The tag sale site is on Parker Street on the right hand side coming from Enfield Street. Commissioner Falk discussed a tent garage that was put up in the past by his neighbor. Commissioner Longhi stated this tag sale site consists of 5 tents, 7 tarps, 16 tables and a bunch of boxes under the tables all located in the front yard.
Mr. Giner stated that any fabric garages or sheds require zoning permits because they are considered accessory structures like any other shed or garage would be and they have to meet all the regulations. Chairman Duren talked to the Zoning Enforcement Officer and she is not considering that they are a structure. Some are short term and some are a little longer she said depending on the material it is made from. Mr. Giner confirmed an accessory structure has to meet the zoning regulations.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS – from June 29, 2010:
a. Public Hearing on Draft Plan of Conservation and Development
Chairman Duren noted this hearing is continued from June 29, 2010.
In response to a question from Commissioner Ladd, Chairman Duren stated he had a meeting with the Council representative, the Town Manager and Mr. Giner. Mr. Giner has a deadline to get the new draft to the Commission with the corrections that he has been given. Chairman Duren hoped the Commission can meet during August to go over the Plan of Conservation and Development. Mr. Giner stated the Council is meeting for action on the Plan in September. In the meantime, the decision was the Commission can meet and go over any typos or anything like that. He stated he doesn’t want to have to send it back to the Capitol Region Council of Governments. Chairman Duren stated the material from Peter Bryanton on the train station and the material from the Conservation Commission will be put as addendums later and have public hearings pertaining to just those subjects. The Commission will only entertain leaving it just as it is at present. If people want to modify it, we will modify it. If you want it as a vote, the Commission can vote on it.
Commissioner Ladd was waiting for the draft with the new changes. Chairman Duren stated Mr. Giner has not yet submitted it. He is talking about the new material that was given to the Commission. He stated the Chairman will entertain a motion on Peter Bryanton’s information and the information from the Conservation Commission. Commissioner Ladd made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Drinan, to take the two items, the letter from Peter Bryanton and the information from the Conservation Commission, and add those as addendums later on after the Plan of Conservation and Development is accepted. Mr. Giner was concerned about procedure. He noted the public hearing is still open. The motion should come after the hearing is closed. Commissioner Ladd withdrew his motion and Commissioner Drinan withdrew his second.
Chairman Duren opened this hearing to the public.
Karen LaPlante representing the Conservation Commission went through the draft Plan and showed the changes which are not major changes. They are text changes that make things a little clearer. The Conservation Commission is happier with the wording on those sections. Ms. LaPlante went through and did that for every page and she gave Mr. Giner some copies. She will email Mr. Giner the actual document. The changes are not substantial changes that would require an additional public hearing or an addendum but that is the Commission’s decision to make. If the Planning and Zoning Commission is having a chapter by chapter review of the draft Plan, the Conservation Commission did decide that they would be more than happy to help if the Commission wanted their assistance. There are some additional issues that are directly related to conservation and it is the desire of the Conservation Commission that the Planning and Zoning Commission take the time to review this document carefully before accepting this document in its entirety.
Karen LaPlante stated she also has some personal comments which she will reserve until after others have spoken. Since there were no other speakers, Karen LaPlante, 166 North Maple Street, spoke to the Commission. As a member of the Conservation Commission, she is concerned with the comments made at the July 6 Town Council Meeting regarding the Plan of Conservation and Development. As this public hearing may close this evening, Ms. LaPlante would like to take a moment to try and comment on some of the comments that were made at the meeting and correct the record as necessary. Chairman Duren stated the Commission hasn’t heard them and he questioned if this is for the Commission or the Town Council.
Karen LaPlante stated in reading the Minutes of the meeting, one Councilman is concerned there is almost no land left to build upon. The Minutes state: “He noted if they make it any harder to develop land that already has so many restraints against it, they are never going to be able grow anywhere or any how in this community.” The same Councilman continues further down: “There are no developers regarding seven story high rises on the river but there are some concepts out there.” His thought was “if they can put up a seven story building and prevent building a mile of the river and just leave it natural then maybe that’s a solution to keep the riverfront and still grow.” He stated “economic development is just one side of the Plan of Conservation and Development and moving this town forward because if they have no growth, they have to raise taxes.” The Town Manager later notes “If one of the town’s goals is to try to minimize the impact of development along the river and use it for long term public space, a seven story high rise makes a lot more sense.” Ms. LaPlante stated this is where the problem arises. The land use boards are the boards that decide the outcome of these issues. Without a good solid Plan of Conservation and Development document, it will be difficult for these boards and commissions to make these determinations. She asked how are you going to allow one land owner to develop their land along the river with a seven story high rise and yet in the next instance not allow the next property to do that when they come forward with a similar plan. When does it end? Perhaps this type of development would be more appropriate with a special permit. These things have to be looked at.
Ms. LaPlante stated further during the discussion the Councilman stated: “There was some turmoil with the Steering Committee because they spent over a year on this and they heard from the Conservation Commission repeatedly and the Steering Committee as a whole and made a recommendation after hearing from them.” He noted “The Committee is comprised of neutral people throughout the Town of Enfield, i.e. farmers, developers, etc.” He stated “two members of the Conservation Committee and Revitalization Committee complained they don’t like the end result of the Plan.” Ms. LaPlante would like to correct the record and state that there was only one member from the Conservation Commission on the Steering Committee and there were five members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. She realizes this document is the responsibility of the Planning and Zoning Commission but this is a plan of conservation and development and we need to remember that. Ms. LaPlante also believes there are no farmers represented on the Steering Committee yet real estate developers were represented. She doesn’t know what the Councilman meant by hearing from the Conservation Commission repeatedly as the only time the Commission spoke was at the informational meetings when they tried to have their concerns with this document heard.
Chairman Duren felt these comments belong at the Town Council. He understands what Ms. LaPlante is saying but there weren’t five members of P&Z. There were four that were assigned. Chairman Duren did attend to know what was going on but he didn’t participate.
Ms. LaPlante stated study after study shows for every dollar of revenue raised, residential development costs the town one dollar and sixteen cents. Farms, forests and open space only cost the town thirty five cents. Yet requiring open space from developers continues to be a difficult process. Compromised land and disjointed areas seem to be what developers want to give the town and we seem to accept it. In the natural resources chapter of this document it states thirty-three percent of the land in Enfield is considered prime farmland soils and an additional twenty-six percent of the town has soils that are considered farmland of state wide importance. That is a whopping fifty-nine percent of the land in town and a total of 12,913 acres. Further in that chapter it discusses that only 843 acres are currently being preserved through farmland preservation programs. Farming is a business and this town needs to start seeing it that way. Who will feed you when the farmland is all gone? Where will you take your dog or children for a hike when there is no place to hike? Open spaces for active and passive recreation are important to every community and Enfield needs to start paying attention.
Chairman Duren stated one of the projects the Commission has to do when the Plan is finished is to do a zoning map and that will take care of some of the high rises and the zoning areas for this.
Mr. Giner stated it is important to note that the Plan of Development is a statement of things that the community may want to look at in the future. After the Plan is adopted, the crux of it is anyone may actually have to come in and change the regulations to allow anything close to what is being said. He thinks the intent is to not limit ideas that come forward if they made sense but knowing that for a public hearing on a zone change, it would be up to whoever is trying to make that change to make that case and it would be considered on a case by case basis rather than saying we’re not even going to look at this. Mr. Giner thinks the charge to the Steering Committee was to try to not preclude things from happening.
Commissioner Longhi asked about the hearing process with the Steering Committee. She wasn’t at the last meeting but she read the minutes. She thought the public hearings were to get additional information from the public. She questioned why would it have to go back to the Steering Committee. Mr. Giner stated it wouldn’t go back to the Steering Committee. The regulations require the town to send their plan to the Capitol Region Council of Governments and also have it filed with the Town Clerk for so many days prior to the public hearing. The issue that was raised by one of the people at the last public hearing was that some of the proposed items, specifically the memo from Peter Bryanton regarding the transit center, was a substantive enough change that someone may argue it would require you to start that process again. Having said that, the statute is very clear. The Commission can change the plan even after it closes the public hearing. You’re having a public hearing and taking in testimony. If you are not able to do that, then why have this process in the first place. The legislation says that once the hearing is closed, the Commission can make changes and adopt. The question becomes where do you feel comfortable that they are changes in response to the public hearing comments and are not substantial enough to send it back. That’s a judgment the Commission has to make as they vote on the Plan and decide whether they want to make the changes. The Commission can adopt the Plan as a whole or consider it chapter by chapter, section by section and amend it as they like.
Jeannette Lamontagne, 64 South River Street, understands the Commission doesn’t want the POCD Steering Committee to have to go back to the drawing board to have a re-look at the whole plan. She suggested the town continue to work under the guidelines of the 1999 Plan of Conservation and Development until the inconsistencies and the public concerns can be addressed in the proposed 2010 Plan of Conservation and Development. Steve Cogtella could not be here tonight but Ms. Lamontagne remembered his attorney was here last time and he had eight pages of inconsistencies within the Plan. Ms. Lamontagne recommended there be a thorough review chapter by chapter because it is very important that the town has a plan that can work well for the next ten years.
Chairman Duren closed this public hearing.
Some discussion followed on whether to make the motion regarding the addendum items. Chairman Duren stated the Commission can make the decision later. Mr. Giner stated the Commission can meet and go over the testimony. It might be appropriate at those special meetings to say that this particular piece of testimony would send it and the Commission may want to discuss whether it is a substantial change or not.
Commissioner Longhi stated she didn’t get a copy of what Karen LaPlante gave tonight. She didn’t want to vote on it until she could read what the changes were. Mr. Giner will get copies to the Commission.
Chairman Duren stated the Commission has to find time to work on the Plan. Mr. Giner has to get a clean copy before he leaves and then the Commission can work from it. Some discussion followed on future meetings and when the Town Council chambers would be available. Chairman Duren directed Mr. Giner to reserve rooms for four meetings – either the Enfield Room or the Council Chambers. Mr. Giner stated the meetings would be special meetings and the only item of business would be the Plan of Conservation and Development. Chairman Duren suggested that the Commission review the Minutes of the Special Meeting of June 29, 2010 because those have the comments from the attorney. Mr. Giner stated these meetings should be workshop meetings and the Commission should not take any votes. They should wait for the Town Council to vote because without their vote, any votes the Commission takes would have to be at least a two thirds majority to pass anything. Chairman Duren stated if the Commission makes any substantive changes, the Plan would have to go back to the Town Council. Mr. Giner confirmed this. Mr. Giner stated there are many form issues that need to be addressed. The Town Council may endorse the whole thing and not give any specific comments. The Town Council intends to act on it at their first meeting possible. Their normal procedure is to have it introduced at one meeting and voted upon at the next meeting.
Chairman Duren requested that Mr. Giner schedule whatever rooms he can get in August.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM July 8, 2010:
a. PH#2691.02 – Request for modification of conditions previously approved on 2/18/10 for a grocery beer license to be located at an existing convenience store at 565 Enfield Street, in a Business Local (BL) District, Map 23, Lot 274, Bakul Shah, Applicant; Saloneel LLC, Owner. (Must close tonight unless extension is granted.)
Bakul Shah, the owner of Stop and Save Foodmart at 583 Enfield Street and also the landlord of the Plaza, Saloneel LLC., appeared before the Commission regarding this public hearing. He applied for a beer permit for his business at 583 Enfield Street and he was approved with some conditions. He believes those conditions are not appropriate for the beer permit and he has some reasons for it.
Mr. Shah stated Condition #2 on the permit says the proposed grassed area shall be restored with curbing acceptable to the Town Engineer. He researched the records and he found out that in April, 1994, the previous landlord applied for an extension of the building in the back of the existing produce market. Previously it was the Salvation Army. The extension of the building never materialized and they never built anything in the back. So the proposed grassed area condition is a part of that approval.
Chairman Duren noted it says restored meaning that someone at some time removed the grassed area. The question is why doesn’t he feel it should be there. Mr. Shah stated it was to be replaced by the previous landlord. Chairman Duren questioned why can’t Mr. Shah replace it. It should have been replaced and the previous landlord didn’t do it. Mr. Shah stated they were supposed to build a building in the back of the produce market and as part of the conditions, they were given a permit but they never built the building. Mr. Giner stated when that first came through in February, the thought was that somehow they had done this and over the years it had deteriorated. Upon his research, it was found out they never built the addition. So it is quite possible there never was a curb there to restore unless someone can recall it.
Chairman Duren asked if there is information available when they first built the building. Mr. Giner stated he has no information about that.
Commissioner Longhi believes the grassed area was there previously. Then it went away and in the next approval they asked for it to be restored. That is similar to what happened here.
Mr. Shah stated he checked the previous plans and one of the plans that he saw was associated with the previous landlord. The proposed grassed area was supposed to be a part of the extension of the building. He checked all the previous records and they never had anything showing that proposed grassed area. He checked all the previous blueprints and permits. There is nothing in the record as far as he recalls that they were supposed to put a grassed area in. He believes they might have started to put in the grassed area and then never put a building up. As he understands, if you don’t build anything within a year, the permit expires. They never built anything.
Commissioner Longhi stated when Mr. Shah was here the last time, the Commission asked if Mr. Shah was willing to close off the curb from Enfield Street that was the issue or restore the curb. He said he didn’t want to close off that curb cut. Mr. Shah stated he was only asked whether the closing of the curb would be done or not. He never agreed to that.
Chairman Duren stated he asked Mr. Shah if he agreed to the conditions. Mr. Shah recalled that. Chairman Duren stated if it says restore then somewhere when the original building was built, there was a grassed area there. Somebody destroyed it. He questioned why can’t the town get it back.
Mr. Giner stated this is a new hearing. He noted the plans from 1994 show no parking there so whether the Commission requires grass or not, it would be within their right to say there is no parking there. Right now, the area is striped. Mr. Giner is looking at the exhibit that is in the Commission’s packet and that was the plan back sixteen years ago, SPR 912.
Chairman Duren stated his major concern is the traffic in and out of that store area is horrendous and really is dangerous for people going in and out of there. The traffic report states there are quite a few accidents in that area on Enfield Street and the Commission had testimony from a lady last week that has had problems down there. Each little bit that the Commission can correct will help the whole situation. The major concern is cutting through the parking lot to avoid the light. Chairman Duren saw a need for some kind of traffic control at this location. Chairman Duren asked if they are putting the beer over into that empty store.
Mr. Shah stated his plan was to expand. Chairman Duren stated if Mr. Shah’s business is expanding, he is going to get more customers. Mr. Shah stated he is trying to serve the same customers who have come to his store for many years. He recently lost a lot of business because of the tax increase and the times. He is trying to substitute what he lost. His customers that come in every day are going to buy the beer. Chairman Duren stated if Mr. Shah is expanding into that empty store also, he will hopefully have many more customers.
Mr. Shah stated currently he doesn’t have a space where he can put the beer in. His store is so narrow that putting a beer cooler into the store would make it too crowded. His plan is to expand each aisle so that the customer experience is comfortable. He is not going to add anything else except the beer.
Commissioner Longhi stated Mr. Shah was expanding but the parking is a problem. By restoring the grass, it alleviates the parking on the side of the building that all of a sudden just popped up. By putting the grassed strip there, it forces people to park in the back and walk to the front in order to use the store and it alleviates the traffic problem. This is why the Commission voted to restore the grassed area.
Chairman Duren stated the Traffic Safety Officer also mentioned about walking and Mr. Giner mentioned even if you put a curb in there instead of regressing it, people have to walk there. He thinks the major problem is the parking.
Commissioner Ladd stated he asked Mr. Giner today to contact Officer Santanella. Mr. Giner stated his main concern is that people still have a way to walk from the back parking lot to the front without having to go in the road. Curbing it precludes that.
Chairman Duren stated he wants to have the grassed area restored and the Commission’s concern is the safety of the motoring public and the people.
Commissioner Ladd suggested if you block the curb cut in the front, and did give him the parking on the side, Officer Santanella says this is not a hazard. Chairman Duren stated he could do either. He didn’t want to do that choice last time.
Mr. Shah stated he has a suggestion. Where the curb cut is why can’t he put a sign so that people don’t cut through. Chairman Duren did not feel the signs would be effective. There is a sign on the building that states parking in the back and he noted how many people park in the back. Mr. Shah stated people don’t really read the signs. Mr. Shah stated if you put a sign on the side of the building that states there is no parking it might work.
Chairman Duren stated the Commission is talking about the parking up against the building with a wide open area to Montano Road. Closing that off or closing off the driveway furthest north which is next to Montano Road and leaving that other one open would be a solution. Safety is a major concern down there and Mr. Shah has a problem. The major problem with the traffic safety officer is that curb cut next to the light. Commissioner Ladd stated he is saying there have been no accidents on Montano Road and the curbing in this area he thinks will create more of a traffic hazard. Chairman Duren stated that is why Mr. Giner suggested if you put in a curb and allowed the walkers to walk there. Just put a curb so they can’t park there.
Mr. Shah stated he doesn’t think that people are going to park in the back and walk to his store. Chairman Duren stated they could still park in the front.
Mr. Giner stated the problem with this property in the past was there was a back entrance. At some point it got blocked off. The possibility may be to restore the entrance to the back but then Mr. Shah would have to worry about security issues. Mr. Giner stated the front doesn’t have adequate parking according to the regulations and they rely on parking in the back to meet the parking standards. Some discussion followed on the patterns of people parking at this location.
Commissioner Longhi stated the problem is the traffic and she has a problem with the safety. She had a problem with safety the first time this application came in. She doesn’t see it alleviated.
Mr. Shah stated he has owned the business for over ten years and he never saw a grassed area. Chairman Duren stated he has a high customer usage there on the north end. The vegetable store really draws people in and there is not really much parking for that. They really should maybe have a back entrance. Mr. Shah stated they do open up their back door and they do tell their customers to go in the back. Practically, he cannot tell his tenants to close the front door and enter from the back. He never had this situation before. When he bought the building, the tenant moved out. Traffic wasn’t a problem. When he rented the place to the produce market, he never thought it would be like it is. He knows there was a no parking sign there forever. He never saw a full grassed area that the Commission is referring to.
Mr. Shah noted a blueprint where it shows where the grass extends from half of that building at the north end to a point where the new building was proposed. He feels that the proposed grass area was approved when the building extension was approved. Only in that drawing do you see the grassed area. Chairman Duren stated it is not a proposed grass area. It is proposed to restore.
Mr. Shah stated the grassed area that was supposed to be restored is based on the drawing he presented. There wasn’t anything built. In the previous records, he doesn’t see anything.
Mr. Giner stated the plan presented to the Commission is the best and only plan that he found. If the Commission is relying on his condition to restore, that was based on the assumption that that plan was in effect but he has no record that they actually built it. He could not find any records or aerials that show that area actually was there. On the plan, it just says proposed. His conditions were based on the assumption that the grassed area had been there. The plans were approved in 1994 and in those sixteen years it may have been done and over the years worn away. The area is now striped for parking which doesn’t show on the plan.
Chairman Duren stated Mr. Shah doesn’t want to put the grass in and he is saying he wants people to park there. What we’re trying to do is get rid of the parking.
Mr. Shah stated there is a small area on the north side of the building from half the side of the building to the back of the building with grass there. He will put a no parking sign there. Chairman Duren stated no, right on the side of the building. On the front of the building he has a sign that says additional parking in the back. From that edge of the building back to the side is where they are parking on the north side of the building and that is where the second condition says that Mr. Shah put up a sign saying parking is not allowed there. Chairman Duren stated what we are trying to do is to get people to stop parking in that area and backing out on to Montano. Mr. Shah stated if that is a concern, he will do that. Chairman Duren stated you can eliminate number two and not have it put back and have the no parking signs but he questioned how it would get enforced.
Commissioner Ladd stated there hasn’t been a problem from Montano Road and his biggest concern is the curb cut. If we let him park there and close the curb cut, it would solve the problem.
Commissioner Longhi asked if Mr. Shah is willing to block the curb cut on to Enfield Street. Mr. Shah stated he is not willing to do so.
Chairman Duren stated the only one who could force him to do so would be the State of Connecticut if they say that is their property.
Mr. Shah stated if there is a sign that says right turn only, that will eliminate most of the problem. Chairman Duren noted people don’t pay attention to signs. Some discussion followed of other signs that do not work. Chairman Duren stated the Commission’s major concern is traffic safety.
Mr. Shah asked if he closes that curb cut, will he be allowed to park on the side. Chairman Duren stated yes. Mr. Shah stated the Commission is not going to have a problem with people backing up in the road. If that curb cut is closed, people are going to back up. Closing a curb cut would really affect his business. He has been in business for seventeen years and he knows that. A lot of people come so that they can get in and out of the business easily.
Commissioner Longhi stated business is business and safety is safety.
Mr. Shah stated if people don’t come in, he will not be in business.
Chairman Duren asked how wide the north driveway is. Mr. Giner stated that driveway is approximately 32’ wide off of Enfield Street. Chairman Duren suggested the possibility of closing it so that it is not so wide. Mr. Giner stated from the Traffic Safety Officer’s point of view, closing off that curb cut would not affect the business because you still have an existing curb cut with full turning movement farther south. Chairman Duren stated there is still the one on Montano. Mr. Giner stated he would only have one on Enfield Street and it would be farther back from the intersection which is the safer alternative. This is what Officer Santanella was suggesting – that this curb cut is really not necessary for the business because people can still go out the other way. You’re not precluding people from getting out but you are just making them go farther away from that intersection which is causing the problems. It is still not a good idea to make left turns but it is certainly a lot safer at that location than it would be at this location where you have the intersection less than twenty feet away. The Traffic Safety Officer would prefer to have that curb cut closed off and keep the other one open. If you look at the 1994 plan, there was bituminous paving already there. It has always been continuously paved since 1994. Mr. Giner stated the input from Officer Santanella is he is more strongly concerned about that one curb cut on the north side.
Mr. Shah stated right now he will think over about closing the curb cut. He will put a no parking sign on the north end of the building. However, the closing of the curb cut is something he really has to think about.
Commissioner Falk asked how long it will take Mr. Shah to make a decision. Mr. Shah stated give him a week or so. He wants to talk to his tenants.
Chairman Duren stated the closing of the curb cut shouldn’t bother Mr. Shah’s parking. He would keep the same amount of parking and he would have the parking in the rear. The only thing he would be doing is closing off an entry way that creates a hazard for the drivers.
Mr. Shah stated he has found that people who have curb cuts do a better business than people who don’t have them. He previously had a location in Rocky Hill and he moved out of there because he couldn’t do the business. People want the convenience of getting in and out easily.
Chairman Duren stated Mr. Shah doesn’t want to close the curb cut.
Mr. Giner stated this is the Commission’s last meeting before the August break. He stated the Commission can continue the hearing to September 2 because the sixty-five days of total extensions would not be until September 10.
Mr. Shah stated he has to apply to the state after he gets the permit from the town. If he doesn’t apply to them, he can’t do anything. He will think about closing the curb cut. His concern is the business. As far as the beer permit is concerned, it doesn’t have too much to do with that.
Commissioner Ladd stated the Commission already approved the beer permit. The Commission is only talking about the conditions. Mr. Shah stated he knows but he needs a signature on his application from the town. Mr. Giner stated he can’t get the signature because we have to file the conditions on the land records as approved.
Commissioner Longhi stated if he decides in a week, can it be combined with the Plan of Conservation and Development meeting. Chairman Duren discouraged this plan.
Mr. Shah stated there was a beer permit issued to his business in 1994. The town conditioned it so that as long as it had a lock on the beer door, it was approved. There wasn’t any condition placed on that permit. However, he couldn’t get any records from any of the places. Chairman Duren stated maybe there wasn’t the concern about the traffic back in 1994. The traffic has increased. There are stores that really draw the customers. When you draw so many customers, you create a problem with safety.
Chairman Duren stated there was a lady at the last meeting that was talking about the traffic problems at this location.
Commissioner Ladd asked about the parking on the north side. They have been parking there for the last five or six years. He asked if that is not grandfathered already. The lines were there. Commissioner Ladd remembers going into the site when the Salvation Army was there. Chairman Duren stated maybe no one complained to the Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Mr. Giner stated the 1994 plan doesn’t count that area as parking. It does show it as bituminous. If you look at the plan, it does show where the parking places are supposed to be.
Chairman Duren stated Mr. Shah stated he had two concerns – the grassed area and the no parking sign.
Commissioner Sarno stated when the Commission originally approved the application with these conditions, Mr. Shah did accept the conditions. Now he is back asking the Commission to modify the conditions. Mr. Shah stated when he came for the conditions, he only had one condition and that was closing the curb cut. He saw there were two more conditions than what he had on the agenda. He didn’t have any clue about these conditions and they never talked about it. Chairman Duren asked if he asked Mr. Shah when the application was given to him if he accepted the conditions. Chairman Duren had talked to Mr. Shah about the curb cut. That was on the conditions initially. Mr. Giner stated they were both in the memo. Commissioner Longhi stated she does remember discussing it because the Commission asked at the time whether he would do the swap and he didn’t want to do it. Mr. Giner showed the copy of the exhibit from February which shows that area and it was brought up.
Chairman Duren opened this application to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Chairman Duren asked Mr. Shah if he wants the Commission to vote on this tonight or what does he want to do.
Mr. Shah stated his concern is the beer permit. He happens to be the landlord and a business owner at the same time. With someone else, he doesn’t think this issue would ever come up. When he bought this building, it was the way it is today. He doesn’t have the money to make major changes. As he understands it, the beer permit is not going to increase the traffic. They lost about thirty or forty percent of their business when the state went up on their tobacco taxes and they are trying to substitute with a new product.
Commissioner Drinan asked if Mr. Shah is willing to request an extension until September 2. He mentioned he might be willing to go along with the third condition of the no parking sign. The second condition has to do with the curb cuts. Commissioner Drinan reiterated does Mr. Shah wish to request an extension to September 2 so that he has time to talk to his tenants. Mr. Shah stated if that is the only option, he will do that.
Mr. Shah asked if he can get a sign off on his beer permit.
Mr. Giner stated he does have a request for a hearing extension of PH#2691.02 until September 2, 2010.
Chairman Duren opened this hearing to the audience again. No one spoke in favor or against.
Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to extend PH#2691.02 to the September 2, 2010 meeting. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Drinan voting.
Chairman Duren continued this hearing until September 2, 2010.
Commissioner Gregory left the meeting at 9:07 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – NEW
a. XSD #10-15 – Resubdivision of 9.3+/- acres of Town owned land off Freshwater Blvd. for the purpose of transfer to adjacent parcel of land located at 175 Freshwater Blvd. in an Industrial Park (IP) District, Portion of Map 56, Lot 23, Town of Enfield, Applicant/Owner.
Commissioner Ladd asked if this application has a deadline. Mr. Giner stated that is the next one. This is a resubdivision and it’s only required for the town portion of the lot because although we’re not creating any new lots, the intent of the resubdivision is to swap out 9.3 acres of town-owned land that will then be merged with the existing Eppendorf property and in return Eppendorf is going to give the town 9.3 acres on the south side of their building that will then become part of the open space. There are no new lots being created. However, the technical definition of resubdivision in the regulations includes land that is shown on a map that is reserved for public use whenever there is a change affecting that. So it’s affecting an open space parcel for public use and it has to come in for a resubdivision. Otherwise, if it was between two property owners, this wouldn’t require a resubdivision. There are no new lots being created. It is a lot line adjustment between two parties.
Mr. Giner stated the next application, SPR#1504, includes the plan sets. This was prepared by J. R. Russo.
Dana Steele, J. R. Russo and Associates, appeared before the Commission. He stated the town approached them with regard to a land swap and they prepared the plan to show the land that will be swapped. The land that the town is giving up is in yellow on the map on the left and to the north of the existing building. The land that the town is receiving which is of equal area is to the south of that in pink on the map. The town open space is a little over a hundred acres. The area is not going to change because they are gaining area that has more wetlands and more benefit in conserving it. The area to the north is more useful to Eppendorf in their development.
Chairman Duren stated the Council had a public hearing July 19, 2010. Mr. Giner confirmed this and stated he did receive today a copy of the resolution that approved this transfer of the land which is also the subject of a site plan review later on. Mr. Giner stated when the industrial park was first proposed, there was a lot more intense development proposed for the area including golf courses and some more industrial lots. At the time, the state Department of Environmental Protection stepped in and it was one of the first orders under the new Inland Wetland Act at the time. They put a stop to development and entered into a consent agreement with the town to approve what is out there right now. The town did run this by the DEP because it affects land that was part of that consent agreement. The DEP sent a letter approving this land swap and stating they had no objections to it.
Chairman Duren opened this hearing to the audience.
Karen LaPlante, Conservation Commission, stated they see no problem with this land swap and the resubdivision of property.
Chairman Duren closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve XSD #10-15 – Resubdivision of 9.3+\- acres of Town owned land off Freshwater Blvd. for the purpose of transfer to adjacent parcel of land located at 175 Freshwater Blvd. in an Industrial Park (IP) District, Portion of Map 56, Lot 23, Town of Enfield, applicant/owner, subject to conformance with the referenced plans as may be required to be amended by this approval and the following conditions:
Referenced Plan:
“Resubdivision Plan Prepared For Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 2 of 20; Scale: 1”=200’; by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC.; dated 6-18-10 and revised to 6-28-10.
Conditions to be met prior to signing of mylar:
1. The mylar submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plan.
2. The referenced plan sheet # shall be revised to indicate “Sheet 1 of 1” since there is only one sheet in the resubdivision.
3. A copy of this approval shall either be incorporated onto the mylar submitted for signature.
4. The Public Hearing file number “XSD #10-15” shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheet either in the title block or in the area around it.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
5. One final mylar and two paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.
6. Signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk no later than ninety (90) days from the expiration of the appeal period or this approval shall be null and void. The applicants shall provide such mylars to the Planning Department sufficiently in advance of this deadline to allow for review of the plans and the arrangement for the Commission Secretary to sign the mylars. The applicant may request an extension of the filing deadline in accordance with Section 8-25 of the CT. General Statutes. Any extension requests must be received in time to allow the Commission to act on them before the original deadline expires.
General Conditions:
7. This approval is for the re-subdivision of land to be transferred and merged with adjacent property. No new building lots are being created.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Drinan voting.
b. PH#2698 – Special Use Permit for a 3,200 s.f. addition to an existing shopping center with related site work at Enfield Commons, 25 Hazard Avenue, in a Business Regional (BR) District, Map 45, Lot 8; Paramount Realty Services, Owner/Applicant. (Must close tonight unless extension is granted.)
Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to take items out of order on tonight’s agenda and consider FLD#029 following PH#2698. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Drinan voting.
Raymond Gradwell, the engineer with D. L. Companies, 355 Research Parkway, Meriden, Connecticut, and Greg Gaudette, the architect, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Gradwell stated he is representing Paramount Realty Services, 25 Hazard Avenue, Enfield, Connecticut. What they are proposing at 25 Hazard Avenue is the construction of a 3,200 square foot addition adjacent to the space for the T. Mobil site. The space consists of 3,200 square feet for Aspen Dental. The site improvements proposed are cleaning up the parking lot between Aspen Dental and the Hazard Grill. They will make sure they have the appropriate signage at the exit and some appropriate signage at the entrance. The four parking spots on the left and three parking spots on the right are for the Aspen Dental location. There are some further plantings associated with the parking improvements. They are also proposing to have a trash enclosure adjacent to the Ocean State Job Lot or between Aspen Dental and the Hazard Grill. They are eliminating some parking spaces on the project site.
Mr. Gradwell stated they are proposing to eliminate some parking spots around the proposed site to offset the impervious coverage increase due to the 3,200 square foot addition. They are eliminating four parking spots adjacent to Hazard Avenue and 33 parking spots along the side near a grassed area next to the Petco location.
Mr. Gradwell stated they are trying to improve the drainage between the Hazard Grill and Aspen Dental. They are proposing a catch basin at the low point to pick up any storm water between the buildings and tie into the existing system that runs between the buildings. They will connect into an existing sanitary sewer that runs east to west to the site. They will be connecting to the sanitary sewer in front of Aspen Dental. The other utilities will be connected from within the building itself.
Mr. Gradwell stated staff has commented on some fire marshal issues and they have solved those with the sidewalk system that runs from Ocean State Job Lot to the public way and then from Aspen Dental to the public way.
Regarding erosion control measures, they are installing a silt fence along the west side of the site and along the front where they are proposing parking improvements.
Mr. Gradwell stated it is a simple planting plan. They are proposing a few honey locusts between Aspen and Hazard Grill and trees where they are going to remove parking to the west.
Commissioner Sarno stated she is trying to get the location of Aspen Dental. Mr. Giner stated it is next to Ocean State Job Lot. They are removing parking spaces near Petco to maintain the impervious coverage requirement. Mr. Gradwell showed the location of Aspen Dental on the site map.
Commissioner Longhi had a question about the landscaping plan. She thought there was a typo in that plan. Mr. Gradwell stated they have since corrected that and submitted revised plans.
Chairman Duren stated there were notes from the sewer authority and he asked if they have met the requirements. Mr. Gradwell stated they are willing to meet the requirements and they did add a note on the plans addressing this.
Chairman Duren stated the Town Engineer had some concerns and they are listed in the conditions. Mr. Gradwell stated he had some concerns on the sidewalk and the pad detail.
Chairman Duren stated the Commission didn’t have anything from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Giner stated starting on July 19 there were some issues that the Fire Marshal identified. The revised plans tried to address some of those. The remaining issue was the location of gas meters and whether they would fit without blocking a required egress from Ocean State Job Lot. They submitted an email to the Fire Marshal and he said that was his remaining concern. Mr. Giner stated he did revise his conditions and he added one that states prior to the issuance of any building permits, the location of the gas meter shall be finalized to the Fire Marshal’s satisfaction. Mr. Giner added this as condition 18 and he also revised the revision dates on the plans.
Chairman Duren asked if there was anything from the Police Department. Mr. Giner had requested comments but they did not send back any concerns.
Commissioner Longhi asked on the light pole that was between Hazard Grill and the new Aspen Dental, it says protect the light poles. But there was a light pole that was in front of a handicapped spot. She is assuming that is still there but she wanted to verify that. Commissioner Longhi stated she is looking at the site demolition plan. Mr. Gradwell stated they are all staying.
Greg Gaudette presented the layout of Aspen Dental. There’s two means of egress. It is similar construction to the adjacent T-Mobil that they recently renovated. He presented a couple of views of a typical Aspen Dental. In the negotiations with the landlord and the tenant, they agreed they would spend the extra money to give the new prototype for the building. It is a really attractive building and it will really help the center. It has blue awnings and arches. It is split faced block with brick veneer.
Commissioner Falk asked how many dentists will serve clients at Aspen Dental. Mr. Gaudette stated there will be six dentists.
Mr. Gradwell stated Paramount is committed and they have made an effort in making the center look better. They will continue to do that in working with Mr. Giner and his staff. Mr. Gradwell noted it has been a pleasure working with Mr. Giner and his staff. They hope for an approval tonight.
Chairman Duren opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Duren closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Drinan, to approve PH #2698 – Special Use Permit for a 3,200 s.f. addition to an existing shopping center with related site work at Enfield Commons, 25 Hazard Ave. in a Business Regional (BR) District, Map 45, Lot 8; Paramount Realty Services, owner/applicant. 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 Aspen dental Expansion & 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 July 7, 2010, revised to July 20, 2010.
“Existing Conditions Plan, 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 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet DM-1; Scale: 1”=20’; by BL Companies, dated 7/7/10, revised to 7/19/10.
“Site Demolition Plan, Enfield Commons 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet DM-2; Scale: 1”=30’; by BL Companies, dated 7/7/10, revised to 7/19/10.
“Overall Site Plan, Enfield Commons 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet SP-0; Scale: 1”=80’; by BL Companies, dated 7/7/10, revised to 7/19/10.
“Site Plan, Enfield Commons 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet SP-1; Scale: 1”=20’; by BL Companies, dated 7/7/10, revised to 7/19/10.
“Site Plan, Enfield Commons 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet SP-2; Scale: 1”=30’; by BL Companies, dated 7/7/10, revised to 7/19/10.
“Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan, Enfield Commons, 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet GU-1; Scale: 1”=20’; by BL Companies, dated 7/7/10, revised to 7/19/10.
“Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan, Enfield Commons, 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet GU-2; Scale: 1”=30’; by BL Companies dated 7/7/10, revised to 7/19/10.
“Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan, Enfield Commons 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet EC-1; Scale: 1”=20’; by BL Companies, dated 7/7/10, revised to 7/19/10.
“Sedimentation and Erosion Control Notes, Enfield Commons 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet EC-3; Scale: 1”=20’; by BL Companies, dated 7/7/10, revised to 7/19/10.
“Planting Plan, Enfield Commons 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet LL-1; Scale: 1”=20’; by BL Companies, dated 7/7/10, revised to 7/19/10.
“Planting Plan, Enfield Commons 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet LL-2; Scale: 1”=20’; by BL Companies, dated 7/7/10, revised to 7/19/10.
“Detail Sheet, Enfield Commons, 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet DN-1; Scale: “N.T.S.”; by BL Companies, dated 7/7/10, revised to 7/19/10.
“Detail Sheet, Enfield Commons, 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet DN-2; Scale: “N.T.S.”; by BL Companies, dated 7/7/10, revised to 7/19/10.
“Detail Sheet, Enfield Commons, 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield, Connecticut”, Sheet DN-3; Scale: “N.T.S.”; by BL Companies, dated 7/7/10, revised to 7/19/10.
“Floor Plan, Proposed Building Enfield Commons, Enfield, CT.” Sheet FP.1; Scale: “As Noted”; by Charles Georgie Associates, dated 7/7/10, revised to 7/19/10.
“Exterior Elevations, Proposed Building Enfield Commons, Enfield, CT.” Sheet FP.1; Scale: “As Noted”; by Charles Georgie Associates, dated 7/7/10, revised to 7/19/10.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. The cover page revision date is “July 20, 2010” while the individual plan sheets show “7/19/2010” as the revision dates. Final plans should have consistent revision dates.
2. 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.
3. Sheets LLC-2 and EC-2 appear to show an incorrect scale (1”=20’). Final plans should have the correct scale.
4. Sheet EC-3 shows a scale of 1”=20’. This sheet consists solely of notes. The scale should be either “N/A” or “N.T.S”.
5. The dumpster pad detail should call for wire mesh reinforcing like the sidewalk ramp detail.
6. The proposed 6" pipe entering the flat top CB near the dumpster pad should be lowered to allow for the minimum required two feet of cover over the pipe, especially near an area where trucks will be emptying the dumpster.
7. The landscape plan shows a deciduous tree proposed near the drainage piping and yard drain. To avoid roots getting into the drainage system that tree should be removed from the plan.
8. Show on diagram(s) - “WPC shall be notified 24 hours in advance for all inspections required for installations of sewer system{s}. Please call 860-253-5246 – if no one is there, please leave a message.”
9. A note shall be added that states that the Sewer system shall conform to Town of Enfield, Subdivision Regulations, revised as of February 12, 2002, and on the Town of Enfield Public Works Department drawings titled Typical Details I, II and III.
10. Label on the plans the size, slope and length of the laterals.
11. The plans shall show the length, diameter, slope, location, and type of all sewer pipes; for inverts show elevation in and out for, and for frame(s) show elevation at the top.
12. 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.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
13. 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.
14. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
15. 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.
16. A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.
17. Provide documentation to WPC regarding what type of x-ray processing will be used, photo processing or digital.
18. The location of the gas meters shall be finalized to the Fire Marshal’s satisfaction.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
19. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 and T-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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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:
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by July 22, 2015 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
26. 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 stated this will be a fine addition.
Commissioner Falk stated it is encouraging to see growth.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Drinan voting.
Chairman Duren noted the premises are readily accessible for fire and police and this location is in harmony with the development of this mall. It’s a good growth for this particular area.
c. FLD#029 – Permit for conducting activities within the 100 Year Flood limit related to the proposed 3,200 s.f. addition to an existing shopping center with related site work at Enfield Commons, 25 Hazard Avenue, in a Business Regional (BR) District, Map 45, Lot 8; Paramount Realty Services, Owner/Applicant.
Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve FLD#029 – Permit for conducting activities within the 100 Year Flood limit related to the proposed 3,200 square foot addition to an existing shopping center with related site work at Enfield Commons, 25 Hazard Avenue, in a Business Regional (BR) District, Map 45, Lot 8; Paramount Realty Services, Owner/Applicant.
Chairman Duren stated the findings are that the permit requirements of the ordinance have been satisfied. All necessary permits have been obtained for federal, state and local government agencies. The development does not adversely affect the flood carrying capacity of the area. A special flood hazard for the purposes of the ordinance adversely affects means of communicative effort of the proposed development when combined with all other existing and anticipated development and will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point.
Chairman Duren asked if the Commission has anything from Wetlands. Mr. Giner stated this was not in an upland review area.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Drinan voting.
d. PH#2699 – Special Use Permit to allow the renting of rooms to two guests in a single family house located at 21 David Street in a Residential 33 (R-33) District; Map 54, Lot 97, Susan Parker, Owner/Applicant. (Must close tonight unless extension is granted.)
Mr. Giner stated the applicant has not posted the signs as required and she is requesting an extension of this application.
Chairman Duren read the letter from Susan Parker requesting an extension of this application. Chairman Duren opened this public hearing.
No one in the audience spoke in favor or against this application.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Longhi, to grant an extension of PH#2699 until September 2, 2010. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Drinan voting.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR#1504 – Site Plan Review for proposed 138,000 s.f. building addition with associated parking and drainage improvements at and adjacent to 175 Freshwater Blvd. in an Industrial Park (IP) District, Map 55, Lot 1 and a portion of Map 56, Lot 2.3; Eppendorf Real Estate Corp., Owner/Applicant; Town of Enfield, Owner (Map 56, Lot 23) (Deadline for decision – 9/11/10)
Attorney Thomas Fahey representing Eppendorf, Bruce Kellogg, Jay Ussery, Dana Steele, and Jim Bubaris appeared before the Commission regarding this application. Attorney Fahey stated Jim Bubaris, their traffic expert, has submitted a traffic study but they are not planning on having a presentation from him unless the Commission has questions.
Dana Steele of J. R. Russo and Associates stated the application is for a building addition to the Eppendorf facility. Eppendorf is a biotech company that helps produce systems for the life science laboratories. They purchased this property at 175 Freshwater Boulevard in 2004 and have begun manufacturing at this facility. They are now at the point where they need to expand. The property is a 25.11 acre parcel located on the east side of Freshwater Boulevard in the town’s industrial park. The property is surrounded on three sides by town open space and as the Commission just approved this evening, a land swap of 9.3 acres which removes the land to the south from the parcel and adds an equivalent amount of 9.3 acres to the northern side of the site. The existing site which contains a building footprint of 156,000 square feet is shown in yellow on the map. The building has three stories in the front. The rear is manufacturing and warehousing and is a single story. The site contains 230 parking spaces approximately and they have been before the Commission recently for some approvals for work on the south side of the building. They put in a concrete pad for a resin silo and some additional concrete pads for generators.
Mr. Steele stated at that time there was an issue about increasing impervious coverage and concerns about drainage impacts. At the time their options were limited for dealing with that. However, at this time, they are able to resolve that problem as well as to provide for some improvements to the overall site. The property currently has no storm water detention and no storm water treatment. It is surrounded on all three sides by an existing drainage ditch that was dug years ago and is bermed around. There is no water coming into the site from beyond the site in the town open space area. The only water shed is limited to the site itself.
Mr. Steele stated the proposal they are here for this evening for a site plan review is for 138,000 square foot building addition which is shown on the map in dark brown. Along with that because of its location being where the majority of the parking is, that parking is all going to have to be replaced. That parking is going to be relocated on the west side and the north side of the addition with some room for expansion of additional parking in the grassed area. One of the things they wanted to do in regard to the storm drainage design is to design the site for maximum build out. The regulations allow for sixty-six percent impervious coverage and with this proposal they are just under sixty percent. Mr. Steele has designed the storm water detention system assuming the full build out of sixty-six percent. There won’t be a need to go back and redesign the detention basin when additional expansions are proposed.
Mr. Steele stated the 293 parking spaces are mostly located around the new addition. However, currently there are a number of employees that use the rear portion, the eastern portion, of the existing building. It’s a long walk for them to get to the site and now with the addition it becomes even longer. The thought was to add some parking that’s more convenient for accessing this part of the building. There are 40 parking spaces proposed here to provide for that area and an additional paved area for tractor trailer storage. The intent is that this area during construction will serve as a temporary parking area for the facility. The current facility doesn’t need the 230 parking spaces that the site has but they do need about 100 parking spaces and those will be provided temporarily during construction.
Mr. Steele stated they are adding a driveway to the site. They are well spaced apart along Freshwater Boulevard. All the driveways have excellent sight lines and the traffic engineer submitted a report and found this does not produce a lot of traffic and there are no impacts to the streets.
Mr. Steele stated the landscaping for the site is shown on the plans. They are proposing a number of trees and a large landscaped island in the center of the main parking area in front of the addition. On the landscaping plan, they did observe a typo. The plan indicates the quantity of the trees as twelve and the count is actually sixteen. They will correct that.
Mr. Steele stated they are proposing lighting for the site. All of the proposed parking as well as the access drive around the perimeter of the site will be lit with full cut off fixtures on twenty foot poles on three foot bases and 250 watt bulbs. The drainage that is proposed for the site includes no detention now but they have proposed a detention basin that extends along the perimeter of the site and connects up with the existing drainage ditch which goes around the perimeter of the site and provides both storm water detention and storm water treatment. Currently the site has none. Because of the nature of the layout of the site, Mr. Steele was able to reduce peak flow rates from the site not just to match existing conditions from the current building but actually looking back at prior to any development on the site. This is an ideal opportunity to bring the site up to the town’s current standards.
Mr. Steele stated he included a maintenance schedule for the storm water system including the detention basin. That is included on page 16 of the plan set and is something that the Commission is always interested in seeing.
Bruce Kellogg presented a site plan of the existing Eppendorf complex. On the lower piece is Freshwater Boulevard. As you look at the existing facility, there is a three-story piece in the front which is their office area. As you walk back into the site, their existing manufacturing area is in the first bay and the remaining two bays are the warehousing facility. They have delivery trucks that come in and out of the back now.
Mr. Kellogg stated the proposed addition is going to be on the north side. North of the building is warehousing and manufacturing. The element in front is an office expansion as well as a cafeteria. The lion’s share would be manufacturing and warehousing.
Mr. Kellogg stated if you were flying over the facility, he showed a sketch of what the building would look like. If you were to look at it from an elevation standpoint, if you were standing out in the street straight on, there is an existing lobby to the left and an overhang with landscaping. Mr. Kellogg pointed out the proposed addition and the glass structure which is a new entrance vestibule.
Mr. Kellogg stated a question everybody asks is what is sitting up on the roof and can we see it from down below. He presented a sketch showing the proposed and existing building taken from the edge of Freshwater Boulevard on the front entry drive. This is about 250’ and the blue line shows the sight line. The front bay is the office space and if you put a three foot piece of mechanical equipment up there, that would be your intersection point. They have a pretty clean sight line. They took a picture at a ten and a half foot height and from way out in the street you wouldn’t see it. The blue line would be the sight line from someone walking through the parking lot coming to the building and they wouldn’t see anything.
Mr. Kellogg presented an artist’s rendering of the building showing the new addition with the glassed office area and the entrance vestibule.
Mr. Kellogg presented a picture of the actual brick from the original Eppendorf building. That brick company is no longer in business. They are going to try to match the brick on the building façade. That’s what they are going to try to match. They do have from a local manufacturer a sample of brick that is getting fairly close. They plan to get as close as they can to what the original is. The other component of the building is a three inch insulated metal panel with a little bit of a texture. They will use a metal panel similar to what the existing building has. It has a vertical seam to it and is a gray color. They will match this to the best that they can. The glass is fairly clear with some shading. It will be a low-e glass for energy efficiency.
Mr. Kellogg stated the roof will be a white roof membrane. That’s a very energy efficient roof membrane that they are using now. It keeps energy costs down and doesn’t absorb the heat like a black roof system.
Mr. Steele concluded with a few more comments about the applicant. Eppendorf is an international company that came to Enfield in 2004. They have been growing. They are expanding. They have reached the point of capacity. They have considered other facilities to expand in around the world and have decided to expand in Enfield. At one of the ART’s, Ray Warren, the town’s Economic Development Director, made the comment that in his conversations with Eppendorf, one of the things that has drawn them to Enfield is the work force here. They are happy with the people that are working here and they have decided to expand at this facility. One of the criteria for making this decision is for this project to move forward at a fast pace. They are growing and they don’t want this to hold them back. Their plan is to have this building complete by the end of 2011. In order to accomplish that, they need to have a foundation in by October of this year. That means that building permits need to be applied for at the beginning of September. That puts them under a tight time frame for this application. That is compounded by the fact that the Commission does not meet in August. They need to keep moving forward and show Eppendorf that their schedule is doable.
Mr. Steele stated one of the reasons he mentions this is because they have already spoken with staff about the fact that because of the tight time frame of this project, the applicant and the architects are still finalizing the final footprint. They recognize that the plan submitted tonight is what they are asking the Commission to approve but they want the Commission to understand that the plan that will come into the Building Department is more than likely going to be slightly different from that. In talking with the town staff, Mr. Giner explained that there is a standard condition on all approvals that allows staff to approve minor changes. They wanted to be up front that there are going to be some minor changes. A couple of things about those changes that they want to assure the Commission about is whatever they come back to staff with is not going to be greater impervious coverage than what the Commission is being asked to approve now. It is just under sixty percent and it is not going to be more than that. The building may shrink slightly and the configuration of it may change somewhat. The orientation of it may change. The parking around it may have to be adjusted slightly to accommodate that.
Mr. Steele stated another issue they haven’t resolved yet is with water service to the building. They haven’t yet determined if a pump or a storage tank is going to be required. There are some items that are not shown on the plan now that may be proposed. They are asking that staff be given an opportunity to review those changes and determine whether or not they require coming back to this Commission for approval. They wanted to be up front with the Commission about those things that they are expecting. Staff has assured them that the Engineering Department and the Fire Department are going to have full access to any changes that are made. The Town Planner will have the discretion to bring anything back to the Commission if he feels it is necessary to do so.
Chairman Duren appreciates their doing this. Mr. Giner stated they had the same understanding with the Wetlands Commission on Tuesday. Chairman Duren stated Wetlands approved this under Permit IW538 on Tuesday night.
Mr. Steele stated they have had two ART’s with staff and have received comments back. The last time they met with them they finalized all the comments from staff and they asked at that time if they wanted them to submit revised plans and address all these items. The consensus was they were best handled as conditions of approval which Mr. Giner has incorporated into a motion. All those items are incorporated into the motion the Commission has this evening. They have reviewed that motion and they are in agreement with those conditions dated July 14, 2010.
Commissioner Sarno asked about the administrative approvals since Mr. Giner is gone the whole month of August. She asked who would step in for Mr. Giner to make those decisions. Mr. Giner stated the changes will be very minor and he will have access to email. He doesn’t anticipate any zoning issues. Commissioner Longhi felt it is fair to Eppendorf to have a contact in the office. Mr. Giner stated Ms. Higley will be there and he won’t be too far from email. Barbara will know to send any revisions to Ms. Higley or the Fire Marshal.
Chairman Duren felt it was wonderful that Eppendorf chose Enfield to expand and he thinks it is great for the town.
Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve SPR #1504 – Site Plan Review for proposed 138,000 s.f building addition with associated parking and drainage improvements at and adjacent to 175 Freshwater Blvd. in an Industrial Park (IP) District, Map 55 Lot 1 and a portion of Map 56, Lot 23;Eppendorf Real Estate Corp. owner/applicant; Town of Enfield owner (Map 56 Lot 23)., subject to conformance with the referenced plans as may be required to be modified by this approval and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Location Map and Drawing Index, Prepared by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC.
“Resubdivision Plan Prepared for Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 2 of 20, Scale: 1”=200’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC dated 6-18-10, revised to 6-28-10.
“Demolition Plan Prepared for Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 3 of 20, Scale: 1”=60’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC dated 6-18-10, revised to 6-28-10.
“Layout Plan Prepared for Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 4 of 20, Scale: 1”=40’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC dated 6-18-10, revised to 6-28-10.
“Layout Plan Prepared for Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 5of 20, Scale: 1”=40’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC dated 6-18-10, revised to 6-28-10.
“Utility Plan Prepared for Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 6 of 20, Scale: 1”=40’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC dated 6-18-10, revised to 6-28-10.
“Utility Plan Prepared for Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 7 of 20, Scale: 1”=40’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC dated 6-18-10, revised to 6-28-10.
“Utility Plan Prepared for Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 8 of 20, Scale: 1”=40’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC dated 6-18-10, revised to 6-28-10.
“Grading Plan Prepared for Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 9 of 20, Scale: 1”=40’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC dated 6-28-10.
“Grading Plan Prepared for Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 10 of 20, Scale: 1”=40’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC dated 6-28-10.
“Grading Plan Prepared for Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 11 of 20, Scale: 1”=40’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC dated 6-28-10.
“Landscape Plan Prepared for Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 12 of 20, Scale: 1”=60’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC dated 6-28-10.
“Landscape Plan Prepared for Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 13 of 20, Scale: 1”=20’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC dated 6-28-10.
“Lighting Plan Prepared for Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 14 of 20, Scale: 1”=60’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC dated 6-28-10.
“Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Prepared for Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 15 of 20, Scale: 1”=60’ by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC dated 6-18-10, revised to 6-28-10.
“Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Notes Prepared for Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 16 of 20, Scale: ‘As Noted’; by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC dated 6-18-10, revised to 6-28-10.
“Detail Sheet Prepared for Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 17 of 20, Scale: ‘As Noted’; by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC dated 6-18-10, revised to 6-28-10.
“Detail Sheet Prepared for Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 18 of 20, Scale: ‘As Noted’; by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC dated 6-18-10, revised to 6-28-10.
“Detail Sheet Prepared for Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 19 of 20, Scale: ‘As Noted’; by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC dated 6-18-10, revised to 6-28-10.
“Detail Sheet Prepared for Eppendorf, Inc. 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 20 of 20, Scale: ‘As Noted’; by J.R. Russo & Associates, LLC dated 6-18-10, revised to 6-28-10.
“Eppendorf Industrial Park, 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut 06082” First Floor Plan, Sheet A-110; Scale: 1”=30‘-0”; by JCJ Architecture, dated June 30, 2010.
“Eppendorf Industrial Park, 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut 06082” Second Floor Plan, Sheet A-120; Scale: 1”=30‘-0”; by JCJ Architecture, dated June 30, 2010
“Eppendorf Industrial Park, 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut 06082” Third Floor Plan, Sheet A-130; Scale: 1”=30‘-0”; by JCJ Architecture, dated June 30, 2010
“Eppendorf Industrial Park, 175 Freshwater Boulevard Enfield, Connecticut 06082” exterior Elevations, Sheet A-500; Scale: 1”=30‘-0”; by JCJ Architecture, dated June 30, 2010
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 pavement detail shall be revised to show a minimum processed stone base depth of 8 inches.
3. The proposed pipe from DMH #1 to CB #1 is undersized for the 25 year storm capacity requirement. The plans shall be revised to correct this to the Town Engineering Division’s satisfaction.
4. The final plans shall be revised to show access to the North side of the addition by means of “grass pavers” or something similar to support the weight of fire apparatus approximately 50 feet from the building. The width shall be 22ft and identified by signs or small shrubs. The Fire Marshal’s office shall approve the final design prior to the signing of the plans.
5. An additional fire hydrant may be required based on the location of the fire department sprinkler connection location. The final plans shall reflect the final determination of the Fire Marshal’s office.
6. A note or detail shall be added that all hydrants must be a Mueller “centurion” type.
7. The plans shall show the length, diameter, slope, location, and type of all sewer pipes; for inverts show elevation in and out for, and for frame(s) show elevation at the top.
8. Details for sanitary sewer structures and a sanitary sewer trench detail shall be added to the plans.
9. A note shall be added that states that the Sewer system shall conform to Town of Enfield, Subdivision Regulations, revised as of February 12, 2002, and on the Town of Enfield Public Works Department drawings titled Typical Details I, II and III.
10. Label on the plans the size, slope and length of the laterals.
11. 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.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
12. A letter stating, that there are to be no floor drains shall be provided to the Water Pollution Control Division. If floor drains are required, additional treatment measures may be required subject to approval of the Enfield WPC.
13. This approval is based on the completion of a swap of land between the Town of Enfield and Eppendorf Real Estate Corp. The transfer of all land shall be finalized prior to the issuance of any permits.
14. 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.
15. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
16. 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.
17. A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.
18. Sizes of water mains and pipes based on the Connecticut water review and required sprinkler flow calculations shall be determined during the build permit review.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
19. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 and T-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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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. For a project of this size it is strongly recommended that a pre-CO Staff meeting be held a minimum of 30 days prior to the need for a CO.
General Conditions:
23. This project is also subject to the Conditions of Approval for Inland Wetlands application # IW 538.
24. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans as indicated in the application record may be allowed, subject to staff review and approval. Staff shall report any such changes to the Commission at the meeting following the approval.
25. This approval is for the specific use identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
26. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by July 22, 2015 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
27. 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 Alternate Drinan voting.
Commissioner Longhi felt the plan was extremely well thought out with a lot of access. Also, the action of doing the drainage for a future expansion is a positive step.
b. SPR#1503 – Request to add telecommunications antennae and equipment to the former Polish National Home Building located at 4 Alden Avenue, in a TVCZ District, Map 27, Lot 99; by Maxton Technology, Inc. for Clearwire LLC, Applicant; Amelies LLC, Owner. (Deadline for Decision – 9/11/10)
Mr. Giner stated tonight the ERSC voted to recommend approval of the installation of wireless communication equipment at 4 Alden Avenue for Clearwire LLC. There were no restrictions on the application. Mr. Giner read a letter from Peter Bryanton to this effect.
Tom Flynn, Site Development Project Manager for Maxton Communications on behalf of Clearwire LLC appeared before the Commission regarding this application. Clearwire is a licensed FCC telecommunications carrier. It is in the business of providing wireless internet services. It is not telephone but a wi fi service provider. There are panel antennas that provide the service to the individual homes and businesses that want to subscribe to the service and they have added a component called the back hall technology that uses line of sight communications by microwave transmission for each of the three sectors that are on this plan to connect it to other parts of the system. What that does is bypass the hard line technology that your cell phone uses to communicate from site to site and uses a microwave link to connect a ring of sites and the spurs off of it to provide the service to the individuals who want to use this.
Mr. Flynn stated what they are proposing is they will be putting three sectors of antennas, three microwaves and three panel antennas, mounted on three ballast mount systems. They are metal frame platforms on which the antenna is mounted. Drawing Z-2 shows these platforms. At Mr. Giner’s request, they have reduced the height of these antennas from the original proposal which was at 11’ down to 6’ above the roof top. The photo simulations in the Commission’s original packet will look different because the antennas are lower under the revised plans. The equipment that services the antennas is going to be inside the building and not outside so they are minimizing the impact on the roof.
Mr. Giner stated the plans he handed out this evening are the same except for the elevation. The original one showed 11’ high antennas which were 8’ above the parapet. The regulations – although they allow up to 15’ high antennas – anything that sticks six feet above the existing structure then requires a special use permit. The option was lower the antennas so that they are not higher than six feet or go to September and advertise it as a special use. They elected to go with the lower antennas.
Commissioner Ladd asked about personal safety if these units are on the roof. Mr. Flynn stated this roof will be signed and these are the only antennas on the roof top. Anybody that goes up on the roof will be trained and the access way has a sign that indicates it is an RF active area. These antennas all face out and when they do any work on them, they turn them off. There isn’t a regular maintenance schedule for these types of facilities. They are very durable antennas and if they have to get repaired or replaced, they get turned off. Commissioner Ladd stated his concern was for the guy going up and patching the roof. Mr. Flynn stated the building will be signed and the roofing companies are aware of what they need to do and how they need to do it. The landlord is aware of this as well. The roof is not accessible except for somebody who is supposed to be up there.
Commissioner Longhi stated she noticed on the new plan the first antenna has eight feet. She asked if that is a typo. Mr. Giner stated there is an existing parapet. Commissioner Longhi looked on the other plan and they have it as 11 but on this it says 8 and 6. She wanted to clarify that. Mr. Giner stated it is six feet from the top of the parapet wall. The existing structure goes to the top of the parapet wall. As long as it stays six feet above the parapet, it’s an eight foot high antenna to the roof. So the first measurement is to the top of the parapet wall. They only show the measurement to the roof. So it’s an 8’ high antenna but only six feet of it will show. That way it will technically meet the regulations. Mr. Giner noted up to 15’ is allowed but it is only a question of procedures and whether they would have to come in for a public hearing.
Chairman Duren noted the main panel is inside the building and he asked will that be secured. Mr. Flynn stated it will be secured from any access. Commissioner Longhi asked if that is what gets shut off for repairs. Mr. Flynn stated the antennas connect to that equipment and that is where the power comes from. So that gets shut down and the antennas are inactive at that point.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Longhi, to approve SPR#1503 – Request to add telecommunications antennae and equipment to the former Polish National Home Building located at 4 Alden Avenue, in a TVCZ District, Map 27, Lot 99; by Maxton Technology, Inc. for Clearwire LLC, applicant; Amelies LLC, Owner, subject to conformance with the application record and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Clearwire Polish National Home Association Building CT-HFD0004B 8 Alden Avenue, Enfield, CT 06082”. Sheets T-1, C-1, Z-1 and Z-2 by Clearwire Clear Wireless, LLC, revised to 7/16/10.
General Conditions:
1. 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.
2. All applicable Building and Fire Codes must be complied with prior to the issuance of any permits.
3. By acceptance of this approval 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 Alternate Drinan voting.
c. Request by Jennifer Malec to allow a one-day fundraising event on Saturday, July 24, 2010 from 1 p.m. – 7 p.m. in the parking lot of the Four Seasons Sports Bar and Grill located at 112 Spring Street in an R-33 District, Map 21, Lot 38, John Petronella, owner.
Chairman Duren read a letter from Jennifer Malec requesting a continuance to the September 2, 2010 meeting.
Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to continue this request by Jennifer Malec until the September 2, 2010 meeting. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Drinan voting.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Request of Antonio Reale, World Properties, LLC, for an informal discussion regarding property located at 1699 King Street (Metro North).
Kiran Majmudar and Antonio Reale appeared before the Commission regarding an informal discussion regarding property located at 1699 King Street. Mr. Majmudar stated Mr. Reale owns 160 plus acres on Route 5 abutting East Windsor. The entire parcel that he owns abuts East Windsor. The location of the land is on the east side of Route 5 in the area of the Metro North business complex. Mr. Majmudar stated Mr. Reale has been trying to attract industrial tenants for the land for many years. He has not been able to do so despite some of the more recent efforts by the town’s economic development commission as well as the development arm of CL&P and a quasi state agency that funded the recent effort where the applicant would go before the Inland Wetland Commission for a partial approval for a brook crossing.
Mr. Majmudar stated Mr. Reale would like the Commission’s comment on a concept plan that proposes a small portion of this 160 acres to be used as a multi-family residential development. Mr. Majmudar showed the Commission a small 30 acre portion of the 160 acre parcel that Mr. Reale owns. Currently there isn’t a multi-family development regulation in the town’s regulations. They have met with Mr. Giner and his suggestion was to talk to the Commission and get their comments on the proposal and whether they should go forward with this concept.
Mr. Reale stated he has been a developer for fifty years and before he does anything he goes to the Commission and asks can he do it. He has had this land for twenty-eight years and has been paying taxes on it without making a penny. Everyone wants to buy an existing building today. He is asking the Commission to assist him as he has the financing available.
Chairman Duren asked what the present zone is. Mr. Giner stated it is zoned industrial-1 right now. He pointed out the site on the map and stated the area on the current plan of industrial is a mixed use area. In the proposed land use plan it is shown as industrial. Mr. Giner stated Ray Warren wasn’t able to attend their meeting but in the past he has been somewhat reluctant to give up good industrial land for residential. Currently, the town doesn’t allow for any straight multi-family type of residential. They do have an elderly regulation that would fit in if it were changed to residential. Anything else would require a zoning change for the property and a text change to permit the multi-family residential.
Commissioner Longhi asked if this is the same project that went through the shovel ready program. Mr. Giner stated it is. Commissioner Longhi stated this property just recently went through the shovel ready program which was supposed to help the project but the economy is not great at this time.
Mr. Reale stated he was so sure that the State of Connecticut would grant to him the $600,000 to do the roads. Unfortunately, after spending six months, he went to the State of Connecticut and they said you don’t have a tenant. Now, he has no roads. Chairman Duren stated the State is like the people and they have no money.
Chairman Duren asked that Mr. Giner explain the type of development being proposed. Mr. Majmudar stated this is only a concept plan. It shows that within the area of thirty acres or less the applicant can propose two-bedroom units. They would be rental units. The market analysis indicates there is a need for rental apartment units. The building would be three stories which would meet the height limitation. In some cases, there are six units per building with 1,100 square feet per unit. The second set of buildings that are shown on the plan are about 850 square feet per unit with six per building and three stories. The last one is the studio unit of 650 square feet with twelve units per building.
Chairman Duren stated you are talking the concept of so many apartments. This would be trading good industrial land for apartments that possibly in the future could be turned into condominiums. Mr. Majmudar stated the town needs to look at the fact that for thirty years this land has been industrial including the last portion which was only a year and a half ago where the town Economic Development Commission and the state tried to interest more industrial tenants to come in without success.
Chairman Duren stated the economy changed. Commissioner Sarno stated in the most recent town plan the recommendation was that the land stay industrial. Mr. Majmudar stated you have not seen industrial development along the Route 5 corridor. Chairman Duren stated there is some along Mullen Road and Mullen Road would back up into this site. Mr. Majmudar stated the far eastern side would abut Mullen Road and most of that parcel out of the 160 acres would remain Industrial 1. This would also be consistent with residential development on King Court.
Commissioner Longhi stated the town just went through the Plan of Conservation and Development and spent many hours looking at all the industry and trying to save the industrial land that the town has. She is reluctant to change the zone to more residential and she noted Ray Warren is actively seeking to try to market this land. Commissioner Longhi noted the present bad economy and she just thinks it is the time.
Mr. Reale stated he has owned this land for twenty-eight years. He has found zero tenants. No one is buying any land today. He noted that he has brokers and everyone knows this land. They have advertised. He doesn’t want to pay taxes and get nothing. He is not asking to change the zone for the entire parcel but only thirty acres. He is talking about a piece next to Route 5.
Chairman Duren stated he knows a lot of the land is wetlands. He doesn’t know what the Commission would be trading land for if they changed the zone.
Mr. Majmudar stated they did go through an evaluation of the wetlands when they went through the shovel ready portion of the project. There is a lot of wetlands on the property and the wetlands are located along the easterly property line as well as the property line that is on the easterly side of the 160 acre parcel.
Chairman Duren asked how much wetland is on this little piece. Mr. Majmudar stated if you look at the section that is just northerly, that section is wet. The section northerly of Carpet Road is wet. Then you have a brook that divides the concept plan from the industrial.
Chairman Duren stated what Mr. Majmudar is describing is a good piece of land without wetlands that they are proposing apartments on and the town is trading a good piece of industrial land for wetlands. The rest is wetlands. They would be taking the better part of the industrial land.
Mr. Reale stated they have a lot of wetlands and he pointed them out on the map. They are wetlands and will stay wetlands forever.
Chairman Duren is saying that the part they want to put the apartments on is the better part of the land that anybody would build on.
Mr. Majmudar stated what the Commission is seeing is only part of the 160 acre parcel. So the picture alone does not give a picture of the entire 160 acres.
Commissioner Sarno discussed a property on Elm Street that wanted to change to residential and the Commission said no. She noted the end result if everybody came to the Commission and said it’s a bad time right now and they want to change the zone and make some money on it. It’s prime industrial land and that is Commissioner Sarno’s opinion. She stated they are more than welcome to put an application together and bring it to the Commission. She noted the rest of the parcel is wetlands and there is nothing that can be done with that land.
Mr. Majmudar stated there is a lot of wetlands on the perimeter of the 160 acre parcel. Out of that you are taking one thirty acre piece closer to Route 5. The remaining portion of 130 acres still has the same amount of wetlands and the mid section is not wetlands and is developable.
Chairman Duren stated in the town, some of the best land for industrial cannot be developed because it is wet. The proposal is to remove a good portion of industrial land that is buildable for industry and put it into residential. Chairman Duren stated he doesn’t want to trade in the industrial land because it is very short in the town.
Commissioner Sarno stated her opinion would be no.
Mr. Giner stated we are not here to make any decisions but to get a sense of the Commission’s feeling. Mr. Reale did not like to hear absolutely not.
Chairman Duren stated there would have to be a change of zone. He is not inclined to change the zone. Mr. Reale asked why. Commissioner Sarno stated because it will give up prime industrial land that will bring business and taxes into the town.
Chairman Duren stated if they want to bring in an application, they are welcome to do so. Mr. Majmudar thanked the Commission for their time.
b. Report from Policy Review Committee
c. Report from Signage Policy Review Committee.
d. Discussion of Tag Sale Regulations
e. Zoning Enforcement Procedures
15. Applications to be Received
The following applications were received by the Commission:
Public Hearings:
PH#2700 – Special Use Permit for Cemetery expansion on a portion of property located at 110 North Street in a Residential-33 District, Map 100, Lot 005; Catholic Cemeteries Association, Archdiocese of Hartford, Owner/Applicant.
A public hearing will be scheduled for September 2, 2010.
Site Plans:
SPR#1503 – Request for a Change of Use to allow a gymnastics training facility at 215 Moody Road in an Industrial-1 District, Map 99, Lot 5; New England School of Gymnastics, Applicant; Olympia Sales, Inc. Owner.
This application will be on the September 2, 2010 Agenda.
Other:
Referral from the ZEO of a request for a Home Occupation registration of a proposed business to conduct catalog/internet sales of firearms with some assembly and customization at 4 Pinecrest Road in an R-33 District; John F. Stroiney, applicant/owner.
This referral will be on the September 2, 2010 Agenda.
Request by Ronald E. Lindman II for reconsideration of previous denial of a second driveway at his residence located at 18 Spring Garden Road in an R-33 District.
This request will be on the September 2, 2010 Agenda.
Commissioner Ladd asked about the parcel address for the property at 565 Enfield Street. Mr. Giner stated they go by the parcel address and each store has its own individual address.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dumont, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Peter Falk, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
|