|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING (UNAPPROVED)
JULY 22, 2004
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, July 22, 2004 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Charles Duren
Robert Egan
James Hickey, Jr.
Karen Krebs
Karen Weseliza
Samuel McGill, Voting Alternate
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
ABSENT: Jeffrey Cooper
Nicles Lefakis, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to approve the Minutes of July 8, 2004. The Minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace noted receipt of the Wetlands Commission Notice of Action for July 6, 2004. Also received was a letter from Connecticut Light and Power regarding outdoor flood lights and a response from Jose Giner regarding flood lights mounted on poles.
Mr. Giner stated there was one light on Route 5 that needed some shielding for the safety of motorists at night and he pointed this out to Connecticut Light and Power.
Commissioner Duren noted receipt of a memo from Neil Angus to Jose Giner in which he suggests referring items to the Conservation Commission especially with regard to changes in new developments. This will allow them to offer an opinion to this Commission. Mr. Giner stated their concern is in regard to open space issues. He noted many towns either formally or informally refer subdivisions or special use developments that require open space to their conservation commission for an opinion. Mr. Giner stated he will refer such applications to the Conservation Commission in the future in order to obtain their advisory opinion and will inform them of this via a letter. The letter will state the Commission has no problem referring open spaces issues to the Conservation Commission.
COMMISSIONERS' CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace noted receipt of a booklet from the American Planning Association. Also received was the College of Agricultural and Natural Resource Journal.
Chairman DiPace reported this Commission has received papers that were served regarding the Mass Mutual application.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Continued from June 17, 2004 Meeting
PH#2433 - Application for Special Use Permit to operate a private heliport pad at 132 Moody Road, zoned Industrial-1, Map 93, Lot 18, Alexander K. and Maurine D. Chickosky, Owner/Applicant. (Must close by tonight.)
Attorney Derrick Otis appeared before the Commission representing the applicant. He provided the Commission with a copy of the DEP permits issued in this matter as previously requested by Commissioner Egan. They include the original permit which contains all the attachments and the more recent permit which contains the addition of one item which is not on the original permit.
Dana Steele of J. R. Russo and Associates appeared before the Commission and explained the plans that were submitted as part of this application. The first sheet is a 100-scale plan showing the flight paths. The second sheet is a forty scale plan showing the location of the pad and the proposed fueling tank. The pad was moved approximately 50' to the west to increase the distance between the pad and the shade structures on the existing property. The fueling tank was also moved. Previously it was next to the shed and it has been moved closer to the pad for better access to the pad and is still screened by the large pine trees.
The location plans were revised to reflect the changes. The only other thing added to the plan was a dimension for clarification purposes. Some of the areas that were mentioned as a concern with the location of the pad were residential areas to the southwest and residential areas to the east. As the plan indicates, the nearest residential neighborhood is over 2,000' away or a little over one-third of a mile. The residential area to the north is over a full mile away. Mr. Steele noted they provided aerial photos at the last meeting showing the most recent developments with the location of the towers shown by the yellow arrows.
Commissioner Egan asked about the distance from the pad to Moody Road and from the pad to Park Street. Mr. Steele responded from the pad to Park Street is 524' and from the pad to the street line is 170'. The distance to the house across the street is 290' away from the heliport
Commissioner Egan noted the deeds before the Commission show that Mr. Chickosky only owns the 2.3 acre site and another owner owns the balance. Mr. Chickosky clarified that he and his wife took title to the property on May 24, 2004 and now own the entire block.
Commissioner McGill asked about trailering the helicopter to this site. Mr. Steele stated the intent is to trailer the helicopter to this site.
Commissioner Duren asked if the fields that will be sprayed are the five that are listed in information given to the Commission. Attorney Otis stated that is correct. Mr. Chickosky confirmed that from this pad, those are the fields that will be serviced with the caveat that they would do field rotation.
Attorney Otis distributed some of the studies and materials submitted with the Mass Mutual heliport application. The Commission went through a rather exhaustive process and looked at similar issues in that application. He believes this case compares favorably to that one for a number of reasons. This application is talking about a significantly smaller aircraft. Mass Mutual proposed two crew members and twelve passengers and a much larger aircraft. This is a three-passenger maximum with a single engine and a rather expensive sound deafening muffler system. It is a less intrusive vehicle. There is a greater distance between the pad and residential areas in this application than the Mass Mutual application. Also, if the Commission chooses to place conditions on this application, the applicant will have no objection whatsoever with the conditions and hold them to compliance with the DEP permit.
Commissioner Duren asked about the specific name of the company that owns the helicopter since there are three listed. They are Don Weber and Sons Airplane Spraying, Rebecca Lynn Flying Service, and Charles G. Weber Company. Attorney Otis confirmed these are all the same company.
Commissioner Egan clarified a statement made by Attorney Otis. He noted the first residence with the Mass Mutual application was 2,000' away and in this application, the first residence is 270' away from the heliport. Attorney Otis stated he was referring to the zone and not the individual residence. He added he believes a significant effort has been made in this case to reduce the impact of disturbances and noise. Also, in this application, the zone is generally more permissive as to general uses than the Mass Mutual application.
Chairman DiPace requested input from the audience and he asked that any information provided be new information.
Lisa Rogers, 8 Winter Way, stated she is a resident abutting Hawthorne field. She noted that Fermi High School is in this area and there is summer school in session with people on the fields during the day. She further stated she is against this heliport application.
John McKellough, 6 Winter Way, stated he abuts the property where the heliport is proposed. He spoke against having this pad because the spray comes down to ground level and is an unnecessary nuisance. Winter Way and the adjacent properties are residential. They came about because the tobacco grower sold his barn, took down his poles, moved his house and the town made this a residential area. Mr. McKellough felt they could do other kinds of spraying like they are doing right now on Moody Road and take care of their mold problem.
Charles Woods, 11 Westerly Drive, stated he also hears the aircraft down low spraying. He stated he spent 25 years in the Air Force and noted there are bigger choppers landing a lot closer to residential areas than what is being discussed tonight. The danger is ten times more in those cases. Bradley Field has the same situation. There are builders encroaching on flying areas and then residents start complaining about the noise. Farms were here before the housing projects and farms will always be here, hopefully, to feed us. Mr. Woods questioned how the Commission can deny somebody a livelihood in their business. That helicopter is a lot safer than having a fixed wing aircraft come over spraying. The pilot has a lot more control over the insecticide. He has a lot more control over his aircraft than a fixed wing aircraft. Mr. Woods recommended approval.
Robert Welch, 135 Moody Road, stated as an abutter of Enfield Shade, he opposes the heliport pad due to the noise and safety factors in a residential area. His added his home is approximately 300' from the pad.
Jack Sheridan, 7 Buchanan Road, stated it is his understanding that the spraying is going to continue although it may not be from Mr. Chickosky's own pad. He felt the impact to the residents is less of an impact if the pad is allowed and he is in favor of the heliport.
Celeste Dusben, 14 Winter Way, stated she abuts the Hawthorne property. She fought a fight a few years ago about whether or not there is supposed to be aerial spraying behind their property. It is her belief that there is not supposed to be any aerial spraying on that property without the abutting residents signing off on it. She has never once been asked to sign a waiver.
Chairman DiPace informed the audience that the discussion is about the heliport and not about the spraying.
Mr. Giner stated he would change the revision date of the plans listed in his memo to 6/30/04.
Commissioner Duren felt the particular type of aircraft should be added to the conditions. It is a Hilliard EH 12 E 3.
Commissioner Duren brought up the times for spraying and also a confirmation on the exact name of the helicopter company. Mr. Giner stated this approval cannot be limited to a particular company. He suggested limiting it to the helicopter because the approval would go with the property.
Attorney Otis addressed the hours of operation. He stated the DEP permit describes that it cannot be used during times when children are standing for school buses. There are no plans to use any other helicopter. The problem with time is they are trying to use the helicopter at a time when the wind conditions are the most stable and low and that's usually the very early hours. They have to manage that and keep within the DEP permit and not spray during times when children are waiting for the school bus. Moving the allowed time to later in the day or earlier in the afternoon presents a condition where over spraying can be done which imposes a greater risk. Attorney Otis added this is a plan that reduces the flight time and reduces the travel length and business for the vehicle.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if the fueling and repairing of the helicopter will be done on site. Attorney Otis stated they will be fueling and repairing on site as is done with other farm equipment vehicles. Any vehicle used in agriculture would require fueling and filling with chemicals.
Chairman DiPace felt with refueling and the use of chemicals, a concrete pad would reduce the risk of contaminating the land.
Mr. Steele stated the plan for dealing with spills is to use the spill pan over the area where the fueling of the helicopter would occur to catch any spills - the same as with any other minor maintenance. There is not going to be any major maintenance done on the helicopter at this site but just minor maintenance which would include adding oil or the fueling of the helicopter. The spill pan is a fiberglass tray that has sides to it so that if anything spills, it would stay in the tray.
Chairman DiPace responded to Commissioner McGill's questions about whether approval would be limited to the five fields identified. He stated as the Commission has done in other applications, there could be a limit of so many flights. The Commission can limit the hours of operation and require different things but cannot control where the pilot actually goes. The Commission can control where the helicopter lands and takes off and how many flights.
Commissioner Egan questioned how this decreases the impact on the residents in the area if they are now spraying fields in Somers from Ellington and switching to coming to Enfield and spraying those fields in Somers. It would appear to him that the activity would increase in the Enfield neighborhoods because there would be more landings and take-offs and you would still be flying over the residential areas that people were saying that a heliport would eliminate if placed here in Enfield. If you are going to Somers, you are creating more activity in Enfield to do the Somers field. Commissioner Egan asked why can't they take off and land in Somers to do the Somers field and this would certainly limit the impact to Enfield.
Attorney Otis stated if you look at the parcels that are being serviced by this helicopter, you can place the pad wherever you want. As it stands now, the helicopter is working from Ellington which increases the travel distance and time for these locations
Chairman DiPace stated the parcels being discussed for the heliport are two separate parcels. The parcel with the helicopter pad could be sold off separate from the farm and could be a separate parcel. Attorney Otis concurred with this statement. Chairman DiPace stated it would be 10' off the property line the way it is proposed.
Commisisoner Weseliza asked if the property changes hands, could the heliport be used only for agricultural purposes. Mr. Giner stated the condition would stay on the land. Attorney Otis stated a condition could be that the use be consistent with DEP permits. This would preclude a lot of other scenarios in the future and would limit it to the use now being proposed.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience again. No one requested further input. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren noted the new plans are dated 6/30/04. He further requested that the responsibility and schedule for cleaning the proposed catch basin be added to the plans. Mr. Giner stated the new plans contain a note regarding the responsibility and schedule for maintenance.
Commissioner Duren asked about the hours of operation. Commissioner Hickey noted the hours of operation are proposed from dawn to dusk and he has a problem with these hours.
Chairman DiPace requested a motion in order to discuss this application further.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2433 - Application for Special Use Permit to operate a private heliport pad at 132 Moody Road, zoned Industrial-1, Map 93, Alexander K. and Maurine D. Chickosky, Owner/Applicants, subject to conformance with the specified plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
"Boundary Survey Private Heliport Plan Prepared for Alexander K. & Maurine D. Chickosky, 132 Moody Road, Enfield, Connecticut." Sheet 1 of 3, Scale: 1" = 100', by J. R. Russo & Associates, dated 3-34-04 and revised to 6-30-04.
"Site Plan Private Heliport Plan Prepared for Alexander K. & Maurine D. Chickosky, 132 Moody Road, Enfield, Connecticut." Sheet 2 of 3, Scale: 1" = 40', by J. R. Russo & Associates, dated 3-4-04 and revised to 6-30-04.
"Primary Approach/Take-Off Path Profile, Plan View and Location Map, Private Heliport Plan Prepared for Alexander K. & Maurine D. Chickosky, 132 Moody Road, Enfield, Connecticut." Sheet 3 of 3, Scale: "As Noted, by J. R. Russo & Associates, dated 3-4-04 and revised to 6-30-04.
Conditions to be met prior to signing of mylars and certificate:
1. All 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 conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
3. A detail for the proposed catch basin hood shall be added to the plans.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
4. One set of mylars and two sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Development Department for signature of the Commission.
5. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land Records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
6. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
7. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
General Conditions:
8. The hours for operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No helicopter takeoffs or landings shall occur outside these times.
9. A plaque with emergency shutoff procedures specific to the helicopter being used shall be located near the helicopter pad in a location approved by the Fire Marshal.
10. The helipad shall be for agricultural use only.
11. Take-off and landing paths shall be as specified in the application. No take-offs or landing approaches shall occur over the High School property to the west.
12. This approval is for the specific use and structures identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structures will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
13. Construction of facilities approved herein shall commence by July 22, 2005 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
14. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns 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.
15. This approval is limited to the use of a helicopter designated as Hiller UH-12E3.
Regarding the hours of operation, Commissioner Duren suggested 7:00 a.m. Commissioner Hickey felt anything prior to 6:00 a.m. is unreasonable. Chairman DiPace suggested the hours be limited to between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Duren would prefer an evening limit of 4:00 p.m. to avoid interrupting such things as cookouts.
Chairman DiPace confirmed the hours of operation would be from 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Another condition was added limiting the approval to a Hiller UH-123E3 type of helicopter.
Commissioner Egan stated no one is trying to put anyone out of business or regulate their operations. The residents and some of the residential developments in this area were there when the area was a turf farm. There was no aerial spraying. There was no heliport. Other residential areas came in there when it was a tobacco farm but there wasn't any aerial spraying. These folks moved in without a heliport. Commissioner Egan also thinks that Mr. Chickosky has demonstrated that he doesn't need to spray. They can land apply. He has done that down on North Maple Street. He is one of the few in the state that has this permit so there are alternatives and nobody is trying to put anybody out of business. Commissioner Egan stated the Commission wants to encourage the rural nature and this farm space in the Town of Enfield. However, the special permit criteria in 9.20.2 has specific criteria which the Commission needs to evaluate in making their decision
Commissioner Egan stated, in his opinion, the applicant has not demonstrated that the impacts of the proposed use will comply with the provisions of the special permit criteria as outlined in 9.20.2. The areas that he evaluated in coming to that conclusion are that the location is of great concern, it does impact public safety which is one of the criteria, and that it is only 524' as told from Park Street and 170' from Moody Road. Also, the fact that a residential house is 290' away does have an impact. There are also other homes that are in close proximity to the proposed take-off and landing zones and there is an insignificant buffer. The proposed heliport would be close to the road and close to the dwelling units on that road. There are also two antenna towers and a heating oil storage tank that is in their flight path. There is a high school to the west and heavy residential neighborhoods to the south. Should the dominant winds change and the helicopter need to adjust its flight patterns, this could create public safety issues. There is no air space over public land, rivers or highways that would allow the pilot to avoid objects or noise sensitive areas and to protect the public.
Commissioner Egan stated the second item is there is substantial developable land in the area of the proposed use and allowing this use will not be in harmony with and conform to the appropriate orderly general development of the town. This places limitations on development and that's a factor the Commission needs to evaluate.
Commissioner Egan stated the third item is the inconsistency of the data and the lack of certification of data as far as noise levels and the effect of noise level units. Some was low and some was high. The information concerning the particular helicopter was not certified so there was some lack of information.
Commissioner Egan stated the fourth item is the petition and the testimony of the residents in the immediate neighborhood. This is a factor in the Commission's criteria of evaluating to deny or approve a special permit. Some of these residents that spoke and signed this petition lived in the area during the period this very same helicopter has taken off and landed. Mr. Weber stated they had no complaints during that period. Commissioner Egan noted there were many complaints at that time. The neighborhoods organized and the town took them to court to stop the take-offs and landings.
Commissioner Egan stated for all the reasons he has cited, he plans to vote against this application.
Commissioner Duren added one major concern of his is the number of children that are in that area during the summer time both on the fields that abut this area and that will be walking back and forth from Hazardville to Fermi. There's a large concentration of children in this area.
Chairman DiPace stated there are two separate parcels and both are zoned Industrial. But the primary use for the lot in question is residential. It's a house. If the Commission starts approving heliports in the back yards of houses, everybody is going to want one. If the helipad is on this lot and it's sold, it would stay with the property. Chairman DiPace felt the Commission would be doing the town an injustice by approving heliports on such lots even though they are zoned industrial. The primary use of this lot is residential. There is a house there and that is what it is used for. Chairman DiPace stated he cannot vote in favor of the helipad being that close to the property line with the residential use on that lot.
The vote was 0 - 7 - 0 to deny this application with Alternate McGill voting.
The reason for denial is failure to meet the Special Use Permit criteria listed in Section 9.20.2. It was the consensus of the Commission to add the reasons cited earlier by Commissioner Egan which are: (1.) There is substantial developable land in the area of the proposed use and allowing this use will not be in harmony with or conform to the orderly development of the town; (2) There was inconsistency in the data and lack of certification of the data presented regarding noise levels and their effects; (3) The residents in the area submitted their testimony against this application via a petition.
Continued from July 8, 2004 Meeting
PH#2459 - Application for a Special use Permit to change one non-conforming use to another (restaurant/catering to hair salon and office) at 651 Enfield Street, zoned R-33, Map 32, Lot 25, Nancy and Thomas Brocuglio, Sr., Applicant/Flying Wings Realty, LLC, Owner. (Must close by tonight.)
Thomas Brocuglio appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Giner responded to a question from Commissioner Duren stating he received no response to the July 9, 2004 letter he wrote to the applicant regarding this application.
Mr. Brocuglio stated he was on vacation and he received the memo and information from the Town. He has the information requested to provide to the Commission tonight.
Commissioner Krebs asked for a response to the first question in Mr. Giner's letter which is where would the office be visibly located. Mr. Brocuglio stated the office is located in the basement. There are two offices presently existing.
Commissioner Krebs asked if clients will be visiting the office or is it just for administrative use. Mr. Brocuglio stated the office will be just for administrative use and there will be no clients visiting.
Commissioner Krebs asked if there will be any outside storage of company vehicles and, if so, where would they be located. Mr. Brocuglio stated the maximum would be two vehicles and they would be parked behind the building in a fenced-in area. They would be parked at this location after hours or at night.
Commissioner Krebs asked about the hours of operation for both businesses. Mr. Brocuglio stated the salon is open on Monday from 2:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., closed on Tuesday, on Wednesday from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Thursday from 2:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., closed on Friday, and Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The salon would be closed on Sunday.
Commissioner Duren brought up having two businesses in one building. He stated he visited the site and there is no exit door to the basement. Mr. Giner stated this has not yet been reviewed by the Fire Marshal. Mr. Brocuglio stated there is a rear door and it was approved for offices for the previous owners. There is a separate door and there is also an interior door which is a fire rated door.
Mr. Brocuglio stated he installs security systems.
Mr. Giner stated this use is similar to the one located on Elm Street. They had to come back and get approval from the Fire Marshal. Mr. Giner stated if the Commission finds that this application is not an expansion of a nonconforming use, it could be conditioned upon the Fire Marshal approving it prior to the office being used.
Commissioner Duren had a concern about two businesses locating at this site.
Chairman DiPace stated the proposed use is an office downstairs. Mr. Brocuglio stated he has a secretary who would be at this location three times per week from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. He is at this location to get his supplies and do his paperwork. He has another full-time job. He added there would not be a lot of people at this office.
Commissioner Hickey asked if Mr. Brocuglio owns the building. Mr. Brocuglio stated he is attempting to purchase the property to consolidate two businesses. His wife is presently renting property on North Main Street and he owns a condominium at 75 Hazard Avenue.
Mr. Brocuglio stated if there is a concern about fire issues, there will be a fire alarm system installed because that is what he does. Also, Heavenly Edibles, the present use, was approved for offices downstairs. The property was also a Carvelle's and a Dunkin Donuts. There are exit signs and emergency lights downstairs. These were all previously approved by the Fire Marshal.
Commissioner Duren noted that all the previous uses were one business. Chairman DiPace suggested the Commission could approve the salon use and Mr. Brocuglio could share an office with his wife's business downstairs.
Some discussion followed on the parking of two trucks on the premises.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if the Commission would be approving one business or two. Mr. Giner noted if the applicant is going to park those vehicles on the property, the Commission needs to approve two businesses.
Chairman DiPace stated the downstairs could be approved strictly for an office and storage of company vehicles but there would be no retail allowed. Mr. Giner stated it is up to the Commission to decide if two businesses at this location would represent an expansion of a nonconforming use. There could also be a condition added to any approval regarding obtaining approval of the Fire Marshal.
Commissioner Duren asked if there would be a person downstairs constantly. Mr. Brocuglio reiterated that his secretary would be at this downstairs location from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. three days per week.
Chairman DiPace suggested a condition of approval that the second use cannot be rented out separately to someone else.
Mr. Giner stated this is a change from one nonconforming use to another and the Commission can be specific. It is not a residential area. Any change in the use would have to come back to the Commission for a determination that it is at least equal to what was there before and is not more nonconforming. This applicant would have to come back before the Commission if the business changed and he wanted to lease it to someone else.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if anybody would be in the office when the hair salon is not open. Mr. Brocuglio stated he would be there at times doing paperwork after hours.
Chairman DiPace opened this public hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Commissioner Duren stated he has a problem with setting a precedent by putting a business in an area that doesn't have direct access to the outside. Chairman DiPace stated the use would be an office only.
Mr. Brocuglio stated if you open the back door, there is direct access to the basement because there is another interior door separating the upper floor from the basement. Commissioner Duren stated there really is a need for two accesses with one being directly out.
Chairman DiPace suggested tying the use to the conditions and as stated in proposed condition #7, the downstairs office shall be used strictly for office with no retail. There would be limited hours as far as the employees being downstairs. There could also be a condition added that the Commission receive an approval from the Fire Marshal. Chairman DiPace further suggested a condition that if the upstairs use changes, the building shall go back to being all one business.
Chairman DiPace asked if the secretary would be at this location when the hair salon is not open. Mr. Brocuglio stated on Friday morning this would occur.
Following discussion with the applicant as to where the vehicles would be parked, Mr. Giner recommended an additional condition that the vehicles will be stored behind the building.
Mr. Giner noted in condition #5, the date should be changed and it should state that "the use must commence by July 22, 2005."
Commissioner Sarno asked where the salon products would be stored. Mr. Brocuglio stated they would be stored in the salon. Commissioner Sarno asked if the office downstairs would only be used by Mr. Brocuglio's business. Mr. Brocuglio stated his wife may go downstairs to do the payroll.
Mr. Brocuglio added there will be cameras and a fire alarm so that if something occurs on the property, it will be controlled.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2459 - Application for a special use permit to change from one nonconforming use to another (restaurant/catering to Hair Salon and Office), at 651 Enfield Street, zoned R-33, Map 32, Lot 25, Nancy and Thomas Brocuglio, SR., Applicant/Flying Wings Realty, LLC, Owner, subject to conformance with the record plans and the following conditions:
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
1. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land Records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
2. Final inspection is required.
General Conditions:
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Use of the facilities as approved must commence by July 22, 2005 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
6. 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.
7. The downstairs office shall be strictly for office use with no direct retail sales.
8. If the first floor Hair Salon vacates, the downstairs office use shall cease.
9. A letter from the Fire Marshal approving the use of the downstairs shall be submitted to the Director of Planning.
10. Any vehicle used by the businesses occupying the property shall be parked in the rear of the building.
The motion was approved by a 6 - 1 - 0 vote. Commissioner Duren voted nay and Alternate McGill participated in this vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2457 - Special Use Permit to unmerge two lots of record to create one new building lot at 138 Windsor Street, zoned R-33, Map 30, Lot 19, Bob Alaimo, Applicant/Ron Chmura, Owner. (Must close by tonight - extension available).
The applicant, Bob Alaimo, via a letter to Mr. Giner dated July 22, 2004, requested an extension of this hearing to September 2, 2004.
Chairman DiPace opened this public hearing and requested input from the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace continued this public hearing to September 2, 2004.
b. PH#2460 - Resubdivision for a waiver of required sidewalks at the Old Post Estates Subdivision on the south side of Post Road, zoned R-44, Assessor's Map 54, Lot 74, David Fredrick d/b/a Old Post Road Acres LLC/Applicant. (Must close by tonight - extension available).
David Fredrick appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated he is representing Old Post Road Acres LLC and, indirectly, the seven homeowners who bought the homes on Post Road.
Mr. Fredrick stated a few years ago he received approval for a seven-lot subdivision on Post Road. One of the conditions of approval was that sidewalks be extended east and west along the house side of the property on Post Road. Mr. Fredrick stated the tree warden for the Town of Enfield determined that a number of mature trees should be preserved along the road side. Therefore, the sidewalks were to be built on the house side. Mr. Fredrick stated it turned out the sidewalks, if installed, will be very close to the homes or in excess of twenty feet.
Mr. Fredrick stated he knew going into the subdivision that this Commission did request the sidewalks. One of the main reasons they were requested was because the future homeowners may have children that want to walk to the paved walk from Post Road to H. B. Stowe School. Time passed and it became rather evident that there is very little pedestrian traffic along Post Road. After of period of time, the people moved in and realized they did not want the sidewalks. Mr. Fredrick discussed the various homeowners noting none of them wanted sidewalks.
Mr. Fredrick stated with the subdivision now being completed, the Commission has received a petition that was signed by all seven homeowners saying they do not want the sidewalks because they would not be using them.
Mr. Fredrick contacted Neil Angus to look at the land west of the subdivision to see if it would be suitable for future development. He did review the area and stated it was wet. Mr. Fredrick noted it is very unlikely that any future development to the west of the subdivision will occur.
Mr. Fredrick stated there is one homeowner that could be affected by the sidewalks. It is a house close to the street and with a 10' easement that the town owns, the homeowner would probably have a front yard from the edge of the house sidewalk to her foundation of 18' to 20'. This homeowner also doesn't want to maintain the sidewalks and is in favor of the waiver.
Commissioner Duren noted receipt of a letter from John Cabbibo dated Friday, June 25, 2004 to Jose Giner recommending that the sidewalks should be installed in the interest of public safety for pedestrians.
Commissioner Duren noted receipt of a memo from Traffic Safety Officer Robert Boula dated Tuesday, July 20, 2004 to Mr. Giner agreeing with Mr. Cabbibo about the need for sidewalks at this location.
Chairman DiPace asked if there is anything the Commission can do to address this in the subdivision regulations to avoid this problem. He suggested a revision to the subdivision regulations that before any building permits are received, the sidewalks have to be installed.
Chairman DiPace stated the town has specific regulations regarding sidewalks. For many years, inconsistent waiving regarding sidewalks occurred. The Commission implemented new sidewalk requirements depending on the identification of the road. When the subdivision approvals are done, the regulations set what will be required regarding sidewalks. Chairman DiPace also had a concern that sooner or later sidewalks will need to be installed and they would have to be done with taxpayers' money.
Chairman DiPace saw a need to tighten the existing regulations to avoid such requests. He reiterated that if the Commission is going to approve any subdivision in the future with sidewalks, he would like to see the sidewalks installed prior to the construction of the homes.
Mr. Giner suggested requiring the sidewalk grading prior to the c.o.'s for the homes being issued. He added that the bonding required is the ultimate guarantee. He also cited other times when the Commission has approved walkways and the first homeowner moves in and doesn't want the walkway.
Mr. Giner stated a subdivision of this size if on a major collector street would require sidewalks on both sides of the street. Any variations to this requirement must be approved by a three-quarter vote of the Commission. He read further from the subdivision regulations.
Mr. Fredrick offered to give the Town of Enfield the dollar equivalent of the sidewalks and he asked if he could do so.
Chairman DiPace asked if there are presently sidewalks on both sides of the street in this area. Mr. Fredrick stated there sidewalks on the other side of the street further east.
Chairman DiPace questioned if this sidewalk system worked on paper when it came before the Commission to be approved, why isn't it working now. Mr. Fredrick stated sidewalks can be installed but the people who bought the seven homes do not want the sidewalks. They are requesting a waiver of sidewalks.
Chairman DiPace noted these homeowners knew when buying their homes that sidewalks were required. Mr. Fredrick confirmed that was correct.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if this area continues to be a walking school district. Mr. Fredrick stated many of the children are bused to Stowe School although some do walk. Eventually, if there were children of school age on this street, they would walk to school.
Chairman DiPace opened this public hearing to the audience and requested input.
Nancy and David Marriott, 63 Post Road appeared before the Commission. Nancy Marriott stated their reason for not wanting the sidewalks at this time is they, on Lot #1, have been in their home for over a year. They have an established lawn that they have gone to some expense regarding this lawn. They feel the trees that were left are wonderful and they are afraid that if they go in and start digging, the roots of those trees will be disturbed. Lot #1 already has a tree that is dead and they will eventually have to replace all the trees which would ruin the nature of the lot. They personally would not use the sidewalks because you just don't want to walk on Post Road.
David Marriott questioned if someone will come in with a bobcat and tear up his brand new lawn and will it be reseeded. He also questioned what type of grading will be done.
Chairman DiPace stated the builder is responsible for this. The sidewalks should have been installed before the houses were built.
David Marriott asked if the sidewalks are installed and the trees are killed, who takes care of that. Chairman DiPace stated if the trees are on town property, the town would remove them.
Nancy Marriott asked if it would be their responsibility to maintain the property from the edge of the sidewalk to the road. Chairman DiPace stated it is the homeowner's responsibility to keep the grass cut and the sidewalks cleared of snow.
Chairman DiPace stated the Marriott's bought their home knowing that there were going to be sidewalks. Mr. Marriott stated his attorney told him it could be possible to get that changed.
Mr. Marriott stated there is a plot of land across the street with nothing on it and he questioned why the sidewalks couldn't be installed on that side of the road. Further discussion followed on the fact that the developer should have installed these sidewalks.
Paul Oliver, 61 Post Road, stated he has a tree the town is coming to remove. He asked if the main concern is children walking down the sidewalk. Chairman DiPace stated that is correct and the sidewalks would mean children would not have to walk in the road with cars speeding by. Mr. Oliver questioned why there are 45 homes on the right side and the town has not installed sidewalks for the safety of the children on the other side.
Commissioner Duren stated this is how the town gets sidewalks. When developers come in, they are required to install sidewalks and over time, the town gets sidewalks.
Chairman DiPace discussed the present regulations requiring sidewalks on both sides of main arterial roads.
Mr. Oliver added if the seven homes were a major concern for children's safety, there is one homeowner of the seven homes that has children. They signed the petition to have no sidewalks in front of their home. He noted the person that would be using the sidewalk the most is not in favor of installing a sidewalk in front of their home and this should be considered when the Commission makes their decision.
Commissioner McGill stated the tree line is about five feet off the road in this Post Road area. Mr. Giner stated the sidewalk was designed taking the tree line into consideration. The applicant worked with the town to minimize the impact of the existing trees.
Chairman DiPace asked if there was any additional input. Hearing none, he closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2460, the request for a waiver of required sidewalks at the Old Post Estates Subdivision on the south side of Post Road, zoned R-44.
Commissioner Duren stated he will vote against this motion because it is something that was approved previously and he is in agreement with the Chairman's statement. He feels some of these items that the Commission receives requests for waivers on should be installed prior to the homes receiving a certificate of occupancy. He feels this should also apply to passive recreational uses.
Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Giner work on a text amendment to change the subdivision regulations to require that public improvements and items such as sidewalks be installed prior to any c.o. being issued. Chairman DiPace noted these sidewalks were agreed upon during the initial subdivision approval and should have been installed prior to the homeowners purchasing their homes.
The motion was denied by a 0 - 7 - 0 vote with Alternate McGill voting.
PH#2461 - Special Use Permit to install a new playscape at Green Manor Park on Taylor Road, zoned R-33, Map 110, Lot 7, Town of Enfield.
Mary Keller, Enfield Recreation Department, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. She stated the town is looking to replace the playground equipment at Green Manor. They will be putting in new playscape equipment at the front part of the property near the parking lot that is the same as what was installed at Hazardville, Whit Acres and Wallop School.
Commissioner Duren asked if it is the same type as that presently located in Hazardville. Ms. Keller stated the Hazardville equipment is a few years old but it will be the same equipment. The pool and the building at Green Manor are gone.
Chairman DiPace asked if the equipment would be located toward the parking lot. Ms. Keller stated the playscape, the tot lot and the swings will be installed inside the designated areas.
Chairman DiPace opened this public hearing to the audience.
Lynn Skeet, 173 Webster Road, stated this area is located behind her property. Her only concern is there is a pathway that runs along her property and the town has put up a light at the end of the path. There is a lot of traffic that goes through. Her concern is the light brings in more kids at night and with the playscape, it becomes a hangout for the teenagers in the area. The light is a problem for her house. Her biggest concern is this light attracts more kids to the park after hours. The light is on the CL&P light post on Webster Road and it points right into her property. The path starts to drop and this makes the light useless anyway because at that point, you cannot see in the dark. While there is a fence, the kids tend to cut across. She reiterated that the light has brought more traffic and it is a problem. She has called about the light many times.
Commissioner Duren asked if the reason for the light is to light the path. Ms. Skeet noted she had no idea but once you get to the edge of her property as it goes down, you cannot see going into the park. She doesn't understand the point of the light because it doesn't reach into the park. She suggested it could be shielded.
Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Giner look into this light situation.
Stacey Skeet, 173 Webster Road, confirmed his wife's comments regarding the light facing their house. He asked if a timer or some type of shielding could be added to this light. He has lived here for eight years and he felt the light does attract teenagers that come to the front of their house and walk down the pathway from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. or 3:00 a.m. Mr. Skeet stated he is in favor of the playscape for the children but he asked if it would be possible to include activities for adults such as a tennis court or a basketball court.
Ms. Keller responded there was a master plan done for the town and there was a referendum but it was defeated a couple of years ago. At this time, they are only looking to replace the playground equipment.
Jeffrey McAlmond, Assistant Director of Public Works, reported the light was requested by the abutting neighbor on the other side of the path and was installed. They also installed lights from the park shining toward the pathway. They were also requested to install this light by the community police. Mr. McAlmond agreed that the light must be very intrusive.
Mr. McAlmond will check with the Police Department tomorrow to see if they are receiving any more calls regarding this area light. If they are, it may be worth taking the light down. At the time the lights were installed, the playground equipment was located at the rear of the park along the stream and almost behind the home. By moving the playscape closer to the parking lot, the people that will be congregating will be much more removed and the light may not be necessary. When the light was installed about a year ago, the skate park was at this location. The light was installed in response to concerns about kids hanging out in the rear of the park.
Commissioner Hickey asked about the hours of operation for the park. Mr. McAlmond responded from dawn to dusk.
Mr. McAlmond will follow up on the lighting because of its intrusiveness to the neighbors.
Anthony Beorio, 168 Webster Road, stated he lives across the street from Stacey and Lynn Skeet. He reported the light was installed approximately four to five months ago and it was installed because someone who lives in another neighborhood, not abutting the playground, wanted to use the path at night to walk to the plaza. The playground area is off limits at night. The people that requested the light live approximately one half mile up the road. Mr. Beorio stated no nearby neighbor would ever want this light which has a terrible effect on the neighborhood. He asked that the light be removed.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve PH#2461 - Special Use Permit to install a new playscape at Green Manor Park, on Taylor Road, zoned R-33, Map 110, Lot 7, Town of Enfield, Applicant/Owner, subject to conformance with the record plans and the following conditions:
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
1. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
2. Final Inspection is required.
General Conditions:
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Construction of the facilities as approved must commence by July 22, 2005 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate McGill voting.
PH#2463 - Special Use Permit to install a community playscape and tot lot at Brainerd Park on Brainard Road, zoned R-33, Map 58, Lot 88, Town of Enfield, Applicant/Owner. (Must close tonight - extension available.)
Mary Keller, Recreation Department, stated Brainerd Park is the last site where they are looking to replace the playground equipment. This would be done in accordance with the master plan approved by the Town Council.
Regarding the location, Ms. Keller stated as you come in the main driveway, the playground equipment would be located to the left or to the other side of the parking lot.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission would only be approving the playscape and not the entire master plan and this is confirmed in Condition #3. This would have to come back before the Commission for additional approvals.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve PH #2463 - Special Use Permit to install a Community playscape and tot lot at Brainerd Park, on Brainard Rd, zoned R-33, Map 58, Lot 88, Town of Enfield, Applicant/Owner, subject to conformance with the record plans and the following conditions:
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
1. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
2. Final Inspection is required.
General Conditions:
3. This approval is for the playscape and tot lot as specified in the application. Any other improvements indicated as part of the Master Plan are not approved at this time and will require further review and approvals. Any change in the nature of the use or the structures as approved will also require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
4. 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.
5. Construction of the facilities as approved must commence by July 22, 2005 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate McGill voting.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR#1278 - Application for modification of previously approved plans for atrium, patio, fire lane at 100 Phoenix Avenue, Retail Brand Alliance, Applicant/Owner.
Gary Hath, a landscape architect with Land Planners CR3 from Simsbury, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Hath stated they are requesting a modification of the fire lane behind Retail Brand Alliance. They would like to thin out the approved fire lane and create a walk system rather than a totally paved area. Grass pavers would be used on either side of the walk system so that the fire trucks could still get into the areas in case of an emergency. The net effect from the previous plan is eight-tenths of one percent less coverage. There would be a little paved area at the beginning that would be decorative paving. The walk would be six feet and it would serve the back area. It would also serve as an exit for pedestrians and serve the patio and the atrium. There would be another walk coming off of that and slipping off to the service drive. They would be adding a wall along one area.
Salvatore Iervolino from Permasteelisa Cladding Technologies, Ltd. appeared before the Commission representing the owner of Retail Brand Alliance.
Mr. Hath presented pictures to the Commission showing the patio area, the wall in front of the building, the back of the building and the atrium, the nature of the furniture on the patio, the rear of the building looking back toward the atrium and the end of the building.
Mr. Hath stated they would like to have an enclosure, which would be a simple louvered steel enclosure, to store the patio furniture during the winter and to protect it from vandalism. There would be no connection to this enclosure from the inside of the building.
Commissioner Duren questioned if this enclosure is part of the application. Mr. Giner stated this is a site plan review and does not require a legal ad. Mr. Hath stated the Building Department had requested drawings of the enclosure but they may not have them at this time.
Mr. Giner stated the Fire Marshal's letter confirms he did not review the shed issue.
Chairman DiPace suggested if the Commission likes the revised plan, Mr. Giner can handle the Fire Marshal issues administratively.
Commissioner Duren asked if the enclosure was part of the hearing during the Wetlands review. Mr. Hath stated Wetlands talked about it but noted it was not within the uplands review area.
In response to a question from Commissioner Sarno, Mr. Hath stated the enclosure would be added on. The building is essentially flat, would have brick pillars that come out slightly and would be tucked in between existing areas. Mr. Hath showed on the plans where it would be located and stated with the evergreen vegetation, it would not be seen from one of the entrances.
Mr. Hath stated this enclosure will not look like a tacked on shed. They also want to try to beautify the property. In addition to the wall, they plan to heavily plant birch trees with additional trees and shrubs underneath. They would also include some evergreens.
Mr. Hath stated they would also like to beautify the front of this structure. Currently the area has primarily bituminous paving. They plan to take out some of the paving and create an interesting design. Vehicles would be passing through this area to drop people off. There is a parking lot above with a series of steps to serve the parking lot. People would be traveling from the front entrance of the building through the plaza and up the stairs into the parking lot above. They propose flat decorative concrete pavers with some nice vegetation including shade trees and shrubs.
Commissioner Duren brought up the Fire Marshal's memo of July 15, 2004. Mr. Hath stated items one and two have been addressed. The updated drawings were submitted on Tuesday to Neil Angus and he was going to give them to the Deputy Fire Marshal.
Commissioner Duren noted the Fire Marshal has not seen the drawings for the storage shed. Mr. Giner stated Conditions #3 and #4 cover any concerns regarding the shed.
Mr. Hath confirmed that with the exception of the issue of the shed, all the concerns of the Engineering Department have been addressed on the current plans. Commissioner Duren cited a memo that was received today from Mr. Cabbibo stating that all the requirements have not been satisfied. Commissioner Duren read from Mr. Cabbibo's memo. Mr. Hath stated most of those issues have been addressed. The plan that was submitted was the previously approved plan by the Commission and not the existing conditions. The plan showed what the previous coverages were. Mr. Hath stated he could clarify the issues with Mr. Cabbibo.
Mr. Giner stated in speaking with Mr. Cabbibo, his concerns were not major but he needed some clarification. However, before the Commission has the Secretary sign the plans, he will have Mr. Cabbibo produce another memo confirming he is satisfied.
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve SPR#1278 - application for modification of previously approved plans for atrium, patio, fire lane at 100 Phoenix Avenue, Retail Brand Alliance, Applicant/Owner, with the following conditions:
Conditions to be met prior to signing of plans:
1. All 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 SPR file number "SPR 1278" shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
3. All concerns cited by the Assistant Town Engineer in his correspondence dated July 22, 2004 shall be satisfied.
4. The concerns cited by the Deputy Fire Marshal in his letter of July 15, 2004 shall be satisfied.
5. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
6. Three sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Development Department for signature of the Commission.
7. Final site plans to be review and approved by the Engineer Division and Fire Marshal.
8. The applicant shall post a bond for site improvements in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney.
9. A separate Erosion and Sediment Control Bond shall be submitted in the form of a passbook, pledged to the Town, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
10. A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.
Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
11. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
12. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Director final as-build plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
General Conditions:
13. 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.
14. This approval is also subject to conditions of Inland Wetlands Permit #416.
15. 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.
16. Construction of facilities as approved must commence by July 22, 2005 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
17. 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 McGill voting.
SPR#1280 - Application for cell tower antennas and equipment shelter at 1111 Enfield Street, zoned HR-33, Nextel, Applicant, Connecticut Water, Owner.
Tom Flynn, Zoning Manager in Connecticut and Massachusetts for Nextel Communications, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. They are seeking to locate their antennas on the two water tanks on Enfield Street. This satisfies both the spirit and letter of the town's regulations. The town strongly recommends co-location on existing structures.
Mr. Flynn stated in his memo attached to the application it confirms that they have satisfied all the technical requirements. Nextel is a licensed FCC carrier. They are not proposing any lighting at this site. Everything will be painted to match the existing colors on the water tank and will be located on the sides. The equipment building is a 12' x 20' structure. Fencing will be what exists there already. Utilities are underground. Because of the crowded conditions, there will be some cable runs on the outside of the tank and those will be painted as well.
Mr. Flynn stated they submitted a power density report which puts them well below the maximum permissible radio frequency radiation as regulated by FCC standards. They have attached as part of the packet submitted their coverage maps to indicate that there is a gap in coverage in the downtown area immediately around this site and some problems in coverage on I-91. They have an extensive existing system of sites in the area both in Enfield and in surrounding communities and this will fill a substantial gap both in coverage and capacity.
Mr. Giner stated the only condition he would recommend is that all previous conditions for this site not specifically modified shall remain in full force and effect
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve SPR#1280 with the conditions that all previous conditions for this site shall remain in full force and effect and that the work will be completed in accordance with the plans submitted. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate McGill voting.
SPR#1281 - Application for installation of a concession stand at Powder Hollow Park Little League Field, Dusthouse Road, zoned R-88, Assessor's Map 83, Lot 139, Town of Enfield, Owner, Applicant.
John Hunter, President of Enfield Little League, and Geoffrey McAlmond appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Hunter stated they are seeking to build a new concession stand at Powder Hollow. The League has grown and they also rely on the concession stand for their fundraising. With the concession stand will come an announcer's booth to announce games and special events.
Mr. Hunter stated they are proposing to construct this new concession stand behind the diamond of home plate. Mr. McAlmond stated the construction would be split faced block. Regarding the color, Mr. Hunter stated that would be up to the town. They had proposed painting the dugouts green but the town did not allow them to do so because of a concern about graffiti.
Mr. Hunter stated the proposed concession stand would have vinyl siding on the top of the building with brick on the bottom. They have an existing concession stand that is 10' x 8' located on the large diamond. Their intention is to use this existing concession stand for storage.
Chairman DiPace stated his only concern is the color of the stand. Mr. Hunter stated the bottom would be split faced block and the top would be vinyl siding. Chairman DiPace requested that the vinyl siding be an earth tone color; otherwise, it would have to come back for an approval before this Commission.
Mr. McAlmond stated the town will be taking out the permits and will have control over the colors and materials that are selected. The earth tones would work.
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to approve SPR #1281 - Application for Installation of a Concession Stand at Powder Hollow Park Little League Field, Dusthouse Road, Zoned R-88, Assessor's Map 83, Lot 139, Town of Enfield, Owner/applicant., subject to conformance with the record plans and the following conditions:
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
1. Any Permits required by the North Central Health District shall be obtained.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
2. Final Inspection is required.
General Conditions:
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Construction of the facilities as approved must commence by July 22, 2005 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate McGill voting.
PH#2393.04/SPR#1282 - Application for modification of plans previously approved for modification of grading of pavement in front of liquor pod to bring it flush with the edge of the sidewalk at 130-136 Elm Street (Costco). Zoned BR, Map 57, Lot 346, SEA Enfield Freshwater Plaza LLC, Applicant/Owner.
Attorney Susan Hays appeared before the Commission representing Costco. They are proposing to gradually raise the pavement in front of the liquor pod area so that the pavement is flush with the sidewalk curbing. The reason for this is contrary to what they previously told the Commission, the liquor pod will be operated by a third party and will not be operated by Costco. Because of this, they will not be able to have the loading occur in the back and come through the store.
Attorney Hays stated their proposal is to raise the pavement up so that the delivery people can park in the parking area and would be able to get their hand carts to carry the boxes from the parking area up on to the sidewalk and then into the store. There are two areas where they can enter the store. There is a roll-up door in the back of the store and they will come in through the canopy entrance through the front door into the store. The delivery times will be either before the store is open or after the store is closed. No deliveries will occur when the Costco store or the liquor store is open.
Chairman DiPace asked if the liquor store will require membership in Costco's. Attorney Hays stated when they discovered that the operator was not going to be Costco, in her discussions with their liquor attorney, he stated customers of the liquor store would not have to be members of Costco. State law requires that you cannot have membership liquor clubs. The store will state Costco Liquor but it will be operated by a third party.
Attorney Hays stated the entrance will be through the canopy in the front. The reason for this is the canopy is considered to be common space.
Attorney Hays addressed John Cabbibo's comments in his memo. Regarding if there is any additional impervious surface, Attorney Hays stated there will be no additional impervious surface and there will be no impact on the drainage.
Attorney Hays stated the Costco store received a certificate of occupancy today and they will be opening on Thursday.
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve to approve PH #2393.04/SPR #1282 - application for modification of plans previously approved for modification of grading of pavement in front of liquor pod to bring it flush with the edge of sidewalk at 130-136 Elm St.(Costco), Zoned BR, Map 57, Lot 346, SEA Enfield freshwater Plaza LLC, Applicant/Owner, subject to conformance with the record plans and the following conditions:
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
2. Sheet C-2A should indicate the proposed area of disturbance to the existing pavement and sidewalk shown over the as-built topo in that area.
3. The Applicant's Engineer should address the effects, if any, of the additional impervious area to the site drainage and chart the proposed impervious area change on a Zoning Chart.
4. Revised Plans should be submitted for review by the Engineering Division.
5. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
6. Two sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Development Department for signature of the Commission.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
7. Final Inspection is required.
General Conditions:
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. All previous conditions of approval for PH 2393 et seq. not specifically modified by this approval shall remain in full force and effect.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate McGill voting.
BOND RELEASES
SPR#1183 - Request for release of Pizza Palace Engineering bond in the amount of $1,100 at 524 Enfield Street.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to approve release of SPR#1183, engineering bond in the amount of $1,100 for Pizza Palace, 524 Enfield Street. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate McGill voting
PH#2209 - Request for release of Lego Erosion and Sediment bond in the amount of $11,770 for the fulfillment center project on the corner of Moody and North Maple Street.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to release the bond for PH#2209, Lego, erosion and sediment bond, in the amount of $11,770 for the fulfillment center project on the corner of Moody and North Maple Street. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate McGill voting.
PH#2133 - Request for release of Tristate Diesel Engineering Bond in the amount of $903,500 and Erosion and Sediment in the amount of $7,800 at 1 Depot Hill Road.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve the release of PH#2133, Tristate Diesel Engineering Bond in the amount of $903,500 and Erosion and Sediment in the amount of $7,800 at 1 Depot Hill Road. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate McGill voting.
SPR#1237 - Allessee Orthodontics, 6 Niblick Road. (This item was added to the agenda by the Commission by a unanimous vote.)
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve the release of the bond for Allessee Orthodontics, 6 Niblick Road, with the condition that Mr. Jose Giner or his designated representative inspect the site to make sure the striping has been painted. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate McGill voting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Applications to be accepted
The following applications were accepted by the Commission:
PH#2465 - Application for a Special Use Permit to fence in an area adjacent to the dumpster, to store pallets and rigging equipment at 20 Cottage Road (Old Shaker Pines Fire Station), zoned I-1, Map 80, Lot 193, Cottage Road Associates, Applicant.
A public hearing will be scheduled for the first meeting in September.
PH#2466 - Application for a Special Use Permit and modification of plans previously approved to construct a 42' x 22' wash bay addition, modify landscape islands, provide pedestrian access to adjacent Nissan dealership at 20 Palomba Drive, zoned BR, Map 57, Lot 335, Lia Auto Group, Applicant.
A public hearing will be scheduled for the first meeting in September.
SPR#1283 - Application for an addition to the existing building at 198 Freshwater Boulevard, zoned IP, Map 55, Lot 0003, John Morgan, AIA, Applicant.
SPR#1284 - Application for a site plan review and modification of plans previously approved (PH#2417) to include a vestibule (dog house walkout dormer) on the existing hatchway to gain full use of the basement as was approved at 171 Elm Street, zoned R-33, Map 57, Lot 201, Stephen Travali, Applicant.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr |
|