|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
MAY 20, 2004
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, May 20, 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
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to approve the Minutes of April 22, 2004. The Minutes were approved by a 6 - 0 - 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace noted receipt of the following items:
A Wetlands Permit for Dennis Rand;
A memo from Wayne Bickley regarding the minor modification change for Costco;
The cease and desist order issued to Vincent Bergamini dated May 11, 2004;
Correspondence regarding the lighting at the proposed LIA dealership;
The Zoning Board of Appeals Notice of Action dated April 26, 2004;
The Historic District Commission Notice of Action dated April 28, 2004;
The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency Notice of Action dated May 4, 2004.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
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/Applicants. (Must close by June 17)
Attorney Fatima Lobo appeared before the Commission along with Dana Steele from J. R. Russo & Associates and Charles Weber, owner and operator of his own flying company.
Mr. Steele presented plans submitted for a private heliport pad at 132 Moody Road. The parcel is the residence of the applicants, Kenneth and Maurine Chickosky, and is 2.3 acres in size. There is a larger parcel surrounding this one that is approximately 38 acres in size. Both parcels are on the south side of Moody Road near the intersection with Park Street. The heliport pad has been designed in accordance with the standards set by the Federal Aviation Administration as defined in Advisory Circular AC150/5390-2a. These are the standards the FAA sets for how to size, locate and appropriately access this type of a facility.
Mr. Steele stated this particular facility is proposed to be a private heliport and it falls under a difference classification than would a public heliport. This would be strictly for the use by the property owner.
Mr. Steele noted the design of this heliport is sized to accommodate the size of helicopter that will be using the pad. This pad has an outer area known as the safety area and an internal area known as the final approach and take-off area. That area is 62' square and the area around that, the safety area, is 13' wide. There is no lighting proposed with this application because the intent is to only use it during daylight hours.
Mr. Steele addressed page two of the plans which shows a 40-scale version of the plan. There is a wind sock proposed to assist the pilot. Part of the design of a heliport involves determining the primary approach and take-off pattern. The way that is determined is by evaluating the particular path that seems the most appropriate and then evaluating any obstructions. Mr. Steele stated they have identified a primary approach and take-off path which runs from the property to the east along Moody Road and toward the industrial area. The plan also shows the secondary approach and take-off path recommended by the FAA but not required. This site is an open area and there aren't a lot of obstructions.
Mr. Steele presented a plan and profile of the flight take-off path. They have shown a one-mile radius around the site. From the location of the heliport pad, the primary flight take-off path is identified on the plans in blue and runs along Moody Road. The standards are to ensure that there are no obstructions within a planed surface extending out from the heliport pad at a slope of eight to one for a distance of 4,000 feet. This is the design standard that the FAA uses and the plan demonstrates the obstructions are below the approach and take-off surface. The first obstruction would be the overhead wires on Park Street which are below that flight take-off path. The only other potential concern is there is a microwave tower on the south side of Moody Road about 2,600 feet from the site and 3,000 feet to the south is a cell tower. Both of those towers are not in the flight path and are well below the surface that cannot be penetrated by objects.
Commissioner Duren asked that Mr. Steele point out the area of the Misty Meadow and High Meadow subdivisions. Mr. Steele acknowledged that this map was taken from USGA mapping data and was probably done in the sixties. The purpose of the plan is to give an overall sense of the flight paths and the flight paths are not heading in the direction of those subdivisions. Mr. Steele stated this was the best available information they had to present to the Commission.
Mr. Steele stated in addition to taking off and landing of helicopters, there is a fuel tank that is proposed on the site located behind the existing garage and to the left of the existing shed. This 285 gallon tank will be well screened and will be located on a concrete pad. It is a steel tank with double walls for secondary containment of spills. One question that did come up during the ART is while the helicopter is being fueled, are there precautions in the event that there are spills while filling. Mr. Steele stated the common practice is to provide an FAA approved fiberglass spill pan that is put underneath the area where the fueling is occurring.
Mr. Steele stated the perimeter of the safety area is identified with concrete blocks that will remain flush and painted yellow on all four corners so they can be seen from the helicopter. The landing area will be a grass surface and will be quite innocuous when the helicopter is not there.
Commissioner Duren stated there is a catch basin with a hood and the plans do not include a responsibility for an inspection and cleaning schedule. He asked that this be shown on the plans. Mr. Steele stated the applicant would be happy to add that.
Commissioner Duren asked what procedures are in place should the helicopter experience mechanical difficulties. Mr. Steele stated that question should be directed to the pilot.
Attorney Lobo stated the pilot would be able to speak more specifically on the types of precautions. There would also be a posting on the site.
Commissioner Duren asked if a letter has been received from the water company. Mr. Giner stated they are not required by law to notify the water company.
Attorney Lobo stated Maple Street is shown on page three. It is closest to the secondary approach and not the primary one. Commissioner Duren stated noise will travel and the two developments he mentioned previously are within the radius. Attorney Lobo stated there have been special precautions taken as far as the type of helicopter to minimize any type of noise.
Commissioner Egan commented on the map the applicant is using to show the residential areas. There have been more recent flyovers that do show the housing developments and are more recent than what was presented. Commissioner Egan asked that the applicant pursue that and obtain those aerial photos to show what is actually in the area and the impact the helicopter will have on those housing units. He added that the primary take-off path will be flying right over 80 new units of development currently under construction. Attorney Lobo stated they will provide updated maps to provide the information requested. What they tried to show with the plan submitted was where the flight path fits into the whole scheme of the area and it was not meant to be a representation of the density and zoning in the area.
Commissioner Egan stated one of the criteria for a special permit is the Commission needs to review public safety and the noise level that has an impact on the residential areas. He suggested the applicant get those current aerial photos and submit them to show the actual impact to the existing residences.
Commissioner Egan stated within the heliport guidelines, they do have some criteria for developing the flight paths in and out. These are charts recommended by the FAA and Commissioner Egan requested that the applicant submit those to the Commission as they are outlined. They mention altitude which is a key as far as noise. Commissioner Egan would like to see a more detailed analysis of the proposed flight paths both primary and secondary and the actual flight patterns as outlined in the heliport guidelines. He felt there is some key information missing from what the applicant provided tonight.
Mr. Steele stated the 38-acre parcel that surrounds this property is an existing farm. In response to a question from Commissioner Weseliza about the gas tanks shown on the plans, he noted those are used for the farm activities. They are too far away to fuel the helicopter.
Chairman DiPace asked if the Fire Marshal has received the specs for the helicopter as requested. Mr. Steele stated he has not but they will provide them to him. He added that note #4 on the plans indicates they have agreed to post that information.
Chairman DiPace stated the regulations, Article 7.10.3, states it shall meet the town ordinance regarding noise. Article 7.10.6 talks about lighting. He asked how they will meet the requirements regarding the noise ordinance. Attorney Lobo stated it is their obligation to comply with the noise ordinance and they will do so. As far as the lighting, they are not proposing any and there could be a condition of approval that the helicopter not fly at night.
Chairman DiPace asked about the hours of operation and noted there are two schools within one mile of this proposed heliport. He noted with the last heliports that were reviewed, the Commission recommended specific hours. Attorney Lobo respectfully disagreed that such limits would offer protection especially with this application where there isn't going to be lighting. If the Commission imposes specific hours, they will have to abide by them. However, during the summer, the season which is the primary use of this heliport, daylight hours are much earlier than 7:00 a.m.
Chairman DiPace noted there are a lot of families in the area and 5:30 a.m. would be rather early.
Attorney Lobo noted in the summer the schools are not in session. They are trying to work out something and if lighting is not proposed, the parameters of the operation would be when there is sufficient light. Attorney Lobo added the operator of the helicopter can address the type of helicopter and the types of mechanisms to make the noise less. Attorney Lobo noted her client does live on this property with his family.
Chairman DiPace suggested at the June 3, 2004 meeting, the Commission arrange for a short recess in order to view a fly over of the helicopter so that they can hear what it sounds like. Attorney Lobo stated she would have to ask the pilot. She noted he is concerned about taking off from different areas. It is a scheduling issue but she stated they could work something out. Chairman DiPace further suggested an off meeting night when the pilot is available so that Commission members can observe the helicopter. Attorney Lobo stated she has never had such a request.
Attorney Lobo answered Commissioner Duren's comments regarding the noise made by helicopters and stated this helicopter has been adapted to make the least amount of noise and minimize the impact. She added this is in an industrial area and there is some level of activity that occurs in an industrial area that does not in a residential zone.
Chairman DiPace stated he noticed the farm is located on the larger lot and this heliport is proposed on the smaller industrial lot with the primary use being a residence. Attorney Lobo stated the house and the business are all on that lot.
Commissioner Egan asked if the applicant will give a presentation on the type of helicopter and are they proposing to restrict any helicopter that lands on the proposed heliport to this particular type of helicopter. Attorney Lobo stated she can tell the Commission what Mr. Weber uses for a helicopter but to say that that exact helicopter will be used in perpetuity does not make sense because technology improves.
Commissioner Egan asked again if the applicant is going to present to the Commission the model and type of helicopter including the decibel levels that are generated or a spec sheet from the manufacturer. Commissioner Egan added Attorney Lobo is indicating that the helicopter is not any different than what has been used out there before. Attorney Lobo confirmed this and noted the same person would continue to operate the helicopter
Commissioner Egan asked if this is the latest technology. Attorney Lobo stated Mr. Weber can address the specifics of the helicopter now being used.
Commissioner Egan asked if the applicant would accept a restriction as to the type of helicopter or the model of helicopter that would be used and the decibel level that would be generated. Attorney Lobo stated her concern regarding a restriction on the type of helicopter is that models change. The helicopter would be similar or better. Regarding the noise level, there are safeguards already in place. They will provide the Commission with information regarding the helicopter they are proposing to use.
Commissioner Hickey asked if we are talking about a specific helicopter. Attorney Lobo stated yes and it is owned by Mr. Weber. The helicopter has been used for operations on property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Chickosky. It is currently stored in New York State.
Chairman DiPace asked why the pad for the helicopter is grass rather than concrete. Mr. Steele stated for the amount of use that the helicopter pad is going to get, the FAA allows grass as an acceptable surface.
Chairman DiPace stated if the helicopter is on grass and they were refueling, he noted a spill would go into the ground instantaneously. If it was a concrete pad, there is a little time to contain such a spill. He had a concern about the type of fuel and what may end up in the water underneath this property. Mr. Steele stated the nature of the filling operation is there are very small quantities of fuel or five gallon fill-ups at each time to keep the helicopter light.
Charles Weber, 61 Maple Lane, Livingston, New York, appeared before the Commission. Chairman DiPace asked how much flight time five gallons of gas would get. Mr. Weber stated the correct quantity is five to ten and the quantity is whatever it takes to have a twenty to thirty minute backup time. Generally the flights last five to twenty-five minutes. To address the issue of grass or concrete, Mr. Weber stated this is a very limited use. This is the same helicopter that has been used in Enfield for the past three years. Regarding the decibel level, they can get a meter and supply that decibel level to the Commission but this helicopter has been heard in the area previously. Regarding fuel, Mr. Weber stated in thirty minutes, the helicopter would burn up to ten gallons of fuel. He stated the helicopter is not very large and it is a piston helicopter so that it doesn't have the winding noise of a jet engine. It has a very large muffler that was just completely rebuilt. Mr. Weber stated he considers it to be fairly quiet and, based upon the amount of complaints he has had in the past ten years, he would say that it is extremely quiet in comparison to other things he has flown.
Chairman DiPace asked how the helicopter is transported. Mr. Weber stated that everywhere this helicopter goes, it is on a trailer. Last year they worked out of Ellington Airport. By allowing this heliport, Mr. Weber stated it will cut down his flying time by approximately thirty-five to forty percent. If there is a noise problem, it would not be affecting the neighbors that much.
Commissioner Duren stated in reading the materials, there are two parts to this application. It includes not only the agricultural use but the possibility of the owner using it for his own private use which could be at any time. Attorney Lobo stated the owner of the property is also a licensed pilot. There is some hope if he wins the lottery that he may have his own helicopter at some point. This is not an essential part of this application. Commissioner Duren asked if it would be a problem if the Commission limited the use of the heliport to only the agricultural use. Attorney Lobo stated that would not be a problem since the main use is agricultural.
Commissioner Egan stated he does live in the vicinity of Moody Road. He stated he doesn't need a live demonstration in the parking lot of what the helicopter sounds like. He is trying to determine if some modifications have been made based on the recent technological advances. Mr. Weber stated his helicopter cost is $200,000 which is a lot to him but not a lot in the helicopter world. Commissioner Egan made reference to the modern helicopters with all the latest modifications and Mr. Weber noted that helicopter costs in the vicinity of $5.5 million. Mr. Weber stated his helicopter is a 1980 helicopter that was completely rebuilt by a company in Texas in 1999. It is an older, two bladed helicopter that is relatively slow.
Commissioner Egan asked how many flights per year will be made. Mr. Weber stated the helipad is being requested because it directly affects his safety and how efficient he is on Mr. Chickosky's work. Mr. Weber stated his operation usually begins in mid June with Mr. Chickosky and generally ends, depending on the weather, the first week in September. He is generally in Enfield once a week so it would not be an everyday occurrence. The number of flights can go from two to nine when he is in the area.
Commissioner Egan asked about the total number of flights between mid June and September. Mr. Weber estimated in the neighborhood of 45 to 50 flights.
Attorney Lobo stated the flying time would be greatly reduced by having the heliport closer to where Mr. Weber works.
Commissioner Egan stated it is his understanding that the State of Connecticut has a licensing procedure for heliports that exceed 32 flights and they are required to file for a permit. There is also a notification. Attorney Lobo stated all state and federal requirements are post approval. If the application is approved, the next step is to go to the state and federal level.
Mr. Steele stated the FAA does require an application and they will have to submit an application to the FAA and Department of Transportation of the State of Connecticut. The only exceptions would be if there were no more than 10 operations conducted in any one day at the site and if it is used for a period of less than 30 consecutive days with no more than 10 operations per day. Mr. Steele stated they will be required to apply and they would obtain the local permit first and then apply to the state and federal agencies.
Commissioner Egan read Section 13B-46 of the state agencies which includes a reference that such an applicant for a heliport shall apply to the Commissioner for a certificate of approval. Attorney Lobo stated that would be prior to acquisition of the property. It does not refer to the property and the applicants have owned this property for a period of time and it was not for that purpose. Attorney Lobo does not believe that statute applies here because they are not acquiring property on which to locate a heliport. Attorney Lobo acknowledged that eventually they will have to apply to the state and they plan to get all state and federal permits.
Attorney Lobo stated she would like to sum up Mr. Weber's comments. He conducts these flights anyway. He mentioned his helicopter is not state of the art but he has put equipment on it to make it the best that he can for this type of helicopter. It has a muffler system. What this will do is reduce flying time over the Town of Enfield because he is closer to the area he will need to service. The number of flights will not change but how much time he spends in the air will change. Attorney Lobo stated they will comply with all state and federal requirements and the requirements of the FAA for this type of operation. They think this is a good application that deals with all the concerns the town has. The flying is happening and this heliport would reduce the amount of time from mid June to the first week in September that the helicopter is operating.
Commissioner Duren read a letter from Robert Welch, 135 Moody Road dated May 20, 2004 expressing his opposition to the heliport pad at 132 Moody Road. He cited the noise factor, the spraying of chemicals by helicopter in a residential area, and the difficulty he has had breathing after each spraying.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public.
Scott Kaupin, 9 Allen Street, stated he is the District 3 Councilman that represents the section of town where the proposed heliport site is located. He expressed his opposition to this application and noted he has been battling this issue for many years. People often say that this is a classic case of residential uses encroaching on agriculture but Mr. Kaupin stated he sees it the other way. It is agricultural practices that are encroaching upon well established residential neighborhoods. It is zoned industrial but when you look around the neighborhood, it is very much residential. Mr. Kaupin stated the town is beginning their first summer camp at Hazardville Memorial School. Every day the students will be walking from Hazardville Memorial to Fermi High School for swimming. This will be a very active corridor for children during the summertime. The concern about noise is a concern to the neighborhood. Mr. Kaupin stated he would also not be in favor of a heliport for personal use in the area. People who decided to move to this section of town did not decide to live next to a heliport or an airport. Mr. Kaupin had additional concerns about what this helicopter is carrying and if there are spills that seep into the ground. Mr. Kaupin stated Enfield Shade Tobacco has not been a good neighbor for many years and what they could do raises a big concern. The town has been battling their uncooperative nature in the Misty Meadow neighborhood, the High Meadow neighborhood and the South Meadow neighborhood. It seems wherever Enfield Shade goes with their practices, they have not been cooperative and have not been a good neighbor. Mr. Kaupin requested the Commission vote in opposition to this special use permit.
Cindy Mangini, 32 Glendale Road, stated she is here to speak on behalf of the residents. She stated she is also a Council member at large. She pointed out the safety issues and the hazards that could be imposed upon Enfield's residents. Ms. Mangini urged the Commission to reconsider this application and not approve it.
Tom Osborn, 9 South Meadow, spoke in opposition to this application and urged the Commission to deny this application. Regarding how often they take off and land, Mr. Osborn stated he used to run at the Fermi track and it was his experience that they take off and land every twenty minutes when they are spraying. If the Commission is going to approve this application, Mr. Osborn requested that they put some sort of minimum height restriction on the flights because when the pilot flies by, the residents will hear the noise. Another point of concern is the chemicals they will be carrying. If there is an accident, he asked if Enfield has a plan in place to handle this type of spill. He also has a concern about the aquifers in the area and what will happen to the water supply of the residents in the area should there be an accident.
Lisa Rogers, 8 Winter Way, stated she is in opposition and she would like to know if this is a seven-day-a-week operation. She has had helicopters flying at 5:00 p.m. on Friday night with her barbecue going. She stated if there is an accident, she doesn't want her children out there. She questioned if they have to have some type of insurance to reimburse the town if there is some type of emergency or does the town take on that liability. Ms. Rogers also asked if it will be possible for the owner to rent out the heliport to other farmers and will that add increased flights at this heliport. She also asked if the heliport will be able to accommodate larger helicopters and could it be used by more commercial vehicles in the future. Ms. Rogers stated she came to Enfield because of its proximity to an airport but she didn't want an airport or a heliport right next to her property.
Jill Osborne, 9 South Meadow Lane, urged the Commission to vote against this application. From personal experience she noted she has been awakened by this helicopter and it is always on a weekend. She also has concerns about what the helicopter will be carrying and the fact that he will be flying all over town. If there was an accident, there is a possibility it could affect the residential neighborhoods. Ms. Osborne felt there are other ways to accomplish what Mr. Chickosky is trying to accomplish. She doesn't know of any other farmers that use this method in the State of Connecticut. She doesn't see where it is necessary when there are other options available.
Mark Packard, 7 Winter Way, spoke in opposition. He stated the applicant has tried to play down the frequency with which the spraying takes place. In a season when there is a lot of rain and they are battling blue mold, there is a lot of spraying. This will result in more frequent take-offs and landings at the heliport. Mr. Packard did not feel the applicant truly represented the number of times that the helicopter will be taking off and landing.
Attorney Lobo stated they will address the concerns that have been raised by the Commission and the public at the next hearing session.
Commissioner Duren stated he would like to hear about the type of emergency procedures that they have. The people are concerned about it. It is not just for the helicopter but for the spraying of the chemicals.
Attorney Lobo stated she will address some of the issues. She stated this is not about spraying because that will continue. The spraying will occur and the amount, type and manner of dispersing the chemicals are regulated by the DEP and that will not change with this application. Attorney Lobo also hoped there is some method to figure out how many helicopters fly over Enfield. What she is hearing is that if anyone hears a helicopter, they assume it is theirs. There are other helicopters that fly over Enfield.
Attorney Lobo stated she understands the concerns of the residents. She lives in the other town that used to have a lot of tobacco and that is South Windsor. If there is anything they can do to make this Commission and the people of Enfield feel better about it, they will but this application is not about spraying. There are emergency measures and there is not one chemical on this helicopter that the DEP does not know about. Attorney Lobo stated she will supply that information requested by the Commission.
Commissioner Duren stated he would like to know what plans are in place for emergency procedures. Attorney Lobo stated there will be posting at the site and this is shown on the plans. Commissioner Duren would like to know what happens should the helicopter experience trouble in the air. Attorney Lobo stated she will address that.
Mr. Weber stated all flights that he conducts he conducts over the safest thing for himself which translates to the safest thing for everyone else around. The last thing he wants to do is fly over a housing development because if he does have to make an emergency landing, he wants to land in a field where it is safe and the only damage will be to himself and his helicopter. As far as chemical spills, they have containment systems that are white and approximately 8' long. There are some safety spill procedures in place and the fire extinguishers are there. These flight paths that are talked about are not over the schools but in the opposite direction of the schools. Mr. Weber stated he has been flying in this area for three years and he has not been flying over homes or schools deliberately. He represents an industry that is nationwide and this industry relies on each and every individual. Safety is a primary concern for him along with respect for the community. Mr. Weber confirmed they have spill emergency measures in place and he has never had to use them. They also carry insurance. As far as the material they are carrying, it is a fungus product with a caution label and not a warning label. It still needs to be handled safely and it is. DEP watches them every time they mix, load and spray. They are handed a GPS output of every place they spray. There is nothing anyone can do in this state to make it safer for the people.
Commissioner Egan repeated the items the Commission is requesting so the information will be available at the next hearing session. They include the new aerial photos reflecting all of the existing housing as it is now plus the applicant should be aware and show on the plans the potential eighty units, Shaker Heights, at the end of the proposed primary take-off area. Another item is the actual calculations of the flight take-off patterns for both the primary and secondary take-offs to give altitudes. Commissioner Egan added the residents in the area know when it is the helicopter from Enfield Shade and when it is some other helicopter because the Enfield Shade helicopter flies very low in comparison to the others. Also included should be the decibel levels and the list of equipment that has been put on this helicopter to quiet it down since it began landing and taking off on Moody Road.
Mr. Weber discussed the procedure in every other state in the United States and the four states that he works out of currently. He goes to the location, mixes and loads in the field and he is only in the area a short time. He did not have to fly from Ellington all the way to Enfield. He believes it is in the Commission's power to make this happen. At this point, he wants Mr. Chickosky to have a heliport but he also wants to do this work in the safest and fastest way. This is the way it is done all over the country. In New Jersey, he has to have a little permit to do it with a helicopter but it can be done that way. This will alleviate a lot of problems and the amount of time he would be in any one particular area and cut his flying down by 65% or more. He noted he trailers his helicopter to Suffield and he sprays for Christian Farms. He is there for that length of time and he lands and takes off on their property. He has a permit for this to be done in Suffield and he gets zero complaints.
Chairman DiPace stated this hearing will be continued to June 17, 2004.
PH#2437 - Petition for amendment to Zoning Regulations to allow child daycare uses in Industrial 1 Zones, David DiPiero, Applicant. (Must close by June 17).
David DiPiero, 11 Cora Street, and Charlene Kelly, 11 Star Lane, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. DiPiero stated he is before the Commission requesting an approval to a text change for Article 6 regarding industrial districts. Currently under this Article, daycare centers are allowed in Industrial-1 districts as an accessory use only. He is seeking to amend this by adding Section 6.31.7 which would state that "a child care center may be permitted by special permit as a principal use in an Industrial-1 District provided that the proposed location of the child care center will be an existing residential building located in an existing Industrial-1 district. In rendering a decision, the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission shall also find that the criteria of Section 9.20.2 of these regulations have been satisfied."
Mr. DiPiero stated the exact number of properties that this change would impact was not available but he reviewed the map of industrial land and estimated there are two dozen properties that this change would impact. He noted that this change does not guarantee that a person with a residence on Industrial-1 land can put a daycare center there. As stated in Section 9.20.2, the special use criteria must be satisfied. That would require that the center have no impact to public health, safety and general welfare of the residents in the immediate neighborhood as well as the other conditions of that section.
Mr. DiPiero stated this change will only provide an opportunity. If the Commission finds that an applicant's property does not meet the criteria or is unsafe, the application can be denied.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if the applicant is looking at a particular parcel. He stated he is.
Chairman DiPace stated the town's regulations currently do not allow daycare as a primary use in an Industrial-1 zone. Prior to the drafting of the new regulations, daycare uses were allowed.
Mr. Giner stated when the uses were put into tables, there was no way of differentiating that the use was allowed by special permit. Mr. Giner stated he checked the old regulations and he confirmed it was an allowed use prior to the redrafting of the regulations. Mr. Giner stated he has spoken with the applicant a number of times and he has also had discussions with Ray Warren. There is a memo in the file stating Mr. Warren has no problem with the residential homes industrially zoned being used for daycare centers because they would be located on land already dedicated to other than industrial uses.
Commissioner Duren commented on the scarcity of industrial land. Mr. Giner stated this issue came up with the industrial park and the Town Attorney's opinion was that the deed restrictions govern.
In response to a question from Commissioner Weseliza, Mr. Giner stated this would be a special permit application with a public hearing and the Commission could request additional information and impose conditions on any approval.
Commissioner Hickey asked if Mr. Giner was involved in the drafting of this text amendment. Mr. Giner stated he had discussions with the applicant regarding how it should be drafted. Mr. Giner stated the prior ordinance allowed daycare centers as a principal use. This text change is designed to be more restrictive.
Commissioner Egan stated this would apply only to buildings that are currently used as residences in the Industrial zone. He asked if the change should include the phrase "existing buildings used for residential purposes" to clarify the language.
Mr. Giner recommended the change "in an existing building used for residential purposes in an existing Industrial-1 district."
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.
Margaret Jedziniak, Abbe Road, asked where the building is located. Chairman DiPace explained this is a text amendment for any Industrial-1 parcel of property that is currently used as a residential house.
Ms. Jedziniak stated she does not think they should have daycare centers in any industrial areas. If something is zoned Industrial, it should stay Industrial. She noted this town needs industry more than they need a daycare center in an industrial area. She cannot see any building being taken for a daycare center that could be used for a small industry.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2437 to amend the zoning regulations to allow child daycare uses in Industrial 1 Zones subject to an amendment in the language as follows: "A child daycare center may be permitted by special permit provided that the proposed location of the daycare center shall be in a building used for residential purposes located in an existing Industrial-1 district."
The motion was approved by a 6 - 1 - 0 vote. Commissioner Duren voted nay.
PH#2439 - Petition for a Change of Zone from BL to BG at 290 Enfield Street, Map 34, Lot 160, Alan K. Tracy, Applicant/Inglewood Realty, LLC, Owner. (Must close by June 17).
Alan Tracy, Attorney Charles Parakilas and Paul Fox appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Attorney Parakilas stated the applicant is seeking a change of zone from Business Local (BL) to Business General (BG) for property located at 290 Enfield Street and owned by Inglewood Realty, LLC.
Attorney Parakilas noted all public hearing signs were properly posted in excess of ten days before this public hearing and with this application, the applicant has submitted a written agreement from the current owner to bring forward this application. The applicant has also submitted a zoning map showing all properties falling within a radius of 500' from the subject premises.
Attorney Parakilas stated this site is a vacant piece of land located on the westerly side of Enfield Street. It has 152' of frontage and is bounded southerly by Manning Road approximately 95', easterly by Catalina Drive, 299.5', northerly by property owned by BKE, LLC, approximately 200'. The total area of this property is 47,794 square feet or 1.1 acres. The applicant proposes to develop on this site a four-bay car wash which is not permitted in a BL zone but which is permitted in a BG zone.
Attorney Parakilas stated along with the zoning map, the applicant has also submitted an illustrative site plan for purposes of demonstrating that the activity falls within all aspects of the zoning ordinance. The site will be accessed only from Enfield Street thereby avoiding any impact on the residential neighborhood from Catalina Drive westerly. The site also has ample area to provide more stacking than the regulations require eliminating the possibility of an overflow on to Enfield Street. The site has ample area to provide for all types of landscaping for buffering to the benefit of the residential neighborhood to the west, across Catalina Drive and to the southwest on Manning Road.
Paul Fox, the Planning Consultant, explained the proposed layout of the building as it affects the site. He noted the Commission has the illustrative site plan that he prepared. It shows quite a bit of stacking capacity on the site and far more than they will ever need. He pointed out the buffer at the Catalina Drive boundary. They have 35' of space between the curb on Catalina Drive and the nearest pavement they might contemplate within the site. There is ample room to install a berm several feet high to completely screen the activity on this property from the neighborhood. Mr. Fox pointed out the intersection of Manning Road and Catalina Drive and noted quite a bit more of that corner can also be used for a similar buffer treatment. There could be a berm several feet high and heavily landscaped to eliminate any impact upon Manning Road.
Mr. Fox stated the site is quite generous in area for the use that is contemplated. It is more than twice the size of the last site they presented to the Commission some months ago. The storm drainage is the state system within Route 5 which discharges into Water Works Brook to the east. The site drains that way and there is no reason for them to get involved in any of the storm drainage within the neighborhood and they do not plan to do so. It will not be necessary to excavate any streets.
Mr. Fox stated he has given to the Town Engineer copies of the record plans that the State has and he can submit them tonight. There was some concern about this from Mr. Giner and Mr. Cabbibo because they did not have this information. Mr. Fox was able to research it at the DOT and provide it. Mr. Fox submitted a copy of that material to the Commission. He directed the Commission's attention to the storm drain shown in the upper right hand corner and noted that catch basin is right at this site's doorstep. It crosses Enfield Street and Old State Street and discharges into the Water Works Brook. It's an 18" storm drain. Mr. Fox has discussed this with the district engineer, Mr. O'Connor of District 1, and he is aware of their efforts. They will have to obtain state approval in order to utilize that. Mr. Fox stated he has gone to the site and located this storm drainage and it is all there.
Mr. Fox stated they have tried to look into all aspects of this that might concern the town. If this change is approved, they will bring forward another application for zoning approval. They are concerned about being good neighbors to all the neighbors to the west and to the northwest and they believe they can provide ample landscaping around the site.
Commissioner Krebs asked how many vacuums are proposed for the car wash activity. Chairman DiPace stated this is not a site plan application but a change of zone.
Mr. Fox stated the site plan they have presented is not a final site plan and that will be determined later if the change of zone is approved. The vacuums are all to be along the Enfield Street frontage and they probably will not use the Manning Road frontage for that purpose. He added the circles on the plan identify possible vacuum locations.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public.
Anthony Brome, 17 Manning Road, had two concerns. There already is enough traffic with the trucks from Hallmark. There is also the former McDonald's building which is dilapidated and a building next to Dairy Queen that has been for sale for a year. There is the school that is falling apart and the neighbors do not need any more new businesses in this area. They presently share Manning Road with the carpet company and there are trucks coming from that business as well as the trucks from Hallmark. The situation is getting ridiculous. Mr. Brome stated the little wooded lot proposed for this car wash needs to remain as it is. The neighbors need some kind of buffer away from Route 5 and Stickley Furniture, the gas station, Taylor Rental and all the dilapidated buildings. There is the bar and the homes next to the bar with the cheap hotel. He questioned the need for another car wash when there is one located one-half mile down the road. He asked that the Commission deny this zone change because there is no need for another car wash owned by the same person that has four others in the town.
Marion Kertanis, 6 Catalina Drive, stated her property faces this wooded lot. She is concerned about lighting, the hours of operation and additional traffic added to the already horrendous traffic on Manning Road. It takes her seven to ten minutes to get out of Catalina on to Manning in the morning when the trucks are going down it and people are going to work. It takes her longer to get on to Route 5. She also does not wish to look out her front window into a car wash with lighting and people coming and going at all hours. She asked that the Commission deny this zone change.
Chris Offuestos, 13 Catalina Drive, agreed with the idea of having a piece of greenery to block Catalina Drive, a very nice neighborhood. He would be concerned about the chemicals used going into the storm drains and increasing the amount of chemicals being put into the ground water. He also mentioned a concern about garbage with people throwing their garbage out of their cars when cleaning. Another concern is light pollution. The existing greenery also blocks the traffic noise from Route 5 and I-91. Mr. Offuestos would prefer trees rather than a concrete building. He did not feel a five-foot berm with trees would do the amount of blocking that a 200' piece of land does. Mr. Offuestos noted the amount of businesses already crowded into this area and asked that the Commission not approve this zone change.
Christine Muzicka, 13 Catalina Drive, asked what kind of contaminants will be used at the car wash. She cited the various chemicals that are of a concern to her. Her second point is the hydrofluoric acid and ammonia biflouride products that car washes have. There are also four car washes within a couple of miles of this location and she cited those locations as 570 Enfield Street, 1590 King Street, 585 Hazard Avenue land 309 Hazard Avenue. She doesn't see how a car wash would actually help the Town of Enfield.
Attorney Parakilas stated he has no problem listening to the legitimate concerns of the neighborhood. The unfortunate thing is that one of the opponents demonstrated that they want that piece of land to stay just the way it is for all time. That is a restraint against alienation as far as the ownership is concerned and is not a legitimate complaint. Regarding the concerns of the neighborhood, in fairness to the applicant Attorney Parakilas noted it is unfortunate that they could not bring a site plan before the Commission with the change of zone together to address all of the concerns of the neighborhood. He noted this parcel of land is twice the size of what is needed for a car wash. There is land that can be used to buttress any sound or any lighting. The plans can be shown to be compatible with the neighborhood. Attorney Parakilas stated the traffic is there and they may be able to control somewhat how the traffic comes in and out of the site.
Attorney Parakilas stated this neighborhood could be buffered with the type of landscaping to make this use a respectable one. He noted the owner, Mr. Tracy, is no stranger to this Commission and his reputation is of the highest caliber. They are here to address the issues and live in compatibility with the neighborhood.
Mr. Giner noted receipt of a letter from the Connecticut Water Company. He pointed out that the Level A aquifer maps have been done. The Town Council will be implementing some of the requirements of the Aquifer Protection Act. The regulations have not yet been drawn up by the DEP. Mr. Giner stated the request that the Commission condition any zone change cannot be done. Anything that would come under the BL zone or the BG zone would still have to notify Connecticut Water Company which would have to review the specific operations of the use.
Mr. Giner stated there are some uses in the BL zone that would be of concern to the DEP. It is usually left up to the individual application to go over best management practices and all those type of requirements. With the new regulations, they are going away from prohibiting specific uses and are going more toward reviewing them for best management practices.
Mr. Giner stated the Plan of Conservation and Development shows this area as being for retail and commercial services. There is BL adjoining this parcel and the closest BG is past the interchange in the Northgate area or just prior to the I-91 exit. The rest of the properties are Business Local until you get down to the Serv-U Plaza area which was recently rezoned BG.
Paul Fox stated the Commission has been through this process before with their Scitico car wash. The allegation that the water company raises is false. It is legally impossible for them to contemplate a repair facility or a gasoline station. They are 100' away from both licenses and you have to be at least 2,000' away to even apply. As far as the storm drainage is concerned, the engineering that is required will cleanse out the oil and sediment. 85% or more of the wash water is now recycled and purified for reuse. What little is discharged goes into the sanitary sewer all in accordance with DEP requirements. The Commission has seen proof of this effort in Scitico. The procedure is exactly the same with this application.
Attorney Parakilas stated in terms of those who expressed their concerns tonight, it is not with respect to this piece of land but they are complaining about the other types of activities that are near this piece of land. They have no control over the café, the motel or the barrooms. All they are trying to do is clean up that neighborhood.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission is looking through the regulations to see what types of uses are permitted in the BG zone. Currently on this piece of property without changing the zone from Business Local, there are many businesses that could come in with nothing more than a site plan review. They include medical offices, building supply stores, package stores, and retail food stores all of which are permitted in the Business Local zone. A package store could come in with a site plan review and not a special use permit and Chairman DiPace noted it would be very difficult to deny. Other uses include restaurants, radio and television stations and towers, commercial recreation, auction rooms, dry cleaners, and health clubs.
Chairman DiPace noted that car washes are only allowed in the Business General zone. While this application is a zone change, he asked if the building that is proposed for this lot would be able to be seen from the streets behind this site when the landscaping is completed. Mr. Tracy stated they would do everything in their power to block the site from the neighbors. He noted this piece of land is like a little island in the sense that there are roads on two sides and a commercial building to the north. On the back side, there is a road and there is a setback requirement. They would be amenable to trying very hard to block the site completely from the neighbors.
Regarding the height of the car wash, Mr. Tracy stated it would be 12' high inside the bay and then a roof would be added. It would be similar to the Scitico Car Wash as far as height is concerned. They will try to make it a pleasant situation for the neighbors and not be a bad neighbor. They also have to comply with the DEP requirements and a permit is needed. They will not do anything that they are not supposed to do. It is really the way to do this type of service in this day and age - to build it right and equip the car wash properly and it is also environmentally the way to do it.
Chairman DiPace stated when applicants come in for a zone change, the Commission asks to see a preliminary plan. He liked the fact that the entrance to the proposed car wash is on Enfield Street and there is nothing on Catalina or Manning to impact the residential neighborhood. The buffer proposed on the plans is approximately 25' wide showing various landscaping and there is some landscaping shown in the front. Rather than screen the car wash in the front, Chairman DiPace would rather see less screening in the front and more screening in the back. His main concern is the residential neighborhood behind this parcel and that this use does not impact the neighborhood. Attorney Parakilas stated that is the applicant's intent.
Mr. Tracy stated he wants to be a good neighbor and he will try very hard to block the car wash on the west side and also on the northwest corner because that impacts the area as well.
Mr. Fox stated the plan before the Commission reflects the regulations and is a requirement. He would estimate that the installed height of the berm and the landscaping on it would be at least as high as the homes on the other side of Catalina Drive. It would not be as high as the peak on the car wash building but in five years the whole area will be completely screened. The berm would be higher than any of the vehicular traffic within the site and the vacuums. They intend to divorce themselves from the neighborhood to the west. They also have no reason to even consider accessing Manning Road.
Commissioner Weseliza asked about lighting because the Scitico facility is lit all night. Mr. Tracy stated the lighting would be directly in the area of the vacuums and the self-service bays. There would not be much area lighting. Also, he does not foresee the same type of time schedule at this location as is in effect in Scitico.
Chairman DiPace stated while this is a zone change application, there are a lot of concerns. Attorney Parakilas stated the area of the parcel is in excess of what they require and they can do innovative things like deflect the lighting and build up the shrubbery and buffer in the back and on the side.
Mr. Fox stated he is looking forward to developing the plan for this property because it is a much better opportunity than one gets to see very often and he felt they can do a super job with it.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience again.
Ted Tessier, 19 Manning Road, noted the neighborhood has plenty of traffic now. They do not need any more traffic on that corner. The end result will be a traffic light on the corner because people cannot get out. He asked that the Commission check with the Police Department and see how many accidents there have been already. He questioned additional traffic and stated there are children that play on the street. He is against this zone change one hundred percent.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve PH#2439, petition for a change of zone from BL (Business Local) to BG (Business General) for property located at 290 Enfield Street, Map 34, Lot 16, Alan K. Tracy, Applicant/Inglewood Realty, LLC, Owner.
Commissioner Egan stated he wishes the Commission were voting just on the project because the applicant has done quality work. However, considering the Plan of Conservation and Development that was put together with neighborhood meetings and a great expense by the Town, he thinks the Plan should be followed. The issues considered were all the residential areas on Enfield Street. The Plan calls for keeping the zoning as it is. The present zone is Business Local and there are tremendous opportunities for development by the property owner. Under the Business General, this would open the parcel up to other things should the applicant sell the property. It opens it up to hotels, drive-in restaurants, motor vehicle sales, motor vehicle repair garages, and other uses that would be more intrusive to the residential area. Commissioner Egan further noted that Business Local zoning is all around this parcel and he is against changing this zone.
Commissioner Duren stated in both zones, there could be intrusive uses. A restaurant or a bar or anything with entertainment could be intrusive to the neighborhood as well. The plans that are shown take into account a lot of territory that will be protected. A restaurant, another McDonald's or a Burger King, would have wall to wall parking. Commissioner Duren would be in favor of this as the least intrusive. There will be no additional traffic to Manning Road. It will not bother Manning Road or the back street if the berm is installed.
Chairman DiPace stated after looking at the regulations, he noted what could locate here. Someone could come in with a site plan review and have a fire marshal tell them that they have to have two points of entrance and exit. A use like a car wash would be mainly a daytime use. A restaurant with a liquor permit would be open until 1:00 a.m. by right. Chairman DiPace stated with the plan shown, this is the best thing for the neighborhood to protect it. The most important thing is when the application does come before the Commission for the car wash that the buffer is included for the protection of the neighborhood. At that time, if the site was not buffered properly, it could be denied. Chairman DiPace noted the need to protect the nice residential development behind this site.
The motion was approved by a 4 - 3 - 0 vote. Chairman DiPace and Commissioners Duren, Hickey and Sarno voted in favor; Commissioners Krebs, Egan and Weseliza voted nay.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission with this vote approved a zone change and not a car wash. When they do come in for a car wash, there will be a full site plan review and the Commission will review lighting, landscaping, driveways, traffic and drainage. These items cannot be addressed during a zone change application.
Mr. Fox asked that if neighborhood members leave their name and address with Mr. Giner, when they submit the application, they will provide those people with copies of the plans. George and Marion Kertanis, 6 Catalina Drive, submitted their name to Mr. Giner at this time.
PH#2445 - Petition for amendment to Zoning Regulations to provide criteria for gasoline station canopy signs, Costco Wholesale Corporation, Applicant (Must close by June 17).
Attorney Susan Hays appeared before the Commission regarding this application for an amendment to the zoning regulations to provide criteria for gasoline station canopy signs. She stated when they were before the Commission last summer seeking the special permit approval for the Costco facility, one of the comments from Mr. Alsbaugh concerning signage was that the zoning regulations do not deal with gasoline canopy signs. They agreed to work with Mr. Alsbaugh to prepare a regulation that would address this issue.
Attorney Hays stated she had initially proposed addressing two zones and staff's preference was to only address it in the Business zones rather than the Industrial zone. She reviewed the present regulations and stated if a building is twenty-five feet back, it gets one square foot per linear foot of building frontage. This is what they are proposing for the canopy signs. You would be allowed one square foot of signage per linear frontage for each side of the canopy sign for a sign. Attorney Hays gave an example that most canopies are 10' wide by 20' long. On the side that was 10' long, you would be allowed a 10 square foot sign. On the side that is 20' long, you would be allowed a 20 square foot sign or a sign 2' x 10'.
Attorney Hays stated if the Commission is concerned about the size of potential signs, they could add a "not to exceed" number of 32 square feet.
Chairman DiPace discussed the size of some canopies. Mr. Giner confirmed that 32 square feet or 4' x 8' is the maximum size signage that is allowed now. His feeling is a canopy is a close cousin of a freestanding sign. Canopies are usually freestanding structures and the regulations allow up to 32 square feet for freestanding signs.
Attorney Hays stated the measurements would be the same as for any sign. If there is large lettering, it would be the square that fits around the letters. Chairman DiPace suggested the amendment read ".5 square feet per linear foot of canopy to which the sign is attached with a maximum of 32 square feet." Attorney Hays stated from a practical perspective, the smallest sign on a canopy that you are ever going to have is about 20'. Chairman DiPace had a concern about requests for larger signs.
Attorney Hays suggested language that the sign fit along the side of the canopy so that you could not go 8' x 4'. Mr. Giner suggested language that the signage must be integrated into the canopy. He recommended adding "the sign shall not exceed 32 square feet and must be integrated into the canopy and the sign cannot extend above or below the canopy."
Commissioner Duren asked if such a change would require another application to CRCOG. Mr. Giner stated the Commission would be making the language stricter and it would not need further review.
Mr. Giner confirmed the added wording would be as follows:
8.a. No canopy sign can exceed 32 square feet in area.
8.b. No canopy sign can extend above, below or project beyond the canopy itself.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the floor. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2445, petition for an amendment to the zoning regulations to provide criteria for gasoline station canopy signs, Costco Wholesale Corporation, Applicant, with the following changes proposed by Mr. Giner:
8a. No canopy sign shall exceed 32 square feet in area.
8b. No canopy sign can extend above, below or project beyond the canopy itself.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
PH#2447 - Application for a Special use Permit for a limited Retail Outlet to sell to the public second quality or overstock merchandise of Polish pottery/stoneware at 7 Moody Road, Zoned I-1, Map 75, Lot 37, Elle Englander, Applicant/Dennis Lessard, Owner. (Must close by June 17).
Elle Englander appeared before the Commission regarding this application. She stated she is the owner of Janelle Imports at 7 Moody Road. She rents a 2,000 square feet section for her business and her merchandise is sold to specialty retail stores throughout the United States. The merchandise is hand made and comes to this country from Poland. Because it is hand made, some of the merchandise is second quality. This merchandise cannot be returned to Poland and cannot be sold as first quality merchandise. The merchandise, which represents about ten percent or less than what she receives, would be a limited portion of the merchandise sold directly to the public.
Commissioner Krebs asked about the hours of operation. Ms. Englander stated her current hours are 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday, Wednesday and Friday and 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturday. Eventually those hours will be extended to Tuesday and Thursday.
Commissioner Sarno asked if there will be selling during all those hours. Ms. Englander stated a shipment is received every two months. When they unpack and inspect the merchandise, this is when there will be the greatest amount of merchandise for sale. Commissioner Sarno asked if the retail store will be open during the business hours. Ms. Englander stated it is a separated section of the warehouse where the second quality merchandise is set aside. Her hours are published and she would like to be open to whoever would come to the business during those hours and not limit the public sales to two hours.
Commissioner Egan asked if there are any parking requirements. Mr. Giner stated there is sufficient parking on the site. They are low use types of industrial buildings and are similar to industrial condos. The plans have been reviewed and there is plenty of room for parking.
Dennis Lessard, the owner of the building, stated there is a great amount of parking in the back of the building or almost two acres that would be available.
Commissioner Duren asked about the child play area shown on the plans. Ms. Englander stated she has been a stay at home mom for the last seven years. She has three small children and she wanted them to feel that they have a little part to themselves.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH #2447 - Application for a Special Use Permit for a limited Retail Outlet to sell to the public second quality or overstock merchandise of Polish pottery/stoneware at 7 Moody Road, Zoned I-1, Map 75, Lot 37, Elle Englander, Applicant/Denis Lessard, Owner, in accordance with the application record and the following conditions:
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Certificate:
1. 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:
2. 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.
3. The applicant shall comply with any applicable requirements of the Building or Fire Codes.
General Conditions:
4. 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.
5. The sales use shall be operated in compliance with Section 6.30.4 of the Enfield Zoning Regulations.
6. Construction of facilities approved herein shall commence by May 20, 2005 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
7. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant, 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.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
PH#2448 - Application for a Special Use Permit for parking a commercial vehicle at 3 Silver Lane, zoned R-33, Lot 3, Scott Gould, Applicant/Owner.
Scott Gould, 3 Silver Lane, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He distributed a regulation copy based upon his conversation with Mr. Giner today. He also submitted a letter from his neighbor, Arthur Legault, 6 Silver Lane, which is similar to the other letters he previously submitted.
Commissioner Egan noted that Mr. Gould submitted some pictures with his application and he asked if this is the existing situation. Mr. Gould stated it is. Commissioner Egan asked if the applicant had any plans to install any fencing or landscaping. Mr. Gould stated his does not. He stated Doreen at 1 Silver Lane has a bedroom located in the vicinity of the truck and she doesn't even hear it. The truck is used for material handling equipment. He installs and services material handling equipment such as loading docks and conveyor systems.
Commissioner Egan stated the regulations require the truck to be blocked from view. He would like to see a plan to block the view of this truck from Silver Lane. Mr. Gould stated there are some pine trees in the vicinity of the truck. Commissioner Egan felt the truck as it is today really stands out from both the street and the house next door. Mr. Gould stated he would be blocking most of his neighbors if he installed screening and his neighbors do not object to this truck parked on the property.
Chairman DiPace stated the regulations do require some type of screening along the property line. He asked if a row of six arborvitae could be added for screening. Mr. Gould will try to do this but he noted the root structure of the existing trees there will make it difficult.
Commissioner Sarno asked if this is a personal vehicle or a company vehicle. Mr. Gould stated he works for a company. He does go directly to his job site with this truck.
Mr. Giner read from the regulation noting the screening requirements.
Chairman DiPace stated although the neighbors do not object, the Commission has to look to the future. If properties are sold, new residents may object to the truck not being screened.
Mr. Giner stated there is a stockade fence and it could be continued in front along the retaining wall or arborvitae could be installed. Mr. Gould stated he would be happy to install a fence. Mr. Giner stated the fence could be continued along the present retaining wall. He recommended a 4' fence on the 2' retaining wall.
Mr. Gould confirmed for Commissioner Sarno that this is a diesel truck.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public.
Ms. Shepard, 1 Belinda Lane, spoke in favor of this application. She stated Mr. Gould has been very much a part of working on this particular issue. She knows the aesthetics of the neighborhood are important and she and her husband are willing to help Scott install the fence.
Councilman Paruda stated until tonight he didn't even know what kind of truck Mr. Gould had and he has been up and down Silver Lane a lot. He felt the fence is a good idea and the neighbors are okay with the truck at this location.
John Shepard, 1 Belinda Lane, spoke in favor of this application. He stated he met Scott during this truck ordeal. He stated Mr. Gould lives a few streets down from where he is located. Because he is on the road all the time, he often encounters Scott on the road. He knows him to be a good, respectable and quiet neighbor and truck driver. Mr. Gould has a tendency to slip into town and slip out of town without anyone knowing it.
Randy Baker, 7 Arrow Street, spoke in favor of this application.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH #2448 - Application for a Special Use Permit for parking of one commercial vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of 26,000 lbs at 3 Silver Lane, Zone R-33, Map 53, Lot 3, Scott Gould, Applicant/Owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the application record and the following conditions:
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Certificate:
1. 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:
2. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use 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.
General Conditions:
3. This approval is for a SL-60 Freightliner having a Gross vehicle weight of 26,000 lbs, with a length of 30 feet, a width of 14 feet and a height of 10 feet. Any changes to the vehicle specifications as approved shall require a new approval by the Commission.
4. The vehicle shall be parked as indicated on the application record.
5. All landscaping and screening for the vehicle shall be maintained as indicated on the application record.
6. No hazardous materials or waste may be stored in the commercial vehicle.
7. No maintenance or repair of the commercial vehicle shall be allowed on the residential property.
8. There shall be no loading or unloading of commercial vehicles between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.
9. The operation of this commercial vehicle shall comply with the Town's Noise Ordinance.
10. This permit is valid only as long as the commercial vehicle is owned or operated by the permanent resident of the property on which it is to be parked.
11. The use describe herein shall commence by May 20, 2005 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
12. 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.
13. A 4' stockade fence shall be installed on the 2' retaining wall.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
NEW BUSINESS
SPR#1274 - Application for a temporary outdoor recreation event for a Commingford & Sons Petting Zoo to be held on June 10 - 13, 2004 at Westfield Shoppingtown Enfield, 90 Elm Street, zoned BR, Map 43, 45, 47, 6, 75, 323, 325, Lot 3, 6, 20, 21, Westfield Shoppingtown Enfield, Applicant/Owner.
Tim Commingford appeared before the Commission requesting a temporary outdoor recreation permit for a petting zoo and a half dozen children's carnival rides. The hours of operation are Thursday from 3:00 p.m. to dark, the same on Friday, Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to dark and on Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The carnival would operate June 10 - 14, 2004. This carnival would be located on the Westfield Shoppingtown site on the grassed square in between Friendly's and the Chi Chi's property.
Mr. Commingford stated they install a 40' x 80' tent. They have flame certificates that were sent to the Fire Marshal. The mall representative contacted the Traffic Safety Officer. They plan to set up in an oval and keep everyone following the oval with an entrance and an exit. People would park at Chi Chi's and enter off the curb side. There wouldn't be anyone coming off or going in on the roadway.
Mr. Giner stated Fire Marshal Censki had no problems with this operation.
Chairman DiPace asked how far they will set up from the roadway. Mr. Commingford stated they generally set up the tent 10' to 15' from the road. The tent would fit from the curb at Chi Chi's on the grass so that there is a little buffer and they would start to oval off where the driveway comes in. They would set the rides up on the mall driveway and you would not be able to access one ride from another. Any area where there would be a gap would have fencing similar to what is used around the rides that is 48" high.
Mr. Commingford stated they were in Enfield just prior to the construction of Target and they located on a grassy area. He stated they like to set up on the grass because of the animals. Their target market is children from toddlers to age 10.
Mr. Commingford stated their rides are simple ones with the largest being the merry-go-round which is a 20-horse carousel with a maximum speed of 14 miles per hour. He stated with all the rides, he personally sets them up and dismantles them. Following an approval from this Commission, the Building Inspector would inspect the electrical. The State Fire Marshal would then inspect the rides.
Mr. Commingford presented pictures of the rides. He stated they also bring 40 - 50 animals which are mainly goats and sheep. They also have pony rides and an elephant and a camel. They would also remove all their trash every day. They also have a disaster recovery plan if there should be a problem.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Egan, to approve SPR#1274, application for a temporary outdoor recreation event for a Commingford & Sons Petting Zoo to be held on June 10 - 13, 2004 at Westfield Shoppingtown Enfield, 90 Elm Street, zoned BR, Map 43, 45, 47, 6, 75, 323, 325, Lot 3, 6, 20, 21. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
BOND RELEASES
SPR#1225 - Bond release request for Sterling Tool, 4 Peerless Way for Engineering in the amount of $263,500.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to release the engineering bond for Sterling Tool, 4 Peerless Way, in the amount of $263,500. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
Applications to be Received
The following applications were accepted by the Commission:
PH #2450 - Application for a Special Use Permit to unmerge lot located at 41 Belmont Ave., Zoned R-33, Map 39, Lot 58, David Karat, Applicant/Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled on June 17, 2004.
PH #2453 - Application for Special Use Permit for modification of existing office facility to add surface parking, a parking garage structure and a heliport at 100 Bright Meadow Blvd., Zoned BR, Map 35, Lot 220, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., Applicant / Phoenix Home Life Insurance Company, Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled on June 17, 2004 or July 8, 2004.
SPR #1273 - Application to construct a 30 ft. x 70 ft. shed on concrete slab to be used for storage at 230 Shaker Road, Zoned I-1, Map 94, Lot 8, Anocoil, Applicant/Owner.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|
|