|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 4, 2004
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, March 4, 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
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 February 5, 2004. The Minutes were approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Nicles Lefakis voting.
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to approve the Minutes of February 19, 2004. The Minutes were approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Nicles Lefakis voting.
STAFF COMMENTS
a. Town Attorney (in writing)
Commissioner Egan stated the Commission had requested a review of the town's regulations with regard to the issues on Grandview Drive. Mr. Giner stated the Assistant Town Attorney's report will be ready shortly. Mr. Giner will email it to Commission members.
Commissioner Duren stated he previously asked if, in light of the recent statute changes, Commission members could attend ART meetings. The Assistant Town Attorney was going to research this question and report back to the Commission. Mr. Giner will check on this question.
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer (in writing).
Commissioner Duren requested that the Zoning Enforcement Officer provide the Commission with an updated list of all home occupations in the town.
Because of Commission concerns, Chairman DiPace instructed Mr. Giner to inform the Zoning Enforcement Officer about Quizno's and its window appearance from the street.
c. Director of Planning & Community Development
Mr. Giner reported Tractor Supply is moving into the former Frank's Nursery. It is a nationwide firm that is a garden and farm supply company. Mr. Giner stated there are some minor changes they would like and they asked if Mr. Giner could handle these changes administratively. The consensus of the Commission was to consider this item later in tonight's agenda.
Mr. Giner stated Bernie's has some changes in their elevations. They plan to shift some doors around and add some screening on the top for their mechanicals. He suggested both applications be considered in depth at the end of tonight's meeting under Applications to be Accepted.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Christine Clark, 1449 Enfield Street, appeared before the Commission with questions regarding property at 1657 and 1655 King Street. Ms. Clark and her sister own this property. She was told by Mr. Giner that they had to get an extensive survey done on this property and submit plans regarding what they wanted to build. She has obtained the plans for the house they are planning on building for her daughter. She also presented a survey done by the surveyor. Ms. Clark was told that she would probably need a right of way or some type of a driveway to the back lot. Ms. Clark stated her property has an easement that goes from the front of King Street all the way to the top of her property line. She wanted to know if that could be used as their driveway. Such easement is listed on her deed as running straight up to the back piece of property. Ms. Clark wanted to know about this because she was told she could only apply once.
Chairman DiPace asked if this is for a rear lot. Ms. Clark confirmed that it is. Mr. Giner stated the information he gave was that rear lots are only allowed as part of an open space subdivision. Ms. Clark confirmed that there are two lots. The Assessor's Office has had it listed as a back lot and then not listed as such. However, they have paid separate taxes on the lot for years. The lot never had a house on it but was used for horses.
Commissioner Duren asked if Ms. Clark had old tax records. Mr. Giner noted the town's regulations only allow rear lots as part of an open space subdivision or if it is an existing lot. The problem is the rear lot would not have any frontage at all and he questioned how it could have been a separate lot.
Ms. Clark stated the easement is located on the south side of the property and it goes straight to the back property. Mr. Giner asked if this is all one lot, was the easement for the benefit of the property behind Ms. Clark. Ms. Clark stated at one time the property to the south of them was supposed to be a road that goes back to the industrial park. Mr. Giner stated if they ever built on it, Ms. Clark would have the frontage for the rear lot. Mr. Giner stated the easement goes through Ms. Clark's property in favor of the property to the east. The easement goes to the property line and Mr. Giner stated that would tell him it was for their benefit. Ms. Clark stated the easement is the entire length of her property.
Mr. Giner questioned if it is an abandoned easement because a barn has been constructed. Ms. Clark stated they had stated that barn could be taken down any time the property was to be used. Commissioner Hickey noted the question is whether this is a lot of record.
Mr. Giner stated it may or may not be but lots of record usually have frontage somewhere.
Chairman DiPace stated if this is an open space subdivision, a rear lot would be allowed. If it is not, rear lots are not allowed. He requested that Mr. Giner find out whether this property is a lot of record and is there a specific reason why rear lots are only allowed in open space subdivisions. He noted there are many such lots throughout the town.
Chairman DiPace stated the property is over an acre. Mr. Giner stated part of two lots could be used to make one lot out of it. There are two homes there and the frontages are 110' and 100'. Ms. Clark is proposing to take land from the back parcel and from the adjoining parcel and make it all into one lot of approximately 66,000 square feet. Mr. Giner noted the regulations do require twice the area for rear lots.
Commissioner Hickey asked would the easements for the right of way convey any rights of frontage. Mr. Giner will research this question. Commissioner Lefakis asked if there would be a record of why this easement was granted. Ms. Clark stated it was because eventually the town was going to develop all the land. That land was identified as Corporate Road.
Chairman DiPace requested that Ms. Clark meet with Mr. Giner. He asked that Mr. Giner propose what text changes could be made to allow this rear lot to be used and whether such development would be feasible. Commissioner Hickey added there may be some questions of right.
The following is a verbatim text of the second speaker before the Commission:
Mr. Reg Leonard: Chairman DiPace, Commissioners, Town staff, my name is Reg Leonard and I live at 42 Fairfield Road. I wasn't going to speak tonight but I have to ask for a clarification of your rules. There are people expected to participate in the Grandview Drive reason that it's before you. We have residents here from #5, #7, #9, #11 and #13 Grandview that did not have the opportunity. Some of them could not make it to the special meeting at 6:00 p.m. Monday and they wanted to be heard. If your rules are in effect, is that correct that they cannot speak in public participation now because the reason its back here is because of what the south side of the street is here to talk about.
Commissioner DiPace: This is on the agenda for an 8-24.
Mr. Leonard: I understand that.
Commissioner DiPace: Which is a referral. I know I'm not in a position as far as voting on it tonight. What we're going to do tonight is review information. If there are people here that would like to speak, we should suspend the rules and allow them to speak. What is the Commission's intent? Do you want to allow them to speak now or at the time when we get to it during the meeting.
Commissioner Duren: To me, it would be more appropriate later.
Mr. Leonard: That's very good because they came here thinking they could speak.
Commissioner Duren: I make a motion to suspend the rules and allow them to speak at the time we take up Grandview Drive under Other Business.
Commissioner Lefakis: I second it.
(The vote was 7 - 0 - 0 in favor of this motion.)
Mr. Leonard: I have one comment and maybe one correction. Mr. Egan was exactly right but we started bringing our questions up I think in the first meeting. I don't have any of my notes with me but in December, I think, there was a request from Mr. Egan and somebody else to have an engineering report and a legal report. And then, again, in January, we were supposed to have it and we haven't got it. At the February 22 meeting of the Town Council, I addressed the Town Council on these issues and I proposed a question through Mayor Tallarita to the attorney and she hadn't gotten any request as of that time to give any reports. So, it has to have been just since that meeting that she has got that.
Chairman DiPace: She is working on it. I have talked to her and she is working on it. Jose, the other thing as far as from John, is he working on that or is he going to work on that and give us what we have asked from him?
Mr. Giner: He has addressed the issues. He has explained himself in a memo and there was a previous memo that he submitted that was a response to that.
Commissioner Duren: Do you have a copy of that that you can share with the Commission?
Mr. Giner: There is a memo today and there's another memo. I think today's memo was in response to the issues that came up at Monday's meeting.
Commissioner Duren: Do the people have a copy of that?
Mr. Giner: Probably not because I didn't get it until very late today.
Chairman DiPace: My concern is what we have asked back in December for him to do. My question is has he done what we asked him to do back in December.
Mr. Giner: I think his response was that he did not disagree that there were differences in the grading.
Chairman DiPace: Right. But what we asked him to do was to go out and double check it and find out if there were differences between what we approved and report back to us. That is what we asked him to do. And that is what I'm expecting him to do. If there are differences from what we approved to that, that is what we want to know.
Mr. Giner: His response was yes, there are, and I think he tried to explain the way he inspected for a c.o. I think that generated the question to the Town Attorney about whether or not people had to come back.
Commissioner Egan: I would like to read through the Minutes exactly what was asked for so that we have this down pat.
Mr. Giner: I sent the Minutes to him so I'll ask him to review it again.
Commissioner Egan: That the Planning and Zoning Commission agreed that a full report consisting of a written response from the Town Engineer, a legal opinion and a review of the entire Grandview Drive subdivision as built maps to confirm conformance with what was approved and prepared. That started in December. Again, it was on January 8. Again I asked January 22 and again I asked February 5. So there's no excuse for the Assistant Town Attorney to now say that she just got it and she's working on it.
The Town Attorney was asked in December. This is exactly what was asked for in the Minutes of that meeting and it says "a full report consisting of a written response from the Town Engineer, a legal opinion from the Town Attorney and review of the entire Grandview Drive subdivision as built maps to confirm that they conform." I also asked that the Town Attorney look at our regulations because our regulations do address some of these concerns and asked for a legal opinion as to what our regulations say and don't say because from Town staff there's been inconsistencies. I have gone back and read the regulations and if there is a change, they make the change in the as built. You mentioned they had to have a significant change and there were some other statements that were made that were contradicting our regulations and I wanted a legal opinion on that. And that all started back in December.
Chairman DiPace: I had specifically asked back in December that John Cabbibo go back out there and just review it. I had gone out there with the map and I had looked at the topos regarding the two lots to each side. I had asked that he check the topo and see that it, in fact, conforms to what we approved. I looked at the map and there were differences in grade on the two houses to each side as you go out and they can change anywhere from two feet to as much as eight or ten feet toward the very rear and they were raised up which we did not approve. And that is what was my question. This is not what we approved and if this is different, how much different is it from what we approved.
Mr. Giner: John said yes, it is different.
Chairman DiPace: That's what I want to know. How much different is it? I wanted him to take a look at it and tell us does it or does it not conform - the two lots on each side and the one in the center.
Commissioner Egan: Mr. Chairman, could I just add one other thing. It was presented to us by some of the residents there that the sedimentation and erosion control requirements were applicable and it was represented by town staff that they were not applicable. Going back and reading the regulations, I find that they are applicable. Anything over a half an acre, a plan has to be submitted and approved. What I would like to know is if a plan was submitted and approved by the developer.
Mr. Giner: A clarification - we never said they weren't applicable. What I showed you on the subdivision was the fact that there was a plan for sediment and erosion control. There was a note right on the subdivision plans which you have which when they were presented said the erosion and sediment controls are to be as shown for the public improvements and that each lot will have its own sediment and erosion controls when coming in for a building permit. I can show you that note.
Commissioner Egan: As I recall, you made a representation that the sediment and erosion control was for the public improvements. That's not correct. That's my reading of the regulations. It's not correct.
Mr. Giner: That's not what I said.
Commissioner Egan: I think you need to look at the minutes.
Mr. Giner: The Minutes may say it but they are not exact transcripts. I did bring out the subdivision and I did point out -
Commissioner Egan: Maps as necessary certifying that the soil erosion and sediment control measures have been completed as approved or may have been modified with prior approvals of the Commission. Upon receipt of the report and inspection of the site by the Director of Public Works, the Commission may release any bond posted upon the finding that the provisions of the certified plan have been complied with and a written request for release.
The certified plan needs to comply with the state soil and conservation regulations. That doesn't comply with the state soil and conservation regulations. So that plan, even if they list what they are going to do for sedimentation and erosion control, that's not the certified plan. That doesn't meet the certified plan requirements. So, I would like to know where the report is for this and I would like to see something in writing from the Town Engineer that they went out there and they actually made the comparison to the certified plan of erosion control and they followed - let me give you the exact section - 7.20.7 - Inspection and Bond Release - Section b. If they did that, they would have found that the plan that was originally submitted was not the as built and there should have been questions asked at that point.
Mr. Giner: We're talking about the sediment and erosion control plan. Perhaps the Secretary might want to read note 15 into the record.
Commissioner Duren: Note 15 - erosion and sedimentation control for roads, storm drainage and utility construction to be as shown on these plans. Erosion and sediment controls for individual lot construction to be shown on plot plans.
Mr. Giner: That's the same note that's been on the plans that were under review and that's the same type of note that is on any kind of plans we review and approve. I will ask the Town Engineer about that. They review the plans for erosion and sediment control. They do all the inspections during the subdivision. When I get the Minutes, I'll make sure I send them along word for word so there's no question.
Commissioner Egan: I've gone through them and I've seen what you've said and statements that you made that were not accurate.
Mr. Giner: I would not characterize that, sir.
Commissioner Egan: Well, do you want me to go through each one?
Mr. Giner: I'm not saying the Minutes are exactly -
Commissioner Egan: That's not the place and time but I will and we'll go over them.
Chairman DiPace: It's open for discussion. Let's take it up later. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak either in favor or on any related item? Okay. Next item.
During the above discussion, Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to suspend the rules and allow public participation at the time the Commission considers Grandview Drive on tonight's agenda. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Egan, to grant a six-month extension for PH#2362, Special Use Permit for building conversion to residential at 124A Pleasant Street, Charles and Mary Ann Dixon. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
Chairman DiPace stated Correspondence also includes a copy of the wetlands permit for Hazardville Center, a letter to Ronald Marcotte from Mr. Giner regarding truck unloading enforcement. Mr. Giner stated he asked Ray Bouchard to clarify what the police plan to do. His note stated they would notify all their patrol officers to make a concerted effort under existing statutes. Mr. Giner noted when they are unloading cars on the street, they are driving unlicensed cars on a public roadway. They could also use the new commercial parking ordinance to handle these violations. Chairman DiPace emphasized the unloading of cars presents a real problem when it occurs on Elm Street and he has seen this occur twice. He recommended the posting of signs stating "no unloading" so that this can be enforced. Chairman DiPace further requested that Mr. Giner forward this letter containing the Commission's request to the Town Council for their information.
COMMISSIONERS' CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of a letter from Bill Lee representing the Hazardville Institute Conservancy Society regarding the proposed banners. Mr. Giner stated this request first had to go before the Town Council and is now back before this Commission. It was the consensus of the Commission to consider the banner request for Hazardville at the April 1, 2004 meeting. Commissioner Duren requested that Mr. Giner resubmit the information packet on this item to the Commission.
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of the Connecticut Federation Planning and Zoning Agencies' Quarterly Newsletter. There is also the Historic District Commission's Notice of Action for February 17, 2004. There is an Inland Wetlands Notice of Action for February 3, 2004 and February 17, 2004.
Chairman DiPace stated there is information on the Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies Annual Dinner at the Aqua Turf Country Club. This will be the Commission's next meeting and will be on March 18, 2004.
Chairman DiPace read a memo addressed to him from Henry Dutcher, Director of Libraries, giving his comments in regard to the Enfield Planning and Zoning update of the Plan of Conservation and Development and, specifically, Goal #10 - Objective: Continue to provide a modern, high quality public library for business, educational and recreational use by the community.
Mr. Giner reminded Commission members of the Special Workshop Meeting scheduled for March 25, 2004 regarding the Plan of Conservation and Development.
Commissioner Duren asked about planned sidewalks for the Town Hall. Mr. Giner stated they understand they have to come back to the Commission for a modification.
Commissioner Duren stated he also read about plans for Brainard Park in the newspaper. Mr. Giner stated they are still discussing funding. Once they have a clear plan, they will come before the Commission with a site plan. Commissioner Duren requested that Commission members be informed of such plans prior to reading about them in the newspaper.
READING OF THE LEGAL NOTICE
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH #2427 - Application for zone change to move TVC zone line to the east of 118/120 High Street from current position west of property, zoned R-33, May 25, Lot 74, Eleanor Binns, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by April 8)
Eleanor and Richard Binns, 1174 Lawson Street, Suffield, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Richard Binns stated they have purchased two condemned two-family homes in front of the family resource center in Thompsonville. The duplex at 114-116 High Street is in particularly bad condition both externally and structurally. It needs a complete new interior and a lot of work on the exterior.
Mr. Binns stated they presently have two two-family homes on one lot and it will be extremely difficult to refinance the property as it now stands. If it were subdivided into two lots, he could refinance one lot and obtain the financing to improve the property. The property presently is R-33 and there is no way he can subdivide it. If it was zoned TVC, it would be well within the size to be able to subdivide it. The zone line right now is to the west of the property and they would like to move the line to the east of the property so that it can be subdivided and obtain the necessary funding.
Mrs. Binns stated they went before the TVC advisory board and they mentioned that they would like to see that zone eventually go all the way to Route 5. They were in favor of expanding the TVC zone. Mrs. Binns stated if the zone is changed for their property, they would then have regulatory authority. If they eventually do not own these homes, there would be more of an opportunity to make sure these homes fit the neighborhood and are kept up to a standard. They are willing to comply with any restrictions that would be put on this property because they would like to participate in the renovation of the Thompsonville section. They think it has a lot of potential and these homes have been in disrepair for some time. The homes have been condemned and they would like to improve them to a standard that brings up the area.
Commissioner Duren read the Enfield Revitalization Strategy Committee report on PH#2427 which contained favorable comments about the expansion of the TVC zone as requested.
Chairman DiPace was in favor of improving the homes recently purchased by the Binns.
Mrs. Binns stated they are also thinking about donating the property in the back that's adjacent to the family resource center to the town for possible additional parking.
Commissioner Hickey asked if the Binns have come up with a specific plan as to how they would bring the buildings back. Mrs. Binns stated they have started on the larger house. There is one apartment currently rented and they are almost finished renovating the other apartment. They are still investigating whether to make the blue house into a one-family or a two-family home or whether to take it down and put up a new structure. Mrs. Binns noted if they were able to split the properties, this is their intent. It would not make a lot of sense to put a lot of money into the property if the homes are still located on the same property.
Commissioner Egan asked if the apartments would be at market rents. Mrs. Binns stated they have not pre-leased any of the space. Mr. Binns stated 118 is just about finished and it is an eight-room apartment. He noted he has to find the right tenant for this space.
Commissioner Hickey asked if they have other investments in the Thompsonville area. Mrs. Binns stated they have one on Pearl Street.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public.
Michael Croto, 62 Lincoln Street, was in favor of what the Binns are trying to do. He is also in favor of revitalizing Thompsonville. He noted while there have not been drastic changes, they are making strides. He felt what Mr. Binns is trying to do is a good thing and he will give it his support.
Mr. Giner added the Plan of Conservation and Development shows this area as being a village area.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve the zone change requested in PH#2427 to move the TVC zone line to the east of 118/120 High Street from the current position west of the property zoned R-33, May 25, Lot 74, Eleanor Binns, Applicant/Owner.
Chairman DiPace stated in the past the Commission had an application for one of these homes from a lawyer for his practice. The concerns were raised about the back yard area. Chairman DiPace stated it will be nice for these homes to have new owners that will improve them. He is in favor of this application and stated this represents another shot in the arm for Thompsonville.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
b. PH #2428 - Application for resubdivision of a previously approved lot (Lot 1) zoned R-44, west side of Broad Brook Road, south side of Salerno Drive, Map 103, John Tittarelli, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by April 8)
Chairman DiPace stated this public hearing is being continued since the public hearing sign was not placed on Broad Brook Road as required. Also, the applicant changed the location of the septic system and moved it into the regulated area requiring a wetlands review.
Mr. Giner stated North Central had approved the location of the septic system. The location was then flipped and they did not come back to Wetlands. Even though the new lot is not within the regulated area, the Wetlands Commission would like to review the application. If the Wetlands Commission does not approve the septic system that is already built, they will need the other lot to rebuild the septic system.
Chairman DiPace continued this public hearing to April 1, 2004. He requested that the Commission receive the soil test results for the next hearing session. Also, on the application it says open space was donated as part of the original subdivision approval. Chairman DiPace remembered this subdivision applicant decided to pay the fee in lieu of open space on each lot. Mr. Giner confirmed there was a closing on the larger lot that was not subdivided and they did come in with their fee. Mr. Giner stated at the c.o., the as built showed one lot.
Chairman DiPace continued this public hearing to April 1, 2004.
c. PH #2429 - Application for a Special Use Permit for restaurant beer and wine license at 95 High Street, Zoned TVCZ, Map 25, Lot 6, Corleone's Café, LLC, Applicant/S&T Associates, Owner. (Must close by April 8)
Michael Croto, 62 Lincoln Street, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He gave some history regarding his purchase of the former High Street Deli. In April of 2003, the Health Department found numerous violations at this location. The present owner could not address all the issues and sold the restaurant to Mr. Croto. Since that time, he has brought the restaurant up to Health Department codes. He noted he has not done any structural changes but he renovated the interior and purchased new equipment. Mr. Croto stated he has invested approximately $70,000 in this family Italian restaurant. He is requesting a beer and wine license to go with the Italian food. He noted it will not be a night club or bar but he would like to provide patrons with beer and wine.
Commissioner Weseliza asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Croto stated the planned hours are 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m seven days a week. When he finds the one day that is not profitable, he may close on that day.
Chairman DiPace asked if any waivers are required. Mr. Giner stated because this is located in the TVC zone, issues such as distances from schools or churches can be waived. Mr. Croto stated his restaurant is 501' away from the church. The sign he has posted is a 5' x 8' sign. He noted five of the parishioners from the church approached him on Tuesday to ask him when he would be opening and if breakfast would be available. Mr. Croto plans to have a Sunday brunch which was welcomed by the neighborhood.
Commissioner Hickey asked if Mr. Croto has previously operated a restaurant. Mr. Croto stated his family was in the restaurant business for over twenty years and they operated the Villa Rose in Massachusetts. His father passed away and the restaurant was sold. He added he also has a culinary arts degree.
Commissioner Duren stated he noticed on the floor plans, there is a floor plan for one room but not for the front dining room. Mr. Croto stated at the time he needed to assemble the plan, he didn't have such a plan. The room will contain tables and will be a dining area. The plan presented was done by an engineer and he noted it will be total dining on the other side also. Commissioner Duren asked about the arrangement of the booths in the front dining room. Mr. Croto stated the Commission has an overall picture of the whole dining room. The front dining room will be all tables leaving a 36" walkway. All the doorways and the bathrooms are handicapped accessible.
Commissioner Duren asked if the bar is a service bar or a sit-down bar. Mr. Croto stated it will be a sit-down bar and people will come in to eat. The previous owner had over 100 seats and he is making the restaurant so that it is more of a cozy atmosphere with less seating.
Regarding whether this application will have to come back before the Commission for a site plan review, Mr. Giner stated the previous use was a restaurant and they will not need to come back again. Mr. Croto stated this restaurant had a beer and wine license up to 1993 and there is an existing bar area. He has covered the area to make it a restaurant counter for the serving of food. He has not structurally changed anything in the existing restaurant.
Commissioner Hickey noted Mr. Croto has closed on the sale of the property and he asked if there are any contingencies based upon the granting of this liquor license. Mr. Croto stated there are none. If he does not receive the beer and wine license, the establishment will still be a restaurant serving Italian food.
Chairman DiPace stated Mr. Croto bought this restaurant without any conditions but it did have a liquor license at one point and the Commission has granted licenses to other places in Thompsonville. He saw a need to be open minded to improve Thompsonville. He felt it is nice to see that the Commission is receiving applications to improve Thompsonville.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public.
Richard Binns stated presently there are a number of businesses in the area that are really struggling. He admires Mike Croto for this restaurant endeavor and he felt it is important that this goes ahead. There is a church across the street and there are lots of good reasons for this to go ahead.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2429 with the following conditions:
1. The North Central District Health requirements are met.
2. The requirements of Paul Censki in a memo dated March 3, 2004 shall be met.
3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
4. 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
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. A license for the operation of facilities as approved must be obtained by March 4, 2005 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission in accordance with Section 9.20.3 of the Enfield Zoning Regulations.
8. 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.
Commissioner Hickey commented that he is in favor of this application. He noted recently the Commission has seen a surge of restaurants going into the mall areas and he thinks it is nice to see one coming into Thompsonville.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote
NEW BUSINESS
FLD #018 - Flood Hazard Area Development Permit to rebuild a house damaged by fire at 169 Cottage Road, Zoned R-33, Map 96, Lot 44, Casimir & Sandra Pawlowski, Applicant/Owner.
Casimir and his daughter, Elizabeth Pawlowski, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Giner stated this is a reconstruction and the Town Engineer has no concerns. All issues were addressed with the Wetlands permit. He recommended a condition that the applicant comply with the Wetlands permit.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve FLD#018 to rebuild a house damaged by fire at 169 Cottage Road with the condition that the applicant meet the 16 conditions outlined in the Wetlands Permit dated March 4, 2004. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
b. SPR #1247.02 - Request to modify landscape plan on vacant lot at 53 Pearl Street, Zoned TV, Map 24, Lot 81, Michael Deming, Applicant/Owner.
Mr. Giner stated this is a vacant lot and the proposal is to install a wrought iron fence and do some landscaping on the property. The fence was previously approved by the Commission. There is a driveway and a small gravel area that the applicant would like to grass over. Mr. Giner stated he cannot approve this administratively because anything affecting the drive has to come back to the Commission.
Mr. Giner stated the applicant had asked if it was possible to waive the bonding requirements for the landscaping because he has to pay the landscaper and it would be a financial burden to pay this amount twice. Such landscaping is not required by the regulations and the applicant is doing it voluntarily. Mr. Giner saw no problem with waiving the landscaping bond because there is no requirement for such landscaping.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to approve SPR#1247.02 and the waiver of the posting of the landscaping bond on the vacant lot located at 53 Pearl Street, zoned TV, Map 24, Lot 81, Michael Deming, Applicant/Owner. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
Commissioner Duren felt the approval of this application will result in an improvement to this corner.
BOND RELEASES
Request for de facto release of expired bonds per Finance Director.
The Commission took no action on this agenda item.
13. Other Business
Discussion of 8-24 Referral for Grandview Drive
The following is a verbatim transcript of the discussion the Commission had with residents of Grandview Drive:
Chairman DiPace: Monday night I was at the Town Council meeting per the request of the Council. The Council, in my opinion, had far more information that I had not seen regarding Grandview. They asked me if I had seen this and that and there was a lot that I hadn't seen. Unfortunately, I missed a meeting or two back in November and I wasn't sure if all the Commission members had seen it. I told the Council that. I had not seen it but I could not speak for the rest of the Commission members. They ended up sending the 8-25 back to us. So that is why it is back on our agenda. There was a lot of stuff in those packets that we had not seen. There was a book with a bunch of pictures. Can we see that? We'll just pass them through.
One of the concerns of the Council was they were curious as far as the water running on the south side - whether it was draining into the road and where this water was going. There was some additional drainage put in.
Mr. Giner: I think there were two issues. One that we weren't aware of on Monday was that if you recall back when the bond was released, there were two issues with the public improvements that were called out. One was the ponding of the driveway. I think one of those shots in the bound booklet shows some ponding, I think, in front of one of the lots of the driveway. At the time, I believe, you had tabled the bond release because John was going to speak to the applicants about whether those items could be taken care of before we released the bond and accepted the road. You have a memo from John. Again, this is just reaction and what John is telling in the memo. John had gone out there and there had been something done to the end of that driveway. Apparently, it settled or has not quite solved the problem as evidenced by a photograph that was brought in on Monday. You have his comments on that. He went out again, as a result of Monday's meeting, and took a look at it and you have the memo in front of you which is a report on his inspection. That was one issue.
The other issue was the bottom of the cul de sac which he, I think, at that time noted that the applicant could not fix in time because of the weather and that we had adequate bond to guarantee that that would get done when the weather allowed. Those were the two street issues. At the meeting, I believe it is also covered by John's memo, as a result of some of the concerns about what was happening in the back yards, I believe Mr. Spazzarini is here and he can probably speak to it better than I can. John's memo had stated there was a pipe put in to try to alleviate some of the water problems that were occurring along the swale that was running along the back of the properties and just sort of take it and try to keep that. I guess when the final grading was done on the property, it was done to the grade and the soil conditions did not allow for water to be absorbed properly and I think there were some drains that Mr. Spazzarini put in to try to alleviate the problem. John, in his memo, covers the fact that the drains are adequate to hold that.
Chairman DiPace: My question is were those drains that were installed ever approved by us?
Mr. Giner: No. I think that was done with the homeowners as an attempt to alleviate a problem between the contractor and the homeowners.
Chairman DiPace: Well, that's a change and it should have come back for a modification. We should have it on the plans. We are all here now but what happens thirty to forty years down the road from now when this was never on the plans that we approved. If there are changes, I think they need to come back for modifications.
Do the Commission members have any questions?
Commissioner Weseliza: When were those pictures submitted?
Mr. Giner: In November during Public Participation.
Karen Camidge: (Presented some new pictures.) This is between #5 and #7. This is the problem last year and this is the way it is now.
Chairman DiPace: Also, at Monday night's meeting there was a picture showing the end of one of the driveways and there was standing water. The picture was taken that day.
Mr. Giner: That was the one I was mentioning - the driveway that you saw on Monday.
Chairman DiPace: There were numerous concerns that came to the Council. I couldn't answer them all. Jose was there and John Cabbibo was there. They sent it back and asked us to review it and to verify the concerns and these drainage problems.
Commissioner Duren: Our staff tells us everything is alright. We ask for a legal opinion which we haven't gotten yet.
Chairman DiPace: Right. We're still waiting for that.
Commissioner Duren: I don't know why we can't put this to rest.
Commissioner Hickey: I would like to get a little chronology. It might be helpful, Jose. When were these homes finally constructed?
Mr. Giner: The last c.o. was probably a year ago.
Commissioner Hickey: I remember you saying you closed in the winter time and you didn't really have a good idea what the finished property was going to look like. So about a year ago. Then we've had the past summer and then the issue before us was the release of the bond for the public improvements.
Mr. Giner: The public improvements and the 8-24 for acceptance of the road.
Chairman DiPace: We also have a video tape that was submitted. Have any Commission members ever seen the tape? There is a video tape that was submitted back in October or November.
Commissioner Duren: Have they dealt with anyone in Town Hall before it ever came to us? (to the people present) Had you dealt with anybody in Town Hall before you came to us?
Mr. Leonard: Before we came to you and the Town Council, we went to the Town departments - Engineering and the Planning Department - to try to get some assistance to have the builder meet with us to show what was wrong. We never got anything out of Engineering. I got berated by Mr. Cabbibo in August saying you can't stop this bond. It's for public improvements. I showed him pictures. He and Mr. Giner came out. They did come out in October and said there is no water in the basement and there's none around the foundation. That's the only time.
Chairman DiPace: Hold it. We're going to ask people to speak one at a time and when you want to speak, you're going to come forward, state your name and address and it's going to be on the record on the tape. That's the only way we're going to do it. If it gets out of order, we're going to go back to nobody speaks. Okay.
Mr. Giner: Can I just respond to something, Mr. Chairman, because he just made a statement that I think is obviously misleading. He said the town staff has not come out. The only time I got a phone call from anybody asking to come out there, we did so and we brought our maps and I think explained our position. I just want to make sure that there's no misunderstanding. That's the only time that someone called and asked me to go out there. I don't know what they might have asked John Cabbibo.
Chairman DiPace: I said I'm going to put this back in order and if it's not, I'm going to clear the room. Okay. Now, Jose, these drains that were installed for the drainage from the backyards, are these tied into the storm drains?
Mr. Giner: There's Mr. Spazzarini. He did the work. I can't answer that.
(To Mr. Spazzarini) Chairman DiPace: Are these tied into the storm drains?
Mr. Spazzarini: Yes.
Chairman DiPace: They are. So they are tied into the public improvements. So this is part of our 8-25 as far as I'm concerned. If they are tied in, then they are draining into it. As per John Cabbibo's memo here, he is stating that you have your engineer verify the capacity through a written report to us prior to us doing this 8-24. That's our Town Engineer's statement. Have you given him a copy of this?
Mr. Giner: I just got it at 4:00 p.m.
Chairman DiPace: These were the drains that were installed without our approval and they are tied into the storm drains. I was just made aware of them Monday night. Now what John is saying is that there's drainage from there, there's drainage from the footings. There were concerns regarding those. Based on the drainage studies, the storm main lines - that new line that connects to the street - should have sufficient capacity to drain the new pipes at full flow but the P&Z may want to have the developer's engineer verify that capacity through a written report. I think that is one thing that we need to verify because there is a lot of water out here. There's a lot of water running down through here. There's a lot of water behind these houses and in front of these houses. Depending on how much comes through, that is what we're going to need to know - whether it is going to be able to handle it. Just by the wash outs that we're seeing in some of these pictures and one is regarding one of the drains that you installed in the backyards. I believe it is in this one here and it showed it being all washed out as of today and it looked like it washed out quite a bit. I think it would be appropriate to get something in writing from your engineer stating that it is going to be able to handle it. We should have some type of revision to our approval showing where these pipes are and it should show us exactly where they are so that in the future somebody doesn't take down and break things and create a further problem with wash outs around these houses. We have no idea where they are. We may see a round cover here but we have no idea where they are going and in which direction or what. I do not want them to come back and bite the town if they are tied into the town drainage system.
Commissioner Weseliza: Shouldn't they have known that?
Commissioner Egan: That's a good point because they should be giving easement rights to the town to go in there and clean those out. We've had tremendous problems with those drains plugging up and flooding houses out and then the homeowners come to the town. The town says well, you own it so you clean it. If the town is going to be responsible for it and it's going to be connected to the town system, the town should have an easement to go in and clean it out so it doesn't plug these folks out in five years or six years or ten years. Then they go to the town and the town says it's not our problem. Jose, you ought to look into getting easement rights to clean those out.
Commissioner Duren: Do we have easement rights?
Mr. Giner: I'll ask. Normally we get easements when we are draining on to someone's property but it comes from the town road. If it is the other way around, we are taking their water so it's their responsibility to maintain. When we do put a pipe on someone's property that's carrying road drainage, we get easements because that's our water and it's our responsibility so it doesn't back into the road. Anything else - people tie roof leaders into our drains and everything else - all of that is on private property and the applicant would have to be the owners. They would be the ones that would have to come in to get the easements. They own the property.
Chairman DiPace: There should be something on the plans depicting that the homeowners shall be responsible. Right now the homeowners that live there know about it but what happens twenty years down the road when someone else comes in and they don't know about it and build over the top of it and then wonder why their houses get flooded.
I know we did have a lot of rain back in September and at different times but some of these things that we have here are washed out pretty bad. If we go accepting all this stuff and it drains into the system and we don't know what the capacity level it will hold and we get a 100-year storm, is it going to back up? Are we going to have another area like Yale? We are in the process right now of fixing Roosevelt where that road floods every time it rains.
Commissioner Egan: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add as long as that's the case, I really would like to and the gentleman that spoke that he's been waiting for information from back maybe even before December - don't feel bad. We're the Commission and we've been asking for it and we're not getting it. I would like to suggest that we get that information before we wrap this thing up.
Chairman DiPace: What, if any, modifications or changes needed to be made and if so, we need to have that taken care of before we go recommending acceptances. The other thing is these drains are between or behind the houses and this is where the houses themselves have the biggest water problem. I would like to at this point have the Commission see that videotape. That's why I had the TV brought down here. If this is the kind of water we have draining into that system, we really need to know if it is going to be able to handle it before we go referring this. These drains are in back of some of these houses.
Commissioner Duren: How many drains are there in the back?
Chairman DiPace: I don't know. We don't know. We don't have anything on any plans.
(At this time, the Commission viewed the videotape done by a resident of Grandview Drive.)
Mr. Giner: The design for drainage in subdivision site plans is for 50-year storms. I checked the National Weather Service. Out of 109 years of record keeping for this date, this was the 102nd - 109 was the record as the wettest and this was about a 102. So that's what we're seeing.
(During the showing of the film, homeowners also discussed the severe icing problems they had this past winter.)
Chairman DiPace: That water was coming from the backyards and running down that driveway.
Mr. Giner: At some points. John brought this up. This was part of the drainage calculation (showed plans). This is the area we're talking about. The water from this point on is all going to drain towards the street. At the meeting, it was asked whether it was actually going over the road to the other side and the answer was no. The curbing was doing what it was supposed to. In the back, there is a swale there.
Commissioner Duren: Which way is it flowing?
Mr. Giner: The problem with the standing water is it is settling in people's back yards. They would have had to go right up to their foundations. When they did that, one thing we don't ask the developer for is the sub surface. When they did that, I guess there's a lot of clay there and there's a very little amount between the top and the clay layer so you're going to have a lot of standing water. The other part of the problem is we had the 4" of rain. From the 2003 weather data, the next highest is 1.99".
Commissioner Duren: Could you show me which way the water flows.
Mr. Giner: These are the drainage basins. From this point, it flows to King Street. It flows here and here which was shown in the video.
Chairman DiPace: It looked like from the video we were almost up to that house there.
Audience member: The video starts at 5 Grandview.
Commissioner Duren: So it flows all this way here - straight through.
Mr. Giner: It flows all the way down through the back here and this one shows the driveway.
Commissioner Duren: Was this all approved by Wetlands?
Mr. Giner: There's no wetlands.
Commissioner Egan: There's wetlands down there. There was a wetland permit. They were told to get the rights to go under those tracks. There was a condition on the Inland Wetlands permit because I was on the Inland Wetlands Commission at the time. And if they didn't get that right to go under that track, they were supposed to go back to the Inland Wetlands. That was a condition and I remember the permit sitting right there and it said that application will come back if they don't get it. They apparently didn't get it because they're not going under the tracks.
Audience member: This topography that you are looking at is not what is on the property today. I do not have a 4' drop from here to my house. It's more like 12'. I do not have a 6' drop from the porch to the road. It is more like 15'.
Commissioner Egan: When they couldn't go under the tracks, then they had to do something with the water to keep it from reaching maximum speed down here to wash out the railroad tracks. They kept it up here versus down there because they were going to wash out the railroad tracks and they would be in trouble with the railroad. They were supposed to get permission to go under those tracks.
Commissioner Duren: Well, pull the file. We need it, too, because that's part of the equation.
Chairman DiPace: Will the speakers please give their name and address for the record.
Kathy Strudelmeyer, 5 Grandview Drive: My name is Kathy Strudelmeyer. I live at 5 Grandview Drive. I just have a question for you guys. Would you want to or would you want your family to live in any one of those houses with the lots like that - put your hard earned money into that?
Chairman DiPace: This is not going to be a question and answer type thing. We want to hear your concerns. We want to gather information and we want to get staff to get us some answers and information and we're going to see what we have to do. Basically it's going to come down to number one, the 8-24 referral to the Town Council as far as accepting the public improvements. If the public improvements are not as we approved them, then we need to find out why that information wasn't given to us and what needs to be done to resolve these problems.
Kathy Strudelmeyer: We still have like three spots in our yard - I'm #5 - and we still have three spots in our yard that are standing water right now. Our concern is we just want to be able to use our back yards. We want to be able - when my husband goes out to mow the lawn, I don't know how many times we had to get pieces of wood and put them underneath the lawnmower and try to pry the lawnmower out of the mud. I would like to be able to have picnics in my backyard and not worry about mosquitos and West Nile virus. There are a lot of concerns - a lot of health concerns - and, basically, we just want to be able to use our backyards. That's all.
Kathy Stevens, 7 Grandview Drive: My name is Kathy Stevens. I live at #7 Grandview Drive. I have a couple of questions that have yet to be answered and maybe we can have Mr. Giner look into those. First of all, on a lot of these maps that I have that I have gotten copies of from the town it states right on it that it is not in an inland wetlands area. I'm trying to find the exact quoting here. "A parcel is not located in inland wetlands as shown on the Town of Enfield Inland Wetlands map. But yet we had a wetlands permit for that. So I was curious about that.
The other thing is that tape that you saw. It was a very impressive tape and I don't think any of you can deny that. However, that was one storm and it did happen to be a bad storm as Mr. Giner had researched. It's funny he has time to research that but he can't get the information that we've been asking for since November. At any rate, I just would like to know what is going on here and why these problems can't be addressed. Why we're being told tonight that it's normal for water to run down a driveway in sheets. It runs down my driveway. It runs down hers. It runs down the people's driveway next to me. You've seen some pictures that I've taken. There is water up against one of the foundations within probably three feet. That storm drain is all eroded. Where's that water going? Does anybody know? It's not going into the pipe or into the drain. It's supposed to go out to the street. It's sitting in the ground around her foundation making a crack in her wall. This is not right. We've spent a lot of money and we're paying hefty taxes and we're getting nothing in return. We need some support from this Commission to help us out and Mr. Giner needs to get going and get the information that you people have asked for so that you can see it. I can't believe that many of you didn't see that tape that has been here since November. That's ridiculous. If he's not getting the information you need, how are you supposed to help us out? It doesn't make any sense.
Also, I have another question here. In my letter dated June 20, 2003 sent to Mr. Jeff Bord, Town Engineer, Jose Giner, Enfield Town Planner, Neil Angus, Wetlands, Enfield Department of Public Health, Jack Kazmarski, Director of Public Works, and my attorney, which I never got a response from anybody. Mr. Giner will tell you oh, yes, he was out there to talk to me. The only reason he came to talk to me was because I flagged him down at Camidge's house. He had no intention of coming to talk to me that day. I had to go get him and drag him and Mr. Cabbibo to my house.
Chairman DiPace: I don't want to have any personal attacks. I want to know what we need to do. We are trying to see what we can do to resolve getting these problems fixed.
Kathy Stevens: Okay. One of my questions is why when those drainage issues and given the topography of this area - it really doesn't take somebody to figure it out. The water is going to flow the path of least resistance. Why weren't those issues addressed before construction was started and why have we ended up in the position that we're in? That has not been answered either.
The other question I have is it doesn't seem to be that in accordance with some of the things I've read, there's supposed to be at least four inches of topsoil. I challenge anybody to go out there and try to find me four inches of topsoil on these lots. I think that is a lot of the problem. The topsoil is not there and now we're dealing with clay which as you all know when it gets wet and when it gets hard, it's just a bed for a river. That stuff is not being absorbed anywhere. And it's just sitting there like that. And that is one of the big issues. You can actually see in my yard where it is actually carved out like a bowl. To me, I think if the topsoil were there, we would have a little bit better control over this water runoff. And the water does drain down the sides of the yards, cross the driveway, over the curb and into the street. There is a third drain between number three and number five that is not fed into a sewer and just sits there out into the grass which may contribute to the puddle at the end of her driveway. So maybe that is something we can look into too. Thank you.
Todd Chevalier, 15 Grandview: My name is Todd Chevalier. I live on 15 Grandview Drive. I just want to discuss a couple of things. On my property I lost about four feet of property in the rear of my property due to the erosion from the water. The tape with the bad rain storm was one incident but every time it rains, my back yard becomes a swamp and it can't be mowed. You can't walk on it or you sink and it takes weeks to dry out. We are paying big taxes and we can't really use our property in our back yards. It is a concern of mine that I bought a $400,000 house and cannot use my back yard. That is pretty much it.
Sandra Sargeant, 9 Grandview Drive: We were one of the properties they had attempted to fix. We are Lot #5 originally but #9 Grandview Drive. They came and first they put a swale in the back. That didn't work. The pictures that you have - the front of the one that Kathy passed around - that's our property. That's in our back yard. The last rainfall we had a couple of weeks ago when we had snow and then it rained, well, because of the water against the back of our foundation in the back yard, we have a big crack in the foundation of the basement and water came into our basement. My husband had to fix it. We have been calling the builder so many times and getting no response so he said he was not even going to bother to call. He just fixed it. But it is a big crack. That was one of the things when we bought the property that we asked because we had that problem on another property. He assured us that that would never happen with our property because of whatever he did around the basement. There's a hole right down the middle of the wall. I think it is a direct result of the water to the back freezing. We have about one-half inch of water in the basement. That is my concern. My husband couldn't be here tonight but we want to see what can be done. I know they have done of couple of things but what they have done is not working. They need to address it again.
Gerry LaPearle, 11 Grandview Drive: Good evening. I'm Gerry LaPearle, 11 Grandview Drive. Mel Gibson won't have to worry about me doing any media filming for sure. I'm sorry for some of the shakiness on that but it may not be the Passion of the Christ but it was the Passion of Grandview Drive. We have all invested a lot of our time and money into buying these homes. I heard you talking passionately about building up the Thompsonville area and that's great. Every one of us here took a chance on coming to the Town of Enfield and building a very expensive home. Enfield is not known for a lot of expensive homes but there we are - kind of trail blazing ourselves. And none of us are executives. We're all hard working people. We all have two jobs to try to support these homes. And it's too bad that we can't use the yards the way we want to.
However, I want to address the issue of why we're here. This 8-24 in terms of releasing the bond for water dumping into the street. You've seen a lot of water in the back of the property. However, as I've shown on the end of that video, walking up the end of my own driveway, the water is sheeting down that driveway and into the street. That coupled with the regular rain and all the other drains that have been put in without any approval by you folks compounding that. During the video, I walked down to the end of the street and I didn't shoot it but I was curious to see how much water was ending up at the last basin. When I looked down there and heard the rush of water and saw the literally thousands of gallons that were pouring into that, I was pretty surprised. Can it handle it? I don't know. I'm not an engineer and I hope that that document comes to you very shortly as well. But I am concerned with the amount of water that is being generated throughout all the properties. On the cul de sac, unfortunately, one of our neighbors couldn't be here tonight, but as you are going down the street, on the right hand side of the cul de sac, that is where it is puddling. Supposedly we are going to get that fixed and none of us have heard or seen any of those plans and what that remedy is. Is it just repaving with a different slant? Is it actually going to be putting in another basin and then having that drain over into one at the other end of the cul de sac, we don't know. I don't know if you folks know that either. But, I'm trying to address the issues of the actual bond release and the video, I hope, went a long way in explaining that. All the other concerns are something that we feel very strongly about and I'm with Mr. Duren who says why can't we just fix this. Thank you.
Karen Camidge, 10 Grandview: You guys have heard me before. My issues are different. We are across the street from the water. Our contention is the town approved certain topographical plans. We didn't get what was approved by the town. We were the last home built. There was no grading of our property done which has caused some erosion - not water per say problems but we have six, five and four foot wide erosions across our property because of the way the property was graded and the property around us was graded. I would like the entire subdivision to be reviewed to compare it to what was approved by the Town to see if they were in conformance with what was approved. I have been told by the surveyor that the developer does not have to comply with what was approved by the town. My question to the Commission is then why do you spend the money to approve the site plan if you are not going to hold the developer accountable for that.
Reg Leonard, 42 Fairfield: Reg Leonard. You've heard me before. I'm at 42 Fairfield Road. I came before you six months ago after all other avenues were explored - the town, certain departments, etc. I knew exactly what was presented to the town. I have receipts for it all. I submitted it for you people to look at. Apparently, not too much got down to you other than what I handed out possibly to you or sent to your houses because one day I heard Mr. Lefakis say how come I didn't get this map and how come this one didn't get this. I started sending them to your houses so you would get them.
The second thing is if you had seen what was in the file dating back from September, no way - my own opinion - would you be justified to release $300,000 to Mr. Spazzarini. I don't think you would have done that. You did that and you now have $45,000 in escrow to fix this problem. Regulations are out there. There are two regulations if you read them and any lawyer I will challenge. Those two regulations that Mr. Egan so eloquently stated twice, I presented them to the town, to the Town Council, to Mr. Giner, to you people. They protect the homeowner and that is all we're trying to get. All we're trying to do is to be treated fairly. Thank you for any help you can give us.
Bob Stevens, 7 Grandview Drive: Good evening Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the Commission. My name is Bob Stevens. I live at 7 Grandview Drive. I have also lived in the Town of Enfield for 26 years. First off, I would like to thank Mr. Spazzarini for his attempts at rectifying the problem. It was gracious of him and I know he didn't have to do it. There was nothing forcing him to try and rectify the drainage problems to the rear of our house. In my 26 years in Enfield, if memory serves me correctly, Enfield Gardens was a greenhouse and farming area. As such, there should be some absolutely terrific soil in there. One way I think we could rectify the problem is if we did a soil analysis. There is no topsoil in my backyard or my neighbors'. Red clay and rock do not constitute topsoil. I believe the zoning ordinances - and I may be wrong - reflect that four inches of topsoil should be returned if removed from building areas. A soil analysis, I believe, would show that there is no topsoil in our yards. You have to use a pick ax to plant flowers. You're not going through topsoil. In Wethersfield, when I was a child, we would dig down deeper than all get out. We couldn't do that in our backyards because there's no topsoil. I believe a soil analysis would show that. The water would probably flow pretty well through topsoil. It won't flow through red clay and rock. I think that would be a start. I thank you for your time, ladies and gentlemen.
Chairman DiPace: Jose, I have a question. I have heard that a lot tonight as far as topsoil. Who would actually go out there and how do we do that as far as inspecting to verify that there's four inches of topsoil. Do we take the developer's word for it? Does anyone go out there to inspect and see?
Mr. Giner: Part of the problem is I am trying to be the middle man. The Town Engineer and the Zoning Enforcement Officer are the ones that inspect the project during construction. The Zoning Officer usually looks at it and makes sure all the zoning issues are done. The grading, sediment and erosion plans are all looked at by the Town Engineer and we rely on their inspections and reports. I don't know what methodology they use. I imagine if they go out and they see some grass growing and the site stabilized, they assume there's enough topsoil. I don't know if they actually go out and measure.
Chairman DiPace: Our regulations call for four inches of topsoil minimum. I would like to see - whether it be Jeff or Wayne or whoever we need to send out there - I would like somebody to go out there. Get permission from the homeowner and walk down through the backyards with a small shovel and check and see what we've got. If we don't have four inches of topsoil there, I want the builder who built these houses and did this project here before us as soon as possible. I want to know why it is not done right. I want to know where we are at. I want the Town Attorney here and I want to know what bond we can pull. I want it fixed. I want it to meet the requirements of a minimum of four inches. They're right. Topsoil will drain. Clay will not. If they are not meeting our requirements, it is high time we put our foot down.
Commissioner Egan: Mr. Chairman, I think I asked that probably the first or the second meeting that we had. We have authorization to hire an independent engineer and I would suggest that we implement that provision of our regulations. It seems the Town Engineer - one day it is one way and one day it is another way. It depends. I think in fairness to the homeowners and in fairness to the Commission, I think that we should take advantage of those regulations and hire an independent engineer or a soil scientist to do an assessment. We don't need a full engineer if we're looking for what types of soils are there. We can use a soil scientist to do that and it's not going to be that costly, I'm sure. I would make a motion that we do that at the appropriate time. I asked for that in January and I make a motion that we hire an independent soil scientist to do an analysis of Grandview Drive as to the soils on each of those building lots to come up with the cover of the material that is there and the depth of the soils and that this be done with the permission of the homeowners.
Chairman DiPace: Jose, do we have the funds available to do that or do we need permission from the Council?
Mr. Giner: You probably need to go to the Council because all the budgets were cut last year. We used to have -
Audience Member: Take it out of the donut fund.
Mr. Giner: I don't think we even have that any more.
Chairman DiPace: The Council is leaving on Saturday morning for Washington. If we can get something together to get to them for their next Council meeting, so that we can move on this.
Mr. Giner: They are meeting a week from Monday, I believe.
Chairman DiPace: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Commissioner Krebs: I second it.
Chairman DiPace: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
Commissioner Duren: I would like to see it include the water flow too. Take it out of house and take it really out of the Town of Enfield and get some other expert. We haven't gotten any answers from anybody.
Chairman DiPace: But that's the main reason why. And I specified in my wording to send Jeff out to take a look. As far as the soil, yes, I agree. I would like them to go out and tell us. Dig through some of the random spots through the backyards and verify that we have a minimum of 4" of topsoil. If there is not, I would like it reported back to us from them so that we know what we have there. If we don' have 4", I want to take the next step and find out why we don't. We need to start making sure that we're getting that. Topsoil will drain. Clay will not. I agree that we need that soil analysis. In the meantime, we could also have Jeff go out there and take a look and see what he can come up with. If he reports back to us and says it is close or it is this or it is that - let's continue on with our motion and vote on it right here and now. If he says no, there's a problem there. Either way, we're still going to have a soil scientist go out there and verify what's there and tell us so that we have a leg to stand on.
Commissioner Duren: I would like to see a hydraulic in there too.
Commissioner Egan: One other comment. I think it disturbed me to see that water going down the back of those houses. Just for a point of information, I was on the Inland Wetlands Commission when that project came before the Wetlands Commission. To answer your question why it was there, it was the impact on the river and the other streams. It wasn't in the wetlands but there was an impact. There was a condition in the permit and I don't know because I had gotten off the Commission shortly after and I'm not sure if the condition was removed. But, I had made a motion to get them to get permission to run that water under the railroad tracks into the river. I noticed just tonight that that is not the case. Their attorney made a representation at a public hearing that if they were not going to get permission from the railroad to run that drainage where those rocks are - and they had to make a change there too because the water was coming down too fast. They knew exactly that they had a water problem. If they weren't going to get the permission of the railroad to go under the tracks, they were to come back to the Inland Wetlands Commission and it would be open for discussion again. So I don't know if they did that quite honestly but that was a condition in the permit that was issued. After seeing that video, now I understand. They are trying to back up the water so that it doesn't rush down and wash out the railroad tracks. But it seems to be washing out the yards. So there was a modification and I don't think even Wetlands was aware of that modification. But we could check and give the developer the benefit of the doubt there. It may have been changed. But I know that that condition was in that permit.
Chairman DiPace: We have a motion and we have a second. Is there any other discussion? All those in favor? (The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Nicles Lefakis voting.)
Attorney Michael Rice: Good evening. I'm Michael Rice from Jacobs, Walker, Rice and Basch from Manchester, Connecticut. We're here representing Spazzarini Construction. With me is Mr. Ed Spazzarini, President of Spazzarini Construction.
I'm not the original attorney. I tried my best to get up to speed on what had happened at the previous meetings out here. I had a prepared text but I did want to address a couple of issues to start off with because some of these items are just as new to us as they are to you. We just found out yesterday afternoon that this was going on and that there was some presentation of the tape and some other material on Monday night. We are not privy to any of what you have looked at. We haven't seen any of that. We certainly haven't seen the video. But I do want to bring the focus of this discussion a little bit back to what we are asking the Commission to do and that is to accept a road. We looked at all the information that's been gathered tonight and what we've seen so far is we've seen water flowing down the back of people's yards. We have heard stories about the foundation erosions. We have heard about water running from property down to the road which is apparently the way it was supposed to go but we have heard nothing with respect to the defects that supposedly are inherent in the road which we are asking the town to accept.
We acknowledge that there are a couple of problems one of which we thought was fixed. Now, there were two issues originally on the Planning and Zoning agenda. The cul de sac issue which we could not address at the time because the asphalt plants were closed and which we fully intend to address as soon as that is no longer an issue and one of the puddlings that occurred at the apron to #5 Grandview. The matter at the end of #5 was addressed by using an infrared technique to try to regrade that driveway portion of the road so that it would drain appropriately. We have just now found out that that has not, in fact, occurred. But that's the first time that we've heard of it. We've never thought that we would never go back and correct those two problems on the road and we will. Now, instead of reading necessarily the entire prepared text, the most recent work that has been done on the property apparently is at the end of #5 which has not worked and which we will, of course, fix. But the grading for the runoff issues which are behind the property which is the focus of everybody this evening is not part of what we believe the P&Z should be considering when accepting this road.
Chairman DiPace: Let's back up a second. Which meeting did you miss tonight? Didn't you understand when we talked about the drains from the backyard going out into the public right of way under the sewer system and into the road. So it's draining into the road. That connection was done without our approval. You can go out and disconnect them and take them out and then we don't have to worry about the drainage in the back yard tying into the roads. That was done without our permission - illegally.
Attorney Rice: That was done to try to accommodate the problem that the property owner had.
Mr. Ed Spazzarini: There are also cellar drains that all tie into the public system. We basically added what was already there. We ran a pipe up to the side of the house. We were trying to alleviate some of the water down the hill.
Chairman DiPace: But those were added in and those weren't on our plans.
Mr. Spazzarini: On your plans there are shown pipes extending out of those catch basins for provisions to catch the water from the houses.
Chairman DiPace: Water from the houses but these are out in the middle of the yards.
Mr. Spazzarini: There are pipes shown on the plans.
Chairman DiPace: Did you see the picture of that one that is washed out that was put in?
Mr. Spazzarini: Why that is, Commissioner DiPace, is it was done after that storm and the grass really didn't have time to get established. We would certainly go back and repair that. It eroded because the grass didn't have the time to establish.
Chairman DiPace: We have this here from our Town Engineer and he's saying that due to the new connection lines to the system from the rear yards, based on the drainage study, the main system that the new line connects in the street to should be sufficient but we might want to require the developer's engineer to verify the capacity through a written report. Well, that's basically what we need to see. We need to see what is draining into there, how much is going to drain into there and can this system hold it. We're hearing it wasn't before the storm and we're hearing it was. We don't know whether it was or wasn't but we need the calculations. We need a civil engineer to say that yes, it can handle it. Once we accept this and we say okay it is supposed to hold this and it fails, who is responsible - the town. And that's why we need somebody to say yes, it can hold it or no it can not. And if that's the case, then we need to know what can fix it. We need somebody to tell us that - a civil engineer. It's not going to be the Town Engineer. It's going to be a civil engineer and it has to be through a written report just like our Town Engineer is asking for. This is a memo from him dated today.
Attorney Rice: I didn't see that before tonight's meeting.
Chairman DiPace: I think there are still outstanding concerns. You know that's a lot of water running down through the backyards. There are a lot of concerns here and we're going to take them very seriously. Like we said, we're going to send out a soil scientist to verify that. We know you only did the roads but we're going to verify that whoever did the houses met our requirements. And if they didn't, we're going to take appropriate action.
Attorney Rice: We wanted the P&Z to also recognize that what we are trying to do is get the road accepted and that we have been operating in good faith to put the road into an appropriate situation where it can be accepted. We are not creating a water problem on the rear of these properties and that is not something that is our responsibility.
Chairman DiPace: Right. But if there's new water draining into these, we need to see where these pipes are. We need them on the plans and we also need a written report from an engineer stating the flow, what it can handle, what the capacity is and that it's going to be okay. We need that and you're going to have to sit down with Jose and John Cabbibo.
Commissioner Weseliza: This is new to me, too, but it appears that Mr. Spazzarini is trying to accommodate what the builder should have done. Do I not have that right?
Chairman DiPace: Well, we have two separate issues. We have one issue regarding the backyards. That is what I tried to explain to the Council the other night. There are two separate issues. The backyard is one issue. We are going to take up all of these issues but we need to break them down. The 8-24 is the public improvements or the road. The road and the system underneath the road. Now, there were lines that were tied into it that were not on our plans.
Commissioner Weseliza: Okay.
Chairman DiPace: We need to know that they're tied in and where they are for the future. We also need something from a civil engineer stating that this system can handle whatever is going to flow through or the additional drainage.
Mr. Spazzarini: The homebuilder did contract me to put those in. Their homebuilder actually hired me to try to alleviate some of these problems.
Commissioner Weseliza: Wouldn't it have been easier for them to just dump some dirt back there.
Chairman DiPace: He contracted you to do that but you also dumped it into the road.
Mr. Spazzarini: I understand. We'll get that for you.
Chairman DiPace: We're going to need that.
Commissioner Egan: I just want to maybe give some thought here as to why this water problem is not a problem that relates to the roads. It doesn't relate to any of the public improvements. Let me - what is going to happen in correcting whatever water problem is there could be an impact on the road so there is some relationship to that water rushing down the backyard. The other thing is there were drainage calculations done for various - this one you got away without a retention basin and that was because the water was going to flow down actually between the two houses there at the end of the cul de sac. That was open space that was given to the Town of Enfield. When whoever, the developer, realized that they had this water flow to deal with, they took that and they put all that rip rap in there. That's why the rip rap got there. It was because the flow of water was coming out. That was supposed to be a nice path and trail and people were supposed to go down there and it was to be a recreation area. But that's basically what developers do - give the town the junk and the liability but that was made a representation. There was going to be a walkway down there. All these representations were made that these things were going to happen. But the thing is the road - the water has a relationship because it has a drainage impact on the Town of Enfield's land. So there is a relationship between that water going down the back, the road and the Town of Enfield now that you have deeded over this wonderful rock pile.
Attorney Rice: Excuse me. It wasn't us that deeded over anything.
Commissioner Egan: Well, Mr. Spazzarini owned that property and sold it to the developer at the time. Mr. Spazzarini is the one that came in. That's neither here nor there. But just to outline to you that you're trying to separate the two issues but there is an impact on both in my mind.
Chairman DiPace: So, basically, you need to sit down with the Town Engineer and find out exactly what the flow capacity is and what it can handle and all that. We need drawings showing where those drains are so that we have them on the plans.
Mr. Spazzarini: We will take care of that. Thank you.
Chairman DiPace: Are we clear as far as what we need.
Mr. Giner: Yes. I'll send the Minutes word for word to the Town Engineer. I'll ask Neil to get an estimate regarding a soil scientist and find out how much that would cost.
Commissioner Duren: While you're at it, look at how much water.
Kathy Stevens: In the pictures, they are all dated. The initial swale was done in May. In July, they put in the pipes and the storm was in September. The pictures are all dated.
Chairman DiPace: Okay. We will consider the next item.
During the previous discussion, Commissioner Egan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, that the Commission hire an independent soil scientist to do an analysis of Grandview Drive as to the soils in each of those building lots. The analysis should include the cover of the material that is there and the depth of the soils and should be done with the permission of the homeowners. Commissioner Duren made a request to include the water flow in the analysis. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Commissioner Lefakis voting.
APPLICATIONS TO BE ACCEPTED
The following applications were accepted by the Commission:
PH #2432 - Application for amendment to Enfield Zoning Ordinance regarding A-Frame Signs in Business General and Business Local District by the Enfield Planning & Zoning Commission.
SPR #1247.02 - Application for modification to landscape plan on vacant lot at 53 Pearl Street, Zoned TV, Map 24, Lot 81, Michael Deming, Applicant/Owner.
The Commission took action on this application tonight.
SPR #1258 - Application for an addition and renovation to an office building at 135 Freshwater Blvd, Zoned I-P, Map 56, Lot 24, Charles T. Schmitt, Applicant / John Puccio, Owner.
SPR #1259 - Application to split existing two floor structure from one tenant to two - Top floor retail or office, ground level, Zoned BL, Map 34, Lot 161, Brian Torpey, Applicant/Owner.
The Commission requested that this application be changed to a public hearing because of the residential homes in the area and the possibility of a request by this applicant to increase the parking.
This public hearing will be scheduled for the first meeting in May.
SPR #1260 - Application for modification of approved plans at 524 Enfield Street (Enfield Pizza Palace)for an awning with signing on the building, Zoned BL, Map 33, Lot 65, Leisure Time Canvas, Applicant / J. B. Balis, LLC, Owner.
The Commission requested that the application regarding Tractor Supply Company that Mr. Giner referred to earlier in tonight's agenda appear before the Commission on their April 1, 2004 agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|