|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 19, 2004
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, February 19, 2004, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820
Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Anthony DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Charles Duren
Robert Egan
James Hickey, Jr.
Karen Krebs
Jeffrey Cooper
Samuel McGill, Alternate
Nicles Lefakis, Alternate (arrived at 9:15 p.m.)
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of correspondence from the Town Clerk's Office notifying the Commission that Kathleen Sarno has been appointed as an Alternate to this Commission.
Chairman DiPace recommended that Alternates serve on the Commission on a monthly basis in alphabetical order. This would mean January was Commissioner Lefakis, February is Samuel McGill and March would be Kathleen Sarno should alternates be required. Mr. Giner was uncertain if the appointment of Ms. Sarno was effective immediately and he will check on this.
Following a request from Mr. Giner, Commissioners DiPace, Duren, Egan, Hickey and Cooper confirmed their attendance at the Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies Annual Dinner on March 18, 2004. Mr. Giner will also notify this organization of the length of service of Commissioners DiPace, Duren and Lefakis.
Commissioner Duren noted the Commission received a communication about Old Maple Road. Mr. Giner stated this is not a road but an easement that runs across people's back yards. Commissioner Duren stated the Council addressed this easement years ago and part of this road is in Longmeadow. It used to run between Washington Road and Maple Road and when the condo built their entrance, they took part of this road. Chairman DiPace stated the request was to put this street on the map so that the residents can qualify for a street sign.
COMMISSIONERS' CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace noted there is a special meeting scheduled for March 25, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. which will be a joint meeting with the Town Council and members of the various town boards and commissions.
Chairman DiPace brought up the fees in lieu of open space and the fact that the Enfield Conservation Commission is listed as the lead agency regarding the fee in lieu of open space. Chairman DiPace questioned if this should be the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission's account. Mr. Giner confirmed it is a town account because it is a mixed account. However, this Commission does have a say as to how this money is spent under the 8-24 process. The Conservation Commission would be involved in identifying land parcels.
Chairman DiPace stated he was involved in the process to begin collecting fees in lieu of open space which was put in place around 1990. He wanted to confirm that this Commission has a say in how those funds are used. Mr. Giner stated that was part of the Plan of the Conservation and Development. He is asking the various town board members to review the Plan. He did get a request from the Board of Education for those sections which are pertinent to that Board.
Chairman DiPace stated additional correspondence includes a copy of the wetlands permit issued to 170 Hazard Avenue. Mr. Giner stated this was approved some time ago and what is proposed is a scaled down version of the original approval. The Wetlands Commission did act on this application and it will be before this Commission for a site plan review in the near future.
Chairman DiPace shared with the Commission the handbook from the Town of Coventry to assist applicants when they first come to the town with an application. He asked if Mr. Giner could come up with something similar to this for use in the Town of Enfield. Mr. Giner stated one has been done for Wetlands and there are some outdated ones for this Commission which could be revised. Mr. Giner stated one of the goals of the Planning Department is to come up with such a guide for applicants.
Commissioner Duren reported LIA apparently has not gotten the message out to all their truckers because he witnessed a truck unloading yesterday at 6:30 p.m. on Palomba Drive in front of the Honda dealership. Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Giner contact the Traffic Safety Officer regarding the posting of "no unloading" signs on Palomba Drive. Some discussion followed in which Commissioner Krebs noted this unloading of vehicles on Palomba is a continual occurrence. Commissioner Lefakis asked that Enfield Street also be considered for such signs. Chairman DiPace stated such signs for Enfield Street have been requested previously.
OLD BUSINESS
a. SPR #1245 - Application to place Nailite panels (imitation hand-cut stone) on exterior facade. Also, placement of two (2) awnings on exterior entrances as well as additionally two (2) signs above windows facing Alden Avenue, one entrance (facing Alden Avenue) permanently closed, at 4 Alden Ave., Zoned TV, Map 27, Lot 99, Jan Fijolek, Applicant/Owner. Deadline for Decision - February 19, 2004 meeting - no more extensions possible.
Jan Fijolek, 38 Old King Street, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Giner reported there were some renovations made to the facade at 4 Alden Avenue. The Zoning Enforcement Officer then issued a cease and desist order which started the process of Mr. Fijolek coming in and attempting to gain approval after the fact for the facade modifications.
Mr. Giner stated the intent was that Mr. Fijolek was to meet with the Enfield Revitalization and Strategy Commission to come up with an architecturally appropriate design for the renovation of the facade at 4 Alden Avenue. Mr. Giner stated the Commission received tonight colored pictures showing options that were agreed upon at the ERSC meeting. Mr. Giner referred to his memo which references the document that resulted at the ERSC meeting.
Mr. Giner stated what staff is suggesting is this Commission can modify and approve an application in accordance with the referenced document and the proposed conditions. The proposal includes a one-year time period to complete all the requirements. Mr. Giner stated Roger Alsbaugh who worked very diligently on this proposal is present tonight to respond to Commission questions.
Chairman DiPace asked if the color schemes shown reflect the exact colors. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the color schemes represent recommendations that are to point out that a consistent compatible theme should be produced throughout the entire structure rather than bit by bit.
Chairman DiPace stated the usual procedure with such approvals is that the Commission is given color samples for the file so that the Commission can determine if the colors are as approved. He noted it would be difficult to match these colors to the final project. Commissioner Krebs agreed that the Commission should be provided with exact colors.
Chairman DiPace stated it is necessary for the Commission to make a decision tonight.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the question regarding the colors is whether the Commission agrees with the use of the traditional maroon and hunter green. The sketches reflect computer generated colors and are not total accurate regarding the true color.
Chairman DiPace stated if this application is approved tonight, it should be done with the condition that the applicant or his representative return to the Commission's next meeting and provide color samples prior to the painting being done.
Commissioner Duren asked about the process and when the applicant removes the Nailite panels, what would remain on the exterior. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the applicant would restore the underlying conditions. The intent of the project plan is not to force an expensive restoration project but only to properly bring back the underlying design elements with the least amount of expense. The Nailite is over the original molding trim panels under the windows and, in one instance, over the window space that was proposed to be installed in the 1996 plan where a recessed doorway originally existed.
Commissioner Duren referenced page 3 of 11 and noted under the columns that are to the left and right of the entrances, there is marble under the brick. Mr. Alsbaugh stated originally they all had the marble at the bottom. All but two of the original ones have been removed. Commissioner Duren stated the columns are standing there and are unsupported at this time. He asked what is planned for the columns.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated there are three recommendations and staff recommends Option A under Section 5 on page 5. This is an optional project component. Mr. Fijolek mentioned the problems with the marble slabs and he wanted to remove the marble and infill with brick. Commissioner Duren asked where the marble has gone and Mr. Fijolek reported it was vandalized. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the marble slabs were not maintained properly over the years and the original slabs were not applied very well resulting in the marble not being permanently anchored to the wall. Mr. Fijolek stated the marble has been there since the 1970's and maybe earlier.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the marble is original to the building and the general purpose of the marble at that height was to protect the brick work from road salts. One of the remaining two slabs slants out from the wall and cement was just poured down behind it as a fix.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the work on the columns is an option for Mr. Fijolek. If he decides this evening that he wants to do it, this is the recommended way to achieve that as part of the project. The transom windows and the first floor cornice bands over the actual spaces are just a part of the discussion and there are no changes recommended for those areas.
Chairman DiPace asked about the elements shown on page three. Mr. Alsbaugh stated what is seen hanging out is part of the old cement stoop. In the right hand panel in the area with lattice, there was some sort of air vent system.
Chairman DiPace asked if the entrance with the notch is the location of the shoemaker that was at this location for many years. Mr. Fijolek confirmed that was the area and it was later used as a handicapped bathroom.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the point of the red outline on the plan is to identify the correct way to close off that doorway, as was proposed and approved in 1996, which was to maintain the glass facade of the structure and not to infill it with wood, paneling or other materials.
Chairman DiPace identified an area on the plan and asked what is on the other side of this wall. Mr. Fijolek stated that is presently some storage space and a handicapped bathroom. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he saw a previous plan and there was nothing indicated that the area would have a handicapped bathroom. If it was being proposed there and it was going to affect the facade of the building, it would still have to come to this Commission for approval. Mr. Alsbaugh suspected there would have been a negative reaction from the ERSC if the exterior facade of that first floor was going to be proposed to be closed in permanently without the historic window arrangement.
Commissioner Hickey asked if any of the historic agencies such as the Connecticut Trust had any review of this project. Mr. Alsbaugh responded the staff circuit rider who is the architectural historian reviewed all the documentation of the structure. She has seen the structure a number of times and did submit a letter the Commission received that recommends the return of the structure to the previously existing conditions.
Mr. Alsbaugh emphasized this is not a forced restoration. What the staff is requesting is the return of the original conditions with as practical an upgrade as the applicant can do to correct the violation. A restoration would be a much more extensive project.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the recommendation from the ERSC in concert with working with Ray Warren from Economic Development was to organize this project in such a way where it would not be burdensome on Mr. Fijolek at any one particular time and allow him to spread out the work to return the facade to the previously existing conditions. Money has been expended for the work that was done without the permits and everyone involved wanted to provide a mechanism for Mr. Fijolek to complete the work in a way that would be fiscally responsible.
Commissioner Cooper had a concern if the Nailite panels are removed, what will be on the existing exterior. If there is no time line on the proposed improvements, the result could be something worse than what is existing. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there is a clear project and, if approved, that is what would be done. The work would require building permits and inspections to check on the progress. A short-term time line was not included for this project because it could be overly burdensome to the property owner.
Commissioner Krebs stated the Commission has received a fifteen-page report just this evening and is being asked to make a decision tonight. She, personally, is not comfortable voting on this tonight and would like additional time to review this report. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the report is eleven pages and much of the dialogue is background material. He requested that the Commission take some time and read this report.
Chairman DiPace stated the ERSC meeting was February 12 yet this Commission only received the final report tonight. He agreed about the need for additional review time.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the parties involved, Ray Warren, Mr. Fijolek and the ERSC, all agreed to put together something that Mr. Fijolek could accomplish. The Commission could impose any safeguards they feel are necessary.
Chairman DiPace felt some of the burden should have been put on the applicant to produce the plan because he is the one who created the violation. He added he was not in favor of voting on this application tonight without conditions and with what was just received tonight. Chairman DiPace saw a need for the colors to be presented to the Commission.
Some discussion followed regarding the proposed time frame for completion of the work. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there is a distinct time line of one year and that could be adjusted by the Commission.
Commissioner Egan stated it is really on the applicant to come forward and make some suggestions. There is a lot of work involved and the town staff has spent many hours on this analysis. Commissioner Egan noted the presentation states a review of these components supplies the applicant with a reasonable list of options to take under consideration. Commitment would have to be made by the applicant to do any one or a combination of the components. Commissioner Egan noted this Commission is not seeing any commitment to anything. He felt the applicant should be presenting something tonight. There is no other alternative at this time in his mind but to deny this application. In the interim, the outstanding violation should be pursued until something definitive is presented by the applicant to this Commission so that the Commission can make a decision.
Commissioner Hickey asked what is the plan for the ground floor of this building. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there is no current plan for the use. Mr. Fijolek stated the uses inside include a banquet hall upstairs and a small banquet hall downstairs. There is a deli store space on the corner and a storage area. Mr. Fijolek confirmed this is how he would propose to continue using the ground floor of this building.
Commissioner Duren stated in Mr. Giner's recommendation he includes that the restoration plan is to be accomplished by February, 2005 or in a year. However, there has been a lot of work done on this building and no one has noticed it. He asked who will supervise this project to make sure the applicant does what he is supposed to do and that it is done in a timely manner. Mr. Giner stated it would be a continuing violation until the work is completed. The Zoning Enforcement Officer would continue to monitor this to make sure there was progress. If there was no progress, the next step would be to go to court. Commissioner Duren further asked who is going to be the clerk of the works to make sure the proper materials are used.
Commissioner Duren requested a legal opinion. He stated he cannot vote on this tonight and he questioned if this application is denied tonight, where does that leave the applicant. Mr. Giner stated he would be able to reapply.
Commissioner Duren also stated he would like the marble restored.
Mr. Giner discussed the need for the Commission to act tonight to avoid an automatic approval.
Chairman DiPace asked Mr. Fijolek how long he has owned this building. He responded approximately two years. He took over the building from the Polish Home.
Chairman DiPace asked Mr. Fijolek if he had a plan at that time as to how he was going to develop the property. Mr. Fijolek stated he did not develop such a plan.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to modify and approve SPR #1245 - Application to place Nailite panels (imitation hand-cut stone) on exterior facade. Also, placement of two (2) awnings on exterior entrances as well as additionally two (2) signs above windows facing Alden Avenue, one entrance (facing Alden Avenue) permanently closed, at 4 Alden Ave., Zoned TV, Map 27, Lot 99, Jan Fijolek, Applicant/Owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the record and the following conditions:
Referenced Document
"APPLICATION SPR #1245 - 4 ALDEN AVENUE, NEW 'NAILITE' CLADDING ON THE FIRST FLOOR EXTERIOR / 2 NEW SIGNS / 2 NEW AWNINGS, JAN FIJOLEK, OWNER
OVERVIEW & LIMITED RESTORATION PROJECT, WITH OPTIONS, PLANNING DEPARTMENT & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF"
Conditions:
The restoration plan is to proceed as follows: (See referenced Document for more detailed findings and discussion)
1. Removal of 'Nailite' materials: Removal of this product in all locations, including the two doorways noted in footnote 1 of the Referenced Document (see pictures in Appendix I of the Referenced Document).
2. Restoration of previously existing conditions - 1: Restoring those conditions may simply involve replacing any moldings that were removed, patching any holes or deterioration, and a good prep and paint job. Color choices should remain in either the maroon/red or hunter green colors for the field and a complimentary color, if desired for moldings to highlight the architectural components. The pure white of the newly painted windows and trim on the upper floors and the first floor cornice trim should be avoided for use around the first floor windows and associated trim as that achieves the opposite effect.
3. Restoration of previously existing conditions - 2: The doorway between the two columns shown in the two pictures in item 3 on Page 4 of the Referenced Document was to have been closed off under the approved 1996 plan. Under that plan, the appropriate modification included the addition of two window panes in the previous door location with concurrent reconfiguration of the panels under all four windows (in red and brown at right for clarity). The appropriate design between the support columns should be windows common to commercial or office-type spaces as recommended in the referenced Document. The 'Nailite' panel is inappropriate.
4. New design elements for renovation of the two modified doorways: These doorways have been re-modified without permits, and therefore fall under the same concepts and plan agreements which the ERSC has reviewed and recommended to the PZC. An interim 'transition' plan for these two locations is recommended. It is obvious that the doors (as are the carriage-type lanterns) are intended for residential home use and are completely incompatible with the architecture of the commercial building. The lights shall be removed and a complete and appropriate façade lighting plan submitted for review and approval at a future date.
5. The associated areas surrounding the doors themselves shall be addressed. Insensitive modifications in the past have made the creation of reasonably priced renovation options more difficult to create. The recommendation for the associated areas surrounding the doors involves creating a sensitively compatible new panel and molding configuration around the door openings. CD staff has sketched this option (see Appendix II of the Referenced Document- sketches on photographs) with two possible color schemes. (Colors as printed do not faithfully reproduce and should only be used as guides.)
6. Should the applicant wish to do work on the first floor pilaster columns such work shall be in accordance with Option C outlined in Item #5 of the Referenced Document.
7. Work on the building shall be only in accordance with this approval and the recommendations in the Referenced Document. Any changes or deviations will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
8. The signs and awnings are not approved at this time since the request for new signs and awnings was not accompanied by design drawings, nor were they placed on elevation sheets that could be appropriately reviewed. Once the current restoration and design issues have been resolved, it is highly recommended that a complete and comprehensive plan for the entire building façade system including any sign or awning program be submitted.
9. All restoration shall be accomplished by February 19 , 2005.
10. 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.
11. Prior to painting of the building, the color chips shall be approved by the Commission.
The motion was denied by a 0 - 7 - 0 vote.
Chairman DiPace requested that this applicant reapply in order to give the Commission sufficient time to coordinate the proposed improvements with the ERSC, town staff and the owner of the building.
Commissioner Hickey felt the Commission and the Town is much better served by a proactive stance rather than a reactive stance.
b. SPR #1255 - Application for addition of 3,520 sq. ft. building; without additional parking and bituminous paving at 1518 Old King Street, Zoned R-44, Map 18, Lot 263, Catherine E. Perill, Building Comm., applicant/ Calvary Presbyterian Church of Enfield, owner. Deadline for Decision - March 25, (March 4 meeting).
Catherine Perill, a member of the Calvary Presbyterian Church, and Wayne Degoth, the architect for the Church, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Giner stated at the last meeting there were some issues with the Town Engineer and the Fire Marshal. They held a meeting this past Tuesday and the Church's architect agreed that there was additional pavement to be removed to equalize the site. Some minor revisions were made to the site plan to reflect this. Also, because the Wetlands Agent noticed that there was a stream off to the side, an administrative review was done and the church was granted an agent's permit. There is correspondence from the Fire Marshal confirming that he saw no site access issues or fire lane issues with the proposed addition. The Town Engineer is also now satisfied with the calculations.
Chairman DiPace read the recent email from the Fire Marshal and also noted the correspondence received tonight from Tom Barry with a copy to Ed Shirley. Chairman DiPace stated the fire lane is not part of the building plan and he saw the need for a condition to address this.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve SPR #1255 - Application for addition of 3,520 sq. ft. building; without additional parking and bituminous paving at 1518 Old King Street, Zoned R-44, Map 18, Lot 263, Catherine E. Perill, Building Comm., applicant/ Calvary Presbyterian Church of Enfield, owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans, as may be required to be modified by this motion, and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
"Proposed Addition to Building, Calvary Presbyterian Church of Enfield, Old King Road, Enfield, CT 06082-4613" Sheet P-1, Scale: "NOTED", by LP Consultants LLC. Dated 12-1-03, revised to 2/12/04.
"Calvary Christian Church, Enfield, Connecticut, Plans & Elevations" Sheet A-1, Scale: "AS NOTED", by Whitehead, Phillippi, & Harris, Inc., undated.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
2. The SPR file number "SPR #1255 " shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
3. A copy of these conditions shall be incorporated on the plans submitted for signing.
4. 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:
5. Two sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Development Department for signature of the Commission.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
6. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
7. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Director final as-built plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
General Conditions:
8. This approval is for the specific use and structure identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structure will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
9. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
10. A building permit for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained by February 19, 2005 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
11. 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.
12. The applicant shall meet the recommendations of Tom Barry as outlined in his memo of February 18, 2004 to Virginia Higley.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate McGill voting.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Preliminary discussion on possible North Maple Street Senior Residential Development pursuant to Section 4.40.1.
Sands Aeschliman of Aeschliman Land Surveying, PC, appeared before the Commission regarding an application for a proposed senior residential development on the east side of North Maple Street north of Lake Road and Westview Drive at the end of Mayfield Drive. Seventy-nine units are proposed on ninety-five acres. Approximately sixty acres of this site is buildable. They propose 2,600 feet of a private twenty-four foot road and there will be public water and sewer.
Mr. Aeschliman stated one of the reasons they are before the Commission tonight is their second access only has a forty-three and a half foot width. Mr. Giner suggested they come before the Commission to see if that is an item that can be waived or if they can just use it as an emergency access. Mr. Aeschliman stated the road they are proposing is twenty-four feet in width and with the forty-three and a half feet of access, that still leaves about a 9.75 foot snow shelf on each side. The normal cross section of road is between ten feet and thirteen feet on either side. They are, therefore, in the range.
Mr. Aeschliman stated they have contacted DEP and there are some concerns of endangered species. They are not moving ahead on that aspect until they get some direction from this Commission.
Chairman DiPace noted the town's regulations require a 50' right of way. Mr. Giner stated they are before the Commission tonight because the regulations require that they come in for a preliminary review. He added that in the regulations, page 31 under senior residential development, it states that the sidewalks, curbing and roadways have to be according to the town's technical subdivision regulations. With the subdivision regulations, the standards may be waived or altered by the Commission by a three-quarter vote. Mr. Giner stated when this road was set up, even though it is a private road, it was set up so that it would have to mirror the requirements of the subdivision regulations.
Chairman DiPace stated this application will also require a traffic study. Mr. Giner stated the applicants are looking for some direction regarding engineering preferences. One of these is the secondary means of egress. In the past, the Commission has allowed a longer length cul de sac if they had an emergency access. Mr. Giner stated he would think with the neighborhood immediately adjacent to this property, they would prefer that the traffic go out on to Mayfair towards North Maple rather than through the adjacent roadway system.
Following some discussion regarding the 1,200' cul de sac regulation, Mr. Aeschliman showed on the site plan that they are meeting the 1,200' regulation. Commissioner Duren stated the 1,200' would be just to the round and not to the furthest house. He had a concern about this long distance in case of an emergency situation. Mr. Aeschliman acknowledged to the homes themselves, the area is longer but the regulations state to roads.
Chairman DiPace stated one of the reasons the Town no longer has condominiums is the road widths were not built to town standards. Also, condominium owners all now want trash pickup and snow plowing. He stated the applicants can apply for this project but it will be at the Commission's discretion regarding the waiving of the 50'. Mr. Aeschliman stated there is a hardship. There is no other way of getting in and out of this site. There is an access but there is not the necessary footage.
In response to questions, Mr. Aeschliman stated Mayfair has an emergency access. Chairman DiPace asked how far it is from North Maple Street to the very rear of this project. Mr. Aeschliman was not certain of the exact distance from Mayfair to North Maple Street but he estimated a little over a quarter of a mile. Mr. Giner stated the applicant's point is that any use of this property would require some type of waiver on the access. Chairman DiPace also saw a challenge for the applicant with the Wetlands Commission. Commissioner Duren added there are at least three crossings.
Chairman DiPace asked if there was any way they could come in off West Shore Drive. Mr. Aeschliman stated that is private property and there is no connection. Commissioner Duren asked if there is any way to come in from East Longmeadow. Mr. Aeschliman stated there are no accesses or road right of ways at this time. Chairman DiPace suggested Cottage Road. Mr. Aeschliman stated Cottage Road is on the other side of Shaker Pines Lake.
Mr. Giner stated the emergency access is now just down the street. Mr. Aeschliman stated the emergency access is right down to West View off the cul de sac and that right of way is approximately 600'. Mr. Giner suggested utilizing that and instead of an emergency access to provide the access there because it is already built. Mr. Aeschliman stated they would not have the necessary 1,200'.
Commissioner Duren asked if they have checked this area on the maps and confirmed that there are no other right of ways. Mr. Giner stated the access they are showing is the only access. This was originally one piece of property. The original owner of this parcel was the church and the original proposal was to locate a cemetery on this property. Because of the high water table, it was decided this parcel was not appropriate for a cemetery.
Mr. Aeschliman explained the 43.5' is only at the property line. It widens out rapidly. Within 10', they would have the 50' right of way even though there is not going to be a right of way here because it is all a private road. Mr. Giner confirmed the first 10' would be 43' and then it would be 50' after that. Chairman DiPace stated that was strictly for emergency access. It was not made a permanent road. He felt if they plan to come back out as proposed, the residents will not welcome this. Mr. Aeschliman stated not many people go that way and it is much easier to go out to Mayfair. Further discussion of traffic routes followed.
Mr. Aeschliman reiterated during the discussion that there is no connection from West Shore to their property other than what they show on Westview.
Commissioner Egan asked about the path off West View and suggested the applicants negotiate for a few feet of property in that area. Mr. Aeschliman stated that is just a wheel track made by children in the area and it is not a road or a right of way. Chairman DiPace pointed out the gravel road shown on the map. Mr. Aeschliman stated that is private property and is not a right of way. Chairman DiPace stated if you follow that path down, it curves by the applicant's property line. Mr. Aeschliman stated #92 owns that property between the edge of West Shore and their property. Mr. Giner stated it is a gravel drive and when the properties were all subdivided off of that, that piece of land belonged to #92 and was not connected.
Chairman DiPace felt the applicant had other options. They could try West Shore and see if they can get an agreement to cross over there.
Mr. Aeschliman asked if the consensus if that this 43' access is not going to meet the town's requirements. Chairman DiPace confirmed that it does not meet the requirements. Commissioner Egan suggested the applicant explore some other alternatives.
b. Applications To Be Received
The following applications were received by the Commission:
PH #2430 - Application for a modification of plans previously approved for a 6 ft. x 8 ft. drive-thru pre-pay window addition, driveway modification and fascia change at 90 Elm Street, Zoned BR, Map 43, Lot 17, Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers of New York, Inc., Applicant / May Department stores, Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for April 1, 2004.
PH #2431 - Application for text amendment to allow place of worship in I-1 district, Open Gate Ministries, Applicant.
A public hearing will be scheduled for April 1, 2004.
FLD #018 - Application for house at 169 Cottage Road in Flood Plain Zone, R-33, Map 96, Lot 44, Casimir Pawlowski, Applicant/Owner.
This item will be on the Commission's March 4, 2004 agenda.
SPR #1257 - Application to purchase a 12 ft. x 30 ft. shed to put behind dumpster pad at 4 Peerless Way, Zoned I-1, Map 94, Lot 69, Sterling Machine Co., Applicant/Owner.
The Commission asked that the Director of Planning handle this application administratively.
c. Discussion on possible regulation amendments.
Mr. Giner distributed the final language for the proposed amendment regarding A-frame signs with the changes made outlined in bold. Mr. Giner stated only one such sign per lot is allowed and there is no way of resolving any problems between tenants. Therefore, item i. requires that whoever registers has to have permission from the owner and the town would not be involved in any disagreements. This amendment will be sent to CRCOG and scheduled for a public hearing on April 1, 2004.
Mr. Giner brought up the message signs previously discussed. He stated if the issue is just with the college and the high schools, there is language in item 13 which allows message signs currently but is limited. He suggested amending that section. Commissioner Duren stated this message sign language was initially included to address Scitico Plaza but they never used it. Mr. Giner stated it is used by Bickford's and they have a changeable letter sign. As long as it doesn't move, nothing in the ordinance prohibits an electronic message sign.
Mr. Giner suggested working with that section to allow such signs at the schools and college. The Commissioner previously increased the size of high school signs to 32 square feet and this would allow a ten square foot sign or a 2' x 5' sign that could be used for messaging.
Commissioner Duren stated Enfield High had an A-frame sign announcing a play at the school and he saw a permanent message board as resolving this. Commissioner Duren asked that Mr. Giner see what he can do with this section and come back to the Commission with a proposal.
Mr. Giner distributed regulations to the Commission from other towns regarding grading of lots. He described some of the measures taken by other towns including Colchester, Somers and Newington. Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Giner consider the regulations from the various towns, check with the Town Attorney's Office regarding which regulations they would recommend and report back to the Commission. Mr. Giner stated he will also contact the planners of those towns for feedback regarding their regulations on grading. Commissioner Egan suggested while Mr. Giner is meeting with the Town Attorney's Office, that the Assistant Town Attorney look specifically at Enfield's subdivision regulations that require the A-2 survey and as builts to see that there is nothing there that is already included in the town's regulations. Mr. Giner stated he did ask for such a clarification and she will issue a response.
Mr. Giner noted the Commission has before them a proposed ethics bill that has raised a lot of concern. The item of concern is on page 13 where there are reporting requirements that state all public officials, appointed or elected, would have to provide a statement of financial interest for themselves, their spouses and children. There is also a provision that this information would be available under FOI. The responses Mr. Giner has received from other commissions is who would volunteer for a commission with this requirement. Commissioner Duren stated towns are trying to encourage volunteers in local government and coming out with something like this will discourage such volunteers.
Chairman DiPace stated Commissioner Duren had requested information on Sylvia's Restaurant. He asked that Mr. Giner provide the Commission with the conditions of approval from her application that was before the Commission between the one in October, 1999 and the most current application. It was also the application that the Commission denied. Commissioner Duren had a concern regarding what was approved for the use of the downstairs. It was his recollection that this Commission made it clear that they were not approving any seating downstairs at that time. He felt any change would require a modification before this Commission. Chairman DiPace asked that when Sylvia's Restaurant comes back for the awnings and canopies, that she should also include the downstairs dining in her modification.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
jmr Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
|