|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2004
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, January 22, 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
Chairman DiPace informed the audience that Public Hearings #2418 and #2419 have been withdrawn.
MINUTES
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve the Minutes of December 4, 2003. The Minutes were approved by a 6 - 0 - 1 vote. Alternate Samuel McGill abstained.
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve the Minutes of December 18, 2003. The Minutes were approved by a 6 - 0 - 1 vote. Alternate Samuel McGill abstained.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported he received a certified letter from the State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation, regarding a notification of submittal of an application to the DEP for a general permit for water resource construction activities for Palomba Drive and Middle Road.
Chairman DiPace stated he received an invitation from Sterling Machine to their ribbon cutting ceremony scheduled for January 29, 2004 at 10:00 a.m.
Chairman DiPace received letters from the Capitol Region Council of Governments regarding Connecticut River Assembly members and alternates and the conservation development policies and plans. The latter includes some general comments regarding Enfield.
Mr. Giner requested that Chairman DiPace provide him with the information he received for distribution to all Commission members.
COMMISSIONERS' CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of a letter from Sandy Aeschliman. Mr. Giner noted there is a provision in the zoning regulations that requires a preliminary meeting be held on certain applications. Mr. Aeschliman is requesting such a preliminary meeting on February 5, 2004. Chairman DiPace suggested having this discussing during the second meeting in February. Mr. Giner suggested making a decision at the end of tonight's meeting since the February 5 agenda is not a lengthy one.
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of a letter dated December 17 from James Camidge, 10 Grandview Drive. There is also a letter dated December 16, 2003 from Kathleen Stevens with photographs included. Chairman DiPace suggested adding a discussion regarding Grandview Drive to tonight's agenda.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to add Item 12.b. Grandview Drive discussion and 12.c. Discussion of A-frame signs to tonight's agenda. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Samuel McGill voting.
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of the Planning and Zoning Newsletter from the Connecticut Bar Association and correspondence from the American Planning Association.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued from December 18, 2003 Meeting)
a. PH#2418 - Application for a Zoning Regulation Amendment to create RM-20 zone to permit multi-family uses and amendments related to creation of RM-20 zone, K&K Developers, LLC, Applicant. (Must close by February 5).
b. PH#2419 - Application for a request for change of zoning district from Industrial 1 (I-1) to multi-family residence (RM-20, Map 64, Lots 69 and 70, K&K Developers, LLC. Applicant/Galaxy Management, Thomas J. Henshon & Norman Fine, Trustees, Owners. (Must close by February 5).
Secretary Charles Duren reported receipt of a letter from Attorney Thomas Fahey dated January 16, 2004 addressed to Jose Giner formally withdrawing PH#2418 and PH#2419. The letter stated they are in the process of addressing all the issues raised by the public and will withdraw both applications. They intend to resubmit their application for the text amendment only when they have the complete information.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to accept the withdrawal of PH#2418 and PH#2419 without prejudice. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Samuel McGill voting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2409 - Petition for a zone change from Business Local (BL) to Business General (BG) for property located at 2 Enfield Street, 2 Connecticut Avenue and an un-numbered parcel at the northwest corner of Enfield Street and Connecticut Avenue from Residential 33 (R-33) to Business General (BG) for 4 Connecticut Avenue, Map 35, Lots 106, 107, 108, and 109, Alan K. Tracy, Applicant/Andie Linsday Silver, Thomas M. Tessier, Owners. (Must close by February 19, 2004.)
Attorney Charles Parakilas, Paul Fox, a city and regional planner, Alan Tracy, the Applicant, and Steve Mitchell, their Traffic Engineer appeared before the Commission regarding this application. Attorney Parakilas noted that all Notice of Hearing signs were posted in excess of ten days prior to this evening's hearing. The applicant has submitted a zoning map showing all properties and owners falling within a radius of 500' of the subject premises. Both owners of the subject properties, Ms. Silver and Mr. Tessier, have each consented to this application by written agreement.
Attorney Parakilas distributed information regarding the sale of parcels for this application.
Attorney Parakilas stated the current status of all these properties with respect to location, size and zone classification is as follows:
With respect to the Silver properties, Ms. Silver owns three parcels. The first and second piece combined are designated as 2 Enfield Street. The first piece is a vacant lot on the corner of Enfield Street and Connecticut Avenue. The second piece, which is on the west side of Enfield Street, abuts the Connecticut/Massachusetts state line and consists of a cinderblock commercial building which currently sells fireworks.
The third piece is situated on the northerly side of Connecticut Avenue, is known as 2 Connecticut Avenue and consists of a two-family residence over a two-car garage.
All three pieces combined have a total maximum area of 16,500 square feet in Connecticut. All three pieces are located within a BL zone which requires a minimum area of 30,000 square feet. Most of the parcels that abut the state line have property that extends into Massachusetts. Attorney Parakilas noted the square footage he has quoted is the total square footage area in Connecticut only.
Attorney Parakilas stated with respect to the Tessier property, it is on the north side of Connecticut Avenue known as 4 Connecticut Avenue. This piece abuts the Silver property to the east. This parcel consists of a single-family residence on a 6,695 square foot lot and is located in an R-33 zone which requires a minimum area of 33,000 square feet.
Attorney Parakilas noted all subject properties are currently nonconforming individually and collectively. None of them can be separately or collectively developed for any reasonable use in compliance with the current Enfield Zoning Regulations.
Attorney Parakilas stated the applicant proposes to consolidate these four parcels which will have a total square foot area in Connecticut of 23,200 square feet into a BG zone which requires a minimum area of 22,500 square feet. This proposal would make the consolidated parcels conforming to a Business General Zone.
Attorney Parakilas stated this cannot be done in a Business Local Zone. The net result is to create a conforming parcel out of four nonconforming parcels of land. He added that the Enfield Zoning Ordinance encourages aggregation of property to conform to minimum requirements with respect to minimum lot areas.
Attorney Parakilas stated rezoning to Business General is requested by the applicant because he intends to consolidate the combined properties and construct a state-of-the-art car wash facility which is a permitted use in a BG zone and not in a BL zone. The applicant's intended use requires less parking than other retail uses which are permitted within the present BL district.
Attorney Parakilas stated the Commission has received a conceptual plan which has been submitted as an integral part of this application. This conceptual plan is presented for the sole purpose of demonstrating that full compliance with the zoning regulations applicable to car washes is feasible. This plan demonstrates minimum requirements with respect to parking and stacking for the intended use and that the Enfield Zoning Regulations are met. This plan also depicts a three-bay car wash facility with eight vacuums half the size of the facility that was previously approved in the Scitico area.
Attorney Parakilas noted all access to the car wash site will be from a single curb cut on Connecticut Avenue. The existing two curb cuts on Enfield Street will be eliminated. Also, this application involves changing the Tessier property which is presently R-33 to BG. This property has a frontage of 65' and the plan is to allocate the western portion of that parcel into a buffer zone as required by the zoning regulations. This would afford the residential neighborhood to the west protection in the form of a buffer which is the quality of life remedy that the zoning regulations provide as a protection from business uses.
Attorney Parakilas stated the Commission requested that the applicant submit a traffic study as an exhibit. This study shows that both 24-hour, seven-day automatic counts and manual intersection counts were conducted. The result was the intended use will not have a measurable effect upon the traffic. There is also a report from the Traffic Safety Officer stating that the applicant's proposed plan will "cut down the amount of accidents that would occur on Route 5, Enfield Street, and Connecticut Avenue."
Attorney Parakilas stated this application is about reinvestment by means of redevelopment within the state line area of Enfield. This area is the entrance to Enfield from Longmeadow and also the gateway from Massachusetts to Connecticut. Attorney Parakilas noted the applicant intends to reinvest in North Thompsonville consistent with the town's land use and aesthetics objectives. He felt renewal of the state line area will not occur without new investment of capital and this applicant is prepared to do just that.
Commissioner Cooper referred to the letter the Commission received from the Connecticut Water Company. He noted in a Business General zone many uses are prohibited and he questioned how much jurisdiction the water company has.
Mr. Fox stated his advice to the writer of the Connecticut Water Company letter is to read the entire zoning regulation. What she alleges is possible down the road is not possible. There is a requirement in the town's regulations that motor vehicle licensed premises be separated by 2,000'. There is no way they could propose such a license. There's no hardship to demonstrate to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Fox stated he did respond to the writer.
Commissioner Cooper asked what jurisdiction the DEP has. Mr. Fox stated they have significant jurisdiction regarding the applicant's handling of chemicals. He stated they have been through this for the Scitico facility and know exactly what is required. A permit from the DEP would be required and there are several levels of regulation that apply.
Mr. Giner stated presently the only requirement is that the application be referred to the water company for their comments. What they are citing in their letter concerns regulations that have yet to be adopted by the DEP. The DEP is proposing regulations that would regulate certain uses within the aquifer protection areas or require best management practices in other areas. Those regulations have not yet been finalized or adopted but if they went into effect, they would apply to level A aquifer areas identified on the maps.
Commissioner Duren asked about the traffic count for the area. Mr. Fox stated he personally did two or three of the manual intersection counts over a two-hour period during peak hours during the week and on Saturday. These were done this past fall.
Commissioner Duren asked if any counts were done on Wednesday when gas is cheaper at the Mobil station. Mr. Fox was unsure of the day of the week the traffic counts were done.
Commissioner Duren stated the traffic counts give information on South Avenue in Longmeadow, Connecticut Avenue and Knox Street. However, there are no turning movement counts in and out of the gas station. Commissioner Duren felt this is what contributes to many of the traffic problems in the area. He elaborated on the turning movements that create traffic congestion. He noted while the traffic count may be right for these streets, it really does not depict what goes on. Commissioner Duren acknowledged that many of the problems occur due to a lack of enforcement.
Alan Tracy stated they are hoping they will be able to generate some of the movement from the Mobil station on to their property without going into the road. He felt this will alleviate some of the existing problems.
Commissioner Duren pointed out the closing off of the two entrances will help alleviate some of the problems. He felt the traffic is more significant on Wednesdays and when I-91 is closed and traffic increases on Route 5.
Commissioner Duren referred to the lanes marked for right turn only and he stated what contributes to problems is there is a bus pullover in the area. If a person wants to turn from the stop line into the gas station, it is difficult to do because of the bus pullover area. He acknowledged it is a dangerous situation and he questioned if drivers will be able to make a left turn. Commissioner Duren stated while the traffic study makes things look good, there are serious traffic concerns.
Steve Mitchell stated he is familiar with the problems that Commissioner Duren is citing. He felt the potential for eliminating curb cuts in the area is likely to be an improvement and this was also the feeling of the Traffic Safety Officer.
Attorney Parakilas stated whether it is a car wash or anything else, the problem is not going to go away. They are attempting to minimize the problem.
Commissioner Hickey stated there was a mention of making the lots more conforming. He asked what is the frontage of the lots along Route 5.
Attorney Parakilas stated there is 136' of frontage on Enfield Street. Mr. Fox added there is more than that on Connecticut Avenue and it is a corner lot.
Mr. Giner stated the frontage requirement for the Business General Zone is 150'.
Mr. Fox stated the purpose of the site plan is to demonstrate compliance is possible. At the next stage, if they are approved, they will be meeting with the Department of Transportation. Mr. Fox has met with both the Longmeadow and Enfield Police Departments and everyone is on the same page. Mr. Fox stated when he was doing the traffic counts, he noticed the lack of pavement markings in the right lane northbound. Some people got in that lane and they realized they wanted to continue into Longmeadow and this is where most of the friction occurred. Mr. Fox stated if the arrows are put back, this may help the situation.
Mr. Fox stated there is also a question whether the signal timing might be altered slightly to get more traffic through without compromising the ability of Booth Road residents to exit. According to the Longmeadow Police, the Town of Longmeadow maintains the signal but the Connecticut DOT has jurisdiction over its timing.
Commissioner Duren suggested if the north bound lane had an arrow or a delay to enter the gas station so that they could move before the south bound lane in Longmeadow moves, this may alleviate some of the problems.
Attorney Parakilas stated these are issues that will have to be addressed during the site plan review. He acknowledged the timing of the lights in the area may be contributing factors. The solution is to get together with DOT to clean up the area.
Mr. Giner presented a map showing what the existing land uses are from the Plan of Conservation and Development and a second map showing the future land uses. The maps show everything being commercial in this area.
Mr. Giner stated there are a mix of uses in the area. The zone is Business Local and some of the uses don't quite fall under BL. McDonald's came in and was approved for a change from one nonconforming use to another. The decision by the Commission is based upon their vision for the area and whether it should remain an area of neighborhood business uses or will it be more of a highway service with Business General types of uses.
Mr. Giner stated regarding the degree of nonconformity of the lots, the regulations do allow for development of these types of nonconformities. There is also an allowance in the regulations that by special use permit would allow other uses that would be more compatible or less nonconforming. He cited the CVS on Route 5 as an example.
Mr. Giner stated this area is part of the Northgate area and those issues would come up under site plan design. Most uses in a Business General zone would be by site plan rather than special permit and the Commission would not have the same degree of control.
Mr. Fox stated they tried to make their use fit on the Silver property alone but it did not fit. He suggested to the Commission that as far as installing any temporary uses on these properties, you would really need to aggregate the whole thing to even begin. The plan the Commission may eventually see may not vary from the plan presented tonight because the parameters are pretty strict.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.
Jeffrey Scott, 17 Connecticut Avenue, stated the request is to change two Business Local parcels to Business General and to append a residential property to the parcel and change it as well. The proposed use is a car wash. It is Mr. Scott's understanding that if a zone change is granted, it is not necessary for the property to be used for that purpose and that any general business use could be substituted. Mr. Scott felt the current proposal of a car wash is not, in his opinion, an enhancement to the gateway to Enfield from Massachusetts. He has been a resident of Connecticut Avenue for over eighteen years and is very familiar with the traffic at the intersection of Enfield Street. Currently the north side of Connecticut Avenue is posted "no parking" to assure access for emergency vehicles as well as to assure safe traveling for all motorists. Adding cuts into this newly proposed business would greatly increase the congestion at the end of Connecticut Avenue. Another aspect of allowing a car wash would be the water coming off cars as they exit the facility that in the winter would create even more of a hazard in the form of ice on the roadway. Mr. Scott believes that making an entrance to the car wash on Connecticut Avenue would significantly increase the traffic through the neighborhood. Mr. Scott also brought up the noise from the nine vacuum cleaners proposed and the potential litter from a car wash which would have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Scott asked Commission members if they would want a car wash next door to their homes. Mr. Scott felt the car wash would not be a good fit in their neighborhood and he asked that the Commission not allow these properties to be rezoned.
Mr. Scott felt there will be more traffic in the area because of the car wash. He discussed the particular properties and noted regarding the two curb cuts, one of them simply goes behind the fireworks store and gets virtually no traffic. Mr. Scott questioned how much of the traffic observed turned into the existing curb cuts. He felt the proposed car wash will create havoc on Connecticut Avenue and he does not see it as an enhancement to the gateway to Enfield.
Peter Burial, 19 Connecticut Avenue, stated he and his family have lived here for three years. He is disturbed with the proposal for a car wash to be located at the top of Connecticut Avenue. He noted this is the gateway to Enfield and to Connecticut. If this business goes in, he questioned how will a person coming in from out of state view Enfield. He cited the noise that would be created with the proposed use. Mr. Burial also noted that if the zone is changed to Business General, any business will be allowed to locate here and not just this car wash.
Chris Berger, 31 South Avenue, Longmeadow, stated while he lives in Longmeadow, Massachusetts, he will be an abutter to this car wash. He would be most affected by the car wash locating here. While he is not absolutely opposed to the car wash, he has some questions regarding the noise factor and the fact that the cars will be exiting from the bays approximately 25' from his back yard property line. He also asked about the lighting and noted with only a 15' buffer from his property line to the fire lane, he is concerned about the lighting.
Attorney Parakilas acknowledged the residents' concerns are legitimate ones. They sincerely feel that this would be a substantial move for the state line and North Thompsonville area to encourage others to do the same thing - to join properties together and eliminate the nonconforming uses and improve the area.
Attorney Parakilas stated they have appeared before this Commission at least two other times. They are all residents of Enfield. Mr. Tracy is a local man who has invested in this community in Scitico and on lower and upper Enfield Street. They respect the concerns of the public and will try to minimize those conditions when they face a site plan review. Attorney Parakilas felt this application would be a benefit to the area and encourage others to do the same thing.
Commissioner Duren noted the state line runs through this property. Attorney Parakilas stated what occurred was over a hundred years ago the State of Connecticut altered the state line. What were once Connecticut properties on Connecticut Avenue became properties partially in Connecticut and partially in Massachusetts.
Commissioner Duren stated his understanding is part of the state line runs through the present zoning that's there. He asked if this proposed car wash will be located entirely in Connecticut and what will they do with the remaining property. Attorney Parakilas confirmed that the building will be located in Connecticut.
Mr. Fox added the Silver property in Longmeadow is zoned Business. The Town of Longmeadow does not have a problem with their intended use. They are not proposing any zone changes in Longmeadow. Except for the fire lane, it will all be a buffer yard there. They will appear before the regulatory body in Longmeadow but the end result will be they will be removing themselves from Longmeadow because part of the existing building is in Longmeadow.
Mr. Fox stated they reviewed many site plan arrangements. The vacuums are proposed to be located out front near the corner and away from the neighbors.
Commissioner Hickey asked if the gas station in Massachusetts is conforming to Longmeadow zoning regulations. Mr. Fox stated it is zoned Business and it is a permitted use but he has not examined their regulations.
Chairman DiPace asked for additional input from the Commission and the audience. Hearing none, he closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve PH#2409 for a change of zone to property at 2 Enfield Street, 2 Connecticut Avenue and an unnumbered parcel on the northwest corner of Enfield Street and Connecticut Avenue from Business Local (BL) to Business General (BG) and a change in zone to property at 4 Connecticut Avenue from Residential-33 to Business General (BG).
Commissioner Egan stated looking only at the requested zone change and not the proposed use, he thinks to change this zone would not be in compliance with the Plan of Conservation and Development. One of the recommendations that was voted on and accepted is to continue as much as possible the historic designation and preservation of activities along Enfield Street. This proposal would be changing the activities. If this zone is changed, gasoline stations would be allowed as well as hotels, medical laboratories, repair garages, motor vehicle sales and drive-in restaurants. Commissioner Egan felt there was a reason that this zone was BL. While he is not personally voting against the specific proposal, he would be voting against the zone change because of the uses it would allow. Such uses would be contrary to the town's Plan of Conservation and Development.
The motion was denied by a 0 - 7 - 0 vote.
The reasons for denial are the proposed zone is not in conformance with the town's Plan of Conservation and Development, the nature of the use and intensity will cause traffic that will be hazardous to the surrounding residential district, and the nature and use will hinder the appropriate development of the surrounding properties and the possibilities of what could be allowed in the zone that was requested.
b. PH#2421 - Petition for a Zone Change from Business Local (BL) to Business General (BG) for property located at 481 Enfield Street a/k/a Serv-U Plaza), Map 33, Lot 256, LIA Auto Group, applicant/Enfield Street Properties, LLC, owners. (Must close by February 19.)
Attorney Thomas Fahey, Eric Forish, Construction Manager for LIA, and Dana Steele of J. R. Russo appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Attorney Fahey stated the property is located at 281-283 Enfield Street on the east side of Enfield Street between Freemont Street and Colony. The site is approximately five acres and it currently houses a Serv-U Plaza. It has previously been other retail uses and over the years it has not been doing well in terms of the success of the businesses locating there.
Attorney Fahey stated there are two buildings on the site consisting of 57,215 square feet. One of the buildings is 18,407 square feet and the intent of this application is to move the LIA Pontiac from its present location to this site. The other building would be 38,808 square feet and that would be used for vehicle storage. The showroom and all the retail operations would be conducted in the smaller building.
Attorney Fahey stated the present application is to change the current zone from BL to BG. He presented a drawing showing the location of the building. North along Enfield Street is zoned BL. Across the street, it is zoned BL in the front up and down. To the south, the abutting property is zoned BG from the abutting property, across Freemont Street and further south where Artioli Dodge is located. The property to the rear is zoned Residential.
Attorney Fahey stated what makes this application somewhat unique is they have a large site. The site is five acres and substantially larger than the smaller lots that are seen along Enfield Street. The property has already been committed to a use and has pavement and existing buildings on it. There is now an opportunity for something to be done to rehab and retrofit and use something that has not been as attractive as it could be over the years because of the failure of some of the previous businesses.
Attorney Fahey stated since they are adjacent to the BG zone, a natural dividing line for the BG zone would be on Colony. The applicant, LIA Auto, has been in Enfield since 1977. They own twelve dealerships in Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut. In Enfield, there is LIA Honda, LIA Nissan, the LIA Pontiac dealership, the Hundai dealership with a long-term lease and the new Volkswagen dealership all located on Palomba Drive and Elm Street. Due to the success of the Honda and Nissan dealerships, there is a need for additional space for the Pontiac dealership. LIA would like to locate this dealership on Palomba Drive but there is nothing currently available.
Attorney Fahey stated this particular site would fit in terms of the square footage and the Artioli dealership personnel, in conversations with Attorney Fahey, do not object to LIA locating here. There might also be some positives by having the dealerships next to each other.
Attorney Fahey stated LIA would like to keep the Pontiac dealership in Enfield and this site presents an opportunity to do that.
Dana Steele described the concept plan prepared for this application. This plan is intended to depict the existing parcel and the potential use of that parcel for an automobile dealership. The building on the site contains over 57,000 square feet. The existing building is more than adequate for the use of a dealership which would be located in the portion of the building currently in use with a retail baby store. The larger portion of the building of 38,000 square feet is currently vacant and that would lend itself to indoor storage for the vehicles.
Commissioner Duren noted there is a basement and he questioned whether cars could be stored in this building. Mr. Steele stated the intent is to utilize the existing parking lot and existing facilities. The site is serviced by city water, city sewer, gas service and has two curb cuts located a good distance apart.
Mr. Steele stated one major concern with car dealerships in the past has been vehicle delivery. This site has a lot of room for that to occur. They have shown on the concept plan that some additional landscaping could be done. The plan demonstrates that there is sufficient parking for this use and sufficient room for storage and display of vehicles. There are also sufficient utilities to service the business.
Mr. Steele presented an elevation plan prepared by Forish Construction of the existing building and the improvements proposed. During a site plan review, they would go into more detail. This plan gives the Commission a picture of what could be done to the property to enhance it and demonstrates that there is sufficient capacity for this proposed use.
Eric Forish of Forish Construction stated the LIA people would prefer in operating a dealership not to have this large a building. However, the way the buildings were constructed, the original building is serviced by all the utilities. It would be a major project to eliminate this structure and work from there. They are focusing on using the present buildings. Under a portion of the larger building is basement and the building would have to be brought up to code in the interior. The proposed use would be vehicle display and not vehicle storage or servicing. That would occur outside of the cellar area. The cellar would be strictly for parts storage inventory. Access would not be changed in terms of the building function. The service department would be proposed entering through the front of the building and the elevation shown reflects that access point. There would be one door only where the attendant would take in the vehicle.
Mr. Forish stated the only exterior improvement or addition that would be proposed is a new vehicle delivery area consisting of a canopy off to the side of the building. This would provide an area as the customer accepts their product. Mr. Forish noted the service side of the building and stated the other part of the building would remain for interior inventory. He also noted the operational dealership side.
Mr. Forish stated during the last several years LIA's first project was Hundai where they obtained an empty, existing dealership and completely renovated it. They then constructed the Volkswagen dealership. They are currently in the process of completing the new Honda location and permits have been applied for the last approval, the relocation of the Nissan dealership. LIA has four product lines in new buildings or buildings that were completely renovated and they want to continue their presence and expand their presence in Enfield. They do employ over 200 people at this time and along with the property taxes they pay to the community, they are also investing in the people of Enfield. With the expansion to Enfield Street, they would be able to employ additional people. Mr. Forish stated they would prefer being in the Palomba Drive area but LIA has not had success locating in that area.
Attorney Fahey stated with respect to the Plan of Development, one of the land use objectives is to use the zoning and subdivision regulations to encourage attractive and innovative commercial and industrial development. They feel this would be an example of an attractive commercial development. Another land use recommendation, #3, is to consider revising the zoning regulations and districts to encourage the adaptive reuse of vacant or underutilized commercial properties to new forms of retail or business services, light industrial or distribution type uses. Attorney Fahey felt this is an example of an adaptive reuse of an underutilized or almost vacant building. The Plan of Development throughout talks about the reuse of vacant commercial and industrial property sites. There is a section entitled Neighborhood Strategies that deals with upper Enfield Street from the Town Hall to the state line which is where this property is located. It says that since the 1965 Plan was adopted, the stretch of highway was envisioned as a general commercial strip. There has continued to be a mix of community retail services and highway retail with some established residential stretches remaining. The Plan states in the coming years it can be reasonably anticipated that there will be increased pressure to convert the residences on the highway to commercial activity. This would be particularly true when the commercially zoned areas in the vicinity of the mall are absorbed.
Attorney Fahey stated this is an example of a development opportunity of a commercial venture in a business zone. They are not proposing to take residential uses and convert them to business. They are requesting the Commission give consideration to expand the abutting Business General zone to incorporate this property. The use that they intend to put to the property would be regulated by the town's special permit provisions for a car dealership. Attorney Fahey stated it is true that when you rezone a property, the four or five additional uses that are permitted in the zone would be applicable but only if they came back before the Commission and proved they could comply with the special permit requirements.
Attorney Fahey addressed whether there would be an acceptable impact on the environment. They had a similar letter to what the Commission received in the previous application from the water company. Mr. Giner indicated that dealt with the position of the Connecticut Water Company with respect to this use and the proposed aquifer regulations which have not yet been adopted.
Dana Steele stated in the correspondence from the Connecticut Water Company there were listed potential conditions of approval that could be placed on a special use permit were it to be pursued after a favorable zone change. Those conditions dealt with underground storage tanks and concerns about them. It also mentioned that there would be no floor drains in the facility. Mr. Steele noted floor drains are very common in a car dealership. He called Cindy from the Connecticut Water Company and she explained when she wrote the letter, she didn't know whether or not there was sanitary sewer service for this facility. Since there are sanitary sewers, all the floor drains would be tied into the sanitary sewer and treatment plant and wouldn't have an impact on the environment in the area. Mr. Steele stated he asked that the Connecticut Water Company send another letter regarding the floor drains and Cindy did. A copy has been submitted to the Town Planner for the record.
Mr. Steele stated he asked Cindy from the Connecticut Water Company if there's sanitary sewer service and all the floor drains are going to be tied in, and the applicant agrees there aren't going to be any underground storage tanks or chemicals stored outside the building, what are the remaining environmental concerns for this type of use. Cindy's response was nothing there is better than something. Mr. Steele asked about other factors such as improving a dilapidated site and adding tax revenue to the town. Cindy pointed out that those are not concerns of the Connecticut Water Company but they are things that this Commission can consider. Mr. Steele stated if the Commission were to act favorably on this zone change, that is the reason for these conditions of approval. Cindy went so far as to say that most commissions do grant these types of zone changes and that's the reason for those conditions.
Attorney Fahey urged the Commission to give serious thought to this application. The site is not an easy site to develop because of how it was originally developed. He felt the proposal is an ideal use for the site and the applicant is prepared to invest $2.5 to $3 million in the site. This would generate significant taxes for the town and it would be an improvement to the property and the streetscape. Attorney Fahey stated they plan to address the issues regarding parking and lighting at the appropriate special use permit hearing.
Commissioner Duren stated it was mentioned that the loading and unloading of vehicles would be done on site. He asked for a guarantee that it would not occur on Enfield Street or on the abutting side streets. Mr. Steele stated it would be the same as any other site plan application. Commissioner Duren stated they promised in the past that there wouldn't be trailers backing out on to Elm Street and this has been occurring. There have also been four incidents of cars unloading on Palomba.
Mr. Forish stated he was alerted and followed up with the Manager of the Enfield properties regarding the unloading of vehicles. All of the employees have been given instructions. What contributes to the problem is the trucking companies do not necessarily get the same message. Mr. Forish stated the message was reiterated within the last two weeks and there is no intention from the owners for this kind of situation to exist or continue. The times that he has been at the property, which is limited to once a week, every delivery he has seen has been on the property. He noted it is not every truck doing this. It is a random act. While that does not make it acceptable, Mr. Forish stated they have heard the Commission's request before and they have every intent of doing everything possible to fulfill their end of the agreement. The trucks have been notified again so that the message would get out. They want to comply with what they said they would do.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public.
Gene Robinson, 7 Freemont, stated his property abuts the property that is the subject of this zone change. He noted they were here for Artioli and they discussed various items at that time. He stated up until this past week, trucks are still coming down Freemont Road and unloading. They have called the Traffic Safety Officer many times. The lights at the Artioli garage stay on all night long. Mr. Robinson stated the lights affect his family and the lights should not be on constantly. He discussed other aspects of the Artioli property that have had a significant effect on his property. With this new building proposed, Mr. Robinson questioned when does this development stop. He will now be completely fenced in by business properties. People discuss making improvements but the lighting is still the same and it still affects his family. Mr. Robinson stated he pays his taxes and his property has been devalued because of these businesses. He asked if the Commission members would like such a business in their back yard.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission imposed some conditions when Artioli Dodge was originally approved. The Commission requested that the lighting be shielded and the car deliveries be addressed. He asked that Mr. Giner have Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley contact Mr. Artioli regarding the conditions imposed and how they have been addressed.
Commissioner Duren asked if Mr. Bickley can withhold the c.o. until the necessary items are addressed for Artioli Dodge. Mr. Giner stated Wayne has sent out letters and they are looking into posting the street regarding the truck traffic. Chairman DiPace suggested signs be posted on the street indicating no truck traffic. Commissioner Duren suggested there be a standing order and the facility be issued a ticket when they are in violation.
Mr. Robinson stated the problem they have is with the lights on the property not being shut off at a decent hour when the business closes. They were told the lights would be adjusted and they have not been. Regarding the trucks, they called Lieutenant Boula and they were told all the trucking companies have not been informed of this. Mr. Robinson noted it has been over six months and there is no reason why this has not been addressed by now. Regarding the fencing, they were told they couldn't do it until they started the site work. They have had almost a year and there's no problem putting up an 8' high barricade fence as they requested. Mr. Robinson stated there are six or seven properties in the area that are affected and when they are in their back yard, they can see the cars parked there, the building and the activity on the site. Their concern is what will happen if this parcel is also rezoned from Business Local to Business General. It is now a bigger business and once they are in there, anything goes. Mr. Robinson stated his property is right there and he will be affected. He will have to spend money installing trees and a fence so he doesn't have to see this automotive use.
Mr. Robinson stated his lot is #289 on the map before the Commission. His back yard will abut the proposed LIA garage. Chairman DiPace stated LIA would be obligated to buffer their side to shield the residences from the business. He would suspect they would landscape the entire area between the building and the fence. Chairman DiPace stated he hopes they will not propose any mechanical units because the noise would affect the residents.
Mr. Robinson stated if they have a body shop, there will be fumes and he has three children and a fourth on the way. With the fumes from the existing body shop, they have to keep their windows closed and with another proposed garage, they are concerned about noise from intercoms and their quality of life being affected.
Mr. Robinson was not in favor of an expansion of the Business General zone because of the effect it will have on the abutting neighborhood.
Commissioner Egan stated the Commission has had problems with the Artioli application but it has nothing to do with the LIA application. The Commission imposed conditions on the Artioli business and if those conditions are being violated, there can be enforcement actions and legal actions through the Zoning Enforcement Officer. He suggested Mr. Robinson call the Planning Department and have the Zoning Enforcement Officer visit the property. Commissioner Egan noted this has been going on for some time and letters should cease and an enforcement action should be issued by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Commissioner Egan stated there are still violations of their permit and the legal process is there for the Zoning Enforcement Officer to put in place.
Mr. Robinson stated they have called the Police Department regarding the lights and he questioned at what point do they have to stop. Commissioner Egan suggested the person to contact is the Zoning Enforcement Officer because if there is a violation of the permit, there is legal action that can be taken.
Mr. Robinson stated his neighbor, Mr. McCarthy, has sent letters to the town and has taken some of these steps.
Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Giner inform Mr. Bickley that he should visit this site, draft a letter and see if a response is received. If there is no response, Mr. Bickley can take the next step. Commissioner Duren suggested the c.o. for the new building be withheld until the problems are resolved.
Paul Von Eisingrine, 11 Colony Road, stated his property is on the north corner and his front yard looks into the back of the building where the service entrance would be. One of the things he is surprised about is nothing was addressed as far as a buffer zone for the neighbors. Commissioner Duren stated this application is for the zone change only and such items like a buffer zone would be addressed in an application for the particular use.
Mr. Von Eisingrine stated if this property goes from Business Local to Business General, they do have Artioli Dodge now and the entire area will start becoming a Business General zone with just about anything allowed. Mr. Von Eisingrine stated the neighborhood abutting this property is a good sized one on all three sides. The back yard is extremely close to pure residential. The lights and the open garages during the summer will affect the residents when people want to sit out in their yards during the summer.
Mr. Von Eisingrine stated when he moved to this property in 1992, he was informed by his real estate agent that that parcel was supposed to be turned into housing. There was a plan for eight additional homes and all of a sudden it went to Serv-U and then the new proposed use. He noted that Serv-U was never as large of a business and as disturbing as this new proposed business will end up being.
Sean Gary, 5 Dover Road, noted this property has been Business Local for many years and the property is surrounded by a residential neighborhood. Business Local is a little more residential friendly. He asked if there have been any significant changes that would warrant the zone being changed to Business General. He doesn't think anything has changed and the zoning has been in place because of the abutting residential neighborhood. He is not in favor of changing the zone from Business Local to Business General.
Gary Young, 4 Foxcroft Road, stated he is worried about the impact to the residential neighborhood. Right now with Artioli there, there are mechanics driving the cars around and with another car dealership, the traffic will be increased. He noted that 6:00 a.m. today there was a truck backing into his driveway trying to turn around because it had gotten lost in the neighborhood. Adding another dealership to what the neighbors already have is only going to create more and more problems.
James McCarthy, 2 Dover Road, stated he is opposed to another dealership in this neighborhood for several reasons. He noted his experience and the continuing problems with Artioli Dodge. His biggest concern is with that much property and it turning into another dealership, there will be lighting to protect their vehicles. Since the expansion of Artioli Dodge across the street to Freemont, there has been some clear cutting of trees. From his back yard, he has nothing but a clear view of that front parking lot. If another dealership should move in and install lighting similar to Artioli Dodge, the whole surrounding neighborhood would be illuminated by nothing but lights. He will not be able to enjoy the privacy of his back yard as a resident with that lighting on. There are conditions imposed but that goes out the window after a while. Mr. McCarthy has written letters to the Commission, he has called the Police Department, and he has talked with Mr. Giner about these issues. He noted his frustration in not being able to resolve these issues. He is concerned about another dealership coming in, getting the zone changed to Business General, and the residents having to fight all over again. He is against this property being rezoned to Business General for use as a car dealership.
Adam Bertrand, 28 Dover Road, stated he is against this proposal. The residents now are constantly battling lights and noise. Putting in another dealership in this location is not a good idea. There is a slogan in Enfield that families matter. He asked that the Commission realize that there are families that will be affected. Mr. Bertrand stated they do not want an industrial park in their neighborhood. He is totally against this application. The applicant stated the building will be storage at this time and he questioned if this will still be the case five to ten years from now.
Donald Lango, 33 Cook Avenue, stated he is located across the street and he questioned if Route 5 is going to become another East Windsor. He has lived on Route 5 all his life. The Commission just had a car wash proposal for Route 5 and stated they wanted to keep the historical look. He asked that the Commission consider this with this application.
Attorney Fahey stated the applicant is sensitive to the site plan concerns and issues such as lighting and fencing that will have to be dealt with during the site plan. Attorney Fahey stated when the Commission approves a site plan and imposes conditions, he doesn't know how a c.o. would be issued unless the fence was built to whatever height it needed to be and the trees were installed in the buffer. He stated the applicant is willing to live with that as that is normally the way it is done. Attorney Fahey stated some of the issues are a little different with their property because of the entrance and exit off Enfield Street. He doesn't see why the Pontiacs would be going down Freemont Street. That doesn't address Commissioner Duren's question of cars stopping on Enfield Street which should not occur. They are doing everything they can do now with respect to their other sites and the problem lies in getting the message to independent truckers.
Attorney Fahey emphasized the uniqueness of the site and its size. The present zoning currently allows theaters, retail stores by site plan, restaurants, parking lots, liquor permits with entertainment, health clubs, commercial recreation facilities, business services, and building material stores. If one were to come before this Commission without a rezoning, Attorney Fahey noted there would be the same issues regarding lighting, parking and buffering. They feel that this property is appropriate for their use because the building is already up and they can renovate the facility. Attorney Fahey stated the problems are solvable and they would like to have the opportunity to do that at the site plan review level.
Dana Steele stated regarding issues about lighting and noise, one of the unique features of this particular parcel is all of that activity is located in the front of the building. The building itself acts as a screening. This does not relieve them from satisfying concerns about additional screening during the site plan process but there are some things about the layout of this site which are beneficial for this type of use.
Mr. Forish discussed the use as a car dealership and noted the hours would vary depending upon the time of year from between 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. as a closing hour. Most of the uses currently permitted would have longer opening times than a typical car dealership. The car dealership would open at 8:00 a.m. for their service work as most car dealerships do but the hours are less obtrusive than many of the possible uses. In terms of the quality of life, there is a potential improvement versus what could occur on this property. In addition to that, the quantity of vehicles coming to and from the property will be lower than any type of straight retail use. Any of the uses listed by Attorney Fahey have a high frequency of travel. The only high frequency activity at a car dealership is those folks coming for service who drop off their vehicles. This a very low volume traffic use and Mr. Forish suggested this is an improvement in the quality of life for the property abutters versus the potential currently existing with the present zone.
Mr. Forish stated LIA has a proven track record within this community. They recognize the continual problem with the trailer trucks but they are continuing to addressing this. The quality of improvements that LIA has displayed in the community is without question. As the last gentleman that came before the Commission summed up, it really comes down to what the Commission wants for Route 5. This is a state highway. It may be rural in nature but there was a time when it was not so rural in nature. He stated the Commission has to decide what direction this street is going in and whether they want this site to remain a five-acre property that has been less than healthy or take the opportunity to work with a proponent who has a proven track record and wants to work through the site plan approval process to address the concerns of the abutters.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission is acting in a legislative capacity and it is a policy decision regarding whatever vision the Commission has for this section of Enfield Street.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing again for public input. There was no additional public input. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Action on this application was tabled to the next meeting.
c. PH#2424 - Modification of approved plan to allow awnings/canopies on exterior facade and other site layout items at 23 North Main Street in A TVCZ District, Map 27, Lot 134, Silvia Salvari Raczewski, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by February 19).
Silvia Salvari Raczewski appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Commissioner Lefakis did not participate in this application.
Ms. Raczewski stated she is before the Commission with an application for a modification to allow awnings on the exterior facade of her restaurant. She added that she does not understand why she has to appear regarding these awnings.
Chairman DiPace stated the awnings were not on the plans originally approved by this Commission. A change to the original plan requires a modification request before this Commission.
Ms. Raczewski stated the awnings, in her opinion, are an attractive addition to her restaurant. Chairman DiPace concurred they look very good.
Ms. Raczewski stated she opened her restaurant on Pleasant Street fifteen years ago and took a condemned building and made it the nicest piece of property in the area. She is proud of what she did on Pleasant Street and with the Commission's help would like to do the same at 23 North Main Street. She noted this building on North Main Street was boarded up five years ago.
Ms. Raczewski stated she would like permission to leave the signage as it is. She felt she has enough square footage to fit with the amount of signage.
Chairman DiPace questioned if, with the awnings, all the signs now meet the requirements. Mr. Giner stated they did the calculations and with all the signs that are there including the writing on the awnings which are considered signs, the signage is nonconforming. Mr. Giner stated when the c.o. was issued, the wall sign was supposed to have been covered to address this issue. This would have brought the site into compliance temporarily. Unfortunately, the sign covering was removed and some other freestanding signs found their way on to the lawn.
Ms. Raczewski stated the wind blew the sign cover off the building.
Mr. Giner stated the signage allowance is 61 square feet and the current signage is 67 square feet. Ms. Raczewski stated with the new calculations, the current signage is 65 square feet.
Following a lengthy discussion with the applicant regarding her options to address the signage nonconformity, the consensus of the Commission was that Ms. Raczewski needs to keep the sign over the front door, which is 19.5 square feet, covered in a manner that will stay covered. The Commission will discuss at some future date allowing awnings with signage that would not be counted in the signage requirements.
During the discussion, Commissioner Duren stated the issue is compliance. He noted receipt of a memo from the Enfield Revitalization and Strategy Commission dated November 18, 2003 stating the facade improvements are consistent with the intent of the village district design signs.
Chairman DiPace stated he first received a phone call from the Town Manager regarding this restaurant and he drove by it and noted the building really looks good. He noted that in the past, awnings were a part of many of the establishments in Thompsonville. He suggested that the Commission consider reinstating awnings along with a formula regarding signage in order to bring the village look back to the area.
Ms. Raczewski discussed the fact that the awnings were a gift from a Longmeadow patron and it is her intent to make the building look aesthetically pleasing to the area.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.
Ray Warren, Director of Economic Development, stated he supports the modified plan that includes the awnings. He would also support an idea as it relates to awnings in the Thompsonville area in general. Just today he met with a member of the Enfield Revitalization Strategy Committee who is going around to merchants and they are talking about organizing their own sign program which includes a discussion of awnings. A proposal has been discussed that would exempt the awnings with flat flaps on the front that would have print on them from the square footage amount of the signage regulations.
Mr. Warren stated a solution for Sylvia's is to remove the sign over the door and she would be in compliance but he would ask that the Commission consider a proposition where a text change to the sign ordinance on the matter of exempting the flat area of canvas awnings could be considered. Mr. Warren requested that the Commission consider a hold on the enforcement issue until this matter is resolved so that it could benefit this applicant as well as others in Thompsonville.
Jack Sheridan, 7 Buchanan Road, stated he attends Council meetings regularly and he hears the Council members talking all the time about getting people to invest in this part of Thompsonville. He felt the signs are not a problem and the reference has to be made to the valance part of the canopy and not the flat part because there are some canopies that have a flat part that is huge. He felt awnings would be in keeping with the village look and he thinks it is great that someone is willing to invest in that part of town.
Chairman DiPace requested a consensus from the Commission regarding the awnings and whether consideration should be given to exempting the signage on the awning flaps in the Thompsonville Village Zone from the signage regulations.
Commissioner Hickey noted the awnings really enhance the area and this is something the Commission would like to see throughout the area.
The consensus of the Commission was they would like to consider an amendment to the sign regulations that would exempt awnings. They also requested that Mr. Giner contact the Enfield Revitalization Strategy Committee and see what can be done to draft possible changes.
Commissioner Duren asked if the Commission can continue the abatement of the enforcement.
Chairman DiPace asked that Ms. Raczewski temporarily cover her front sign and in the interim Mr. Giner and Mr. Alsbaugh will begin to draft an amendment regarding awnings so that they would not be counted in the sign calculation square footage.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to approve PH#2424 including approval of the awnings and with the condition that the present attached sign on the front of the building be covered until such time as revised regulations come into effect. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate McGill voting.
Commissioner Duren requested that the type of awning sign that the Commission allows should be based on the example set by Sylvia's Restaurant.
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, for a recess. Following a 7 - 0 - 0 vote, the Commission recessed at 10:17 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 10:25 p.m.
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 Avenue, zoned TV, Map 27, Lot 99, Jan Fijolek, Applicant/Owner. (Deadline for Decision - February 19, 2004 meeting. No more extensions possible.)
Chairman DiPace read a letter from Jan Fijolek requesting an extension of action on this application in order to give the Enfield Revitalization Strategy Committee additional time to assist in this project. The Commission tabled action until the February 19, 2004 meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR#1251 - Application to erect a 30' x 60' shed at 5 Peerless Way, zoned I-1, Map 94, Lot 68, P.T.M. Realty, LLC, Applicant/Owner. (Deadline for decision - 35 days after Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency action.)
Walter Kruziel, 5 Peerless Way of Peerless Tool and Machine appeared before the Commission regarding this application. They are proposing a 30' x 60' steel building shed in the rear of their existing 28,000 square foot building as per the plan submitted. The color would match the existing building.
Mr. Giner corrected the referenced plans which state J. R. Russo since these plans were done by the Mr. Kruziel. Mr. Kruziel stated it is his error as he used the existing file for his submittal. Mr. Giner stated the note on the top of the plan states all changes done by Walter Kruziel at Peerless.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve SPR #1251 - Application to erect a 30 ft. x 60 ft. shed at 5 Peerless Way, Zoned I-1, Map 94, Lot 68, P.T.M. Realty, LLC, Applicant/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:
"As-Built Plan & Site Plan for Shed, Peerless Industrial Park, Peerless Tool & Machine, Inc. Lot 3 - 5 Peerless Way, Enfield, Connecticut" Scale: 1" = 40', by Walter Kruziel, Peerless Tool, dated 7-22-99 and revised to 12-12-2003.
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 #1251" shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
3. 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:
4. 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:
5. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
6. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Director final as-built plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
General Conditions:
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. A building permit for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained by January 22, 2005 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
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.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
Commissioner Krebs left the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
b. SPR#1253/FLD #017 - Application for redevelopment of 1559 King Street including change of use and renovation of existing building construction of a 68,763 square foot expansion (Phase I) and a future expansion of the building of 49,060 (Phase II) at 1559 King Street, zoned SDD, Map 17, Lot 39, Sound Enfield Group, LLC, Applicant/Owner. (Deadline for decision: 35 days after the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency action.)
Commissioner Duren asked if a request for approval of signage is included in this application. Mr. Giner stated the signs are included.
Attorney Herbert Krasow appeared before the Commission regarding this application representing Sound Enfield Group, LLC. He stated the application is for site plan and sign approval. The property is the former Pace Warehouse property containing 16.9 acres. It is a highly visible property abutting I-91. Prior to today, the property had somewhat of an unsteady use. In 1990, Pace Warehouse was there. Prior to that Bradlees and Stop & Shop occupied the site. In 1994, First Union foreclosed on the property and the applicant then obtained title to the property. Since then the property has housed a distribution center for the post office and some of the property is presently being used by Casual Corner. Last year they attempted to locate BJ's at this property without success and now Bernie's would like to locate here.
Attorney Krasow stated because of the problems this property faced in the past, in October they were granted a zone change from Business General to a Special Development District which allowed the use that they are proposing tonight. This past Tuesday they obtained Inland Wetlands' approval and the proposal now is to develop the property in two phases for Bernie's occupancy for warehousing, distribution, an office and a retail store.
Attorney Krasow stated the project will be done in two phases. The first phase will be a renovation of the existing building and the construction of an additional 69,000 square feet for the warehouse and distribution. The future expansion will be approximately 50,000 square feet to the distribution and warehouse facility. They have a lease that will be signed with Bernie's for fifteen years with twenty years worth of extensions beyond that. Bernie's is a prominent family-owned television, appliance and bedding retailer founded in 1947. Milt Rosenberg, the son of the founder and current President, is in the audience this evening. Also, Bernie's currently has eleven retail stores in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The proposal is for the property to be used by Bernie's as their headquarters and distribution center which is presently located in the Town of Bloomfield. The purpose of the relocation is the need for larger facilities which will initially employ approximately 97 people with additional employees in the future.
Attorney Krasow felt they have demonstrated they have a very viable and sound tenant. This property is in dire need of rehabilitation. It is a gateway property from the south into Enfield and it is very visible on the I-91 corridor. It needs a tremendous amount of improvement which will occur with this proposal. There are benefits to the town including an increased tax base and additional employment opportunities.
Attorney Krasow stated they are on a very tight construction schedule. Bernie's is on a very tight schedule on opening and they have financing commitments with a short time frame. He requested action from the Commission this evening.
Patrick Doherty, Project Manager, reviewed the plans for the project. Also present were Mr. Korini, the Traffic Engineer, and Carmella Rosa, the project architect.
Mr. Doherty stated the site is on the east side of King Street and on the north side of Interstate I-91 on ramp which is on the south side of the site. The Namco building is on the north side of the site and an agricultural site is located north and east of the site. There is a 112,000 square foot building located near the center of the site and 781 parking spaces. There is an access to King Street that formally had a traffic signal installed. Along the south side of the site is a wetland system which is a drainage ditch from some of the highway drainage. There is also a wetland drainage system on the northeast side of the site. On the far eastern side of the site is a wetland system.
Mr. Doherty stated in their research it was determined that a portion of the site is in a flood plain. He pointed out the zone A which is subject to a 100-year flood on the site plan. Mr. Doherty noted they are also applying for a flood certificate.
Mr. Doherty stated their proposal is to redevelop this site. First, they would renovate the existing building and construct a 68,763 square foot warehouse expansion. This would be considered Phase I. They also propose Phase II which is a second warehouse expansion located on the far left hand side of the site which would be a 49,062 square foot expansion. They are increasing the building coverage on the site but because of the uses proposed, they are actually decreasing the amount of parking on the site.
Mr. Doherty reviewed Phase I. They would begin construction immediately after approval. Phase I would include a 68,000 square foot expansion. That expansion area would be a warehouse use. They would also be renovating the existing building which would allow a portion of that area to become Bernie's corporate offices. The offices would take up 16,500 square feet and there would be a retail showroom on the south side of the site. The retail portion would be approximately 21,347 square feet. The site meets the zoning regulations and they did apply for and received approval for a zoning change to allow the Special Development District to give more flexibility to the site.
Mr. Doherty stated the minimum lot area required in this zone is 22,500 square feet. This property is over sixteen acres. The minimum lot frontage has to be 150'. This parcel has 657'. The minimum front yard setback is 40' and they are proposing 340'. The side yard setback requires 10' and they are proposing 30'. There is no rear yard because of the two front yards. The maximum building height in this zone is 36' and they would be building up to 36'. Regarding the maximum impervious coverage, they were approved for a 78% maximum impervious coverage and a building coverage of 32% which would include both Phase I and Phase II.
Mr. Doherty stated the existing parking lot on the site can accommodate 731 vehicles. This change in use would require much less. They have calculated the requirements and the requirements for retail are one parking space per 150 square feet. For office use, the parking requirement is five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. For warehouse distribution, the parking requirement is one parking space per employee. The total required parking would be 292 parking spaces. They are proposing 339 parking spaces. These spaces will be broken up so that each different use of the building will have its own parking area.
Mr. Doherty stated the site previously had a traffic signal and approximately a year ago the State DOT removed it. They have applied for reinstatement of this traffic signal to the State Traffic Commission.
Mr. Doherty stated they have designed the site to accommodate large trucks. Trucks would be able to come in the entrance, circulate into the main loading dock area and back into any of the loading docks. There is a sufficient distance from the doors to the edge of the parking lot to allow trucks to back in. There are also loading docks on the rear of the building. Trucks will be able to circulate around the perimeter of the building, back into the loading docks and then circulate out via the light. The office uses and the retail uses would continue down and park in their designated parking lots.
Regarding utilities, Mr. Doherty stated the site is currently served by public water, public sewer, electric and telephone. They found the need for some bathrooms in the new addition would require a new sanitary line and it would exit at the front of the building and would be tied to an area on-site where there is an existing main that runs through an easement. There's currently an 8" water main that loops around the building. Their domestic water would come into the building. They would add a fire line which would be extended off the existing main.
Mr. Doherty stated the existing telephones and electric come through an easement via overhead wires and they go underground to the building. There is sufficient capacity with those existing lines to service the existing building and the expansion.
Mr. Doherty informed the Commission they have received their Inland Wetlands permit. During that procedure, a lot of time was spent going over the drainage system designed for this site. Inland Wetlands was very concerned about the water quality leaving this site. They have designed the storm water system to comply with modern standards. They would be utilizing portions of the existing system and adding new water quality treatment units. They would be installing a unit just upstream of those discharge points as well as designing other storm water units throughout the site.
Mr. Doherty stated any new catch basins would have a larger sump of four feet and have a hood installed in the discharge pipe to catch any floatables. They have incorporated water quality swales.
Mr. Doherty stated there will be some development within the 100-year flood zone located on the east side. The work that will be done in that area includes a portion of the sidewalk that will be installed in front of the building as well as some landscaped islands. They have mitigated that by removing the pavement from the parking spaces in the far eastern triangle of the lot and excavating the water quality swale.
Mr. Doherty stated they have submitted some detailed site plans for lighting which show light levels throughout the site. There are light extensions throughout the parking lot. Their intention is to install new light fixtures which would be located in alternate locations than where they are today. The new light fixtures would be 45' in height, a shoe-box style, directing light downward. There will be three lights that will shine toward the building.
Mr. Doherty stated one of the important qualities of the site is taking a vacant lot and making it aesthetically pleasing in such a prominent location. He presented the landscaping plan showing the additional landscaping proposed for the site.
Mr. Korimi, the Traffic Engineer, stated as part of the site plan and the requirements of the State Traffic Commission, they have prepared a traffic impact and access study report for the project and have submitted it to the town and the state. It is currently under review by the state.
Mr. Korimi stated the project sits on an arterial roadway, Route 5, King Street, and the access to the project site is off King Street approximately 300' north of the southbound off-ramp. The site has excellent regional access to the interstate highway system. The majority of the traffic that will be going into the facility will be utilizing the interstate highway system.
Mr. Korimi stated as part of the traffic study, they went through the standard traffic engineering methodology of collecting traffic volume counts and doing turning movement counts at the interchange ramps both during the peak commuter morning and afternoon hours. They also looked at the Saturday condition. Counts were done between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on Saturday.
Mr. Korimi stated they project that this development will generate 2,100 trips per day or 1,050 vehicles entering and 1,050 vehicles exiting when the facility is in operation. During the peak hour, there will be approximately 150 to 160 vehicles during the morning a.m. peak hour and Saturday conditions. During the afternoon peak hour, there will be about 230 trips or 115 trips entering and exiting the facility. When you compare this facility to when Pace Warehouse was in operation, they would be generating one-third of the traffic that Pace used to generate.
Mr. Korimi stated one of the unique features of this facility is it will have different shifts which will take the load off the roadway system.
Mr. Korimi stated they needed to make sure the trucks and other vehicles can safely enter and exit the facility. They looked at the capacity of the existing driveway and found they do need a traffic control device. They submitted a traffic signal justification report to the State of Connecticut DOT and they have reviewed and approved a traffic light at this location. This traffic light will also be tied into the remaining traffic lights along King Street. The DOT has plans to update the traffic signals along King Street to bring them into a computerized system and this traffic light will be included.
Mr. Korimi stated the other improvements they are recommending as part of this project include doing some minor widening along the east side of the roadway to formalize a two-lane cross section.
Mr. Korimi stated the traffic analysis and report has been reviewed and approved by DOT. They are going before the State Traffic Commission the third week in February for their approval. They are now working with DOT on the details of the engineering design for the safety and capacity improvements at this location.
Commissioner Krebs left the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
Carmella Rosa, the architect for the project, stated the proposed first expansion consists of the renovation of the existing building of 113,000 square feet and a new addition off the south consisting of approximately 68,700 square feet. Within the existing facility, there is a corporate office of 16,400 square feet. The main entrance to the corporate office would be off the east elevation under a covered metal standing seam canopy roof similar to the canopy roofs presently around the structure. The main entrance would lead into a reception area and directly adjacent to that would be board rooms. Flanking the perimeter would be executive offices and minor offices. They also have a training facility and some minor offices throughout. In the center corridor is an open cubicle office area for open work stations.
Mr. Rosa stated there is also proposed a 21,000 square foot retail store utilizing the existing main entrance under the existing canopy roof system. Within the existing building, they have a 5,600 square foot warehouse office space with some higher level management offices and then minor offices located within the space serving the functions of the warehouse itself.
Mr. Rosa stated the 68,000 square foot addition is all warehouse and distribution space. There will be 25 overhead loading dock doors for receiving and distribution. With the new addition, the total building area is approximately 185,000 square feet for the first expansion. The future second expansion would add an additional 49,000 square feet.
Mr. Rosa stated the existing building is a steel framed structure with concrete masonry, exterior walls and a drive-it cornice band at the south elevation. There are standing seam metal roofs and canopy systems at both ends of the buildings and the one to the east they will be reusing as the main entrance to the retail store. The one on the west side would be removed for the new addition. The existing building will be painted and sealed with colors in a sand tone. There are bright whites and some accent terra cotta colors in the drive-it systems. The existing building height is approximately 22' to 26'. The proposed addition would also be a steel frame structure with colored split faced block and exterior walls in a sand tone color. All the south side is split faced block. There is a drive-it cornice band at the top with some dental trim at the top. The center of the loading dock area would have a stepping facade to bring out the Bernie signage.
Mr. Rosa stated the west and north walls are proposed to have a metal wall panel system with a drive-it cornice band at the top. When the second expansion comes, it will be easy to remove these panels and continue the new addition.
Mr. Rosa stated along the south elevation there is a standing seam metal seam canopy roof that protects the overhead dock doors. This will be in a terra cotta accent color along with the banding. There has been a rendering that was done by the sign people and Mr. Rosa presented that. They would have a sand tone drive-it color. The split faced block would be of a sand tone color and Mr. Rosa provided samples to the Commission. The standing seam metal canopy roofs will be in the terra cotta family.
Mr. Rosa stated the new building ranges in height from 25' at the low bay area to 32' at the high bay area. The existing building's east facade is proposed to have five new overhead doors constructed into the existing wall. This will require the grading to be removed and a retaining wall to be built. These will also act as receiving and distribution doors.
Commissioner Cooper asked if the warehouse operation will be a seven-day-a-week operation. Milton Rosenberg, President of Bernie's, confirmed this operation would be seven days a week, 362 days a year. They are closed Easter, Thanksgiving and Christmas. The warehouse would include three shifts.
Commissioner Cooper asked about the parking for the retail outlet. Mr. Rosenberg stated they have eleven stores and this is not expected to be their top store. They think this will be a store in the top fifty percent and would require 75 parking spaces.
Mr. Doherty stated retail requires five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. The parking lot directly in front of the doors has 39 parking spaces which also includes 109 for the office for a total of 148 parking spaces.
Commissioner Egan asked if Bernie's will be parking their trucks in Enfield. Mr. Doherty stated the trucks will be parked in the area of the loading doors. They have also made provisions for 19 box style trucks. This operation consists of multiple types of vehicles. There will be tractor trailers that will deliver the product to the warehouse and between the warehouse and the store. There are also a lot of home deliveries and those are done by box trucks. The box trucks would be parked in front of the loading area. They have made provisions for the storage of excess trailers that are used during the peak periods. They have made a provision for the storage of ten trailers in the northwest corner of the lot.
Commissioner Duren asked about the location of the mechanicals. Mr. Rosa stated they are located on the roof.
Mr. Doherty presented a drawing showing the location of the existing rooftop units on the existing building. The proposed warehouse expansion has one rooftop unit associated with it and that goes directly into the warehouse office. The warehouse area is not expected to be cooled but the retail building and both offices would be cooled. Mr. Doherty noted in general the existing units are presently screened from King Street by a large evergreen buffer. That buffer will remain untouched and it is their feeling the mechanicals would remain screened in that manner.
Mr. Rosa stated the site is so much lower than King Street but there is an existing natural vegetative buffer that buffers the entire roof. They drove around the site and took photos and you really can't see any rooftop units as you drive around this facility. Mr. Rosa pointed out the existing rooftop units that will remain and those that will be removed. They will be adding five new rooftop units.
Commissioner Duren stated drawing #C-4 includes the drainage plan but there is no notation regarding who is responsible for maintenance. Mr. Giner has made provisions for that but it should be listed on the plans who is responsible for the maintenance plan. Attorney Krasow stated the lease that they are negotiating with Bernie's will have the tenant responsible for the maintenance plan. Mr. Giner stated the direction that this item be shown on the plans is listed as condition #5.
Regarding the signage, Mr. Doherty noted that in general the plan is correct with respect to signs with the exception of the pylon sign along Route 91. Because of the way it is measured, they had to reduce the dimensions.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve SPR #1253 - Application for redevelopment of 1559 King Street including change of use and renovation of the existing building, construction of a 68,763 sq. ft. expansion (Phase I) and a future expansion of the building of 49,0602 (Phase II) at 1559 King Street, Zoned SDD, Map 17, Lot 39, Sound Enfield Group, LLC, Applicant/Owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the Referenced Plans as may be required to be modified by this action and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
Index and Cover Sheet "Proposed Redevelopment 1599 King Street, Enfield, Connecticut"
'Proposed Redevelopment 1599 King Street, Issued for Permit, Legend and General Notes" Drawing C-1, No Scale, by VHB, dated November 26, 2003 and Revised to 1/12/04.
"Proposed Redevelopment 1599 King Street, Issued for Permit, Layout and Materials Plan" Drawing C-2, Scale: 1"=50', by VHB, dated November 26, 2003 and Revised to 1/12/04.
"Proposed Redevelopment 1599 King Street, Issued for Permit, Grading and Drainage Plan" Drawing C-3, Scale: 1"=50', by VHB, dated November 26, 2003 and Revised to 1/12/04.
"Proposed Redevelopment 1599 King Street, Issued for Permit, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Plan" Drawing C-4, Scale: 1"=50', by VHB, dated November 26, 2003 and Revised to 1/12/04.
"Proposed Redevelopment 1599 King Street, Issued for Permit, Utilities Plan" Drawing C-5, Scale: 1"=50', by VHB, dated November 26, 2003 and Revised to 1/12/04.
"Proposed Redevelopment 1599 King Street, Issued for Permit, Landscape Plan" Drawing C-6, Scale: 1"=50', by VHB, dated November 26, 2003 and Revised to 1/12/04.
"Proposed Redevelopment 1599 King Street, Issued for Permit, Site Details 1", Drawing C-7, No Scale, by VHB, dated November 26, 2003 and Revised to 1/12/04.
"Proposed Redevelopment 1599 King Street, Issued for Permit, Site Details 2," Drawing C-8, No Scale, by VHB, dated November 26, 2003 and Revised to 1/12/04.
"Proposed Redevelopment 1599 King Street, Issued for Permit, Site Details 3," Drawing C-9, No Scale, by VHB, dated November 26, 2003 and Revised to 1/12/04.
"Proposed Redevelopment 1599 King Street, Issued for Permit, Site Details 4," Drawing C-10, No Scale, by VHB, dated November 26, 2003 and Revised to 1/12/04.
"Proposed Redevelopment 1599 King Street, Issued for Permit, Site Plan for Phase II," Drawing C-11, Scale: 1"=50', by VHB, dated November 26, 2003 and Revised to 1/12/04.
"Proposed Redevelopment 1599 King Street, Issued for Permit, Site Lighting Plan" Drawing SL-1, Scale: 1"=50', by VHB, dated November 26, 2003 and Revised to 1/12/04.
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 application number (SPR 1253)shall be displayed on the plans in or near the Title Block area.
3. A note shall be added to Sheet C-5 that "prior to construction a test pit shall be dug to locate the sanitary sewer and storm drain in order to determine if its is feasible to install the storm drain manhole."
4. Both sidewalk details shall show processed aggregate stone base and not gravel and the concrete should be 5 inches thick and 8 inches thick in vehicular areas. The expansion joints should be every 20 feet on center.
5. A schedule and description of responsibility for maintenance of the storm water system shall be on the plans.
6. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of these conditions shall be incorporated onto the plans submitted for signature.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
7. 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.
8. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
9. The applicants shall obtain the appropriate approvals from the State Traffic Commission. Any changes to the Site Plan necessitated by such approval may require local staff and/or Commission re-approval.
10. The applicant shall post a bond for Site improvements in an amount of $1,294,700.00 with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney.
11. A Separate Erosion and Sediment Control Bond of $6,540.00 shall be submitted in the form of check, cash or a passbook, pledged to the Town.
12. A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
13. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
14. The traffic signal at the driveway intersection with King Street shall be re-installed and operational.
15. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director of Planning.
General Conditions:
16. The site signage is approved as conditioned in the memo dated January 15 and 16 from Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Planner to José Giner.
17. This approval is also subject to conditions of Wetlands Permit #404.
18. This approval also constitutes approval of the project under the Flood Ordinance.
19. The project shall be operated within the parameters of the Special Development District approved under Public Hearing #2410.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. A building permit for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained by January 22, 2005 and the project completed by January 22, 2009 or this or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission in accordance the Enfield Zoning Regulations.
23. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
Commissioner Duren felt this is an excellent location for this use as they will not disturb any neighborhoods with vehicles entering and exiting. It will also be a great asset to the Town of Enfield.
Chairman DiPace agreed it is a great location for this use and he wished the Bernie's representatives success with their business.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commission Cooper, to approve FLD #017 associated with SPR#1253. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to extend the meeting until the completion of tonight's agenda. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternates McGill and Lefakis voting.
c. SPR#1254 - Application for addition to existing building at 51 Marion Place, zoned R-33, Map 111, Lot 180, Hazardville Water Company, Applicant/Owner. (Deadline for decision: February 19, 2004.)
Jonathan Avery, President of Hazardville Water Company, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Avery stated the proposal is they would be adding on to the existing pump house.
Commissioner Duren noted the plans show a generator and he asked about its fuel source. Mr. Avery stated it is run by propane. Commissioner Duren asked about the location of the propane tank. Mr. Avery stated he would have to check with his engineer regarding that question.
Commissioner Duren stated his concern is that the tank be protected. Mr. Avery stated the plan is to install a new generator which is going to be a backup generator. There presently is no generator on the site.
Mr. Giner suggested a condition that the Fire Marshal review the site plan.
Commissioner Duren asked about abutting properties and stated he has a concern about the noise. Mr. Giner stated to the north is a paper street and beyond that is a new development with natural buffers. There will be no residences near this use.
Commissioner Duren noted the Commission is not approving the future tank location.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve SPR #1254 - Application for addition to existing building at 51 Marion Place, Zoned R-33, Map 111, Lot 180, Hazardville Water Company, Applicant/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:
"Hazardville Water Company, Enfield, Connecticut, Bucken Road Booster Pump Station" by Tata and Howard, Inc. dated November 2003.
"Hazardville Water Co. Building Plans Addition to Bucken Road Booster Pump Station." Scale ¼" = 1'-0", Dated 11/24/03.
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 #1254" shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
3. 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:
4. Two sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
5. Final Inspection required. The Zoning Enforcement officer may require as-built plans if necessary to show compliance.
General Conditions:
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. A building permit for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained by January 22, 2005 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
9. 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.
10. The Fire Marshal shall approve the use and location of the propane tank.
11. The approval of this application does not include the future tank or the tank's location.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternates McGill and Lefakis voting.
BOND RELEASES
a. PH#2148 - Request by Dave Fredrick for release of $27,700 Engineering Bond for Neelans Road Subdivision.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to release the $27,700 Engineering bond for PH#2148, Application of Dave Fredrick for Neelans Road Subdivision. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Applications to be received
The following applications were received tonight by the Commission:
PH#2426 - Application for Special Permit modification for facade color changes for Old Navy at 25 Hazard Avenue, Map 45, Lot 8, SEA Enfield Commons LLC, Applicant/Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for February 5, 2004.
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, Map 25, Lot 74, Eleanor Binns, Applicant/Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for February 22, 2004.
PH#2428 - Application for resubdivision of a lot that was combined until soil testing was completed that satisfied the public health code for two lots zoned R-44, west side of Broad Brook Road, south side of Salerno Drive, Map 103, John Tittarelli, Applicant/Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for February 22, 2004.
SPR#1255 - Application for 3,530 square foot addition to the Calvary Presbyterian Church at 1518 Old King Street, zoned R-44, Map 18, Lot 263, Calvary Presbyterian Church, Applicant/Owner.
b. Discussion of Grandview Drive
Mr. Giner stated the Commission requested that he review the subdivision regulations and the town's responsibilities according to those regulations regarding 10 Grandview Drive. He distributed a copy of the as built plan and a copy of the building permit application as submitted.
Mr. Giner stated he does not think there is any dispute that lots when they are developed for residential uses will be different than what is shown on the subdivision plan. What is approved are the general plans for grading only. The practice has been as long as the grading and impact generally follow what the plans show, the engineer will sign off on both the permit and the c.o.
Mr. Giner stated looking at the subdivision approval, what is shown is a rectangle only and not the final home layout or grading. It is not a site plan approval. Mr. Giner brought up the subdivision plan that was approved and he read from the plan.
Mr. Giner stated if you look at case law and the requirements for bonding, one of the cases reiterates that you cannot require bonds for individual lots in a subdivision. The town allows the lots to be sold and the subdivider can then sell them to individuals and individuals can construct homes on them.
Mr. Giner stated he did take an analysis of the lots and looking at the slopes, this plan follows what the plan is. There is a general grade to drain and looking at the steeper parts which are thirty percent slopes, water is directed in one direction and the contours go back to a swale. The water will be going one way and then sideways which is pretty much the way the as built shows the water draining.
Mr. Giner stated whatever problems are occurring on Grandview Drive are because of the way the lot was prepared. This is an issue between the buyer and the seller. He noted the grades in the as built which are much gentler and more in keeping than what is shown. There are eighteen percent slopes. Mr. Giner stated if the problem was with the slopes, a much greater erosion problem would be seen. The steepest slope is at 17% coming off the side lot.
Chairman DiPace stated he would want the property coming off the back of his house to be flat. Mr. Giner stated that is not a requirement and most of the regulations from other towns state to try to retain the natural character of the land in the subdivision. Mr. Giner stated the as built does show more closely what was existing.
Commissioner Egan stated the Commission agrees that holding up the bond is not appropriate. The bond does apply only to the improvements that were done for the town. The town's subdivision regulations require in the construction plans that the contours have a 2' contoured interval and a 5' contoured interval may be used for steep slopes, wooded areas and swamps. The regulations state the existing topography plans must be certified to A-2 accuracy as defined by the Connecticut Association of Land Surveyors. They note also that the existing and finished contours shall be shown to show the property before development and the final grading of each lot as amended within the subdivision. The regulations further state if for some reason there is some necessary field change during development, the final contours shall be altered from those shown in the final plan. The developer shall supply revised as built plans showing such revisions to the Commission so that the Town of Enfield shall have on file a precise record of the subdivision as built or developed.
Mr. Giner stated the regulations do not say these steps require a reapproval by the Commission.
Commissioner Egan felt there is some conflict as to what was finally presented and what existed at the time. Mr. Giner stated the practice in Enfield has been they have never gotten the final plans. The Town Engineer goes out there and in his opinion the grading and the drainage are basically what is shown on the plans. They show a broad grade to drain and the lay of the land is going down toward the corner of the property. The water is flowing the way it is supposed to be flowing and the Town Engineer is saying as long as that is followed, the engineering concerns are met.
Chairman DiPace acknowledged the water is flowing but the grades showing what was approved and what is now there are not the same.
Mr. Giner stated there is not that great a change. The top contour is still 144. Also, individual homeowners do not have to come back to the town for changes.
Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Giner send a letter to the developer and ask him if he wants to send his attorney in regarding this application. Inform him that the Commission wants to know why the plan is wrong. Chairman DiPace would like to review what is different between the approved plan and what was done.
Mr. Giner stated the way the water is supposed to drain is precisely that and there is erosion in the area where it is supposed to go. He noted the erosion is not being caused by the plan and the as built should have caused less erosion. The issue is it was not well stabilized. Mr. Giner reviewed the plan and noted the grades pretty much follow the lay of the land. How individual people want their back yards is left up to the homeowner.
Mr. Giner stated there are regulations that do require certain things and this is what he distributed to the Commission. Newington and Somers have the more involved regulations.
Chairman DiPace asked that Commission members review the regulations from other towns.
Mr. Giner distributed Judge Fuller's comments regarding subdivision regulations.
Mr. Giner stated the regulations presently do not require individual site plans. Subdivision plans show a rectangle on a subdivision plan.
Some discussion followed with Mrs. Camidge and Mr. Leonard.
Mrs. Camidge stated the approved plan has the elevation going straight back. She noted Mr. Giner is referring to the as built and not the approved plan.
Mrs. Camidge pointed out the existing contours and stated with what was proposed, they would come back 50' and then drop down. As shown by their surveyor, the developer did no grading of their property. The plan looks like it was the lay of the land before the house was built and there was no grading of the property.
Mrs. Camidge stated the information from the builder was that the lot would grade to drain and their property would go back for 40' to 50' and then drop off. What happened is there was no dirt left. They were the last house in the development. The developer had no dirt and would have had to charge them to bring in additional dirt. They countered that this was not fair and this is what our back yard should be. Mr. Giner stated that should have been addressed at the closing. Mrs. Camidge stated they closed in January and they took the builder on his faith.
Mr. Leonard stated there is a grade to drain that is forty feet away from the house and when that is presented to them at their closing, they assume the grade to drain will be further away and not 10' from the house. The grade to drain is 10' from their home and goes right through the middle of their property.
Mr. Giner showed the grade to drain and noted the plot plan is pretty much the same as the subdivision plan. Mr. Giner added the only things addressed in the subdivision regulations are health, safety and welfare.
Chairman DiPace stated there is nothing legally this Commission can do to force the developer to fix this property. He requested a legal opinion from the Town Attorney stating what can be done to protect the town from this happening in the future.
Mr. Giner suggested a change to the regulations. He will formally make a request to the Town Attorney.
Commissioner Duren asked if the Zoning Enforcement Officer checks the home prior to issuing a c.o. Mr. Giner stated he checks the zoning requirements. The Town Engineer checks the drainage to make sure there are no drainage problems on the property. In the Town Engineer's opinion, this lot at 10 Grandview is draining the way it is supposed to be draining. Further discussion followed.
Chairman DiPace noted this is a civil matter and there is nothing this Commission can do.
Commissioner Duren suggested the Camidge's go to the Consumer Protection Agency for a resolution of this matter.
Mrs. Camidge stated there are drainage problems on the other side of the street. Mr. Giner stated the grading shown is exactly as shown on the plan. Mr. Leonard vehemently disagreed with Mr. Giner's comments.
OTHER BUSINESS
Commissioner Lefakis requested that any discussion regarding awnings also involve the use of such awnings in the Hazardville area.
Commissioner Lefakis stated the Commission previously discussed having announcement signs added to the high schools and the community college. He asked if there has been any progress regarding this proposal. Commissioner Duren stated he requested that Mr. Giner's proposal include internally lit and electronically controlled signs.
Mr. Giner noted he distributed a proposal regarding A-frame signs for the Commission's review.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Cooper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 12:00 midnight.
Respectfully submitted,
& |