|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2004
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, November 4, 2004, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Jeffrey Cooper
Charles Duren
Robert Egan
James Hickey, Jr.
Karen Krebs
Karen Weseliza
Samuel McGill, Alternate
Nicles Lefakis, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Town Planner
MINUTES
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve the Minutes of October 7, 2004. The Minutes were approved by a 6 - 0 - 1 vote. Commissioner Egan abstained.
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to approve the Minutes of October 21, 2004. Commissioner Duren made a correction on page three. The last four sentences of the fourth paragraph should be deleted. The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a 6 - 0 - 1 vote. Commissioner Cooper abstained.
STAFF COMMENTS
a. Town Attorney (in writing)
Mr. Giner stated the Town Attorney would still like to meet with the Commission regarding some legal matters but she is waiting until some future meetings with those involved are held.
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer (in writing)
c. Director of Planning and Community Development
Mr. Giner reported on two items that he has been asked to approve administratively. The first is at the Enfield Day Care Center on South Road. Home Depot has donated a 10' x 10' shed for the storing of equipment. It will be placed on existing pavement adjacent to the fence in the back of the building. The Fire Marshal has approved the location of this shed. The Wetlands Officer had no problem with the location of this shed.
Mr. Giner stated Brookside Village wants to move a small 10' x 10' dumpster pad next to an existing pad for convenience purposes. The proposed dumpster move will make pickup easier for town vehicles. Chairman DiPace would like to see some type of screening around this proposed dumpster.
CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence includes the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Notice of Action dated October 19, 2004.
COMMISSIONERS' CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace stated Commissioners' Correspondence includes the Capitol Region Council of Governments mailing, and a draft zoning ordinance for the Commission's information.
Chairman DiPace reported last week he and Commissioner Egan attended the aquifer protection seminar held in West Hartford. He noted the Town of Enfield is one of the first towns on the list as far as having their maps completed and beginning aquifer protection review. Within the next six months, the Commission should see draft regulations from the state.
Mr. Giner noted a presentation that will be held on Thursday, November 11, 2004.
Chairman DiPace acknowledged the Commission's invitation to the Bernie's opening next Wednesday.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued from October 21, 2004 Meeting
a. PH#2467 - Special Use Permit for a church, school and parsonage within an existing structure at 177 Elm Street, zoned R-33, Assessor's Map 57, Lot 266, Steven E. MacCormack, Applicant; Lily Yeh Kalk and Renee Yeh, Owners. (Must close by November 11)
Pastor Steven MacCormack appeared before the Commission regarding the continuation of this application. He stated after his recent meeting with the Fire Marshal, the Town Planner and the Building Inspector, revisions were made on the four-phase plan that they had previously presented. He noted the Fire Marshal emailed Mr. Giner this morning but he did not have the revised plans for his review. He presented a copy of the revised plans to each Commission member.
Pastor MacCormack stated he attempted to define a clear cut division of the uses being proposed. Phase I is the time when they will be using the main level as a parsonage and only one room in the lower level for services. The Fire Marshal informed them they cannot use the reception area for a nursery because there is no window existing. The revised plans on Page 1B identify thirty x's in the lower level, 25 for the congregation, four for anyone sitting in the front and one for the pianist. During this Phase I, no more than 30 people will be allowed at services on the lower level. The balance of the lower level will be used for storage. This will allow proper egress in case of an emergency right out the rear entrance door and will not pose any potential fire hazard or problem.
Pastor MacCormack stated Phase II will be when he moves out and the building is no longer used as a parsonage. When they move out, they will remove the stove on the main level that was a concern to the Health Department. This will remove any problem with potential grease going into the sanitary sewers that was a concern. During this Phase II, the assembly area will be moved from the one-room in the basement. Plan 2A shows moving 35 seats into a much larger room. This room would, according to the Building Inspector, fit 42 seats. However, they are requesting a maximum of 35 seats in this assembly area on the main level. On this level, there is adequate emergency access out the rear door and also the front exit door.
Pastor MacCormack stated in Phase II, their proposal is to have up to six toddlers in a toddlers' room as shown on Page 2A of the plans. This is a room for two and three-year-olds. In that same room that was used previously in the lower level, the Building Inspector informed him they could have up to eight people in there for the nursery.
Pastor MacCormack summarized Phase II would include 35 seats on the main level in the assembly area, six spaces in the toddler room and eight spaces in the nursery. This will keep the total number under 50. Pastor MacCormack stated as long as they are under fifty, the building code for handicapped accessibility and certain fire codes do not apply and they would fall under the exception rule.
Pastor MacCormack stated the Fire Marshal sent a memo to Mr. Giner this morning. He also read the exception rule from the building code. According to the Building Inspector, the exception rule can be used provided the building floor size is smaller than 3,500 square feet. Pastor MacCormack stated currently there is a small hallway on the main level as shown on page 2A. There is an L-shaped wall that divides the assembly area from the hallway. That hallway is between 39" and 40". The current code for new construction requires all hallways to be at least 44" in width. However, since the building is under 3,500 square feet, according to the Building Inspector, that code does not apply. Pastor MacCormack stated if the Commission insists that they comply to that code and cannot use the main level for assembly or classrooms, they could, with permission from the current owners, remove that entire wall to eliminate the hallway. Pastor MacCormack noted that many of the existing day care centers and other businesses have hallway widths even smaller than the 40" shown on the plans.
Pastor MacCormack stated Phase III would be the Sunday school as shown on 3A of the plans. The worship service would be approximately 11:00 a.m. on Sunday morning. At approximately 10:00 a.m. they would invite anyone that wants to come an hour early to come to Sunday school class. The attendance for this Sunday school is usually smaller than for church services. Each room can have one Sunday school seat for every twenty square feet. This would mean eight in the far corner room, and nine Sunday school seats in the main assembly room. They would have 41 seats being used for Sunday school and this would still be under 50 people. Page 4A of the plans shows the church school. They show a school desk in each classroom for the teacher. They can have no more than 31 students and 4 teachers or a total of 35 in the school. They are staying at the 35 number because according to the parking regulations, the requirement is one parking space for every six students and one parking space for each employee. With the four teachers, the total parking requirement would be nine spaces. Pastor MacCormack noted currently there are eleven on-site parking spaces, seven with one handicapped in the back, two in the front and two in the garage.
Pastor MacCormack stated the parking requirement for the church is one space for every four people in the assembly area. For this reason, they have limited the assembly area to 35 and the 9 spaces they have will be adequate.
Pastor MacCormack stated they did their best to assure that the revised plans meet the code and ordinance requirements. The only question remaining is to have the Fire Marshal talk to the Building Inspector about the exception rule.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission only received the revised plans this evening and Town staff has not had an opportunity to thoroughly review them. Pastor MacCormack stated the Building Inspector recommended the revisions. Chairman DiPace stated it will be necessary to keep the hearing open pending town staff review of the new plans.
Chairman DiPace stated the Building Inspector goes by the building code and the Fire Marshal by the fire code. The fire code overrules and if the plans do not meet the fire code, the Building Inspector cannot approve them.
Commissioner Duren asked if the number of people proposed for the building has taken into consideration the load bearing of the building. The building is wood construction and he asked for the maximum weight this building could carry. Pastor MacCormack stated they have not had an engineer review this. However, they have had family reunions at this residence with thirty-five people. Also, the diagram of the lower level shows there are adequate wall structures to support 100 people on the main level.
Pastor MacCormack discussed their attempt to purchase the Italian Club on Pearl Street. However, the codes do not allow assemblies on a second story level. The assembly area at that location was approved for 120 people and was approximately three times the size of the proposed assembly area at 177 Elm Street. Pastor MacCormack stated the figures were arrived at by the Building Inspector's calculations regarding space.
Commissioner Weseliza asked about the participants for the Sunday school. Pastor MacCormack stated it would be for all ages.
Commissioner Duren stated the problem he sees is if Pastor MacCormack does anything other than Phase I with a limit of 35 people, the fire code would hinder subsequent phases. Commissioner Duren noted the Fire Marshal is not entirely happy with Phase I alone on the basis of parking and other items. Pastor MacCormack stated there is adequate parking for Phase I. The Fire Marshal made a notation that once they go to Phases 2 through 4, they would not have adequate parking. Pastor MacCormack stated this parking issue was cleared up in the meeting held with town staff last Wednesday. There is adequate parking for up to 35 seats in the assembly area and also for 31 students and four teachers in the Sunday school.
Pastor MacCormack suggested the Commission make an approval requirement for Phase 2 through 4 that they can use the building as the diagrams state provided that they meet the fire code. Once they get to those phases in a year and a half, to use as proposed they will make sure they have the Fire Marshal's approval and come back before this Commission stating they have complied with the fire code.
Commissioner Duren stated he does not ever recall this Commission approving applications in phases without approval from the Fire Marshal for all phases. At this point, Pastor MacCormack only has approval from the Fire Marshal for Phase I.
Pastor MacCormack stated they previously had a contract to purchase 18 Shaker Road in December of 2003. It was recently approved for a day care center with twenty outstanding items that needed to be addressed. Pastor MacCormack stated he did not purchase the Shaker Road site because he did not want the church in a location where there might be apartments or an industrial use built behind the building.
Commissioner Duren noted Pastor MacCormack's lack of a specific plan for future phases of this building as proposed. He added the day care center cannot open until the twenty recommendations are met. Pastor MacCormack suggested a condition that they cannot open the main level for use until the fire code requirements are met.
Commissioner Duren stated this Commission does not have authorization from the Fire Marshal for Phase 2. He has not seen specific plans identifying the uses.
Pastor MacCormack asked if the suggestion is that he come back to the Commission in a year and a half, state he would be moving out of 177 Elm Street and present a plan to use the main level for the church.
Commissioner Duren stated he prefers a full application all at once rather than on a piece meal basis.
Pastor MacCormack discussed the difficulties of starting a church citing the lack of people and resources. He noted the difficulties of anyone starting a church in Enfield because the only place for them to start is in an existing structure that meets the code and these would be retail centers or an industrial building. The rentals for such space are expensive for a conservative Baptist church with slow membership growth. If the Commission does not see their situation, Pastor MacCormack stated this church will not get established unless there is a financial backer involved.
Pastor MacCormack stated an audience member questioned why he doesn't just have people come to his home for prayer services which is allowed in this country. He stated he is before the Commission because he is trying to be a law abiding citizen and avoid causing any problems in the neighborhood.
Pastor MacCormack discussed the costs involved and the difficulty starting a new church.
Chairman DiPace noted the necessity to follow the proper procedures. Pastor MacCormack requested approval for the first phase and also contingent approval for phases two through four provided they meet the Fire Marshal's approval.
Commissioner Duren read the Fire Marshal's memo. In the memo, the Fire Marshal stated anything beyond the current use and parking arrangement will create a major impact to the code and approval by the Commission should be restricted or there should be a clear understanding on the use of the building.
Pastor MacCormack stated the code impacts are the 44" wide hallways, the 32" doors and handicapped access. The main level does not meet those fire codes.
Commissioner Duren read the Fire Marshal's memo further in which he states there are too many variables or proposed uses for the building and each creates its own unique situation. The report goes on to cover each of the phases.
Commissioner Duren suggested Pastor MacCormack stay with Phase I which the Fire Marshal has approved.
Pastor MacCormack stated they could provide plans that show the structural changes in two years. Commissioner Duren suggested he come back with those plans at that time.
Pastor MacCormack stated they would do that and start the church with 30 people. They would then work on getting plans to code and find out how much the cost will be to meet the requirements of the fire code. They would then get engineered drawings which met fire and safety codes and submit those in a new application. The new application would note they are proposing to use the main level for assembly and there would be four or five classrooms.
Pastor MacCormack stated he could do that but he was hoping the Commission would allow all the approvals. If he had known there was a need for structural plans, he would have had those drawings prepared for the Commission to review.
Commissioner Duren noted a need for the Commission to have plans all the way through. As the Chairman noted previously, the Commission has a lot of regulations and requirements to protect the individuals that use the property.
Commissioner Cooper asked if parking will be added when they go to the second phase. Pastor MacCormack stated in the second phase he would still be able to use the existing parking. Commissioner Cooper stated not according to the memo before the Commission. Pastor MacCormack stated parking was addressed with the Building Inspector and the Fire Marshal and the requirement is one parking space for every four seats in the assembly and one parking space for every six students.
Commissioner Duren discussed access. Pastor MacCormack stated there is access on Harvest Lane. Commissioner Duren stated the Fire Marshal likes to get as close to the building as possible in the event of a fire.
Mr. Giner stated the second phase totals 36 people. That is a number which from a parking point of view would work with the existing layout without adding additional parking. In that case, there would be no change from what the doctor previously had or the access. Thirty-six would be the limit with respect to the assembly use of the building on any floor.
Pastor MacCormack stated they are doing their best to try to comply to the codes and let the town know their plans. Their intent is to have a good program in the community to help people. He acknowledged the difficulty in getting started and discussed other church groups and their difficulties.
Commissioner Egan stated regarding the parking, the Commission has had at least one other proposal for this building and parking was the issue. There was a very big concern by the Fire Department regarding access to those residential areas. Commissioner Egan asked where the snow will be stored and will that take up one of the nine parking spaces.
Pastor MacCormack stated the snow would be lifted over the fence and dropped on the other side. There is enough area on the side to store snow on the north side of the parking lot. There is a 40' strip where snow could be piled. If there was a problem where a parking space would be lost, they actually have eleven spaces using the two spaces in the garage. The proposed use is on Sunday morning with eight or nine cars for two hours, an hour on Sunday night and an hour on Wednesday night.
Commissioner Egan stated thirty people were mentioned participating in the Sunday school program. If the enrollment is twenty adults and ten children and there are more cars than anticipated, what are the plans for overflow parking? Pastor MacCormack stated they would park across the street at Asnuntuck College. While he does not yet have permission, he could get it. He also knows the owner of the plaza one block away and he would get permission to use four or five spaces at that location.
Commissioner Egan stated the overflow will be parking on the side street. Pastor MacCormack stated if they get to the point where there is going to be a problem, they will address it. He suggested the Commission make a stipulation that there be no parking allowed on Harvest Lane and he will make sure the members abide by this restriction. Commissioner Egan stated there is some question as to whether the Commission can regulate that. He suggested a "no parking" sign in the area.
Commissioner Egan asked what size the parking spaces are. Mr. Giner stated 9' x 18' is the size of the existing spaces built by the previous owner. Everything on the plan exists as it did for the previous use of the chiropractor.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public.
Salvatore Presto, 181 Elm Street, reminded everyone that this is a home and the Pastor wants to use it as a parsonage. This means he will have people living in the home while he conducts services. The Pastor has a wife and two children. At various times, the children may be ill and in bed in other rooms in this home. Also, the proposal includes eight toddlers that may attend the school. He asked what they would do for lunch and where they would store their jackets. Another concern is can this home be used for special functions. Mr. Presto also asked if you had a fire drill on this property, how would it work? He asked if the hallway is 40" wide and you have people trying to exit the home if something should happen, how long would it take 50 people to vacate the premises? Mr. Presto stated by not allowing parking on Harvest Road, it would give the neighborhood a different complexion. Parking is presently allowed and having no parking will put a burden on the people who live on the street.
Mr. Presto did not have a problem with the cars parking at Asnuntuck College. His problem is why does he need a special use permit at this time to have church services and why can't he submit total plans to give people the size of the property, the size of the building and have the Fire Marshal run a fire drill.
Ruth Presto, 181 Elm Street, stated as long as Pastor MacCormack is being futuristic and talking about razing three homes in the area to build a church, she wants to express her fear. Many people in the Elm Street area have worked very hard to try to keep some semblance of a neighborhood on Elm Street. Pastor MacCormack is new to the community and doesn't know how hard the residents have worked. She discussed the Kalva's who had their property reduced which made getting in and out of their driveway that much more difficult. To her, it seems ironic that this gentleman wants to put a church, school and parish house in a small ranch home. It doesn't seem feasible and Ms. Presto fears losing three more homes if this is approved. Ms. Presto stated she is not against a church and she would have the same feelings about a flower shop or an art gallery at this location. She does not think this proposed church is appropriate for this location or in the best interests of the neighborhood. Ms. Presto stated she is against a zone change because she looks at it as a precursor of losing more homes and she doesn't want to see this happen. Pastor MacCormack has barely moved in and he is talking about moving out in a year and a half. He is not going to be a part of the neighborhood in the way that the residents are. Ms. Presto stated this area has had a lot of history and the people have put forth a lot of effort to make their homes look good and to see more homes destroyed would be going against everything she believes in. Pastor MacCormack may think he is doing something good for the people of Enfield but he is not doing something good for the people on Elm Street.
Edwin Walerzak, 179 Elm Street, stated he had letters from the three abutting neighbors of 177 Elm Street. He read a letter from Jayden Nicole, Bridal and Formal Specialist, 655 Maple Avenue, Hartford, CT 06114 and Maria and John Girard, 4 Spring Garden Road, Enfield, Connecticut 06082, objecting to this application and asking that Mr. Walerzak read this letter to the Commission. Residents Edward Kaplan, 2 Spring Garden Road, and Arue Dozik, 1 Harvest Road, are also against the proposal per their letter submitted. They all noted they are not interested in selling their homes nor were they ever approached by the applicant in regard to this matter. Their concerns included parking, buses traveling Harvest and Spring Garden Roads, and pedestrian traffic all of which would be affected by the proposed use.
Edwin Walerzak, 179 Elm Street, stated he lived across the street. He agrees with the Pastor regarding the locations of churches on busy streets. He delineated many of these churches. Mr. Walerzak suggested the Pastor consider locating at the former church on High Street or at the former church of the Jehovah Witnesses on North Maple Street.
Pastor MacCormack stated he appreciates the comments of the community members. It is good to know that the existing abutters do not want to sell their property. This eliminates the potential fear of the church expanding and growing and causing a problem at the intersection. He noted if they started with a small assembly for the next year or two and then purchased some land and built a new building nearby, that might be a good route for them to consider. Pastor MacCormack stated they will do their best to try to keep everyone happy while they get started.
Chairman DiPace noted the need for an extension from the applicant to continue this public hearing to give staff an opportunity to review the newly revised plans. Mr. Giner confirmed there have not yet been any extensions and one would be possible with permission from the applicant.
Mr. Giner stated they did meet with Fire Marshal Paul Censki and James Taylor, the Building Inspector, last Wednesday. Most of the discussion concerned fire code issues. Mr. Censki reviewed his codes and sent the Commission a memo today. Mr. Giner stated while he thinks the numbers work for Phase I, the Fire Marshal was very concerned about approving anything beyond that. After a year and a half or two years, there would be a history of the use and the applicant could reapply at that time and the Commission can review the proposed uses. Mr. Giner stated his memo is based on the recommendations of the Fire Marshal. The only change he would make to his recommendation is a change to condition #8. He had calculated the space in front of the pulpit and piano.
Mr. Giner stated if the Commission chooses to approve the application for the church, it would be with the limitations stated in his memo. Later on when the use is clearer and they want to use the upstairs, plans should be prepared and a new application submitted.
Mr. Giner stated a continuation of this hearing would require a request from the applicant for an extension of this hearing.
Chairman DiPace stated the revised plans need to be reviewed by town staff and a report submitted to the Commission. The Fire Marshal has also not seen the revised plans. He noted the need to extend this public hearing to discuss any additional concerns.
Pastor MacCormack verbally requested that his hearing be extended for the necessary time to have the staff review the application.
Commissioner Duren asked if the Commission would be reviewing the multiple phases. Mr. Giner stated that is what the applicant is requesting. The Commission can modify the request prior to action.
Chairman DiPace continued this public hearing to November 18, 2004.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2391.02 - Modification of plans previously approved to existing site lighting at 10 Palomba Drive, zoned BR, Map 57, Lot 334, Lia Auto Group, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by 12/9)
Eric Forish representing Lia Auto Group appeared before the Commission regarding 10 Palomba Drive, the Nissan dealership. The prior approvals and construction have been one hundred percent completed for this property and signed off by the pertinent departments. They are before the Commission this evening to discuss the site lighting. This parcel has the original light poles and they are rusted and deteriorated. The proposal is to replace the existing light poles and add two light poles to the existing layout. Mr. Forish presented a plan showing the new lighting proposed.
Mr. Forish also presented a photometric layout. He stated there would be little to no illumination on the perimeter surrounding properties. The poles are two different types. One type is a 25' pole and the other type is a 30'. The shorter poles have 400 watt heads and the taller poles have 1,000 watt heads. The taller more illuminating poles are along the street line to replace the existing six lights.
Mr. Forish responded to a question from Commissioner Cooper that the existing six lights along the street are approximately 25' tall.
Mr. Forish stated the type of fixture and pole is consistent with the design of the retrofitted building. It is a silver type of pole with a box type head.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if the lights are on twenty-four hours per day. Mr. Forish stated they are not. There is a combination of a timer and a photo cell. Some lights are on overnight for security purposes but not all of them.
Commissioner Duren asked if these plans satisfy the concerns of Engineering. Mr. Giner stated the Town Engineer wanted a detail of both lights and only one was received. The Commission requested that this be a condition of approval.
Mr. Giner stated these lights were brought before the Commission because there is an increase in wattage. They requested a photometric plan.
Mr. Forish stated the poles terminate quite a distance from the other uses.
Commissioner Duren asked when the plans were stamped. Mr. Giner confirmed they were stamped November 2, 2004 and were not included in the meeting packet.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve PH#2391.02 with the condition that the detail for the proposed pole be added to the plans or submitted separately. This application is also subject to the applicable standard conditions of approval which are:
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 detail for the proposed pole be added to the plans or submitted separately
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.
5. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
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. 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.
b. PH#2475 - Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission initiative for a Zoning Regulations (Section 6.30.1Aiii) text change reducing the separation distances between commercial recreation uses from 2,500 feet to 2,000 feet and clarifying the method by which such distances are measured. (Must close by 12/9)
Mr. Giner stated this is an initiative he brought before the Commission previously and the Commission gave permission to proceed. Mr. Giner stated the main problem with the current regulation is the language points to a section of the ordinance that no longer exists. When the regulations were redone, this was something that was not updated. At the same time the Commission felt that the distance issue should be reduced to 2,000' because the original separation distances under commercial recreation uses were written for a large stadium. Over the years, modifications have been made to bring the size of the parcel down from twenty to thirty acres to five acres. With this change, it didn't make a lot of sense for smaller uses to require that type of separation distance. The proposal is to change the two items in Section 6.30.1Aiii.
Mr. Giner stated this amendment was sent to CRCOG and their comments were this text change would have no apparent conflict with regional plans and policies and concerns of neighboring towns.
Mr. Giner stated following the Commission's approval, this will have to be published in the newspaper which will occur on Saturday and also given to the Town Clerk which will be done tomorrow. Chairman DiPace suggested an effective date of November 15, 2004 to address all concerns.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Commissioner Weseliza asked what type of recreational uses would be covered by this ordinance. Mr. Giner stated uses like tennis clubs, ice hockey rinks, bowling alleys and driving ranges.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2475 for a text change to the Enfield Zoning Regulations, Section 6.30.1Aiii, to reduce the separation distances between commercial recreation uses from 2,500 feet to 2,000 feet and to clarify the method by which such distances are measured. This text change has an effective date of November 15, 2004.
PH#2476 - Resubdivision to allow creation of a 39,000 + square foot building lot from an 80,000 + square foot at 6 Third Street, zoned R-33, Map 36, Lot 306, Waltela Dubish, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by 12/9.)
Robert Yeaw, son-in-law of Waltela Dubish, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Yeaw stated Ms. Dubish owns a piece of property that was transferred to her by her mother. She now wants to divide this property into two lots. One lot would have the existing home and the second lot is buildable. She has two granddaughters and would like to give one lot to each of them.
Chairman DiPace asked if the split would be from one lot into two lots. Mr. Yeaw stated there is an error and it should read proposed Lot #1 and proposed Lot #2. There is an existing Lot #1 that is not part of the subdivision.
Mr. Giner stated the existing house lot should be labeled as Lot #1.
Chairman DiPace stated this request would be creating two new lots, a front lot and a rear lot. Mr. Yeaw stated the rear lot is already there. The request is to create two lots from one lot.
Mr. Giner stated the lot that is titled "existing Lot #1" was approved by a variance in 1948. That lot has existed with the driveway the way it is. The front lot is all one lot. Mr. Giner showed on the plans where the lines would be moved and noted one parcel is also being merged with another parcel.
Commissioner Duren summarized Ms. Dubish would be conveying one lot to one person, one lot to another person and keeping one lot. Mr. Giner noted the location of the driveway off Third Street.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Mr. Giner stated this property is exempt from open space requirements because they are giving the property to a family member for no consideration. There is an issue about house numbering that the Town Engineer asked about. In terms of the access, it has been there since 1948. There is a strip that if they do not have use of that driveway, there is a place to build another driveway. There is a legal right of way to the back parcel and that back parcel has been there since 1948.
Mr. Giner stated he has addressed the Town Engineer's concerns with his proposed conditions. Mr. Giner made it clear that Parcel A is not an approved building lot and has to be conveyed and merged with the property of Mr. Yeaw.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2476, Resubdivision to allow creation of a 39,000+ square foot building lot from an 80,000+square foot lot at 6 Third Street, zoned R-33, Map 36, Lot 306, Waltela Dubish, 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:
"One Lot Resubdivision, prepared for Bill Rinaldi, Third Street, Enfield, Connecticut, Assessor's Map #36, Parcels 306 and 307." Scale: 1:=40' Sheet No. 1 of 2, by Dennis G. Rehmer, Land Surveyor, dated 9/20/04, 04/09/03 and revised to 10/15/03.
"One Lot Resubdivision, prepared for Bill Rinaldi, Third Street, Enfield, Connecticut, Assessor's Map #36, Parcels 306 and 307." Scale: 1: = 40', Sheet No. 2 of 2, by Dennis G. Rehmer, Land Surveyor, dated 9/20/04, 04/09/03 and revised to 10/15/03.
Conditions to be met prior to signing of mylars and certificate:
1. All mylars submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
2. The house numbering shall be approved in consultation with the Town Engineer and the E-911 Coordinator. The accepted house number(s) shall be shown on the plans submitted.
3. The final mylar shall contain the following language: "This application claims an exemption from the Open Space requirements under Section 8-25 of the Connecticut General Statutes where 'the open space requirements of this section shall not apply if the transfer of all land in a subdivision of less than five parcels is to a parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, or first cousin for no consideration'. Any sale of the land that does not comply with these requirements shall be liable for a payment in lieu of open space in accordance with the Enfield Subdivision Regulations.
4. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this approval shall either be incorporated on to the mylars submitted for signature or filed separately on the land records of the property.
5. The Public Hearing file number "PH2476" shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheet either in the title block or in the area around it.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of a Zoning Permit:
6. Two sets of final mylars and 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.
7. Final approval of detailed plans must be obtained from the Town Engineer and Water Pollution Control Division.
8. Signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk no later than ninety (90) days from the expiration of the appeal period of this approval shall be null and void. The applicants shall provide such mylars to the Planning Department sufficiently in advance of this deadline to allow for review of the plans and the arrangement for the Commission Secretary to sign the mylars. The applicant may request an extension of the filing deadline in accordance with Section 8-25 of the Connecticut General Statutes. Any extension requests must be received in time to allow the Commission to act on them before the original deadline expires.
Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of a Zoning Certificate of Compliance:
9. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance. Final plans shall also be submitted in a digital format prescribed by the Director of Planning unless waived by a three-fourths majority of the Commission.
General Conditions:
10. Parcel "A" as shown on the plans is not an approved building lot and shall be conveyed and merged to the property shown as "N/F Henrietta J. Yeaw."
11. 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.
12. 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.
PH#2477 - Petition for rezoning of approximately 4 acres of land from Industrial 1 to Business Local at 2 Shaker Road, zoned I-1, Map 64, Lot 70, Galaxy Management, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by 12/9)
Attorney Susan Hays of Updike, Kelley and Spellacy, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. Also present was Michael O'Brien, the owner of Galaxy Management Company, Vernon, who owns this property at 2 Shaker Road. It was purchased from the Lutwinas family some years ago.
Mr. O'Brien stated about three years ago they came before the Commission and requested a similar change of a portion of the land to retail use. At that time, the application was denied. Several of the comments that they heard that night from the public were that this would be the start of additional land that would eventually be rezoned if the front parcel was rezoned. A couple of years later an application came forward for apartments on this property but it was never completed.
Mr. O'Brien stated they are trying to get some use out of this approximately fifteen acres of land and they came up with a plan that they felt would be a good compromise to some of the concerns that the neighbors have had and also make it worthwhile to develop the property.
Mr. O'Brien presented a plan that would require a change of zone for approximately three and a half plus acres at the corner across from the Seven Eleven. It allows for the ten or eleven acres behind that to be donated to the town or to a land trust as decided by the town. Mr. O'Brien brought the Commission's attention to the back corner all the way down Shaker Road. It states there is an existing building at that location and that is incorrect.
Mr. O'Brien stated in the past traffic was a concern of the neighborhood. The buildings that they show on the potentially rezoned land are less than 20,000 square feet. This would also include approximately eighty parking spaces. The proposed use would generate two truck deliveries per week as opposed to what this property might be able to achieve with a 150,000 square foot industrial or manufacturing use. There could be several hundred tractor trailer trucks up and down this road and such uses are permitted in the present zone.
Mr. O'Brien stated along the corner they have made further accommodation to deed or donate the land at the intersection which would allow the possibility for a four-way intersection if Elm Street was shifted over and the light was moved.
Attorney Susan Hays stated she will cover the points as to why they think this complies with the statutory and regulatory requirements with respect to changes of zone. The first thing is what is being discussed is a lower type of use rather than one which is of a higher class. Most people would rather have business zoned property next door to them than industrial zoned property. The reason for that is reviewing what is permitted as of right in the zone. If you compare the industrial to the Business Local, while there are a lot of similarities, the things that are permitted as of right in the Industrial Zone that would not be permitted in the Business Local zone are manufacturing, fabricating, processing, assembling, cleaning services, and accepting and repairing of materials. A use like the newly renovated Bernie's facility is the type of facility that could go as of right on this property. That type of use would not be permitted in the Business Local zone. They would be talking about going from less desirable uses to uses that are more desirable.
Attorney Hays stated the bulk and use requirements with respect to the property are similar or better for neighbors with respect to the Business Local. She pointed out the building coverage where in an Industrial Zone you can have fifty percent building coverage and in the Business Local zone only twenty percent. With this site, because there is frontage on two streets, the front yard requirement would actually be greater if this property is zoned Business Local than it would be if it was Industrial. In the Business Local zone, the front yard requirement is 60' and in the Industrial zone it is a 40' front yard meaning there would be more of a buffer from the adjacent properties with respect to the location of the building in the Business Local zone than there would be in the Industrial zone.
Attorney Hays stated there is always the question that comes up of whether or not this would be spot zoning. It is her belief that this is not spot zoning. Four acres is a large enough parcel that it would not constitute spot zoning. There is a Business Local zone right across the street on the south side of Elm Street and there is also Business Local a little to the east on Shaker Road. If you go a little further down as you head further west, most of the south side of Elm Street is a business zone.
Attorney Hays believes that this modification would be consistent with the Town of Enfield's Plan of Conservation and Development. She reviewed the Plan and with respect to the land use goals, one of the goals is to provide for the direction and timing of growth in an orderly fashion to accomplish a balance of residential, commercial and industrial within the town while preserving the cultural and natural resources of the town. One of the concerns that was stated in the land use section of the plan was the encroachment of non-residential into residential areas and discussing the fact that the creeping commercialization along Elm Street has degraded the use of Elm Street for residential purposes. There is also within the Plan of Development a plan which shows those areas that are targeted for economic development and that map specifically includes this area. There is the proposal for the Moody Road extension that would enable better access for this to be developed either commercially or industrially.
Attorney Hays stated the request for the zone change before the Commission is a reasonable request and one that complies with the statutory requirements with respect to zoning and ends up with better zoning, more control and more compatible uses with the surrounding residential properties.
Chairman DiPace asked if the public hearing signs were posted as required. Attorney Hays stated there were two public hearing signs posted on this property.
Mr. Giner stated the south portion of this area was rezoned some years back. The only piece not rezoned is the land belonging to the town that the college uses. He agreed that this would not be a spot zone from a legal standpoint.
Mr. Giner stated the plan presented to the Commission tonight is not a site plan but a conceptual plan. The Commission would not be approving any development and the applicants would have to come back with their proposed use.
Residents asked about specific areas of the plan.
Mr. Giner stated the regulations require conceptual plans but once the zone is changed, the property can be used for any of the uses allowed subject to an application before this Commission. There are no detailed plans for development at this time.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.
Bill Gallagher, 17 Carmella Terrace, stated he has been before the Commission previously and he presented over 400 signatures that were in opposition to the previous multi-family proposal. They have taken a look at tonight's proposal and Mr. Gallagher stated it appears a lot more acceptable than previous uses presented. They have concerns about whether the state and the town will do the things mentioned. The residents have many questions. He asked if this is going to be a large use like a Walmart and he noted residents in the area have a lot of questions regarding the use.
Chairman DiPace stated the request tonight is a zone change with accompanying conceptual plans. They do not have to specify the exact use of the property.
Mr. Giner stated the presentation includes what the site plan can hold. Mr. Gallagher stated he would be concerned regarding the access road in and out of this site. Chairman DiPace stated the conceptual plan shows one access aligned with Georgetown and the other aligned as far as it will go on Shaker Road. Chairman DiPace noted the applicant proposes to donate the front piece of the triangle so that, hopefully, at a later date the town can get the state to realign the road with Ganny and install a four-way traffic light. Further discussion followed on the present traffic concerns on Ganny Terrace.
Guy Balsamo, 56 Elm Meadows, asked if there are any homes directly across from these proposed buildings. He noted there are two to three homes to the left of that structure and he questioned the impact to those homes with regard to the magnitude of the proposed plaza. Mr. Balsamo asked if the Commission is prepared to rezone that area as well to Business Local to accommodate the ever growing business area.
Commissioner Duren stated they had talked about a buffer several years ago and the neighborhood did not wish to have it.
Guy Balsamo stated he is familiar with the Lutwinas property and a lot of the pitfalls have to do with the wetlands. Although it is presently an industrial use, the property is extremely limited as the owner came to find out. That is also why the current owner of the property purchased it at a very low price. At one time, Mr. Balsamo stated he considered purchasing the property with a one million dollar price tag and it was sold for a price substantially less than that. Mr. Balsamo stated it is great to see capitalism work for the benefit of entrepreneurs but he stated before the Commission gives a carte blanch approval, he asked that the Commission take more time to consider that.
Chairman DiPace stated the application is for a zone change only and the applicant would have to come back with a site plan or special use permit for the property. Mr. Balsamo asked if the property stayed as is in design, would it be useable for a business use. Chairman DiPace stated it is useable in its industrial state but if someone wanted to build a factory, it could be done as of right with a site plan review and not a public hearing. Mr. Balsamo asked if such a use would go in easily given the limitations of the property. Chairman DiPace stated the parcel is zoned Industrial. If someone wanted to build an industrial use, they could do so. Mr. Balsamo stated it would have to be something very limited because of the wetlands on the property. This is why it has remained vacant for all these years and the reason it sold for a very low price. Chairman DiPace discussed some of the history of the previous action by the Commission to accommodate the owner of the property.
Mr. Balsamo asked if the current businesses on the property would be asked to vacate the property. Chairman DiPace stated that would be up to the owner of the property. Mr. Balsamo asked if it is within the purview of the town to rezone this property and Chairman DiPace confirmed that it was.
Ann Gallagher, Carmella Terrace, stated her concern is the traffic increase. If there is a drug store or a bank there, it is going to increase the traffic. While the property owner stated they would donate the front part, that is a big if and is dependent on the state agreeing to improve the intersection. Ms. Gallagher stated she uses this corner all the time and you can take a left but it is very difficult. She asked if there is any way the Commission can get an assurance from the state that they will move the street and make it a four-way intersection.
Chairman DiPace discussed the time it takes the state to complete such road renovations.
Chairman DiPace stated the traffic will increase whether this use is approved or not. However, there is the potential to get the front piece and the potential to get the state and/or the town to realign this intersection. Ms. Gallagher stated getting out of Ganny Terrace will be next to impossible since it has been getting worse every year.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission is looking for an option to improve the area but it is up to the State to make this change to the intersection.
Ms. Gallagher stated as a resident of the area, any development makes it so much worse for the residents in the immediate vicinity. Chairman DiPace discussed the town process to the state regarding traffic concerns.
Attorney Hays stated when the Commission is considering a zone change and there is discussion about traffic, you do not look at it from the perspective of undeveloped versus developed because any development will increase traffic. If a use is permitted, then the traffic associated with that use is permitted. What the Commission is looking at is whether a change from one zone to another zone is going to result in additional traffic. Attorney Hays stated if you go down the list of the permitted uses, she doesn't think that anyone would say that what could locate here under the Business Local zone will have more traffic than what would be permitted under the Industrial I zone. Although they have not had an industrial use on the property, they have had discussions with people who wanted to put facilities there. There are wetlands on the property but there is still a significant amount of developable land. They are willing to forgo that and dedicate the land to the town.
Mr. O'Brien added they did have the property flagged by a soil scientist. A lot of the land that they show shaded that is proposed to be given to the town is good land. It is flat and a lot of the fingers of wetlands that go near the tobacco shed have all been farmed and they are no longer valuable wetlands. There is a large portion of very good high dry level land that the town can use for whatever they choose in the coming years.
Attorney Hays thanked the Commission for their consideration of this application.
Commissioner McGill asked if Lot #69 and #70 as shown on the plans are part of the same parcel. Attorney Hays identified Lot #70 and the areas that are not their property.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if this property abuts the day care. Chairman DiPace stated the part of the property that would be dedicated to the town abuts the day care. Mr. O'Brien stated there are two homes in close proximity and the larger one is the day care.
Chairman DiPace stated the applicant has shown where the rezoning is proposed on the plan submitted and the front piece is also shown. He asked if there is a possibility that the applicant could show on the plan a line designating where this area is going to line up on the plans with Ganny Terrace. Attorney Hays agreed to do this for the next meeting.
Chairman DiPace continued this public hearing to November 18, 2004.
PH#2478 - Resubdivision of parcel to provide a separate lot for Red Robin Restaurant at 25 Hazard Avenue, zoned BR, Map 45, Lot 8, SEA Enfield Commons LLC, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by 12/9)
Attorney Susan Hays and Leslie Cohen from SEA Enfield Commons appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Attorney Hays stated they are requesting a resubdivision approval of the Red Robin Restaurant parcel. The reason for this is rather than continuing with a long term land lease, the owners would like to acquire the parcel. Attorney Hays noted in the past the Commission has approved the division of the two parcels. They were separate parcels which were acquired, merged in and subdivided out which is why this is a resubdivision.
Attorney Hays stated she submitted proposed drafts of reciprocal easement agreements and reciprocal operating agreements. Any issues with respect to access or parking, obligations regarding snow plowing or related items will be addressed by documents that will be recorded on the Land Records.
Attorney Hays stated she has requested specific waivers of the open space requirements and the various technical specifications that are set forth in the subdivision regulations. She noted that most of those technical specifications really apply to residential subdivisions and would not be appropriate for something where you are just drawing a line on a map. Attorney Hays stated she is unfamiliar with the process and if she does not need to make this request, then she is not doing so. If she needs to do so, she is requesting them.
Commissioner Egan asked if Mr. Giner has copies of the easements for parking and access. Attorney Hays stated they were sent to Mr. Giner and they are very thick. She submitted them for the record and noted they address parking, access and operational issues. Mr. Giner stated for practical purposes, this lot would not have access without those easements.
Commissioner Duren asked if this will affect the roadway that the Commission was hoping to get through. Mr. Giner stated it will not and the lot line doesn't come close.
Attorney Hays stated Red Robin plans to open in the spring of 2005.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2478, resubdivision of parcel to provide a separate lot for Red Robin Restaurant at 25 Hazard Avenue, zoned BR, Map 45, Lot 8, SEA Enfield Commons LLC, Applicant/Owner with the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
"Resubdivision Plan prepared for SEA Enfield Commons, LLC, Enfield Commons, Hazard Avenue and Freshwater Boulevard, Enfield, Connecticut. Sheet 1 of 2, Scale: 1" = 60' by F. A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc. dated 06-30-90 and revised 10-06-04.
"Resubdivision Plan prepared for SEA Enfield Commons LLC, Enfield Commons, Hazard Avenue and Freshwater Boulevard, Enfield, Connecticut. Sheet 2 of 2, Scale 1" = 60', by F. A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc. dated 06-30-90 and revised to 10-06-04.
Conditions to be met prior to signing of mylars:
1. This approval is for a lot in a Regional Shopping Center under unified access management and control.
2. All mylars submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this approval shall either be incorporated on to the mylars submitted for signature or filed separately on the land records of the property.
4. The Public Hearing file number "PH 2478" shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheet either in the title block or in the area around it.
5. Two sets of final mylars and 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.
6. Signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk no later than ninety (90) days from the expiration of the appeal period of this appeal shall be null and void. The applicants shall provide such mylars to the Planning Department sufficiently in advance of this deadline to allow for review of the plans and the arrangement for the Commission Secretary to sign the mylars. The applicant may request an extension of the filing deadline in accordance with Section 8-25 of the Connecticut General Statutes. Any extension requests must be received in time to allow the Commission to act on them before the original deadline expires.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
OLD BUSINESS
PH#2474 - Application for a special use permit for operation of a place of worship in an existing building in the Business Professional (BP) District. It is a change of use of existing floor space at 139 Hazard Avenue, Building 4, zoned BP, Map 65, Lot 76, Michael J. Trazinski, Pastor, Open Gate Ministries, Applicant/Denis LeTourneau, Owner. (Must close by November 25)
This public hearing was previously closed. Mr. Giner stated this application was tabled pending receipt of the effective date of the text change to the ordinance. Commissioner Weseliza did not participate in this application.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve PH#2474, application for a special use permit for operation of a place of worship in an existing building in the Business Professional (BP) District. It is a change of use of existing floor space at 139 Hazard Avenue, Building 4, zoned BP, Map 65, Lot 76, Michael J. Trazinski, Pastor, Open Gate Ministries, Applicant/Denis LeTourneau, Owner. This application is subject to conformance with the submitted plans and with the following conditions:
1. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
2. Four copies of a final floor plan indicating the approved occupancy shall also be submitted for signature.
3. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land Records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits or certificates of occupancy.
4. A final inspection shall be required prior to a certificate of compliance.
5. This project shall be maintained in accordance with the referenced plans and this approval. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
6. Occupancy of the use as approved must commence within a year of the effective date of this approval or the permit shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission in accordance with Section 9.20.3 of the Enfield Zoning Regulations.
7. 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 6 - 0 - 0 vote. (Commissioner Weseliza did not participate in this application.)
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR#1292 - Application for replacement of shrubs and plants at 33 Palomba Drive, zoned BR, Map 57, Lot 343, Manchem, LLC, Applicant/Owner.
Ken Vincunas from 48 Ellington Street, Longmeadow, Massachusetts, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated this building has been in existence for over fifteen years and the landscaping was a little tired particularly in the front.
Chairman DiPace stated he called this change in landscaping to the attention of the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Mr. Vincunas stated they have properties in over twenty municipalities and Enfield is the only one that regulates landscaping. He was unfamiliar with the town's procedure.
Mr. Vincunas stated they are looking to improve the site with additional landscaping and replace the plants that have died. Mr. Giner confirmed that the plans do meet the landscaping requirements.
Commissioner Duren asked if anything would be changing on the end islands. Mr. Vincunas stated the loamed and seeded islands were too close to the snow storage area and they will be relocated further away from the blacktop and snow storage area.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve SPR#1292, application for replacement of shrubs and plants at 33 Palomba Drive, zoned BR, Map 57, Lot 343, Manchem, LLC, Applicant/Owner, in accordance with the plans submitted and subject to the appropriate bonding with the amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
Commissioner Duren made an amendment to the motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to add "subject to the appropriate bonding with the amount to be determined by the Town Engineer" to the motion regarding SPR#1292. The amendment was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
The main motion, as amended, was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
SPR#1293 - Converting screened porch to interior room at Parkway Pavilion, zoned HR-33, Map 20, Lot 129, Parkway Pavilion, Applicant/Ventas Healthcare Properties, Owner.
Mr. Giner stated this application was approved by the Enfield Historic District Commission due to the Parkway's location in an HR-33 zone. The application meets all the zoning requirements and has been approved by the Fire Marshal. The Town Engineer had no outstanding issues.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve SPR#1293 to convert a screened porch to an interior room at Parkway Pavilion, zoned HR-33, Map 20, Lot 129, subject to the applicable standard conditions of approval and also subject to the applicant addressing the concerns of the Town Engineer regarding the walkway detail. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
BOND RELEASES
PH#2213 - Request by Jane Lyons for release of Engineering Bond in the amount of $24,640 for 4-lot subdivision on Post Office Road.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to release the engineering bond in the amount of $24,640 for PH#2213, 4-lot subdivision on Post Office Road, as recommended by John Cabbibo in a memo to the Commission dated October 19, 2004. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
Applications to be accepted
The following applications were accepted by the Commission:
PH#2484 - Application for a Special Use Permit to build a cabana on to the pool house at Georgewood Condos, Elm Street, zoned R-44, Map 64, Lot 93, Darlene Plaisted and Jeff Callahan, Applicants/Georgetown Condos, Owner.
PH#2309.05 - Application for modification of a Special Use Permit to modify units 27 and 29 to resolve utility conflict, eliminate Unit 14 and modify and relocate Units 12 and 10 to address DEP concerns at Autumn Fields Senior Residential Development, Elm Street (across from Police Department), Zoned R-44, Map 75, Lot 1, Somerset Development Corp., Owner/Applicant.
PH#2485 - Application for a Special Use Permit to install a one-million gallon water storage tank at 51 Marion Place, zoned R-33, Map 111, Lot 180, Hazardville Water Company, Owner/Applicant.
PH#2486 - Application for modification of a Special Use Permit at Brainerd Park to install a basketball court, enlarge the softball field and install the lawn, zoned R-33, Map 58, Lot 88, Town of Enfield, Owner/Applicant.
SPR#1294 - Application for minor modifications to elevation and floor plan drawings that have been previously approved at 481 Enfield Street, zoned BG, Map 33, Lot 256, Lia Auto Group, Owner/Applicant.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|
|