|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 18, 2004
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, November 18, 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
Samuel McGill, Alternate
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace noted receipt of a letter from the State Department of Environmental Protection regarding the no discharge area project from Guilford to Groton.
Chairman DiPace stated other Correspondence received includes letters sent by Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley to three garages regarding zoning violations, and a letter from Deputy Fire Marshal Edward Shirley regarding the rear lot subdivision at 1657 King Street. Also received were the Loss Control Guidelines for Land Use Commissions, the Notice of Action from the Historic District Commission dated October 27, 2004 and the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency Notice of Action dated November 3, 2004.
Regarding the letter from Deputy Fire Marshal Edward Shirley, Chairman DiPace stated the rear lot application has already been approved with conditions and no sprinkler system was required. Mr. Giner stated the Fire Marshal wanted him to inform the applicants of his comments strongly recommending sprinklers or another fire hydrant closer to the house.
COMMISSIONERS' CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Giner discussed a possible regulation change. He noted previously with lots of record there was the ability to use the setback already established on the street. That was left out of the revised regulations and has created a hardship. It is almost impossible on lots of record to construct a home that will comply with the new zoning regulations. If such homes are required to comply with the new setback, they will look out of place in the existing neighborhoods. Mr. Giner would like to reinstate the median regulation as soon as possible and the use of the established street line.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued from November 4, 2004
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 December 2, 2004.)
Alternates McGill and Sarno participated in this public hearing.
Steven MacCormack, 177 Elm Street, presented to the Chairman a list of signatures from a petition in the neighborhood. He read the petition in favor of this application and noted he spent over ten hours visiting homes in the neighborhood (136 homes) and explained the proposed use for a special use permit at 177 Elm Street. Sixty residents were at home and those that were contacted were asked to sign the petition. The petition presented includes forty signatures from residents on neighboring streets. Eight additional residents were in favor but were unwilling to sign and five residents were undecided. Eight residents were opposed to the proposal, three of whom abut the subject property and two reside on Elm Street to the east. Mr. MacCormack noted that the tally indicated 72.7% of the neighborhood is in favor of the Commission approving this use.
Mr. MacCormack stated he recently called the State Fire Marshal Joe Kingston in Middletown requesting the definition of exception one of his proposed floor plan. The town Fire Marshal previously indicated they would only qualify for exception two. Mr. Kingston confirmed that they do qualify for exception number one because the definition of "for room or area" means the entire level and not just one room. Mr. MacCormack explained this to Fire Marshal Censki and he agreed that he misinterpreted the term "area". Mr. MacCormack was advised to revise his floor plan to use the entire lower level for the church. The main level would be used just for the school.
Mr. MacCormack stated the new floor plan presented to the Commission simplifies the plan. The modified floor plans meet the building codes, the ADA handicapped code and the NFPA life safety codes for the state and town.
Mr. MacCormack requested approval of his special use permit for the two mixed uses of a church and a school as shown on the presented and modified floor and site plans. A request was also made for the Commission to grant an extension of time for an additional one year beyond the one year from the effective date of approval. This is due to the additional time needed for discontinuing the parsonage use and making necessary code modifications to the main level before an occupancy permit can be issued.
Mr. MacCormack stated the plan shows they will be occupying the main level for a parsonage as they are now and the lower level as a place of worship for twenty-five seats only in the former chiropractor's lobby area. The plans show four Sunday school classrooms and he discussed the occupancies of each room which total 48. The required parking is seven for the assembly area and there are eleven parking spaces provided.
Mr. MacCormack stated there was a problem with the main level when they got into the school use because it needs to be handicapped accessible. Mr. MacCormack has included a sketch of where the handicapped ramp would be built. If necessary, he will have his engineer modify the final mylar if approved. The addition of the handicapped ramp would mean they have to change the sliding glass door to a swing door to meet fire code. They also plan to convert the existing bathroom to a handicapped one and add an additional handicapped bathroom next to it over the next eighteen months prior to the school use occupying the building.
Mr. MacCormack stated the parking required for the school is ten and there are eleven spaces provided for the thirty-one students and four teachers. That would be the maximum use allowed. Mr. MacCormack informed the Commission that since the abutters do not plan to sell their homes for any future expansion, it is clear this is only going to be a temporary location for their church and school lasting five to ten years. This was explained to the neighbors which is why they were in favor of the use going forward.
Mr. MacCormack stated he, as pastor, will do his best to make this a good opportunity for the town and alleviate the fears of the abutting neighbors.
Chairman DiPace had a concern that approval from this Commission will mean that the approval will stay with the property even though the use proposed is cited as temporary. Mr. Giner confirmed that if someone wants to move in and conduct business exactly as approved with the same conditions, they are entitled to do so.
Commissioner Duren noted that the applicant stated previously that he cannot make any physical changes to the property during the time of his lease. Mr. MacCormack stated that is a term of his lease but he is able to get permission to do the changes requested.
Commissioner Duren had a concern that for Phase II, the applicant is asking this Commission to deal with probabilities and the Commission has never done so.
Mr. MacCormack stated his lease states any modification to the building has to be approved by the owner. He stated if he offered to spend $20,000 to upgrade the building, it would be acceptable to the owner.
Commissioner Duren noted the lack of plans for the proposed handicapped ramp. Mr. MacCormack stated it would be constructed to code but he did not have sufficient time for the engineer to prepare the specific plans. He requested that it be a condition of approval.
Commissioner Egan noted the number of parking spaces required keep changing by the applicant. He referenced Mr. Giner's November 18, 2004 memo and concentrating on Phase I, there is a twenty-three seat area for Sunday school classrooms and twenty-five seats for the assembly or a total of 48 seats. This would require twelve parking spaces. If the upstairs is being used as a single-family home, that would require two additional parking spaces or fourteen spaces. Assuming there is one employee, the parking required would be fifteen spaces. Commissioner Egan stated that based upon these numbers, there is insufficient parking to accommodate the proposed plan.
Mr. MacCormack stated the Sunday school services would not be conducted at the same time as the worship services. The code is one parking space for every four seats in the assembly area. He discussed other churches in the area which only have enough parking for the assembly area. Commissioner Egan stated that it is pretty specific in the regulations that with multiple uses, you have to meet both of the parking requirements. Mr. Giner noted the uses are occurring at different times of the day. Commissioner Egan cited Section 10.10.3, item d - multiple uses, page 84, of the regulations. Mr. Giner stated there would be nine parking spaces available for the assembly use. Commissioner Egan stated this would still not meet the regulations. Additional discussion followed regarding the church and school uses not being at the same time.
Commissioner Egan brought up the possibility of overflow parking at Asnuntuck College or at another abutting use. He asked if the applicant has any agreement for such overflow parking since the regulations require that there be a lease in place or control on that property. Mr. MacCormack stated he does not feel he needs a lease for additional parking at this time because he doesn't feel they are going to overflow the parking lot in the next five to ten years. If they get to the point where they are using all the parking, they will be making negotiations to buy property. If such a lease document is necessary, he could supply it to the Commission.
Commissioner Egan stated the applicant needs to submit something regarding off-site parking in order to comply with the town's parking regulations. Mr. MacCormack stated he reviewed the parking requirements with Mr. Giner and with the Fire Marshal. He noted if the Sunday school and church occur at the same time, he is being told that he would require fourteen spaces. However, the uses will not occur at the same time. Commissioner Duren argued that all the children would not be sent home and they will still be in the building. Further discussion followed regarding the specific seating numbers.
Chairman DiPace asked who will be supervising the children. Mr. MacCormack stated they will have a couple of adults during the worship service to monitor the younger children. He added that other churches in the community operate with Sunday school in the morning with all the adults in one room and differently aged children in other rooms. When the school time is ended, the majority of the people go into the auditorium for the worship service. That is what they are trying to propose and they have been told by the Fire Marshal as long as they stay under fifty people, they are not considered under the assembly regulations. Mr. MacCormack discussed a third scenario he could have proposed.
Mr. MacCormack emphasized that if they have forty children and five adults, there will only be five cars. Having Sunday school and church at the same time will not cause a parking problem. Chairman DiPace brought up additional scenarios regarding the parking.
Commissioner Krebs questioned what will occur if there is a church function like a wedding or a funeral. Mr. MacCormack stated they could have weddings at another location. He added he could not picture having a wedding or funeral in the basement of this building at 177 Elm Street. He further noted that in the entire seven years he was in Raleigh, North Carolina, there were no funerals. The functions they would have other than weddings and funerals would be very limited.
Mr. MacCormack reiterated that this is the fifth location where he has attempted to locate his church. He offered to redo the plans to meet the regulations regarding parking.
Commissioner Egan stated at the last hearing session he asked if the school would be open to the public. The response was that the school would begin with five-year-olds and would be open to other churches of like faith that do not have a Christian school. This means there will be people dropping off their children at the school. Mr. MacCormack stated it would be from Monday through Friday and the church members would also be dropping off their children. Commissioner Egan stated there will be an additional flow of traffic in relation to the school. Mr. MacCormack stated only on Monday at 7:30 a.m. through Friday. On Sunday, there would be church only with Sunday school at 10:00 a.m. and the worship service at 11:00 a.m. Traffic during the week would be gone by 3:30 p.m. Commissioner Egan had a concern about the backup of cars picking up students.
Mr. MacCormack stated if there are 31 kids, there would be approximately fifteen vehicles picking up and leaving the site at different time periods. The cars could go around the neighborhood to the stoplight.
Commissioner Sarno stated many parents work and if the school ends at 3:30 p.m. what will happen if parents want their children to stay until 5:00 p.m. Mr. MacCormack stated it will be limited and those who enroll will have to understand that their children must be picked up by 4:00 p.m. at the latest. Commissioner Sarno discussed the heavy traffic on Elm Street between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Commissioner Hickey stated the applicant is presently reaching the maximums and he stated it was his intention for the church to grow. He questioned what will happen if the church is successful immediately and generates a lot of new members. Mr. MacCormack stated this would be great but he doesn't foresee this occurring at this location.
Commissioner Hickey noted the lack of room for growth in the future. Mr. MacCormack stated it is a proven fact that the Baptist Church is one of the slowest growing churches. He noted in Raleigh, North Carolina, it took seven years to get to 45 members. Further discussion followed.
Commissioner Duren brought up the letter from Fire Marshal Paul Censki and the fact that the Fire Marshal is still not satisfied with this application. Mr. MacCormack noted that the Fire Marshal lives five doors down from the proposed church.
Mr. Giner stated he talked to the Fire Marshal and his concern was that the applicant stated he could not make any changes to the building. The Fire Marshal stated there may be some requirements of the building code that require some changes and he wanted an assurance that there was some flexibility. The applicant stated he has the ability to go back to the owner and request changes be made.
Chairman DiPace stated one of the conditions should be if this application is approved that any building code and safety requirements should be done prior to the use commencing. Mr. Giner agreed and stated this item is covered in his proposed condition number eight.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience and requested new information.
Sal Presto, 181 Elm Street, asked if this means that any home in the Town of Enfield that meets the zoning requirements can be turned into a house of worship. He requested a response. Chairman DiPace stated the Commission is taking information only and not responding at this time.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to modify and approve PH #2467 - Special Use Permit for a church, and parsonage within an existing structure at 177 Elm Street, zoned R-33, Assessor's Map 57, Lot 266, Steven E. McCormack, applicant; Lily Yeh Kalk and Renee Yeh, owners for Phase I only. This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
"Existing Conditions Plan Prepared for Enfield Puritan Baptist Church, 177 Elm Street, Enfield, Conn." Scale 1" =20'; by Alford Associates, Inc., dated April 22, 2004 and revised to 07-29-04.
"1-A Temporary Parsonage/Church Use, Upper Level, 177 Elm Street, 1"=8'", stamped received by the Planning Department on November 9, 2004.
"1-B Temporary Parsonage/Church Use, Lower Level, 177 Elm Street, 1"=8'", stamped received by the Planning Department on November 9, 2004.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. The application number "PH 2467" shall be added to the mylar of the existing conditions plan submitted for signature.
2. The final mylar shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plan.
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. One mylar and two set of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.
5. Four copies of a final floor plan indicating the approved occupancy shall also be submitted for signature.
6. 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.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
7. A final inspection shall be required.
General Conditions:
8. This approval is limited to the use of the basement for assembly and Sunday School as shown on the referenced plans with a maximum occupancy of each area as shown.. This occupancy may be further limited by the Building Code or the Fire Code at the time of building permit and final occupancy review. Any change in the nature of the use, the increase of occupancy, or use of rooms not approved herein will require new review and approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
9. The use of the upstairs area for either assembly or school use is not approved at this time. The applicant must submit a new application that complies with all applicable codes prior to the use of the upstairs for other than residential purposes.
10. 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.
11. Occupancy of by the use as approved must be 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.
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.
13. A parking agreement with Asnuntuck College or another abutter shall be in the file prior to the signing of this Special Use Permit.
Commissioner Duren stated the Fire Marshal is reluctantly in agreement with Phase I but has several questions regarding Phase II. He would like to add condition 13 regarding a parking agreement.
Commissioner Hickey stated this has been one of the most elastic applications and has been constantly changing and evolving. He can understand and appreciate the applicant's desire to try to meet the codes but he is not comfortable with the presentation as it is. He noted it has undergone a lot of transformation during the presentation process in order to meet the special use permit criteria particularly in terms of health, safety and welfare as it relates to traffic.
Commissioner Egan stated the application does not meet the parking requirements of the regulations and there was no request by the applicant to waive those requirements. Commissioner Egan emphasized that the applicant cannot meet the parking space requirements and whether there are fourteen or fifteen cars, there are still only eleven parking spaces. On that basis, it was Commissioner Egan's feeling that this application cannot be approved.
Commissioner Egan stated in looking at Section 10.10 of the regulations, the applicant does not comply with those. Also, looking at the special permit criteria in Section 9.20, it states all proposals shall be readily accessible for fire and police protection. The Fire Marshal has expressed on several occasions concerns of not having access to the building twenty-four hours a day because of the traffic and parking questions. If it is a school pickup time, there will be ten or fifteen cars parked on the side of the road making access for fire equipment difficult. Also, the Fire Marshal and Fire Chief expressed concerns that if there was parking on Harvest Road, they would not be able to get into Linda Lane or access the other dwellings further down. Commissioner Egan stated there are some problems with the safety issues and the applicant has stated that it is not going to be a problem but has not presented anything concrete to document that statement. There is no accessory off-site parking presented.
Commissioner Egan stated some time back the Commission had an informal inquiry on this building and the use was less intense. The Commission felt it would have an impact on the neighborhood in preliminary discussions and an application was never filed.
Commissioner Egan stated the proposed church has residential surrounding the entire facility and the Commission needs to look at the size, use, nature and intensity of operations connected with the site layout and its relations to access, streets, and traffic. Also, there has to be a determination that such use will not be hazardous, inconvenient or incompatible with the residential district or conflict with the normal traffic of the neighborhood.
Chairman DiPace stated this is stated to be a temporary location and not something permanent. However, if approval is given, the use stays with the property. This is a concern. The other concern is the parking. Although the applicant's numbers come back saying one thing, during the discussion there was the possibility of having 23 cars at this location. The applicant also stated this is not the right location for weddings and funerals. Chairman DiPace noted a church is usually where weddings and funerals take place.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission previously granted a special use permit for a doctor's office from this location. However, to now take it and stretch it as far as possible would not be appropriate at this location. The use would not properly fit this neighborhood without having some serious impacts. Chairman DiPace supported the use but did not feel this is the proper location for it.
The motion was denied by a 0 - 7 - 0 vote.
b. PH#2477 - Petition for rezoning of approximately four 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 December 2, 2004.)
Alternates McGill and Sarno participated in this hearing.
Attorney Susan Hays, Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. She noted at the last meeting the Commission kept the hearing open in order for the applicant to provide an additional plan. The request was to take the larger zone change plan and draw a line on it to show the Commission the location of the property dedication for the potential future roadway improvement. Some of the Commission members also wanted the opportunity to visit the site. Attorney Hays stated the material requested has been submitted and they will respond to questions.
Attorney Hays stated when they showed the property dedication on the plan, they ended up moving the line over just a bit, decreasing the size of the parcel that will remain and increasing the property dedication. Chairman DiPace verified that the parcel proposed for dedication would line up favorably with Ganny Terrace.
Chairman DiPace opened this public hearing to the audience.
Paul Catania, 216 Elm Street, stated his property is across from the property being considered for the zone change. He listened to the Commissioners talk earlier regarding plans that were not compatible with the residential neighborhood and Mr. Catania feels this plan is not compatible with the neighborhood. His concern is there are semi-trailers going by the property on a regular basis, drivers that do not abide by the speed limits in the area, and people that throw waste into the area. Mr. Catania's concern is that traffic patterns will be disrupted especially in relation to the school in the area and accidents will increase. He stated the residents do not need the additional noise or traffic. He felt this application is in direct conflict with the health, safety and welfare of the residents in the area. Mr. Catania would like to see the area remain primarily residential without any conflicts from additional traffic and business in the area. He added he would also like to see the property rezoned so that it would become part of the conservancy and stay unused for eternity.
Martin Kuchinski, 9 Shaker Road, owner of one of the properties in near proximity to the site, stated he has some concerns. He stated he was unaware of this proposed zone change until this afternoon. He also noted the increased traffic and the trash in the neighborhood. He felt neon signs directly across the street from his home would be a problem. Mr. Kuchinski expressed a concern about business locating across the street depreciating the value of his home. He added that in the immediate area there are two CVS's and a Rite Aid all within five minutes. He questioned the need for another drug store or bank in Enfield and emphasized he is definitely opposed to this zone change.
Gail Wenc, 244 Elm Street, adjacent to the property where the zone is proposed to be changed, stated her main concern is the traffic in the area of Shaker Road and Elm Street. She stated she is unable at times to get out of her driveway when the business traffic is heading home. Trucks back up even further than where the entrance is being proposed for Walgreen's. Ms. Wenc noted two years ago the Commission denied a similar application because of traffic concerns after a traffic study. She questioned if another traffic study has been done since Costco's moved in and noted the traffic has definitely increased since that time. Ms. Wenc stated she is not against utilizing this property but would prefer something that doesn't create a lot of additional traffic like the Baptist church.
Diane Christian, 226 Elm Street, stated residents trust that town officials, as residents themselves, will strive to do not only what is good for Enfield economically but also consider what will preserve the quality of life for all residents. It comes down to the bottom line - money for the developers and land owners and tax dollars for the town versus depreciating property values for the homeowners. Ms. Christian stated the homeowners have an emotional stake in the Commission's decision. Ms. Christian felt if this property is zoned for retail, it will set a precedent and will allow for the sprawl to continue up and down Elm Street. This in turn will impact the traffic as well as the local schools. The plan seems to be to have Henry Barnard School surrounded by stores and businesses. Ms. Christian quoted Fred Parsenson, Director of the Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis at the University of Connecticut, who two years ago told a reporter that there is such a thing as smart growth. If you're really interested in improving the tax base, retail is the least productive way to go. It generates the least amount of net taxes and does the most to diminish adjacent property values. Ms. Christian stated the land use plan seems to put Enfield on the path to becoming a town like Manchester, a shopping mecca, yet Enfield has so much existing retail space that stands empty. She discussed the value of these undeveloped parcels of land and asked that the Commission keep in mind those things that you cannot put a dollar amount on.
Sharon Zapolski, 6 Ganny Terrace, very near to Shaker Road, questioned how long it will be before her house will be gone because of the development that is occurring. She remembered when Elm Street had a bowling alley in the present Filene's location and was concerned that this retail growth would continue and ultimately affect her home.
Victoria Christian, 226 Elm Street, stated she has many environmental concerns regarding the rezoning of this property. She has noticed how Enfield keeps changing but one thing that has not changed is the amount of animals in the town. Her fear is that those animals will disappear. Another concern is for the school children that attend Henry Barnard School. She noted the increased traffic will make it more difficult for children to walk to school.
David Wenc, 244 Elm Street, stated his main concern is if the Commission allows this project to proceed and they move back from the corner and put their road in, there is no guarantee from the state that they will realign the road. It could be a number of years before any realignment is done and the present traffic is already excessive.
Guy Balsamo, 56 Elm Meadows, stated he is not opposed to progress in the town and he feels the Commission should work in concert with developers to make the right decisions on the right parcels of land for the right reasons. Mr. Balsamo gave a brief history of this property. At some point in time, there was a $1 million price tag on this property zoned I-1. He also did some research and found that the property sold for approximately $300,000 for 16 acres of I-1 property. Mr. Balsamo stated there is a reason for this and that is the heavy restriction relating to the wetlands in this area.
Mr. Balsamo stated he grew up in Enfield and knew the Lutwinas family. He noted if Mr. Lutwinas' father were alive today, he probably would not like to see the Commission grant this zone change because it is for all the wrong reasons and has the wrong impacts.
Mr. Balsamo read excerpts from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Minutes of October 4, 2001 where there was a similar application from Francis Lutwinas, his wife and the current developer who now owns the property to change this front parcel of land to a Business Local use. At that time, the addition of dedicating property to the town was not included and neither was the proposal for realigning the intersection.
Mr. Balsamo discussed the negative impact the proposal would have to his parents' property at 1 Shaker Road. He read comments from Chairman DiPace made in 2002 regarding PH#2270 in which he cited the heavy traffic in the area, the possibility of rezoning the area to a Business Transitional Zone, and the Commission's intent to calm things down for the residential neighborhoods. PH#2270 was an application for a zone change of 3.2 acres from I-1 to Business Local at 2, 16 and 18 Shaker Road, Map 64, Lot 70, Location Realty, Applicant, Francis C. Lutwinas and Robin Lutwinas, Owners.
Mr. Balsamo stated his fear is the pandora's box effect. He understands this hearing is only to rezone the property but the possible uses have been discussed of a major drug store and a bank. Mr. Balsamo submitted a picture of the CVS pharmacy at the corner of Elm Street and Route 5, a similar structure as is proposed, and stated such a structure would be detrimental to the abutting residents' property values. He also submitted a picture of the Alliance Bank located on the corner of Hazard Avenue and Palomba Drive.
Mr. Balsamo felt the Commission acted wisely in the past by denying the zone change for this property in 2002 and he was in favor of their forward thinking of allowing the transitional area. He encouraged the developer to work in concert with the Commission to develop something more compatible for this location such as doctors' offices or other similar single-level low profile structures.
Mr. Balsamo presented 52 signatures he obtained from residents that are against the zoning change of this property located at approximately 2 Shaker Road, PH#2477. He acknowledged that the property owner has a right to make money but it should not happen to the detriment of the people in the community. He added the realignment of St. James took twelve years by the State of Connecticut. He felt this entire proposal requires more study and more review before it is approved. He urged the Commission to deny this application and have the developer return with something less imposing. Mr. Balsamo noted the Commission acted wisely in 2001 and requested that they share that same opinion with this application.
Chairman DiPace asked business uses like the Department of Motor Vehicles and the related buildings in the area all locating in this center area would be acceptable to Mr. Balsamo. Mr. Balsamo stated that is a reasonable question to ask but in some way improbable. Chairman DiPace stated it would be very possible as of next year because new laws are coming into affect which will affect the placement of commercial and industrial buildings and not allow them to be placed on aquifers. This property is not on an aquifer and it is a prime piece of land for industrial use according to its present zone. Manufacturing is allowed on this location as it is presently zoned.
Mr. Balsamo stated he would think a developer would hold out to do that. He questioned why there is this great urgency. He doesn't think there is a compelling need for the Commission to approve this zone change. There is Business Local diagonal to this property and if there is a business interest, it can go adjacent to the 7-11. Mr. Balsamo stated if it was that desirable to do what Chairman DiPace is suggesting regarding industrial, it would have happened by now.
Chairman DiPace stated that Enfield is one of the first towns that will be adopting aquifer regulations. Mr. Balsamo stated an industrial company would want room to grow and the property is so limited due to the parcel and other issues surrounding it that it will be restricted. It could be restricted to the middle of that parcel and an industrial use could be hidden cosmetically by shrubbery and trees. Mr. Balsamo stated in his opinion there is no compelling need for this Commission to go forward with this zone change tonight.
Mr. Balsamo questioned where the Commission stands regarding rezoning the north side of Elm Street for limited business as a buffer zone. He stated there are a lot of questions that have not been firmly answered. He is not opposed to the owner developing this property and trusted that the Commission will make the right decision.
Gail Wenc, 244 Elm Street, brought up the light industrial use and the fact that on weekends a light industrial parcel would be quiet. Chairman DiPace stated such a business could operate seven days a week and twenty-four hours per day. Ms. Wenc questioned if the Commission would put restrictions on such a business for the residents of that area. Chairman DiPace reiterated the aquifer regulations that will soon be in effect and the fact that this Commission attempted to come to a solution for Mr. Lutwinas but none of the possibilities ever came to be.
Attorney Hays stated the Chairman appropriately pointed out the fact that there are some significant uses that are permitted as of right on this property that would have a greater impact on the neighborhood than the potential uses that would be permitted as of right under the Business Local zone. She stated she remembered the discussions about the transitional zone and after a major reworking of the zoning regulations, there still is no transitional zone.
Attorney Hays stated the most restrictive business zone that could locate on this parcel is the Business Local zone. The building coverage in Industrial is fifty percent. The building coverage in Business Local is twenty percent. This is a fourteen acre parcel of land and a use such as Bernie's building could locate on this site. Attorney Hays acknowledged there are wetlands on the site which have been mapped but they would not inhibit the effective or intensive development of this site.
Attorney Hays believes that the rezoning of four acres of the parcel in the front, the dedication of the remainder of the property to a conservancy or for municipal purposes and the dedication of the front part for the purpose of highway improvements will result in a win/win situation for the town. There will be a significant portion of open space which will remain open space in perpetuity. If this property continues to seek approvals and permits and they are denied, it may end up being open space but at great cost.
Attorney Hays stated they believe this application is consistent with the requirements of the regulations and the Town's Plan of Development and she requested that the Commission approve this application.
Chairman DiPace reopened this hearing to the audience.
Guy Balsamo, 56 Elm Meadows, noted Attorney Hays stated the fact that there is presently nothing on the books as far as a limited office use and he asked if that is correct. Mr. Giner stated the zoning regulations describe a limited office district but the Commission never adopted an actual zone. Mr. Balsamo asked if this could be resurrected. Chairman DiPace stated when it was proposed, the people did not want it. Mr. Balsamo asked about a possible compromise.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to rezone four acres of land from I-1 to BL (Business Local) at 2 Shaker Road, Map 64, Lot 70, Galaxy Management, Applicant/Owner as heard in Public Hearing #2477.
Commissioner Egan noted what is allowed under the Industrial-1 zone and added the Business Local zone is less intrusive for the residential area. The alternatives that could locate on this property are very restrictive and would also be less intrusive to the residential areas. It was his opinion that the change in zone and the plan that has been submitted with landscaping proposed on Elm Street and the setback of the buildings will make the aesthetics compatible with the residential area. Commissioner Egan added the donation of the twelve acres of land to the town, which would be restricted and there would be no additional development, would provide a habitat for the existing wildlife. The alternative would be to keep the zone Industrial-1 and have possibilities of additional proposals that would have more environmental impact on this land. There is useable land that could support uses such as warehousing. In Commissioner Egan's opinion, the proposed zone change is the best alternative and the most beneficial to all.
Commissioner Hickey stated when he purchased a home in Enfield, he looked at several homes that were across from undeveloped tracts. He was concerned about a large tract of undeveloped land because of not knowing what is going to locate there. Commissioner Hickey stated a property owner has the right to develop his property. After hearing some of the concerns from the neighbors, he is swayed by the applicant's position that he would donate the twelve acres of land which would keep this land from any development in perpetuity. Commissioner Hickey stated rezoning this property to Business Local would not be spot zoning and would be tied into the adjacent zoning.
Chairman DiPace stated in 2001 this parcel came in. The Commission rewrote their regulations to accommodate different ideas. This Commission worked to allow certain things to try to accommodate the owner and the neighbors in the area. The Commission received letters from its Economic Development Director Ray Warren recommending in favor of the I-1 zone. This Commission held out and tried a little harder to get something that would work on this property. The Commission had an application for apartment buildings on this property not long ago. Chairman DiPace did not feel a large industrial building would be appropriate for this parcel. With the new regulations regarding aquifer protection and the applicant's offer of the twelve acres to the town along with the front piece to align the intersection, Chairman DiPace felt the proposal will be the least intrusive to the neighborhood.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with an effective date for the zone change of December 1, 2004.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2309.04 - Modification of plans previously approved for a Senior Residential Development (Autumn Fields) located off Elm Street zoned R-44, Map 75, Lot 1, Somerset Development Corp, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by December 16, 2004)
Dana Steele from J. R. Russo and Mike Haroltech from Somerset Development appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Steele stated the applicant purchased this property located off Elm Street from the original applicant, Elm Development Corp. It has been under construction for some time. An issue that came up during construction has to do with a utility easement that runs through the property and is shown on the map as a 33' Zaconi Vacuum Oil Company easement. During construction, the actual location of that pipeline was not within the easement shown on the original survey. This meant that two units, 27 and 29 Quail Hollow, needed to be relocated and reconfigured so that none of the buildings encroached into that easement. That is the reason for the modification of these units.
Mr. Steele stated the other changes are related to environmental concerns of the DEP regarding endangered species on the property in the sand dune area delineated on the plans. The applicant has reached a tentative agreement with the DEP that will minimize the impacts to those areas by eliminating the units in this area. There were three units proposed in the original application, units #10, #12 and #14, and, with this application, one of those units has been eliminated. The other two units are being relocated to an area that is less sensitive from the DEP standpoint.
Mr. Steele noted as part of the relocation of the two units, there is also a fence proposed to help isolate the wetlands and the area of concern to the DEP. The net result is one less unit and a greater buffer for the existing resources on the property. Mr. Steele added this application has been to the Inland Wetlands Commission and received approval from that Commission.
Chairman DiPace noted the driveway to 27 Quail Run will be going over the oil company easement. Mr. Steele stated that is correct but a driveway is of a different nature than a building. A driveway can be cut and patched should access be necessary. Mr. Steele stated from the front of the house to the easement is two feet and the pipeline is in the center of the 33' easement. The pipeline has been field located and is an inactive pipeline. Mr. Haroltech added it is a six-inch pipeline with Mobil Exxon and as long as there is three feet of cover, there is no problem. They routinely inspect the pipeline.
Mr. Steele stated Inland Wetlands wanted to see the encroachment into the regulated areas minimized and that is the reason for the construction in close proximity to the easement.
Commissioner Hickey questioned if the applicant had ever run into a conflict with the utility and if they were aware of this easement when they purchased the property. Mr. Haroltech stated the A-2 survey was 25' off regarding the easement. They compromised with the DEP and moved the units to improve the vernal pool and the plantings. The impact is to the green area to about 1,600 square feet and there is mitigation at the top. Mr. Steele stated they are expanding some of the dune areas to compensate for that. The feeling was it was a small enough area and not sufficient enough to call for another unit relocation.
Mr. Steele pointed out the various units on the site map and stated the two units identified as #1A and #2 Partridge Run are the relocated units. Mr. Steele also noted the easement cuts between Units #27 and #29. A ranch style unit which is not as deep would fit in that area and the other unit was located on the other side of the easement.
Mr. Haroltech stated the pipeline is dormant and has been there for twenty-two years. However, the owners will not give it up.
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#2309.04, modification of plans previously approved for a Senior Residential Development (Autumn Fields) located off Elm Street and zoned R-44, Map 75, Lot 1, Somerset Development Corp., Applicant/Owner #2309.04. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans, as may be required to be modified by this motion, and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
"Proposed Mitigation Plan, Autumn Fields Senior Residential Development, Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut Prepared for Somerset Development, 535 Halladay Avenue Suffield, Connecticut 06078" Scale: 1"=40', By J.R. Russo & Associates, Sheet 1 of 1, Scale:, dated 1-30-04, revised to 10-18-04..
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
2. The final mylar shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plan.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
3. One mylar and two copies of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission. The mylar shall be filed on the Land Records.
4. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
General Conditions:
5. This approval is for the specific use and structures identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structures will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
6. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
7. All previous conditions of approval for PH 2309 not specifically modified by this approval shall remain in full force and effect.
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#2479 - Resubdivision to allow creation of three residential lots with related street and other public improvements on property zoned R-33 off Riverview Street, Map 19, Lot 10, Margaret R. Pappas, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by December 16, 2004).
Tim Cune from J. R. Russo appeared before the Commission representing Margaret Pappas, the property owner and applicant. He stated they are proposing a resubdivision of a parcel located to the west of Riverview Street consisting of 30.78 acres. The parcel is abutted to the north by the high school ball fields, to the east by residential properties along both Riverview Street and Meetinghouse Lane, to the south by residential properties along Bridge Lane, and to the west by the railroad and on the other side of the railroad, the Connecticut River.
Mr. Cune stated this development proposes three lots off Riverview Street for a total of 3.35 acres. It includes a 477 linear feet cul de sac and a new road which will be owned and maintained by the town. This area is currently agricultural and has been used to grow tobacco and other crops in the past. It is currently a mowed field. There is an intermittent stream which runs on the west side of the area to be developed. The remaining area which totals 27.13 acres will remain agricultural at this time. The cul de sac and the three new homes will be serviced by public water and public sewer. There will be a pump station and the three homes will gravity feed to the pump station and back up to the existing sanitary line in Riverview Street.
Mr. Cune stated at the entrance to the cul de sac there is currently a property owned by John and Penelope Gillis. They are taking a portion of the current stem that accesses this site and giving a portion of that property to the Gillis property and combining the balance. Their driveway will come out on to the new cul de sac road. The cul de sac will actually enter on Riverview Street where their existing driveway enters it now.
Mr. Cune stated the drainage will be collected in an on-site drainage system and discharged into an on-site detention basin which will discharge through an outlet structure and a rip rap pad upstream of the intermittent stream which ultimately exits the property. A drainage report has been submitted to the Town Engineer for review. It demonstrates that there will be no increase in the post development peak runoffs from this development.
Mr. Cune stated the applicant is offering a fee in lieu of open space for this resubdivision. The name of an appraiser was submitted to the Town Planner in September for approval. At this time, the appraisal has not been done and Mr. Cune acknowledged some miscommunication with the Town Planner as to whether or not the actual appraisal was required. Mr. Cune stated they do not have the actual appraisal this evening and he suggested a condition of approval regarding the appraisal.
Mr. Cune stated the landscaping plan shows they are providing street trees which will line the cul de sac. During previous applications at this site, the Connecticut state archeologist had reason to visit this site and included in the packet is a letter dated October 29, 1999. It states there are no cultural resources on this parcel. They have also submitted a letter from Julie Victoria from DEP dated May 3, 2002 with regard to threatened and endangered species. These include the bald eagle and the Virginia river snail who reside in the Connecticut River on the other side of the railroad tracks from this site. Their project will have no impact to the river and thus no impact on these endangered species.
Mr. Cune noted they have submitted a traffic report prepared by F. A. Hesketh and Associates which concludes that the resubdivision will have no impact on the traffic patterns in the area or on public safety.
Mr. Cune stated they have had an ART, addressed the town staff comments, and received Inland Wetlands approval on September 21, 2004. Mr. Cune believes this subdivision meets all of the regulations and standards of the Town of Enfield and they are requesting approval this evening.
In response to a question, Mr. Cune stated the oil separator would be maintained by the town. The oil/sand separator is part of the drainage system in the street which will be turned over to the town and the pump station will be part of the sanitary system which will also be turned over to the town and maintained by the town. Mr. Cune stated the oil/sand separator and drainage system discharge into the detention basin. The detention basin will be located within a drainage and maintenance easement in favor of the town so that they can maintain the entire drainage system for the street.
Commissioner Sarno stated the three lots will drain into a grinding pump and she asked who will maintain that. Mr. Cune stated the town will maintain that grinding pump. They have been in contact with Marvin Sierra of Water Pollution Control. Initially they were proposing to have individual pumps. It was the WPC's preference to have a single pump station at this location rather than individual pumps at the houses.
Commissioner Egan asked if the town is responsible for the detention area and, if so, how do they get access to it. Mr. Cune stated the easement is shown on the plans. There is an access off the end of the cul de sac to the basin area or to the left of the pump. There is a parcel of land around the pump station which will be deeded to the town which is outside the limits of the cul de sac.
Commissioner Egan stated it looks as though part of the road or all of the road is on the existing drainage easement. Mr. Cune stated that is correct. It is an easement in favor of the town. Commissioner Egan asked if the construction of their storm water will have an impact and Mr. Cune stated it will not have an impact on the existing drainage system.
Commissioner Egan asked if there are any sidewalks proposed. Mr. Cune stated there are not. With only three units, this project does not meet the requirement for a sidewalk.
Mr. Giner confirmed any cul de sac serving up to ten units does not require sidewalks. Mr. Giner added there were some notes that the Town Engineer wanted included on the plans. The notes that the WPC Superintendent required have been added. Mr. Giner reiterated the need for an appraisal to be submitted.
Commissioner McGill asked why the town would prefer to maintain the pump station. Mr. Giner stated that is a question for Water Pollution Control. Commissioner Duren requested a letter from WPC explaining why the town wants this control.
Mr. Cune stated the original plan had individual grinder pumps. The change was made to the pump station at the request of Water Pollution Control. The individual grinder pumps would have been maintained by the individual homeowners. However, there was a low pressure force main which would have run through the cul de sac on property owned by the town and this was a concern.
Chairman DiPace opened this public hearing to the audience.
Helena Hep, 7 Riverview Street, stated her property abuts the subject property. She opposes this application because if approved and constructed, it will impact the fair market value of her home at 7 Riverview Street. It would also be inconsistent with and contrary to the zoning ordinance, the subdivision regulations and the Master Plan of Development. It would present a dangerous threat to the health and safety of the neighborhood. This resubdivision application appears to be cleverly disguised as an improper 477' extension off of an established pre-existing nonconforming dead end road called Riverview Street. This resubdivision is in the form of a new cul de sac located 1,000' north of Bridge Lane.
Ms. Hep stated the proposed new cul de sac has only one existing connection and that is into Bridge Lane. The end of Riverview Street connects to Enfield High School and has been closed to vehicular traffic for almost forty-two years. Riverview Street extends the maximum permitted cul de sac street length permitted today. In reality, the proposed new cul de sac is actually a split off of and from a dead end roadway adding another 477 linear feet to Riverview Street contrary to what is required on cul de sacs or dead end streets and of great concern to all residents should a fire occur. There is no turn around area existing as a northerly dead end of Riverview Street. This could produce tragic results.
Ms. Hep stated a little over two years ago, a similar application was submitted. Both applications proposed to construct a new cul de sac off an existing cul de sac or dead end street. Two years ago the dead end was known as Meetinghouse Lane. Today it is referred to as Riverview Street. Each dead end roadway proposal would extend itself by connecting into Bridge Lane. The 2002 proposal failed and this one should suffer the same fate for substantially the same reasons. Ms. Hep felt tonight's application is a thinly veiled copy of the 2002 proposal to improperly extend an existing roadway to Bridge Lane. She stated the Commission demonstrated good judgment two years ago by denying the Pappas' proposal. The Commission was vindicated on their appeal earlier this year by Superior Court Judge Robert Shapiro in Margaret Pappas vs. Enfield PZC, Docket No. CB-02-0820552-S. This particular application is just as wrong as that one was then. Ms. Hep opposes this application and urges the Commission to deny it. It violates existing regulations and does not promote the health, safety or welfare of the community.
Michelle Balk, 12 Riverview Street and located diagonally across from the proposed driveway on to Riverview, had concerns regarding this project. She cited the slope going down the hill and questioned how fire trucks or other emergency vehicles would get up and down the hill. Also, there will have to be maintenance of the pump station and how will trucks access that area in various weather conditions.
Diane Kapp, 16 Riverview, lives in the house directly across from where the new road would empty on to Riverview and had some concerns. With this new road, there will be cars coming out with their headlights going directly into their two front bedroom windows and that is a concern to her. Ms. Kapp stated the previous application in approximately 1997 was for 34 plus lots and the application was reduced and reduced to four. She remembers at that time there was a question asked as to whether they were going to build any more homes in this area. If they were, the advice was given to design the drainage for the whole area at that time. The response to that was this is only a four-lot subdivision. Ms. Kapp addressed the previous application and stated she knows there is the ability to connect from that end and extend up through this area. There is the probability of additional homes being requested in this area.
John Hogan, 15 Bridge Lane, stated Riverview comes out in front of his home and he has a couple of concerns. He was before the Commission in 1988 when there was another plan for this parcel of land. That application went all the way to Superior Court and it was defeated. They came back in 1998 with a four-lot subdivision. Mr. Hogan spoke that night and stated four houses could mean additional homes up to forty-four. The last proposal was in 2002. Mr. Hogan stated this keeps coming back and the proposal today is three lots. In his opinion three leads to thirteen leads to twenty-three and where does it stop. Mr. Hogan is also concerned because of the history of the sewage problems on Bridge Lane. He noted in the l980's residents were petitioning the town to address the area. Because things have been quiet the past few years, it doesn't mean that this is not going to start something. The proposal tonight is to pump the sewage from these homes to the pump station through Riverview and then down Bridge Lane where there is already a history of problems with sewage in the cellars of homes. Mr. Hogan asked that the Commission take this into consideration. Mr. Hogan stated the pond is there and that was a concern last time as to the ownership of the pond and he questioned how this proposal is going to impact the pond. Mr. Hogan stated he has been a resident on Bridge Lane since 1985 and he has many concerns regarding this proposal.
Michelle Balk stated she grew up on Bridge Lane and has lived there since 1957. She now lives on Riverview. She is concerned regarding the traffic report and noted she has never seen anyone in the area checking traffic. Two years ago when this issue came up there was a line across the road checking the traffic. Ms. Balk asked where the information came from regarding the traffic report. Mr. Cune called the body of water a stream but Ms. Balk stated it is a pond. If drainage goes into that pond, there is the possibility of flooding into the new home yards and problems for the houses on Bridge Lane. She stated the area is definitely wetlands and there are a lot of problems. Ms. Balk also had a concern that the construction will not stop at four homes and there will be more and more. The reason people backed the initial four homes is because the residents were promised that that was all there would be. All of this has developed since then.
Chairman DiPace noted Riverview is a dead end street and he asked Mr. Giner if a cul de sac can be extended off a dead end street. Chairman DiPace saw a need for a legal opinion from the Town Attorney. Mr. Giner stated this point was argued when the town was the subject of a lawsuit previously. He read the language from the subdivision regulations which states that a cul de sac can be no longer than 600' measured from the center of the turn around to the nearest street intersection. The other section that applies is that no plan of subdivision containing a road whose length is more than 1, 200' shall be approved which does not have two means of vehicle ingress or egress on an accepted town street. Mr. Giner noted Riverview is an accepted town street and the road is not longer than 1,200'. In a previous application, there was a loop street proposed. Mr. Giner stated he can discuss this matter with the Assistant Town Attorney who defended this case.
Chairman DiPace stated while Riverview is an accepted town road, there is only one access.
Chairman DiPace asked about the slope. Mr. Giner stated there are regulations and the Town Engineer has reviewed the plans. Mr. Cune stated the slope requirement for town roads is for the first 100' it is required to be at no greater than a two percent pitch and then the maximum slope on a local road is eight percent unless the Town Engineer agrees to have it greater than that. This particular road maintains the less than two percent grade for the first 100' at which point it goes to eight percent which is the allowed maximum and then it flattens back out down at the cul de sac to four percent. It meets the town standards regarding the slope of the road.
Mr. Cune stated with regard to the dead end at Riverview Street, that street is dead ended at a gate. When you open that gate, there is access to the high school and another means out. This could be used as a means of emergency egress if required. Chairman DiPace stated the public road doesn't continue beyond that gate. That gate is chained and locked and it is not a continuation of a public road. The public road ends at that gate. Chairman DiPace requested a legal opinion on this from the Town Attorney to find out where that road starts, where it ends, and how far it can go. Chairman DiPace also asked that Engineering verify the grades for the road and that they are within the limits.
Mr. Cune addressed the traffic report. The traffic report that was submitted was based on data collected at the time of the previous application in 2002. That data was collected once during the winter when school was in session and once during the summer because there was concern about heavy boat traffic to the boat launch.
With regard to the stream and the pond, Mr. Cune stated their discharge is through the intermittent stream which does enter the pond. However, there will be no impact to the town with regard to flooding because their detention basin is controlling it such that there is no increase in the peak flow. That was documented in the drainage report. Mr. Cune stated this is an application for a three-lot subdivision and he believes it meets all of the subdivision requirements and standards of the town.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience again.
Diane Taft, 16 Riverview, stated what she is hearing is that the sewage from these homes will be going into a pumping station and sent up to a pipe on Riverview Street. If this is the case, she questioned if the pipes in the street are large enough to handle the extra capacity. Her other concern is regarding surface water. The water will be draining into the pond and she does not see how the pond will not change especially when you get into issues of 100-year storms. Ms. Taft also had a concern about the extent to which people will go to try to solve a problem that has been denied in the past. She also questioned what would happen with the pumping station should there be a power failure and if a generator has to be used, there is the noise issue. Ms. Taft brought up the traffic issues and asked when the study was done.
William King, 36 Bridge Lane, stated he was before the Commission two years ago fighting the twenty-eight lot subdivision. He lives right behind the new subdivision of four homes. His concern is on both cul de sacs there seems to be an opening which leads him to believe that they will try to put a road in from cul de sac and do the twenty-eight homes. He asked that the Commission consider this issue. He cited the narrowness of Bridge Lane and the danger to pedestrians. He noted the traffic report is from two years ago and it doesn't include the four new homes.
Mr. King stated a personal concern is the Commission said they would move the boat launch sign once the railroad tracks were fixed and he asked that that be addressed. Chairman DiPace stated that is not under the jurisdiction of this Commission and it may have been the Town Council or the State that made that promise.
Mr. Cune stated regarding an extension of the existing cul de sac, there is no open land at the end of the cul de sac. It is actually on one of the lots with a easement deeded to the town and occupied by a detention basin. An extension of that cul de sac is not possible. The detention basin was designed for a 100-year storm and such a storm would not have an impact. The pump station was designed with a power failure in mind and it has forty-eight hours of emergency storage in the pump station and the ability for a connection to a portable generator.
Mr. Cune stated with regard to the sewage in Riverview Street and Bridge Lane, this system was reviewed by the WPC and they had no issues with the capacity of either of the sewers.
Commissioner McGill asked how far above grade does the power distribution stay. Mr. Cune responded the height is not spelled out. Chairman DiPace requested that this be added to the plans.
Chairman DiPace summarized the requests to Mr. Giner are to get a legal opinion on the definition of cul de sac and that the height be added to the plans. Mr. Giner stated he will ask Mr. Sierra, the Superintendent of WPC, about the single pump station. Chairman DiPace felt the single pump station maintained by the town would place an additional burden on the town. Mr. Giner will also verify the grades for the proposed road. The applicant also needs to have the appraisal done.
Commissioner Egan added regarding the request to the Town Attorney that it be not only regarding the length of the cul de sac but also a review of the subdivision regulations under ingress and egress and whether the 1,200' would include Riverview Street because it is only one access to another town road.
Chairman DiPace continued this hearing to December 2, 2004 at 7:30 p.m.
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, for a recess. Following a 7 - 0 - 0 vote, the Commission recessed at 10:30 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 10:40 p.m.
c. PH#2483 - Special Use Permit under Section 3.40 of the zoning regulations to allow a change from one nonconforming use to a different nonconforming use (martial arts studio) at 935 Enfield Street, zoned R-33 with an Enfield Street Design District Overlay, Map 26, Lot 79, David J. Ciemniewski, Applicant; Plus Life Inc., Owner. (Must close by December 16, 2004)
David Ciemniewski appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated he would like to rent space at 935 Enfield Street that was once a camping store. This space is located right across from High Street and is in the same area as the convenience store, the Chinese restaurant and a nail salon with an auto glass business in the back. Prior to applying for this application, Mr. Ciemniewski talked to the owner of the auto glass business to make sure that this use would not conflict with his business.
Mr. Ciemniewski stated he has been studying martial arts for well over sixteen years and he discussed his history in martial arts in the Town of Enfield. He stated he is under Philip Scuderi right now who has 33 years of martial arts experience. He discussed his personal qualifications and stated he currently teaches part time in East Windsor.
Mr. Ciemniewski stated he found this building that has been empty for some time. He approached the town and was told he had to appear before this Commission. The building has 19 parking places with two dumpsters that occupy two parking spaces. He has discussed the moving of those dumpsters with the landlord to have more parking spaces available. He stated he only plans on having a maximum of 14 cars at this location because he has to limit the size of his classes.
Mr. Ciemniewski would like approval to locate his martial arts studio in the former camping building in the back. He plans to submit a separate application for a sign. The approximate square footage of this space is 2,000 square feet. He plans some interior renovations.
Mr. Giner stated the only reason Mr. Ciemniewski is here is because it is existing shopping center space.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this public hearing. Chairman DiPace closed this hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs to approve PH #2483 - Special Use Permit under Section 3.40 of the zoning regulations to allow a change from a one non-conforming use to a different non-conforming use (martial arts studio) at 935 Enfield Street, zoned R-33 with an Enfield Street Design District Overlay, Map 26, Lot 79, David J. Ciemniewski, applicant; Plus Life Inc., owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the application record and the following conditions:
1. 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.
2. Final Fire Marshal approvals shall be obtained prior to the issuance of permits.
3. This approval is for the specific use and structures identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structures will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
4. Permits for signage that conform to the Enfield Zoning Regulations must be obtained separately from the Planning and Community Development Office.
5. 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.
6. 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.
New Business
a. 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, Applicant/Owner.
Eric Forish of Forish Construction appeared before the Commission representing Lia Auto Group and requested some minor modifications to the elevation and floor plan drawings approved previously.
Mr. Forish stated the changes do not affect the site plan and are elevation and interior changes. There was an overhead door to the service area. That overhead door has been removed. The reason for this is during the process of permitting, their intention was to relocate Pontiac to this location. Because the time frame took too long, Pontiac is no longer interested in moving to this parcel. The developer would like to move forward with the construction improvements and put the parcel into a position where he can locate another dealership and brand here.
In terms of the floor plan, Mr. Forish noted the change is instead of one area which he identified being service, the area would be all interior showroom area and the service and internal storage would be relocated. They had one overhead door that was on the original approval and that is no longer being added. The existing door will be used.
Mr. Forish summarized the changes are the removal of a sign display entry element, the removal of an overhead door and the reconfiguration of the interior relative to service.
Mr. Forish responded to a question stating there is no brand identity for this location at this time. Mr. Forish stated Mr. Lia had purchased the building prior to the original approval, has invested in the community and is planning to continue investing in this property.
Commissioner Duren asked if there is a reason the south elevation is not shown. Mr. Forish stated the south elevation is a bare wall and would not be changing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve 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, Applicant/Owner, subject to the following conditions:
1. The file number "SPR 1294" shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
2. 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.
General Conditions:
3. All previous conditions of approval of PH#2442 not specifically modified by this approval shall remain in full force and effect.
4. 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.
5. 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.
The motion was approved by a 6 - 0 - 1 vote. Commissioner Egan abstained.
Bond Releases
a. PH#2265 - Request for release of landscape bond in the amount of $14,825 for the Henshon Wingard Tennis Club at 226 Shaker Road.
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to approve the release of the $14,825 landscape bond for the Henshon Wingard Tennis Club at 226 Shaker Road as suggested in a memo from Neil Angus dated November 18, 2004. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
Other Business
a. Section 8-24 Referral - St. James Intersection - Conveyance from State DOT
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to recommend approval to the Enfield Town Council of the 8-24 Referral regarding the St. James intersection and the conveyance from the State DOT. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
b. Applications to be Received
The following applications were received by the Commission:
PH#2487 - Application for a Special Use Permit to construct a fueling facility in the southwest corner of the main parking lot of 54 Hazard Avenue (Stop & Shop Plaza), zoned BR, Map 56, Lot 26, Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., Applicant/SEA Enfield Plaza LLC, Owner.
A public hearing will be held on December 2, 2004.
SPR#1295 - Application for a 10' x 10' shed at Enfield Day Care at 138 South Road - Administrative Approval
SPR#1296 - Application for a four-bay car wash at 290 Enfield Street, zoned BG, Map 34, Lot 160, Alan K. Tracy, Applicant/Inglewood Realty, Owner.
SPR#1297 - Application for renovations to parking area at Adult Day Care on 3 Beech Road - Administrative Approval
SPR#1298 - Application for parking lot expansion at 1 Anngina Drive, zoned I-1, Map 82, Lot 26, Precision Camera Repair, Applicant/Owner.
Mr. Giner stated he will schedule this item for the next agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to adjourn. Following a 7 - 0 - 0 vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|
|