|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 16, 2004
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, December 16, 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
Jeffrey Cooper
Charles Duren
Robert Egan
James Hickey, Jr.
Karen Krebs
Karen Weseliza
Samuel McGill, Alternate
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
Nicles Lefakis, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve the Minutes of November 18, 2004. The Minutes were approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of a letter from Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley to the Department of Consumer Protection regarding the T'Ville Tavern at 31 North Main Street. They applied for a permit for live entertainment and did not come before this Commission for a special use permit.
Correspondence also includes the North Central Conservation District 2004 Annual Report, the Zoning Board of Appeals Notice of Action for November 29, 2004, and the Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Notice of Action for November 30, 2004. There was also correspondence and books from the American Planning Association.
COMMISSIONERS' CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace stated there are several cease and desist orders that were issued by Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley and copies have been provided to the Commission.
Commissioners' Correspondence included information on a seminar to be held on January 22, 2005 regarding Integrating Biodiversity into Local Land Use Decisions. This seminar will be held at the Tolland County Agricultural Center in Vernon, Connecticut.
Information was also received on a training session regarding Connecticut Land Use for Municipal Land Use Agencies, Boards and Commissions to be held at Wesleyan University on Saturday, March 5, 2005 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Chairman DiPace asked that any Commission member interesting in attending either of these seminars contact Mr. Giner regarding registration.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued from December 2, 2004
a. PH#2479 - Resubdivision to allow creation of three residential lots with related street and other improvements on property zoned R-33 off Riverview Street, Map 19, Lot 10, Margaret R. Pappas, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by December 15)
Commissioner Lefakis did not participate in this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren stated J. R. Russo had a request for the ART Minutes associated with this public hearing and he noted they were sent out but are not correct. They list many attendees that were not present including Commissioner Duren. Commissioner Duren confirmed he was not in attendance as Commission members have been told not to attend such staff review meetings.
Tim Coon of J. R. Russo and Associates, representing the applicant, stated with regard to the ART Minutes, the actual minutes themselves with the exception of the list of those in attendance are correct and do reflect the same minutes that are included in the Inland Wetlands file.
Steve Mitchell, Manager of Transportation Engineering for F. A. Hesketh and Associates, stated he presented a traffic report at the last meeting and will make a brief report this evening. He cited the memo from Traffic Safety Officer Lieutenant Boula which states he has no problems with the proposed cul-de-sac. His memo also discusses the potential traffic issues on Riverview Street. Mr. Giner confirmed because this is a subdivision application and not a special use permit, in accordance with the regulations, the off-site traffic impacts are not specifically related.
Mr. Mitchell asked if Commission members have any remaining traffic issues or other issues that he or the team could respond to.
Chairman DiPace noted at the last hearing session, there was a discussion of drainage to the site going into the detention pond and from there, it drains to a brook. He asked where the drainage would go from the brook.
Mr. Coon stated the intermittent stream does enter the pond to the south. The pond is also owned by Margaret Pappas and it is on a separate parcel and not part of this application. It is an unnamed pond which ultimately drains underneath Bridge Lane. The specific route is it crosses Bridge Lane and then meanders down to the river. It does not go directly to the river from the Pappas site.
Chairman DiPace asked if this is the same pond that is partially on the Pappas property. Mr. Coon stated the pond is on a separate parcel owned by Mrs. Pappas. Mrs. Pappas confirmed that part of the pond belongs to someone else.
Mr. Coon responded to a question from Commissioner Weseliza and noted the intermittent stream discharges into the pond. Their detention system discharges into the stream, then goes to the pond and then, eventually, to the Connecticut River.
Chairman DiPace asked if there was a reason the drainage was not kept solely on the applicant's property. Mr. Coon stated there is a need to have a place to discharge drainage. The runoff has to go somewhere and it goes there now. The regulations call for no increase in the peak flow and the detention basis ensures that the pre-development discharge from the property is not exceeded. Further discussion followed regarding the route of the drainage.
Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Coon describe the drainage path on the site plan. Mr. Coon pointed out the drainage path on the site plan. He noted the detention basin discharges to the intermittent stream which runs into the pond as well as all the drainage from Head Start which currently runs through the pipe, and the drainage from Riverview Street which comes down through an existing town easement. All this discharges into the pond which ultimately crosses under Bridge Lane and on to the Connecticut River.
Chairman DiPace noted the detention pond drains from north to south but the grade of the property is from east to west. Mr. Coon stated the discharge from the road enters the detention basin, it discharges into the intermittent stream and the stream itself runs north to south. The predevelopment condition is everything runs to the intermittent stream which currently discharges to the pond. Currently there is a discharge to the pond and after they do this development, there will also be a discharge to the pond but the peak discharge will not be any greater than the predevelopment discharge as required by the regulations.
Chairman DiPace stated several emails were received regarding this application. There was an email sent to Jose Giner and Chairman DiPace from Commissioner Samuel McGill. He had questions regarding the takeover of the pumping station by the town. There were also emails from Mr. Giner to Marvin Sierra, John Cabibbo and Jack Kazmarski regarding the questions from Commissioner McGill. John Cabibbo responded that it is common practice for the town to take responsibility for detention areas and sewer pump stations for subdivisions and he cited other examples such as Taft Lane, Bush Lane, Ryefield, High Meadow Lane and Peerless Way.
Chairman DiPace stated he questioned if the other subdivisions cited by Mr. Cabibbo have pumping stations in addition to detention ponds. Mr. Cabibbo responded there are sewer pump stations on High Meadow Lane and the Moody Road Somers Edge Subdivision which were installed by the developers for the subdivision.
Chairman DiPace cited other correspondence from Mr. McAlmond stating Marvin Sierra has already approved the pump station for this development. Chairman DiPace clarified that it is acceptable to Mr. Sierra but the only body with the authority to approve such a pump station for a subdivision is this Commission. Chairman DiPace had this confirmed by the Town Attorney's Office.
Commissioner McGill asked if the pumping stations cited are simplex or duplex. Mr. Giner stated he has not yet received a response regarding this question.
Chairman DiPace stated he forwarded the above correspondence to the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor to show them what kind of response was received.
Mr. Coon stated the pump station was designed with the input of the WPC and Marvin Sierra and Dan Parisi.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the floor. He noted items that have been discussed at the previous hearing session are part of the record and he asked for any new public input.
Helena Hepp, 7 Riverview Street, stated her property abuts the property referred to in this public hearing. She is opposed to this application. She opposed it previously at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on November 18, 2004 on the grounds related to illegal and dangerous limitation of road access. On this occasion, she raised further objection on the grounds of potential devaluation of her property by water damage. This possibility arises from drainage alteration necessitated by the project. Pivotal in these alterations is a detention basin or basins for which it must be noted that the Town has been asked to accept responsibility. This basin will flow directly or indirectly into the next stage of the drainage system which is the pond. The detention basin is intended to buffer the pond from excessive changes of water level which might result from fluctuations of precipitation. It assumes adequate and consistent outflow capability at the south end. The west boundary of Ms. Hepp's property is well out into the pond or approximately to the middle. The details are well described in the warranty deed of August 23, 2001 and related riparian rights thereto confirmed in a court decision dated September 21, 1992. This portion of the drainage system is therefore a significant portion of Ms. Hepp's property. If this detention basin does not function adequately in the face of high velocity or volume inputs, portions of her property and possibly other adjacent properties may be flooded. This is of such a significant magnitude that Ms. Hepp intends to obtain a baseline valuation of ground water levels on her property to use as a comparison in such an eventuality. The question arises as to why the Town would want responsibility for this basin or basins with relatively little or no benefit in return and the possibility of litigation. Ms. Hepp noted the same question arises with regard to the sewage drainage and pumping from these proposed homes. She asked if there are any revenues to be made by the town weighing costs and care responsibilities. These issues are submitted from the point of view of potential Town problems and, in her case, from the point of property damage.
Ms. Hepp submitted a copy of her warranty deed and the judgment made in favor of her property dated September, 1992 in the case of Raymond Belletti v. Margaret Pappas.
Robert Tap, 16 Riverview Street, stated he lives across from the street proposed and the headlights will head right at his home. Regarding the detention pond and the concerns about significant changes in the water going there, he expressed a concern about an increase in runoff. The applicant is stating it is not significant but as Mr. Tap recalls, they just had some type of legal action against the Head Start school from having their retention ponds drain from the school ground into that same pond. Mr. Tap stated one of the other concerns is the retention pond on the Head Start school grounds hasn't been connected yet. He questioned if any of the judgments people are making about whether there is significant drainage to allow the housing takes this into account. Mr. Tap noted last winter they had runoff overflows into their neighbor's yard and part of his yard. While they are saying there is no concern about the drainage from the three houses, he noted they haven't even hooked up the other retention pond yet.
Mr. Tap stated this applicant previously tried to allocate more houses in this area. They had to give the Town a certain portion of their land in order to qualify to have smaller lot sizes. One of the things the Town decided was they did not want it because it was a wetland area and they didn't want the burden. It turned out the Pappas' were trying to put the burden on the Town of maintaining that area. Mr. Tap stated it sounds like the same thing is happening here again. The Town is going to have to pay the bill for an existing wetland area which will be impacted more by the proposed homes.
Diane Tap, 16 Riverview Street, addressed the issue of what is being called an intermittent stream on this property. From their home, they can look down and see a good section of the field right behind the house and into the area where they are proposing these homes. Ms. Tap has never seen a stream on this property and she noted it is basically flat land. What seems to be happening is the intermittent stream is being used as a fancy name for surface water that cannot be drained anywhere because of the high water table. There is a low point in the property and when it rains significantly the water builds up there and then goes into the pond. Ms. Tap is suggesting there is no intermittent stream but flat land with a light depression.
Michelle Balk, 12 Riverview Street, mentioned when the Inland Wetlands okayed the four homes that were constructed on Meetinghouse Lane, she believes the Pappas' stated at that time they were only going to build these four houses and that was going to be it. Since then, they have tried to do more and more.
Chairman DiPace asked if the applicant wanted to address the concerns of the public. He also asked whether there is water runoff on the property or an intermittent stream.
Mr. Coon responded an intermittent stream is when water comes to a point and it flows at some point during the year without having a defined channel.
Chairman DiPace discussed the grades from the detention pond which are varied in specific areas.
Mr. Coon clarified that the elevation flows from Riverview Street down the hill to a low spot where there is an intermittent stream. The stream is where the water collects and it begins to run in a southerly direction and comes to a culvert. It flows through the culvert to an open area on the other side and then into the pond.
Chairman DiPace asked about the pond to be used for the drainage and if anyone has checked to see at what capacity it is in the spring and the fall. Mr. Coon stated in their drainage analysis, which was reviewed by the Town Engineer, it demonstrates that what is running into the pond today from their site is not going to increase the peak discharge after their subdivision is built.
Chairman DiPace stated the detention pond is located on the lot of one of the proposed homes and he asked if the peak discharge is not going to increase, why isn't the applicant keeping the responsibility for the detention pond instead of giving it to the Town. Mr. Coon stated the reason is the Town wants the ability to get in there and maintain the detention pond. Section 5D5 of the Town's regulations states "a drainage easement and flowage rights shall be furnished by the developer in the name of the Town of Enfield in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney where they are deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works to install or maintain drainage installations or utility installations outside roadway limits including ditches where necessary." Mr. Coon noted in this case they are outside the roadway limits and the Town has requested an easement for maintenance purposes.
Mr. Coon stated because of the relationship to the drainage system in the street which is owned by the Town, the Town wants to have the ability to maintain the detention pond. If it is not maintained, it will have an impact on their drainage system.
Commissioner Duren stated it was raised by one of the speakers that other areas also drain through this intermittent stream. He asked if the calculations they did included all the other areas. Mr. Coon stated anything upgrading Riverview Street is either going to drain into an existing drainage at the Head Start area or drain down into Riverview Street. The runoff from Riverview Street is collected in an existing catch basin up near the entrance of their drive. This catch basin is connected to an existing drainage pipe in an existing town easement which runs down and discharges on the property within the easement and flows through a ditch down to the pond. This one pipe carries the runoff from Riverview Street and from the Head Start school. Mr. Coon stated their development is independent of that because they are not doing anything to this pipe. The pre-development and post development that comes from off site is not going to change.
Mr. Coon added they looked at their drainage and the increase will be from the added impervious area. This is why they are collecting that in order to make sure that their post development is less or equal to pre-development.
Commissioner Duren stated it was also stated that the Head Start system was not connected to this yet. Mr. Coon stated it may or may not be but he believes it is. He stated based on his review of some of the Head Start plans, what they were going to do is take the current flow that was coming through this pipe and divert the majority of it through the drainage in the high school. Commissioner Duren stated that was the plan but because the Commission was not involved with Head Start, it is unknown what occurred. Mr. Coon stated regardless of whether Head Start has connected or not, it really has no impact.
Commissioner Egan stated he still has a question as to whether there is an impact or what the impact is or if there is no impact regarding the drainage situation at Enfield High School. There were severe flooding problems there and a cure for the problem was put together. Commissioner Egan asked if the applicant has any idea what that solution was and the impact on the drainage of the proposed subdivision. He further asked if there was a drainage easement given to the Town to drain or run some piping through this property to the pond to get that flow to the pond.
Mr. Coon stated that did not impact this property at all. There are no drainage easements across this property to the pond.
Chairman DiPace asked for public input a second time.
Patrick Dakoto, 11 Riverview Street, stated his property abuts the property of the proposed homes. He has noticed since the last meeting two weeks ago that there is standing water on the property. He expressed a concern regarding building on this area. He noted whether it is called an intermittent stream or not, that land is saturated where they plan to build the third home. There is standing water in there that is not moving. He questioned whether this will add or subtract to the pond when it drains and he expressed his concern about this.
Doug Lesh, 9 Bridge Lane, noted the Commission has asked great questions tonight but the responses have not been precise. He would think that more adequate information and research should have been done on this. He also brought up a hypothetical situation. He has seen the drainage basin for the Head Start program and there is a fence around it. He asked about the basin that is intended to now be installed for the drainage of these three homes and what if a child gets in there and gets injured. Mr. Lesh asked who would be responsible and is the Town going to be brought into a lawsuit. This could raise the Town's insurance rate. He noted the Town accepting something that has not been completely investigated is a risk to the Town and the taxpayers.
Diane Tap, 16 Riverview Street, asked that the Commission investigate issues regarding the pond. The last she heard was that the Head Start drainage was not connected. She also heard that it was connected and that this applicant said to the Town stop draining that detention basin into my pond because it is changing the level of the water and adding silt. Her understanding is the Town stopped that detention pond from draining. She stated there is now Head Start drainage that is incomplete. Ms. Tap asked why is it okay for the drainage for these three houses to go into the same pond partially owned by the applicant but it is not okay for the drainage from Head Start to go into the same pond partially owned by the applicant.
Commissioner Duren asked what the water table at the building site is since the Commission is hearing that the water is settling on top of the ground. Mr. Coon stated the Commission has received a letter addressing the issue of puddling. The water table at the site is going to be at the area where the standing water is down at the bottom. That is a good indication of the water table. The water table at certain times of the year breaks out down here and it is also indicative of the wetlands in that area. Mr. Coon noted the building site is well away from the wetlands.
Commissioner Duren again asked what is the water table. Mr. Coon stated he does not know what the water table is. There are footing drains and they discharge through pipes out through the back of the houses and they do a surface run.
Chairman DiPace questioned if it wouldn't be better to have the drainage go to the detention pond to slow down the flow. Mr. Coon stated the flow rate from the footing drains is insignificant. Commissioner Duren stated it is unknown what the water table is at the homes and the footing drains are to keep the water level below the basement. Mr. Coon stated that is correct but the water that moves through soil will flow more like a trickle rather than a river. The pipe from the footing drains will not flow full.
Commissioner Duren stated the Commission is being told that the surface water is about at ground level. Mr. Coon acknowledged at certain times of the year it can come up. This area down along the stream is wet and water does discharge into a wetland area. Commissioner Duren had a concern about the water hitting the homes because it has to go somewhere. Mr. Coon stated anything in the ground will be taken with the footing drains and discharged down hill. Commissioner Duren had concerns about this procedure.
Chairman DiPace stated the plans show footing drains but the applicant does not know where the water table is. Mr. Coon stated the area has the potential to be wet.
Chairman DiPace stated one of the homes proposed has a walk out basement. Mr. Coon stated the grade at the walk out is about three feet above the existing ground. One of the other homes has a walk out basement and one does not. The home without the walk out basement will be a ranch or cape. With regard to footing drains, Mr. Coon stated they are there to keep the basement dry. The flow down at the stream is going to be the same because the ground water is moving.
Commissioner Duren stated they are concentrating that drainage into a pipe which will make a gully and discharge into a different location and get there a lot faster. Mr. Coon agreed but with regard to the overall peak flow into the pond, he stated the discharge from a footing drain is insignificant.
Commissioner Egan asked about the level of the water table. Mr. Coon stated he is uncertain of it in the area of the homes. Commissioner Egan asked if they will meet the subdivision regulations that the basements have to be five feet in the ground or will soil be brought in. Mr. Coon stated the homes will be five feet in the ground and they are installing footing drains. Commissioner Egan asked if fill will be brought in. Mr. Coon stated there will be fill added per the proposed grading plan. There will be fill added on the backs of these houses but Mr. Coon could not say how much fill would be added.
Commissioner Egan asked if they have taken into consideration all the fill that will be added in the drainage calculations. Mr. Coon stated the drainage calculations take into account the proposed contours during the post construction. Commissioner Egan asked to get to the contours, wouldn't you have to know the amount of fill that will be added.
Mr. Coon stated the contractor will typically determine how much fill he has to bring in.
Commissioner Egan stated the drainage calculations are based upon certain assumptions and one of them would be slopes and the slope would depend upon how much fill is brought in. Mr. Coon stated the slope is based on the contours and the amount of fill is based on the contours. He has the contours but he has not yet done the calculations to determine how much fill the contours represent.
Mr. Coon stated with regard to the basements and the elevations of the homes, the basements are all above the existing grade. The footing drains are there to keep the basements dry. Regardless of where the ground water table is, the foundation can be set wherever and the depth of the water has no impact.
Chairman DiPace stated at the bottom of the hill at the high school are baseball fields and he asked if these homes will be at the elevation halfway down that hill, at the bottom of the hill or up near the top of the hill. Mr. Coon stated it would be midway on the side hill from the high school.
Mr. Coon stated with regard to the comments that he has been giving a lot of maybes, he stated with regard to this subdivision he has the information and has provided it to the Commission. With regard to off-site issues which do not necessarily have an impact on this subdivision such as the Head Start drainage and the pond, there he gives maybes because they did not study it and it does not, in his opinion, have an impact with relation to drainage.
Chairman DiPace commented that any type of water drainage is relevant to this project because of the impact this may have to this neighborhood. The Commission's job is to see to it that this project does not negatively impact the residents in the area.
Mr. Coon stated the drainage from the Head Start from Riverview Street goes into an existing pipe and goes into the pond. It doesn't have an impact on this project. Mr. Coon also noted a portion of the drainage from Head Start goes into this pipe and another portion of the drainage goes off through the High School property.
Mr. Coon stated regarding the drainage, he looks at the predevelopment condition and the post development condition with the subdivision. The predevelopment and post development conditions are the same regarding the drainage from Head Start and Riverview Street. The only thing that changes is what is coming off the subdivision. This is why they included the detention basin so that any change is mitigated and the drainage is at the predevelopment level.
In response to additional questions from Chairman DiPace, Mr. Coon noted a portion of the Head Start drainage comes down through the existing pipe and into the pond.
Chairman DiPace stated he has heard tonight that Head Start drains into that pipe and then during public input, he heard that it does not drain into there. Mr. McAlmond of Public Works could not confirm either statement.
Mr. Giner stated Head Start is not a detention but a retention area and it does retain a certain amount of water. It was his understanding that something was done to address part of the Head Start drainage.
Mr. Coon stated the report he reviewed during the approval process stated a portion of that water was going to be diverted through the High School. He believes that connection through the High School property has been made.
Chairman DiPace stated this hearing must close tonight. Commissioner Duren raised the possibility of getting a legal opinion regarding the riparian rights of the pond. His noted there had previously been a lawsuit and it was cited by Mrs. Hepp. He asked what effect does this have on the drainage rights if they are draining into this pond.
Mr. Giner stated the Subdivision Regulations require a drainage analysis and state the applicant must show that there is zero runoff. If a house is built that begins to cause problems on other properties, it is a civil matter between the two parties to resolve.
Commissioner Duren noted Mrs. Hepp stated she owns half the pond.
Chairman DiPace requested a legal opinion regarding the drainage of the water runoff into this pond which is partially owned by someone else and what the repercussions could be towards the town. Secondly, what is the court decision from 1992 regarding draining into this pond. Thirdly, if the applicant states there is zero runoff and the Commission approves the application but the runoff is not zero and the Town accepts the responsibility, what will be the liability of the Town? Chairman DiPace stated if there is a storm resulting in a problem, he does not want the Town to be liable for something someone else has created.
Mr. Mitchell, the transportation planner and engineer for the applicant, stated this is not unusual. Town roads all over town drain across a variety of properties because of the way drainage works. Town drainage does impact other streams and possibly runs along other properties, sometimes through easements and sometimes not. Sometimes there are prescriptive rights that have existed because the water will find its way down to the Connecticut River.
Following some discussion of an extension of this hearing in order to hear the Town Attorney's comments, Mr. Coon stated it is the position of the applicant that they would prefer to grant an extension of this hearing in order to hear the Town Attorney's opinion.
Commissioner Duren asked that the Town Attorney receive the material submitted by Ms. Hepp.
Chairman DiPace continued this hearing to January 6, 2005. If the Town Attorney's opinion is not received by that date, the hearing will be continued to January 20, 2005.
PH#2486 - Special Permit for construction of a bank ball court and modification of two softball fields with related site work at Brainerd Park on Brainard Road in an R-33 District, Map 58, Lot 88, Town of Enfield, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by January 6)
Geoff McAlmond, Deputy Director of Public Works, and Mary Keller, Recreation Supervisor, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. McAlmond stated this is a request to install a bank ball court at Brainerd Park. If they installed it where the master plan originally anticipated, it would be located on top of the existing parking lot. They are proposing to install it in the area of a future parking lot and build it to the same specifications as the parking lot. If the parking lot is ever built in the future and the bank ball court able to be moved to its original location, they will have built this parking lot to the original specifications.
Mr. McAlmond stated they also propose to replace the existing fencing on the north field and extend the outfield to 300' from 270' and replace that fencing.
Regarding what is bank ball, Mr. McAlmond stated it is an interesting setup developed a few years ago that allows handicapped children to equally participate with non-handicapped children in a competitive atmosphere. It consists of different sized basketball hoops set in a different pattern.
Mr. McAlmond stated the town was able to propose this bank ball court because Massachusetts Mutual paid for the playscape they are installing which was previously approved by this Commission. This would be the next phase of the playground.
Chairman DiPace discussed the ongoing efforts of the Town to support children's activities.
Commissioner Duren asked about the Inland Wetlands action on this application. Mr. Giner stated Mr. Angus' comments are included in his memo to the Commission and the comments he makes are regarding the clearing of the trees. Mr. Angus wants to make sure the limits of clearing are marked to determine any potential impacts. Commissioner Duren read Mr. Angus' comments.
Mr. Giner stated proposed condition #2 refers to Mr. Angus' comments regarding the limits of clearing.
Chairman DiPace stated if the wetlands agent determines the area has changed drastically and it has to go to Inland Wetlands, this application would have to come back to the Commission for a plan amendment.
Mr. Giner stated the present plan includes clearing the trees and establishing a lawn with some minor grading involved.
Chairman DiPace requested public input. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to waive the full submission requirements of Section 9.10.2 since the Commission finds that the submitted material is sufficient to determine compliance with the substantive requirements of the Regulations and to approve PH #2486 - Special Permit for construction of a bank ball court and modification of two softball fields with related site work at Brainerd Park on Brainard Road in an R-33 District, Map 58, Lot 88, Town of Enfield, Applicant/Owner. This application is approved subject to the following conditions:
Conditions to be met prior to the start of work:
1. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
2. The limits of clearing for the lawn shall be reviewed in the field with the Wetlands Agent prior to any on-site vegetation removal. Depending on the limits of clearing, erosion and sediment controls shall be installed at staff's direction to contain the cleared area and/or any stockpiled materials until stabilized.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
3. Final Inspection is required.
General Conditions:
4. This approval is for the bank ball court, field modifications and related site work as specified in the application. Any other improvements indicated as part of the Master Plan are not approved at this time and will require further review and approvals. Any change in the nature of the use or the structures as approved will also 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.
6. Construction of the facilities as approved must be commence within one year from the effective date of approval or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2481 - Initiative by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission for a Zone Change from Residential 44 (R-44) to Residential 88 (R-88) for properties bounded by Fletcher Road to the north; Laughlin Road to the east; the Town Line to the south; and Railroad Right of Way to the west. Properties also as shown on Assessor's Map 104, Lots 3 and 7; Map 105, Lots 1 and 2; Map 106, Lot 1, Map 107, Lots 3 and 4; Properties owned by Kogut Florist & Nurseryman, Inc,; REM Motor Rental; Valley Farms; Myers Nursery, Inc.; Marlene Brooks. (Must close by January 6.)
Mr. Jose Giner, Director of Planning, stated this is an initiative by the Commission since they previously expressed a concern about certain sections of the town that were zoned R-44 with inadequate utilities and road access. The properties proposed to be rezoned are adjacent to R-88 to the east. One side of Laughlin Road is R-88 and the other side is R-44. Laughlin Road is an unimproved Town Road and in places is only twelve feet wide.
Mr. Giner stated in the areas identified there is no sewer or water available. Some of these lands that are proposed to be rezoned are located in areas where the development rights have been purchased by the State and there will be a minimal impact on the ability to develop these properties. Mr. Giner stated the zone change was not proposed further north because there were some already developed lots that would be made nonconforming. He identified on the plans the only small lot being made nonconforming by the proposed zone change. Mr. Giner noted there is really no harm to the lot by it being made nonconforming and the impacts to it being zoned R-88 are minimal.
Mr. Giner stated Still Road is in the same condition as Laughlin Road and the Commission might want to consider a rezoning of this area at a future time. He would recommend this whole north side be rezoned R-88 with the railroad track as the boundary in the future because there is no water or sewer available and some of the roadways are not up to town standards. Applicants cannot be required to do off-site improvements and it would be up to the Town to improve such roadways if the area is developed.
Mr. Giner stated this rezoning falls within the Plan of Conservation and Development's goal for this area to maintain a rural atmosphere and he recommended this zone change be adopted.
Commissioner Lefakis felt the Commission should work on a zone that is greater than R-88 and that should be a Commission priority for next year. Also, the land to the north suggested by Mr. Giner to also be rezoned could be a Commission priority in the near future. Commissioner Lefakis asked about the 500' line drawn on the plans. Mr. Giner stated that is to show adjacent property owners. Because this area was within 500' of an adjacent town, Mr. Giner did notify CRCOG about this zone change. Mr. Giner stated property owners within 500' have heightened rights as parties in zone changes and the plan notes Ellington and East Windsor were within that 500'.
Mr. Giner stated this zone change application was submitted to the Capital Region Council of Governments and, in lieu of posting hearing signs on individual properties, a display ad was placed in the newspaper to meet the notice requirements of the town's regulations.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission received a letter on November 19, 2004 which states that the staff of the Regional Planning Commission of CRCOG has reviewed this referral and finds no apparent conflict with regional plans and policies or concerns of neighboring towns.
Chairman DiPace requested input from the public regarding this application. 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 the initiative by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission for a zone change from Residential 44 (R-44) to Residential 88 (R-88) as heard in Public Hearing #2481 for properties bounded by Fletcher Road to the north; Laughlin Road to the east; the Town Line to the South; and Railroad right of way to the west. Properties are also as shown on Assessor's Map 104, Lots 3 and 7; Map 105, Lots 1 and 2; Map 106, Lot 1 and Map 107, Lots 3 and 4; Properties owned by Kogut Florist & Nurseryman, Inc.; REM Motor Rental; Valley Farms; Myers Nursery, Inc.; Marlene Brooks.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote. This zone change has an effective date of January 3, 2005.
b. PH#2482 - Initiative by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission for a zone change from Industrial 1 (I-1) to Residential 33 (R-33) for properties located at 59 and 69 West Street, Map 7, Lots 13 and 14; Joel Bud, Alfred Kozaczka, Owners. (Must close by January 6).
Mr. Giner stated the owners of these two properties located at 59 and 69 West Street originally approached him and asked why they were zoned Industrial. Mr. Giner stated his research indicated these were left over properties from the Bigelow Commons project. When the entire area was zoned Industrial, these two properties were also zoned Industrial. Bigelow came in and requested the Special Development District but they did not own those two properties and these properties remained zoned Industrial.
Mr. Giner stated the lots as they exist would not meet the requirements of Industrial-1. He recommended the highest and best use of these properties would be to rezone them to Residential 33 since they are spot zoned with their present zoning designation. Mr. Giner stated this was an oversight when Bigelow Commons was first rezoned.
Mr. Giner stated this application was sent to CRCOG because the area is near the Connecticut River and adjacent to Suffield. CRCOG has responded that there is no conflict with regional plans and policies or concerns of neighboring towns in a letter dated November 19, 2004. Mr. Giner stated notice of this proposed zone change appeared in a display ad in the Journal Inquirer in addition to the legal notice.
Chairman DiPace asked about the size of these lots. Mr. Giner stated one is approximately 8,000 square feet and the other is twice that size. He added the southern lot will be bigger than most of the lots in Thompsonville and the northern lot is approximately the same size as the lots in the area. The lots have two different owners.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to approve the initiative by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission for a zone change from Industrial 1 (I-1) to Residential 33 (R-33) for properties located at 59 and 69 West Street, Map 7, Lots 13 and 14; Joel Bud, Alfred Kozaczka, Owners, with an effective date of January 3, 2005.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote. This zone change is effective January 3, 2005.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR#1299 - Application for interior remodel of existing D'Angelo's Sandwich Shop including kitchen equipment, seating and finishes. Minor exterior modifications including replacement of signage, painting and addition of an awning at 12 Hazard Avenue, zoned BR, Map 56, Lot 22, WD Partners, Applicant/Papagino's, Inc./D'Angelo's, Owners.
Todd Dillon with W/D Partners, representing D'Angelo's and Papagino's, the parent company, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Mr. Dillon described the proposed renovation. He stated all the foundation exterior walls will remain the same and the footprint will not change. There will be the addition of some awnings on the front of the building which are shown on the colored renderings presented. Awnings will also be added on the side of the building by the window and at the side entrance. The signage proposed will be the same size and location as the existing signage. Mr. Dillon stated this is a corporate change being made throughout New England.
Mr. Giner stated the signs will not be a part of this application and they will need to be approved separately. He suggested a condition to this effect.
Mr. Dillon presented a drawing showing a new building in Newberry, Massachusetts, which is located in a mall.
Commissioner Duren had a concern that the plans only show a portion of the building. He asked if the other half will be the same colors. Mr. Dillon stated yes and added all the existing brick will remain the same. He presented a drawing to show the gooseneck lighting that will be located on the side of the building.
Commissioner Krebs asked if there will be only one tenant. Mr. Dillon stated this is a one tenant building. He added there was a time when half was an ice cream use when it was not corporately owned.
Mr. Giner reviewed the individual elevations and what would be seen.
Commissioner Hickey asked if the interior will be redone. Mr. Dillon confirmed it will be redone. He presented the new layout and stated they are in the process of working with the Building Department to make the changes once the plans are approved.
Mr. Giner noted no bonding is required for this application.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve SPR#1299 with the applicable standard conditions of approval and with the stipulation that the signage must be submitted and approved separately by staff through the normal sign permit procedure. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
b. SPR#1302/1303 - Application for change of use from gas station to expanded used car dealership (already existing) at 777 Enfield Street and expanding an existing used car dealership on the property at 767 Enfield Street, zoned BG, Map 29, Lot 53, Anthony Troiano & Sons and Tom Saso, Applicants/ Anthony Troiano & Sons, Owner.
Frank Troiano appeared before the Commission representing Anthony Troiano & Sons and the Troiano Sunoco gas station at 777 Enfield Street. Also present was Tom Saso.
Mr. Troiano stated they have an existing gas station that has been a fixture in Enfield for over seventy years. The original location of this gas station is about forty feet from the existing gazebo. They are one of the longest standing Sunoco gas stations in the country and are before the Commission tonight to apply for a change of use. Mr. Troiano stated last year they came in for a change of use for an existing one dealership application to a secondary dealership. He introduced the co-applicant and stated they plan to expand the use of one of the existing dealerships and decrease the use of one of the other dealerships located on the same property. The color coded yellow copy presented to the Commission would be the one that Mr. Saso represents at 767 Enfield Street. The one that is on the interior is the one from 777 Enfield Street from Anthony Troiano & Sons. They are both existing dealerships with the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Mr. Troiano stated they had a review with Mr. Giner and Roger Alsbaugh and also spoke with a representative at the Department of Motor Vehicles, Tony Ruggiero, one of the department heads for dealers and repairers in Wethersfield. Mr. Troiano stated the application was reviewed with the DMV and they recommended the proposed layout along with Mr. Giner and Mr. Alsbaugh. Mr. Troiano stated the difficult part is the gas station and they wanted to make sure the Commission was aware of it should they have any questions regarding the change of layout.
Mr. Troiano stated they are moving the tanks but they will remain a gas station. It is not going to be a public use. They checked with the State of Connecticut and they can leave their existing pump. There is a secondary diesel pump located towards the bathrooms and this pump will be reconfigured to be a diesel and gas pump. The gas pumps in the front will be removed along with the island. They will install bollards for protection to make sure that nothing runs into the columns supporting the canopy since the canopy will remain. Mr. Troiano stated the signage on the canopy will be changed to some degree and most of the signage will stay for the next tenant.
Mr. Giner stated it was unclear what kind of signage would be installed and he noted this use is located in the design district and there are some considerations for signage. They will have to comply with the signage regulations.
Mr. Troiano stated they do not anticipate requesting any additional signage. They may have to address the gas station signage that shows the pricing that is located on the street. They would have to come in for a redesign through the Planning Office to make sure it conforms with what the town wants. Mr. Troiano noted it would no longer have a price sign on it.
Mr. Giner stated there will be no unloading of cars on the street and such unloading will have to occur within the boundaries of the licensed area. The use of the retail gas station is being discontinued and if they want to restart such use, it is a permitted use by special use permit in the zone and they would have to come back to the Commission for such a change. Mr. Troiano stated they will be maintaining the licensing for the gas pump for internal use only.
Some discussion followed regarding the time frame for the gas station use to end. Mr. Giner stated currently the minute the use is changed to a different use, it would take another application to restart selling gasoline.
Commissioner Duren asked if all the tanks would be maintained. Mr. Troiano stated they would and they will be conforming with the EPA regulations for the other pump also.
Mr. Troiano noted the reason there are two applications is the DMV required two applications. One application is a decrease and the second one is an expansion.
Chairman DiPace requested that all comments made in SPR#1302 be incorporated into SPR#1303.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to approve SPR #1302/1303 for a conversion for a change of use from gas station to expand used care dealership (already existing) at 777 Enfield St and to expand an existing used car dealership on the property at 767 Enfield St., Zoned BG, Map 29, Lot 53, Anthony Troiano & Sons & Tom Saso, Applicants/Anthony Troiano & Sons, Owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the record submitted with the application and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
"Site Plan Prepared for Troiano & Sons Oil Co. 777 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut" Scale: 1" =20' Prepared by D'Onofrio Surveying & Engineering, dated Oct. 18 2004.
1. Any internal Fire Code requirements shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a Building Permit and/or a Certificate of occupancy, as the case may be.
2. No deliveries by car carrier are permitted to the dealerships under this permit. Any vehicles delivered to the site shall be individually driven or, if brought by tow truck, unloaded only within the boundaries of the licensed areas.
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. This approval is only for interior change of use. Any new exterior construction must obtain additional Site Plan approval from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
5. This application discontinues the use of the premises as a retail gas station. The reestablishment of this use will require a new approval from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
6. The display of vehicles for sale shall be limited to the areas as shown on the referenced plans.
7. No sign package has been specifically approved with this application. Permits for new or replacement signage that conforms to the Enfield Zoning Regulations must be obtained separately from the Planning Office. Specific attention should be given to the sign requirements of Section 8.60 King Street/ Enfield Street Design Overlay District.
8. Any permits necessary for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained by December 16, 2009 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission in accordance with the Enfield Zoning Regulations.
9. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
Mr. Troiano publicly thanked Jose Giner and Roger Alsbaugh for their assistance.
c. SPR#1301 - Application for renovation of the existing Ground Round Restaurant and converting it to a Ninety Nine Restaurant and Pub. Exterior changes include new exterior building color, signs and awnings. Awning work will consist of new fabric on existing frames at 54 Hazard Avenue, zoned BR, Map 56, Lot 26, Michael S. Cardamone, Applicant/Samuels & Assoc., Owners.
Tom Woburn, the Director of Construction for Ninety Nine Restaurant, appeared before the Commission along with Michael Cardamone, the Project Manager. This site is located at 54 Hazard Avenue where there is an existing Ground Round Restaurant. This restaurant will be converted to a Ninety Nine Restaurant. Mr. Woburn gave a brief history on the Ninety Nine Restaurant noting they have 99 such restaurants presently open.
Mr. Woburn stated the Ground Round building is approximately 6,500 square feet. There will be no enlargement of the footprint and there will be no exterior changes except for the color, the awnings and the signage.
Mr. Woburn stated there are existing awnings on the building and those awnings will be changed to red, black and yellow. A canvas material will be used and they will use the existing frame for the new awnings.
Chairman DiPace asked if the applicant has color samples of the awning material. Mr. Woburn referred to the photos presented. He stated the corporate colors have been changed in the last year and the colors have been reversed. There is now more black then red. The building color will be green. Mr. Woburn noted most of their restaurants are this medium green color.
Mr. Woburn responded to Commission questions and stated there is a Ninety Nine Restaurant located in East Longmeadow. Chairman DiPace noted this is a very busy intersection with a high accident rate and he would like to avoid distractions to drivers. Mr. Woburn asked if the color green is too bright. Commissioner Krebs confirmed the green on the building in East Longmeadow is not a bright green. Mr. Cardamone stated the color green on the submitted drawings is close to the actual color but it may be lighter than the actual color. Commissioner Krebs thought the green was a little darker and she stated the actual color is a nice green. Further discussion regarding the proposed colors followed.
Mr. Woburn discussed Ninety Nine Restaurants noting they have also taken over the Ground Round in Manchester. The one is Manchester is under construction and is already painted their corporate green color. Chairman DiPace asked how soon they plan on painting this building. Mr. Woburn stated once they get through this procedure and the Building Permit procedure, it would probably be painted within two or three weeks weather permitting.
Commissioner Hickey stated he would take into consideration the fact that this building is set back from the road.
Commissioner Krebs cited the need for applicants to provide color samples for the benefit of all Commission members. Mr. Woburn asked for a brief recess to go to his car and obtain a photograph of the proposed restaurant.
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, for a recess. The motion was approved unanimously and the Commission recessed at 9:40 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 9:50 p.m.
Mr. Woburn presented cards distributed by Ninety Nine Restaurant that showed the colors of the building.
Commissioner Hickey asked if there will be any landscaping changes at this restaurant. Mr. Woburn stated there will be no change to the landscaping other than to do trimming and redo the mulch.
Mr. Giner stated a sign package was included with this application and it has been reviewed by Roger Alsbaugh. He has confirmed it meets the sign requirements. Mr. Woburn stated there is existing signage facing the north elevation where they intend to put their Ninety Nine Restaurant pub sign. On the east elevation, there is a small sign currently and this is where they would like to put the Ninety Nine horse shoe. They also plan to install a freestanding sign if that is allowed.
Commissioner Duren read Roger Alsbaugh's memo to the Commission dated December 14, 2004 confirming the signs submitted meet the requirements.
Mr. Giner stated there was an issue about the freestanding sign and they did submit a revised elevation that meets the requirements for such a freestanding sign.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve the application for renovation to the existing Ground Round Restaurant converting it to a Ninety Nine Restaurant. The changes are to include the interior, building color, sign and awning as heard in SPR#1301.
Reference is made to Mr. Alsbaugh's memo dated December 14, 2004 to Jose Giner concerning the sign application, SAN#1202, which has been approved.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
BOND RELEASES
a. PH#2265 - Request for release of Erosion & Sediment Bond in the amount of $3,700 for Henshon Wingard Tennis Club at 226 Shaker Road.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to release the erosion and sediment control bond for the Henshon Wingard Tennis Club at 226 Shaker Road in the amount of $3,700. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
b. PH#2150 - Request for release of maintenance bond in the amount of $17,187 for Meetinghouse Lane.
Commissioner Duren noted the lack of a memo from Marvin Sierra. This bond release was tabled.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Preliminary discussion with Scott Nielsen regarding possible changes to American Inn (Mayfield Drive) development.
Scott Nielsen appeared before the Commission for a preliminary discussion regarding possible changes to the American Inn development. He stated he does not own the property, he has no purchase and sale agreement and he does not represent the owners of American Inn.
Mr. Nielsen stated this plan was originally designed in the 1980's and things have since changed. There are now four million people turning fifty-five years of age annually and this project will be targeted to the over fifty-five group. One of the aspects of the site is it includes a number of endangered species. There are no deadlines for dealing with these things and it is a problem for businesses. Mr. Nielsen stated there may be a need to create some open space for some of these animals and plants.
Mr. Nielsen stated currently the central building on the site consists of 47 smaller units and they would like to do two and four unit townhouses that would be bigger than the present footprint. To compensate for that, they would look at three buildings that would have from twelve to twenty-four units.
Mr. Nielsen stated they were thinking about a five-story building. Their initial market research showed that this would be a little ambitious for this site. If they build instead three buildings, those would also have elevators and parking underneath.
Mr. Nielsen stated today's active adult communities have two cars per unit and most residents work. They propose parking for two cars with each unit. They will probably be revising the roads to create more open space and some of these building changes. They do not know whether they have to accommodate room for the endangered species on the north side of the property.
Chairman DiPace stated Mr. Nielsen is looking to take this project and make it more densely populated and leave more open space. Mr. Nielsen stated they will try. The rest of their market study is showing they can sell units in the three buildings referred to as great mansions. Their intent is not to compete with Dartmoor next door.
Chairman DiPace asked if Mr. Nielsen has seen the Laurels which were built in the late 1980's. This project won an award from the state for being one of the best developments in the state at the time.
Mr. Nielsen stated that in 1988 he helped write the cluster bylaw in Belchertown, Massachusetts. He described the project in the town he helped to build. He agreed about the importance of walking trails and buffers for such projects.
Mr. Nielsen acknowledged the landscaping on the site will be critical in selling these units. Their club house will also have an athletic club. They try to promote community, education and economic development in their properties.
Mr. Nielsen asked what sort of procedure they will have to go through for general modifications. They understand they will have to do storm drainage calculations. They propose to change the amount of roofs and the amount of roadway. Mr. Nielsen would like to avoid having to start from scratch with all sorts of public hearings and a longer process. Since the modifications won't increase the number of units but it is an updating of the floor plans of the buildings, he questioned if this would require the full public hearing.
Mr. Giner discussed the past history of the Town and noted any amendments to planned residential developments, especially if they affect the layout, will have to go through a hearing process. He also heard age restricted housing mentioned. He noted this has been approved as an assisted living continuing care facility. Mr. Giner stated the Town's regulations for assisted living facilities and continuing care facilities specifically prohibit converting those to senior housing. Once that is proposed, they will need a regulation change because the Town's regulations for senior developments now specify a certain density. Mr. Giner emphasized the over fifty-five regulations are limited to single-family detached dwellings.
Mr. Nielsen stated in the application the Commission approved, while there are services available in the duplex and triplex units, really, the only assisted living is in the main building. Mr. Giner stated that is correct and the regulations require that there be support services within that building and it does allow a mixture of such services. There are also detailed requirements regarding the age of the occupants. Mr. Giner stated when the regulations were redone, there was an attempt to address such projects should someone come in with a request for a higher density without the support services.
Commissioner Duren asked if there are wetlands involved in this area. Mr. Giner confirmed there are wetlands on the property. He stated a change such as is suggested would need zoning regulation amendments. He recalled discussing previously with Mr. Nielsen the same amount of density on a smaller portion of the lot but with basically the same use.
Mr. Nielsen stated Mr. Giner is correct. They have been looking at two applications. For the assisted living facility, he wanted to do a five-story building in order to accommodate today's needs. He asked the Commission's view on this issue. He added while they have this planned on forty acres, they do own seventy acres. They are keeping thirty acres as open space. He suggested requesting a building type limit change and noted it is now 35'.
Mr. Nielsen stated he has talked to the local fire marshal about this issue but they wanted to see the plans.
Mr. Nielsen stated the more they stay with the assisted living, the higher they need to go. He asked if there was any negativity on the part of the Commission if they were to go with a taller building 300' off Mayfield Drive and 500' off North Maple Street. Chairman DiPace stated he is open to looking at other options. If something makes more sense and is beneficial to the environment and the Town, he would be willing to look at it.
Commissioner Egan asked if Mr. Nielsen has any existing projects. Mr. Nielsen stated they have developed single family and condominiums in Massachusetts and apartments and condominiums in Florida. In Florida, there is a nine-story building that helped build on Marco Island. In Belchertown, they did a subdivision on 100 acres.
Commissioner Egan asked if Mr. Nielsen has done anything like he is proposing for Enfield. Mr. Nielsen stated in terms of the assisted living facility, the closest thing is the American Inn in Southwick. They would try to use the same style architecture but they would want to add floors and also have the individual units be a little bit bigger. Mr. Nielsen stated he has looked around the area for architects in western Massachusetts and northern Connecticut and they do not have the experience regarding what is being proposed.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission would like to see New England architectural designs.
Mr. Nielsen stated he would be happy to provide the Commission with the posters and information they have. Commissioner Egan stated it would be helpful to see such information and it could be submitted to Mr. Giner for the Commission's review. Chairman DiPace suggested another discussion.
Mr. Nielsen stated he will meet with Mr. Giner and straighten out the zoning issues. He will be back after the first of the year with pictures of potential buildings.
b. Applications to be Received
The following applications were received by the Commission:
PH#2488/FLD #021 - Application for special use permit for construction of a new building for Enfield Federal Community Credit Union to construct their new corporate location, construct a building with parking and drive-in teller facility at Cranbrook Boulevard - 700 feet plus or minus east of Freshwater, across from Valvoline, zoned BL, Map 56, Lot 29, Enfield Federal Community Credit Union, Applicant/55 Hazard Avenue Associates LLC, Owners.
SPR#1301 - Application for modifications to former Ground Round Restaurant (will be 99 Restaurant) at 54 Hazard Avenue (application is on tonight's agenda).
SPR#1302-1303 - Application for changes to dealership (garage and used car sales) at 777 and 767 Enfield Street, Troiano's (applications are on tonight's agenda).
Mr. Giner reminded Commission members of the March 5 meeting sponsored by the Connecticut Bar Association at Wesleyan and he recommended it. Chairman DiPace requested if Commission members cannot attend, that Mr. Giner order the manuals provided at that meeting for all Commission members.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to adjourn. Following a 7 - 0 - 0 vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|
|