Enfield, CT Town Seal The Town of
Enfield CT
  Residents Residents Business Business Visitors Visitors Social Media Report and Issue Report an Issue
      Sign-Up for Enfield Alerts Sign-Up for Enfield Alerts Search
Live Play Work

THESE MINUTES ARE PRESENTED IN DRAFT FORM AND HAVE NOT

BEEN FORMALLY APPROVED BY THE ENFIELD PLANNING AND

ZONING COMMISSION.  OFFICIAL COPIES OF MINUTES, WHEN APPROVED,

CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE TOWN CLERK OR PLANNING OFFICE.

 

ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

THURSDAY, July 7, 2011 - 7:00 P.M.

ENFIELD TOWN HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS

820 ENFIELD STREET - ENFIELD, CT

----------------------------------------------------------------------

A Regular meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, July 7, 2011 at the Enfield Town Hall Council Chambers, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield Connecticut. Chairman Charles Duren called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

PRESENT:              Charles Duren, Chairman

                             Elizabeth Ballard, Vice Chairman

                             Peter Falk, Secretary

                             Charles Ladd

                             Nicles Lefakis

                             Lori Longhi

                             Alan Drinan, Alternate

                             Ronald Gregory, Voting Alternate

ABSENT:                Kathleen Sarno

                             Michael Dumont, Alternate

ALSO PRESENT:     José Giner, AICP Director of Planning, Virginia Higley, Zoning Enforcement Officer and Alexis Alvarado, Recording Secretary.

REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. 

1.           Call to Order & Pledge of Allegiance: Chairman Duren called the meeting to order at 7:07 PM. The pledge of Allegiance was recited.

2.           Fire Safety Announcement: Chairman Duren read the fire safety announcement.

3.           Roll Call: Present for the meeting were Chairman Duren, Commissioners Ballard, Falk, Ladd, Lefakis, Longhi and Alternates Drinan and Gregory (seated). Also present was José Giner, AICP Director of Planning and Alexis Alvarado, Recording Secretary.

4.           Approval of Minutes

a.     June 2, 2011

Commissioner Falk motioned to approve the minutes of June 2, 2011, with the noted corrections. Commissioner Ballard seconded the motion.

Commissioner Drinan noted the following:

-Top of page four “Chairman” should be changed to “Chairman Duren”.

-Page 7, “Gayle Toyota” to “Gale Toyota”.

Commissioner Gregory noted:

-         Page 24, 3rd paragraph up from the bottom, “and if” should be changed to “and it”.

All were in favor (7-0-0).

 

b.     June 16, 2011

Commissioner Falk motioned to approve the minutes of June 16, 2011 with the noted corrections. Commissioner Gregory seconded the motion.

Commissioner Falk:

-         In the motion regarding the fire department, it states “the vote was 4-0-1. Commissioner Falk abstained” it should read “Commissioner Falk recused himself”.

Commissioner Duren:

-         Page 20, bottom of the last paragraph, “Mobil station to avoid the light” needs a period. Or “They cross the two lanes of traffic to get to the Mobil station” and “They cut through the Jug Shop to avoid the light”.

All were in favor as corrected (7-0-0).

5.                 Staff Reports

a.                 Town Attorney (in writing): N/A

b.                 Zoning Enforcement Officer (in person):

Ms. Higley stated that she gave the Commission her report in writing; however she would like to make a few additions. She stated on the second page of the log, she notified the Commission that there was going to be a tentative meeting for the zoning board of appeals with the Mobil station at 75 Hazard Avenue. The meeting has been confirmed. The engineering company will be sending a couple of representatives attend the next meeting.

Regarding the auto detailing sign on 45 South Road, the owner of the sign and business called Ms. Higley to explain that he was not aware of the signage policy. He could qualify as a home occupation, however he is not registered. He could not put up the sign anyway because greater than 1 ft.² so he took the sign down.

Ms. Higley. She sent a letter to the owner of the Chrysler dealership and has had no response. She did get a response from the real estate agency who is trying to sell the property, however she did not get anywhere with them. Ms. Higley noted that there are signs inside the window of the dealership that are directing folks to go to the Gary Rome KIA down the road. Ms. Higley stated that she called the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles. The woman she spoke with at the DMV stated that using signs to direct patrons down the road to another dealership is not allowed. Dealerships have to be next to one another in order to do that. The woman from the DMV is going to call the Chrysler dealership and let them know that their signage is not allowed.

The property on 40 O’Hare is starting to have issues again. The neighbor called to complain that there are many chickens on the property. The reason Ms. Higley brought up the subject of chicken because she’s been getting many calls regarding chicken complaint. Over the past few months, they’ve had increased amount of chicken complaints and she liked the Commission to consider the next time they revise the regulations to be more lenient regarding chicken regulations. Roosters should not be allowed.

Commissioner Longhi question what the issue was put the property on North Maple per Ms. Higley’s report.

Ms. Higley stated that there are two owners, Mr. West and Mr. Jones, who own the property together. Mr. West lives on the property with his fiancée. Ms. Higley stated that she saw a “For Rent” sign on the property. She took the number down and called the phone number. She spoke to a woman who said she did not know that they could not put a sign in the window so they took the sign down. Mr. Jones stated that the other owner, Mr. West, was allowing the patrons of Buona Vita to park on their property. Ms. Higley stated that the property owners, although in a business area, would need to get permission from the Commission. Mr. Jones also stated that there is a tenant in the upstairs. Ms. Higley stated that the stairs to the second floor are outside of the building. Outside staircases are not allowed. Ms. Higley stated that she received another complaint so she asked the owners that are living in the house to send her a letter stating that they are not renting and they are not allowing Buona Vita patrons to park on their property.

Commissioner Ladd questioned if the property owner on North Street was hiring in attorney.

Ms. Higley stated that it was quiet for a while, and then an attorney contacted her. The attorney questioned what she based her violations on. Ms. Higley did some research and found out the original owners had a variance for family room and a garage. The current owner would not be able to put up the structure even if he attached it because it is in violation of the set back.

Commissioner Ladd stated that the other property on North Road has put up its temporary structure again.

Ms. Higley stated that the building code states that if a temporary structure is up for more than 190 days, it becomes a permanent structure which requires them to obtain a building permit. The issue is that when a resident calls the building department to ask if they need a building permit, the building department states there is no permit needed for a temporary structure. However, after 190 days it becomes a permanent structure, which is not allowed in the front yard.

Chairman Duren questioned if that is what Mr. Warren was asking the Commission to do regarding the new zoning enforcement officer position.

Ms. Higley stated that if someone comes in for a sign or other zoning requirements, she recommends they check with the building department before they leave, to ensure that they will not need any other type of permit.

Chairman Duren stated that with the issues with trailers and signage it could have been prevented when they went through the building department if the ZEO was notified.

Commissioner Longley questioned if Ms. Higley would be staying for the rest of the meeting they had further questions on other items on the agenda.

Chairman Duren questioned if the IT training on up number seven is off-site training.

Ms. Higley stated that he does go off-site. Ms. Higley stated that all home occupations must have their businesses conducted off-site.

Chairman during stated that he saw 243 Pearl Street has a violation.

Ms. Higley stated they are the same owners as the rooming house on Elm Street that was in violation.

Ms. Higley stated that she cited the owners for 243 Pearl St. the same time she cited them for Elm Street. The mother usually represents the owner who is her son. She stated that she was going to wait until 43 Pearl St. until they figured out how the Elm Street property was going to turn out. Ms. Lee stated that she has not yet hear anything on the prostrate property. Ms. Higley stated that she intends to send the property owner a letter regarding both properties questioning why he intends to do to turn both properties back into single-family residential houses.

c.      Property Maintenance (in writing):

Chairman Duren stated that he had requested a more detailed report several months ago. The Commission started to receive detailed reports however they are back to a summary report. He’s not able to get detailed information from these reports in order to report back on people who submitted complaint. He would like property maintenance officer to create more detailed reports like the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s reports.

d.     Director of Planning:

Mr. Giner stated that the Commission has received the agenda and a marked up copy of the regulations in their packets for the special meeting on July 14, 2011. Mr. Giner stated that the changes do not include the suggestions from previous meeting they are just the applicant’s proposals. Mr. Geyer did not change the signage type he’s going to leave that up to discussion at the next meeting. The regulations are basically the same as industrial regulations he noted the changes in yellow for the applicant’s proposal.  Commissioner Drinan stated that the starting point should be the same for the town attorney the public in the Commission. Commissioner Drinan stated that Mr. granted an axle and job organizing the proposal in changes. He had a few minor changes will he stated on page 4 of the redline copy, that pertains at page 12 of the zoning ordinance, is lined up with items 96 and 97 he will need to include beside the yard in zoning permit paragraphs originate as the ordinance and will need to be renumbered 98 and 99. There are currently 96 and 97 and the current zoning ranks and because of the insertion they will need to add an additional number. On the redline markup of 10 – 30 – six on page 14, one minor change 12 should be highlighted instead of item 13. In the suggested changes to the zoning ordinance there is reference to modifying section 6.2.0 using requirements to include highway service known and indicated that section 6.2.0 use requirements which are used for industrial Park District also apply to 2I1 sent service zone section 6.20 should be modified to reflect that to show a new column for that service zone.

Mr. Giner stated that he did not feel the chart needed another column so he put it on page 9 in footnote 27.

Commissioner Drinan stated that the only way that he could compare the changes, is to have another column added on page 6. Commissioner Drinan compared the differences of the uses of the current regulations to the proposed changes. He stated that listing them out is the only way that makes sense in order to compare the difference between the two. The new column should be right next to industrial with the same uses. Commissioner Drinan said the proposed changes invoked two different use tables.  They invoke the use tables 520 for office and the table 621 uses in an I-1 zone. Commissioner Drinan feels that this would be the only zone in a regulation that would straddle two different uses.

Mr. Giner stated that he will just add an extra column.

Chairman Duren stated that the meeting on June 14th will just be iron out the details regarding the proposed regulation. He’s not sure how the Commission feels or even how he will feel until they finish the regulation proposal.

Commissioner Longhi stated that she sent Mr. Giner some photos of the towers that are on top of the building and questioned if he was able to look into that issue.

Mr. Giner stated that he has not been able to look into the towers since he has been on vacation.

Commissioner Longhi stated that those towers were not in the original proposal for the building. Mr. Giner stated that the applicants only applied for fencing and never mentioned anything about the towers on top the building.  The building department does not know anything about them either.

Commissioner Longhi stated that two weeks ago there were still trailers in the Kohl’s parking lot. She has not driven by this week to see if they were still there and questioned what was going on with the removal of the trailers.

Mr. Giner stated that Chairman Duren informed him that the trailers were still there. They were supposed to be removed on June 14, 2011. Mr. Giner stated that he will double check and make sure the trailers were gone.

Commissioner Longhi stated that they have also put in new plans and landscaping, which the Commission did not approve.

Mr. Giner stated that when they redid the façade on building they, had to replace any landscaping that was ruined during construction.

Commissioner Longhi stated that it’s not the same landscaping layout that was there before.

Mr. Giner stated that as long as there is planting in the front they don’t get into what type of plant the have been placed. He stated that he will look and see if there is a big difference.

6.           Public Participation:

Chairman Durand open meeting for public participation. There was no public participation.

7.           Correspondence:

Chairman Duren stated the Commission should have received a magazine, the minutes of the wetlands Commission from June 7, 2011 and June 21, 2011, information from Zoning Board of Appeals and materials from the Capital Region. The Chapter of the American Zoning Government Relations informed the Commission on legislature that is happening in the state Senate that involves planning and zoning. They also should have “The Summary of Reason Case Law” by Charles Andres Esq., New Haven. Mr. Giner stated that he attended a conference at the Mark Twain house where he obtained that information.

8.           Commissioner’s Correspondence:

Commissioner Ladd stated that a property on 440 Hazard Ave. has been illegally dumping. Directly behind that property is Connecticut State Land. Commissioner Ladd has received several complaints regarding the dumping. The owner picks up at 350 Elm St. drives to 440 Hazard Ave., goes down a gated driveway to the back of the property and then come out with an empty truck. Commissioner Ladd stated they have a fenced in yard and a gate that delineates where the state property starts.

Mr. Giner stated that he will look into it, but he is not sure how he can inspect the property if it is gated.

Commissioner Ladd suggested going in from the State side to see if they’ve been dumping back there.

READING OF THE LEGAL NOTICE

9.           Public Hearings- New

a.           PH #2721 – Special Use Permit for a 11,250 s.f. addition to an existing shopping center (Enfield Commons) with related site work located in an Business Regional (BR) District at 25 Hazard Ave., Map 45, Lot 8, Paramount Realty Services, applicant/owner.

Commissioner Falk read the legal notice and took roll. Present for the meeting were Chairman Duren, Commissioners Ballard, Falk, Ladd, Lefakis, Longhi and Alternates Drinan and Gregory (seated).

Chairman Duren questioned if they received the approval from wetlands.

Mr. Giner stated that the application has been approved.

Chairman Duren stated that they have not received any information from the public safety officer. He stated that he also noticed that the fire and water pollution approvals were not included in the conditions.

Mr. Giner stated that the plans were revised and the notes regarding the sewer were on new plan.

Chairman Duren stated that he did not see anything in his revised plan.

Ray Gradwell, project manager at 355 Research Pkwy, Meriden Connecticut. With him was Greg Gaudet, NI Design, Farmington Connecticut, representing Paramount Real Estate Services for 25 Hazard Ave. Mr. Gaudet stated that back in 2010 they had come before the Commission on two projects which include T-Mobile and Aspen dental. They are currently requesting an additional 11,000 ft.² to be added on to the Enfield Commons plaza.

Greg Gaudet, architect, stated the property is located at 25 Hazard Ave., on approximately 35 acres. They’re proposing to work on two different locations on the site. One is adjacent to Bob’s store, which includes an addition of 11,000 ft. within the parking lot. Site improvements have already been made in that area, such as parking and landscaping. The second area of improvements on the site is in respect to offsetting flood storage volume. Their proposal is to excavate an area adjacent to the entrance. The demolition on the site will include the construction for the 11,000 sqft. addition, as well as the new flood storage plane. Mr. Gaudet that stated that he has been working with town staff to ensure the plans are compliant with fire and safety regulations, traffic safety and engineering requirements. There were some concerns with ART requirements, so they have included 43 handicap parking spaces.

The proposed addition will be about 3 feet above the parking, so they will need a handicapped accessible ramp. The ramp will connect with a crosswalk and sidewalk system that goes to the main building. There will also be a set of stairs in the middle of the new building.

At the site improvements where the flood storage is located, will be surrounded with ornamental fencing and a gate for maintenance access.

Commissioner Duren requested the applicant define the word “ornamental”.

Mr. Gaudet stated it will not be a wrought iron or chain link, but an aluminum slatted fence.

Chairman Duren stated that does not sound very “ornamental”. He also noticed there are no plantings around the flood storage container.  Since it is on Hazard Avenue, the Commission would feel better if there were some sort of decorative landscaping around it so it doesn’t offset the landscaping for the rest of the plaza.

Mr. Gaudet stated they were planning to work with what is there, however he will work with the staff to include a landscaping cover.

Commissioner Longhi questioned where the flood storage area will be located.

Chairman Duren stated that it will be located near the entrance of Ocean State Job Lot, across from McDonald’s.

Chairman Duren questioned if the applicant was aware that there was a large flood several years ago where the cars were buried.

Mr. Gaudet stated that they are aware that the parking lot has flooded on occasion.

Commissioner Longhi questioned what they plan on doing with the commuter parking that is currently there.

Mr. Gaudet stated that he did visit the site and there were about 200-220 parking spaces and they will only need about 60 spaces for the addition, so they anticipate there will be plenty of open spaces for commuters to use.

Commissioner Falk requested the applicant take into consideration that there are a lot of people on vacation this week, so the amount of commuters would be considerably less.

Commissioner Longhi stated that she was concerned with the minimum parking of 5 spaces per 1000 square feet which came to 1,508 spaces (which would be the Town’s requirement). The proposal removes additional parking for the detention basin which brings the spaces down to 1,515 spaces and does not account for the couple of hundred cars that are in the commuter parking. She is not sure how they came up with that calculation.

Mr. Gaudet stated that they used the 5/1000 calculation to determine what is required. They came up with 1,515 and 1506 is required. After visiting the site today, he believes they should have adequate parking during the week and on the weekends.

Chairman Duren stated he is concerned with the fencing with the slats. On windy days, the slats start flapping and end up falling off. He suggested looking at Walgreen’s retention basin that has a rod iron fence around it.

Mr. Gaudet stated that there will not be a chain link with slats and referred to sheet DN3, where here is a new proposal for a 4ft., ornamental fence that will resemble a wrought iron fence (aluminum slatted).

Mr. Gaudet stated the utilities will include public water, electricity and have meet with ART to discuss sanitary sewer comments and questions. They’ve addressed their comments and concerns with the sewer in the back. They have a limited sediment and erosion control plan.

Chairman Duren stated that he would also like to see ornamental shrubs around the fencing area.

Mr. Gaudet stated that they will be replacing the curbs around the flood storage area.

Commissioner Longhi stated it has not up to the standards of the current property manager to put up a flood detention basin and a fence in the middle of a parking lot without landscaping it. The previous applications for the property have been a great improvement since it has been under new ownership and she would like to see that standard continued with this project.

Mr. Gaudet stated that he will research it to see what they can put around the basin.

Commissioner Drinan stated that the applicant came before the Commission for a restaurant that is going into that plaza. He questioned how these new changes will affect the parking for that restaurant.

Mr. Gaudet stated that he was not part of that application. Paramount Realty submitted the application. That square footage has already been counted as retail for parking purposes. Restaurants and retail have the same parking ratio in this type of setting.

Mr. Mancini stated that the previous owner leased the parking in the proposed construction site because at the time it was decided that the parking lot was not useful for the type of retail that went into the shopping plaza. The Connecticut Department of Transportation lease can be terminated within 30 days. However, they do not anticipate much of an increase in parking needs and will be monitoring it.

Mr. Mancini stated, as Mr. Gaudet stated, it is not a retention basin; it is a flood storage compensation container. He said the reason they put the flood storage compensation near the entrance on Hazard Avenue was because it is outside the flood zone. They did not want to take out the parking lot in the area; however it’s the only way they could compensate for the volume of water. They can also move the fence and put a 6-8 ft. shelf with some shrubbery around the fenced area. It is best to limit the vegetation inside the fence because it’s hard to maintain and it would defeat the purpose of the excavation for flood storage. He would be happy to resubmit the revised plan to the Commissioners.

Greg Gaudet, principal of NI Design, stated that the proposed retail will be 6,450 sqft. (4,800 sqft. for Men’s Warehouse). They followed the same improvements and theme as the rest of the plaza. It will look similar to the Aspen Dental. There will be a ramp and a nice formal staircase in the middle of the building.

Chairman Duren questioned where the shipping docks are located.

Mr. Gaudet stated that most of their deliveries arrive via UPS before the store opens and are delivered at the front door.

Mr. Gaudet showed the paint and colors they intend to use on the building.

Commissioner Falk questioned what the difference between the sidewalk and blacktop and if there are going to be any railings along the side.

Mr. Gaudet stated that the distance is approximately 3 feet. They plan to use metal piping railings, similar to Aspen Dental.

Commissioner Falk stated he did not see the railings on the plans.

Chairman Duren asked if the railings similar to Aspen Dental be in the conditions.

Chairman Duren stated they could put the landscaping around the flood storage area into the conditions.

Mr. Giner stated that he can pdf the plans to the Commission for their approval.

Chairman Duren stated they will add the condition for the 6ft green around the storage area.

Mr. Gaudet stated that he will add the railings into the revised plan.

Chairman Duren questioned if there was an inspection and maintenance plan for the pipeline. Usually, the Commission requires a yearly inspection.

Mr. Giner stated they should have a maintenance schedule on the plans.

Commissioner Longhi suggested adding the monitoring of parking conditions. If they need more parking, they will terminate the DOT lease.

Mr. Giner stated that he would like to add a Condition 17 that states: The WPC and Fire Marshal shall note final approval before the signing of the plans by the secretary. So the plans will reflect both of those approvals.

Chairman Duren questioned if the applicant has read and agrees with all of the conditions.

The Applicants stated that they agreed.

Chairman Duren opened the hearing to the public. There was no public participation. Chairman Duren closed public hearing 2721.

Commissioner Longhi motioned to approve public hearing #2721 with the 16 conditions in a memo dated June 30, 2011 by José Giner., along with the following four additional conditions: #17 – That the WPC and Fire Marshal shall note their approval of the final plans submitted for Commission signature; #18-That the railing along the front entrance shall be similar to the one installed in front of Aspen Dental; #19 – The final plans shall show a six foot landscaped shelf in front of the flood storage area with the design to be approved by the Planning Director after consultation with the Commission; #20 – The Public Hearing File number , PH 2721/FLD 0032 shall be put on each sheet of the final plans submitted for signature. Commissioner Ladd seconded the motion. All were in favor 7-0-0.

Referenced Plans:

“Enfield Commons  Men’s Warehouse Addition & Site Improvements 25 Hazard Avenue, Enfield,  Connecticut, Prepared for Paramount Realty Services 1195 Route 70, Suite 2000, Lakewood, NJ 08701” Cover Sheet w/ Vicinity Map, Location Map and Contents; By BL Companies, revised to June 23, 2011.

“Existing Conditions Plan, Topographic Survey Enfield Commons Hazard Road, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet EX-1, Sheet 1 of 2; Scale: 1”=30’; by BL Companies, dated 5/2011.

“Existing Conditions Plan, Topographic Survey Enfield Commons Hazard Road, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet EX-1, Sheet 2 of 2; Scale: 1”=20’; by BL Companies, dated 5/2011.

“Site Demolition Plan, Enfield Commons, Men’s Warehouse & Site Improvements, 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet DM-1; Scale: 1”=30’; by BL Companies, revised to 6/23/11..

“Site Demolition Plan, Enfield Commons Men’s Warehouse & Site Improvements,25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet DM-2; Scale: “As Noted”; by BL Companies, revised to 6/23/11.

“Overall Site Plan, Enfield Commons Men’s Warehouse & Site Improvements, 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet SP-0; Scale: 1”=80’; by BL Companies, revised to 6/23/11.

“Site Plan, Enfield Commons Men’s Warehouse & Site Improvements 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet SP-1; Scale: 1”=30’; by BL Companies, revised to June 23, 2011

“Site Plan, Enfield Commons Men’s Warehouse & Site Improvements 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet SP-2; Scale: 1”=20’; by BL Companies, revised to June 23, 2011

“Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan, Enfield Commons Men’s Warehouse & Site Improvements, 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet GU-1; Scale: 1”=30’; by BL Companies, revised to June 23, 2011

“Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan, Enfield Commons Men’s Warehouse & Site Improvements, 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet GU-2; Scale: “As Noted”; by BL Companies, revised to June 23, 2011

“Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan Men’s Warehouse & Site Improvements, Enfield Commons 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet EC-1; Scale: 1”=30’; by BL Companies, revised to June 23, 2011

“Sedimentation and Erosion Control Notes, Enfield Commons Men’s Warehouse & Site Improvements 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet EC-2; Scale: “As Noted”; by BL Companies, revised to June 23, 2011

“Sedimentation and Erosion Control Notes, Enfield Commons Men’s Warehouse & Site Improvements 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet EC-2; Scale: “N.T.S.”; by BL Companies, revised to June 23, 2011

“Planting Plan, Enfield Commons 25 Hazard Avenue Men’s Warehouse & Site Improvements, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet LL-1; Scale: 1”=20’; by BL Companies, revised to June 23, 2011

“Planting Plan, Enfield Commons Men’s Warehouse & Site Improvements 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet LL-2; Scale: “As Noted”; by BL Companies, revised to June 23, 2011

“Detail Sheet, Enfield Commons Men’s Warehouse & Site Improvements, 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet DN-1; Scale: “N.T.S.”; by BL Companies, revised to June 23, 2011.

“Detail Sheet, Enfield Commons Men’s Warehouse & Site Improvements, 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet DN-2; Scale: “N.T.S.”; by BL Companies, revised to June 23, 2011.

“Detail Sheet, Enfield Commons Men’s Warehouse & Site Improvements, 25 Hazard Avenue, Route 190, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet DN-3; Scale: “N.T.S.”; by BL Companies, revised to June 23, 2011.

“Town of Enfield Public Works Department, Plan for Proposed Sanitary Sewers Typical Details I”

“Town of Enfield Public Works Department, Plan for Proposed Sanitary Sewers Typical Details II”

“Town of Enfield Public Works Department, Plan for Proposed Sanitary Sewers Typical Details III”

“Bob’s Store Addition Enfield Commons, Enfield, CT, Preliminary Plan” ( Floor Plan and Elevations) Sheet R.1, Scale: “as noted”; by HYLWA Incorporated., revised to 6/14/11.

“Bob’s Store Addition Enfield Commons, Enfield, CT, Roof Plan” Sheet Pr.3, Scale: “as noted”; by HYLWA Incorporated., revised to 6/15/11.

Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:

1.     Each sheet of the plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.

2.     The WPC and Fire Marshal shall note final approval before the signing of the plans by the secretary.

3.     The application # PH 2721 shall be incorporated onto each sheet on the plans submitted for signing in the area above or near the title block.

4.     The final plans shall indicate that the railing along the front entrance shall be similar to the one installed in front of Aspen Dental.

5.     The final plans shall show a six foot landscaped shelf in front of the flood storage area with the design to be approved by the Planning Director after consultation with the Commission.

6.     The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns, a copy of the Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated on the plans submitted for signing.

Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:

7.     Three sets of paper plans and one set of mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.

8.     A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.

9.     An Erosion and Sediment Control and Site Restoration Bond shall be submitted in the form of cash or a check, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.

10.      A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.

Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :

11.      Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2  and T-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance. The as-built plan shall also contain a certification by a Professional Engineer that they have inspected the site improvements and that they have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. Any deviations or omissions must be noted.

12.      In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format consistent with the Town’s Guidelines for Digital submissions.

13.      No Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval may be issued until the Zoning Enforcement Officer has signed off on the final work. When minor site work cannot be completed because of weather or other pertinent reason, a conditional approval may be issued for a period not to exceed 180 days, providing satisfactory surety shall be posted with the Town of Enfield in an amount sufficient to complete the site work and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney and Finance Department.

14.      A request for final project review from the Planning Department must be made at least 10 days before a Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval is requested from the Building Official.

General Conditions:

15.      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.

16.      This project is also subject to conditions of Inland Wetland Permit # 544.

17.      This project is also subject to the requirements of the Flood Hazard Mitigation Ordinance which is the subject of a separate application (FLD # 032).

18.      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.

19.      All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by July 7, 2016 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

20.      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.

b.              FLD #032 – Development Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area for work related to PH #2721 located at 25 Hazard Ave., Map 45, Lot 8, Paramount Realty Services, and applicant/owner.

Chairman Duren stated they agreed to maintenance and inspection of the flood storage chamber.

Mr. Giner stated that the Commission is acting on the Town Ordinances rather than the Zoning regulations. The applicants need to show they are not increasing any downstream flood hazards. There is a memo from John Cabibbo stating that everything that the applicants have shown him is adequate and the underground storage fits best for this type of site.

Commissioner Longhi motioned to approve LD #032, Commissioner Ladd seconded the motion all were in favor.  The vote was 7–0–0.

c.               PH #2706.02 – Special Use Permit for modification to previously approved plans for the former Bickford’s Restaurant for property located at 7 Hazard Ave in a BR District, Map 45, Lot 10, The Colvest Group, applicant; Hazard Associates, owner

Commissioner Falk read the legal notice and took roll. Present for the meeting were Chairman Duren, Commissioners Ballard, Falk, Ladd, Lefakis, Longhi and Alternates Drinan and Gregory (seated).

Dana Steele, JR Russo & Associates is looking to improve the current Bickford’s site. Compared to the previously approved application, there will be 3 leasable units with an updated façade and easier sidewalk access. The current sidewalk will be too far below the entrance of the building, so they intend to raise the sidewalk up. They also have a tenant that will not need the drive thru lane that was proposed on the previous application.

Mr. Steele stated there will be a larger lawn area. This will decrease the impervious area, which will decrease any issues with flooding. They can also increase the amount of parking needed, create a better traffic flow and have an outside seating area. They are going to have 7 additional parking spots from removing the drive thru from the plan. They propose to remove two parking spaces and install a walk up ATM.

Peter LaPointe stated that the proposed tenant will be Chipotle grill and will not need a drive thru. They are going to stay with the same colors that the building currently is, but add some fresh paint. Everything else on the plan will remain the same with the exception of the drive thru.

Commissioner Longhi stated that she is very pleased with the plan and was a great solution to the Commission’s concerns.

Commissioner Ballard questioned if the outdoor seating was going to at the end of sidewalk or if it will be pushed back. 

Mr. Steele stated that it will be at the sidewalk. They propose to put up a small retaining wall and patrons will be able to walk through the retaining area to the proposed seating. There will not be a fence surrounding the seating area. There will be a sidewalk buffer.

Chairman Duran questioned if there were any water pollution problems.

Mr. Giner stated they were the standard comments that were stated in the conditions (Condition #4). There was nothing new from the Fire Department. The last comment was the clearance height for the drive thru; however that issue was resolved when they removed the drive-through.

 Mr. Giner stated the engineer did not have any further comments to the new plans, so he is assuming that the Engineer did not have any issues with the new proposal. There was no response from the Public Safety Officer. Condition #3 no longer applies, so there will be 18 conditions.

Chairman Duren questioned if they need to approve the flood permit since it was approved last time and there is now less of an impact.

Mr. Giner stated that he would like to have a record of the modification approval.

Chairman Duren questioned if they needed an Inlands and Wetlands approval.

Mr. Giner stated that the Agency had previous determined that no permit was needed since the project is outside the regulated wetlands boundary.

Chairman Duren questioned if there was still a grease trap in the parking lot.

Mr. Steele stated that the grease trap will remain.

Commissioner Longhi questioned how big the ATM machine enclosure would be.

Mr. Steele stated that it has lighting, AC, a sidewalk and meets building set back requirements. It looks like ATM machine near the Dollar Tree.

Chairman Duren questioned if the Commission needed to make a separate approval for the ATM machine.

Mr. Giner stated that since it is on the plans, if the Commission approves the plans, they approve the ATM machine.

Commissioner Longhi motioned to approve PH# 2706.02, Special Use Permit for modification to previously approved plans for the former Bickford’s Restaurant for property located at 7 Hazard Ave in a BR District, Map 45, Lot 10, The Colvest Group, applicant; Hazard Associates, owner; subject to the conformance with the referenced plans that may be required to be modified with this approval. With the 18 conditions in a memo dated June 30, 2011 by José Giner, Director of Planning (Condition #3 on memo to be removed). Commissioner Ballard seconded the motion. All were in favor (7–0–0).

Referenced Plans:

“Change of Use, Façade & Site Improvements, 7 Hazard Avenue, Enfield,  Connecticut”  Drawing Index Sheet and Location Map, by J.R. Russo & Associates revised to 6-13-11.

“Layout Plan (PH#2706), Prepared for The Colvest Group Ltd, 7 Hazard Avenue, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet 2 of 5, Scale: 1”=20’, J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 11-17-10, revised to 6-13-11.

“Grading & Utilities (PH#2706), Prepared for The Colvest Group Ltd, 7 Hazard Avenue, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet 2 of 5, Scale: 1”=20’, J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 11-17-10, revised to 6-13-11.

“Details (PH#2706), Prepared for The Colvest Group Ltd, 7 Hazard Avenue, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet 4 of 5, Scale: “NTS”, J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 11-17-10, revised to 6-13-11.

“Details (PH#2706), Prepared for The Colvest Group Ltd, 7 Hazard Avenue, Enfield,  Connecticut”, Sheet 5 of 5, Scale: “NTS”, J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 11-17-10, revised to 6-13-11.

“Proposed Floor Plan” Sheet A-1, Scale: ¼”=1’0”, by The Colvest Group, Ltd. dated 6/13/11.

“Proposed Elevation” Sheet A-2, Scale: ¼”=1’0”, by The Colvest Group, Ltd. dated 6/13/11.

“Proposed Elevation” Sheet A-3, Scale: ¼”=1’0”, by The Colvest Group, Ltd. dated 6/13/11.

 

Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:

1.     Each sheet of the plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.

2.     The application # (PH #2706) shall be shown on each sheet of the final plans submitted for signature.

3.     The plans shall show the length, diameter, slope, location, and type of all sewer pipes; for inverts show elevation in and out for, and for frame(s) show elevation at the top.

4.     The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns, a copy of the Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated on the plans submitted for signing.

Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:

5.     Three sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.

6.     A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.

7.     An Erosion and Sediment Control and Site Restoration Bond shall be submitted in the form of cash or a check, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.

8.     A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.

Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :

9.     Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 and T-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance. The as-built plan shall also contain a certification by a Professional Engineer that they have inspected the site improvements and that they have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. Any deviations or omissions must be noted.

10.      In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format consistent with the Town’s Guidelines for Digital submissions.

11.      No Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval may be issued until the Zoning Enforcement Officer has signed off on the final work. When minor site work cannot be completed because of weather or other pertinent reason, a conditional approval may be issued for a period not to exceed 180 days, providing satisfactory surety shall be posted with the Town of Enfield in an amount sufficient to complete the site work and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney and Finance Department.

12.      A request for final project review from the Planning Department must be made at least 10 days before a Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval is requested from the Building Official.

General Conditions:

13.      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.

14.      This site is also subject to approval under the Town of Enfield’s Flood Hazard Reduction ordinance (Flood #030 and Flood #033).

15.      The specific uses for this site are not known at time of application.  Any uses that are identified as “Special Permit” uses in the table of uses that have not been identified as potential uses for this hearing would require additional Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission approval prior to occupancy.

16.      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.

17.      All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by July 7, 2016 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

18.      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.

d.              FLD #033 – Development Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area for work related to PH #2706.02 – modification to plans previously approved for property located at 7 Hazard Ave in a BR District, Map 45, Lot 10, The Colvest Group, applicant; Hazard Associates, owner.

Commissioner Longhi motioned to approve FLD #033 – Development Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area for work related to PH #2706.02 modification to plans previously approved for property located at 7 Hazard Ave in a BR District, Map 45, Lot 10, The Colvest Group, applicant; Hazard Associates, owner; on the basis of the last approval and no further changes are needed. All were in favor (7-0-0).

e.              PH # 2722- Special Use Permit for a change of use from residential to office at 131 Elm Street, located in a Limited Office (LO) District, Map 57, Lot 25 & 26, Jo Ann Walk, applicant; Peter J. Macher, owner.

Commissioner Falk read the legal notice and took roll. Present for the meeting were Chairman Duren, Commissioners Ballard, Falk, Ladd, Lefakis and Alternates Drinan and Gregory (seated). Commissioner Longhi recused herself.

Mr. Giner state that a new exhibit (#25) was received the day of the hearing. It was a better drawing of the one in the packet. Mr. Giner passed this out to the Commission.

Dana Steele, JR Russo & Associates, stated this application was previously the subject on a zone change from residential to a limited office use. The proposal is to relocate an insurance agency office to this building. Currently the property is being rented out and not has been well-maintained. The property borders Elm Street and sits across from TGI Friday’s restaurant. It is bordered by Freshwater Blvd. and Carol Street. The building is still going to look like a residential house. They intend to install a ramp for handicapped accessibility. There will be additional parking on the side for 11 spaces. The Town Engineer has reviewed and improved the drainage on the property. He suggested increasing the pavement to meet the town standard for parking lots.

There is a landscape island on a raised bed, as well as planting around the sign.

Commissioner Falk asked if they were going to replace the garage door with a wall.

Ms. Walk stated they made a mistake on the drawing. The garage door is going to be removed and replaced with a wall and window.

Commissioner Drinan questioned if they plan to move the driveway to the east to get it away from the intersection.

Ms. Walk stated the issue was that the traffic safety officer had previously stated that a car going 25 mph wouldn’t be able to stop in time.. However, she suggested that a car going 25 mph around that corner wouldn’t even be in the right lane (they would be going too fast to make that turn). She stated the state DOT put the driveway in when they reconstructed that intersection. . She will be taking out the huge bushes that are in the way of the drivers’ view and widening the driveway so folks don’t have to back out.

Chairman Duren stated that two trees in the front are going to be removed.

Mr. Steele stated that they will be removing the two maples in the front because they are too close to the house.

Mr. Lefakis questioned how high the proposed beds on the corner are going to be and if they would obstruct the view.

Ms. Walk stated they would be 1-2 feet high at the most.

Ms. Steele stated there would be some evergreen shrubs and ornamental grasses. It’s pulled back from the road and will be well away from any sight line.

Commissioner Falk questioned if there will be a separate application for signage.

Mr. Giner stated they will have to have a separate application for signage.

Chairman Duren questioned if Mr. Giner addressed the Town Engineer’s concerns in the conditions.

Mr. Giner stated that Condition #1 addresses his concerns.

Chairman Duren questioned if the applicant reviewed and agreed to the conditions.

Mr. Steele stated there were no issues with the conditions.

Chairman Duren opened the hearing to the public.

Mike Helechu, 31 Elm Meadows, stated that he is in favor of the plan. He is an Enfield resident and respective business owner. He believes Ms. Walk’s business will improve the property and enhance the neighborhood.

Chairman Duren closed public hearing #2722.

Commissioner Falk motioned to approve PH # 2722- Special Use Permit for a change of use from residential to office at 131 Elm Street, located in a Limited Office (LO) District, Map 57, Lot 25 & 26, Jo Ann Walk, applicant; Peter J. Macher, owner, subject to the conformance with the 15 conditions noted in José Giner’s memo dated June 30, 2011, and 16th condition be added – That the PH file number, PH 2722, shall be added to each of the final plan sheets submitted for signature. Commissioner Ballard seconded the motion. All were in favor 7–0 –0.

Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:

1.     The detail cross section for the proposed parking area shall be revised to show a minimum depth of 8 inches of processed stone  (not 4") and the there shall be, at least, a total depth of 3 inches of bituminous concrete to meet the minimum Town Standards for parking lots.

2.     Each sheet of the plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.

3.     The file number (PH 2722) shall be added to each of the final plan sheets submitted for signature.

4.     The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns, a copy of the Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated on the plans submitted for signing.

Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:

5.     Three sets of paper plans and one set of mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission. The applicant shall file the signed mylar on the Land Records prior to the issuance of any permits.

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 to be met prior to the issuance of permits or certificates of compliance:

7.     Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2  and T-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance. The as-built plan shall also contain a certification by a Professional Engineer that they have inspected the site improvements and that they have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. Any deviations or omissions must be noted.

8.     In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format consistent with the Town’s Guidelines for Digital submissions.

9.     No Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval may be issued until the Zoning Enforcement Officer has signed off on the final work. When minor site work cannot be completed because of weather or other pertinent reason, a conditional approval may be issued for a period not to exceed 180 days, providing satisfactory surety shall be posted with the Town of Enfield in an amount sufficient to complete the site work and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney and Finance Department.

10.      A request for final project review from the Planning Department must be made at least 10 days before a Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval is requested from the Building Official.

General Conditions:

11.      Business Hours:  Business hours shall be limited to 8:00 A. M. to 8:00 P. M. Monday through Saturday.

12.      Exterior Lighting:  All exterior lighting, except for security lighting, shall be turned off one (1) hour after the close of business.  Flood lights are prohibited.

13.      An excavation permit will be required from the Engineering Office for the proposed widening of the driveway opening onto Carol Street

14.      Any necessary permits for the operation of the use as approved must be obtained within a year of the effective date of this approval or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

15.      The project shall be completed by July 7, 2016 or this approval shall be considered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.

16.      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.

f.                PH #2697.02 Special Use Permit for modification to previously approved plans to allow for privacy walls on decks located at the Carriage House Condominiums located in an R-44 Zoning District, Map 52, Lot 420, Carriage House IO – Enfield Association, Inc., owners/applicants.

Commissioner Falk read the legal notice and took roll. Present for the meeting were Chairman Duren, Commissioners Ballard, Falk, Ladd, Lefakis, Longhi and Alternates Drinan and Gregory (seated).

Applicants: Tom Buckley, President of the Home Owner’s Association Board and Chris Whalen, Vision Management stated they had come before the Commission to get a blanket approval for the Condo owners to be able to add decks and patios onto their properties. The Board had required any property owners adding decks, must put up a privacy screen sine the units were very close together. One of the occupants went to the town to get her permit and was told she could not put up a privacy screen because it had not been approved by the town. The deck itself was approved; however the Association Board would not allow her to put up a deck without the privacy screen. So Mr. Buckley and Mr. Whalen have applied for a blanket approval in order for the residents who are building decks, can also put up privacy screens for their neighbor’s protection. Mr. Buckley showed the Commission the pictures of the units that have privacy walls and how close the neighbor’s window is to the other person’s deck.

Chairman Duren stated that the Fire Marshal's issues were resolved in a memo dated June 15, 2011.

Mr. Giner stated that there are not any zoning issues with the application. However, there may be other issues regarding other criteria. There is a dispute with one of residents.

Commissioner Falk questioned if this would be a blanket approval for any of the decks in the association.

Mr. Buckley stated that the approvals will be at the Board’s discretion.

Mr. >Giner stated this purpose is so each resident does not have to come in for an approval.

Chairman Duren suggested the types of framing should be included in exhibit 3.

Commissioner Lefakis questioned if the Commission would be approving decks if were a new complex.

Mr. Giner stated they would be approving this type of application for a new complex. The only time they would come afterward would be if they wanted to add or change anything.

Chairman Duren stated it looks like they are using the same type of screen for all of the projects.

Mr. Giner recommended adding the style and size of screens as a condition.

Chairman Duren opened to the public:

Cheryl Benoit, 93 Carriage House, stated she has a window that can be seen from her neighbor’s deck (which is 39 inches away from her window). It makes her uncomfortable that people can see into her kitchen. She was told by the Association, that there would be a privacy wall put up when her neighbor built the deck. She would like the Commission to approve this application so her neighbor can put up the privacy wall.

Carol Johnson, 92 Carriage House, stated that she went to the town for the permit and paid the fees. She was told that the permit was for the deck only, not the privacy wall. Someone in the planning department told her there was never any approval for the privacy walls for the Carriage House complex. On April 6, 2011, the Zoning Enforcement Officer called Mr. Buckley to inform him that residents applied for a deck and privacy wall. Ms. Johnson stated that she has been waiting 5 weeks for a permit.

Robert Johnson, 92 Carriage House, stated that exhibits 2 and 3 are not adequate portrayals of the privacy screens because there are other styles of decks and privacy screens.

Mr. Giner stated that they should add two types of privacy screens going forward.

Commissioner Longhi questioned if the Commission approves multiple styles, who would decide where each one would go.

Mr. Giner stated that the HOA Board sets the standards. That is not up to the Commission. The Commission can only approve the HOA board’s application to put up privacy walls on the property.

Commissioner Ladd questioned what Mr. Johnson was asking.

Mr. Johnson stated that with the proposed type of privacy wall, his deck will basically be closed in on 4 sides. The Association and neighbor want him to put up a privacy wall that goes all of the way to the stairs.

Commissioner Longhi stated the Commission would have to approve a smaller privacy wall as well.

Mr. Giner suggested adding “no larger than exhibits 2 and 3” into the conditions.

Commissioner Falk stated they should not be restricting the size, as that is up the Association and they should remove condition #3.

Mr. Buckley stated that he agrees with the conditions. The association decides how large a privacy wall should be, and has applied for the approval to get all of the decks into compliance.

Ms. Johnston stated that when she signed the contract for the privacy wall and deck, she had no idea it was not permitted by the town and does not think her contract should be legal. She has no issue with putting up a privacy wall; however she does not want the large wall because it will completely block the already limited view.

Chairman Duren stated that is between her and the Association. This public hearing was only to approve privacy walls for the complex.

Commissioner Longhi motioned to waive the full submission requirements as the Commission feels they are not required to make a decision. Commissioner Faulk seconded the motion and all were in favor (7-0-0).

Commissioner Longhi motioned to approve PH #2697.02 Special Use Permit for modification to previously approved plans to allow for privacy walls on decks located at the Carriage House Condominiums located in an R-44 Zoning District, Map 52, Lot 420, Carriage House IO – Enfield Association, Inc., owners/applicants; with the three conditions stated in the memo dated July 1, 2011 by José Giner. (original Condition #3 to be deleted and # 4 renumbered to #3) Commissioner Gregory seconded the motion and all were in favor (7-0-0).

Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of  Certificate:

1.     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:

2.     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:

3.     By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns 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.

g.              XSU #11-16 – Special Use Permit for a change of use to approve the expansion of the EMS operations into the whole building located at 1296 Enfield Street in an HR-33 District, Map 19 Lot 62; Town of Enfield, applicant/owner.

Commissioner Falk read the legal notice and took roll. Present for the meeting were Chairman Duren, Commissioners Ballard, Falk, Ladd, Lefakis, Longhi and Alternates Drinan and Gregory (seated).

Bill Peluso, Assistant Public Works Director and Gary Wiemokly, EMS Chief, Enfield, were present.

Mr. Giner stated the last time they had come in for a parking application and the Commission previously approved two ambulance bays. The operation has grown into the front of the property. The Commission requested a hearing to legalize the current operation.

Chairman Duren questioned if the EMS had control over the traffic light that was there. He received an answer that the control was taken out because the ambulances were constantly moving and questioned if should be replaced.

Mr. Wiemokly stated that it would be ideal of the light control could be replaced.

Mr. Giner questioned if the state would control the light being replaced.

Chairman Duren stated that he believes the EMS would handle the light. He questioned if the ambulances always leave from 1296 Enfield Street.

Mr. Wiemokly stated the ambulances do, unless they are out on the town.

Commissioner Falk stated that on the previous application, they were under the impression that the ambulances were placed around town so they could get to their calls quicker.

Mr. Wiemokly stated that he has not had a chance to review the history for that building as he has only been Chief for 6 weeks. The current building on Enfield Street is the main station, so everyone meets there to punch in, get their equipment and ambulances.

Mr. Giner stated that since Enfield Street is a state road, he believes it would be a state light and they would need to obtain the permission from the State if they were to put in a light by-pass control.

Commissioner Falk stated that since this building is in a residential neighborhood, he is concerned with the noise and backup beepers. He’s also concerned with pedestrians walking on the sidewalk in front of the building being hit by an ambulance.

Mr. Wiemokly stated they try to be as courteous as possible when they come in and out of the property. They turn their lights on and wait to turn the siren on until they are a few blocks down the road so they don’t scare or disrupt neighbors and pedestrians. When they come back onto the property to put the ambulances away, they turn their back up beepers off and have a spotter help them back in.

Commissioner Falk didn’t realize that the backup beepers could be turned off and questioned if it was unique to ambulances.

Mr. Wiemokly stated that he believed some vehicles could turn off their backup beepers and some could not.

Chairman Duren opened XSU 11-16 to the public. There was no public participation.

Mr. Giner stated that three basic conditions will be applied to this application.

Chairman Duren closed XSU 11-16.

Commissioner Longhi motioned to approve XSU #11-16 – Special Use Permit for a change of use to approve the expansion of the EMS operations into the whole building located at 1296 Enfield Street in an HR-33 District, Map 19 Lot 62; Town of Enfield, applicant/owner. Commissioner Falk seconded the motion and all were in favor (7-0-0).

This approval is subject to conformance with the submitted plans and the following conditions:

General Conditions:

1.  This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary in the office of the Town Clerk. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.

2.  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.

3.  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.

h.              XSU #11-17 – Special Use Permit for the a new stone parking area, metal storage building and press box with related site work adjacent to the Enfield High School Athletic fields located at 1264 Enfield St. in an R-33 District, Map 19, Lot 68. Town of Enfield, applicant/owner.

Commissioner Falk read the legal notice and took role. Present for the meeting were Chairman Duren, Commissioners Ballard, Falk, Ladd, Lefakis, Longhi and Alternates Drinan and Gregory (seated).

Bill Taylor, Deputy Director of Public Works, stated they are proposing to expand the current asphalt parking lot with a gravel parking lot. They would like to put in an access drive to the parking lot, a metal storage building for the sports equipment and a press box at the bleachers.

Chairman Duren stated that he did not receive any information in his packet regarding the press box.

Commissioner Ladd stated that he had buildings for a press box.

Chairman Duren stated he would like to remove the word “Press Box” from the hearing notice since they have no information on it.

Commissioner Longhi stated that the picture and information for the metal building does not match what is on the plan.

Chairman Duren asked if there were any questions on the application. He noted the Fire Marshal approved the gravel lot.

Commissioner Longhi questioned what type of lighting they intend to have.

Mr. Peluso stated they intend to have high pressure sodium directional lighting for the parking lot.

Commissioner Falk questioned what the metal building was for.

Mr. Peluso said there are three trailers filled with sports equipment that they will be able to remove off of the property.

Chairman Duren stated that they needed pictures and more information. He suggested tabling the hearing until they can get all of the information they need in order to make a decision. He also requested the applicants add some plantings to the parking area.

Mr. Peluso stated that the press box will go behind the existing bleachers at the football field.

Commissioner Longhi stated that she would like to table the minutes as well.

Commissioner Longhi questioned if they would be adding new gates.

Mr. Giner questioned if they would be moving the existing gates.

Mr. Peluso confirmed that they would be moving the existing gates.

Commissioner Duren requested samples on the lighting.

Commissioner Longhi stated they should be able to get the samples from the companies they received bids from.

Commissioner Ladd questioned if they had bids on the metal buildings and if so, they should include the bids in the project plans.

Commissioner Longhi stated that technically they did not bid it out.

Mr. Peluso stated that technically they received quotes in order to get this project completed before the start of school.

Commissioner Longhi motioned to continue XSU #11-17 – Special Use Permit for the a new stone parking area, metal storage building and press box with related site work adjacent to the Enfield High School Athletic fields located at 1264 Enfield St. in an R-33 District, Map 19, Lot 68. Town of Enfield, applicant/owner; to July 21, 2011. Commissioner Ladd seconded the motion and all were in favor (7-0-0).

10.            Old Business

a.                             PH #2714 – Petition for a Text Change to the Zoning Regulations to create a new Highway Service Zoning (HSZ) District with corresponding regulations and standards, Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc. applicant.  (Deadline for Decision: July 21, 2011 meeting)

This application is tabled until the July 14 Special Meeting.

11.            New Business

a.       Section 8-24 referral from the Town Council regarding the sale of two parcels of town-owned land in the Enfield Memorial Industrial Park to Eppendorf Real Estate Corporation.

Planning Director José Giner stated that Eppendorf Real Estate has requested to purchase additional land from the town in order to expand. They are currently working on a development project on Freshwater Boulevard and would like to expand even further when that project is completed. The Town had to go to the State of Connecticut because the parcel that we are looking to sell was classified as open space at the industrial park and is subject to a DEP order. The DEP approved the sale with some conditions. The Town plans to dedicate 6.9 acres of other land that they own adjacent to the industrial park as Open Space restricted to make up for the loss of the land they are selling to Eppendorf. The Town is currently getting appraisals on the land.

Commissioner Ladd motioned to make a favorable recommendation to approve regarding the sale of two parcels of town-owned land in the Enfield Memorial Industrial Park to Eppendorf Real Estate Corporation. Commissioner Ballard seconded the motion and all were in favor
(7-0-0).

b.       SPR #1526 - Site plan review for a new pavilion and related site utilities on property leased from the Town of Enfield located at 558 Enfield St in an R-33 District, Map 33, Lot 1; T-M Realty on behalf of the American Legion Post 80 applicant; Town of Enfield, owner.

Chairman Duren Recused himself from the meeting.

Bryan Delano (American Legion) and Galen Semprebon, Design Professionals Inc., stated that the proposal was previously a referral from the Town Council. The property next to the American Legion (558 Enfield Street) is Town property. The American Legion is proposing to construct a 2800 sqft. pavilion on the Town property. There is a lease that was approved by the Town Counsel. They just need site plan approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The actual pavilion building would be included in the first phase with the kitchen and bathrooms in the second phase. Mr. Semprebon showed the proposed site plan to the Commission and showed where they plan to put the pavilion and where they plan to connect into the sewer. They did submit a basic plan showing the elevations of the pavilion.

Commissioner questioned if the pavilion will be further down where the empty lot is on the left hand side of the property.

Mr. Semprebon stated that is within the town land along the tree line.

Commissioner Ballard questioned if they would use the parking in the back.

Mr. Semprebon stated they currently utilize the back lot for parking as well as some of the lawn area.

Commissioner Ballard stated they sometimes park along the lawn area on Enfield Street.

Commissioner Longhi questioned if the roof would be an architectural shingle or a regular asphalt shingle.

Mr. Semprebon stated that it is a regular asphalt shingle.

Commissioner Falk questioned if they were going to rent it out or if it would be for the Legion members.

Mr. Delano stated it would be for the Legion members for clambakes and parties. They currently use the field, but have to rent tents. They are still working out the details of renting to non-members.

Commissioner Falk questioned if they would be charging to rent the pavilion.

Mr. Delano stated it would probably be like they currently do with the hall. They do not have those details ironed out yet.

Commissioner Longhi stated they received a memo from the Town Engineer who has no concerns. The stated DOT will have to approve any work in the right of way.

Commissioner Longhi motioned to approve SPR #1526 - Site plan review for a new pavilion and related site utilities on property leased from the Town of Enfield located at 558 Enfield St in an R-33 District, Map 33, Lot 1; T-M Realty on behalf of the American Legion Post 80 applicant; subject to the conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:. 

Commissioner Falk seconded the motion and all were in favor (7-0-0).

Referenced Plans:

“American Legion Post 80 Site Plan, 566 & 558 Enfield Street” Sheet Index, Location Plan and Zoning Data Block; prepared by Design Professionals, dated  June 15, 2011.

“Boundary & Topographic Plan, American Legion Post #80 566 & 556 Enfield Street, Enfield,  Connecticut” Sheet V-01, Scale: 1”=40’, by Design Professionals, revised to 6/6/11.

“Compilation Plan, American Legion Post #80 566 & 556 Enfield Street, Enfield,  Connecticut” Sheet V-02, Scale: 1”=100’, by Design Professionals, revised to 6/6/11.

“Topographic Plan, American Legion Post #80 566 & 556 Enfield Street, Enfield,  Connecticut” Sheet 2, Scale: 1”=20’, by Design Professionals, dated 6/15/11.

Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:

1.     The application number “SPR #1526” shall be clearly indicated on each sheet of the plans submitted for signature in the area next to or above the Title Block.

2.     Each sheet of the plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.

3.     The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of the Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated on the plans submitted for signing.

Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:

4.     Three sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.

Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :

5.     Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 and T-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance. The as-built plan shall also contain a certification by a Professional Engineer that they have inspected the site improvements and that they have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. Any deviations or omissions must be noted.

6.     In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format consistent with the Town’s Guidelines for Digital submissions.

7.     No Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval may be issued until the Zoning Enforcement Officer has signed off on the final work. When minor site work cannot be completed because of weather or other pertinent reason, a conditional approval may be issued for a period not to exceed 180 days, providing satisfactory surety shall be posted with the Town of Enfield in an amount sufficient to complete the site work and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney and Finance Department.

8.     A request for final project review from the Planning Department must be made at least 10 days before a Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval is requested from the Building Official.

General Conditions:

9.     This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans.  Minor modifications to the approved plans as indicated in the application record may be allowed, subject to staff review and approval. Staff shall report any such changes to the Commission at the meeting following the approval.

10.                        This approval is for the specific use identified in the application.  Any change in the nature of the use will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.

11.                        All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by July 7, 2016 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

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.

c.       XSP #11-12 – Site Plan review for construction of a truck wash facility at the Stanley Jablonski Public Works Complex located at 40 Moody Road in an Industrial-1 (I-1) District, Map 75, Lot 27; Town of Enfield, applicant/owner.

          Applicants: Piya Hawkes, Director, Public Works Administration. Bill Taylor, Deputy Director, Enfield Public Works. Bill Peluso, Assistant Public Works Director. Jeff LeBeau, GM2 Associates, Civil Engineer, appeared on behalf

          Mr. LeBeau stated that the plans are a request for a modification to an already approved plan. He stated that what has happened since the last approval was an opportunity for a large cost saving to the Town. It would be a smaller structure and more compact for the utilities. He referenced sheet C-1where the original proposal was located. He stated that C-2 would be where there new location is. He stated that the new proposed location would be located half on a portion of the existing parking lot and half on a grass section. This will make it less impervious for better drainage on the site. They would also need to displace and recreate 11 parking spaces.

          In the plans it shows the footprint for the truck wash. It has 3 wash arches, an automated truck wash facility. It has a rinse arch, detergent arch, wash arch and an undercarriage wash. In the center of the facility is a trench drain that goes into a sanitary sewer. The sanitary sewer line goes into a 4,000 gallon chamber which recycles the water. After several cycles, it will then bring in new water. Because of the electrical requirements, they will need a new electrical box and transformer. They will need to raise the truck wash, so there will be some grading involved. It has been approved by the Wetlands Commission.

Chairman Duren stated the XIW 11-13 was the approval number from Wetlands.

Mr. LeBeau stated that it is an I-1 zone, so they will need a special use permit. They meet all of the lot, bulk and setback requirements. The closest property line is the rear property (32.8 ft.). There will be a slab foundation and two pre-manufactured buildings that will be adjacent to each other.

Mr. Peluso stated that the previous structure was a fabric structure.

Chairman Duren questioned what color the structure would be.

Mr. LeBeau stated he was not sure what color it would be yet.

Mr. Hawkes stated it would be brown to match the existing structures on the property.

Chairman Duren questioned if there is a maintenance and inspection plan.

Mr. LeBeau stated it is standard DPW requirements for all catch basins.

Chairman Duren stated the Commission likes to see them on the plans. He requested Mr. Giner to add the maintenance and inspection plan onto the conditions.

Chairman Duren questioned if there was a communication from the town engineer.

Mr. Giner’s stated he did not receive anything because it’s within the same department of the Town.

Chairman Duren stated he would like to see a letter or e-mail from Mr. Cabibbo Okaying the project.

Commissioner Longhi stated there was a note from Chief Censki with a question regarding the relocation of the busses that park there.

Mr. Giner stated that the resolution was to have the busses relocated behind DPW.

Commissioner Falk questioned if the old building would be coming off the plan.

Mr. LeBeau stated only the structure in C-1 would be removed.  

Commissioner Longhi made a motion to approve XSP #11-12 – Site Plan review for construction of a truck wash facility at the Stanley Jablonski Public Works Complex located at 40 Moody Road in an Industrial-1 (I-1) District, Map 75, Lot 27; Town of Enfield, applicant/owner, in accordance with the referenced plans and the following conditions as stated in the memo by José Giner dated July 1, 2011, with the two conditions to be added: 1. The color of the exterior of the track wash is to match the color of the existing building; 2. A maintenance schedule for the drainage and sewer structures is to be added to the final plans submitted for signature.

Commissioner Ballard seconded the motion and all were in favor
(7-0-0).

Referenced Plans:

“Site Plans for the Enfield Truck Wash Facility, 40 Moody Road, Enfield, Connecticut” Cover Sheet w/Index & Location Map, by GM2 Associates, Inc. dated May 26, 2011.

“Enfield Truck Wash Facility Overall Plan”, Sheet C-1 –Scale: “As Noted”; by GM2 Associates, Inc/ dated 5/26/11.

“Enfield Truck Wash Facility Site Preparation/Demolition Plan & Site Layout Plan””, Sheet C-2 –Scale: “As Noted”; by GM2 Associates, Inc/ dated 5/26/11.

“Enfield Truck Wash Facility Grading & Drainage Plan & Utilities Plan”, Sheet C-3 –Scale: “As Noted”; by GM2 Associates, Inc/ dated 5/26/11.

“Enfield Truck Wash Facility Site Details”, Sheet C-4 –Scale: “As Noted”; by GM2 Associates, Inc/ dated 5/26/11

“Enfield Truck Wash Facility Roof Plan and Elevations ”, Sheet A-1 –Scale: “As Noted”; by GM2 Associates, Inc/ dated 5/26/11

Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:

1.     All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.

2.     The application number, XSP #11-12 shall be added to the plans above the title block.

3.     A maintenance schedule for the drainage and sewer structures is to be added to the final plans submitted for signature.

4.     The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns, a copy of the Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated on the plans submitted for signing.

Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:

5.     Three sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.

6.     In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format consistent with the Town’s Guidelines for Digital submissions.

7.     A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.

Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :

8.     Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance. The as-built plan shall also contain a certification by a Professional Engineer that they have inspected the site improvements and that they have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. Any deviations or omissions must be noted.

9.     In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format consistent with the Town’s Guidelines for Digital submissions.

10.      No Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval may be issued until the applicant has received a sign-off from the Planning Department. When minor site work cannot be completed because of weather or other pertinent reason, a conditional Certificate of Site Plan Compliance may be issued for a period not to exceed 180 days.

11.      A request for an inspection and sign off from the Planning Department must be made at least 10 days before a Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval is requested from the Building Official.

General Conditions:

12.      The color of the exterior of the track wash is to match the color of the existing building.

13.      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.

14.      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.

15.      All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by July 1, 2016 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

d.       XSP #11-15 – Site Plan review for replacement of the Freshwater Pond multi-use trail from Rte. 5 to the pedestrian bridge, located a between North Main Street and Freshwater Brook in a TVC District, Map 25, Lot 7; Town of Enfield, applicant/owner.

Mr. Giner stated that this application was approved by Wetlands.

John Hammer, Licensed Landscape Architect, stated that the Town of Enfield would like to replace some of the lights and sidewalk that goes around the Freshwater Pond trail. They would like to replace the lights with LED lights. They would be removing some of the sod and old fence line. There is a sediment and erosion control plan in place and they plan on using a 1.59 standard illumination for the lights. The lights are very similar to the lights that are currently along the trail, however because they are LED lights, they could not match them exactly. The lights will have more of a bluish tint to them because they are not the high pressure sodium lights.

Commissioner Falk questioned what they were doing regarding the tree roots that have already damaged the original trail sidewalks.

Mr. Hammer stated that a licensed arborist will be making recommendations to the project team. He also stated that there is no guarantee with trees and will be doing the best to prevent damage to the new sidewalks. They will be putting in root barriers and pruning the roots.

Commissioner Longhi questioned what the light poles would look like and if they were going to be black like the ones that are currently there.

Mr. Hammer stated they would be black. They are ornamental and very similar to the ones that are currently there. They have a solid color and same general shape on top. The color of the light itself will be the only noticeable difference.

Commissioner Longhi questioned why the light was changed as it was a very specific type of light when they were originally put in.

Commissioner Lefakis questioned if any thought was put into moving the sidewalk closer to the street. He believes it would be much safer for the pedestrians because it is hard to see from the street level if someone falls or gets hurt on the path.

Mr. Hammer stated that if they moved the sidewalk, it would not be consistent with the other section that was just re-done.

Chairman Duren stated the trail is much more appealing and has better visibility.

Commissioner Falk motioned to approve XSP #11-15 – Site Plan review for replacement of the Freshwater Pond multi-use trail from Rte. 5 to the pedestrian bridge, located a between North Main Street and Freshwater Brook in a TVC District, Map 25, Lot 7; Town of Enfield, applicant/owner, subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following  conditions as referenced in a Memo by José Giner dated July 1, 2011.

Commissioner Ballard seconded the motion and all were in favor (7-0-0).

Referenced Plans:

“Site Plan Streetscape Improvements Freshwater Pond, North Main Street, Enfield,  Connecticut.” Sheet 1; Scale: “As Noted”, Dated May 31, 2011 by Milone & MacBroom.

“Sediment and Erosion Controls Streetscape Improvements Freshwater Pond, North Main Street, Enfield,  Connecticut.” Sheet 2; Scale: “As Noted”, Dated May 16, 2011 by Milone & MacBroom.

Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:

1.     The application number “XSP # 11-15” shall be clearly indicated on each sheet of the plans submitted for signature in the area next to or above the Title Block.

2.     Each sheet of the plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.

3.     A copy of the Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated on the plans submitted for signing.

Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:

4.     Three sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.

5.     A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.

Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :

6.     Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 and T-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance. The as-built plan shall also contain a certification by a Professional Engineer that they have inspected the site improvements and that they have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. Any deviations or omissions must be noted.

7.     In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format consistent with the Town’s Guidelines for Digital submissions.

8.     No Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval may be issued until the Zoning Enforcement Officer has signed off on the final work.

9.     A request for final project review from the Planning Department must be made at least 10 days before a final approval is requested

General Conditions:

10.            This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans.  Minor modifications to the approved plans as indicated in the application record may be allowed, subject to staff review and approval. Staff shall report any such changes to the Commission at the meeting following the approval.

11.            This approval is for the specific use identified in the application.  Any change in the nature of the use will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.

12.            This project is also subject to conditions of approval of Inland Wetlands Permit # XIW-14.

13.            All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by July 7, 2016 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

e.       XSAN #11-08 – Application under Section 10.30.7 B for a Free-Standing sign for the Village Center of Thompsonville located at 100 High St. (aka 96 High St.)  in the Thompsonville Village Center District, Map 25, Lot 31, Town of Enfield, applicant/owner.

Mr. Giner stated that the Village Center of Thompsonville requested this sign to let people know what is going on in the building and direct them where to go.

Commissioner Duren questioned if it was identifying the use in the front and back.

Mr. Giner stated that it would be directing people to the various businesses and uses of the town.

Commissioner Falk questioned if the uses change, they could just change the sign.

Mr. Giner stated that they would probably have to come in again for approval if they were to change the sign.

Commissioner Longhi questioned who leases the front of the Building

Mr. Giner stated that Valley Rep leases it seasonally to put on plays.

Chairman Duren questioned what names would be on the signs.

Mr. Giner stated Community Development, Social Services and Neighborhood services.

Chairman Duren questioned if it was lit.

Mr. Giner stated that it does not look like there was a light on the sign.

Commissioner Longhi motioned to approve XSAN #11-08 – Application under Section 10.30.7 B for a Free-Standing sign for the Village Center of Thompsonville located at 100 High St. (aka 96 High St.)  in the Thompsonville Village Center District, Map 25, Lot 31, Town of Enfield, applicant/owner, in accordance with the submitted plans. Commissioner Ladd seconded the motion and all were in favor (7-0-0).

12.            Other Business

a. Request for Home occupation for Gunsmithing at 81 Green Valley Dr.

Mike Brennan, 81 Green Valley Drive, Enfield, stated that he is currently enrolled in Gunsmithing Courses at home. In order to take his final exam, he has to have the materials available at home and send them into the structure. The ATF requires that he obtain approval from the Town Planning and Zoning office. He asked if it was something he needed a permit for so he can start the process before the final exams.

Commissioner Falk questioned what exactly Mr. Brennan would be doing as a Gunsmith.

Mr. Brennan stated that he would be cleaning and repairing guns in his home.

Chairman Duren questioned how he would be testing the guns.

Mr. Brennan stated that he belongs to a gun club and would be testing them there.

Chairman Duren noted that Mr. Brennan lives in a Duplex and questioned if he had any security on his side of the property.

Mr. Brennan stated that he has locks and the windows are always locked. He has numerous gun safes and trigger locks. Someone would have to go through 5 different locks to access the gun.

Commissioner Longhi stated that usually when applying for this type of permit, the applicant has to own the house. The Zoning Enforcement Officer noted he was not the owner. Commissioner Longhi questioned if Mr. Brennan received approval from the Enfield Housing Authority to have that kind of business in a rental property.

Mr. Brenan stated that he did ask for permission from the Enfield Housing Authority; however they stated that he needed permission from the Enfield Planning and Zoning department. Then they would give their consent.

Chairman Duren stated there was not an approval from the police department.

Mr. Giner stated the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s recommendation is to add a condition that states the Commission will only approve the application upon the approval of the Enfield Housing Authority.

Ms. Higley stated that she is not anti or pro – guns. She put in the approval condition because it is a duplex, it’s not owner occupied and she had a bad experience in the past who said they had the permission of the owner. So one of the requirements now is to have the homeowner give written approval for gunsmithing.

Ms. Higley stated that she spoke with someone at the housing authority and they told her they normally don’t mind un-intrusive home businesses; however they will not approve this application until the PZC approves it. Ms. Higley recommended having the Commission make all of their concerns conditions of the approval.

Mr. Brennan stated that the ATF and FBI need to give approval.

Ms. Higley stated that she does not get a copy for the file and really needs a written approval from the police chief in her file.

Commissioner Longhi questioned what the definition of a home occupation is.

Ms. Higley stated that Home Occupations are accessory uses and shall not change the residential character of the building, shall be registered with the Zoning Officer. Only residents may work at the business. Minimal customers may visit the business on a regular basis. If there is to be a non-resident employee, the Commission must approve a site plan for the property. In no instance should more than two non-employees be employed on the premises. Adequate onsite parking must be provided for employees and customers.

Ms. Higley stated she would like these home businesses on the record so people know where they are.

Mr. Giner stated home occupations are defined in the PZC regulations as a personal service occupation or use occupied in the same building as the residence and is clearly a customary use of a residential dwelling unit. They shall not include Barber/Beauty shops, restaurants, animal hospitals or kennels, automotive service shops and repairs.

Commissioner Longhi questioned if anything that is to or has been repaired would be in a gun safe.

Mr. Brennan confirmed that everything would be locked in a gun safe.

Chairman Duren confirmed Mr. Brenan would only have personal ammunition. He also confirmed testing would be conducted offsite.

Ms. Higley she can add those as two conditions.

Commissioner Ladd questioned if he would have any machinery to repair the guns.

Mr. Brennan stated that it is usually cheaper to order new parts, so he does not need any machinery for repairs.

Commissioner Ladd questioned what type of chemicals would be used to clean the guns.

Mr. Brenan stated that he would use the typical gun cleaners.

Chairman Duren questioned if there is any access to the residence next door to make sure nobody else could access the guns.

Mr. Brennan stated that besides a 6 inch crawl space in the attic, they would basically have to drill through a wall to get into his residence. It is two concrete separate rooms.

Mr. Giner suggested the Commission determined that the home gunsmithing qualifies as a home occupation under the regulations in this instance with the noted conditions.

Commissioner Longhi made a motion that the Commission determined that in this instance, this home occupation qualifies as a home occupation with the following conditions:  The Enfield Housing Authority and Enfield Police Department approve in writing before the Zoning Enforcement Officer issues a certificate. There will be no ammunition to be used on the property for gunsmithing, with the exception of personal use. Testing will be off-site of the premises. Repairs will be done in the basement. No flammable solvents will be used to clean the guns.  No milling equipment will be used for gunsmithing. Commissioner Ladd seconded the motion and all were in favor (7-0-0).

Extension of the meeting: Commissioner Falk motion to extend the Planning and Zoning meeting past 11:00 PM. Commissioner Gregory seconded the motion and all were in favor (7-0-0).

b.   Report from Signage Policy Review Committee

c.    Discussion of Tag Sale regulations

d.   Zoning Fines Ordinance

e.    Discussion of R Warren letter of 5/5/11 regarding Building Permit Technician’s Duties: 

Chairman Duren stated that the Commission cannot designate a new position. That is up to the Town Council.

Mr. Giner stated that they can designate her duties.

Chairman Duren stated they can by State Statute, but not by the Town Charter.

Ms. Higley stated that before she was a Zoning Enforcement Officer, she was a Zoning Enforcement Technician.  There was never an official job description on record that Ms. Higley could find to describe the Zoning Enforcement technician

Chairman Duren stated he’s been requesting a job description to know the duties they are assigning.

Ms. Higley stated she worked under a previous director for many years as a secretary. She was very interested in the planning and zoning process and asked a lot of questions and read the regulations cover to cover so she can answer simple questions at the counter. CRCOG Suggested sending her in for the Zoning Enforcement Course. CAZEO created the Zoning Enforcement Technicians, which she applied for. She was then allowed to sign off on roofs, siding and window replacements. She didn’t touch anything else. Her manager got a copy of what she did in his absence so he can double check everything. She also did a case study (which you have to do to become a ZEO) and 3 years hands on experience.  She said that Linda is very smart and a quick learner and loves working in the building department.

Commissioner Longhi questioned if she signs permits for the building department.

Ms. Higley stated that Jim Taylor does not allow her to sign building permits as a building technician.

Commissioner Longhi questioned why she should be allowed to sign planning and zoning permits.

Mr. Giner stated that Ms. Higley had the opportunity to sign things before she became a ZEO.

Commissioner Longhi stated that Ms. Higley had a lot more experience in the Zoning Department. She is not in favor of giving someone a title and does not have the experience to go with it.

Commissioner Drinan stated that if the motive is to relieve some of the Zoning Enforcement Officer’s work, then they should have the proposed ZEO collect all of the information and fill out the forms, then have Ms. Higley just sign the stack and take that load off of her plate.

Commissioner Longhi stated that if they give her the title, it would open the town up to liabilities.

Mr. Giner stated that the point of this request was so they could get some help with every day responsibilities and easy permits.

The Commission agreed that they would need a job description and is very hesitant on giving out that title to someone who does not fit the criteria. They feel that it would relieve the town of liability if the position had a different title along with a detailed job description.

13.            Applications To Be Received

Public Hearings:

PH #2723 – Special Use Permit for a private before and after school day care facility to be conducted at the Prudence Crandall School at 150 Brainard Rd. in a R-33 District, Map 62, Lot 65; YWCA, Hartford Region applicant; Town of Enfield, owner.

PH #2724 – Special Use Permit for a private before and after school day care facility to be conducted at the Parkman School at 165 Weymouth Rd. in a R-33 District, Map 52, Lot 60; YWCA, Hartford Region applicant; Town of Enfield, owner.

PH #2725 – Special Use Permit for a private before and after school day care facility to be conducted at the Nathan Hale School at 5 Taylor Rd. in a R-33 District, Map 52, Lot 60; YWCA, Hartford Region applicant; Town of Enfield, owner.

PH #2726 – Special Use Permit to allow a third apartment in a 2 family dwelling located at 25-27 Lincoln St. in an R-33 District, Map 28, Lot 3; Donald Christmas applicant/owner.

PH 2627 – Special Use Permit to allow for a catering use with accessory retail in conjunction with a wholesale fish distribution business in an existing building located at 463 Taylor Rd. in an I-1 District, Map 100, Lot 39, Joseph Lanzieri, applicant; Jeffrey R. Starr Real Estate LLC, owner.

The Public Hearings were all scheduled for the July 21, 2011 meeting.

Site Plans:

SPR #1527 - Site plan review to install a shared generator within an existing fenced in area of a telecommunication facility located on Town of Enfield property off Town farm Road in an R-88 District, Map 71, Lot 3, American Tower Corp. applicant; Town of Enfield, owner.

Commissioner Longhi made a motion to have Mr. Giner Administratively approve SPR#1527. Commissioner Falk seconded the motion. All were in favor (6-0-0).

SPR #1528 – Façade and front walkway improvements in conjunction with renovation of existing vacant retail space at Stateline Plaza, 130 Elm, St. in a BR District, Map 57, Lot 329; Centro Properties Group, applicant; Galileo Freshwater/Stateline, LLC owner.

14.      Adjournment: Commissioner Longhi motioned to adjourn at 11:41 PM. Commissioner Ballard seconded the motion and all were in favor
(7-0-0).

Next Regular Meeting: Thursday, July 21, 2011

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

 

__________________________

Peter Falk, Secretary

Enfield Planning & Zoning Commission

 

Share |

Digital Cities Survey 2013 Winner

Weather Forecast
State of Connecticut
State of Connecticut