ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 2, 2012

A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, February 2, 2012 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut.  Chairman Duren called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Commissioner Sarno took the roll.

PRESENT:  Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Lori Longhi, Charles Ladd, Jr., Alan Drinan, Elizabeth Ballard, Kathleen Sarno, Nicles Lefakis, Ronald Gregory, Sr., and Dominic Alaimo.

ALSO PRESENT:  José Giner, AICP, Director of Planning and Kathleen DeGray, Recording Secretary.

ABSENT:  Commissioner Peter Falk.

Commissioner Gregory is sitting in for the absent Commissioner Falk.

FIRE EVACUATION ANNOUNCEMENT

Chairman Duren made the fire evacuation announcement.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

January 10, 2012 PZC and ZBA Workshop

Commissioner Ballard made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Longhi, to approve the Minutes of the January 10, 2012, PZC and ZBA Workshop as amended.

Amendments to the minutes are as follows:  Page 2, Paragraph 4, should be changed to read, “Chairman Duren commented that when Wayne was here, he had his own process for doing things.  Some things got done by using a stamp, and some things were done using other methods.”  Page 13, Paragraph 7, Last line, Change how says so to who says so.

The motion was carried with a 6-0-1 vote.  Commissioner Lefakis abstained.

January 19, 2012 PZC Regular Meeting

Commissioner Ballard made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to approve the Minutes of the January 19, 2012, PZC Regular Meeting as amended.

Amendments to the minutes are as follows:  Page 5, Last Paragraph, Line 7, change that hey need to that they need; Page 9, Paragraph 4, Line 7, change say on top of to stay on top of; Page 16, Paragraph 1, Last Line, change ZBA to PZC; Paragraph 2, Last Line, change Lily to Lilly; Page 22, Paragraph 1, Line 3, change ZBA to PZC.

The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote. 

STAFF COMMENTS

     a.  Town Attorney (In Writing)

Chairman Duren referenced the Town Attorney’s January 20, 2012 memo to the Commission providing legal guidance in responding to Ms. Mary Shirley’s December 7, 2011, letter to the Commission regarding debris that is on her property or that may fall on her property from the buffer zone between her property on 22 Weymouth Road and the Pheasant Hill Subdivision.  He commented that Mr. Deneen’s response was timely, concise, and very helpful.

Chairman Duren next referenced Attorney Elsden’s report of January 23, 2011.  The Villages, LLC vs. Enfield PZC is scheduled for a pretrial on March 2, 2012 and a hearing on April 3, 2012.  In the matter of Guerriero vs. ZBA, a status conference is scheduled for February 6, 2012.

     b. Zoning Enforcement Officer (In Writing)

Ms. Higley’s January 2012 report was referenced and described as very concise, informative and well done, as usual.

Next discussed was Ms. Higley’s January 25, 2012 memo to the PZC regarding Liberty Tax and their dancing Statues of Liberty.  Ms. Higley explained in her memo that she approved signage for Liberty Tax’s new, non-seasonal location at 73 Hazard Avenue on January 13^th.  She specifically stated in the approval letter that the approved signage did not allow for any moving/mobile signage held by individuals on exterior sites or off-site in the Town of Enfield. 

Shortly after this approval, Ms. Higley started getting calls from the public saying that the dancing Statues of Liberty were sighted on the corner of Palomba Drive and Hazard Avenue.  It was felt this was a safety issue.  Ms. Higley spoke with the property owner who said they would talk to Liberty Tax.  Ms. Higley also emailed Sergeant Santanella asking for his input.  Sergeant Santanella responded via email on January 23^rd stating that if this were a violation of a Town Ordinance or a Zoning Violation, it may be possible to charge them under the Breach of Peace Statute.  He said he would like to get verification from the Town Attorney’s office as to whether or not it is a violation.

Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if there was something that could be done about this.  Mr. Giner referenced the regulations, specifically Page 11, Definition #80, the definition of “sign”.  He said that at one time, the dancing characters were holding and spinning signs.  The signs they were holding were in violation, but the actual characters were not.  The dancing characters are considered a form of advertising, not signs.  He did explain that if the dancing Statues of Liberty had “Liberty Tax” or some other words printed on their costumes, this would then be considered a sign.

Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if there was something he could come up with for the regulations that may take care of this type of “advertising”.  His concern, which was shared by Commission members, was the safety issues these dancing characters create.  Mr. Giner said that he would look into how other towns are handling this issue and see what he could come up with.

Commissioner Sarno asked about carwashes that are held by various student and/or athletic groups.  She pointed out that these individuals promote their events by standing by the road and waving signs and encouraging people to come get their cars washed, and they don’t have a permit.  She said that this is a safety issue, yet it goes on all the time.  Mr. Giner explained that these individuals and signs were in violation without having a permit.  He also said that these are typically one-day events that are over and done before any enforcement could take place. 

The exceptions made for political signs, which are allowed 30 days before an election, were also brought up.  Mr. Giner said that the Constitution does a better job of protecting political speech than commercial speech.

The next item discussed was Ms. Higley’s 1/26/12 memo to the PZC regarding Connecticut Farmers’ Market Wine Sales and Motor Vehicle Complaints from the ZEO to the State. 

Regarding wine sales, Ms. Higley provided the Commission with a copy of PA 11-164, which is an act that authorizes the sale of Connecticut wine at Farmers’ Markets and establishes a Farmers’ Market wine permit.  This is an annual permit that allows farm wineries to sell wine they have manufactured at up to three Farmers’ markets for an entire season.  The permit is issued through the Consumer Protection Commissioner.  Chairman Duren emphasized the need to have something in our regulations about this.  Mr. Giner is already working on drafting regulations for wine sales in gift baskets, and this could be done along with that.

Regarding gaining compliance with both dealers and individuals who sell motor vehicles, Ms. Higley’s memo explained that in the past she has had the option of going through either the town police department or the DMV when she received a complaint.  The local police or the DMV would inspect the property and enforce the violation.  These options are no longer available to her.  The look up abilities for the police department have been curtailed by the state, and the DMV has sent Ms. Higley a letter stating that they have too many requests and not enough resources to handle them all.  The DMV is requesting that Town zoning officials do their own investigation and issue a Cease and Desist Order.  If this does not take care of it, the DMV suggests using local police to help enforce violations, as they would have the same authority as DMV inspectors.

The final item included by the ZEO was a 1/25/12 memo to the Commission and the ZBA with the forms discussed at the 1/10/12 joint workshop attached, including a draft of Ms. Higley’s proposed Certificate of Zoning Compliance.  The Commission will review this information and discuss it under Other Business at the next PZC meeting.

     c.  Property Maintenance (In Writing)

Ms. Huhtanen’s report was complimented and described as concise and informative.  Chairman Duren pointed out the fines that she had issued and how well this process works in getting violations resolved.

     d. Director of Planning (In Person)

Mr. Giner began by discussing the CLEAR 2012 Webinar Series, a copy of which was provided to the Commissioners.  Mr. Giner explained that these webinars are available for free and can be viewed from the comfort of your home or work computer.  The webinars cover new and noteworthy CLEAR topics regarding research, geospatial training, and outreach programs.  Mr. Giner explained that in order to participate in any given webinar, Commissioners would need to register and would then be given a login and password.  He said that he had already registered for some of the webinars and that the process was very straightforward.

Mr. Giner next discussed Jo-Ann Fabrics and their request for administrative review/approval for a cardboard dumpster to be located behind the store.  Mr. Giner explained to Jo-Ann Fabrics that they would need to submit an application, but he asked the Commission to allow him to approve it administratively.  The Commission confirmed that Mr. Giner would be sure that the Engineer and Fire Marshal had no objections.

Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to allow Mr. Giner to give administrative approval to Jo-Ann Fabrics for a cardboard dumpster to be located behind the store.

The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.

Mr. Giner next discussed the listing of building permits issued for 2011 that he emailed to the Commissioners.  He explained that the list was 27 pages long and included all active projects that have been approved and are not yet completed.  He said that completed projects would appear with their completion date in the month they were completed, but would then be removed going forward.  Commissioner Longhi asked if administrative approvals, such as the dumpster for Jo-Ann Fabrics, would also be included.  Mr. Giner said that they would.

Commissioner Longhi brought up the on-going issue of the Building Tech signing off on permits that the ZEO should be signing off on.  She said that she took a sample from Mr. Giner’s listing of all permits signed off on in October 2011.  She compared this listing with Ms. Higley’s October 2011 ZEO report.  Commissioner Longhi said that the number of permits signed off on in October 2011 exceeded 120.  Of these, Ms. Higley signed off on only 23.  After careful review of all the permits signed off on in October, Commissioner Longhi identified at least 25 additional permits that should have been signed off on by the ZEO but were not. 

Commissioner Drinan said that this is just a sample of one month and a significant number of permits that should have been signed off on by the ZEO were not.  He said that there is too much of a gray area here and that this leaves the Town vulnerable.

Chairman Duren said that the Commission never approved Ms. Campbell’s qualifications and never gave approval for her to sign off on any permits.  As such, Ms. Campbell should not be signing off on anything.

Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if anything has been arranged yet regarding a legal program for the Land Use Boards.  Mr. Giner said he has discussed this with the Town Attorney to see what our legal department wants to do.  Chairman Duren said that the PZC could arrange something on its own and invite members from all the Land Use Boards.  This is what he would like to do.  Mr. Giner said that he would see what he could arrange.

Mr. Giner was asked about the Eli Lilly situation.  He said that he had spoken with Mr. Warren, and that the corporate contact for Eli Lilly, with whom this has to be arranged, is in Indianapolis, and that is why it is taking so long.  Mr. Giner said that they would be coming in at some point. Chairman Duren said that this is taking way too long.

Mr. Giner next talked about the upcoming annual conference of the Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies scheduled for March 15^th.  He mentioned the agenda that he provided to the Commissioners.   He said that the meeting consisted of a dinner, an awards presentation, and a discussion of Public Act 11-79, new restrictions on bonding for subdivision site plans. 

Commissioner Longhi asked Mr. Giner if he checked on as-built foundations and whether or not applicants were submitting as-builts with their applications.  Mr. Giner said that he did check on this and that the number of houses being built is very small.  He said of the two houses that were built, both had as-builts at the foundation stage, including the one with the recessed staircase that was discussed during the PZC/ZBA Workshop on 1/10/12.  Commissioner Longhi asked Mr. Giner if he had shared this information with ZBA and he said if he had not already, he would do so.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Chairman Duren opened the floor for public participation.

There was no one present who wanted to address the Commission.

CORRESPONDENCE

Chairman Duren began by asking the Commissioners if they had seen the Enfield Press article about the Enfield Eagle Scout who has completed his Fire Department training.  Chairman Duren said this was something to be very proud of and that the young man deserved to be congratulated.

Chairman Duren next referenced the following correspondence:

CRCOG’s January report, specifically the amendments to the Zoning Regulations regarding bonding requirements being proposed in Ellington, Vernon, Coventry, Willington, and Windham.

A January 20, 2012 letter from CRCOG to the Ellington PZC acknowledging receipt of their Zoning Referral Z-2010-02 regarding proposed amendments to the Zoning regulations regarding cluster housing zones, post approval requirements, and subdivision density limitations.

A January 19, 2012 letter from Michael O’Brien, Principal of Galaxy Development, LLC, to the Commission requesting an informal discussion in front of the Commission regarding the Bissonnete Family property and Galaxy Development’s proposed building plans.  Chairman Duren said that this property has been previously discussed before the Commission, and he wants to be sure that the Commissioners receive the minutes from that discussion, as well as any additional documentation that is relevant, before the requested informal discussion is scheduled.  Mr. Giner said that he would do his best to include all relevant information in the packets for the next PZC meeting.

A January 23, 2012 Letter to Chairman Duren from Cliff Chapman from the Mansions at Hockanum Crossing, requesting an informal discussion to explore development opportunities at the Mayfield Park Project.  There was some discussion about apartments not being allowed with the present regulations.  Allowing apartments would require the regulations to be changed.  Commissioner Sarno asked if Mr. Chapman was aware of this.  The Commission agreed to allow Mr. Chapman to come before the Commission at the February 16^th PZC meeting for an informal discussion.

The Commissioners discussed the need for time limitations on informal discussions.  It was agreed among the Commissioners that the time limit for any informal discussion beginning on February 16^th and going forward would be 15 minutes.

COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE

Commissioner Ladd said that he received an email from his daughter regarding the impervious surface tax.  He said that the email, which he would share with the Commissioners and Mr. Giner, included websites that could be looked at to get more information on this subject. 

BOND RELEASES

There were no bond releases on tonight’s agenda.

PUBLIC HEARINGS – CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 5^th and 19^th, 2012

a.       PH #2731 – Special Use Permit for a Place of Worship to be   located at 195 North Maple Street in a Residential-33 District, Map 81, Lot 42; Sean Pagnam, applicant/owner.

Commissioner Sarno took roll call.  Present were: Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Lori Longhi, Charles Ladd, Jr., Alan Drinan, Elizabeth Ballard, Kathleen Sarno, Nicles Lefakis, Ronald Gregory, Sr., and Dominic Alaimo.  Absent was: Commissioner Falk.  Commissioner Gregory is sitting in and voting for the absent Commissioner Falk.

Mr. Giner stated for the record that this hearing was granted an extension until tonight and as such would have to be closed tonight, unless there is another extension asked for and granted.

The applicant was present, and Chairman Duren invited him to come forward to address the Commission.

The applicant, Sean Pagnam, 128 Princeton Avenue, Feeding Hills, Massachusetts, came forward to discuss his application.

Mr. Pagnam explained that he is the fiduciary of the estate of his father, Robert Pagnam, and the property will be in his name shortly after probate is completed.  He asked the Commission if it was aware of what had happened in this house.  Chairman Duren said that the Commission was aware of the situation, but that was not in any way a part of this application and would have no bearing on it.

Mr. Pagnam said that he believes the questions/issues the Commission had were primarily regarding fire lanes and parking.  Mr. Pagnam said that this was his first time being at a meeting regarding this application and that he was not trying to make excuses.  He said he is just getting involved now and is trying to get up to speed.  He said that Bishop John had an accident and had fallen down the stairs.  He is presently in a rehab facility. 

Mr. Pagnam said that regarding parking, the driveway is big enough to accommodate parking for a 20-person chapel.  He said that this is a seasonal chapel that they want to have in the garage. 

Chairman Duren said that he understands what is being asked for, and the issue is the Fire Department, as well as PZC, does not allow the parking as proposed.  The Fire Department does not want the parking on the driveway because it is adjacent to the house and would restrict emergency access.  Mr. Pagnam said what he wants to know is what Mr. Nolan wants regarding parking and emergency access issues.  Chairman Duren explained that he would have to speak to Mr. Nolan directly about this. 

Chairman Duren went on to explain that the problem now is that the application is out of time.  As Mr. Giner explained earlier, the hearing needs to be closed tonight.  It cannot be continued again.  He explained to Mr. Pagnam that the motion to approve his application would be made in a positive form.  The motion would either be carried, approving the application or denied, not approving the application.  If denied, there is a chance the Commission will vote to deny the application without prejudice, which would enable the applicant to re-apply within a year.  He said that if the application were denied with prejudice, the applicant would have to wait a year before re-applying. 

Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner for confirmation that the time period of one-year was accurate.  Mr. Giner said that he would review the regulations, but that he did not think there was a time limit as to when the applicant could re-apply, regardless of with or without prejudice.  He said he believed the time limit applied only to applications for zoning changes.  Mr. Giner said that it was up to the Commission as to whether or not the applicant would be allowed to re-apply and in what time frame.  He did say that without prejudice was certainly more favorable, and he said that he would review the regulations to confirm that his understanding is accurate.

Chairman Duren next explained to Mr. Pagnam some outstanding problems regarding his application.  He said there is an issue of documentation of IRS status that the Commission has not received confirming the applicant’s non-profit status.  Mr. Pagnam was somewhat surprised to learn that the Commission did not have this documentation and again explained that Bishop John was injured and in a rehab facility.

Chairman Duren continued with outstanding problems by stating that the Commission does not have a to-scale drawing of the plans for the chapel, there are unresolved parking lot issues, and there are serious building code violations.   Mr. Pagnam was again surprised and asked what the building code violations were.  Mr. Duren referenced a letter from the Building Department, and Commission Longhi said that the facility did not meet compliance.

Chairman Duren also referenced the letter from Mr. Nolan regarding parking and emergency access issues and the letter from the Health Department regarding service of the well and a water test report that has not been received.   Mr. Pagnam said that they have the report and that Bishop Martin was supposed to bring it tonight.  He does not know where Bishop Martin is and why he is not in attendance. 

Chairman Duren went on to say that the Town Engineer also has problems with this application.  He told Mr. Pagnam that he should have all of this correspondence and that it should not be coming as a surprise to him.  Mr. Pagnam said he just received the correspondence two days ago from Bishop Martin.  Chairman Duren said he was sorry to hear that, and it is a shame.  The Commissions’ hands are tied, they have no choice but to close the hearing tonight.

Mr. Pagnam said that he is willing to personally make sure that everything that needs to be done for the Town will be done.  He has no problem with that.  He wants to ensure that there is safety; he wants to ensure that there is proper access for fire apparatus.

Chairman Duren said that there was a long list of things that were needed.  He specifically mentioned a drinking fountain, access doors, and firewalls. 

Mr. Pagnam said that the Building Inspector had signed off on all the permits that were approved there, the work that was done inside the garage already.  Chairman Duren said that the Commission had not seen a letter to that effect.  Mr. Pagnam said the sign off was by Virginia Higley, and she said there were no issues with building code on anything done so far.  Chairman Duren and Commissioners Drinan and Longhi were very quick to point out the Ms. Higley would sign off on Zoning Code only – not on any Building Code issues.  Mr. Pagnam said that maybe it was a zoning sign off he was thinking of.

Mr. Pagnam said that regarding the water, a test was done and a report was received.  The quality of the water on the property is better than the quality of the Town water.  Chairman Duren again stated that the Commission had not seen this report.  Mr. Pagnam said that the company that did the testing should have provided a copy to the Commission.

Chairman Duren referenced Exhibit 10, an October 17^th letter from the Building Inspector that says that State Statute 20.298 requires all plans for an assembly use be prepared by a design professional licensed in Connecticut.  The Commission has never seen such plans/drawings.

Chairman Duren said that the Commission has nothing to base approval on.  The application is incomplete.  Commissioner Longhi agreed.

Mr. Giner asked Mr. Pagnam if he had received his November 23, 2011 memo detailing the unresolved issues with the application, including correspondence from the PZA, Assistant Building Official, Fire Chief Jim Nolan, John Cabibbo, Assistant Town Engineer, Mike Caronna from the North Central District Health Department, and the Administrative Review Team.  Mr. Pagnam said he had not received it.  Mr. Giner confirmed the address where he sent it, and Mr. Pagnam said the address was correct but that he did not recall receiving it.

Mr. Giner also said that he also sent the same information to Bishops Martin and Walzer.

Mr. Pagnam apologized to the Commission for its frustration and said that he was also very frustrated and had only come on board recently.

Chairman Duren asked Mr. Pagnam if he had anything new that he could present to the Commission this evening.  He said he could get them the report on the water.  Chairman Duren said that unless he had it with him now, it wouldn’t do any good. 

Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner who he has been corresponding with and if he has been sending everything to all three people.  He commented that there seems to be “too many cooks in the kitchen”.  Mr. Duren said he is not even clear on who is the applicant.  Mr. Pagnam said that he is the owner of the property and also the applicant.  He said he has given Bishop Martin and Bishop Walzer permission to act on his behalf. 

Mr. Giner pointed out that the contact person listed on the application was Archbishop John P. Walzer.  Mr. Pagnam said that is correct. He explained that Mr. Walzer is in a rehab center right now.    Mr. Giner said that he was having trouble reaching Bishop Walzer and has also been sending correspondence to both Mr. Pagnam and Bishop Martin regularly.

Chairman Duren told Mr. Pagnam that unless he had anything new to present tonight, depending on what the Commission decided, he needed to get with Bishops Walzer and Martin and get things in order.  Then he could possibly reapply.

Mr. Giner pointed out that this application has been open since December 1^st and it is still incomplete.

Chairman Duren opened Public Hearing #2731 to the public and asked if anyone wanted to come forward and speak for or against this application.

No one came forward to address the Commission.

Chairman Duren closed Public Hearing #2731.

Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve PH #2731 – Special Use Permit for a Place of Worship to be located at 195 North Maple Street in a Residential-33 District, Map 81, Lot 42; Sean Pagnam, applicant/owner.

Chairman Duren said that he would be voting against approval because of the lack of information available on which to base a decision.  He specifically referenced the lack of proper drawings and fire department issues.

Commissioner Longhi said that she agrees, and that the applicant never responded to any of the staff comments, and as such this was an incomplete application.  She also mentioned the lack of proper drawings.

Commissioner Gregory commented that the applicant did not even attend the ART on this project to find out what they would need to do for approval.

The motion was denied with a 0-7-0 vote.

Commissioner Ballard made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to deny PH #2731 – Special Use Permit for a Place of Worship to be located at 195 North Maple Street in a Residential-33 District, Map 81, Lot 42; Sean Pagnam, applicant/owner, without prejudice.

The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.

b.       PH #2733 – Special Use Permit/Site Plan review to allow the reconstruction of a non-conforming barn destroyed by natural causes and to permit a construction operation for premises located in an Industrial District at 463 Taylor Road, Map 100, Lot 9, Jeffrey R. Starr Real Estate, LLC, applicant/owner.

Commissioner Sarno took roll call.  Present were: Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Lori Longhi, Charles Ladd, Jr., Alan Drinan, Elizabeth Ballard, Kathleen Sarno, Nicles Lefakis, Ronald Gregory, Sr., and Dominic Alaimo.  Absent was:  Commissioner Falk.

Chairman Duren and Commissioner Gregory recused themselves from this hearing.  Commissioner Ballard, Vice Chair, ran the hearing.  Commissioners Drinan and Alaimo are sitting in and voting for absent/recused Commissioners Falk and Duren.

Dana Steele, Professional Engineer, J. R. Russo & Associates, LLC came forward to address the Commission on behalf of the applicant, Jeffrey R. Starr Real Estate, LLC.

Mr. Steele explained that he was representing Jeffrey Starr in a special permit application for property located at 463-465 Taylor Road. He said this property was on the corner of North Street and Taylor Road and was bounded on the North and West sides by the Schlatts’ Farm, an active agricultural use that actually encroaches into the subject property.  Across the street is a newer residential development.  The property is zoned Industrial 1 and contains a couple of existing buildings.  The one closest to the corner is a residential structure, a house that was renovated by the applicants and is currently rented out. 

The property also contains a small retail building with a small parking lot in the center of the parcel, near the frontage by Taylor Road.  In July of 2000, this retail building was given approval by the PZC for a liquor permit.  It was going to be a liquor store.  Mr. Steele said that this use has gone away and has more recently been granted a change of use and is now a fish market. 

There is a barn that was located just to the north of that parking lot, and with all of the heavy snow back in February of 2010, the roof and barn collapsed.  The existing house, fish market and barn were all located in the front yard setback, so they were all existing, non-conforming with regard to setbacks in the I-1 Zone. 

Mr. Steele said that our regulations permit structures that are destroyed as a result of natural disasters to be rebuilt in their same location, even if they are nonconforming.  The regulations specify certain restrictions, including starting reconstruction within six months of the collapse.

Mr. Steele said that the applicant came within that time frame to discuss his plans and was advised to apply for a building permit, which he did within the six-month period.  In the course of discussing the nature of what the applicant wanted to do in rebuilding this barn, he wanted to move his business there.  He is a home remodeler that does replacement windows and roofs, and he would like to relocate his business here on this property.

The existing barn, because of the topography of the site, has a significant drop off behind it.  The low part of the site is about 15 feet lower than the road.  This enabled the barn to have a walkout basement.  There was a second story below the road.  In rebuilding this barn, the applicant would like to use the basement area as a garage for his existing business.  He has two employees in addition to himself.  The plan would be for all three to meet in the proposed garage in the morning to hook up trailers to take to jobs, load up any needed supplies, and then head out to jobs, being gone most of the day.  At the end of the day, they would meet back at the property and empty the trailers, which are filled with construction waste.  The proposed plan allows for covered recycling receptacles to keep this material, as well as dumpsters for waste that is not recyclable. 

Mr. Starr owns a dump truck, and he would store that inside the building.  There will be an overhead door on the backside of the building, the west side of the building.  The applicant’s main objective is to provide a place for his business.  However, there will also be other use opportunities within the barn, both on the main floor above the basement and in the attic area above the main floor.

What the applicant has in mind is to be able to renovate that space and use it for rental office space.  He wants to build a nice looking structure and when the time is right, market it for rental space.

The project is being proposed in two phases.  Phase one is simply to provide all the necessary infrastructure and improvements that are necessary for the applicant to have his business in the basement area. 

Regarding Phase 1, Mr. Steele explained that the structure is going to be located in the same location as is the barn that collapsed.  He referenced the tan area on the plans behind the building and the driveway and said that they were going to be gravel, not paved at this time.  The proposed access way will be 14 feet wide.  This will initially only be used for Mr. Starr’s home remodeling business, so a wider access and paved driveway are not necessary.

Mr. Steele again mentioned the covered recycle bins that will be provided as part of Phase 1, one for scrap metal, one for plastics, and possibly one for general waste.  Mr. Steele explained that Phase 1 is really just cold storage for his business vehicles, trailers, and materials.  It is basically a garage.  There will be no heat and no bathroom facilities.

Mr. Steele explained that because impervious coverage will be increased for the gravel parking and access areas, a storm water treatment system is being proposed.  There will be a detention basin, which takes surface runoff in swales and directs it to an outlet pipe that empties into a full berm, which will contain that water with a metered outlet to control the discharge.  This system would pickup runoff not only from the proposed site but also from the existing fish market.

Mr. Steele went on to say that the regulations require that when a use of this nature is across the street from a residential neighborhood that a 50-foot B buffer was required.  He said that most of that buffer was already taken up by the existing buildings and parking lot.  They are proposing some screening in the corner of the existing parking lot because of the dumpsters in the back.  He said to keep in mind that these dumpsters are down below the road at elevation 185.  The road is at an elevation of 193, so the dumpsters are mostly screened by the existing topography.  Even so, the applicant is proposing an arborvitaes screen that will give the maximum height available.  If the Commission wants additional screening, the applicant will try to provide that as well.

Phase 2 of this project will be to provide for leasable office space on the ground floor as well as additional office space in the attic.  This would require some additional requirements including bathrooms, additional parking, and handicap accessibility.  The applicant is proposing a sewer connection, a water connection, and gas service.  The electrical service was brought in during Phase 1.

Regarding the parking analysis, the office space is 1400 square feet.  This requires 7 parking spaces, the existing fish market requires 5 spaces, and the garage used for the applicants existing business requires 3 spaces.  This is a total of 15 parking spaces.  There are 6 spaces in the existing parking lot, including one handicap space.  A ramp will be required on the south side of the building.

The access to the site, currently proposed at 14 feet for Phase 1, needs to be two-way access in and out of the site for Phase 2.  This will be widened in Phase 2 to 24 feet if the Commission agrees.  The gravel area proposed for Phase 1 will most likely be paved in Phase 2, and the proposed drainage system will be modified accordingly. 

Because there will not be enough parking spaces to accommodate the proposed office space on the first floor, additional parking is proposed around the back of the building, which is down lower and is actually better from a screening perspective.  There will be stairs along the south side of the building providing access to this proposed parking area. 

Mr. Steele said that they have already gone through an ART process and that the Town staff has reviewed the plans and is satisfied with them.  The applicant is not aware of any issues or objections to this application.  He said that Mr. Giner has provided the applicant with a list of conditions for approval that the applicant is in full agreement with.

Mr. Steele went on to say that this is a special permit application, so in regard to the approval criteria for special permits, Mr. Steele said that he believes the police and fire departments have no objections, and that there will be no impact on public safety.  As far as this use being in a harmonious and orderly development for the district, the area is zoned industrial and the application fits within the requirements of an Industrial 1 zone. 

The majority of the activity of this use is going to be set back behind the building, dropped below the grade of the road, and the applicant believes that the barn going up is going to be of a high quality.  It is not going to be an “industrial looking” building.  There will be architectural shingles, varying rooflines, giving it a rural look with double hung windows.  There will also be a cupola on top of the structure.

The applicant feels that the proposed structure fits in well with the agricultural and residential uses that surround it.

Mr. Steele asked the Commissioners for their input at this time and offered to answer any questions they may have.

Commissioner Longhi said that she differed with applicant regarding their interpretation of the regulations.  She said that the regulations clearly state that the reconstruction and rebuilding have to start within a six-month period.  It doesn’t say to come in and talk with staff and apply for permits during that period, it specifies that reconstruction and/or rebuilding has to be started.  She said that other people have come before the Commission and have been held to this standard. 

She went on to say that it is a beautiful barn, but she goes back to the beginning that this is a non-conforming use that is too close to the road because it doesn’t fit the standards.  From there, it is a domino effect.  She does not feel this fits the regulations because construction was not started within six-months.  The building collapsed back in February of 2010.  The applicant came in over the summer for the fish market, and he could have given this proposal at that time.  He made a decision not to do so.  In order to meet the nonconforming portion of regulations, he had to start some kind of actual rebuilding within the six-month period.

Commissioner Longhi said that additionally, the proposed barn shown on the plans is 26 feet, six inches.  The regulations say it has to be 25 or the setbacks have to be moved.  But the applicant is already nonconforming because the setbacks have to be 40 feet, and they are currently only 18 feet. 

Commissioner Longhi told Mr. Steele that his plans are usually much better than they are in this application.  She said there was no location map or total boundary surveys on the property.  She also said that the zone of the abutters was not included.  She told Mr. Steele that there were mistakes that we not typical of his work on the plans.  She specifically referenced the landscape B buffer and said that this was the landscape A requirements, and he was calling it the B buffer.  She said this is not the right buffer for the requirements.  She said the B buffer is three trees, nine evergreens and 12 shrubs.  Mr. Steele said that because they didn’t have the 100 feet stated in the requirements that his proposed landscaping was proportional, based on the area that they did have.

Commissioner Longhi said an additional issue she has is the storage trailers.  These are supposed to be buffered by any street.  This means not just Taylor Road, but also North Road.  She also mentioned the buffer for the residential district across the street, and this should have been carried to the other side to make the landscape buffers.

She said that there were just so many things that were inconsistent with the regulations in the plans.  There were additional setbacks, there is truck parking, but she could really tell the distances from the property across the street.  There are also conditions for construction operations.  There are landscaping requirements for parking that is more than three spaces, and now there is no landscaping around it.  It goes back to the fact that it is a barn that you are trying to make fit in the nonconforming use so that you can avoid all these other things.  It just doesn’t work right.  The rebuilding/reconstruction had to be commenced according to the regulations within six months, and it was not.

Commissioner Longhi said that she doesn’t know how the rest of the Commissioners feel about this, but her position is to go by the regulations, which are clear in this instance.  These plans do not conform to the regulations.

Commissioner Drinan said that he agrees with Commissioner Longhi.  He said there are a lot of details, but first and foremost is the six-month requirement that is clearly stated in the regulations.  If others are held to that standard, the Commission has to be uniform it its decisions.

Mr. Steele said that as he previously mentioned, the applicant came in to find out what the requirements were.  He was told about the six-month requirement and asked what he needed to do.  He was told that he had to apply for a building permit and get started.  He did apply for that building permit within the six months.  Regarding starting construction, this would have been very difficult.  Could he have done it? Possibly.  However, when taking into consideration the other things that the applicant wanted to do, the staff said this would require a site plan approval or special permit from PZC.  If he had just reconstructed the barn, this would not have been required.  He wanted to plan ahead and do everything all at once, so he initiated the process.  This initiation, in the applicant’s opinion, met the six-month requirement.

Commissioner Longhi said that the applicant talked to staff.  He did not send a letter to the Commission.  There is a process.  Something could have been done to meet the requirement.  The applicant was told about it and then didn’t comply with it.  That is the big issue.

Mr. Steele said that he understood.  This issue came up with staff and also during the ART.  The Town Attorney was also present.  He suggested that the State Statutes that govern the establishment of Town regulations are intended to be flexible.  We are talking about a natural disaster situation where a structure is collapsed.  The intention of the Statute is to provide flexibility to property owners to give them time to respond.  Maybe the six months is not a reasonable time frame.  The applicant, however, is not here to argue about whether or not the six months is reasonable.  They understand that is what is in the regulations.  What Mr. Steele is suggesting is that the applicant has made an attempt to address the spirit of the regulations.  He welcomed the Commission to continue the hearing to give them an opportunity to discuss this with the Town Attorney to get his opinion. 

Mr. Steele went on to say that the Commission has the flexibility to be able to grant some flexibility to the applicant in situations such as this.  Commissioner Longhi said that she does agree with that, but she also knows that the applicant was in to get approval for the fish market and could have presented this then.  He chose not to.  Other people who lost their property complied with the regulations and started reconstruction within the six-month period.  She said that if he hadn’t come in over the summer, maybe she would feel differently, but he did.

Commissioner Drinan said there was another issue – the six-month requirement is on the books, and the Town regulations can be more restrictive than the State’s, but not less.  If the State is less restrictive, that does not require the Town to be less restrictive.  He also said the six-month time limit may have been appropriate to rebuild an existing structure exactly as it was.  The applicant decided to do something different, to change the use, and to add things that were not there before.  Making that decision, he may have created a situation that made the six months unreasonable, but that was his option.

Mr. Steele said that the applicant tried to do things the right way.  After meeting with staff, he was of the belief that he was proceeding properly and in compliance with the regulations.

Commissioner Ballard asked Mr. Giner what he knew about the applicant’s meeting with staff and the ART.  Mr. Giner said that he did raise the six-month issue, and it was Mr. Starr’s understanding, and it may have been a misunderstanding, that by filing a building permit he was somehow commencing with the reconstruction and was therefore in compliance with the regulations.

Mr. Giner also referenced a discussion during the ART and with the Town attorney about a Statute where we used to have discontinuance for nonconforming uses if they hadn’t been used for a year.  The courts and then the legislature said that there could not be time frames put on this unless there was a clear intent to abandon the use.  The discussion was regarding whether or not this would apply to this application, and Mr. Giner said that he was not sure if it did because this is more structural, not necessarily a use. 

Commissioner Longhi said that we have to go back to that being the first issue and then consider everything else.  Even if the six-month requirement was waived, there are still so many other outstanding issues, such as not having the buffers, not having the side buffers.  There are a lot of things not addressed by the plans.  She said that she personally feels that the applicant did not meet the six months, and so it doesn’t meet the standards and the applicant was made aware of that.  She said that she could not vote in favor of the application knowing it meet the requirements.  The plans do not meet the requirements for the lot.  Now the applicant is trying to make a nonconforming structure on a spot, and it is not even on the same spot, and it is not the same dimensions.  Mr. Steele said that it was on the same spot.

Commissioner Ballard asked if the proposed barn is on the same footprint as the original barn or if it had been moved.  Mr. Steele said the new barn is 32’ x 48’ and it is rotated slightly from the original footprint.  He said he could move it back, but the issue is the front yard setback.  He can’t move it any closer, and it is just being rotated slightly to make it look better. 

Commissioner Longhi said that on the assessor’s card said the original square footage was 1,320, and the new one is 1,216.  She said that she feels that it doesn’t meet the regulations for a nonconforming structure because the applicant didn’t meet the six-month requirement.

Commissioner Ballard said that the six-month requirement is the first thing that needs to be addressed.  Everything else is just snowballed.

Mr. Steele said that he does believe that his plans meet the regulations.  He does not agree with Commissioner Longhi’s position on the interpretation of the buffer, but he said if the Commission tells him what they want, he would make it work.  He said that we need to get over the first hurdle, which is compliance with the six-month requirement, before we get into the other issues.  He said he is confident that they can meet all of the requirements provided that first hurdle can be overcome.

Commissioner Ballard asked what position not meeting the six-month requirement puts the applicant in.  Mr. Giner said that the application couldn’t be approved. 

Commissioner Drinan said that if that were to happen, the applicant could come in with a fresh proposal and re-apply for what they want to accomplish based upon the existing statues and not using the natural disaster angle.  They could propose what they want, and the Commission could act on it accordingly.

Mr. Steele said that this would not work because the application would not meet the setbacks.  Approval could not be given unless there was a variance.

Commissioner Alaimo asked when the clock started running on the six-month requirement.  Mr. Giner said it starts the day the damage occurred.  Commissioner Alaimo asked what happens when it takes a person who experienced a loss six to eight weeks to get an insurance appraisal.  Now you are down to four months.  Mr. Steele said he thinks that is what the Town Attorney was getting at when he suggested that some flexibility in the time requirements might not be inappropriate.

Commissioner Drinan said if that is the case, than the six-month requirement would have to be changed.  The Commission has had to apply the requirement for everybody up until now, including this application, and if it is determined that that is unreasonable, it would have to be changed. 

Mr. Steele said not necessarily if it is look at on a case-by-case basis.  Commissioner Drinan said that would be considered “selective” approval and could not be done.

Commissioner Longhi suggested opening the hearing to the public at this time. 

Commissioner Sarno asked if Mr. Starr submitted his application within the six-month time frame.  Mr. Steele said that he did not submit the application, but he did apply for the building permit, meet with staff, and have an ART within the six months.  Mr. Steele said the special permit is really a separate issue from the reconstruction of the barn.  He said that Mr. Starr could have applied for a permit, rebuilt the barn exactly as it was, and then came back with this application, which would have required him to knock down the barn he had just reconstructed to accommodate the proposed modifications.  He did not want to do that.

Commissioner Longhi said all he would have had to have done was put up a wall and he would have met the requirements. 

Commissioner Sarno asked for clarification once again that the applicant applied for the building permit within the six-month requirement.  Mr. Steele said that he had.

Commissioner Ladd asked Mr. Steele if the applicant was going to pour a new foundation for the proposed barn.  Mr. Steele said that he was.  Commissioner Ladd asked if they could move the foundation back to meet the 40-foot setback requirement.  Mr. Steele said the applicant couldn’t do that because of the drop-off behind the barn.  The whole location of the bard would have to be moved, and that is not what the applicant wants to do.

Commissioner Longhi reiterated that this could be done, but it isn’t what the applicant wants to do.

Commissioner Ballard opened Public Hearing #2733 to the public and asked if anyone in the audience would like to come forward to speak for or against this application.

No one came forward to address the Commission.

Commissioner Ballard asked Mr. Giner what we were going to do for this applicant.  Mr. Giner said that the hearing could be continued to the next meeting so that the Commission could get more information regarding the interpretation of the six-month requirement, or the hearing can be closed tonight and put to a vote.

Commissioner Sarno said that she would not be against continuing the hearing to get a legal opinion from the Town Attorney on the six-month requirement.  She said she would hate to say no if there is a legal opinion that would allow that opinion to be modified. 

Mr. Steele said he would appreciate it very much if the Commission would continue the hearing pending a legal opinion on the six months.

Commissioner Lefakis said he agreed with Commissioner Sarno and would like a legal opinion.  He asked the applicant if the plans were submitted within the six-months.  Mr. Steele said they were not, but that the building permit had been applied for.  He said that they were not given the impression during any of their meetings that actual reconstruction had to be started within a six-month period.

Commissioner Alaimo again asked about the time that the six-month period actually started.  He again referenced an insurance adjuster that may take six or eight weeks to provide an appraisal.  Commissioner Longhi said this didn’t matter.  The time period starts on the day of the disaster.  She referenced the fire on High Street and said that if they had not commenced reconstruction within the six-month period, they would not have been allowed to rebuild in the same location.  The insurance company has nothing to do with it.  The regulations are clear.

There was some discussion about the regulations and whether or not the six-months is reasonable.  Commissioners Longhi and Drinan said it doesn’t matter.  The regulations are clear and construction was not started within the six-month time frame.

Mr. Steele said that while actual construction was not started, there was a lot of cleanup and work being done on the property within the six-month period.

Commissioner Sarno said that this could be debated all night.  A legal opinion is needed regarding the six-month time frame and whether or not what the applicant did in that time frame meeting the requirement.

Commissioner Ballard asked Mr. Giner about getting a legal opinion and if the hearing could be continued.  Mr. Giner said that the applicant would have to sign a request for extension in order to continue the hearing.  Mr. Giner wrote up a request for extension, which Mr. Steele signed on behalf of the applicant.

Commissioner Ladd asked if Mr. Giner could request that the legal opinion be expedient, as the applicant would be coming back in two weeks.  Mr. Giner said he would make that known to the Legal Department.

Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Alaimo, to accept the request to extend PH #2733 – Special Use Permit/Site Plan review to allow the reconstruction of a non-conforming barn destroyed by natural causes and to permit a construction operation for premises located in an Industrial District at 463 Taylor Road, Map 100, Lot 9, Jeffrey R. Starr Real Estate, LLC, applicant/owner, until February 16^th. 

The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.

PUBLIC HEARINGS – NEW

1. PH #2735 – Special Use Permit for a Class 1 Restaurant Beer and Wine Permit for an existing restaurant, Molina’s Café, located at 95 High Street in the Thompsonville Village Center District, Map 25, Lot 6, Sergio H. Molina, applicant, S&T Associates, owner.

Commissioner Sarno read the legal notice and took the roll.  Present were: Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Lori Longhi, Charles Ladd, Jr., Alan Drinan, Elizabeth Ballard, Kathleen Sarno, Nicles Lefakis, Ronald Gregory, Sr., and Dominic Alaimo.  Absent was:  Commissioner Falk.  Commissioner Gregory is sitting in and voting for the absent Commissioner Falk.

Commissioners Longhi and Sarno recused themselves from this hearing.  Commissioners Drinan and Alaimo are sitting in and voting for recused Commissioners Longhi and Sarno.

Mr. Sergio Molina, 46 Garden Street, Enfield came forward to present his application to the Commission.

Mr. Molina said that he opened his restaurant three years ago.  He said things are going very well.  He said that when he first started, many people told him that he wasn’t going to make it.  He is very happy to say they were wrong. 

Mr. Molina said that a lot of people think that Thompsonville is not a place to be successful, but he believes otherwise.  He has been very successful in Thompsonville and likes it there very much.

Mr. Molina said that serving beer and wine would help him grow his business and bring in more customers.

Commissioner Ballard asked if this restaurant had already had a beer and wine license.  Chairman Duren said it wasn’t this restaurant but rather this location that had the permit back in 2004.

Chairman Duren said the Health Department has given its approval for this application.  He also said that the Revitalization Committee has said that everything is okay with them and they in fact recommend it.

Chairman Duren said that the Fire Department has a request that a floor plan be submitted showing the proposed layout of both storage of liquor display and dispensing along with showing location of empty bottle storage.  The location of liquor storage area also needs to be shown.

There is an okay from the Police Department as well as a letter from Saint Patrick’s Church saying that they have no issue with the applicant receiving this permit.

Chairman Duren asked the applicant if he was planning to open evenings.  Mr. Molina said that they started serving dinner as of last night.  He said his hours right now are from 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m.  Mr. Molina said that his dinner menu includes a variety of seafood, pasta, chicken and beef dishes.  He said there is a little bit of everything.

Commissioner Ballard asked if he was open seven days a week.  Mr. Molina said that he was.  Chairman Duren said that the hours of operation would be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. if that is what was on the application.  Commissioner Alaimo suggested that Mr. Molina make his hours from 7:00 a.m. until 12:00 a.m. for purposes of the application.  This doesn’t mean he has to stay open until midnight; he just can if he wants to.  If he keeps it 10:00 p.m., he will have to close at 10:00 p.m. and will have to come back before the Commission if he wants to extend his hours.  Mr. Molina said that midnight was fine with him.

Commissioner Alaimo told Mr. Molina he has done a wonderful job.  He said that Thompsonville is dear to his heart and that he knows Mr. Molina will continue to be successful.  Chairman Duren said he felt the same way.

Commissioner Ballard asked if the hours would be until 10:00 p.m. or midnight.  Mr. Molina said he would like the hours to be 7:00 a.m. to midnight.

Chairman Drinan and Commissioner Ballard told Mr. Molina that he had some very nice people working for him.

Chairman Duren opened Public Hearing #2735 to the public and asked if anyone from the audience would like to come forward and speak for or against this application.

No one came forward to address the Commission.

There was discussion about the Fire Department’s letter requesting a to-scale floor plan be submitted and approved by the Fire Marshal showing the proposed layout of both storage of liquor display and dispensing along with showing the location of empty bottle storage.  The location of liquor storage area also needs to be shown.  It was agreed by the Commission that this would become General Condition #8 in Mr. Giner’s January 27, 2012 memo.

The Commission discussed Condition 6 and agreed that the hours of operation would be filled in.  It was decided at this point that the hours of operation would be 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., Monday through Sunday.

Chairman Duren re-opened Public Hearing #2735 to the public and asked if anyone from the audience would like to come forward and speak for or against this application.

No one came forward to address the Commission.

Commissioner Gregory made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Drinan, to waive the requirement for a 1,000-foot separation from a specified land use pursuant to Section 8.10.3 of the Zoning Regulations.

The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.

Commissioner Gregory made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Alaimo, to approve PH #2735 – Special Use Permit for a Class 1 Restaurant Beer and Wine Permit for an existing restaurant, Molina’s Café, located at 95 High Street in the Thompsonville Village Center District, Map 25, Lot 6, Sergio H. Molina, applicant, S&T Associates, owner, subject to conformance with the application record and the following seven conditions as stated in a memo from Mr. Giner to the Commission dated January 27, 2012, as well as one added condition, as discussed above.

Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of  Certificate:

1.   The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, landowners, 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.

3.   Final approvals must be obtained from the Fire Marshal and the North Central District Health Department.

General Conditions:

4.   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.

5.   The approval for the Class 1 restaurant beer and wine license only.  Beer and wine can only be served during the hours that the kitchen is open. Any changes to the interior layout or functions of the space shall require an amendment to the Special Use Permit.

6.   The approved hours of operation for the serving of alcohol are:

6:00 a.m. – 12:00 a.m. Monday through Sunday.

7.   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.

8.   The applicant will submit a to-scale floor plan showing the proposed      layout of both storage of liquor display and dispensing along with showing the locations of empty bottle and liquor storage.  This plan must be approved by the Fire Marshal prior to permit being issued.

The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.

Chairman Duren told Mr. Molina that he agrees with the Revitalization Committee that his business has a very positive impact on the Thompsonville Community.  He told him to keep up the good work.

b.       PH XZA #11-26 – Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Regulations to provide standards for permitting small-scale and large scale solar energy systems.  Town of Enfield Planning Department, Applicant.

Commissioner Sarno read the legal notice and took the roll.  Present were: Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Lori Longhi, Charles Ladd, Jr., Alan Drinan, Elizabeth Ballard, Kathleen Sarno, Nicles Lefakis, Ronald Gregory, Sr., and Dominic Alaimo.  Absent was:  Commissioner Falk.  Commissioner Gregory is sitting in and voting for the absent Commissioner Falk.

Chairman Duren confirmed that Mr. Giner was going to present this application.  He asked Mr. Giner if there was any money available so that the Commission could take a bus or some form of Town transportation to visit the solar facility that is in operation in Indian Orchard.  Chairman Duren said that pictures were helpful, but there is nothing like seeing it in person.  Mr. Giner said that transportation could be arranged, but he would also have to arrange a visit with the solar facility to make sure someone would be there to show the Commissioners around and explain the operation.  All the Commissioners agreed that seeing a facility up and running in person would be a tremendous help.  Mr. Giner said he would look into it and see what could be arranged.

Mr. Giner started by referring to his January 27, 2012 memo to the Commission regarding Solar Energy Regulations.  He said the Town is looking to explore alternative energy options, especially with the price of oil and gas going up continuously.   Alternative energy offers a form of energy security that has become popular topic, not only in Connecticut but throughout the country as well.

Commissioner Sarno mentioned Somers getting a grant for a 50-acre solar facility.  She asked how they got that grant.  Mr. Giner said that there were funds available for large-scale projects, but that most of them have been claimed already.  He said he thought what Somers had received was points rather than a grant, but he wasn’t certain.

Chairman Duren referenced page 4 in Mr. Giner’s draft regulations.  He asked about Section 8.80.1.13, Section a. Setbacks.  He asked why there would be a front yard setback and why you would want solar panels in your front yard. 

Commissioner Ballard had to leave the meeting at 9:40 p.m.  Commissioner Alaimo is sitting in and voting for the absent Commissioner Ballard.

Mr. Giner said these are for large-scale systems.  He said that on many of the parcels, there would be no building.  It is only land.  The setback is meant to be from the front property line.  He said that front yard is usually relative to where a building sits.  In these cases there would be no buildings.  Commissioner Longhi suggested that we somehow delineate between buildings and properties. 

Commissioner Duren said that the way it is worded, it makes him think that it is the front yard and there is a building.  The Commissioners in general think that 10 feet is too close, regardless.

Commissioner Drinan expressed concern about reflections.  He said that there would definitely be reflection onto neighboring properties, but to what extent is unknown.  He said that the trip to Indian Orchard might help to clear this up.

Mr. Giner said that he modeled his regulations after those from both Massachusetts and North Carolina.  He said they are all open for discussion.

Mr. Duren next referenced page 5, 8.80.2.9, c. Utility Connections.  He feels the requirement for utility connections should be underground, and if there were a reason this cannot be met, the applicant would need to come in for a waiver and explain the situation.

Next discussed was Section 8.870.2.10, Emergency Services.  Chairman Duren is concerned with the person responsible in an emergency situation.  Where would he/she be located?  How quickly could they get to the emergency?  Should this regulation be more specific?

Commissioner Gregory pointed out that on Page 6, 8.80.2.11, there is a paragraph about monitoring and maintenance that specifically states that site access shall be maintained to a level acceptable to the local Fire Marshal and Emergency Medical Services.

Commissioner Longhi asked about large-scale systems requiring only a Site Plan Review and not a Special Permit.  She thought a special permit would give the Commission and the public more input into the project.  Mr. Giner said that the standards would already be set that adequately satisfy the Commission and protect the public adequately.  Once these standards have been set, more than a Site Plan Review will not be necessary.

Commissioner Longhi next mentioned that this is considered an accessory in every zone except the Historic District.  She wanted to know why this district was exempted.  Mr. Giner said it was just wording that was common in other regulations and that it could be easily removed so that the Historic District is included.

That was all of the input from the Commission at this time.  The Commissioners would like to take their tour of an operational facility and then come back and review the regulations further.

Chairman Duren referenced all of the suggestions from Mr. Herz and Mr. Myjak.  He asked if Mr. Giner had incorporated those changes into his draft yet.  Mr. Giner said he has not.

Chairman Duren opened Public Hearing XZA #11-26 to the public and asked if anyone from the audience would like to come forward and speak for or against this application.

Rafael Herz, Business Development Manager, Constellation Energy, Oxford, CT, came forward to address the Commission.  He said that he has been doing renewable energy since the late 80s.  He didn’t know it was renewable energy at the time; it was just what was needed at the time where he lived.  He has been working up in Massachusetts for about 15 years. 

He views renewable energy as a tool in a toolbox.  He asked the Commission to not treat it any differently than they would any other mechanical or heating device associated with a building, because really it is just a building system.  That is the fundamental way that Mr. Herz thinks.

Mr. Herz said that he did provide comments to Mr. Giner’s draft regulations.  He asked if the Commission would like him to address some of the issues that were raised earlier.  Chairman Duren said he would.

Mr. Herz started by addressing the issue of safety.  Typically the requirement is that there is a disconnect switch on the grid side of things and that it is easily accessible so that fire and safety folks know where it is.  In fact, they actually approve of its location during the approval process.  If the disconnect switch is not easily visible, there are signs directing individuals to its location. 

The industry has worked hard to make the disconnect switches easily accessible to emergency personnel.  It is certainly up to the Town if they want to be more restrictive than what is already in place.  The industry will adapt.

Mr. Herz said that regarding the front setback of 10 feet, that really isn’t going to matter very much.  He said this is true because during the zoning process, landscaping will be required.  This will cause some shading, unless it is on the north side of the property.  Because of the shading, you are typically back three times the height of whatever is creating the shading.  This is the industry rule of thumb.  For example, if you have a 12-foot arborvitae, you would not place a solar panel closer to it than 36 feet.  Mr. Herz said that there is typically an access road after the landscaping to allow vehicles to get around the facility.  He said further still that there is typically a fence on the far side of the access road.  Now you have your landscaping, then your road, then your fence, now the panels.  The typical setback is well over 10 feet, but the Town can adjust it to whatever it wants.

Mr. Herz next discussed fire safety and said that this was a significant concern of the Renewable Energy Industry.  The industry knows that it needs to work with public safety officials.  There are training sessions available so that fire personnel will know what to do.

Mr. Herz moved on to reflection.  He said that he is not an engineer, but the way his engineers explained it to him is that because of the angle of the sun, and because of the height of the panel, the reflection is very likely to be reflected back up into the sky. He said this is true unless the sun is in the north, and that doesn’t happen in this hemisphere.  Mr. Herz said he would have his engineer send something in writing to Mr. Giner.

He said that most often when glare is talked about, it is glare for people in airplanes.  The airline pilots are the ones that are most concerned because the glare actually reflects back up into the sky.  Chairman Duren mentioned the airport beacon behind the Holiday Inn and the fact that it is a flight path.  He asked about the impact of solar fields.  Mr. Herz said that the biggest concern is with landing, and that even though this was a flight path, the planes would not be low enough at this point to be affected by any reflection.

Mr. Herz reiterated to the Commission to treat solar energy like any other type of energy when developing the regulations.  No matter where you go with any kind of energy, there is going to be someone who doesn’t like it.  If the industry meets with too much opposition in a given area, they will move on to another.

Commissioner Drinan brought up the issue of a Site Review versus a Public Hearing.  He asked if the public hearing would be better for getting the public informed and on board.  Mr. Herz said that it is the Commission’s priority to keep the people in Town happy.  The industry understands that.  Speaking as a developer, the easier the process, the more attractive the area.  Realistically, you do not want to ram this technology down the people’s throats.  It is better to inform them and gain their confidence in your product.

Mr. Herz next addressed the proposed regulation for abandonment/financial surety.  He asked the Commission if this were a building or a cement plant, would they impose removal requirements and financial surety in case of abandonment?  He again emphasized not treating renewable energy differently than other uses.  Mr. Herz said that they have their own removal requirements.  When they are finished, they remove their equipment, seed the property, and leave it as good or better than they found it.  He said the financial surety was a bit strong and not really necessary. Chairman Duren did not disagree.

Mr. Giner said that the abandonment/financial surety wording in his draft came right out of regulations already being used in Massachusetts.

Commissioner Drinan asked if the inclusion of this wording in the Massachusetts regulations had deterred developers.  Mr. Herz said that his company was not deterred.  They were able to work with it and find a way around the financial surety.

Mr. Herz invited the Commissioners to come to his facility in Holyoke.  Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if visiting both facilities, Holyoke and Indian Orchard, could be arranged for the same day.  Mr. Giner said he would make the arrangements if possible.

Mr. Herz discussed his Holyoke facility a little bit.  He said it was in a residential neighborhood with houses on either side.  He said he thought the site had previously been utilized by another type of utility plant.

Mr. Herz again emphasized treating solar the same as any other energy use.  He referenced an HVAC box on top of a building – why would a solar panel be regulated any differently than the HVAC box. 

Mr. Herz discussed the utility poles/wires and requiring them to be underground.  He suggested again not treating solar different.  He said if there were poles and wires, it wouldn’t matter, as people are used to tuning them out because there are so many of them.

Commissioner Drinan pointed out that all new large-scale developments were being required to put utility connections underground, and this would most likely apply to solar farms as well.  Mr. Herz said that was reasonable and a good example of not treating solar differently.

Mr. Herz addressed the need for on-site, 24-hour monitoring.  He said that the systems are monitored via computer.  Someone is monitoring around the clock.  If something goes wrong, and alarm goes off, and necessary personnel are dispatched.  It works very similarly to a home alarm system that is monitored.  There is not a need to have a person physically on-site.

Mr. Giner found in our regulations for other utilities that there is a financial surety clause that states the Commission may require a bond prior to the issuance of a building permit for the complete cost of removal.  This wording gives the option to require a bond, but does not require it automatically.

Jeff Myjak, Chairperson for Enfield Clean Energy, 3 Sharp Street, Enfield, CT, came forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Myjak said he would look at this like any other utility type installation.  If it was a sub-station, would you make CL&P put somebody there to man it 24/7?  There would be emergency provisions, but 24/7 monitoring on-site is not necessary.

Mr. Myjak next spoke about glare.  He said that there is little to no glare.  He said there is a dull black finish on the panels the prevent glare.  He encouraged the Commission to go out and see solar facilities in person.  He said it would answer many of their outstanding questions.

Tom Kinzler introduced himself as the liaison between the Clean Energy Commission and the Energy Task Force.  He offered to answer any questions now or in the future.  Chairman Duren asked Mr. Kinzler if he has been to see any of the solar facilities in the area.  He said he had not but he would like to.  Mr. Kinzler said he knows of at least four developers that are exploring putting solar farms in Enfield.

The Commissioners discussed different areas in town and whether or not they would be appropriate sites for solar farms.  It was agreed that this would have to be looked at carefully so that a solar farm did not appear on land that was planned for something else, such as a park.

Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner how quickly he could get the Commission a “red line” copy of his solar regulations draft.  Mr. Giner said this was a priority for him and that he would do his best to include the “red line” copy in the Commissioners’ packets for the February 16^th PZC meeting.

There was discussion about setbacks and buffers.  Mr. Kinzler pointed out that if a solar field was put on an empty lot only 10 feet from the road, and there was no landscaping buffer, there would be an issue with town trucks snowplowing and solar panels would likely be damaged.  This type of situation is unlikely, as there is typically more than a 10-foot setback and landscaping is included.

Commissioner Longhi said that it should be treated just like a building would be treated.  If a building goes up on a lot, the Commission works to be sure the building looks good and fits in with the area.  The same should be true of the solar fields.  She suggested some form of landscaping, possibly a berm, that wouldn’t be too high so the solar panels would not be blocked from the sun.

Mr. Giner said we should be looking at the landscaping as a screen for the solar fields, not a buffer.  Something like, at the property line, a screen needs to be planted.  Calling it a buffer implies planting a whole buffer zone, and this may increase the setback too much for this use.  A screen should be sufficient.  Commissioner Longhi agreed, saying the intent is not to hinder the process but rather to be sure the solar fields fit in with the area and are screened by landscaping.

Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to continue PH XZA #11-26 – Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Regulations to provide standards for permitting small-scale and large-scale solar energy systems.  Town of Enfield Planning Department, Applicant, until February 16, 2012.

The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.

OLD BUSINESS

There was no old business.

NEW BUSINESS

There was no new business.

OTHER BUSINESS

     a.  Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Budget.

Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to approve the Fiscal Year 2012 – 2013 Budget as submitted by Mr. Giner at the January 19, 2012 PZC Meeting.

The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.

     b.  Discussion of Ray Warren’s 9/26/11 Memo to the Commission.

Commissioner Longhi asked if we could put this to rest and just vote.  This has been going on since May of last year.  Chairman Duren said that Ms. Campbell was already signing off on permits without PZC approval of her qualifications.  It was discussed earlier that this was an issue, because there were many permits identified that should have been signed off on by the ZEO and were not.

Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to name Ms. Linda Campbell as a Zoning Enforcement Officer for the limited purpose of approving simple building permits for Zoning.

The motion was denied with a 0-7-0 vote.

     c.  Discussion of Farm Animal Regulations

Commissioner Longhi said she was waiting to receive a draft from Ms. Higley to send out.

     d.  Discussion of Alternative Energy Regulations

It was decided to put this on hold until the solar regulations were completed.

     e.  Discussion of Tag Sale Regulations

Continues to be on hold.

     f.  Discussion of Gift Baskets with wine bottles

Chairman Duren said that this needed to be done, because the permits are available and can be applied for.  The general idea is to have applicants come in for a hearing so that the Commission can keep track of where these are.

     g.  Discussion of Coverage Regulations

Chairman Duren said that this had to do with impervious coverage, and Commissioner Ladd will provide Mr. Giner with some websites to research. 

Mr. Giner is also researching regulations in other towns to see how or if they are regulating impervious coverage.  He is also looking at lot coverage in other towns and whether or not decks are included in building coverage.

Mr. Giner will put something together that can be discussed with ZBA and than voted on.

Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner to add Ms. Higley’s Certificate of Zoning Compliance on the agenda for the next meeting.

APPLICATIONS TO BE RECEIVED

PUBLIC HEARINGS

PH #2738 – Special Use Permit for the Demolition of a Garage, Attached Brick Building and Underground Boiler Room at 64 Pearl St. in a TVC District, Map 24, Lot 101; St. Patrick’s Church Corp of Enfield, applicant/owner.

Scheduled for March 1, 2012.

PH #2739– 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.

Scheduled for March 1, 2012.

PH 2740 – Modification of Canopy Façade for existing Mobil Station at 100 Elm St. in a BR District, Map 43, Lot 15; JSP Land Development, applicant; Alliance Energy, Owner.

Scheduled for February 16, 2012.

PH 2741 – Modification of Canopy Façade for existing Mobil Station at 76 Hazard Ave. in a BL District, Map 56, Lot 16; JSP Land Development, applicant; Alliance Energy, Owner.

Scheduled for February 16, 2012.

PH 2742 – Modification of Canopy Façade for existing Mobil Station at 1594 King St. in a BG District, Map 17, Lot 2; JSP Land Development, applicant; Alliance Energy, Owner.

Scheduled for February 16, 2012.

SITE PLAN REVIEWS

SPR 1543 –Request for Administrative Review for a Backup Generator on a concrete pad on existing paved area at 1 Anngina Drive in an I-1 District, Map 82, Lot 26, Lorri DiBattisto, Applicant; Precision Camera & Video, owner.

This was discussed among the Commissioners and it was decided that Mr. Giner could grant administrative approval for this, provided the proper screening was required.

Commissioner Sarno left the meeting at 10:55.  Commissioner Drinan will stand in and vote in her absence.

Mr. Giner said he has letters/emails on file from Jim Nolan, Fire Marshal, and John Cabibbo, Assistant Town Engineer, both stating there are issues with the proposed generator.  He said he would make the screening a condition of approval.

Mr. Giner showed the Commissioners a plan pointing out where the generator would be. 

Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Drinan to allow Mr. Giner to grant administrative approval for SPR 1543 –Request for Administrative Review for a Backup Generator on a concrete pad on existing paved area at 1 Anngina Drive in an I-1 District, Map 82, Lot 26, Lorri DiBattisto, Applicant; Precision Camera & Video, owner, provided that proper screening of the generator is a condition of approval.

The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.

ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Gregory made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to adjourn.  Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 11:05 p.m. 

The next regular meeting is Thursday, February 16, 2012.

                                                Respectfully submitted,

                                                __________________________

                                                Peter Falk, Secretary                                                                                   

                                                Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission

Kcd