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

APRIL 5, 2012

 

A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, April 5, 2012 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Duren called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.  The Pledge of Allegiance was recited at the Aquifer Protection Agency Meeting immediately preceding the PZC Meeting.

Commissioner Sarno took the roll.

PRESENT:  Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Charles Ladd, Nicles Lefakis, Kathleen Sarno, and Dominic Alaimo.

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

ABSENT:  Absent were Commissioners Ronald Gregory, Sr., Alan Drinan, Lori Longhi, Peter Falk, and Elizabeth Ballard.

FIRE EVACUATION ANNOUNCEMENT

Chairman Duren read the Fire Evacuation Announcement at the Aquifer Protection Meeting immediately preceding the PZC Meeting.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Chairman Duren said that the Town Attorney was present and asked for a motion to add an Executive Session to discuss litigation with the Town Attorney to the agenda.

Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to add an Executive Session with the Town Attorney to tonight’s meeting agenda.

The motion was carried with a 5-0-0 vote.

Chairman Duren asked for a motion to go into Executive Session to discuss litigation with the Town Attorney.

Commissioner Ladd made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno to go into Executive Session at 7:15 p.m.

The motion was carried with a 5-0-0 vote.

Chairman Duren and the Commissioners left the room with the Town Attorney at 7:15 p.m. to discuss litigation in an Executive Session.  They returned to the Council Chambers to resume the PZC Meeting at 7:45 p.m.

Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Alaimo, to come out of Executive Session at 7:45 p.m.

The motion was carried with a 5-0-0 vote.

The April 5, 2012 Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission resumed at 7:45 p.m.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

a.       March 1, 2012 PZC Regular Meeting

Commissioner Ladd made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve the Minutes of the March 1, 2012, PZC Regular Meeting as submitted.

The motion was carried with a 5-0-0 vote. 

          b.       March 15, 2012 PZC Special Meeting

Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve the Minutes of the March 15, 2012, PZC Special Meeting as submitted.

The motion was carried with a 5-0-0 vote.

STAFF COMMENTS

a.            Town Manager – Capital Improvement Program (CIP Report)

Chairman Duren said that Mr. Coppler, Town Manager, was not present because the Town Council was having a district meeting he was required to attend.  Mr. Coppler sent his regrets to the Commission for being unable to attend tonight’s meeting.

Mr. Coppler submitted a list of recommended Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) to the Commission for review on March 30, 2012.

Commissioner Ladd made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to recommend approval of the list of recommended Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) submitted by Matthew Coppler, Town Manager.

The motion was carried with a 5-0-0 vote.

b.            Town Attorney (In Person)

Handled in Executive Session.

c.            Zoning Enforcement Officer (In Person)

Chairman Duren welcomed Virginia Higley, Zoning Enforcement Officer, to the meeting and complimented her monthly reports, saying they were clear, concise and informative.  He said that the Commission appreciated her efforts.

Ms. Higley joined the meeting and thanked Chairman Duren.

Ms. Higley first discussed signs and said that things were going very well.  She said she had picked up many unauthorized signs that were posted around town.  She said that the first thing she does is to call the person whose sign it is and explain to them that they have five business days to pick up their sign(s).  Signs not picked up within the five days are disposed of.

Ms. Higley explained that the rules for placing signs are clearly explained to these people.  They are informed of what is allowed, where they can put signs, and what is not allowed.  They are made aware of the sign regulations. 

Ms. Higley next said that she has been out on the road a lot lately and has noticed that temporary fabric structures seem to be popping up all over the place.  She said that she has discussed this with Mr. Giner, and although a building permit is not required, a zoning permit is.  The temporary fabric structures are considered accessory structures, and according to Zoning Regulations, they need to be placed behind the back line of the house, not on the driveway and not on the front yard. 

Ms. Higley asked the Commission members and the audience to please keep an eye out for these temporary fabric structures and to bring them to her attention so that she can add them to her zoning enforcement list and ensure compliance with zoning regulations.  She asked them to please either call her at 860-253-6368, email her, or stop into her office in person.

Ms. Higley next discussed the Farmers’ Market.  She said it would be starting up again on June 13th and invited everyone to come.  She said the usual farmers would be coming back and there would also be a few surprises for the general public.  She said the Farmers’ market would be every Wednesday from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m., weather permitting, and would run through the end of October. 

Chairman Duren mentioned the regulations allowing the sale of wine at Farmers’ Markets.  Ms. Higley said that as she understood it, the regulations allowed for Farmers’ Markets to have wine events at least once during the season, but not more than four times.  She said that Enfield’s Farmers’ Market was small, and the Connecticut wineries would be more likely to hold events at larger markets.  She said that the bigger markets, like Hartford and Coventry, would probably have wine tasting events and wine sales.

Ms. Higley concluded by saying that she had completed a grant-writing course for municipalities at Asnuntuck Community College.  She said it was very informative and she learned a lot. 

Ms. Higley asked if any of the Commissioners had any questions for her.  Commissioner Sarno asked Ms. Higley about her business signs received and issued for the month.  She specifically asked about 355 Taylor Road and wanted to know if that was a free-standing sign for the greenhouses that just went up.  Ms. Higley said that it was.  Commissioner Sarno asked if it was two freestanding signs, and Ms. Higley confirmed that it was, one on Taylor Road and one on North Road.

Commissioner Sarno commented that the one on Taylor Road is a big sign.  Commissioner Ladd agreed, saying it was huge.  Ms. Higley said she had talked with Mr. Giner regarding what she had approved, and was thinking about measuring the sign to be sure it was in compliance.  Mr. Giner said that larger signs are allowed in industrial areas, up to 50 square feet.  Commissioner Sarno said it was very close to the road, and was just wondering if it was in compliance with the regulations.

Chairman Duren asked if the sign, being so close to the road, was illuminated.  Ms. Higley said it was not.  She explained that the regulations did say that all freestanding signs, whether they are in and industrial area or not, must be ten feet in from the property line.  She said that this sign is close to the road and she plans to check the distance.

Mr. Giner cited the regulations, stating that normal freestanding signs in business zones were 32 square feet, and industrial zones were allowed 50 square feet per sign.  Ms. Higley asked if the regulations required businesses wanting 50-foot signs to come before the Commission for approval.  Mr. Giner again cited the regulations, stating that all 50-foot signs had to be approved by the office of the Director of Planning according to a specific list of procedures.  He said it was a staff review.  Mr. Giner and Ms. Higley both stated that they would look into this further to be sure this sign was in compliance.

Chairman Duren mentioned that Enfield Street Auto Sales was back on Ms. Higley’s report, and he asked Mr. Giner if there was anything to report on the Fines Regulations.  Mr. Giner said he had not heard anything and would find out where this stood.

Chairman Duren commented on the rental trucks at various CVS locations.  Ms. Higley said it was on her list.  She believes they are used for seasonal storage during specific holidays.  Chairman Duren said that Ms. Higley has sent letters regarding the storage trucks to CVS Corporate Headquarters in the past and asked if she was planning to do so again.  Ms. Higley said that she was planning to follow-up with corporate headquarters to explain that this is not an allowed use, even though it is only seasonal. 

Chairman Duren said that the truck at the CVS on the corner of Enfield Street and Elm is in a very bad spot, and he is surprised the fire department has not taken issue with its location.  He said the truck’s location makes it difficult to drive through to pick up prescriptions.  Ms. Higley said she agreed.  She said when she was on her way into work, she noticed the truck was parked right up against the building and people were loading things in and out of it.  She said there is no way a fire truck or ambulance could ever have gotten through there. 

Ms. Higley said that Zoning wants to work with businesses, but there is only so much parking available, and the trucks are posing significant public safety issues.  Commissioner Alaimo asked if the location of the truck was in a marked fire lane.  Ms. Higley said it was.  Commissioner Alaimo said if that is the case, the Fire Marshal, or his representative, should be able to go to the location and take care of it immediately.  Ms. Higley said that the next time a holiday was approaching, she was considering doing a Cease and Desist, rather than the standard 30-day letter. 

Chairman Duren asked about something he had seen regarding a dumpster on Weymouth Road.  He was wondering if this was something the Commission needed to act on.  Ms. Higley said this was the Robbins’ property and explained that it was a storage container, not a dumpster.  Mr. Giner said that based on the regulations, for a storage container, Ms. Higley could issue a 30-day permit, but anything longer would have to come before the PZC.  Ms. Higley said the Mr. Robbins was applying to PZC for approval because he needed more than the 30-days.  Mr. Giner said he has not applied as of yet.  Ms. Higley said she thought he had and though it was included in the Commissioners’ packets. Chairman Duren and Mr. Giner both stated that what was included was the Storage Trailer Registration Form, which states Mr. Robbins would petition PZC for approval beyond 30 days.  Chairman Duren said that this registration form is not considered an application to come before PZC. 

Ms. Higley said that Mr. Robbins was under the impression that this was his petition.  She said there is not a “petition” form available and this is all she has.  Mr. Giner said that Mr. Robbins would need to submit a letter stating that he wanted to come before the PZC.  Chairman Duren also mentioned that the drawing attached to the registration form was not acceptable, as it was hand drawn and included no distances.  He asked Mr. Giner if he could get Mr. Robbins on the agenda for the next PZC meeting. 

Ms. Higley asked the Commissioners to look at the date Mr. Robbins is planning to remove the storage container, which is April 15, 2012.  She said the container would already be removed before the next PZC meeting, which is scheduled for April 19th. 

Chairman Duren asked Ms. Higley if she could enforce the distance regulation.  He said that trailers, boats, and storage containers were required to be behind the front line of the house, and this one was not.  Mr. Giner said that this was a little different because it was temporary storage.  The primary concern with temporary storage is that there is no obstruction to traffic.  The regulations do state that the container must be behind the property line.

Ms. Higley said that she would call Mr. Robbins and follow up with a letter explaining that he needs to submit a written request to come before the Commission.

Commissioner Alaimo asked Ms. Higley about The Tobacco Shop and said he thought this had been taken care of.  Ms. Higley explained that it had, and that would be reflected on her next report.

d.           Property Maintenance (In Writing)

Chairman Duren referenced reports that were submitted for both February and March.  He said he had a property he wanted to call Ms. Huhtanen about that is not listed on either report.  Commissioner Ladd said that he had an issue as well, and would go through Mr. Giner.  Mr. Giner asked what property he was referring to.  Commissioner Ladd referenced the three School Street property listed under Other Property Maintenance Matters.  He said this has been listed for at least a year and a half and wants to know when they will be fined.  He said it looks like a landfill.  Mr. Giner said he would look into it.

Chairman Duren asked if there were any questions for Property Maintenance through Mr. Giner. 

Commissioner Alaimo asked about 30 Carol Street and where that stood.  He referenced complaints about broken basement windows and cats going in and out of the structure.  He asked Mr. Giner if anyone has gone over there.  Mr. Giner said that North Central Health District was contacted and has not intervened yet.  He said they were trying to locate the property owner and have not been able to do so.  He said there is not much that can be done without locating the owner unless the property is foreclosed on.  He said he would look into this further and see what options were available. 

Commissioner Alaimo said that supposedly the owner is in Florida in a nursing home, and HIPAA laws make it difficult to find out whom to contact regarding the property.  He said that the fire department has been out to the property to try to at least get the windows buttoned up.

Mr. Giner said he thought there was a Clean and Lien provision under the New Property Blight Ordinance that allows for cleaning up the properties and making them safe if their owners cannot be located.  A lien would then be placed on the property for the costs associated with the cleanup.  Mr. Giner said he would see if this was an option in this case.

e.            Director of Planning (In Person)

Mr. Giner mentioned that the Freshwater Pond trail is being renovated.  He said the work would probably take a couple of months but it should come out really nice.  He explained that there is a sign posted at the site, which was required because some federal funding was received for the project.

Mr. Giner next said that he was meeting on Monday, April 9th, with Maryellen Komorowski from CRCOG to go over the zoning for Thompsonville. 

Mr. Giner went on to discuss Costco and their plans to resurface their restrooms.  He explained that this would be a three-day project and that Costco would like to put two Porta-Potties outside of the building for customers to use during the three-day period.  He asked the Commission if he could approve this administratively.

Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to allow Mr. Giner to administratively approve the use of two Porta-Potties outside of Costco for a three-day period while they resurface their restrooms.

The motion was carried with a 5-0-0 vote.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Chairman Duren opened the floor for public participation.  No one came forward to address the Commission

CORRESPONDENCE

Chairman Duren referenced the following correspondence:

Letters he and other Commissioners received regarding the proposed highway truck stop.  Chairman Duren said this proposed project is not presently on the agenda, but it is likely to come back before the Commission in the future.  He wanted Mr. Giner to have the letters for the record and said that the applicant should be made aware of them.

Next he referenced a letter from Peter Yarum, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), regarding the interpretation of Article IV, Section 4.10, in Farm Regulations.  Mr. Giner said he would be responding to Chairman Yarum.

Chairman Duren next referenced the CRCOG Referral Reports and pointed out that Enfield had two that were sent to CRCOG, the tag sale regulations and decks as part of a building.

Chairman Duren talked about the Land Use Board Workshop conducted by Attorney Chris Smith.  Chairman Duren said it was an excellent presentation, and he complimented the other PZC Commission members and the other Boards and Commissions for such great attendance compared to other years.

Next referenced were the February 21st, March 6th, and March 20th minutes from the Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Agency (IWWA) meetings.  He said these minutes give a good idea of what may be coming to PZC in the future.

Next mentioned under Correspondence were the Robbins’ Storage Trailer Registration Form and a March 16th letter to Philip Howard from Mr. Giner, granting administrative approval of SPR #1545, a dumpster pad for 72 Shaker Road. 

Lastly, Chairman Duren referenced an article Mr. Giner provided entitled “New Rule Could Spur Multi-Unit Affordable Housing in Westport.”

COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE

There was no Commissioner’s correspondence.

BOND RELEASES

There were no bond releases on tonight’s agenda.

PUBLIC HEARINGS – CONTINUED FROM MARCH 1, 2012

There were no continued Public Hearings.

PUBLIC HEARINGS – NEW

There were no new Public Hearings.

OLD BUSINESS

None

NEW BUSINESS

a.            Request under Section 3.30.7 of the Zoning Regulations to allow a two-story accessory building in the Historic-33 (HR-33) District at 1408 Enfield St., Map 18, Lot 235, Amy and Frank Troiano applicant/owners.

Mr. Frank Troiano, 1408 Enfield Street, was present and came forward to address the Commission.

Chairman Duren said he had called Mr. Giner because the application was for a two-story structure, and this would have to be approved by the Historic District.  He said that the Historic District’s Motion, which was provided to the Commission, did not say anything about a two-story structure.  He said Mr. Giner was kind enough to look this up, and he provided the Commission with the minutes from the Enfield Historic District Commission regular meeting on Wednesday, March 28th at which Mr. Troiano’s proposed project for a two-story structure was approved.

Mr. Troiano explained that he was looking for approval for a two-story accessory building in the Historic District at 1408 Enfield Street.  He referenced the plans that he had submitted to the PZC Commission that were approved by the Historic Commission on March 28th.  Mr. Troiano also referenced a description letter that was submitted to Mr. Giner that gives a background of the property and the intention of this project, which is to re-construct a two-story garage that was collapsed by excessive snow in February of 2011.

Mr. Troiano explained that he did not settle with insurance until February of 2012, which is why he did not come before the Commission sooner. 

Mr. Troiano said the Historic Commission went into great detail with him to ensure that his proposed project fit in with the area and looked like it belonged there as part of the home.  He said that was also his intention and that the Historic Commission approved his application because it was architecturally designed to be a good fit for the property.

Chairman Duren asked the Commissioners if there were any questions.  There were not.

Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to grant the request for a waiver of the standards of Section 3.30.7A of the regulations governing accessory structures to allow a two-story accessory building in the Historic-33 (HR-33) District at 1408 Enfield Street, Map 18, Lot 235, Amy and Frank Troiano applicants/owners, subject to conformance with the plans submitted for the record.

The motion was carried with a 5-0-0 vote.

b.            SPR #1546 - Application for a 4,700 s.f. addition to the existing industrial building at 198 Freshwater Blvd., Zoned IP, Map 55, Lot 003, John Morgan, AIA, Applicant; MTA Properties, LLC, owner. (May 5, 2012 deadline for decision)

Mr. Giner said that he had been in communication with the applicant and they are still revising their plans to address some concerns that Engineering had.  They apologized for not being able to complete these revisions in time for tonight’s meeting.  They would like to come in on April 19th.

 

Commissioner Ladd made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to Table SPR #1546 - Application for a 4,700 s.f. addition to the existing industrial building at 198 Freshwater Blvd., Zoned IP, Map 55, Lot 003, John Morgan, AIA, Applicant; MTA Properties, LLC, owner – until the April 19, 2012 PZC meeting.

The motion was carried with a 5-0-0 vote.

c.            SPR #1547 – Application for a new 5,750 s.f. automotive parts retail store with associated site improvements to replace an existing commercial structure to be located at 699 Enfield St., in a Business Local District within the Enfield Street Design Overlay District, Map 29, Lot 35; Gary Dayharsh, applicant; IJAN 2 CT Realty, LLC. Owner. (May 5, 2012 deadline for decision)

John Goddard, R. Levesque Associates, Inc., representing Gary Dayharsh, applicant, came forward to address the Commission.  Mr. Dayharsh also came forward.

Mr. Goddard explained that Mr. Dayharsh is the agent for owner, and the proposed project is to demolish an existing building on the property currently being used as a car storage lot and build a new Carquest automotive parts retail store.  Mr. Goddard said that this owner also operates a similar Carquest parts store on Raffia Road.

There was some discussion as to whether or not the Commission had the most up to date plans.  It was determined that they did.

Mr. Goddard explained that the property was on the corner of Laurel and Enfield Streets.  He said the existing building is small and geared toward restaurants offering take-out service.  He said the property is currently being used as a car storage parking lot and that most of the area is paved.  He specifically stated that about 90 percent of the property coverage was impervious.

Mr. Goddard said the proposed project would be a 5,750 square foot automotive parts retail store.  Of the total, 1,500 square feet would be devoted to a customer use are.  There would also be dedicated areas for storage of parts and shipping and receiving.

Mr. Goddard said for the customer use area, ten parking spaces are required by the regulations, and he is proposing 20.  Mr. Goddard explained that the architectural detail and design of the building was done so it is a good fit in the area. 

Mr. Goddard explained that the proposed building would be located to the rear of the parcel and that between the building and the road would be proposed parking.  He said the general location of the curb cut along Enfield Street remains the same but that the size has been increased slightly.  He also said there was an additional curb cut leading onto Laurel Street.

Chairman Duren asked Mr. Goddard if there was enough room in their proposed exit onto Enfield Street to include a left and right turn lane to make it easier for traffic turning right to exit, without having to wait in line with traffic trying to turn left onto such a busy street.  Mr. Goddard said that the size of the exit would not really change and that there would not be room for an extra lane.  Mr. Dayharsh did explain that the volume of business for the proposed type of store was not necessarily during peak traffic hours and that they did not anticipate a problem in this area.

Mr. Giner mentioned the exit onto Laurel Street as an alternative to trying to turn left onto Enfield Street.  Chairman Duren said he had a question as to legality regarding this exit, as it is listed on the maps as private property.  Mr. Goddard said this was private property, and Mr. Dayharsh was pursing legal use of this road as a viable exit. 

Mr. Dayharsh said that he already has the deeded legal right to pass and re-pass.  He was under the impression that the question was regarding emergency vehicles being able to use that access.  Mr. Giner said it was more clarification for the Fire Marshal that the applicant did have deeded legal access. 

Chairman Duren said that this legal document should be on file.  Mr. Dayharsh said that the deed is a part of the land record, but he would be glad to make a copy available to the Commission to keep on file.

Mr. Goddard went on to explain that the utilities for the building would be mounted on the roof in the back of the building.  Chairman Duren asked how they would be screened.  Mr. Dayharsh explained that units on the roof would be recessed in and down, and as such would not be visible. 

Chairman Duren asked if the applicant was aware of the noise ordinance in town, and Mr. Dayharsh said that they were.

Chairman Duren asked about the bollards at the gas meter and if they were six inches.  Mr. Giner said there were no gas tanks, just the meter.  Chairman Duren said he knew if was just a meter, but wanted to be sure the bollards were six inches.

Chairman Duren complimented the applicant on their lighting design and commented that virtually no light would be shining off the property.

Mr. Goddard explained that the proposed plans offer a 27 percent reduction of the existing impervious surface.  This will help to satisfy storm water concerns.  These areas will be landscaped in accordance with applicable regulations.  Mr. Goddard explained the proposed landscaping plan to the Commission and said that they were improving existing conditions but were requesting a small reduction in the overall buffer requirement for this property.

The Commission complimented the applicant on the proposed plantings and agreed that it would be a significant improvement to the property.

The police department has no issues. The fire department had only the issue of placement of the dumpster not being within ten feet of the building, and the applicant said that this will be resolved.  Mr. Cabibbo sent an email to the Commission say that all of his outstanding concerns have been addressed.

The applicant showed the Commission samples of the materials that will be used for the building.  The Commission liked the proposed materials and Chairman Duren complimented the applicant on the design of the building.

Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to approve SPR #1547 – Application for a new 5,750 s.f. automotive parts retail store with associated site improvements to replace an existing commercial structure to be located at 699 Enfield St., in a Business Local District within the Enfield Street Design Overlay District, Map 29, Lot 35; Gary Dayharsh, applicant; IJAN 2 CT Realty, LLC. Owner – Subject to conformance with the referenced plans as may be required to be modified and the following 30 conditions** as stated in a March 29, 2012 memo from Mr. Giner to the PZC.

**The following condition was added under “Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits” (Conditions following this addition were renumbered accordingly):

Condition 21:  Applicant shall submit documentation of their legal right to utilize Laurel Street as an additional entrance/exit to the proposed project site.

Referenced Plans:

“Proposed Car Quest, 699 Enfield Street, Enfield, CT. Site Plans as Prepared for Delta Building Corp. c/o Mr. Gary Dayharsh” Title Sheet with Location Map, Site Information and Drawing Index, by R. Levesque Associates, Inc. revised to 2/28/12.

“Existing Condition Plan, 699 Enfield Street (Route5) Enfield, CT 06082” Sheet EX-1, Scale: 1”=30’; by R. Levesque Associates, Inc. dated February 17, 2012.

“Notes, Symbol & Line Legend and Abbreviations, Proposed Carquest,  699 Enfield Street (Route5) Enfield, CT 06082” Sheet C-1, Scale: “ No Scale”; by R. Levesque Associates, Inc. dated February 28, 2012.

“Construction Notes, Proposed Carquest,  699 Enfield Street (Route5) Enfield, CT 06082” Sheet C-2, Scale: “ No Scale”; by R. Levesque Associates, Inc. dated February 28, 2012.

“Site Demolition, Layout & Materials, Proposed Carquest, 699 Enfield Street (Route5) Enfield, CT 06082” Sheet C-3, Scale: 1”=20’; by R. Levesque Associates, Inc. dated February 28, 2012.

“Grading, Utilities, and Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan, Proposed Carquest, 699 Enfield Street (Route5) Enfield, CT 06082” Sheet C-4, Scale: 1”=20’; by R. Levesque Associates, Inc. dated February 28, 2012.

“Site Landscaping Plan, Proposed Carquest, 699 Enfield Street (Route5) Enfield, CT 06082” Sheet C-5, Scale: 1”=20’; by R. Levesque Associates, Inc. dated February 28, 2012.

“Site Illumination Plan, Proposed Carquest, 699 Enfield Street (Route5) Enfield, CT 06082” Sheet C-6, Scale: 1”=20’; by R. Levesque Associates, Inc. dated February 28, 2012.

“Site Details, Proposed Carquest, 699 Enfield Street (Route5) Enfield, CT 06082” Sheet D-1, Scale:  “As Shown”; by R. Levesque Associates, Inc. dated February 28, 2012.

“Site Details, Proposed Carquest,  699 Enfield Street (Route5) Enfield, CT 06082” Sheet D-2, Scale:  “As Shown”; by R. Levesque Associates, Inc. dated February 28, 2012.

“Proposed Retail Space, Carquest Auto Parts, Enfield, Connecticut”  Elevations and Floor Plan, Scale: 1/8” = 1’-0”, by Erikelari, LLC, dated February 19, 2012.

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 number  “SPR 1547” shall be clearly indicated on each sheet of the plans submitted for signature in the area next to or above the Title Block.

3.       For all sewer pipes, show on the drawing(s) the length, diameter, slope, location, and type of pipe; for inverts show elevation in and out, and for frame(s) show elevation at the top. Show on the drawing(s) details for sanitary sewer structures and a sanitary sewer trench detail. Sewer system shall conform to Town of Enfield, Subdivision Regulations, revised as of February 12, 2002, and on the Town of Enfield Public Works Department drawings titled Typical Details I, II and III.

4.       A note shall be added to the plans stating “WPC shall be notified 24 hours in advance for all inspections required for installations of sewer system{s}. Please call 860-253-6450 – if no one is there, please leave a message.”

5.       The plans shall indicate what is being done with the existing sanitary lateral.

6.       The plans shall indicate how the new sanitary lateral is connected to the existing sanitary sewer.

7.       The plans shall show a sanitary sewer trench detail 6” of stone above and below the pipe then filter fabric on top of the stone.

8.       The monolithic concrete curb& sidewalk detail #4 on drawing D-1 should show 8 inches of processed crushed stone to meet the Town minimum standard.  On the same detail, the notes should be revised to show expansion joints every 20 feet on center (O.C.) and control joints every 5 feet O.C., to meet the Town minimum standard.

9.       The pavement detail #5 on drawing D-1 should have the leader lines for the base course of pavement and top course switched to accurately depict the pavement structure.  On the same detail, the base directly under the pavement courses should be 8 inches of processed crushed stone to meet the Town minimum standard.

10.    The concrete pad detail #10 on drawing D-1 should show 8 inches on reinforced concrete on 8 inches of processed crushed stone, to meet the Town minimum standard.

11.    There is a detail, #9 on drawing D-1 ,of the site lighting pole bases. Detail drawings of the proposed light poles and fixtures should be added to the plans.

12.    Most of the applicable Standard Notes have been included in the two drawing sheets C-1 &C-2, except for note (h) which should be added to the site plan set

13.    The final plans shall show a dumpster separation that is acceptable to the Fire Marshal.

14.    The Site Information tables on the Cover Sheet and Sheet C-3 shall indicate the proposed impervious coverage %.

15.    The elevation drawings shall be revised to indicate the “north, south, east and west” elevations rather than front, back, and side elevations.

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

17.    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.

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

19.    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.

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

21.    Applicant shall submit documentation of their legal right to utilize Laurel Street as an additional entrance/exit to the proposed project site.

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

22.    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.

23.    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.

24.    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.

25.    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:

26.    This approval contains a modification of the 35 foot deep “C”: Buffer yard along the northerly boundary with the R-33 District pursuant to Subsection 10.20 C of the regulations.  The Commission finds that the landscaping plans submitted sufficiently protect the adjoining land use and are an improvement from the existing non-conformity.

27.    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.

28.    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.

29.    All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by April 5, 2017 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

30.    By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.

The motion was carried with a 5-0-0 vote.

At this point in the meeting, Mr. Matthew Coppler, Town Manager, arrived at the meeting and came forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Coppler thanked the Commission for acting on his CIP in his absence, and that he was unable to be here earlier due to Council business.  Chairman Duren said the Commission understood that Council business had to come first.  Mr. Coppler asked if any of the Commissioners had any questions about the CIP or for him in general.  There were not.  Mr. Coppler said he enjoyed coming to talk to the Commission and did not want to miss it entirely.  He thanked the Commission and said he would let them get back to business.   

d.           Request for a second driveway cut under Section 3.10.2 of the Zoning Regulations for property located in a Residential 33 (R-33) District at 27 Prospect St., Map 24, Lot 144; Nick Siafakas, applicant/owner.

The applicant was not present.  Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if something could please be done to help these applicants make more complete and proper applications.  He suggested providing them with graph paper so that drawings submitted could be done to scale.  Chairman Duren said the submitted drawing in Exhibit 2 is too vague and that better information needs to be provided.  Mr. Giner referred the Commission to the photographs that were included as Exhibits 3-9, which do show the area of the proposed second driveway cut.

As the applicant was not present and more detailed information was required by the Commission, it was agreed that this matter would be tabled until the next PZC meeting.

Commissioner Ladd made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to Table the Request for a second driveway cut under Section 3.10.2 of the Zoning Regulations for property located in a Residential 33 (R-33) District at 27 Prospect St., Map 24, Lot 144; Nick Siafakas, applicant/owner until the April 19, 2012 PZC meeting.

The motion was carried with a 5-0-0 vote.

e.            Request for a second driveway cut under Section 3.10.2 of the Zoning Regulations for property located in a Residential 88 (R-88) District at 89 Town Farm Road, Map 86, Lot 153; Daniel & Sheila Beaudry, applicant/owner.

The applicant was not present.

Chairman Duren again commented on the submission, saying the plans were hand drawn and not to scale. 

Mr. Giner said that he spoke with Mr. Cabibbo about this, and it was determined that there was adequate space for a turnaround on the property, which would alleviate the need for a second driveway.

There was also discussion about Mr. Cabibbo’s March 7th email to Ms. Higley and Mr. Giner stating that Wallop School Road was actually moved over in the past so that vehicles exiting Wallop School Road would not be directly across from the existing driveway.  If the second driveway is approved, it will nullify the movement of this road, and the safety issues that were addressed and alleviated by moving the road in the first place will again become an issue. The Town Engineer does not recommend approval of the second driveway.

Commissioner Ladd made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve the Request for a second driveway cut under Section 3.10.2 of the Zoning Regulations for property located in a Residential 88 (R-88) District at 89 Town Farm Road, Map 86, Lot 153; Daniel & Sheila Beaudry, applicant/owner.

The motion was denied with a 0-5-0 vote.

OTHER BUSINESS

a.       Request for Informal Discussion from Gary T. Williams regarding 14 Cranbrook Blvd.

Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to have Ms. Higley, Zoning Enforcement Officer, formally join this discussion.

The motion was carried with a 5-0-0 vote.

Gary Williams, Owner of Mad Hatter Auto Repair, 14 Cranbrook Boulevard, came forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Williams explained to the Commission that he has outgrown his present location and needs more parking for his customers.

He has an opportunity to purchase a nearby property currently occupied by Jo-Di’s, which would meet his needs perfectly.  The problem is that this property is not zoned as automotive.  Mr. Williams is asking the Commission for their input on the best way to proceed. 

There was discussion about different options such as revising the regulations, applying for a special use permit, or changing the zone classification for this area.  It was determined that this is a rather complicated situation and there is no simple solution. 

The general consensus among the Commissioners was that applying to ZBA for a variance was at least a good starting point.

Ms. Higley said that the present ZBA was extremely business friendly and wanted to help local businesses.  She suggested that Mr. Williams emphasize to the ZBA that the entire area around him is zoned for automotive and the fact that Jo-Di’s is not so zoned was creating a form of hardship for him.

Ms. Higley did explain that when ZBA looks at a variance, they have to look at the property, not the individual.  She said that emphasizing to ZBA that the entire area was being used for motor vehicle purposes except for this one property would help.

It was agreed that Mr. Williams was going to pursue requesting a variance from ZBA.  The PZC did offer to provide a letter to ZBA supporting approval of the variance.  Mr. Giner said he would draft a letter for the Commission to vote on at their next meeting.

b.       Discussion of Farm Animal Regulations.

There was some discussion among the Commissioners and Ms. Higley about the proposed Regulations.  It was decided that further discussion of the proposed Farm Animal Regulations and any changes thereto would be tabled until the April 19th PZC meeting so that Commissioner Longhi could be present to participate in the discussion.

c.       Discussion of Gift Baskets w/ wine bottles.

Mr. Giner said he checked with other towns, and the wine has to be purchased from a licensed establishment.  You also need a state permit to include wine in a gift basked.  Commissioner Alaimo suggested having those who have acquired state permits register them with the town and pay the $2.00 fee.  He said this would be a good way to keep track of where they are.

It was agreed among Commission members that new regulations did not need to be written.

APPLICATIONS TO BE RECEIVED

PUBLIC HEARINGS

PH #2410.02 – Amendment to approved use mix to allow research laboratory uses in a Special Development District (SDD) approved under PH2410.01 located at 1559 King Street, Map 17, Lot 39, Bristol Fields LLC, applicant/owner.

Scheduled April 19, 2012.

PH #2743 – Special Use Permit for a grocery beer license for an existing convenience store located at 935 Enfield Street, in an R-33 District, Map 26, Lot 79; Alkaben A. Patel, applicant, Kalyan, LLC, owner.

Scheduled for April 19, 2012.

PH #2744 – Special Permit for a Rear-Lot to be located behind an existing home at 324 North Maple Street in a Residential 33 (R-33) District, Map 80, Lot 34; Kevin P. and Maria T. Tooley, applicants/owners.

Scheduled for May 1, 2012.

XZA #12-01 – Proposed text change to Zoning Regulations Definitions #3 and #54 for the purpose of counting decks as building coverage; Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission, applicant.

Scheduled for April 19, 2012.

XZA #12-02 – Proposed text change to Zoning Regulations to add a new Section 4.40.5 that will set standards regarding the conduct of garage or tag sales; Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission, applicant.

Scheduled for April 19, 2012.

SITE PLAN REVIEWS

SPR #1431.02 – Application to relocate an existing above-ground fuel tank to a new concrete pad on property located in an Industrial-2 (I-2) District at 38 Post Office Road, Map 47, Lot 51; Spazzarini Construction, applicant, Post office Road, LLC, owner.

Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to allow Mr. Giner to administratively approve SPR #1431.02 – Application to relocate an existing above-ground fuel tank to a new concrete pad on property located in an Industrial-2 (I-2) District at 38 Post Office Road, Map 47, Lot 51; Spazzarini Construction, applicant, Post office Road, LLC, owner.

The motion was carried with a 5-0-0 vote.

SPR 1548 – Request for Administrative Site Plan approval to add three decorative gables to an existing roof at a medical office building located at 71 Hazard Avenue, in a Business Local (BL) District, Map 56, Lot 36; Borghesi Building, applicant; Rashmi C. Patel, Enfield Real Estate, LLC, owner.

Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to allow Mr. Giner to administratively approve SPR 1548 – Request for Administrative Site Plan approval to add three decorative gables to an existing roof at a medical office building located at 71 Hazard Avenue, in a Business Local (BL) District, Map 56, Lot 36; Borghesi Building, applicant; Rashmi C. Patel, Enfield Real Estate, LLC, owner.

The motion was carried with a 5-0-0 vote.

SPR #1549 – Application for roof-top camera towers and platforms at property located in an Industrial Park (IP) District at 150 Freshwater Boulevard; Jeff Stirling, Eli Lilly & company, applicant; Eli Lilly & Company, owner.

Scheduled for April 19, 2012

SPR #1550 – Application for a change of use to approximately 10,300 s.f. of vacant area to indoor recreational use with accessory party and snack area at property located in a Business-2 District at 481-483 Enfield street, Map 33, Lot 256, Michael Lenares, applicant; Frank Enterprises V, LLC, owner.

Commissioner Ladd made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to change SPR #1550 – Application for a change of use to approximately 10,300 s.f. of vacant area to indoor recreational use with accessory party and snack area at property located in a Business-2 District at 481-483 Enfield street, Map 33, Lot 256, Michael Lenares, applicant; Frank Enterprises V, LLC, owner, from a Site Plan Review to a Public Hearing.

The motion was carried with a 5-0-0 vote. 

The public hearing is scheduled for April 19, 2012.

NEXT REGULAR MEETING

The next regular meeting of the PZC will be Thursday, May 1, 2012

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to adjourn.  Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:05 p.m. 

 

                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                __________________________

                                                Peter Falk, Secretary

                                                Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission

Kcd

 

Share |

Digital Cities Survey 2013 Winner

Weather Forecast
State of Connecticut
State of Connecticut