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
DECEMBER 21, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, December 21, 2006 in the Town Council Chambers, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Charles Duren
James Hickey, Jr.
Jason Jones
Karen Weseliza
Charles Ladd, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: José Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to approve the Minutes of December 7, 2006. The Minutes were approved by a 4 – 0 – 2 vote. Commissioners Hickey and Duren abstained.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of two cease and desist orders for 534 Hazard Avenue, information from the Capitol Region Council of Governments, and information on a workshop to be held on Tuesday, December 27, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.
Chairman DiPace reported on reading about denial of special permits. Mr. Giner will keep an eye on any upcoming legislation.
Chairman DiPace reported the Annual Conference at the Aqua Turf Country Club is scheduled for March 22, 2007. This is not a meeting night.
Other Correspondence included the Notice of Action from the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency and Connecticut Wildlife published by the DEP.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PH #2573 - Special use permit and site plan review for a 73 unit senior residential development at the east end of Mayfield Dr. and north of Westview Drive, and west of Shaker Pines Lake, Map 79, Lot 11, Stonegate Associates, Applicant/Angelina J. McGillivray, Owner. (Must close by 12/21)
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to grant an extension of this application to January 4, 2007. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.
b. PH #2579 - Site Plan review for proposed addition to existing building with parking lot at 229 Post Office Road, zoned BL, Map 69, Lot 232, Sands Aeschliman, Applicant/ 229 Post Office Road, LLC, owner.(Must close AND ACT by 12/21)
John Martucci, Engineer for the applicant, and Bob DiGennaro appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Chairman DiPace noted the need for the applicant to provide eleven copies of the site plan to the Commission. Mr. DiGennaro stated the plans they submitted last week had the major changes. Those changes were the sewer system being shown, the water supply being shown and the hydrants. Engineering did their final review which was received today and the applicant addressed those comments. The additional changes needed included a change of pipe and a change of sidewalk.
Mr. DiGennaro stated they also submitted a revised set of building plans a week ago following their ART meeting. He pointed out that pursuant to the ART comments, some changes were made. They changed the footprint of the building to provide the required driveway distance from the southeast corner of the building. They also added site lighting and covered rear exit doors and landings with a notation for emergency lighting underneath those rear landings. The primary plaza and tenant signage notes were also added to the building plan. They added a hydrant to the site plan with a notation that the old building will be sprinklered.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if tenants have been identified for this building. Mr. DiGennaro stated other than the existing package store, they have no idea who will occupy the building.
Mr. Martucci stated there was a concern about traffic and they did have a traffic study done by BLS Consulting Traffic Engineers. The intersection functions at a Level C today which means at a peak hour the controlled delay is between fifteen and twenty-five seconds. The Commission had some questions regarding the traffic study which could not be answered by the applicant. Chairman DiPace requested that this hearing be continued so that the traffic engineer could be present.
Commissioner Duren asked if there is an accident report available for this area. Chairman DiPace stated the town and the state are talking about installing a light and a level C designation would not normally warrant such a light.
Commissioner Duren requested that north, south, east and west be identified on the elevation plans.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.
Pete Laroach, 14 Rene Lane, stated he goes through this intersection every day. There is Holy Family Church with masses. They want to put in three additional units and Mr. Laroach stated he could see maybe one unit. The access from the driveway is going to be pretty close to the intersection and this is already a bad intersection. Once the light goes up, the existing road will probably have to be widened and straightened out. There may be a need to purchase the existing house which is very close to the road in order to do any widening. Mr. Laroach stated if this plaza was to be located further away from the intersection it might not be so bad. Another thing to consider is when the traffic is backed up at the light, how will the traffic get out of the driveway of the store. The result may be more accidents in the area. Also, the stores to be located in this plaza may have a high volume of traffic.
Reg Leonard, 42 Fairfield Road, stated he lives right around the corner from this intersection. In his opinion, this is another application that is far fetched as far as planning and getting information. Mr. Leonard felt it is irresponsible for a developer to come before the Commission and not have a traffic study. He travels the intersection every day and at peak periods the traffic backs up to Prior Road. He felt it was irresponsible for a developer to come before the Commission and not have the answers.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission had asked about the setbacks and he has marked up an old plan to show the setbacks. At its farthest point, the minimum setback for the zone is 60’. The setback on the northern corner would be 50’. Mr. Giner stated the improvements to this intersection would be a town project and it is in the design stages right now. Mr. Giner asked when work would begin and he noted ConnDOT has it programmed out for 2008. The rights of way acquisition is ongoing.
Chairman DiPace continued this public hearing to January 4, 2007.
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to grant an extension of this application to January 4, 2007. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.
c. PH #2581 – Site Plan review to convert storage space to retail space within an existing business (Bookends) located at 44 Enfield St., Zoned BL, map 35, Lot 79, Steven Paradis, Applicant/ Dave Grunberg, Owner. (Must close AND ACT by 1/11)
At the request of the applicant, this hearing was continued to January 4, 2007. Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace continued this hearing to January 4, 2007.
d. PH#2582 –Special use permit for conversion of a single-family to a two-family apartment at 4 Cook Avenue, zoned R-33, Map 33, Lot 61, Stanley Glemboski, Jr., Applicant/Owner. (Must close by 1/11)
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to accept the withdrawal of PH#2582. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.
Chairman DiPace requested that staff follow through and assure that this building does get converted back to its original single-family use. Mr. Giner stated Mr. Glemboski is coming in for building permits for the back and side decks.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2454.03 – Application for modification of conditions imposed on previous special use permit to add security lighting on existing utility poles on 809 Enfield Street (Artioli Kia), zoned BG, Map 29, Lot 72, 809 Enfield Street, LLC Applicant, Owner. (Must close by 1/25).
Dana Steele of J. R. Russo appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He is here on behalf of the Artioli family regarding a modification to a special permit that was granted for the property at 809 Enfield Street. In 2004 Mr. Artioli came to the Commission with a plan to renovate that building which was dilapidated. They redid the face of the building and spent a lot of money redoing the building. They were working with an existing site and were limited as far as the area they had to work with. They were able to obtain the Kia dealership for this site. When the Commission granted the approval for this special permit, it was specifically mentioned that they didn’t want any lighting in the front based upon concerns from staff. At the time those concerns were raised, Mr. Artioli made clear that it was his intention to consider this in the future and come back to the Commission.
Mr. Steele stated in the past a lot of CL&P lighting that was put on poles produced glare which is a concern for safety and aesthetics of a site. The Commission does have regulations requiring full cutoff fixtures. CL&P has gotten the message and has come up with fixtures that comply with the full cutoff requirement. Mr. Steele stated they are now back with a proposal to install lights on those utility poles with full cutoff fixtures. They are called flood lights but these lights can be tilted all the way down and that is how they are proposed to be installed. There is a shield that can be installed on the front face making it a full cutoff. Mr. Steele believes this complies with the regulations and it is reasonable to modify this requirement at this time.
Mr. Steele stated they have submitted a plan with this application along with some technical data from CL&P for what they are proposing. There are three utility poles. The only lighting that was proposed in the previous plan consisted of building mounted lights on the rear and sides of the building and the photometric data associated with those lights was shown on the plans. Mr. Steele stated they have added the photometric data for the three lights, two along Route 5 and one along Park Avenue. Mr. Giner has indicated a particular concern with the fixture to be located along Park Avenue because of the direction it would be facing for northbound traffic on Route 5 and he asked that a special condition be placed upon this application regarding the location and placement of that fixture. Mr. Steele stated there was also a question raised about the time of shutoff of those fixtures. It was previously indicated that all lights be turned off by 10:00 p.m. and they are not asking for any change to the hours of operation or the hours of lighting.
Chairman DiPace noted the need for security lighting due to vandalism in the area. Chairman DiPace had no objection to the one light that is farthest from the residential properties staying on for security purposes. Chairman DiPace also noted that there is a sign with the Artioli name but there is no sign indicating Kia. While the Commission doesn’t allow internally illuminated signs, Chairman DiPace saw a need to take a look at the regulations. Chairman DiPace praised the appearance of the building and felt the sign should be addressed.
Some discussion followed regarding the possible shielding of the Park Avenue light.
Commissioner Weseliza felt the light in the northwest corner shouldn’t impact any of the neighbors. Mr. Steele agreed. He stated the light will be a full cutoff.
Mr. Steele stated there are two fixtures on each pole and there are three poles. The total fixtures proposed are six. The lights on the building were previously approved.
Chairman DiPace stated rather than have them come back if there is a problem, he was agreeable to having the security light stay on.
Commissioner Jones asked if the fixture proposed will have the least impact you can have with shielding. Mr. Steele stated this is the best fixture that CL&P offers. This is an existing building close to the street and the poles are the best solution as far as a place to put the lights.
Commissioner Jones was not in favor of the light pole on Park Avenue. Further discussion followed. The consensus of the Commission was to eliminate the westerly light on Pole 3109. The other light would be angled up a little bit.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve PH#2454.03 – Application for modification of conditions imposed on previous special use permit to add security lighting on existing utility poles on 809 Enfield Street (Artioli Kia), zoned BG, Map 29, Lot 72, 809 Enfield Street, LLC Applicant, Owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans
“Site Plan PH#2454, proposed Change of Use Motor Vehicle Sales Facility, 809 Enfield Street Enfield, Connecticut” by J.R. Russo & Associates, revised to 10-31-06
Conditions:
1. All lighting shall be installed so as to comply with the requirements of Section 7.10.6 of the Enfield Zoning regulations. Extra care should be taken in mounting the floodlight on Pole #3109 that angles out towards Enfield Street to ensure that the light source is not visible to oncoming traffic.
2. All other conditions of Approval for PH #2454 not specifically modified by this approval are to remain in full force and effect.
3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
4. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records by the owner of the property.
5. 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.
6. This project shall be maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
7. 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.
8. The westerly light on pole 3109 shall be eliminated allowing for five lights.
9. The light located on the southeast back wall may be used as a security light.
The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Giner stated CVS located across from Town Hall wants to do a wellness area that is internal. There would be a registered nurse on the premises who can give shots and medications. The Commission agreed that Mr. Giner could handle this administratively.
Mr. Giner stated at Brainerd Park they want to install two tarps for skating. The Commission directed Mr. Giner to handle this item administratively.
BOND RELEASES
a. PH #2323 – Request for release of Landscape Bond in the amount of $29,449 for Shaker Heights Subdivision – Taylor Rd.
Mr. Giner stated staff is monitoring this site and he recommended tabling this bond release.
b. PH #2309 – Request for release of Phase II Engineering Bond in the amount of $267,200 AND Erosion & Sediment Bond in the amount of $5,900.12 for Autumn Fields 55 & Over on Elm Street.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to release the engineering bond only in the amount of $267,200 for PH#2309, Autumn Fields 55 and over on Elm Street. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Informal discussion – Powder Hill Sand & Gravel, Powder Hill Road 25 acre parcel (Map 84, Lot 15 & 16)
Dana Steele of J. R. Russo and Ed and Mark Spazzarini appeared before the Commission for this informal discussion. They are here to discuss the possibility of the development of a twenty-five acre parcel on Powder Hill Road. It is currently a sand and gravel operation. Mr. Steele noted the owners are looking to close out that operation and to look toward residential development. The regulations allow for a senior residential development by special permit in an R-88 zone. In the R-88 zone, the regulations allow one unit for every acre of developable area. They are before the Commission tonight with a concept plan for a possible condominium development of single-family detached units with garages. Mr. Steele stated one of the things that makes this property desirable is the site is like in a bowl and there are slopes on all sides.
Mr. Steele stated all sides are closed off with a small opening and it would be a nice area for residential development. The regulations allow for this type of development in the zone. They are before the Commission to get their feelings as to whether they like this idea and whether they should pursue it.
Chairman DiPace stated one of the concerns the last time was the septic systems. Mr. Steele stated with this plan, they plan to bring in sewer and water and there would be no septic systems.
Mr. Steele stated the R-88 zone allows less density and they would not even be utilizing all the property. This will allow a nice cluster development with lots of open space left over.
Commissioner Duren asked if they would be willing to put in the stipulations of the association about the use of fertilizers. Mr. Steele stated they would.
Mr. Giner stated this is part of the Level A aquifer. While the regulations do not apply to residential construction, the Commission can take that into consideration.
Commissioner Duren asked because of the distance between the houses and the road, is there any way to capture the runoff from the entrance way before it gets into the road. Mr. Steele stated they are proposing a water quality basin. They will be collecting all of that and treating what needs to be treated and then it goes into the drainage system under the road and discharges. Any runoff would go into the pond first and then into the road.
Mr. Steele stated they have proposed a boulevard entrance with a landscaped island.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if you can access this site from Power Hill Road. Mr. Spazzarini stated you can with a gate in the area.
Commissioner Hickey asked what triggers the special use permit. Mr. Giner stated a fifty-five and over development is only by special permit. One of the requirements is that they come before the Commission for an informal review before they submit.
Commissioner Duren asked if they are allowing storage on the individual homes. Mr. Steele stated they are not proposing any storage buildings. They could do so and it would not be a problem. The units will have garages and full basements.
Mr. Giner asked what is the length of the road. Mr. Steele stated from the point of the boulevard to the end is just under 1,200’. The area has a boulevard entrance which provides two separated entrance points. This was their suggestion for addressing the concern about two means of egress. They are not proposing any units along this portion of the road but it would be access to get to the development. They did look at a concept of stopping the cul de sac shorter but they would need a shared common driveway.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission has had previous discussions on boulevards but he is not sure there is a specific policy on them.
Chairman DiPace asked if the private roads fall under the l,200’ rule. Mr. Giner stated they still have to meet the subdivision regulations of a 1,200’ road with two ways in and out. The question is can boulevards be constructed to meet this requirement.
Chairman DiPace stated that the proposed 12’ width of the road is hard to get two lanes of traffic through. He recommended 20’. Mr. Giner stated that would still require a waiver even if the Commission decides they are going to allow boulevards. Mr. Steele stated they can widen the area out to 15’ or 20’.
Mr. Steele stated the water company doesn’t have any concerns but if they come back with a formal application, they will have to notify the water company again.
Commissioner Hickey stated conceptually he sees no problem with the plans.
Chairman DiPace was in favor of the proposed sewer line. Also, with an association there can be some limitations on the property.
Commissioner Ladd addressed the heavy water that we had about a year ago and how it affected this area. Mr. Steele stated this is all up higher. They are about twenty-five feet above Powder Hill Road.
The consensus of the Commission was that they should file an application for this project.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to adjourn. Following a 6 – 0 – 0 vote, the Commission adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|