|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, November 6, 2003 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Vice Chairman Charles Duren called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Charles Duren, Vice Chairman (Chairman James Howard is presently away on military duty.)
Robert Egan
Karen Krebs
Nicles Lefakis
James Hickey, Jr.
Jeffrey Cooper, Alternate
ABSENT: Anthony DiPace
Karen Weseliza, Alternate
Joseph Jedynak, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
Vice Chairman Duren designated Jeffrey Cooper as the Voting Alternate for this evening.
MINUTES
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve the Minutes of October 16, 2003. The Minutes were approved by a 6 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Cooper voting.
STAFF COMMENTS
a. Town Attorney (in writing)
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer (in writing)
c. Director of Planning and Community Development
Mr. Giner stated he submitted to the Commission selected excerpts from various towns regarding their regulations for A-frame signs. Vice Chairman Duren suggested discussing this item later in the meeting under Other Business.
Mr. Giner stated a call was made to Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley informing him that Friendly's restaurant was changing their colors. Mr. Giner reviewed the site and he did not see a significant difference. In his opinion, it would not warrant a modification to the plans. Changes include the repainting of shutters and removal of flower pots and repainting those areas. He presented before and after pictures of the work that was done.
Mr. Giner reported Public Works had inquired about the installation of a light in the area of the bridge at Green Manor Park for safety purposes. Mr. Giner stated it is only one light and he suggested the Commission allow him to approve it administratively. The consensus of the Commission was to allow Mr. Giner to do so.
Mr. Giner stated his other items will be covered later in the meeting under Receipt of Applications.
Vice Chairman Duren brought up the correspondence regarding Old Navy from Attorney Susan Hays. Mr. Giner stated they are proposing to locate in Enfield Commons and there will be some minor changes to the façade with an increase of glass. She asked if that could be handled administratively and, if not, they would submit a formal application. The consensus of the Commission was to schedule this item on the next agenda as a site plan review. (Later, at the end of the meeting, a decision was made to allow Mr. Giner to handle this exterior change administratively.)
Mr. Giner reported the Family Resource Center is ready for their c.o. They have a need to install a small antenna on their roof similar to the one installed at the Senior Center. It was the consensus of the Commission that Mr. Giner approve this antenna installation administratively.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Karen Camidge, 10 Grand View Drive, appeared before the Commission regarding erosion problems at her home. She stated she is here with her husband, both life-long residents of Enfield, and they are before the Commission tonight with their neighbors and others to request assistance. They would like help in resolving the erosion, drainage and grading problems with their property at 10 Grand View Drive.
Ms. Camidge provided the Commission with an overview of her and her husband's concerns and what they have done to get their problems rectified. On June 19, 2002, a contract to build their home was signed between Somerset Homes and Jim and Karen Camidge. They were to be the last home built in the subdivision, Riverview Estates. An additional $4,000 premium was paid for this property. Included in the documentation presented to them by Bob DiGennaro, President of Somerset Homes, was a topographical map approved by the Town of Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission that showed approximately where their home would be built on the lot and the approved grading of their yard. Number 7 on the notes of these maps states that erosion and sedimentation control shall be installed in accordance with the guidelines for soil and erosion and sediment control. It further states in number 16 of the notes that erosion and sediment control of the road, storm drainage, utilities, and individual lot construction were to be shown on the plot plan.
Ms. Camidge stated when they closed on their new home on January 28, 2003, the ground was covered with snow. An agreement was made and signed by the attorney representing Somerset Homes that the grading and landscaping of their yard would be completed by May 31, 2003. Ms. Camidge noted this did not happen. After numerous attempts to get their yard graded and landscaped and with the builder now in another part of town, the work was completed in late June. The yard was not graded to their satisfaction or in accordance with the plans approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Additionally, they were not according to the specifications outlined in the as built plan they received at their closing. They contacted Somerset Homes to discuss their dissatisfaction and were told by Mr. DiGennaro that what you see is what you get. In July, Ms. Camidge scheduled an appointment with a local construction company to come to their home and give them an estimate on what could be done to correct the drainage and grading issues. A representative came to the house and told Ms. Camidge that they should pursue it with the builder. He felt that some additional grading should be done to correct their drainage problems before they reinvested any more into the yard. Ms. Camidge also contacted local land surveying companies and all suggested that they pursue it with the Town Engineering Department.
Ms. Camidge spoke with the Engineering Department in early August and was told that if water was not backing up to their home or left standing creating a possible health hazard, the town would not get involved. It was suggested they work with the builder to resolve the issues.
Ms. Camidge stated in September, 2003, Mr. DiGennaro agreed to come to their home and inspect their grading and drainage issues. He agreed to have his surveyors redo their analysis stating that people do make mistakes. He also explained that he did not have to conform to the maps that were approved by the town. Ms. Camidge stated when the surveyor came the following Friday, she spoke to the surveyor and asked him if he would look at their as built maps and compare them to what he saw. He retrieved his copy from his truck and stated it was no where close to what the map depicted. He felt that the Camidge yard should be fairly level with a slight down grade to the back left corner of the yard.
Ms. Camidge stated on October 20, 2003, they met again with Mr. DiGennaro at his office in Suffield to discuss the new survey map. He started the meeting by explaining to them that he had consulted with his attorney and the President of Spazzarini Construction. He agreed that the new maps produced by Aeschilman were different than the approved and as built maps but he would not conform to them. He further explained that had they built in Suffield, that that town requires compliance with topographical maps but the Town of Enfield does not. Ms. Camidge noted that this builder lives in a town that protects new homeowners by requiring builders to comply with all approved maps and continues to build in Enfield knowing he will not be held accountable by the town when problems associated with individual lots arise.
Ms. Camidge noted the following Monday Mr. Giner and Mr. Cabbibo came to their home to discuss the issues with her husband. They both felt the grading was acceptable and as long as the erosion was not affecting their home's foundation or the street, the town would not get involved. They again suggested they work with the builder.
Ms. Camidge questioned if this is the type of building the Town of Enfield endorses. Is this what last residents of a subdivision can expect? She asked had they been one of the first homes built in the subdivision, would their property look as depicted in the picture she presented to the Commission. She stated it is evident that the builder is no longer interested in this development now that the last home has been sold. She asked if the town has any responsibility to protect the homeowners' interests as well as the towns' when a subdivision is proposed and subsequently built.
Ms. Camidge stated a year and a half ago they began the process of building their dream home on a beautiful street in a town they love. They envisioned having their annual celebrations with their croquet and bocci games in their spacious back yard. However, the grading is so poor that this year's games were played in the front yard as there is not a level spot for even a picnic table in the back yard.
Ms. Camidge invited Commission members to view their home and see for themselves the outstanding issues.
Vice Chairman Duren asked if the bond for this development has been released and Mr. Giner reported it has not.
Kathy Stevens, 7 Grand View Drive or across the street from the Camidge's, stated they purchased their home in August, 2002. At that time, there was a notation made that they had some drainage issues in their back yard. When they purchased this lot, the lot was level. When they moved in, there was quite a difference in the grading of this lot. They subsequently had issues with drainage in their back yard to the point where they had standing water and rivers running through their back yard. She has notes and pictures for the Commission's information so that they can see what the Stevens have been through. They currently still have problems with the grading in their yard.
Ms. Stevens stated they have pursued this issue since closing on June 29, 2002. They were told that they would have to wait and see how things went in the spring by Bob DeGenero and address the issue in the warmer weather. Throughout the winter they had massive ice coverage in their back yards. The entire subdivision on their side of the street was a total ice patch. Spring came with the thaw and the rains and they experienced large areas of standing and ponding water. Newly grassed areas were affected by molding of the grasses. After multiple calls from several neighbors to Mr. DeGenero's office, the decision was made to attempt to address the issue. Spazzarini came out and did some surveying and subsequently regraded the yard to create a swale. They took out a couple of feet of clay the length of three back yards and the width of approximately fifteen feet and replaced it with top soil at a pitch and grade that would allow for the water to drain appropriately. This fix subsequently created a ditch in the Stevens' back yard, along with her neighbor's back yard, with some areas eighteen inches wide and up to twelve inches deep with severe erosion back down to the clay layer. The new top soil was now spilled over into the back yard two houses down from the Stevens and collapsed the silt fence that they had erected to prevent just this from occurring. Now this homeowner has a huge problem in his yard because of all the top soil and the silt as well as the top soil sitting in the yard creating a mess of the beautiful lawn which previously had had no problems.
Ms. Stevens stated they contacted their attorney, Richard K. O'Neil, and he advised them to check with the town regarding acceptance of the development. On Thursday, May 29, she and her husband went to the Enfield Town Hall and spoke with John Cabibbo in Jeff Bord's absence. They expressed their interest in having someone come out from the town to see the problem. Someone came out to the development and looked around and got back to her husband on June 5 and stated that based on what they had seen that there was a problem and to contact Mr. Giner to try to delay the acceptance until such time as improvements to the drainage issues were made. On June 20, Ms. Stevens wrote a letter and sent it to Jeff Bord, Jose Giner, Neil Angus, the Enfield Department of Public Health, John Kazmarski and Attorney Richard K. O'Neil. She received no reply from this letter and she read this letter for the Commission's benefit. In the letter, she requested the Town of Enfield consider withholding the release of any bonds and making acceptance of this development and street contingent upon the effective resolution of these drainage issues. Ms. Stevens ended with a comment questioning if the Commission is put in place to protect the town and not the consumer, who protects the consumer. They would also like to be notified when the Commission places this development, Riverview Estates, on its agenda for acceptance.
Reg Leonard, 42 Fairfield Road, stated he has lived in Enfield for forty-three years. He is the father of Karen Camidge, the first speaker. He noted on previous occasions, he has always found this Commission to be fair, attentive and concerned with the homeowners and taxpayers views and concerns. He cited the Enfield Subdivision Regulations and requested some verification. Regarding the definition of a grade, it states "a grade is the amount of the rise in vertical feet expressed as a percent." Under preservation of natural beauty and grading of top soil, the regulations require the sub-divider to try to keep and preserve the existing features and states: "no land shall be graded except as shown on the final plan approved by this Commission. No soil shall be removed from any portion of this subdivision except if it is to be used in that subdivision. If soil is removed, the Commission shall require the replacement of the amount which it deems adequate and necessary for proper landscape development."
Mr. Leonard further cited additional language in the Subdivision Regulations which states "when grading, the sub-divider shall take special measures to prevent undue erosion." The Regulations note that if there have to be corrections, the sub-divider will show methods of stabilizing slopes against erosion and against water damage.
Mr. Leonard stated the release of the subdivision bond has to be approved by the Director of Public Works in accordance with the approved plans. He has to have a detailed set of as built plans in front of him before he signs it and it has to be approved by a land surveyor certified in the State of Connecticut. The bond should be held for one year after the acceptance of the street.
Mr. Leonard stated he has been told during his visits to the Engineering Department that the bond can be released any time and it doesn't need the homeowner's approval.
Mr. Leonard cited the components covered by the bond and emphasized erosion and sediment control. The Town Engineer has to approve the sewage disposal, the water supply, the roads, the curbs and any other engineering aspects as required by the town's regulations.
Mr. Leonard brought up the check list and read from the list. He has a problem with the Engineering Department review which states "building permit, plot plan and permit compliance check list." He discussed the items like proposed grading, professional engineering seal, erosion and sediment control, site drainage, site grading, and approved building lots. There is a check list regarding whether such are adequate or inadequate and a space for corrective measures.
Mr. Leonard reviewed the erosion and sediment control measures contained in the Subdivision Regulations. He questioned if all this is only for the protection of the Town because, in his opinion, it also has to be for the protection of the homeowner.
Mr. Leonard presented the General Statutes of the State of Connecticut as revised on January 1, 2001. He read excerpts from the Statutes regarding the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act.
Mr. Leonard summarized the effects of both the Town's and State's regulations are that no land shall be graded except based upon the plan approved by the Town, no soil shall be removed and where topsoil has been removed, the Town requires it to be put back.
Mr. Leonard presented the Commission with a copy of the topographical map which shows the Camidge house, the house next to it and the house on the other side. If the rules of this topographical map are followed, the house going down the hill would be at 129' and the Camidge house at 140'. However, that is not what happened. Mr. Leonard also presented pictures of the area and stated it is beyond fathom when viewing these pictures how Mr. Giner can show up at a house and say this is acceptable building. Mr. Leonard asked that the Commission members review the pictures showing the grading and the soil erosion of these expensive houses noting that someone is not doing their job.
Mr. Leonard presented additional pictures of when the Camidge foundation was being dug. It shows the dirt and it shows the flat land behind it. He stated the present erosion goes down both sides of the house and right through the back yard. You cannot have a picnic or anything else in the back yard.
Mr. Leonard stated he is dismayed and upset with builder's comments of what you see is what you get and I don't have to fix a notable problem because the town doesn't enforce it and they do not require me to do so. He is also upset with the Enfield Planning Department saying unless there is water around your foundation, we cannot get involved. Mr. Leonard made reference to an article printed two days ago in the Journal Inquirer in regard to businesses located in Enfield. The article states that the Town Planner remarked that we meet with the business applicant and instead of talking about roadblocks, we talk about solutions. The Town Manager, Scott Shanley, said the town is willing to work with people as long as they understand what it takes to do business here. Mr. Leonard emphasized that certainly the builder, Somerset Homes, does not understand that because the sixteenth house in a 16-lot development was left in such an unacceptable condition. He suggested the planners should consider homeowners as a business because apparently what is good for business is not good for the homeowner.
Mr. Leonard discussed other newspaper articles regarding residential development. He quoted from one article which stated "we do not rip up farmland. We transform it to front and back yards where children will soon be making snowmen. We create kitchens where Thanksgiving will be prepared. We install fireplaces where you can read your favorite newspaper. A safe and secure home is a fundamental requirement for an improvement in quality of life. For most of us, it is the most expensive and best investment we will ever make."
Mr. Leonard stated these are expensive homes and this builder does not show him integrity. He ended with a statement that the Planning and Zoning Commission is established to protect the Town's interests, not only building in Town but signs, wetlands and other factors and they do a great job. However, he felt this Commission has some liability to ensure that property owners are protected. This is why the regulations were put in effect with requirements for topographical and as built maps all done by certified professionals. They are to be reviewed, they are to be accepted, and they are to be followed. Mr. Leonard noted the homeowners need a level of confidence that they are going to be treated fairly and they should not be required the additional expense of surveyors and engineers to prove that they have been wronged.
Fred Goodman, 4 Rocket Run, stated he has lived at this location since 1960. In his opinion, the zoning rules that apply to Thompsonville and Hazardville should not be the same for subdivisions such as Southwood Acres, Green Manorville, the Presidential area, or the Grandview Drive area. He felt the homeowners should get a break from this Commission. The Commission has vast control over businesses but no control over businesses being run from residential properties. He has brought his neighbors with him today to testify to that fact. They have suffered for over four years, called Wayne Bickley and talked to Mr. Giner but they have gotten no relief whatsoever. Mr. Goodman stated they have a neighbor who is running a cement business from his home. He loads his truck any time of the day or night and he sometimes starts his truck and goes into his house for twenty or thirty minutes. He questioned if Commission members know what a diesel truck can do to the air in one's bedroom and how sick it can make you. They have not been able to leave their bedroom windows open for over four years because the windows are only twenty feet from this neighbor's driveway. Mr. Goodman noted this Commission is considering lessening the zoning rules and every time Commissioner DiPace speaks the trucks get bigger, heavier and louder. In his opinion, Mr. DiPace has a second agenda.
Mr. Goodman noted the noise created by throwing iron bars on to a flat bed truck at 3:00 a.m. Sometimes other trucks meet this neighbor early in the morning to pick up supplies that are stored on the lawn. This neighbor is using his property as a storage depot. He bought his house with the intent of running a cement business from it. This is a seven day a week operation which never stops. There are three trucks, flat bed trailers and cement smoothing machines all over the lawn. When the neighbors started complaining, this person was advised to change his license plate from commercial to combination. Now he says the neighbors cannot do a thing about it because of those plates.
Mr. Goodman stated he is not the only neighbor that has complained about this business. Even people on the next street have complained. But not much has been done to stop this business. He fears that if the Town relaxes the ordinance pertaining to trucks for business parked on residential lots, things will get a lot worse than they are today. The town has had strong legislation and nothing has been done. Mr. Giner knows about this business and Mr. Goodman has also talked to Commissioners Duren and Egan.
Mr. Goodman offered his thoughts regarding commercial vehicles. On commercial vehicles on residential property, the truck must be parked at least seventy-five feet from a neighbor's window. No excessive idling of these commercial vehicles. No diesel engine trucks should be allowed. Combination plates or commercial plates would have no bearing on the truck's main purpose. Commercial material used in business must be stored in a shed or garage. Residential property should not be used as a supply depot. Trucks should not be repaired on residential property such as replacing engines, transmissions and brakes.
Vice Chairman Duren asked if Mr. Goodman has a copy of the proposed ordinance regarding commercial trucks. Some of those items are included. Mr. Goodman stated his neighbors fear that this Commission is going to weaken this ordinance so much. In listening to Mr. DiPace, every time he speaks, the trucks get bigger, the engines get bigger and he is comparing them to recreational vehicles.
Vice Chairman Duren stated the proposed allowable truck size is presently 10' x 10'. There will be a public hearing held on the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Goodman presented pictures to the Commission and entered them as evidence of what is occurring on his street. Vice Chairman Duren suggested Mr. Goodman bring these to the public hearing. He was unwilling to wait that long and asked if anyone on the Commission can justify what is going on on his street.
Mr. Goodman stated the present speakers referred to protecting the homeowners and he is also talking about protecting the homeowners. He stated he sent an email to Mr. Duren and has not received a response. Vice Chairman Duren noted it was sent to Town Hall and he has not yet received it.
Vice Chairman Duren requested that Mr. Giner provide the Commission with a written report from Mr. Bickley regarding whether this property owner is running a business on Rocket Run. Secondly, he asked that whoever enforces the noise ordinance check on this residence on Rocket Run to see if he is complying with the noise ordinance. Mr. Giner stated the Police Department enforces the noise ordinance. Vice Chairman Duren requested that Mr. Giner inform them of this situation.
Mr. Goodman asked that the Commission pay more attention to the homeowners and not let people run businesses from their homes. He stated the present situation on Rocket Run is unacceptable and the residents need help.
Betty Geal, 1 Rocket Run, supported Mr. Goodman's comments. In February, 1999, she contacted Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley and explained their problem. She stated there were box trucks that were left open in the back. There were several other trucks and, at times, there were trailer hitches in the back with all kinds of cement chutes exposed. There were also backhoes on the property. Ms. Geal stated this went on for months and Mr. Bickley informed her that he had to go through the proper channels and, if necessary, he would take it to court. The fine ordinance was eliminated in June of this year at a special meeting of the Town Council. At that meeting, the Town Manager indicated that Mr. Bickley did not use this ordinance because he has other effective options including referring troublesome matters to state prosecutors. Ms. Geal has made calls to Mayor Strom and things improved somewhat. She noted the noise from the repair work being done and despite her calls to Mr. Bickley, she received no satisfaction whatsoever. He never asked her name and he told Mr. Goodman he could not do anything because people did not give their names. Other neighbors have complained and Ms. Geal felt the Town and Mr. Bickley have let the residents down because they are still living with a business across the street four years later. Ms. Geal stated at one time this resident planned to build a three-car garage on the property resulting in the removal of trees located in the wetlands. She called the wetlands agent on this noting that many trees were destroyed.
Vice Chairman Duren stated the upkeep of property ordinance recently passed by the Enfield Town Council may assist in resolving this matter.
Vice Chairman Duren asked that Mr. Giner check on whether this person has a permit to run a business from his home and whether he is in compliance with the noise ordinance and the upkeep of property ordinance.
Vice Chairman Duren suggested that residents get a copy of the proposed ordinance regarding commercial vehicles from the Planning Department and appear at the public hearing.
Maryanne Turner, 7 Meadow Road, stated she is before the Commission tonight regarding her eight-year complaint regarding Pheasant Hill. She is still waiting for the landscaping plan update since residents are continuing to do work in the buffer. She strongly urged the Commission to put a new landscaping plan on the books so that the town has something to enforce.
Mr. Giner stated if the residents want to plant additional trees, that is acceptable to the Town. Ms. Turner stated the residents were given permission to plant additional trees in the buffer but not to plant arborvitae down the exclusive use line. The Commission had residents take fencing down and now there is a gentleman installing rows of arborvitae. Ms. Turner felt this reinforces the need for a new landscaping plan. Mr. Giner stated they discussed the plantings with the homeowner and the consensus was that he did not have to come in. Mr. Giner stated the interpretation is the homeowner is allowed to plant extra trees. Ms. Turner argued that the resident is not a homeowner but a condo owner. Vice Chairman Duren asked if the Association gave the owner permission to install the trees. Mr. Giner stated he believes so. Ms. Turner would like to have it in writing.
Ms. Turner stated Pheasant Hill had to come back in with a new landscaping plan previously because they changed what was on the original plan. She suggested if the plans are now not worth anything, that the Commission reconsider their time spent because they cannot enforce something if the plan is not used. Ms. Turner elaborated on the other issues that have been before the Commission over the past eight years.
Ms. Turner stated she and her husband have to act like they are in the demilitarized zone in their back yard because every weekend the residents are mowing, clipping, trimming, digging, and planting. These activities should be confined to near their building.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission has to follow the law. The town regulates to protect the adjacent properties. If someone wants to plant roses in their yards or the common area or plant extra arborvitae, as long as they do not plant less than required or remove the buffer area that is there to protect the residents, no action can be taken. Mr. Giner stated if this issue of extra trees was brought to court, the judge would ask that he show where in the regulations it states they cannot plant additional trees. Ms. Turner stated the response would be that the developer has a landscape plan to follow.
Vice Chairman Duren stated if the condominium complex gives a home owner permission to plant additional trees, they can do so. Ms. Turner stated they can okay it but they also have to come back to the Commission for a modification to the approved plan if there is a major landscaping change. Ms. Turner felt the change of a resident planting arborvitae on both sides of his exclusive use area is similar to installing a fence. Mr. Giner stated the trees are not a structure. Ms. Turner felt the Association should come before the Commission and request this change and change the plan to reflect it.
Vice Chairman Duren requested that Mr. Giner obtain a letter from the Pheasant Hill Association informing the town that they have authorized the planting of the arborvitae. Ms. Turner felt if they are going to augment the landscaping plan, this would require approval by this Commission.
Mr. Giner stated the Association asked ahead of time if they could plant trees and he gave his okay. Vice Chairman Duren stated they need to come in with a new plan.
Ms. Turner discussed other incidents that have occurred in the buffer area. Commissioner Cooper suggested Ms. Turner may want to consider moving. Ms. Turner stated she and her neighbors have never requested that the Commission do anything that was not on the plan.
Vice Chairman Duren stated Mr. Giner will go to the site and see what can be done and if the present plan is being followed.
Maryanne Turner, 7 Meadow Road, discussed the truck issue. Vice Chairman Duren stated the public hearing on trucks will be November 20, 2003. Ms. Turner stated the truck on her street has a leak and she is at the point where she is going to have to call the DEP because the leakage is running across the street into the storm drain.
Brian Peruta, 33 Celtic Court, stated he has driven by Rocket Run and it was enlightening. He discussed the myriad of equipment on the property. Mr. Peruta stated he has recently had the opportunity to walk through District 1. He noted he was surprised by how many people owned commercial trucks. He suggested that if Commission members have an opportunity prior to the November 20 public hearing, they should drive around the various neighborhoods. He noted the showing from the people about the truck ordinance revision represents only a small sub set of the people out there with trucks.
Mr. Peruta noted there are probably ten times more recreational vehicles than trucks. Commissioner Egan stated that was brought forward by a member of the community who wanted this Commission to address rv's because the regulations don't address them. The Commission decided to deal with this issue after the truck ordinance revisions.
Commissioner Egan stated the proposed truck ordinance revision deals with all the concerns and there is a provision to protect the homeowners, the special permit process. The weight limits have gone up and there is some control by this Commission through the special permit process. These provisions are necessary in the ordinance to deal with any abuses. Commissioner Egan felt what the Commission has come up with is a reasonable solution.
Mr. Peruta stated he has read the proposed ordinance but what he wanted to share with the Commission is that it is not as small of a problem as he thought it was initially. The impact of what this Commission does will be huge if the Commission chooses to enforce the ordinances they put in.
Commissioner Egan stated there is a need to protect the homeowners and the residential areas. He wants to protect property values and noted aesthetics in residential areas is also an issue.
Mr. Peruta stated people deserve safety and deserve to have their property values protected. Regarding Rocket Run, he would not live there. He advised the Commission to be cautious with their approach because with some of the homes he viewed, people are just getting by.
Vice Chairman Duren requested that Mr. Giner provide the Commission with a copy of the newly passed town ordinance regarding upkeep of property.
Reg Leonard spoke for a second time and stated he has five additional pictures of Grand View Drive. One of the residents gave him a picture of his home and the cul de sac taken last winter. He also presented additional information regarding one of the pictures he previously presented to the Commission showing the loam and questioning where did the loam go. He noted on two occasions in November or the first week in December last year, he saw one truck load one day drive up the street and out. On another day, he saw another truck load drive up the street and out. He was not aware where the loam went but all the other homes and the street was done. The Town's regulations state that no soil shall be removed from any portion unless used in the subdivision. The regulations also state that the Commission requires such soil to be replaced for proper landscaping.
Vice Chairman Duren requested that Mr. Giner provide the Commission with a written report from the Engineering Department on Grand View Drive's engineering and grading and why it can't be done according to the approved plan. Regarding the erosion, he would like Mr. Angus to visit the area and provide a written report to the Commission.
Commissioner Egan stated he asked at the last meeting for the original plans for the subdivision approved by this Commission. He also asked to see the copies of the as builts. He now would ask that Mr. Giner also provide the Commission with a copy of the sedimentation and erosion plan that is called for in the regulations. He noted the regulations have since been changed but he would assume that the prior regulations required that the developer provide a sedimentation and erosion plan. Commissioner Egan stated he requested these items for the last meeting and he would like to receive them.
Vice Chairman Duren noted the roads have not yet been accepted and the bonds have not been released. He noted if the roads have not been accepted, that the company be notified that they are responsible for the plowing this year.
Mr. Giner explained the maintenance bond to the residents. After the engineering bond is released, it is replaced with a fifteen percent (of the original bond) maintenance bond to be held by the Town for one year to guarantee the road improvements. Mr. Giner stated the bonds that the town estimates are for the public improvements of the subdivision.
Commissioner Hickey stated he would like a response to the assertion that someone made that if this was Suffield, it would be a different story and Enfield does not enforce their ordinances. Mr. Giner stated the town does not take bonds on individual permits as some towns do. Some towns have a restoration bond and a stabilization bond which guarantees that the lot gets stabilized.
Vice Chairman Duren stated the Town Council spend some money on another development in town and he did not feel this Commission should be putting the Council in jeopardy to spend additional money. Vice Chairman Duren also directed Mr. Giner to find out where the soil went.
CORRESPONDENCE
Vice Chairman Duren reported receipt of a report from Neil Angus. He congratulated Mr. Angus on amending the Ground Water Reclassification Application.
Correspondence also includes letters Mr. Giner sent to Panera Bread regarding their landscaping change and also LIA Auto Group regarding their minor site plan modifications.
Vice Chairman Duren asked if Mr. Giner received his message regarding LIA Auto Group. Mr. Giner stated it was dark and they were out on Palomba Drive unloading a car carrier and blocking traffic. Their plans indicated there would be no such unloading of cars on town streets.
Correspondence includes a letter granting a wetlands permit to the American Inn. There is also a Historic District Commission Notice of Action for September 24 and October 22, 2003 and an Inland Wetlands Notice of Action for October 23, 2003.
Vice Chairman Duren stated there are a couple of upcoming conventions and he distributed the information on these.
COMMISSIONERS' CORRESPONDENCE
Commissioner Lefakis stated in the Hartford area there is an organization called the Greater Hartford Interstate Coalition for Equity and Justice. What they are doing is working with city people and state legislators to try to enact a change in the state laws which will allow a split rate property tax. This will allow a higher tax rate for abandoned and derelict property. They have done this in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and they have found it has provided an incentive for property to be used. Commissioner Lefakis suggested if the Commission feels that this is a worthwhile cause that they should send a letter from the Commission to the legislative representatives informing them this Commission is in support.
Commissioner Lefakis stated he has noticed in other communities that they have public school signs with a changeable marquis to advertise upcoming events. He suggested modifying Enfield's sign regulations for schools to allow such a changeable marquis. Mr. Giner will look into such a change. Commissioner Lefakis stated by allowing such marquis signs, it may make the freestanding signs currently at the schools unnecessary.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2407 - Zone Change from Residential-33 (R-33) to Business Local (BL) for property located at 867 and 851 Enfield Street, Map 26, Lots 23 and 26, Troiano Professional Center, LLC, Applicant/Owner.
Anthony Troiano, Jr. and Frank J. Troiano, representing Troiano properties, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Frank Troiano stated they are requesting a zone change for 867 and 851 Enfield Street. Those properties are contiguous and are located on the corner of Enfield and Elm Streets and across the street from the Enfield Town Hall. They are requesting a residential zone change from R-33 to a Business Local zone.
Vice Chairman Duren asked if the zone change would include the home located on Elm Street. Frank Troiano stated it would also include that property.
Commissioner Cooper asked if the applicants had any information regarding future plans. Frank Troiano stated they submitted a rendering of what could fit on the property as required but it is not what they have anticipated for the actual tenancy. They do not have a tenant for the property and do not yet know the specifics. They would come back at a future date with an application for the property.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission has received print outs from the GIS maps showing this site. One shows the land use plan that the town's Plan of Conservation and Development shows for this parcel. It designates it as being commercial in the future. The other map shows the current zoning which indicates that the property is abutted by Business Local on the south, Enfield Town Hall and Thompsonville Village zoning to the north, and the other side is Business General. Mr. Giner noted the change in zone would fit in with the surrounding zones.
Mr. Giner stated staff has had various discussions about what could be located on this site. There were concerns about traffic and the location of the driveways no matter what type of use locates here. The proposal would fall into the design district and the applicants have been sensitive to the fact that the property needs to fit in with what is across the street on that corner.
Commissioner Egan stated this zone change would comply with the Plan of Conservation and Development. The group from this area wanted to see it changed from Residential to Business so the property would blend in with the area. Commissioner Lefakis saw this property as becoming a mirror image of what is located on the other side of the street.
Mr. Giner discussed the history of this property and noted the proposed plan is a concept plan which is required by the regulations. He added that a two-way driveway at this location would be difficult.
Vice Chairman Duren opened this application to the public.
Lorette Starr from Ellington, Connecticut, stated she is in favor of this proposal. She owns property in Enfield both on Prospect Street and on Elm Street.
Vice Chairman Duren closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve PH#2407 for a zone change from R-33 to Business Local (BL) for property located at 867 and 851 Enfield Street, Map 26, Lots 23 and 26, Troiano Professional Center, LLC, Applicant/Owner. The motion was approved by a 6 - 0 - 0 vote.
The reason for approval is the application complies with the Enfield Master Plan of Development and the change of zone is compatible with abutting properties.
b. PH#2411 - Special Use Permit for a change to a non-conforming use from office to beauty salon at 173 Elm Street in an R-33 District, Map 57, Lot #202, Elm Tree, LLC, Applicant/Owner.
Gerald R. Starr, representing Elm Tree, LLC, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated this location at 173 Elm Street has had a barber shop for many years. Later there was a hair salon and recently Edward Jones, an office. They would now like to go back to the hair salon use which has been a use at this location for the past thirty years. Mr. Starr stated his wife plans on operating this beauty salon.
Commissioner Cooper stated at one point with the office use, this use was becoming more conforming. Vice Chairman Duren stated this building has been an electric or plumbing company, there is presently a plumbing company located in the back and it has always been a mixed use. Mr. Starr confirmed it has always been a mixed use and stated they used to have offices above. They found that was not a good use for the upstairs. They now have an apartment above and his son-in-law has a photo studio there.
Mr. Starr addressed the fact that this zone really should be Business Local. He knows this subject has arisen previously and he suggested to Jose Giner that the zone change should at least be up to Spring Garden. He noted that every time they put a new tenant into their building, they have to come before the Commission and they really shouldn't have to do so because they are located in a Business Local area.
Vice Chairman Duren stated the idea of a zone change for this area had gone to a public hearing and it was tabled until all the road changes were in place. Mr. Starr stated if the zone change cannot apply to the whole street, he suggested the Commission consider stopping it at Spring Garden. Vice Chairman Duren stated this subject will come up again in the near future after people get used to the changes on Elm Street.
Commissioner Krebs asked about the hours of operation. Mrs. Starr stated 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday with no weekends.
Mr. Giner stated this property has been used consistently as a commercial property. It had been used as a beauty salon previously. It came before the Commission previously for a change from one nonconforming use to another for an office use.
Mr. Giner stated there was some discussion for a change of zone for a limited office use in this location. The regulations are on the town's books but there is no such zone yet. It has been an issue as to what to do with this side of Elm Street. The zone change was pulled at the same time as the Commission was considering the changes in the zoning regulations. The consensus was to wait to see what occurred with the realignment of Freshwater and St. James. That construction will be completed shortly along with the Asnuntuck College road work. At some point, the Commission will be able to see what changes occur in the traffic patterns.
Vice Chairman Duren asked for public input. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Vice Chairman Duren closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve PH#2411, Special Use Permit for a change to a nonconforming use from an office to a beauty salon at 173 Elm Street subject to the following conditions:
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of a Zoning Permit:
1. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
2. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
General Conditions:
3. This approval is for the specific use and structures identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structures will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
4. No new construction or site work is approved as part of this application.
5. This project shall be operated and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
6. Use of premises as approved must commence by November 6, 2004 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
The motion was approved by a 6 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Cooper voting.
The reason for approval is the use complies with what is presently at this location and what had been there in the past and the use proposed does not increase the nonconformity.
Mr. Starr requested that the Commission consider more than office uses for this area. Mr. Giner stated that is what the limited office allows and that is what was proposed for the Elm Street area at the time.
c. PH#2414 - Modification of a Special Use Permit to allow a change from a restaurant to a café liquor permit for premises located at 95 Elm Street, d.b.a. Chicago Sam's, in a BR District, Map 43, Lot 1, Union Bell, LLC, Applicant, KIOP Enfield LP, Owner.
Vice Chairman Duren read a letter dated November 4, 2003 from E. Stentaford, 30 Franklin Street, stating his opposition to allowing any change or modification to the Special Use Permit for Chicago Sam's.
George Colli of Union Bell, LLC, the owner of Chicago Sam's, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated when they decided to open the restaurant in Enfield, they came before the Commission and received a special use permit for a restaurant. This is primarily what they are but with the recent enactment of the smoking ban, the way the law was written, it really has not made the playing field level. The current law says restaurants must cease allowing smoking on October 1, 2003 but cafes and bars have until April 1, 2004. What this has done is put them at a disadvantage. There are restaurants in town in which patrons are allowed to smoke and there are restaurant/bars like Chicago Sam's where smoking is not allowed.
Mr. Colli stated he is not here to argue about whether the smoking ban is good policy or not. What they think is bad policy is that the law was enacted in such a way where a business owner in Enfield on one side of the street could continue to allow smoking in his facility whereas the restaurant across the street would not be allowed to have smoking. Since they made their application, the Governor has come out and now there may be a change in the regulations in this session of the legislature which may allow cafes to continue to have smoking after the April 1 deadline.
Mr. Colli stated they have not allowed smoking in Chicago Sam's since October 1, 2003. About seventy percent of their customers do not want the smoking. Contrary to what the paper says, their business has not suffered because of it. He feels that may be a result of the Red Sox/Yankees series and not whether or not smoking is allowed.
Mr. Colli stated they are trying to be proactive. They will not automatically allow smoking should this change of permit be granted. It would give them the option to do so and if they felt it was having a dramatic effect, they could be on a level playing field with the rest of the establishments. If the law changes and the legislature allows cafes to continue to allow smoking, they could then decide whether they wanted to have a smoking area. The present law has put them at a disadvantage and the only way to rectify it is to request a change to the permit.
Mr. Colli stated they have over forty employees, a major portion of their business is food and they have no intention of changing that. The operation would not change other than possibly allowing smoking at times and they would at least like to have the option to be able to do that.
Commissioner Krebs asked if smoking would be allowed in the whole area. Mr. Colli stated if the Commission approves this change, they are not going to reinstate all ash trays tonight. They want to have the option when it gets colder to allow smoking or if the legislature changes the legislation, they want to be able to make the decision themselves.
Commissioner Cooper asked the difference between a café and restaurant permit. Mr. Colli stated in a restaurant there is a separation between the bar area and the restaurant area. At Chicago Sam's, the separation is by a backstop fence. In a café, you are not required to have a separation between the bar room and the restaurant. The second difference is in a restaurant section they can have minors sit in the restaurant portion. He noted at Chicago Sam's, they have students from Suffield Academy come over and eat and watch a game. They would not be able to come in any more with a café permit without someone over twenty-one being responsible for them. Now, they can come on their own by bus. Mr. Colli said they like that business and that is one of the reasons they may not change even if they are allowed to do so.
Mr. Colli stated the main difference between the two uses is the food issue. Night clubs and some bars can have a very limited menu or no menu for food and operate strictly as a liquor establishment as a café. As a restaurant, they are required to serve a hot meal a certain percentage of the time they are open.
Commissioner Lefakis asked if the Commission were to say it is okay for Chicago Sam's to have a café permit, this does not mean they are required to do so with the state. Mr. Colli confirmed that is correct. If the Commission approves this change tonight, he would ask that one of the conditions of the approval be subject to approval by the State Liquor Control Commission. This would allow him to continue to operate as a restaurant and not make any changes The Commission's formal approval for a café would not take effect until he gets a formal application to the Liquor Control Commission and receives their approval as a café. That could take until April to receive such an approval.
Mr. Colli stated he is not sure they are going to make that application but if the Governor changes the law and allows cafes to continue to have smoking, he will at that point make the application for a café permit and set aside a portion of the restaurant for smoking. He cited the fact that Massachusetts allows smoking and being on the border is a disadvantage with a smoking ban.
Mr. Giner stated he has been to Chicago Sam's and he is sensitive to smoke. He felt their collection systems are probably the best and they do have an effective air exchange program.
Vice Chairman Duren asked if there was anyone to speak in favor or against this application.
Randy Baker, 7 Arrow Street, spoke about the smoking ban and stated what he sees at restaurants where smoking is not allowed is patrons cannot get in and out of them because of the crowd of people standing outside smoking. He cited Panera Bread and the Olive Garden where he sees this occurring. He felt if smoking is allowed inside, the front doors will be accessible.
Vice Chairman Duren closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to approve a modification of a Special Use Permit for Chicago Sam's to allow a change from a restaurant to a café liquor permit for premises located at 95 Elm Street pending approval by the Liquor Control Commission. The motion was approved by a 6 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Cooper voting.
The reason for approval is the business will continue to operate as they have been.
OLD BUSINESS
a. Bond Releases
1. PH#2310 - Request for release of Erosion and Sediment Control Bond in the amount of $3,480 for Lia Volkswagen 140-148 Elm Street.
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to release the Erosion and Sediment Control Bond in the amount of $3,480 for Lia Volkswagen, 140-148 Elm Street. The motion was approved by a 6 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Cooper voting.
2. SPR#1173 - Request for release of Erosion and Sediment Control Bond in the amount of $3,000 for DLA Enterprises, 18 Mullen Road.
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to release the Erosion and Sediment Control Bond in the amount of $3,000.00 for DLA Enterprises, 18 Mullen Road. The motion was approved by a 6 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Cooper voting.
b. SPR#1244 - Application to allow first phase redevelopment of an existing 112,800 square foot structure for use as a warehouse distribution facility at 1559 King Street, zoned SDD, Map 17, Lot 39, Sound Enfield Group, LLC, Owner/Applicant.
Vice Chairman Duren noted receipt of a letter dated November 4, 2003 from Attorney Herbert Krasow, Krasow, Garlick & Hadley, requesting a continuance of SPR#1244 to the next available meeting.
Vice Chairman Duren asked about the time clock for this application. Mr. Giner stated this application cannot go beyond the November 20, 2003 meeting without an extension request. Vice Chairman Duren requested that Mr. Giner reinstate including the necessary legal dates on the agendas.
This application will be heard at the November 20, 2003 meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR#1243 - Application for construction of a new medical office/professional building and associated site work already approved by the Commission in 2001. Permit expired early 2003 at 103 Phoenix Avenue, zoned I-1, Map 46, Lot 27, Viola and Hills Realty, Owner/PDS Engineering and Construction, Applicant.
Following some discussion on when to reschedule this site plan review due to the applicant not being present, Frank Borawski, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission.
Mr. Borawski of PDS Engineering and Construction, stated this application was approved approximately two years ago. The only change to the original plan is they would like to screen in their container which contains the Sunday inserts. They have a drop off container and they are planning to install it in the area shown on the plans.
Vice Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner where the ordinance is regarding dumpsters and other containers which would limit the use of them in residential areas. Mr. Giner will provide this document in the future.
Mr. Borawski stated this medical/professional office building was previously approved. It is still proposed to be a two-story building. It is a full brick building similar to the Hartford Courant building that is existing. He pointed out the area designated to screen in the container/trailer fenced in by a slatted chain link fence.
Commissioner Krebs noted the Commission previously denied such containers being at this location. Mr. Giner stated the container was located in the middle of the parking lot. What they are saying is they want to put the container in a location where it will not be seen. Mr. Borawski stated the container would be up against the building and would be fenced in. They are requesting a re-approval with the addition of the container.
Commissioner Hickey asked about the other trailers that were located on this property. Mr. Borawski stated this is the only trailer that will be on the site and it will be located right up against the building.
Commissioner Lefakis stated about a week ago there was a trailer there and a storage unit. One was with wheels and one was without wheels. There is also a wood constructed building on the site.
Commissioner Cooper suggested a condition that if the trailer is removed, that the screening also be removed. Mr. Giner stated the Commission can approve this application or modify and approve it.
Mr. Giner stated they had applied to leave the trailer in the middle of the parking lot as a container. What they are now saying is they want an area screened, similar to what other businesses are allowed, that will be located up against the building and not visible. Mr. Borawski stated the fence will be a nine and a half feet high chain link fence with slats.
Commissioner Hickey asked if the building is going to be a medical building. Mr. Borawski stated the owner lost the medical tenant and now is proposing this building as a professional office/medical building but at this time it is speculative.
Mr. Giner noted the concerns of the Engineering Office are covered in the proposed conditions. Also, this application was re-approved by Wetlands at their October 22, 2003 meeting.
Commissioner Hickey asked about the likelihood of the owner beginning construction without a firm tenant. Mr. Borawski stated once he fills the existing building, he will do this building.
Commissioner Hickey stated he is in favor of office construction in town but he has a concern that this application is an effort regarding the trailer. Vice Chairman Duren recommended approval and adding language that the Commission is not approving a storage trailer with or without wheels on the property.
Commissioner Egan noted if the Commission approves these plans, they are very specific regarding the number of offices. With it being a speculative building, if the Commission approves this plan, wouldn't the effect be that they would have to do exactly what is on this plan. Mr. Borawski stated the reason for the plan initially was because of the traffic count and the fact that doctors' offices are more restrictive regarding parking. They came up with a worse case scenario parking count and that is how the plan was derived.
Mr. Giner stated the criteria for changing use is the parking demand increases. Developers typically come in with the highest parking calculation. In this case, medical office has the highest parking demand for any type of office use. If the building is leased to someone else, they would not have to come back because they have provided extra parking.
Commissioner Cooper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve SPR#1243 - application for construction of a new medical office/professional building and associated site work at 103 Phoenix Avenue, Zoned I-1, Map 46, Lot 27, PDS Engineering & Construction / Frank Borawski, applicant / Viola & Hills Realty, owner. This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
- "Phoenix Medical Complex Site Plan of Development, Lot #83 South Road, Enfield, CT. List of Drawings (Site Plan Application)" Prepared by PDS Engineering & Construction, Inc.
- "Phoenix Medical Complex, South Road, Enfield, CT. Site Layout Plan" Sheet C-100, Scale: 1"=40', Prepared by PDS Engineering & Construction, Inc., dated 6-14-01, revised to 10-8-03.
- "Phoenix Medical Complex, South Road, Enfield, CT. Site Grading and Utilities" Sheet C-101, Scale: 1"=40', Prepared by PDS Engineering & Construction, Inc., dated 6-14-01, revised to 10-8-03.
- "Phoenix Medical Complex, South Road, Enfield, CT. Erosion Control/ demolition Plan" Sheet C-102, Scale: 1"=40', Prepared by PDS Engineering & Construction, Inc., dated 6-14-01, revised to 10-8-03.
- "Phoenix Medical Complex, South Road, Enfield, CT. Landscape Plan" Sheet C-103, Scale: 1"=40', Prepared by PDS Engineering & Construction, Inc., dated 6-14-01, revised to 9-13-01, revised to 10-8-03.
- "Phoenix Medical Complex, South Road, Enfield, CT. Site Plan Details & Notes" Sheet C-200, Scale: n.t.s, Prepared by PDS Engineering & Construction, Inc., dated 6-14-01, revised to 10-8-03.
- "Phoenix Medical Complex, South Road, Enfield, CT. Site Plan Details & Notes" Sheet C-201, Scale: n.t.s, Prepared by PDS Engineering & Construction, Inc., dated 6-14-01, revised to 10-8-03.
- "Phoenix Medical Complex, South Road, Enfield, CT. Preliminary Building Elevations" Sheet A-100, Scale: Not scale, Prepared by PDS Engineering & Construction, Inc., dated 6-14-01.
- "The Hartford Courant Enfield Distribution Center Phoenix Avenue, Enfield, Connecticut" Sheet A-1, Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0", Prepared by Plimpton & Hills Corporation, dated September 10, 2003.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
1. For all sewer pipes, show on the plans, the length, diameter, slope, location, and type of pipe; for inverts show elevation in and out, and for frames show elevation at the top.
2. There are two sidewalk details which do not match with regards to base depth and material. The minimum cross-section required is 5" depth of 4000 psi concrete on an 8" depth process aggregate base. The final plans submitted for signature shall correct this discrepancy.
3. The final plan shall indicate whether the walks will be flush with the proposed pavement. If the walks are to be flush, concrete wheel stops are recommended, to stop vehicles from parking over the walks. If the walks will not be flush, a detail section should be added to the plans to indicate how the transition is proposed.
4. The detail section for the pavement should meet the Town minimum base of 8" of processed aggregate.
5. A detail for the newly proposed site lights should be added to the plans.
6. Since all the drainage pipe proposed has less than 2 feet of cover, the storm trench detail shall call for processed aggregate from the pipe up to the base course of pavement and all the proposed pipe should be class V RCP.
7. Since some 18" pipe is proposed to be replaced with 24" pipe through an existing portion of the parking area, a pavement repair detail should be added to the plan and it should at least meet the minimums as required in the subdivision regulations.
8. The 745-0371 phone number in the Standard Town Notes is outdated and should be removed from the plans.
9. A dumpster pad detail should be added to the plans and at least meet the Town minimum requirements for 8" depth 4000 psi concrete with wire mesh reinforcing on an 8" depth process aggregate base. Any dumpster screening proposed should also be shown on the detail.
10. The sewer system shall conform to Town of Enfield Subdivision regulations, revised as of June 1992, and on the Town of Enfield Public Works Department drawings titled Typical details I, II and III.
11. The WPC division shall be provided with all necessary information regarding the need for grease traps.
12. The plans shall contain a note stating that "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."
13. The applicant shall provide necessary information to WPC regarding specific uses and any related processes that might accidentally discharge waste into the sanitary sewer system. Any discharge of x-ray processing waste will require a DEP Photo processing permit.
14. Four copies of final plan containing the Standard Town notes supplied by the Engineering Division shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.
15. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
16. The applicant shall post a bond for Site improvements in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney.
17. A Separate Erosion and Sediment Control Bond shall be submitted in the form of a passbook, pledged to the Town, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
18. A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Zoning Certificate of Compliance:
19. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance. In accordance with the regulations, the applicant shall also submit to the Planning Director, final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
General Conditions:
20. This approval is for the specific use and structures identified in the complete application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structures will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
21. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
22. A building permit for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained by November 6, 2004 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
23. 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.
24. The Commission is in no way authorizing a storage trailer with or without wheels on the property.
The motion was approved by a 6 - 0 - 0 vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
Vice Chairman Duren noted the information presented by Mr. Giner regarding A-frame signs and he stated he was disappointed an ordinance proposal was not presented. He stated there were several suggestions from business owners previously.
Mr. Giner stated he provided information on what other towns are doing. He asked if there is anything that the Commission would like to see incorporated in an ordinance for Enfield. Vice Chairman Duren stated Commissioner DiPace had made some suggestions regarding allowing them to have a sign out for five to seven days with such signs allowed three or four times a year.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission also mentioned limiting the number of such A-frame signs on a property. Vice Chairman Duren favored the regulations from Ledyard and Madison's Section 10.1.3b. Other Commissioners liked Portland's and Southington's.
Following some discussion, Vice Chairman Duren suggested Mr. Giner use Southington's regulations and remove any reference to banners. Mr. Giner stated he will make sure the property owner has to sign off on it so that there is only one tenant that applies.
Vice Chairman Duren requested that Mr. Giner put this proposed ordinance together for review at a future meeting.
Section 8-24 Referral - For recommendation of sale of property and building at 51 College Street (former North School) to David Berto, Housing Enterprises.
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to recommend to the Town Council approval of the sale of property and building at 51 College Street (former North School) to David Berto, Housing Enterprises. The motion was approved by a 6 - 0 - 0 vote.
APPLCATIONS TO BE ACCEPTED
The following applications were accepted by the Commission:
PH #2415 - Application for modification of approved Special Use Permit for Quiznos Subs Restaurant (next to Starbucks) at 9 Hazard Avenue, Zoned BR, Map 45, Lot 1, Westfield Corp. applicant/owner.
This application is scheduled for November 20, 2003.
PH #2416 - Application for a Special Use Permit for a monument sign for Starbucks Coffee at 9 Hazard Avenue, zoned BR, Map 45, Lot 1, Westfield Corp. applicant/owner.
This application is scheduled for November 20, 2003.
PH #2417 - Application for a Special Use Permit - change of non-conforming use to a Mortgage Company at 171 Elm Street, Zoned R-33, Map 57, Lot 201, James Travis Van Law Jr., Applicant / John & Lynda Lukach, owners.
A public hearing will be scheduled for December 6, 2003.
PH #2418 - Application for zoning regulation amendment to create RM-20 zone to permit multi-family uses and amendments related to creation of RM-20 zone, K&K Developers, LLC, Applicant.
A public hearing will be scheduled for December 6, 2003.
PH #2419 - Application for request for change of zoning district from Industrial 1 district (I-1) to multi-family residence district (RM-20), Map 64, Lots 69 & 70, K&K Developers, LLC, Applicant / Galaxy Management, Thomas J. Henshon & Norman Fine, Trustees, Owners.
A public hearing will be scheduled for December 6, 2003.
SPR #1246 - Application for a retail establishment (Dollar Store) at 95 High Street (former Domino's Pizza location), Zoned TV, Map 25, Lot 6, Mohammed Raheem, Applicant / Mr. & Mrs. Jimmy R. Lee, Sr., Owners.
It was the consensus of the Commission to allow Mr. Giner to handle this application administratively.
SPR #1247 - Application for necessary approvals on the replacement of paint and windows, first floor renovations and landscaping of the adjacent lot at 59 High Street and 53 Pearl Street, Zoned TV Map 24, Lot 81 & 82, Michael Deming, Applicant / Rose G. Ruggiero, Owner.
It was the consensus of the Commission to allow Mr. Giner to handle administratively the landscaping only for SPR#1247 with the balance of the application scheduled for December 6, 2003.
OTHER
Mr. Giner discussed the trellis over the seating area at Panera Bread. The Health Department did not feel this was a good idea for an area where food is served. Panera Bread would now like to include the same exterior awning in the area to fill in the gap. It was the consensus of the Commission to allow Mr. Giner to handle administratively the modification proposed by Panera Bread regarding extension of their exterior awning.
Mr. Giner brought up the covering of the entrances at Sylvia's Restaurant. It will be on the Enfield Revitalization's next agenda. Mr. Giner discussed the signage on the awnings which extend the signage beyond the maximum allowed. Some discussion followed regarding the lions that have been installed and other restaurant components. It was the consensus of the Commission that Sylvia's Restaurant would have to come before the Commission regarding modifications to the approved site plan.
The Commission allowed Mr. Giner to approve administratively the exterior glass changes for the proposed Old Navy Store to be located at Enfield Commons. Reference is made to a letter from Attorney Susan A. Hays, Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, dated November 4, 2003 regarding Old Navy.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Karen Krebs, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|
|
Last Modified: 11/5/2004 4:56:28 AM
|
|
|