|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2003
A Special Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, September 17, 2003 in the Enfield Room of the Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Vice Chairman Duren called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. (Chairman James Howard is presently away on military duty.)
PRESENT: Charles Duren, Vice Chairman
Anthony DiPace
Robert Egan
James Hickey, Jr.
Jeffrey Cooper, Alternate
Karen Weseliza, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
WORKSHOP RE: TRUCK PARKING REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Vice Chairman Duren welcomed tonight's workshop participants. He asked that audience members speak tonight but also return for the formal public hearing so that their comments will be part of the legal record.
Vice Chairman Duren read the current definition under Section 4.20.1 of the Enfield Zoning Ordinance: "Item 3. All commercial recreational vehicles must be stored inside garages or to the rear of an existing front building. No commercial vehicle exceeding ¾ ton capacity may be stored on a residential lot."
Commissioner DiPace stated when it says commercial in the ordinance, that means that the vehicle has to have commercial plates on it. If it has combination or camper plates, such vehicle can be over ¾ ton and it is permitted.
Mr. Giner confirmed the definition of commercial vehicles is #20 on page 7 which states: a vehicle which exceeds a gross weight of 5,000 pounds, licensed as a commercial vehicle and is regularly used in the conduct of a business, profession or trade.
Vice Chairman Duren questioned whether lettering should be included. He knows the Zoning Enforcement Officer has enforced lettering but there is nothing in the ordinance that says anything about lettering. Mr. Giner stated there is no prohibition against any kind of lettering. The Zoning Enforcement Officer may have used the fact that a truck had lettering to determine if it was a commercial vehicle.
Vice Chairman Duren recommended the following language for the revised ordinance: A commercial vehicle should be defined as any vehicle rated for a carrying capacity of over 11,000 pounds with a commercial and/or combination plates other than a vehicle used specifically for personal or recreational purposes. There should also be reference to any other vehicle regardless of carrying capacity or registration containing business or related materials which are visible off the premises and change the residential character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Giner stated the 11,000 pounds should be used instead of the ¾ ton because there could be different sizes including a larger truck that could have a rated capacity of ¾ ton.
Vice Chairman Duren noted it was brought to the Commission's attention at the last meeting that someone received a citation from the Zoning Enforcement Officer and changed the plates from commercial to combination plates.
An audience member stated the new ¾ ton trucks register at a gross vehicle weight of 14,000. Other audience members confirmed that many regular pickup trucks are over the 11,000 gross vehicle weight.
An audience member showed pictures of the dual wheel pickups that people buy for their travel trailers and noted they are way over the 11,000 gross vehicle weight.
Vice Chairman Duren stated he has suggested language that states other than a vehicle used specifically for personal or recreational purposes. This would eliminate the Commission considering such a vehicle because of its personal use.
An audience member asked if the weight or the size of the vehicle is the main consideration. Vice Chairman Duren stated he had requested information on size. One of the towns had 20' in length and had no height listed. Mr. Giner offered information on other town's ordinances. This audience member noted that if someone had his commercial vehicle in their yard and he had his non-commercial vehicle with a combination plate, they look pretty much the same unless there is lettering on the truck. If the intent is not to have a 26' box truck, that is a lot different. Vice Chairman Duren stated consideration has to be given to both the weight and size of the truck. Some truck owners presently have gone from a commercial plate to a combination plate and, therefore, avoided the regulation. He stated the combination plate could be a problem.
Mr. Giner stated the 15' vehicles that the public can rent are approximately 11,000 gross vehicle weight. Mr. Giner also pointed out the 17' easy loader, which is about 11,000 gross vehicle weight, is the longest u-haul type truck available. He detailed other truck sizes for the Commission.
Commissioner Egan stated some regulations define it by gross vehicle weight and the size of the commercial vehicle. If the commercial vehicle is not modified, a distinction can be made that it is an unmodified van or truck. Also, with the size in one of these regulations, if the commercial vehicle is 8' wide, 7' tall and 21' long. He has obtained information from other town's regulations regarding commercial vehicles 8' wide, 7' tall and 21' long.
An audience member stated the Commission cannot go by gross vehicle weight because the same truck can be 11,000 gross vehicle weight but the same truck used as a wrecker would have a 14,000 gross vehicle weight. The gross vehicle weight is not the answer.
Vice Chairman Duren stated what he has in mind is that if you don't meet these requirements, you would come to Planning and Zoning Commission and the Commission would grant a special use permit. He gave examples to demonstrate this procedure. Vice Chairman Duren stated this would take it out of the hands of the Zoning Board of Appeals because what the ZBA does goes with the property forever and that is not what anyone wants.
Some discussion followed with audience members present regarding the length to be used in the proposed ordinance change. The consensus at the end of this discussion was to use a length of 20' overall.
Commissioner DiPace suggested using one commercial vehicle not exceeding 11,000 pounds gross vehicle weight or not greater than a 16' box. Both of these requirements would have to be met. Some discussion with the audience followed regarding the size of the box to use or whether to consider using overall length.
An audience member indicated that U-Haul trucks do not follow the industry standards as far as what the average industry uses for trucks. They make some odd ball sizes only they have because their trucks are rented or leased to the general public. They have to make those trucks as safe as possible for the public who is generally unfamiliar with driving trucks. He stated the 16' box trucks are usually 11' in height.
Commissioner DiPace did not want to use a specific height of a truck because they are all a little different in size. He stated concerns he has are the gross vehicle weight and the length of the vehicle.
Commissioner Cooper asked why there is a concern about weight if the concern is aesthetics. Vice Chairman Duren saw a need to talk about both. Commissioner Cooper questioned why the Commission would have a concern about what someone does to their own driveway. Vice Chairman Duren stated there would be breaking up of a driveway or a lawn so there is a need to consider both.
In reviewing the various ordinances of other towns, Vice Chairman Duren noted this is a town of almost 50,000 people and there are lot sizes that range from 50' to 100' which could cause problems.
An audience member did not feel the parking of these vehicles in the street was a good idea.
An audience member stated if this is going to be a brand new regulation, we don't want to antiquate it before we start it. He saw a need to look at the size of the trucks. If there is going to be a gross vehicle weight rating on it, he asked that the ordinance include the weight that the truck is rated for now. He stated the gross vehicle weight of the HD 3500 and 550 should be used so that the ordinance is not out of date before it is approved. If the gross vehicle weight is used, it should be something that is familiar with the vehicle itself.
Following additional discussion, Mr. Giner saw a need to agree on what would be allowed as of right. Anything that does not meet the limits in the ordinance would have to come before the Commission for a special use permit. Presently the ordinance states ¾ ton and there is no other option.
An audience member asked about the procedure at the Department of Motor Vehicles when combination plates are requested.
Regarding height, an audience member indicated that the legal road height is 13' 6".
Commissioner Egan stated he would like the 21' length and include the cab to cover the total truck. He thinks the Commission has to look at the purpose of this regulation. It is to protect our residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Egan noted that people have their life savings invested in their homes and those homes are precious to the residents. Commissioner Egan felt the Commission is getting away from protecting neighborhoods by allowing 13' high cabs that are trailer trucks in neighborhoods. He felt the Commission should regulate the length of the cab because someone could have a box and put a trailer hitch to the box and there is no requirement regarding the total truck.
An audience member stated the length of the box is the best way to proceed because cab length can vary.
Vice Chairman Duren stated he would suggest wording that states vehicles that don't meet the requirements may be allowed in residential zones by special use permit only issued by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission. When reviewing a request for a special permit, the Commission shall consider such factors as proposed screening, proximity to adjacent lots and buildings, the size of the vehicle, intended use and hours of operation of the vehicle in question.
Vice Chairman Duren stated he recently had a complaint where a vehicle is parked all day in the street because the driver works at night and the vehicle obstructs a nearby resident's driveway and she cannot get out. There is also a boat outside and three cars in the driveway. Vice Chairman Duren stated other vehicles on the property, character of the neighborhood, and health and safety of the neighbors should also be a consideration in the granting of a special permit.
An audience member presented a picture of a truck that he deemed the ugliest thing he's ever seen.
An audience member suggested the Commission stick to a standard cabin chassie or a van type chassie or "C" body with a hood in the front of the windshield. He noted the possibility of a box being put on a trailer and that if a box is that large it will require a CDL and probably be well over 26,001 pounds.
Commissioner Egan asked if a pickup truck with a trailer wench on the back of it and a box that could be 16' would be subject to the same regulations and over 26,001. He does not think so. He is trying to eliminate these possibilities.
An audience member recommended the ordinance state a two-axle truck.
An audience member asked if motor homes for the general public are exempt. Vice Chairman Duren stated by what he suggested they would be. This person stated if a neighbor can put a 30' motor home next to his house, why shouldn't he be allowed to put his 30' commercial vehicle next to it. Commissioner DiPace stated businesses belong in a Business zone. People do not have another location to keep their recreational vehicles.
Vice Chairman Duren stated the Commission will not be able to identify every possibility and if the truck doesn't meet the ordinance, the owner can apply for a special use permit.
An audience member discussed the fact that some family cars today are 22' long and he questioned why he can't park a truck that is 21' long in his yard.
Commissioner DiPace stated if the Town of Enfield is going to have the burden of having these vehicles parked in residential yards, every registration should say the Town of Enfield where it asks the Connecticut town where the vehicle is to be garaged. If it does not, it should not be allowed to be parked there. He added a vehicle could be registered in another state but the box on the registration stating where it is garaged or parked overnight should read the Town of Enfield.
Following additional discussion with the audience, the Commission determined that the ordinance should include 11,000 maximum gross vehicle weight, 2 axles, 16' box length and a maximum height of 12'.
An audience member asked about the purpose of the regulation and whether it is aesthetics or safety. Vice Chairman Duren stated it would be all of those. Commissioner DiPace added it would be to have control over the neighborhood. This audience member noted his neighbors' camper does not add to the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Duren stated the ordinance could include something regarding screening. Mr. Giner stated other towns have regulations stating such vehicles have to be behind the building line, in the rear yards or within ten feet of the property line.
An audience member asked that such vehicles be restricted to one only as he would not like to see a fleet in a neighbor's driveway.
Vice Chairman Duren suggested language stating that the vehicle must be owned or operated by the property owner or a permanent resident of the property. The vehicle must be x number of feet from a property line if parked outside and screened by deciduous trees, shrubs or fencing along the closest property line where the vehicle is parked. Parking the vehicle and screening it is to be such as not to create a safety hazard for any neighbors entering or exiting their property.
An audience member stated the suggestion is the front of the house is where the parking of the vehicle would be and then screening it from that point. Vice Chairman Duren stated a lot of people have their driveway and include a little elbow off to the side or a t-shape in the front. The suggestion is the closest property owner is screened by trees, a fence or shrubs. Commissioner Hickey questioned if it should be within the required front yard setback. Some discussion followed on the length of some driveways and the fact that on many of the streets, the town has 8' from the street to the property line.
An audience member gave as an example that her husband works for the water company and the truck has to be parked on the side of her garage and she has to put up a barrier on the side adjacent to the neighbors that would view it. She noted she would have to be so many feet away to plant the landscaping and a fence is only eight feet high. This would not block the view of the vehicle. Vice Chairman Duren stated if she has a problem with that, she would come back in and state she has a problem and the Commission would grant a special use permit. The audience member described the dip between the properties and the fact that a fence, if installed, would not do anything.
Mr. Giner stated the screening intended is partial screening and you will never totally block the view of the vehicle.
Vice Chairman Duren acknowledged that this proposed ordinance cannot address every single situation and this is why the special use permit process will be added.
An audience member questioned what if the neighbor does not want a fence. Vice Chairman Duren stated they could come in during the request for a special use permit and state this. Any exception to the proposed ordinance can come in for such a special use permit.
An audience member asked if something can be included in the regulations to allow the Town Planner to approve something if the neighbor should say they do not want a fence. This would be in lieu of going for the permit. Vice Chairman Duren stated this cannot be done according to state regulations.
An audience member suggested such minor changes be done in the Planning Office and then the Commission just grant their approval. Vice Chairman Duren stated that cannot be done. Mr. Giner elaborated on things that could occur in the neighborhood if this procedure was used and the fact that it could generate additional complaints from others in the neighborhood.
An audience member asked if a truck would park in the same manner as a camper or in the back of the front building line. Vice Chairman Duren stated that is not correct. A truck can be parked in the driveway or in an L portion of the driveway. Commissioner DiPace felt a lot depends on what the truck is. If the truck is going to be a 16' box, he doesn't want those parked in the front of the house in the driveway. He would want them parked on the side behind the front line of the house. An audience member stated some people's lots are not big enough to do this.
An audience member asked if there is already a recreational vehicle parked on the side of the garage, how would you park the commercial vehicle.
An audience member stated her camper is on her side of the house where it is supposed to be. Her husband is on call this week with a box truck. Now her camper is there and her truck is back there also. Vice Chairman Duren stated this would be a situation for a special use permit. He noted the Commission is trying to take care of 45,000 to 50,000 town residents and also help the truck owners with a burden they have. He asked that people realize this Commission has to do what is best for every individual in town. The Commission will try to do the best that they can with the help from the truck owners.
An audience member asked if the Commission would be discussing what the options are with the granting of a special use permit. Vice Chairman Duren stated if someone has a problem with the ordinance change that is finally adopted and they cannot possibly comply with what it says, they would come in to Mr. Giner and get on the Commission's schedule for a special use permit hearing. There would be standards that have to be met in the granting of such a special use permit.
The audience member noted she might still be in the same situation even though there is a re-write of the ordinance. Vice Chairman Duren agreed that she might be but there would be seven Commission members that would hear her individual problem. Commissioner Hickey stated presently such truck owners have no remedy. This Commission is trying to give people a remedy to address the situation.
An audience member asked how liberal the town is going to be in the granting of such special use permits. He noted that seventy to ninety percent of the truck owners are not going to fall within the parameters of the new ordinance. If the town is as strict in the issuing of special use permits as they are with variances, the truck owners will have problems again.
Vice Chairman Duren noted a variance would go with the property forever. Mr. Giner noted that a special use permit goes with the land. However, one of the suggestions he had made in the regulation to deal with that is when plans are approved for commercial buildings, the plans are cited and if there is a change to the plans, they have to come back. In this case, Mr. Giner suggested that applications shall include a detailed description of the vehicle to be used which includes the gross vehicle weight, height, length, wheelbase, model and make. Any permits granted shall be for the specific vehicle described in the application. Any changes to the vehicle specifications as approved shall require a new approval by the Commission. Mr. Giner noted if a special use permit is granted to a truck owner and their property is sold, the next homeowners would have to have the exact same truck or would have to come back before the Commission with their own truck request.
An audience member stated a lot of those present are agreeing that the parameters are less than what they would ideally like and will result in many applications for special use permits and many of these may never be issued. Vice Chairman Duren noted truck owners are worse off now because there is no remedy.
Commissioner DiPace stated the Commission is going to address fifty to sixty percent of the violations. The rest of them will have to come in for a special use permit. He noted the Commission cannot set a weight limit of 35 tons or a truck length of 65' long because all residents of the town have to be considered. The Commission took an oath to do what is in the best interests of the town and not to open up a pandora's box and allow everything. There have to be guidelines. Commissioner DiPace noted the requirements are proposed to be increased to allow a lot of this truck parking to take place and the Commission is also opening up an avenue where a resident can come in under the special use permit process for review. Commissioner DiPace stated the Commission will also take into consideration protecting the neighborhood. An audience member questioned if the intent is to protect the neighborhood or the other side of town.
Vice Chairman Duren suggested language that states when reviewing a request for a special permit, the Commission shall consider such factors as proposed screening, proximity to adjacent lots and buildings, the size of the vehicle, intended use and hours of operation, the vehicle in question, other vehicles on the property, character of the neighborhood and health and safety of the neighbors. Vice Chairman Duren gave as an example the following: if you are in a neighborhood where the truck is parked right under a neighbor's window, the owner has asthma or other health problems and you have a diesel truck that you run for up to twenty minutes in the morning, these are items the Commission would take into consideration.
Mr. Giner stated the special use permit allows the Commission to look at adjacent uses. The uses normally would be as of right but because of some kind of potential impact, it may make a difference what the neighboring use is, how close the neighbor is and other factors. If there is inadequate room to park a commercial vehicle, the owner would probably need to look for a place that would meet the requirements. Every lot that is 50' wide may not be able to have such a commercial vehicle. Commissioner Hickey stated there would be a public hearing where the neighbors would have a right to come in and express their feelings as to what is being proposed. If it is objectionable, granting the permit would be a problem.
An audience member stated he has no problem with the special use permit but he felt any complaints should come from the people in the neighborhood and not from someone that has a personal grudge. Commissioner DiPace stated the law says that if someone files a complaint, this Commission has to react. The audience member asked if it could be only from a resident within 500' of the property. Commission members stated this cannot be done.
Commission members gave some examples of the scenario raised by the previous audience member.
Vice Chairman Duren suggested language that states the truck must be parked on a prepared surface suitable for parking. This could be stone or it could be paved but it has to be suitable for parking and cannot include driving on the lawn. No construction equipment or related materials are to be allowed on a residential street including tree service vehicles. Vice Chairman Duren noted complaints regarding tree service vehicles and he questioned if that is considered construction equipment. He stated the truck in question was a large vehicle that also hauled logs and included a cherry picker.
Commissioner Egan stated he thinks there are some commercial vehicles that should not be allowed even with the special use permit process. He thinks the regulations should be pretty specific to that. He gave the following examples of vehicles that should not be permitted: a semi-tractor and trailer step van, tow trucks, cargo trucks, tank trucks, pump trucks, construction trucks, trailers with commercial equipment, taxis, limousines, and motor vehicles that are required to display signs because of transfer of hazardous materials.
An audience member stated by the State of Connecticut regulations, there must be a response to an accident within thirty minutes. By the Town of Enfield rules, they also must respond to an accident within thirty minutes. What they do can either save someone's life or they can die in the meantime. He noted the many times they have pulled cars off people. With the proposed scenario, the Police Department will be waiting for them to start up a truck, start up another truck and the Police will end up being paid an hour just to wait for a wrecker. Commissioner Egan suggested that someone should sleep where the vehicle is parked. He would like to keep the town residential.
Vice Chairman Duren had a complaint from a woman that cannot exit her driveway because the gentleman that owns the vehicle works nights and he leaves his truck parked on the street all day. She has complained to the Police Department that she is in danger of getting hit coming out of her driveway because her vision is blocked by this truck.
Commissioner Egan stated the Town Council will need to pass an ordinance to regulate the parking of commercial vehicles on the street. This will give the Police Department the authority to act. This Commission has no authority on the streets.
An audience member discussed whether his son could take a truck home. Vice Chairman Duren stated the truck has to be owned by the operator of the vehicle and/or the owner of the property. The son would be the property owner and the operator of the vehicle.
Mary Ann Turner presented a memo that included some suggestions for the revised truck ordinance.
Vice Chairman Duren suggested the ordinance include that the rating would be taken from the registration of the Connecticut Motor Vehicle Department. Audience members noted that some people are not registering their trucks with the proper gross vehicle weight.
An audience member asked if this regulation will affect the trucks that are allowed by variance. Vice Chairman Duren stated those trucks will be grandfathered because the variance goes with the property.
Some discussion followed regarding snow plowing trucks. Commissioner DiPace stated usually when plow drivers cease plowing, they take their own personal vehicle home. They don't take the plow home. An audience member noted there are private contractors plowing the town streets. Following further discussion, Commissioner DiPace suggested including something in the proposed ordinance to cover temporary situations like snowplowing vehicles.
Vice Chairman Duren stated another suggestion that should be included in the proposed ordinance is that no vehicle for transportation of refuse or garbage shall be maintained or stored in a residential zone. Vehicles which transport hazardous materials or environmentally unsafe materials are not allowed in a residential zone.
Vice Chairman Duren noted it is stated that idling time of trucks is listed under the noise ordinance in Section 6A and should also be included in this ordinance. Vice Chairman Duren recommended language that states idling time of no more than ten minutes shall be allowed for vehicles under the regulations.
Commissioner DiPace brought up the possibility of someone being granted a special use permit but after approval, they violate some of the conditions of that permit. He asked if there is any way to include language that states upon finding that the special use permit has been violated, the Commission can revoke such special use permit. Mr. Giner stated it would be the cease and desist process because of a violation. There is a catch all phrase that can be included in this ordinance that states the special use permit has to be maintained in the manner in which it was approved.
An audience member stated when someone comes in for a special permit, there should be an application fee. Site plans must be included with the application. This audience member brought up the possibility of an annual fee for such permits. She also recommended only one truck per lot and an amendment process for a change of vehicle. Commissioner DiPace stated if the truck is to be the same size as the former truck, this could be handled by an administrative review. This audience member requested that further items of consideration be building containment of spills, diesel fumes, maintenance of the truck on the property, and water and aquifer areas.
Some discussion followed regarding the variance process that has been used in the past to allow trucks that were not in conformance with the ordinance.
An audience member asked how long the special use permit process would take. Vice Chairman Duren stated there would have to be a public hearing. Mr. Giner estimated that the special use permit process would take a month minimum and perhaps longer because of the legal notice requirements. An applicant would submit an application and the Commission would accept it and set a public hearing.
An audience member asked if a person got approved for a special use permit, would that complete the process. He also noted that prior to requesting the special use permit, the vehicle would still be parked in the street. Commissioner DiPace stated if there is an application pending with the town, the Zoning Enforcement Officer will take that into consideration.
Mr. Giner stated there are a lot of truck owners in town and the Commission will be reasonable about it. He noted there will be a lot of applications up front and it may take a while to get them all through the process. An audience member stated his concern is the winter and he does not want these vehicles parked in the street because they may create a hazard.
Commissioner DiPace advised truck owners not to park in the street but to park in their yards while this Commission is working on a revision to the ordinance.
An audience member noted the town's noise ordinance states loading and unloading of trucks are prohibited. He asked that the truck idling times contained in the proposed ordinance revision match the requirements of the noise ordinance. They talk about 10,000 pounds GVW. He also stated a big issue is people are changing engines, tires and transmissions of these commercial vehicles in their driveways and there should be some regulation prohibiting this.
An audience member stated he would like to see the vehicles come off the streets and go back into the yards. Commissioner DiPace stated he said that previously and he agreed that these vehicles should be in the yards and not in the street while the Commission is working on a proposed ordinance revision. Further discussion followed.
An audience member stated she applied for a variance and was denied. Tonight she asked if she can park the truck in her driveway. Commissioner DiPace stated yes. The Zoning Enforcement Officer is on vacation but what the Commission is saying is that the Zoning Enforcement Officer knows that this Commission is considering an ordinance change.
Vice Chairman Duren stated by law this Commission cannot do this overnight. They are working as fast as they can to address the residents' concerns.
Commissioner DiPace stated that if an individual vehicle falls within what is approved in the proposed ordinance revision, the vehicle owner will be all set. If the vehicle does not, the owner will have to apply for a special use permit.
An audience member stated he knows how one of the Commissioners feels about wreckers but with a wrecker, it is not like most commercial vehicles. Today he may take home a wrecker that is 20' long. Tomorrow it may be a 25' long vehicle. He added he doesn't think anyone's vehicle should be in front of someone else's house. It should not cause a sight line problem but he is speaking for himself now. It is very important that as long as you meet the criteria, that the wreckers should be exempt. He won't know which truck he will bring home and the size of that truck on a particular day. He has seven different wrecker trucks that the guys take home.
Commissioner Egan suggested that this audience member buy a place that is a commercial or industrial property and come in and get a residential variance for the property. The audience member stated that the drivers that drive at night all work on commission. He may not get a call all night and he may get three calls tonight. You cannot tell someone to sleep in the back of the body shop all night but people are on call.
Commissioner Egan questioned why someone in a residential district should have to put up with that wrecker because it is someone's business. The business owner should be making arrangements for the commercial vehicles.
An audience member stated usually wreckers are taken home from Friday night to Monday morning. Commissioner DiPace discussed his experience with wrecker driving and the fact that he never brought the wrecker home.
Vice Chairman Duren stated he has discussed this with Mr. Giner and wreckers have to be considered somewhat as an emergency vehicle. He discussed a wrecker that parks in his neighborhood and the fact that when he goes out, he is going out for a reason.
An audience member had a wrecker driver living next to him and he was awakened every night. The wrecker truck was in and out of his house more than the neighborhood residents were. An audience member stated the driver had a variance for parking such a truck. This audience member also stated bringing cars into the yard by a wrecker driver really doesn't have anything to do with his business.
An audience member stated the Commission has discussed a 16' box truck, 12' height, twin axles, 11,000 GVW. She noted a vehicle with that box length and height is more than 11,000 GVW. She asked if it all of the above or and/or. Mr. Giner responded it would be and/or.
An audience member stated if there are no complaints from any neighbors regarding the vehicle after the ordinance is passed and he is not in compliance, what happens. Vice Chairman Duren stated this resident would be in violation and anyone can file a complaint.
Vice Chairman Duren stated this scenario discusses one person and there are approximately 45,000 to 50,000 town residents. The Commission has to consider their health, welfare and safety and also protect the environment.
An audience member stated looking at the proposed discussion sheets, item 3 states by special permit one commercial vehicle exceeding the requirements in paragraph one. She asked if the Commission has determined what they feel would be a maximum vehicle size for the special use permit. Vice Chairman Duren stated the Commission has not but he suggested that regarding vehicles over 11,000 GVW, when reviewing the request for a special use permit, the Commission will consider such factors as screening, proximity to adjacent lots and building, and the size of the vehicle. The audience member stated the definition of a commercial vehicle by the DMV is a vehicle with a gross weight of 26,001 pounds or more. If you go beyond that, it now requires a CDL. Vice Chairman Duren stated that is the Department of Motor Vehicle definition and this Commission has a right to set their own.
An audience member asked if some type of maximum limit should be set in order to eliminate tractor trailers and other large vehicles. Vice Chairman Duren stated he suggested language regarding construction equipment and, where related, construction materials. This audience member asked what happens to those residents that might have 17,000 or 21,000 GVW. Vice Chairman Duren stated they would have to apply for a special use permit. The audience member noted it would be at the discretion of each individual. Vice Chairman Duren stated of the seven Commission members, an approval would require four votes in favor. Commissioner Hickey saw a need for applicants to come in and proactively demonstrate that they meet the criteria.
An audience member stated there are a few people that have already filed for a variance, paid a fee and were denied. They have already paid a fee. Now they will have to go through the process again with another fee. She asked if some fee consideration could be given to these applicants. Vice Chairman Duren stated another fee would have to be paid because of the legal requirements such as advertising for each application.
Vice Chairman Duren stated if you are running a business, by town ordinance, your trade name is supposed to be registered with the Town Clerk. He felt that should be included in the revised ordinance. Mr. Giner stated you would not necessarily be running a business by having a business vehicle parked in your yard.
Commissioner DiPace stated it should be emphasized that the approval for the size of the vehicle is not an approval for a home business. That is an additional process.
An audience member asked if the vehicle is not owned by you but your employer owns it, how do you convey this. Commissioner Egan stated you tell your insurance agent that the vehicle is overnight in the Town of Enfield and that will take care of it.
Vice Chairman Duren stated the next step should be that Mr. Giner provides the Commission with a draft ordinance. Mr. Giner stated the proposed ordinance would then go to a public hearing. He will send it to CRCOG in order to get the 35-day review started. Such ordinance could be changed after the public hearing depending on the public input. Mr. Giner asked that vehicle owners come to the public hearing and address the proposed ordinance. He estimated the public hearing would be held in early October.
An audience member stated his neighbor likes to load his truck at 5:00 a.m. Vice Chairman Duren asked that this person contact the Police Department under the town's noise ordinance.
An audience member asked if he has a vehicle over 11,000 GVW and he parks it in his garage, is this allowed. Vice Chairman Duren stated it would have to be either garaged or screened.
An audience member noted that with the vehicles that are being purchased today, everyone will have to apply for a special use permit since the 16' box weighs more than 11,500 pounds.
An audience member suggested the ordinance read 20,000 GVW, two axles and no CDL.
An audience member stated he has a truck that weighs 18,000 pounds and it is a 16' box truck with a van body. He stated now he has to apply for a special use permit and this Commission did not help him. Vice Chairman Duren stated the Commission did help him because such a size is not presently allowed at all. Now, a resident would have the special use permit option. The audience member stated everyone that puts a box on their truck or has any type of van that they bring home will have to apply. Vice Chairman Duren stated presently it would be illegal and you could not get a variance because the problem has to be with the property and not the fact that it is an overweight vehicle. Some discussion of various truck sizes followed.
Vice Chairman Duren stated the Commission is trying to do the best that they can for everyone in the community. Right now, the people present are in favor of this but when the public hearing is held, there will be a lot of people that are not going to be in favor.
The Commission confirmed to an audience member that under the proposed ordinance, if a vehicle is over 11,000 pounds, they would have to apply for a special use permit. If any of the requirements listed in the ordinance are not met, a special use permit would be needed.
An audience member asked if personal vehicles that are not commercial have to be registered in Enfield if you live in Enfield. Vice Chairman Duren responded they would have to be registered in Enfield and there are random Police Department checks on vehicles.
Vice Chairman Duren stated the ordinance change could be in place as early as the first part of November. This Commission still has a lot of work to do and will have their own discussion. He advised residents to attend the public hearing to formally offer their input. He also thanked those present for their input this evening.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner DiPace made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Karen Krebs, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|