|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 20, 2005
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, January 20, 2005 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Anthony DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Jeffrey Cooper
Charles Duren
Robert Egan
James Hickey, Jr.
Karen Krebs
Samuel McGill, Alternate
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
Nicles Lefakis, Alternate (arrived at 9:05 p.m.)
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
EXECUTIVE SESSION: 7:00 P.M. - Thompsonville Room
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation matters with the Senior Assistant Town Attorney. The motion was approved unanimously and the Commission went into Executive Session at 7:00 p.m.
Present were Chairman Anthony DiPace, and Commissioners Jeffrey Cooper, Charles Duren, Robert Egan, James Hickey, Jr., Karen Krebs, Kathleen Sarno, Alternate, Samuel McGill, Alternate, Jose Giner, Director of Planning, and the Senior Assistant Town Attorney.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to come out of Executive Session. Following a unanimous vote, Executive Session ended at 7:29 p.m.
Chairman DiPace announced that no decisions were made or votes taken during the Executive Session.
REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M.
Appointments to the Regional Planning Commission of the Capitol Region Council of Governments
The consensus of the Commission was to recommend James Hickey, Jr. to the Enfield Town Council as the appointment to the Regional Planning Commission of the Capitol Region Council of Governments and Chairman Anthony DiPace as the alternate.
MINUTES
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to approve the Minutes of December 2, 2004. Commissioners noted there are two page five's and one should be deleted. The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Sarno voting.
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to approve the Minutes of December 16, 2004. Commissioner McGill made a correction on page three in the fourth sentence. The word "basis" should be "basin." The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported Correspondence includes the following: a letter from the State of Connecticut to William R. Palmberg & Son, LLC regarding the proposed orthodontist office on Route 190; a letter from the State of Connecticut DEP to Town Manager Scott Shanley regarding the Town's application for the Crescent Lake Dam construction project; the Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Notice of Action for the December 14, 2004 meeting; and a calendar of all Town meeting dates.
COMMISSIONERS' CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace noted receipt of the following: the Capitol Region Council of Governments agenda for this evening; a letter from the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities; and a letter from the Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association.
STAFF COMMENTS
a. Town Attorney (in person)
Senior Assistant Town Attorney Maria Stavropoulos appeared before the Commission and requested if the Commission had any questions regarding the written report submitted dated December 27, 2004.
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer (in person)
Commissioner Duren asked about the status of the street-by-street listing of home occupations in the Town of Enfield. While the Commission received a report, it is not listed street by street.
The Commission requested that their next meeting packet include a copy of what the Zoning Enforcement Officer gives to those residents that are issued a home permit for home occupations. Commissioner Duren was particularly interested in if the Zoning Enforcement Officer checks on such businesses as a landscaping service in order to determine where the vehicles will be located.
c. Director of Planning
Mr. Giner reminded Commissioners about the Saturday, March 5, 2005 Wesleyan meeting sponsored by the American Bar Association. This meeting is scheduled from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. with lunch served. If any Commission member is interested in attending, they should contact the Planning Office.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued from December 2, 2004 meeting
a. PH #2485 - Special Use Permit to install a one million gallon water storage tank at 51 Marion Place, Zoned R-33, Map 111, Lot 180, Hazardville Water Co., Owner/Applicant (Must close by January 20)
Brian Mead of the Hazardville Water Company appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated the plans have been revised to meet the concerns of the Engineering Department. He noted the letter from John Cabibbo to Jose Giner confirming the outstanding concerns have been addressed.
Mr. Giner stated there was an on-site meeting by the Town Engineer and Neil Angus. There were suggestions made and the Town Engineer is satisfied that the concerns have been addressed. Mr. Angus had a concern about the stabilization.
Mr. Giner stated the Town Engineer felt if the drainage swale mentioned in his January 5, 2005 memo is needed, they could ask that it be done at the time of the bond release. Commissioner Duren suggested also including this as a condition of approval.
Commissioner Cooper had concerns about the smaller tank. Mr. Mead stated there is an existing swale for the smaller tank and the two tanks are connected. He believes if the smaller tank were to overflow, there would be an alarm sounded and it would overflow to the larger tank.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve PH #2485 - Special Use Permit to install a one million gallon water storage tank at 51 Marion Place, Zoned R-33, Map 111, Lot 180, Hazardville Water Co., Owner/Applicant. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans, as may be required to be modified by this motion, and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
"PH2485, Hazardville Water Company, Enfield, Connecticut, Bucken Road Storage Tank #3 Site Plan" Drawing No. 1, Scale: 1"=30' by Tata & Howard, Inc. dated December 2004.
"PH2485, Hazardville Water Company, Enfield, Connecticut, Bucken Road Storage Tank #3 Standard Details" Drawing No. 2, by Tata & Howard, Inc. dated December 2004.
"PH2485, Hazardville Water Company, Enfield, Connecticut, Bucken Road Storage Tank #3 Tank Layout and Foundation Details" Drawing No. 3, by Tata & Howard, Inc. dated December 2004.
"PH2485, Hazardville Water Company, Enfield, Connecticut, Bucken Road Storage Tank #3 Tank Details" Drawing No. 4, by Tata & Howard, Inc. dated December 2004.
Conditions to be met prior to signing of mylars and certificate:
1. All mylars submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
2. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners and their successors and assigns.
3. The approval motion with conditions shall be incorporated on to the final mylars submitted.
4. The final mylars shall receive appropriate staff review and approval.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
5. One set of final mylars and two sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission. The signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk prior to the Special Permit becoming effective.
6. 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.
7. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
8. The applicant shall post a bond for site improvements in an amount determined by the Town Engineer, with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney.
9. A separate erosion and sediment control bond shall be submitted in the form of cash, check or a passbook, pledged to the Town, in an amount determined by the Town Engineer.
Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
10. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
11. The applicant shall also submit to the Planning Director final as built plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
General Conditions:
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. A building permit for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained within one year from the effective date of approval or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
15. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
16. The concerns of Neil Angus in a memo dated December 30, 2004 to the Commission shall be addressed.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Sarno voting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued from December 16,2004 meeting
a. PH #2479 - Resubdivision to allow creation of three residential lots with related street and other public improvements on property zoned R-33 off Riverview Street, Map 19, Lot 10, Margaret R. Pappas, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by January 20.)
Tim Coon of J. R. Russo appeared before the Commission regarding this application. Also present was the applicant's attorney, Attorney Thomas Arvantely, and the applicant, Margaret R. Pappas.
Mr. Coon stated at the previous public hearing, there still appeared to be certain issues that required some clarification. He noted he has submitted a letter dated December 30, 2004 which provided additional information and discussion of those issues.
Mr. Coon highlighted some of the information contained in his letter. He stated one particular issue that was discussed at the last meeting was the runoff from the adjacent Head Start and middle school project. As was discussed previously, a portion of the runoff from the Head Start and middle school is conveyed across their site through a pipe and ditch within an easement of the Town of Enfield and ultimately discharges to the pond to the south of their project.
Mr. Coon stated upon further investigation, he was able to determine that the drainage improvements have been completed at the Head Start and the middle school and are expected to result in a decrease in the peak storm flows from that site to the pond by seventy to eighty percent. The measurements they took included the diversion of some of the runoff which used to come down across their site to the high school drainage system. This was confirmed by the Assistant Town Engineer in an email which he sent to Jose Giner dated December 23, 2004. In that email, the Assistant Town Engineer also confirmed that the subject subdivision will not affect this preexisting flow to the pond from the Head Start site.
With regard to the site drainage, Mr. Coon noted the Assistant Town Engineer states "there should be no concerns with respect to the proposed drainage system for the subject subdivision because it was designed in accordance with the current Enfield Subdivision Regulations."
Mr. Coon stated another issue which appeared to require more clarification was the issue of the puddling observed at the subject site as well as the water table elevation in the vicinity of the proposed buildings. Several members of the public have expressed concerns about standing water which they have observed at the base of the hill on the subject property. They may fear that the proposed homes will be located in this wet area. Mr. Coon had previously stated that the observed puddling is located in the immediate vicinity of the intermittent stream which is at the base of the hill to the west of the building lots. This was actually confirmed by pictures which were submitted by the abutters at 7 Riverview Street and were attached to the letter Mr. Coon submitted. These pictures show that the standing water is down near the stream and the majority of it is on the opposite side of the stream from where they are building.
Mr. Coon reiterated that all of the proposed houses at the subject subdivision are going to be greater than 100' horizontally from the established wetland line. These locations of the proposed buildings have also been approved by the Inland Wetlands Commission. To further demonstrate that the proposed houses will not be in danger of flooding, Mr. Coon submitted with his letter a cross section of the site which runs down from the Riverview Street side through the building on Lot #2 and then through the building on Lot #1 down to the brook. The lowest proposed building which will be on Lot #3 has a basement elevation of approximately eleven feet above the elevation of the intermittent stream. Thus, the puddling which has been observed is a substantial distance from the proposed houses, both horizontally and vertically, and they do not anticipate that there will be any problems.
On December 22, 2004, Mr. Coon stated they also went out to the site to perform test pits. One was performed within each building footprint to obtain additional information on the soils and the seasonal high ground water elevation at the proposed building site locations. The information is provided in Mr. Coon's letter to the Commission. Mr. Coon summarized that they encountered varying depths of top soil over sandy loam which typically was present to depths of about three and a half feet. Below the sandy loam was a silt loam till. This till appears to create a perched water table because the water tends to ride on top of this more restrictive layer. The evidence of seasonal high water was observed at depths ranging from twenty-two inches below the ground surface within the footprint of the building on Lot #3 closest to the intermittent stream to depths of about forty-two inches on the upper building lot and the house footprint of Lot #2. These depths and their corresponding elevations were tabulated on page three of four of Mr. Coon's letter and compared to the proposed basement elevations.
Mr. Coon stated in the table the elevations were put in the wrong rows that did not correspond to the appropriate Lot number. He distributed a corrected table to the Commission at this time.
Mr. Coon noted in looking at the table, only the basement on Lot #2 will actually be at an elevation that is below the seasonal high water table. The reason for that is that is the only lot that they will be excavating into the existing ground. With the other two lots, they are bringing in fill to build up those lots putting the basement elevation above the water table.
Mr. Coon stated the test pit information further supports that ground water is not anticipated to create any unreasonable problems during or after construction.
Mr. Coon stated the other outstanding issue that remained from the last hearing was that of riparian rights of the abutting pond owners with relation to the subject subdivision. Mr. Coon turned the presentation over to the applicant's attorney, Attorney Thomas Arvantely, to discuss this matter.
Attorney Thomas Arvantely, 64 Palomba Drive, Enfield, stated at the last Commission meeting on this application held on December 16, 2004, there were several questions raised by Chairman DiPace with a request for additional information concerning the application. The information requested was input from the Town Attorney regarding drainage water runoff into a pond partially owned by the applicant and by other parties. The second request was information concerning the court decision of 1992 regarding drainage into the pond and riparian rights. The third request was in regard to liability issues facing the Town in the event that there was water runoff into the pond. Attorney Arvantely stated following that meeting, as explained by the Project Engineer Timothy Coon, Mr. Coon submitted a report on December 30, 2004 to this Commission which included a reference to riparian drainage rights and indicated that Attorney Arvantely would be addressing the issue of riparian rights.
Attorney Arvantely stated he also submitted a memo to the Commission dated December 30, 2004 and that is now part of the record of this application. He included with that memorandum several documents and attachments. Included was a memo from Town Attorney Christopher Bromson dated August 27, 1999 concerning drainage into the pond. That opinion was submitted at the request of the Wetlands Commission in 1999 and it states that riparian rights of the other pond abutters are private rights not within the jurisdiction of the land use commission. According to that opinion, only a superior court could make a determination as to whether or not riparian rights are violated - if, in fact, they are violated. Attorney Arvantely stated he also included a copy of the 1992 judgment in the case of Belletti v. Pappas issued from the Hartford Judicial District concerning riparian rights.
Attorney Arvantely stated they acknowledge that property owners abutting the pond have riparian rights. In addition, he included a title opinion of several pages which was completed by his office in 1999 concerning drainage rights into the pond. That title opinion refers to deeds in the chain of title. Copies of the deeds are included in the memo to the Commission and confirm deeded drainage rights in the pond reserved in favor of the applicant, Margaret Pappas.
Attorney Arvantely stated he also included a memorandum from the Town Engineer dated December 23, 2004 confirming that this application complies with Subdivision Regulations in so far as drainage rights are concerned.
Attorney Arvantely stated in assembling this information, he would conclude that abutting owners on the easterly side of the pond have riparian rights in the pond even though they may own only a small portion of the pond. By a small portion, Attorney Arvantely is referring to a percentage portion of three percent with respect to one of the owners referred to in Mr. Coon's report.
Attorney Arvantely stated that riparian rights in the pond are private rights which should not be considered by this Commission in the subdivision application process. The Town Engineer's report dated December 23, 2004 confirms that the application before the Commission conforms with Subdivision Regulations as far as drainage is concerned. Also, Connecticut Law on an application of this nature is set forth in Treaties by Fuller, Land Use and Practice, which provides that in subdivision application matters, the planning commission acts in an administrative capacity only. The commission is limited to determining whether the application complies with the Subdivision Regulations.
Attorney Arvantely stated the Town Attorney's opinion dated January 14, 2005 was filed with the Planning Department and received, presumably, by the members of the Commission. Copies of that opinion were circulated as part of the Commission's last meeting packet. Citing Connecticut Supreme Court decisions, the opinion states that riparian owners are entitled to reasonable use and enjoyment of waters with due regard to rights and necessities of other owners. Riparian rights, however, are generally private rights which must be protected by private actions. The opinion goes on and states that if the applicant's use of the pond causes any impairment of riparian rights of abutting owners, that might give rise to a private action. However, it is not a matter for this Commission to consider during this application.
Attorney Arvantely stated the opinion further states that the court decision regarding draining into the pond in the case of Belletti v. Pappas speaks of reasonable use of the pond by riparian owners. Attorney Arvantely quoted from the Town Attorney's opinon as follows: "The issue of reasonableness is not an issue this Commission must address."
Attorney Arvantely addressed the last question by Chairman DiPace during the last public hearing which was: If the applicant's engineer maintains that there is no runoff as a result of the subdivision plan and this Commission approves the plan and later the assessment of runoff turns out to be inaccurate, is the Town liable? Attorney Arvantely noted the answer to that, according to the Town Attorney's opinion, is that the Town is generally immune from liability. Under the immunity statutes, the Town is immune from any liability for any negligent act or omission which requires the exercise by a town official of judgment or discretion. The opinion continues that the review of drainage calculations by the Town Engineer requires the exercise of his judgment and discretion and unless the Engineer acts recklessly in his review, the Town is likely to be insulated from any liability.
Attorney Arvantely noted lastly, the Town Attorney's opinion quotes basic Connecticut law again as stated in the Fuller Treaties which is that the review of subdivision applications is an administrative process. If an applicant complies with subdivision regulations, the applicant is entitled to a permit.
Attorney Arvantely commended the Commission because he feels they have thoroughly and comprehensively investigated all the issues concerning this application and has really been fair to everyone concerned.
Attorney Arvantely respectfully requested, on behalf of the applicant, that the Commission act favorably with regard to this application since the application, he feels, complies with the Town of Enfield Subdivision Regulations.
Mr. Coon added it is his professional opinion that this application meets all the requirements of the Town of Enfield Subdivision Regulations. He believes all the information he has provided and all the information provided by the Town staff and the Town Attorney support this as well. He asked if there is any part of the subdivision regulations that any Commissioners feel they have not met to please let them know along with what needs to be done to meet it so that they might address any concerns as conditions of approval.
Chairman DiPace stated he has a concern regarding the length of the dead end street and adding a cul de sac to it. He discussed with Attorney Landolina where to measure the through street from. Attorney Landolina responded that case law says you measure it from Bridge Lane and not from Riverview. Riverview is a dead end street. Chairman DiPace asked what is the distance from the start of the cul de sac to Bridge Lane.
Mr. Coon stated based upon scaling the measurement from the maps, it is approximately 1,000' from the intersection of Bridge Lane to the start of their cul de sac. He has not done an actual measurement.
Chairman DiPace stated one of the reasons why he asked that question is in the past year this Commission has interpreted their regulations to not add on to dead end streets and cul de sacs. This is why he needs to know what the measurement is from Bridge Lane. The regulations state 600' and that it can be extended an additional 600' to 1,200'. He questioned if this application is within these regulations.
Attorney Arvantely asked if Chairman DiPace previously stated he had another opinion from Attorney Landolina. Chairman DiPace stated he spoke with Attorney Landolina on Tuesday. The legal opinion regarding the three questions was received and Chairman DiPace asked him about the response received from the Senior Assistant Town Attorney who has now recused herself from this application. Chairman DiPace asked Attorney Landolina if the same question was asked regarding the length of the cul de sac, where would he start it from and he stated it has to be from a through street.
Attorney Arvantely asked if that is a written opinion and a part of this record. Chairman DiPace stated it is not. He added Attorney Landolina also told him that it is the decision of this Commission to determine its own regulations as far as where they start a cul de sac or a dead end street and where a through street starts and ends. Chairman DiPace stated in his opinion, it starts on Bridge Lane. Therefore, he needs to know what the distance is and is it still within the 1,200' or not.
Mr. Coon stated the length of the cul de sac is 477' long. Chairman DiPace asked for the exact measurement from where this cul de sac starts on Riverview. Mr. Coon stated they do not have the location of Bridge Lane surveyed so they don't have an exact distance from where their cul de sac is to the exact intersection point of Riverview Street and Bridge Lane. The best they can do is base it on existing maps and based upon existing maps, Mr. Coon stated it is approximately 1,000' give or take less than 50'.
Commissioner McGill asked if the 1,000' is the distance from Bridge Lane to Riverview. Chairman DiPace stated that from Bridge Lane to the start of the cul de sac on Riverview is 1,000' and from there it goes another 477'.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public.
Diane Tap, 16 Riverview Street, asked if the 477' distance is from the center of the cul de sac. Chairman DiPace stated it is the distance from the circle up to Riverview Street. Ms. Tap stated their lot is 150' wide and there are seven or eight homes on their side of the street. Her guess would be that it is over 1,200'. If there is 400', that means there is only 800' left and there are quite a few homes with wide lots on Riverview Street.
Commissioner McGill had a question about the email from Water Pollution Control stating the reason they went to a simplex system was the applicant was going to provide a backup pump to the Town. Mr. Giner stated the December 23, 2004 memo discusses why they selected a single pump system. Commissioner McGill noted this was the first acknowledgement that there was a backup pump.
Mr. Coon stated he does not believe the memo states they are providing a backup pump. There is emergency storage being provided which would allow time for the WPC to make repairs if there is a pump failure.
Mr. Giner read from the December 23, 2004 memo which acknowledges that a backup pump will be provided by the builder. Mr. Coon stated there is 48 hours of storage capacity built into the system and this is the first he has heard of the requirement for a backup pump.
Commissioner Egan raised a question concerning the cul de sac and the future and whether there are there any plans to extend that cul de sac or further develop. Mr. Coon stated there are no plans to extend that cul de sac. With the lots and the detention basin in the location that they are, they do not see any feasible route to extend that cul de sac. Commissioner Egan asked if Mr. Coon's official testimony is that there will be no extension of that cul de sac or development in that area.
Mr. Coon stated he cannot speak for the future but there are no plans for that at this point in time.
Commissioner Egan stated with the original cul de sac, the statement was made that Mr. and Mrs. Pappas would build their house. He was on the Wetlands Commission at the time and there was some give so that they could build their house and not build three other houses and never build their house. Commissioner Egan stated there are representations that are being made that deserve further scrutiny. He would like to have this on the record that it is Mr. Coon's testimony, speaking for the applicant, that there is no anticipation of extending that road or further development.
Mr. Coon stated there is additional acreage which he is not going to say is never going to be developed on the other side of the intermittent stream but at this time, there are no plans to extend the cul de sac. He does not see it as a feasible alternative at this time because of the location of the detention basin and the building lots along with the wetlands that would have to be crossed.
Commissioner Egan questioned on the 1,300 cubic yards of fill they are bringing in, where has that been designated on the plans as to where it is going. Mr. Coon stated the proposed contours show where fill is required and the contours are shown on the plan. Commissioner Egan stated while the contours are shown, the location of the fill is not shown. Mr. Coon stated the location of the fill could be determined when you are looking at the plans comparing the existing contours to the proposed contours.
Commissioner Egan stated there are no designations on the plans regarding where the fill will be located. Statements have been made that basement levels are going to be so far above the water table. Mr. Coon stated the proposed grading plan shows where grading is going to be required. Every place where there is a proposed contour line which is above where the existing contour line is designates where fill is going.
Attorney Arvantely responded to Commissioner Egan's question regarding further development. Commissioner Egan mentioned that he was on the Wetlands Commission in 1999 and representations were made about a four-lot subdivision and that was the end of it. Attorney Arvantely stated he attended those meetings and they were with Dave Fredrick, a developer. Mr. Fredrick had an option agreement with the applicant. The applicant was never at any of those hearings or meetings. The question was put to Mr. Fredrick whether or not there were plans for any additional development in the area and he answered no. He answered no correctly because no plans as far as he was concerned were in the works for any further development in the area.
Attorney Arvantely stated the question Commissioner Egan may be asking now is whether any further development is planned for this tract of land. He stated this is a hard question to respond to because of the fact that land is being discussed. An applicant cannot be bound to something confiscatory to say that there's not going to be any further development of the land in ten or fifteen years. This is uncertain.
Commissioner Egan stated Mr. Fredrick was there representing the applicant and that was the inference that was given and the Wetlands Commission accepted that.
Commissioner Egan stated he is asking the question now about further development because there are provisions in the town's regulations which govern cul de sac approval and he was trying to ascertain if that was the case or not the case.
Attorney Arvantely stated his succinct response would be that if another application came in, the Commission would have a second look at it and at that point decide the question that Commissioner Egan is asking regarding further development.
Commissioner Egan stated at this time, he wanted to know if there would be any further development. Attorney Arvantely stated he cannot answer that.
Chairman DiPace reopened this hearing to the public.
Robert Tap, 16 Riverview Street, stated his comments are in response to the Commission's recent question. At the time of the last subdivision that Commissioner Egan referred to, the proposed four lot subdivision, he had seen plans drawn up for the next phase at that time. He believes the Commission's questions are justified.
Chairman DiPace stated this Commission is only requesting input on the three-lot subdivision before the Commission.
Attorney Arvantely stated he has asked Mr. Giner to find a particular document in order to zero in on the measurement of Riverview Street.
Mr. Giner presented Attorney Arvantely with the Town Attorney's opinion from Attorney Bromson dated December 2, 2004 concerning the measurement of Riverview Street. Attorney Arvantely stated he is looking at this document for the first time this evening.
Attorney Arvantely stated this concerns the measurement from Riverview Street. He referred to the last paragraph which states based on Public Act 03154 and interpretative case law, straightforward reading of the regulations is required. It indicates that the proposed new road, First Settlers Row, meets the requirements of the regulations. There's approximately 450' in length from the center of the turn around to its intersection with Riverview. It goes on to say it is my understanding that historically this is entirely consistent with how you and the Commission have interpreted this regulation in terms of measurement.
Attorney Arvantely stated the Chairman has stated that he spoke with Attorney Landolina and he came up with a different interpretation. Chairman DiPace confirmed that is correct. The town's regulations say that it must be from a through street.
Mr. Giner read from the regulations, page 19, which states a cul de sac shall be no more than 600' from the center of the turn around to the nearest street.
Chairman DiPace read the Town Attorney's memo dated December 2, 2004 which concerns the measurement of a cul de sac. He emphasized that the regulations say from a through street. Mr. Giner clarified that the regulations state from the nearest street intersection on page 10 of the Subdivision Regulations. It says from an accepted town street.
Chairman DiPace did not feel this means a dead end street and he saw a need to review all the regulations and not only one chapter.
Mr. Giner stated that page 10 talks about road length and it talks about cul de sacs. He also acknowledged that this is part of what the first appeal was about - whether a certain street was accepted or not.
Chairman DiPace stated the question should have been where do you begin the measurement and it was his opinion it should start from a through street.
Mr. Giner stated in his discussions with the Town Attorney, the discussion in the public hearing was whether it should be measured from Bridge Lane or not and the Town Attorney stated it should be measured from Riverview Street.
Commissioner Duren read from Page 10 which says an accepted town street. He noted Riverview is an accepted town street. On page 19, it states cul de sacs shall be no longer than 600' measured from the center of the turn around to the nearest street intersection. Commissioner Duren stated it doesn't say anything about dead end streets.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission can close this hearing but can also request something. However, it will not be able to be discussed.
Commissioner Duren read the exact wording of the regulations on page 10. Commissioner McGill referred to Section 3M.
Chairman DiPace also read from the ordinance.
Mr. Coon stated their subdivision is not over 1,200'. It is 477' to an existing town street. Mr. Coon reminded the Commission that with regard to a means of ingress and egress, there is a second means of egress at the end of Riverview Street to the high school property which is a gated access. Chairman DiPace stated this is not a through street. Mr. Coon stated it is gated and it could easily be made accessible by having a key made available to the fire department and ambulance service with a break away gate.
Chairman DiPace would like additional clarification regarding the section on page 10 of the regulations and if there will be a continuance of adding on to existing dead end streets.
Chairman DiPace stated there are several sections of the regulations that talk about cul de sacs and their lengths. Also, these are the Commission's regulations and he questioned if it was the intent to add on additional footage to all the dead ends and cul de sacs.
Mr. Giner stated in discussions with the Town Attorney, it was stated that there was a need to change the regulations to be very clear where the measurement is taken from. While there may be a different intent, the regulations state it is from an accepted street and Riverview is an accepted town street. Chairman DiPace stated his assumption was the measurement was from a through street and not from a dead end street.
Commissioner Egan stated in the request to the Town Attorney by Mr. Giner dated December 23, 2004, reference is made to Riverview Street being 1,300' in total length. He questioned if the length of the cul de sac and the remaining length of Riverview to Bridge Lane would be more than 1,200'. Mr. Giner stated from the intersection of the new cul de sac, he estimated it would be approximately 1,400'.
Chairman DiPace expressed a concern that the way this is interpreted saying the length of the cul de sac is from an existing town street, what is to stop every cul de sac from being lengthened with another cul de sac.
Following additional discussion, Chairman DiPace requested a legal opinion regarding the following question about where to begin measuring pertaining to PH#2479: When the Commission approves a road that is 1,200' long, once it becomes an accepted road, can the Commission now approve something that goes another 600' off of that road even though it is a dead end street or a cul de sac.
Attorney Arvantely asked to whom that question would be directed. Chairman DiPace stated it would be given to the attorney representing the Commission. He believes Attorney Landolina is representing the Commission because the Town Attorney has recused himself. Chairman DiPace stated he would like a second opinion.
Attorney Arvantely asked if Attorney Landolina has already answered the Chairman as to his opinion outside the record. Chairman DiPace confirmed that is correct.
Chairman DiPace asked if the length of Riverview from where Riverview starts at Bridge Lane to where this cul de sac begins is approximately 1,000 give or take 50' and the length of the cul de sac is 477', that is 1,477' if the measurement is from Bridge Lane. If the measurement is taken from Riverview Street, it is 477'. Mr. Coon confirmed those measurements are correct.
Chairman DiPace asked for any additional public input. Hearing none, he closed this public hearing.
The Commission tabled action on this application pending receipt of the information requested.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH #2489 - Petition for a Zone Change from Business Regional (BR) to Industrial (I- 1) for 26.98 acres of property located on the west side of King Street and along the west side of the I-91 south on-bound ramp at the exit 46 interchange, Assessors Map 12, Lot 3, The Matos Group, applicant; Shirley S. Boll, Trustee of The Boll Connecticut Trust and Shirley S. Boll and Hunter Boll, Trustees of the Boll Credit Shelter Trust, owners. (Must close by 2/24)
Daniel Matos, President of The Matos Group, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated The Matos Group is a real estate investment and development firm based in East Hartford.
Mr. Matos gave some personal background regarding The Matos Group. He stated he has developed real estate in and around Bradley Airport. They are currently doing a project near Rensselaer Field and this is their first project in Enfield.
Mr. Matos stated they came to Enfield at the request of one of their clients, General Electric Financial Assurance. General Electric Financial has tied up a site in Windsor and will reuse a building there. They have completed a fairly detailed study of this proposed piece of real estate located on King Street directly across from Bernie's.
Mr. Matos stated they have talked to Town staff and studied the real estate with brokers and appraisers. They believe that the highest and best use for this parcel of real estate is as an industrial use. They have a Fortune 50 client that is very interested in this site and would like to locate in Enfield. However, under the current zoning, this use is not permitted.
Andy Wallace, Vice President with The Matos Group, stated the subject property is currently zoned BR which primarily is intended for shopping centers or other planned commercial developments. The Matos Group believes that the property may be better suited for certain industrial uses within the I-1 zone. In addition to the distribution center use, which is of current interest to them, other viable uses would be warehousing, light manufacturing and assembly or some other office use.
Mr. Matos stated they have talked to Economic Development Director Ray Warren. He expressed to them his view that this site would be an excellent industrial site and he stated he would provide the Commission with written documentation to support that.
Commissioner Hickey asked for an example of a distribution use. Mr. Matos stated a good example is a facility they built in Windsor Locks for Ford Motor Company on Old County Road. This would be typically a pre-cast or concrete building twenty to thirty feet in height with approximately 10,000 square feet of office space. He presented a sketch of the proposed building consisting of 200,000 square feet that they have done for their client. The access would be directly across from Bernie's. Traffic would enter into the site in the designated location on the sketch. There would be employee parking with an access road around it.
Chairman DiPace stated this site was once used by a construction company when they were doing I-91 but it is now vacant.
Commissioner Sarno asked if the building will be seen from Route 5. Mr. Matos stated there is a berm that hides the exit and entrance ramp to the highway. The top of the building will be seen but it will not be very visible because the site extends down.
Commissioner Sarno asked if any of the existing industrial land already available in Enfield would suit their needs. Mr. Matos stated there are surprisingly few available sites in Enfield right now. They have looked through Enfield but for their client, the proximity to the highway and the size of the site were taken into consideration making this a perfect industrial site for this user. Mr. Matos stated they have found other attractive sites in Enfield and the Commission will see them again.
Mr. Matos stated their approach is they find sites as close as possible to the highway and they include restrictions in their deeds that require their clients to have their trucks go immediately to the highway and use town roads as little as possible. He stated the Commission can talk to the people in Windsor Locks because they have a very good reputation by doing this kind of advance planning.
Mr. Matos stated this is a twenty-six acre site and they need a fairly large site to make this particular use work.
Commissioner Egan stated the Plan of Conservation and Development calls for this property to be zone changed to industrial or commercial because of its location and the minimal impact on the residential district. He noted this is ideal for industrial and the Plan of Conservation and Development supports that.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Mr. Giner reported this application was submitted to the Town Clerk on January 5, 2005. He stated for the types of uses that are surrounding it, this fits in well with the existing and proposed land use plan. There are no adjacent neighbors that would be affected. There is the railroad and the highway on the east side. Across the entrance way is another distribution center. To the north is the cemetery. Trucks would not be going through any residential areas.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve a zone change from Business Regional (BR) to Industrial 1 (I-1) for 26.98 acres of property located on the west side of King Street and along the west side of the I-91 south on-bound ramp at the exit 46 interchange as heard in Public Hearing #2489.
Commissioner Hickey observed that the retail use that was there for many years and lay dormant has now been converted to a distribution mixed use and he thinks this proposed change is very compatible to what currently exists in the immediate area.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Sarno voting. The effective date of this zone change is February 1, 2005.
b. PH #2491 - Initiative by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission for a Zone Change from Residential 44 (R-44) to Residential 88 (R-88) for properties bounded by Fletcher Rd. to the south and east; Charnley Road to the east; Broad Brook Road to the North north-west; and Rail Road Right-of-Way to the west and including properties on both sides of Still Lane. Properties are shown on Assessors Map 103, Lots 38, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48,49, 50, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, and 67; Map 104, Lot 8; Map 107, Lots 2, 5 and 6; and Map 108 Lots 1,2,3,4,5,12,23,24,25,26,27,31,32 and 36. Properties owned by Kogut Florist & Nurseryman, Inc; Town of Enfield; Thomas & Sophie Graczewski, Laura M. Jarmoc; Estate of Henry Allen Maturo, Lois Maturo, Executor; Martin & Arlene P. Keane; Walter R. Kope; Richard & Laura J. Breton; Patrick J & Katherine Comley; Sharon Lee Albuquerque; Carolyn R. Lang; Christopher L. Islaub and Kerry Lynn Kearney; Terrance & Diane Szczesiul; Timothy & Audrey Szczesiul; Mary Margaret Szczesiul; George Ball Jr.; Helen B. Thomas; John & Beth Field; Bryan & Joan Jambard; Marguerite Gosselin; Terry & Josephine Laraway; George & Lisa Haynes; Donald Gleason; Joseph & Marianne Sullo; Maureen Pellegrini; Phillip & Kathleen Armentano; Robert & Olive Parent. (Must close by 2/24)
Mr. Giner stated the Commission in December approved a zone change for the properties south of Fletcher Road. Some time ago the Commission had asked about doing additional zone changes because the infrastructure was not available to the east of the railroad tracks and questioned why R-44 extended beyond the railroad tracks. The Laughlin Road zone change was approved and Still Lane is also not up to town standards and there is quite a bit of land that could come in and be developed with one-acre lots. No water or sewers are available in this area. To be consistent, Mr. Giner noted the Commission decided to the east side of the railroad would be the logical place to make that a line for the R-88 zone.
Mr. Giner stated this area was not included in the initial zone change because he wanted to look at the impact on the existing lots. The only difference would be the building coverage would go from fifteen percent to ten percent on the lots. There would be a five percent drop in allowable building coverage.
Chairman DiPace stated if the zone is changed to R-88, the lot coverage of fifteen percent would be reduced to ten percent. Mr. Giner gave an example of a resident, Mr. Parent, who contacted him. His house is a two-story of approximately 2,000 square feet. Under the current regulations he would be allowed 6,600 square feet of coverage and under the new zone he would be allowed 4,400 square feet of additional coverage.
Chairman DiPace stated he wants to make sure there is nothing that will negatively impact the existing residents with this zone change.
Mr. Giner stated in the example of Mr. Parent's home, he could triple what he has now under the new zone before he would run into a problem.
Mr. Giner stated the concern was there are many large parcels that do not have access to water or sewer and have access to roads that are not up to town standards. Mr. Giner further noted the Plan of Development shows this area as low density development and farm land. The Commission had asked that he look into something that would protect farm land from future development until the infrastructure is there to support it.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public.
Brian Kogut stated he is present on behalf of Kogut Florist to record their opposition to this zone change. They feel the current zone change is both appropriate and compatible. He asked that the Commission look at the economic impact this has on the land owners. This would be effectively decreasing their property values. They want to farm the land and continue to farm the land but as with all farmers, they look down the road. If they want to mortgage the property or retire at some point, the equity is not going to be there. It is much easier to develop one-acre land than it is two-acre land. He asked that the Commission consider this.
In response to a question from Commissioner Sarno, Mr. Giner explained the difference between R-44 and R-88. He stated that R-44 is 44,000 square feet and R-88 is 88,000 square feet regarding the minimum lot size. Any existing lots would be grandfathered.
Chairman DiPace stated the infrastructure is not there in this area. If down the road someone wanted to come in and rezone this property and do a subdivision, they could request a rezoning.
Mr. Giner stated that if in the future sewers and water were to be brought in, it would be looked at in context of what is around it. There are parcels in this area that could potentially have their only means of egress off roads that are considered town roads. One of the subdivisions currently in litigation concerns a road that is twelve feet wide and made of millings. While that subdivision was for seven lots, there could be potentially hundreds of others that could be built off of that area with cul de sacs causing an issue with access. He reiterated that the big difference to the existing lots after this zone change is they will go from fifteen percent coverage to ten percent coverage.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience a second time.
Audrey Szczesiul, Fletcher Road, stated she is in favor of the zoning change to R-88. She noted the residents in the area enjoy the wide open space and the land.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve the initiative by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission for a zone change from Residential 44 (R-44) to Residential 88 (R-88) for the properties mentioned in the legal notice (and listed above in the hearing summary) as heard in Public Hearing #2491 with an effective date of February 1, 1005..
Chairman DiPace stated he believes this zone change will be beneficial to the town and for the residents because it will preserve the rural characteristics of the area.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Sarno voting.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR#1304 - Application for a change of use to existing floor space at 634 Enfield Street, zoned BL, Map 32, Lot 7, Z4E, Inc., Applicant, Enfield Plaza Shoppes LLC, Owner.
George Zanto from Southwick, Massachusetts, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. They submitted their application several weeks ago along with a floor plan. They have since hired an engineer from Enfield, James Triba, to do their design work. Mr. Zanto stated this will be their fourth store and they are excited about locating in Enfield.
Mr. Zanto stated they pride themselves on their food and service and run a clean operation. The only exterior change would be signage. They have met with Mr. Sierra of the Health Department.
This take-out pizza shop will be located in the Enfield Plaza Shoppes, several doors down from Gold's Gym along the back side next to the vitamin store.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission has a memo from the Health Department. The issues with the Health Department are all issues that will be taken care of during the building code process. They will apply for a waiver of the full grease trap and do need to get their waiver approved. Mr. Zanto confirmed they do not use nor do they intend to use fryolators or grills that require cumbersome ventilation. They have an oven and most of the product is done at other locations or they buy directly from the manufacturer. He stated they probably will produce less grease than an average household.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve the application for a change of use for existing floor space at 634 Enfield Street to a take-out restaurant with the standard applicable conditions. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Sarno voting.
b. FLD #20 - Request by the Town for a Flood Permit for work to improve the drainage in the area on Town Farm Road in front of #127.
Mr. Giner stated the town will be reconstructing Town Farm Road because there is a section that is flooding in front of #127. The area is located between Broad Brook Road and Abbe Road in the area of the north side of the golf course.
Mr. Giner noted that Mr. McAlmond is not present this evening but this application is fully explained in the Inland Wetland minutes included in the Commission's meeting packet.
Mr. Cooper asked if there are any plans to improve the corner of Town Farm Road and Wallop School Road. Mr. Giner stated there is a large project in the design phase being done in this area with a federal grant but he could not give all the specifics at this time.
Commissioner Duren confirmed the Commission has received the Inland Wetland Minutes with a detailed explanation of this application.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to approve the request by the Town for a flood permit for work to improve the drainage in the area of Town Farm Road in front of #127.
The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Sarno voting.
BOND RELEASES
a. PH #2150 - Request for release of maintenance bond in the amount of $17,187 for Meetinghouse Lane.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to release the maintenance bond in the amount of $17,187 for Meetinghouse Lane (PH#2150). The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Sarno voting.
b. SPR #1088 - Request for release of landscape bond in the amount of $6,500 for 182 South Road addition and drive through.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to release the landscape bond in the amount of $6,500 for the 182 South Road addition and drive through as heard in SPR#1088. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Sarno voting.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Applications To Be Received
The following applications were received by the Commission:
* PH #2490 - Special Use Permit and site plan approval for the construction
of a church of 5,400 square feet at 339 North Maple St., Zoned R-33, Map 78,
Lot 6, John Morgan AIA, Applicant/Grace Chapel Community Church, Owner.
* PH #2492 - Application for a Special Use Permit for radio controlled
racing complex with storage shed and driver's stand at 95 Raffia Road, Zoned
BL, Map 67, Lot 424, James V. Catania, Applicant/George Raffia & Sons,
Owners.
A Public Hearing will be scheduled for February 3, 2005.
* PH #2493 - Petition for a proposed text change to Section 3.20.2Gii of the
Zoning Regulations pertaining to front setbacks for lots of record.
A Public Hearing will be scheduled for February 3, 2005.
* PH 2494 - Resubdivision of property located at 10 Lego Way south of Moody
Road and West of North Maple Street to split off one lot currently zoned I-1
as shown on Assessors Map 82, Lot1,Lego Building Corporation
Owner/applicant.
A Public Hearing will be scheduled for February 3, 2005.
* SPR #1305 - Application to allow a retail use - dress shop and other
clothing, miscellaneous items - change of use only no exterior work at 97
Pearl Street, Zoned TVCZ, Map 24, Lot 109, Yesi Gutierrez, Applicant/RS Real
Estate, LLC, Owner.
SPR #1306 - Application for a tattoo establishment at 84 Pearl Street, Zoned
TV, Map 24, Lot 107, Yesi Charles Elliott, Jr., Applicant/Cornerstone
Venture Group, Owner.
* These applications would have been accepted January 6th if the meeting had
not been cancelled.
b. Discussion and possible action regarding Villeneuve v. PZC et al
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, that the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission has no objection to the Plaintiff Richard W. Villeneuve motion to withdraw the Complaint in the matter of: Docket No. 04 4002629S, Richard W. Villeneuve v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Enfield and Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company. The motion was approved by a 7 - 0 - 0 vote with Alternate Sarno voting.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|