|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
MAY 19, 1005
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, May 19, 2005 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Jeffrey Cooper
Charles Duren
Robert Egan
James Hickey, Jr.,
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve the Minutes of April 7, 2005. The Minutes were approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Sarno voting.
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve the Minutes of April 21, 2005. The Minutes were approved by a 5 – 0 – 1 vote with Alternate Sarno voting. Chairman DiPace abstained.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of information regarding a storm water quality training session to be held in West Hartford on May 24, 2005. There are two sessions during the day and an evening session.
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of the Zoning Board of Appeals Notice of Action for the April 25, 2005 Meeting.
Chairman DiPace apprised the Commission of a letter he received from Ed Boyce, Store Manager of Home Depot, regarding display of merchandise such as gas grills and stockade fencing. Mr. Giner stated he met with the gentleman from Home Depot yesterday when he was responding to a notice of violation from the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Mr. Giner stated he would like to know if the Commission would amend that section of the ordinance to allow certain other types of things like grills in addition to plants.
Commissioner Duren felt this would open it up to everything. Chairman DiPace stated if this is done properly, it could be a good thing. Applicants would have to come in with a site plan and confine their sales to a certain designated area. Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Giner draft a possible amendment to the regulations to allow such sales.
Commissioner Egan’s opinion was once the Commission allows such displays, there will be others requesting similar displays. He agrees with Commissioner Duren that this will open up a lot of different issues.
Following additional discussion, Commissioner Hickey asked if Home Depot is the only business presently violating the ordinance. Mr. Giner stated they had outside storage in the back in the area of the fire lane. They had approval for a storage building but that building was never constructed.
Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Giner take a look at a possible solution and report back to the Commission.
COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of information from the American Planning Association and information from the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities for April, 2005.
Commissioner Duren brought up a recent advertisement in the Reminder about a liquor or beer wholesaler with sales on Moody Road. Mr. Giner stated this business is only allowed wholesale sales.
Commissioner Duren made a motion to take items out of order and consider Item 8.a. and place it as item 6a. and renumber items 6a and 6b on tonight’s agenda to 6b. and 6c. Commissioner Cooper seconded the motion and it was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Sarno voting.
a. PH#2208 – Application of RYA Corp. for a 6-lot Subdivision on property located on the west side of Laughlin Road, immediately north of the Enfield/Ellington Town line zoned R-88 (Map 106, Lot #1), Myers Nursery, Inc. Owner. (Remand from Appellate Court)
Mr. Giner stated the Commission has an appraisal report and a fee in lieu of in the amount of $2,166.00 per lot for PH#2208.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to waive the sidewalks for PH#2208. The motion was approved by a 5 – 1 – 0 vote. Commissioner Egan voted nay.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve PH#2208, application of RYA Corp. for a 6-lot subdivision on property located on the west side of Laughlin Road immediately north of the Enfield/Ellington Town line zoned R-88, with the following conditions:
1. The final mylars shall be revised to:
* delete any depiction or text relative to a 50’ right of way on Laughlin Road;
* delete any depiction or text relative to the Eastern boundary of Laughlin Road;
* include a red stamp text box, provided by the PZC, over the proposed improvements to Laughlin Road which will provide:
THESE PROPOSED ROAD WIDENING IMPROVEMENTS
ARE NOT PART OF THE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, AND ARE
SUBJECT TO TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL/
THE DEVELOPER MAY APPLY TO THE TWON COUNCIL
FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS AND, IF APPROVED,
THE DEVELOPER WILL BOND FOR THEM.
2. The “Remaining Land: shall be clearly marked “This Lot is Not Part of This Approval and is not a Building Lot. Any development in this area is subject to additional Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission approvals.”
3. The final mylars shall show the location of street trees as required by the Subdivision Regulations.
4. The applicants have chosen to offer a fee-in-lieu of Open Space. A note shall be placed on the mylars stating that a $2,166 per lot fee is owed to the Toiwn of Enfield prior to the first sale of each lot.
5. Sidewalks shall be waived.
6. The applicant shall post all necessary bonds for site improvements in an amount to be determined by Town staff and with surety acceptable to the Town.
7. All mylars submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
8. The final plans will require review and approval from Town staff prior to signing.
9. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this approval motion shall either be incorporated on to the final mylars or separately filed on the land records prior to the signing of the mylars.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
10. Two sets of final mylars and four sets of paper plans with any revisions incorporated on the sheets shall be submitted for signature to the Commission. One set of signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk and one set shall be retained by the Planning Department.
11. In accordance with the subdivision regulations, the final plans shall also be submitted in a digital format prescribed by the Director of Planning.
12. Signs mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk no later than ninety (90) days from the expiration of the appeal period or this approval shall be null and void. The applicants shall provide such mylars to the Planning Department sufficiently in advance of this deadline to allow for review of the plans and the arrangement for the Commission Secretary to sign the mylars. The applicant may request an extension of the filing deadline in accordance with Section 8-25 of the Connecticut General Statutes. Any extension requests must be received in time to allow the Commission to act on them before the original deadline expires.
13. A pass book or cash bond for erosion and sediment control items in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer shall be submitted in full prior to the issuance of building permits or the start of any site work.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Zoning Certificate of Compliance:
14. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
15. The only public improvements required in connection with this subdivision are street trees which shall be planted prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each lot.
General Conditions
16. 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.
17. This approval shall not imply any endorsement of the preliminary Phase II future development plan.
18. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.
Chairman DiPace stated this application was a hearing that was sent back to the Commission from the Court for approval.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – Continued from May 5, 2005 Meeting
b. PH#2496 – Special Use Permit to convert a 3-unit residential building to a 4-unit residential building at 148 Pearl Street, zoned R-33, Map 21, Lot 54, Michael T. Sirois, Applicant, Owner (Must close by June 2)
Chairman DiPace read a memo regarding PH#2496 from Mr. Giiner which stated the applicants were able to hire a surveyor or engineer who has contacted the Assistant Town Engineer. The applicant will revise the plans and have them ready for the next meeting. The applicant has requested that this hearing be continued to the June 2, 2005 meeting to allow their surveyor to provide a revised plan for staff review. Mr. Giner noted the applicants were granted an extension of this application at the May 5, 2005 meeting giving them an additional thirty-five days to complete the public hearing.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace continued this hearing to June 2, 2005.
c. PH#2504 – Special Use Permit for proposed pharmacy and bank building
with drive-through windows at 2 Shaker Road, zoned BL, Map 64, Lot 70, Galaxy Development Group, LLC, Applicant/Galaxy Management, LLC, Owner. (Must close by May 19).
Attorney Susan Hays appeared before the Commission regarding this application. She noted at the hearing session two weeks ago, the Commission requested that they address some open items. They have done so and would like to review that list with the Commission.
Attorney Hays stated the Commission had asked for a colored rendering of the bank and for a material board for both the bank and the pharmacy. Those items were presented.
Patrick Doherty reviewed where each of the materials shown will be used on the elevations. On the top left is a green panel which represents the color and the material for the metal standing seam roof for the bank as well as for the awnings of Walgreen’s. The next block is the face brick and the color type is Heritage and it is a standard sized brick which forms the majority of both buildings. The next is a split faced block which on the bank building forms the water table which is 32” off the ground as well as the columns. The split faced block is also used on the Walgreen’s building as the water table in a similar fashion.
Mr. Doherty pointed to the smooth faced limestone which will be used only on the Walgreen’s building. That material is used along the canopy as well as the column locations near the entrance.
Mr. Doherty stated the final material is an EFIS material which will be used for the bank building on the front of the building along the roof line and above the entrance.
Mr. .Doherty discussed the visibility of the air conditioning units. He distributed information to the Commission regarding these units. The first packet had a cover page with calculations on it. That represents the visibility of the HVAC units on the Walgreen’s building. The Walgreen’s building will have a parapet along the perimeter of the building which will allow the roof height to look level while the actual roof which is below it can slope to provide drainage. The roof will slope from west to east and there will be a parapet on the west side of about two feet and it will slope about two feet across so that the parapet height on the east side of the building will be four feet. They have done calculations and they have found that the nearest you would be able to see a rooftop unit would be from the westerly direction and that would be at 522’. This is where you would begin seeing the top of that unit.
Mr. Doherty stated they were asked about the HVAC units for the proposed bank. The single sheet distributed shows that the bank is proposed to have ground mounted condensers similar to what you would see at a residential home. There will be three condensers and they would be located between the buildings. They are not the typical box that you would see on top of the roof but they are similar to a display and would aesthetically fit in with the surroundings. If the Commission so determines, they could put a fence or some type of screening around these.
Chairman DiPace stated the regulations state that rooftop units have to be screened. He noted the rooftops will be visible in the area of the Fox Hill apartment entrance. He did not feel 525’ is a lot. Chairman DiPace stated these rooftop units will be required to be screened on all four sides so that they will not be visible and the noise is not going to keep the neighbors awake.
Attorney Hays stated the parapet goes all the way around and the plans that Mr. Doherty identified provide views from east/west and north/south. Looking at north/south, you would be 900’ looking to the north, 800’ looking to the south and 1,100’ from the east. The parapet wall is two feet high and the roof slopes down. The mechanicals are 4’2” so you will never see very much. Chairman DiPace asked specific questions regarding the angle.
Attorney Hays stated the existing Walgreen’s will remain open.
Attorney Hays stated another question was whether the Subdivision Regulations required sidewalks on both sides of the street because Elm Street presumably is an arterial or collector street. They went back and reviewed the regulations to see whether there was that requirement. Attorney Hays stated the Subdivision Regulations do require sidewalks on both sides of the street with arterial and collector streets but only with residential subdivisions. It is not required with respect to commercial developments. However, the Commission does have the ability to say they would like to see sidewalks there.
Attorney Hays stated their engineers reviewed the practicality and any safety issues of a sidewalk located from the intersection of Shaker Road and Elm Street down to the driveway. Fahid Karim, a professional engineer, stated with respect to the sidewalk, the Commission asked that they look into placing a sidewalk along the northern side of Elm Street. The sidewalk presently is primarily on the southern portion of the road along Elm Street as well as the southern portion of the road on Shaker Road. They are planning on reconstructing the sidewalk along the site frontage on the south side of Shaker Road. They are also providing a pedestrian pathway into the site, through the site and connecting to the sidewalk on the south side.
Mr. Karim stated at the last meeting, his recommendation to the Commission was for them to look at the feasibility of putting a cross walk across Elm Street at the driveway passing between the private road that serves the condominium as well as their driveway intersection to provide a pedestrian continuity from the condominium units to the development. They have looked at the sight lines and there is adequate sight distance for constructing a cross walk at that location. They can certainly address the pedestrian desire lines between Shaker Road and Elm Street by providing that.
Chairman DiPace stated he feels that sidewalks are needed on both sides. They would not have to go down all the way to the point of the triangle but could stop where the line is up in the front. Attorney Hays clarified that is the line for the property they would be deeding to the town. Chairman DiPace stated the back is being deeded to the Town and if it is every developed for a soccer field or sports venue, children will want to run over for a soda. If there is no sidewalk, they may end up in the road. He would rather see sidewalks to keep children out of the road especially on a road with the present amount of traffic.
Attorney Hays stated there are wetlands all along from the driveway to the east. Mr. Giner stated with the wetlands, the installation of sidewalks would require an entirely new application before Wetlands. Attorney Hays stated what they are doing in that area is a lot of wetlands planting and mitigation which would then be impacted. Attorney Hays stated they would not be fencing the property and the pedestrians could just walk there.
Commissioner Sarno noted there are sidewalks on one side and she asked how far down. Mr. Doherty pointed out the sidewalks on the map. Commissioner Sarno felt there would be a lot of pedestrian activity in this area.
Mr. Doherty stated they did want to encourage the use of the cross walk because Elm Street is a busy road. By providing a cross walk with the sidewalk on the other side, it will keep people on the sidewalk and crossing at the cross walk.
Commissioner Duren asked where the cross walk would be located. Mr. Doherty stated they would locate it on the north side of the driveway. Commissioner Duren stated pedestrians would then be walking from a cross walk to a cross walk.
Mr. Doherty stated because there is a sidewalk on the opposite side of the road, they would connect a cross walk to that sidewalk with a ramp that would run adjacent to their driveway and bring pedestrians into the site.
Attorney Hays stated another item that the Commission members had requested was whether there was any movement in the hours of operation. They talked about the pharmacy being open from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. They would now propose hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Sunday.
Mr. Giner stated the dedication of the parcel to the Town should also be placed on the Land Records. Attorney Hays stated they would be happy to concurrently with the filing of the special permit do an affidavit or notice and have it recorded on the Land Records. Mr. Giner proposed language for an additional condition to cover this item.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.
Sal Presto, 181 Elm Street, reminded the Commission that this is the last peaceful parcel of property left on Elm and Shaker Road. The building being proposed is not compatible with the neighborhood. It is taller, it is garish and it has too many colors. It is not even the same material as the surrounding homes. With a school across the street and the 711, this looks like the start of a big squeeze on the environment of Elm Street from the east and the west. Mr. Presto saw a need to do something to preserve that heritage of open land for the neighborhood and for the people of the Town of Enfield.
Ruth Presto, 181 Elm Street, stated their home is in close proximity to the proposed pharmacy and the bank. She believes the building is an intrusion to the neighborhood. It is no longer a little corner drug store but is more like a mini mall. She saw the Commission squeezing residents right out of town. She asked that the Commission be more hospitable to its residents. She saw a squeeze being put on the residents in the area by allowing the bank and drug store. She questioned why the Commission cannot keep the commercial areas in one place instead of affecting the entire town. She did not feel it was fair to the residents. While people started this town, Ms. Presto did not feel it was resident friendly any longer. Ms. Presto noted the Chairman was late tonight because of an accident on Elm Street. She felt this proposal will invite more accidents. It is already unsafe on Elm Street and this proposal will make it more unsafe. She called the Commission members’ actions morally reprehensible. Chairman DiPace requested that Ms. Presto not personally attack Commission members.
Attorney Hays stated while they understand that this parcel is vacant land, this property has been zoned for a commercial/industrial use. The fact that it has not been used for that purpose is due to circumstances and not of right. The front parcel was rezoned Business by this Commission. The parcel was subdivided and the property to the rear which is approximately ten acres of land is being deeded over to the town for open space purposes. The issue or concern that this type of development is the start of squeezing is incorrect unless the town itself decides it wants to do something with the land that is deeded over to it. This development will allow the preservation of the rear parcel so that it is not developed for industrial purposes. They have, in the development of this project, tried to be sensitive to the neighbors. They think that the materials that are being used and the architectural design are, in fact, compatible with the neighborhood. The scale of the bank building is very compatible with the residential along that side and the Walgreen’s is not that much higher and is not as a high as a two-story residence would be. They have tried very hard with landscaping to screen the buildings and the parking area from the residentially zoned property. Attorney Hays pointed out the various landscaping species and their location on the plans.
Attorney Hays stated they have also lowered all the parking lot lighting in order to be as unobtrusive as they possibly can be. They believe the proposal presented to the Commission does meet the criteria of both the site plan and special permit regulations and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. It is also appropriate in the zone and in this particular area.
Mr. Giner stated his updated memo removes the twenty-four hour notation and also adds conditions regarding sidewalks and the screening of the HVAC units. With respect to Elm Street, the Subdivision Regulations state Elm Street south of Shaker Road is a minor arterial. Hazard and Shaker Roads are classified as principals and Elm Street is classified as a collector.
Attorney Hays reiterated that the requirement for sidewalks applies to residential subdivisions so they would not be required to install sidewalks. It would be at the Commission’s discretion.
Commissioner Hickey stated as a point of clarification, the two hearings before the Commission tonight are special use permits for drive throughs. Under the current zoning, the bank and pharmacy are permitted uses. Mr. Giner stated if the uses did not have drive throughs, a public hearing would not be required.
Chairman DiPace asked about the sidewalk on Shaker Road that is coming down and where does it stop. Mr. Doherty pointed out on the plans where the sidewalk stops. They propose a new sidewalk and one of the proposed conditions would be to extend it and replace the bituminous with concrete to go from the cross walk to the edge of the property.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience a second time.
Sal Presto, 181 Elm Street, stated he would like to clarify compatibility. He went into some detail on what he feels is not compatible for the area. While these people are saying that the proposed buildings are compatible, you won’t see the color or the material of these buildings anywhere in the neighborhood. The attraction for Walgreen’s in this vicinity is the 30,000 cars a day that travel the area. However, there are presently kids walking to and from school and people leisurely walking. This is not going to happen when you have cars entering and exiting a bank and a pharmacy. It will be more than the neighborhood can bear.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve PH #2504 - Special Use Permit for proposed pharmacy and bank building with drive-through windows at 2 Shaker Road, Zoned BL, Map 64, Lot 70, Galaxy Development Group, LLC, Applicant/Galaxy Management, LLC, Owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
"Proposed Retail Development Shaker Road and Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut" (Cover Index Sheet)
"Proposed Retail Development Shaker Road and Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut, Legend and General Notes" Sheet C-1, Scale: "No Scale", by VHB, dated February 21, 2005.
"Proposed Retail Development Shaker Road and Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut, Overall Development Site Plan" Sheet C-2, Scale: 1"=60' by VHB, dated February 21, 2005, revised to 3/30/05.
"Proposed Retail Development Shaker Road and Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut, Layout and Materials Plan" Sheet C-3, Scale: 1"=40' by VHB, dated February 21, 2005, revised to 3/30/05.
"Proposed Retail Development Shaker Road and Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut, Grading and Drainage Plan" Sheet C-4, Scale: 1"=40' by VHB, dated February 21, 2005, revised to 3/30/05.
"Proposed Retail Development Shaker Road and Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut, Utilities Plan" Sheet C-5, Scale: 1"=40' by VHB, dated February 21, 2005, revised to 3/30/05.
"Proposed Retail Development Shaker Road and Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut, Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan" Sheet C-6, Scale: 1"=40' by VHB, dated February 21, 2005, revised to 3/30/05.
"Proposed Retail Development Shaker Road and Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut, Landscape Plan" Sheet C-7, Scale: 1"=40' by VHB, dated February 21, 2005, revised to 3/30/05.
"Proposed Retail Development Shaker Road and Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut, Site Details 1" Sheet C-8, Scale: "No Scale", by VHB, dated February 21, 2005, revised to 3/30/05.
"Proposed Retail Development Shaker Road and Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut, Site Details 2" Sheet C-9, Scale: "No Scale", by VHB, dated February 21, 2005, revised to 3/30/05.
"Proposed Retail Development Shaker Road and Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut, Site Details 3" Sheet C-10, Scale: "No Scale", by VHB, dated February 21, 2005, revised to 3/30/05.
"Proposed Retail Development Shaker Road and Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut, Site Details 4" Sheet C-11, Scale: "No Scale", by VHB, dated February 21, 2005, revised to 3/30/05.
"Proposed Retail Development Shaker Road and Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut, Site Details 5" Sheet C-12, Scale: "No Scale", by VHB, dated February 21, 2005, revised to 3/30/05.
"Property Survey, Land Now or Formerly of Galaxy Management, LLC, Volume 1636, Page 311, 2 Shaker Road, Enfield, Connecticut" Scale: 1"=50',by O'Brien Associates, Inc., dated December 31, 2004.
"Project: Walgreens #9432, National Accounts"(Photometric Plan), Drawing "AU", Scale 1"=30', by Cooper Lighting. Dated 2/23/2005.
"Exterior Elevations, DTLS & Sign Data" Drawing No. A2.1, by Walgreens Facilities Planning, Design, & Engineering.
"Floor Plan & Elevations, Proposed Bank Building Shaker Road & Elm Street, Enfield, CT." Sheet A-1, Scale: 1/8"=1'-0", by Allied Construction, Inc, dated 2/24/05.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
2. Any references to 24 hour pharmacy operation shall be removed from the final plans.
3. The documentation shall be revised to show zero increase in peak discharge rates for total off-site flow in the hydrologic/hydraulic analysis table 3.
4. The minimum pipe outlet diameter shall be revised to be an 8" pipe (6" pipe is shown at detent #2) to protect from clogging problems.
5. The utility trench detail shall note that where storm pipes have less than 2' of cover, the processed stone trench backfill shall extend up into the pavement base.
6. The loading dock detail shall call for processed stone base instead of compacted gravel.
7. The plans shall be revised to show expansion joints every 20' on center with control joint every 5' on center in accordance with Town Standard sidewalk detail.
8. The sidewalk and dumpster detail shall be revised to meet Town Standard which calls for 5" concrete on sidewalks and 8" concrete on ramps and the dumpster pad.
9. The existing bituminous walks along Shaker Road shall be upgraded to meet current concrete Town Standards.
10. A note shall be added to the plan that states that the Signage shown is conceptual. All Site signage shall be subject a separate application and review by staff in compliance with the Zoning Regulations.
11. The Application number "PH 2504" shall be prominently displayed on each sheet submitted for signature, preferable above or near the Title block.
12. The Plans shall show the appropriate street address for each building as determined by the Engineering Division and the Emergency 911 coordinator.
13. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of the approval with conditions shall be incorporated in the final plans.
14. The final mylars shall receive appropriate staff review and approval.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
15. The subdivision plans approved concurrently with this application shall be on file in the Town Land Records.
16. One set of mylar 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.
17. 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.
18. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
19. The applicant shall post a bond for Site improvements in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney.
20. A Separate Erosion and Sediment Control Bond shall be submitted in the form of a passbook, pledged to the Town, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
21. A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.
22. Final Connecticut Department of Transportation approval shall be obtained. Any changes required by ConnDOT to the site layout are subject to further review and possible approval of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
23. Final approvals shall be obtained from the Water Pollution Control Division and Fire Marshall.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
24. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 and T2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
25. Certification shall be provided that the lighting was installed in accordance with the approved lighting/photometric plans.
26. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
General Conditions:
27. The 30" dead tree shown on the area to be dedicated to the Town should be removed, as soon as possible.
28. The property owner is responsible for the maintenance of the parcel labeled "Future Dedication to the Town of Enfield" until such dedication is executed.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. A building permit for the construction of facilities as approved must be obtained within one year of the effective date of this approval or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission in accordance with Section 9.20.3 of the Enfield Zoning Regulations.
32. This project is also subject to conditions of approval from the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency Permit # IW436.
33. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
34. The hours of operation are from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Sunday.
35. A note shall be placed on the Land Records indicating the triangular piece shall be deeded to the Town if and when there is a proposal to redo the intersection.
36. The ground mechanicals for the bank shall be screened and shall be acceptable to the Town Planner.
37. The continuation of the sidewalk shall be completed from its present end on Shaker Road to the driveway entrance to the property on Elm Street and from the cross walk to the south side of Elm Street.
Chairman DiPace felt the amount of land being deeded to the Town that will be kept open space and the piece in the front being left the way it is for possible future alignment of the road is really a win win situation for the Town of Enfield. In his opinion, this application is very minimal and the least intrusive. It will work and preserve a lot of open space in the Town of Enfield.
Commissioner Egan stated he thinks this project that has been proposed eliminates other uses that would be more intrusive to the residential areas on Elm Street and Shaker Road and that the applicant has done an excellent job in the landscaping so that it does fit in with the area. The open space that has been donated to the Town eliminates what else can be placed there which could have been some manufacturing and other significant activity.
Commissioner Hickey added as a technicality that it is a fact of life that all new drug stores and banks are drive-in facilities. In his opinion, the applicant met the criteria for the special use permit.
The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2505 – Application for a resubdivision of a 14 plus or minus acre parcel into two parcels (1 and 2) Parcel 1 to be 0.85 plus or minus acres and existing package store, Parcel 2 to be 11.84 acres plus or minus and will remain unchanged at 229 Post Office Road, zoned BL, Map 68, Lot 151, Edward E. Wojnar, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by June 23)
David Palmberg appeared before the Commission representing Edward Wojnar. He stated this site is 14 acres located at the intersection of Raffia and Post Office Roads right next to J. F. Kennedy Middle School. Currently, it is a fourteen-acre site with two buildings, an existing package store and an existing garage.
Mr. Palmberg stated they are proposing a resubdivision to create a new lot for just the package store so that it can be sold. The remaining land would stay the property of Mr. Wojnar. On that land, there is an existing garage. They are not proposing any new construction but only separating the package store from the main property.
As part of this application, Mr. Palmberg stated they are doing some storm drainage. There is a large culvert that was constructed down Post Office road a couple of years ago by the Town. It was extended and an easement was never recorded or made up at the time. They are proposing a storm drainage easement at this time. Also, as part of the subdivision process, they are proposing open space to be conveyed to the Town in the northeast corner. This is a 1.42 acre piece which abuts the John F. Kennedy School complex and is in the vicinity of the treed area in the rear corner of the site. Just below that area there’s an intermittent water course for the Town drainage system. There are severely eroded slopes back there and there is a project underway with the Engineering Department to repair those slopes. They propose this piece in that area because it abuts Town owned land and also because it would protect those slopes and keep the natural buffer that’s there now.
Mr. Palmberg stated they have received approval from the Enfield Conservation Commission.
Mr. Palmberg stated the only issue is that they requested some consideration regarding the fees for this application. They are asking that the Commission consider Section C. of the fee schedule to pay for the fee for the frontage of the newly created parcel. They are also requesting a reduction in Section D. from $200 to $100 for staff review in that really only one parcel is being reviewed, the package store parcel. They are also requesting in Section E. a waiver of the sediment and erosion control review because there is no construction being proposed. They are merely creating three new lot lines.
Chairman DiPace stated at a later date, if something is done with the other parcel, a fee will be paid at that time.
Mr. Palmberg stated as far as the open space that is being dedicated at this time, it is their understanding that this open space dedication satisfies the requirement for both lots. Chairman DiPace stated it would not cover the fees for any application in the future.
Mr. Giner recommended that $400 be returned to the applicant. He agrees with most of what the applicant has stated except for the portion where it says $100 per lot staff time. He noted staff time was used to review both sites. There is no sediment and erosion control review. The frontage fee would amount to $350. Under the application ordinance passed by the Town Council, the Commission does have the authority to grant appeals. Mr. Giner noted this is not a typical subdivision that would require a lot of inspections.
Commissioner Sarno asked about the zone of the property. Mr. Palmberg stated it is all Business Local and it is the only Business Local zone in this area.
Max Wojner confirmed that this subdivision is a condition of the sale of the package store.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience. 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 reduce the fees in the amount of $400 for PH#2505. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.
Commissioner Egan noted this is an unusual situation in which the Commission is reducing the fees. The land that is being deeded to the Town is a real significant piece in making sure the erosion of the athletic fields at J. F. Kennedy School is addressed. He supports the fee waiver because of the circumstances.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve PH#2505 - Application for a resubdivision of a 14 + acre parcel into two parcels (1 & 2) Parcel 1 to be 0.85 + acre and existing package store, Parcel 2 to be 11.84 acres + and will remain unchanged at 229 Post Office Road, Zoned BL, Map 68, Lot 151 Edward E. Wojnar, Applicant/Owner. 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:
" 229 Post Office Road Map 68, Lot 151, Owner: Edward E. Wojnar, P.H. #2505 Resubdivision Plan Prepared for Edward E. Wojnar, Enfield, Connecticut." Sheet 1 of 1. Scale: 1"=50', by William R. Palmberg & Son LLC, Land Surveyors, dated 3-30-05.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Mylars:
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. A copy of this approval shall either be incorporated onto the mylars submitted for signature or filed separately on the land records of the property.
3. The deed for Open Space dedication shall be submitted, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney.
4. Two sets 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 applicant shall also submit the final plans in a digital format which is compatible with the software utilized by the Engineering Division.
5. Signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk no later than ninety (90) days from the expiration of the appeal period or this approval shall be null and void. The applicants shall provide such mylars to the Planning Department sufficiently in advance of this deadline to allow for review of the plans and the arrangement for the Commission Secretary to sign the mylars. The applicant may request an extension of the filing deadline in accordance with Section 8-25 of the CT. General Statutes. Any extension requests must be received in time to allow the Commission to act on them before the original deadline expires
General Conditions:
6. No new development is being proposed or approved as part of this approval.
7. The Building marked as "Existing Garage" on the remaining 11.84 acre parcel is represented as being accessory to an existing agricultural use housing farm equipment. No other use may be permitted without prior approval of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Sarno voting.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR#1322 – Application to restore windows and brickwork on the Yankee Bait & Tackle Building at 92 Main Street, zoned TVC, Map 24, Lot 47, Guy Beaudoin, Applicant/Owner.
Mr. Giner presented this application to the Commission due to the absence of the applicant. Mr. Giner stated the Commission received a memo from the Enfield Revitalization Strategy Commission. This proposal includes changes to their facade. The ERSC has supported the changes.
Commissioner Duren read the letter from Bill Lee of the ERSC to the Planning and Zoning Commission dated May 17, 2005 recommending approval of the facade changes. These changes include window replacement and repairs to the exterior masonry.
Mr. Giner stated most of the work is removing the metal panels and replacing them with brick. The applicant would like to begin these improvements immediately.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve SPR#1322 as presented by Jose Giner. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Sarno voting.
b. SPR#1324 – Site Plan Review for addition of a “cold storage” shed to be erected in the SE corner of the property at 1 Depot Hill Road, zoned I-2, May 13, Lot 38, Tri-State Rentals, LLC, Applicant/Owner.
Marty Crowe, Stanley Jablonski and Scott Pelugi, the property owner, appeared before the Commission regarding this application for a cold storage shed to be erected in the southeast corner of the property at 1 Depot Hill Road.
Mr. Crowe stated the proposed cold storage shed would be an addition to the property where they are currently operating the Kenworth Truck Dealership on Depot Hill Road. The cold storage shed is going to be used to store the majority of their site maintenance equipment which includes snow plows, fork lifts, yard cranes and other maintenance vehicles that currently sit out in the open on the sixteen-acre property. There will be no revenue producing activities taking place within this shed. There will be no outside lighting, no plumbing and no air conditioning. Currently all the surrounding properties are owned by the same person.
Mr. Crowe stated the Zoning Board of Appeals approximately ten months ago approved a variance on the setback lines. The construction of the proposed cold storage shed is going to be on a poured concrete slab. It will be a steel framework structure with a metal skin around it. The doors are 14’ high and the roof is approximately 25’ at the center. The shed will be five feet lower than their main building of 30’ high.
Mr. Crowe presented elevations of the building and stated the color of the building will be a solid tan or gray. The main building is also a mixture of tan and gray. This particular shed, if approved, will be fairly close to where the barn is located.
Mr. Giner stated John Cabbibo sent a memo today and had some questions. His concerns were the proper certification statement is not on the plan. The existing site improvements shown in the area of the proposed building should be marked to be removed. The note calling for the pole in the proposed paved area to be relocated should show the proposed new location. Drainage computations should be submitted and the detail for the proposed catch basin should be added to the plans along with standard town notes.
Mr. Crowe stated the pole has been removed. Mr. Giner noted the plans still show it.
Chairman DiPace suggested a condition that any remaining issues in the email from John Cabbibo dated May 9, 2005 should be addressed.
Commissioner Duren cited the revised elevation drawings, the numbering on those drawings and the minor change to the spacing of the garage door. Those will be included in the approval motion.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve SPR#1324 for a cold storage shed to be located in the southeast corner of the property at 1 Depot Hill Road with the condition that the concerns in the memo from John Cabbibo dated May 19, 2005 be addressed. The related plans are dated May 19, 2005, Cover Sheet 1 of 3, 2 of 3, and detail sheet 3 of 3 and the elevations presented to the Commission dated 11/11/04, Sheets S-1, S-2, and S-3 with minor changes to the spacing of the garage door. The color of the cold storage shed shall be an earth tone. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Preliminary discussion with J. R. Russo & Associates who represent Sachi Corporation concerning converting second floor of property at 5-9 North Main Street to a rooming house use.
Jay Ursery of J. R. Russo, Kate Tyler from Tyler and Tyler, and Mr. Alvertele appeared before the Commission for a preliminary discussion regarding the use of the second floor of the property at 5 – 9 North Main Street.
Mr. Ursery stated the building at 5 – 9 North Main Street is a commercial brick building diagonally across from the fire station. Currently all of the first floor is rented commercial space. The second floor which is approximately 3,000 square feet has been rented off and on for office suites. Mr. Ursery noted that Social Services has identified a need for more affordable rooms since they are currently housing people at the Raddison. Mr. Alvertele is proposing changing the second floor to a rooming house but Mr. Ursery questioned if this would meet the regulations. The regulations seem to be a little gray as to whether this particular use conforms to the regulations. He presented copies of particular sections of the ordinance which seem to contain some conflicting information.
Mr. Ursery stated on page 24 S rooming houses by special permit would be an allowable use. It says such rooming house must maintain the appearance of an owner occupied residential building. Mr. Ursery noted the proposed building is not a residential building but a commercial one. The next page of the ordinance talks about the building maintaining the residential characteristics. Mr. Ursery again noted this is not a residential building. There is also a section on page 27 that talks about the conversion of buildings for residential purposes. This section states the style and appearance of the building is to be maintained. Mr. Ursery stated they would not be changing the exterior of the building.
Mr. Ursery stated on page 41 of the ordinance there is a section that talks about residential dwelling units allowed in that district. They talk about single-family and multi-family residential uses. Mr. Ursery was not sure if their proposal would fit that section. There is also a section that talks about keeping the first floor areas as shown and he read from the ordinance.
Mr. Giner stated that last section is on page 46. This building is in the core area which is identified as a sub-area of the Thompsonville area. It says the first floor of all buildings shall be restricted to retail service. You cannot have residential on the first floor in the core area. It goes on to say that the following uses shall specifically be permitted only above the first floor and (a) is residential. It permits residential on the second floor and actually encourages it.
Mr. Ursery stated this is not a residential building to begin with and the section refers to keeping the residential nature of the structure and not changing it. They have an owner who seems to think he has a use that fits and he could rent the rooms.
Mr. Giner stated residential is encouraged and allowed above the first floor in the core area. The question is whether or not this interpretation can be used to say that the residential character in that core area because the buildings are primarily commercial.
Mr. Giner stated rooming houses are allowed but a special permit is required. This applicant would like some input from the Commission as to the use of the second floor of this commercial building for a rooming house.
Mr. Giner stated they would have to submit a special permit application but would like to know if the Commission agrees that the residential character in the core area would be maintained.
Chairman DiPace stated he would prefer to see apartments rather than a rooming house. With a rooming house, there may be difficulty renting the commercial space downstairs. 3,000 square feet would allow a couple of apartments.
Commissioner Duren stated he would think that apartments would be better especially if the owner wants to keep the downstairs tenants.
Chairman DiPace stated the town is doing so much to try to revitalize Thompsonville. He sees no problem making the area upstairs residential as long as they are apartments.
Commissioner Hickey asked if conversion to apartments would require a special permit. Mr. Giner stated it would be a site plan review under the business section for the core area.
Commissioner Hickey stated this would become an administrative interpretation by Mr. Giner that the core area can be residential on the second floor. Mr. Giner confirmed that residential is permitted on the second floor.
b. Applications to be Received.
The following applications were received by the Commission:
SPR#1323 – Application for modification of plans previously approved for change of color within limited area on facade at Brookside Plaza, 10-38 Hazard Avenue, zoned BR, Map 56, Lot 22, Matthew Alix, Applicant, Gateway Connecticut Properties, Owner.
SPR#1325 – Application for modification of entrance to former Bradlees space at 26 Hazard Avenue, zoned BR, Map 45, Lot 8, Galileo Enfield Commons LLC, Applicant/Owner.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|