|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
JULY 7, 2005
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, July 7, 2005, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Anthony DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Charles Duren
Robert Egan
James Hickey, Jr.
Karen Krebs
Karen Weseliza
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
Nicles Lefakis, Voting Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve the Minutes of July 7, 2005. The Minutes were approved by a 6 – 0 – 1 vote. Commissioner Lefakis abstained.
STAFF COMMENTS
a. Town Attorney (in person)
Assistant Town Attorney Mark Cerrato reported on the two cases pending. Regarding Chickosky v. PZC, they are waiting for the plaintiff’s pleading and that’s due next week. The second case is Kaplan v. ZBA and is in progress. There are several other PZC cases but due to conflicts of interest, they are not involved with them.
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer (in person)
Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley responded to questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Egan brought up the problems recently brought to the Commission’s attention regarding Freemont Street and Artioli and Palomba Drive and Lia. He stated there were referrals made from this Commission that the Zoning Enforcement Officer look into these issues. Mr. Bickley stated regarding the Artioli Dodge issue, on the approved plans there was a designated area for unloading and they were unloading the cars in the street. He has received police reports but never a direct call regarding this unloading. He has monitored the area and has never seen a truck unloading in the street. There were two complaints over the last two years and they were complaints after the fact. It was his understanding that the police have since installed “no unloading” signs on Freemont Street.
Regarding Lia, Mr. Bickley stated he has only seen them unloading on the street once and that was addressed. Commissioner Egan noted that members of this Commission have seen unloading of vehicles on the street at the Lia facility and he, personally, witnessed a tractor trailer parked on the street. Commissioner Egan asked if the permit granted stated that they unload vehicles on the site rather than the road and should that not be part of the enforcement procedure. Mr. Bickley stated he would have to see them or use a police report to cite them. When he receives such a police report, he usually gives them a call. Mr. Bickley stated there are many different vendors that unload vehicles and it is up to the owner to inform them of the proper procedure.
Chairman DiPace stated he heard from someone today that the Lia Nissan dealership was unloading vehicles in the road. He asked if there is a way that the Town could post signs on Palomba Drive indicating no unloading along the street and if this would be handled through the Traffic Safety Officer or the Police Department. Chairman DiPace felt if the area was posted, it could then be enforced. Mr. Bickley stated this would be the same procedure used for Freemont. Chairman DiPace asked that someone look into the posting of such signs. Mr. Giner stated this was previously discussed with the Traffic Safety Officer and he will remind him of the need for these signs.
Commissioner Krebs stated she drives the area of Palomba Drive every day and the unloading of vehicles on the street occurs a lot. She finds it difficult that when they are unloading and the manager is in the garage, he is not aware this is occurring. Mr. Bickley stated the manager would be keeping track of the cars coming in.
Mr. Bickley asked if anyone has heard of any problems on Freemont since the signs were posted. No Commissioners had.
Mr. Giner stated they have instituted stricter procedures regarding permit conditions. In the Lia application, the conditions included painting the unloading area and that nothing could ever be parked there. Any time the area was seen to be obstructed, the dealership could then be cited for a violation.
Some discussion followed as to whether other applications have specified unloading areas. Mr. Bickley stated Artioli’s is on their plan but not painted in the parking lot. Lia’s Used Cars has a painted area for unloading of vehicles.
Commissioner Duren asked if Mr. Bickley has followed through on the aerials he gave to him. Mr. Bickley stated he went to the site and could not see any from the street. Because the aerial photo looked like cars were parked on the street, he will give this matter to the police to see if there are any unregistered cars on this property.
Commissioner Weseliza brought up the freestanding signs she recently viewed in front of Bernie’s advertising air conditioners. Mr. Bickley stated those signs have been removed.
c. Director of Planning
Mr. Giner thanked Commission members for their responses regarding the meeting scheduled for July 21, 2005 that will begin at 7:00 p.m. He will place Leete-Stevens at the end of this agenda because of the anticipated length of that continued hearing.
Mr. Giner stated last October the Commission voted to align their meeting dates in September with the Inland Wetlands Commission schedule. The September meetings will be September 8 and September 22, 2005 rather than the first and third Thursdays.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission has received correspondence regarding a workshop to be held on September 15, 2005 regarding terrace escarpment slopes at the East Windsor Town Hall at 7:00 p.m. This workshop is sponsored by the North Central Conservation District.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Ronald Proska, 34 Foxcroft, stated he lives on Freemont Street and he questioned what happened to the twenty-five mile speed limit signs that were posted previously. They have been taken down and the people on Freemont are concerned about test driving of cars by the Artioli dealership. He would like the speed limit signs reinstated. Chairman DiPace asked that Mr. Giner refer this matter to the Traffic Safety Officer. Mr. Proska informed the Commission that recently Artioli has been parking cars on both sides of his establishment and it is making it difficult for people to travel in the area. Mr. Giner stated there were previously “no parking” signs posted but the neighbors in the area were not in favor of these because they could not park their cars on the street. Those signs were removed.
Jack Sheridan, Buchanan Road, stated he does not see what the problem is with enforcement regarding the unloading of vehicles. The cars are unregistered and if they are unregistered, it should be a simple matter to make sure they don’t unload such vehicles on the public roads.
Margaret Jedziniak, Abbe Road, asked if this Commission has jurisdiction over spots located in the streets that are adopted by various organizations or members of the public. Mr. Giner stated this would be something to be brought before Public Works. Ms. Jedziniak stated there is a hazardous condition on a state highway. Chairman DiPace asked that Ms. Jedziniak state where this situation is occurring so that it can be referred to the proper town personnel. Ms. Jedziniak stated this spot is located on the corner of Broad Brook Road and Route 190. The flowers planted are very high and drivers cannot see when coming out of the street causing many complaints. She personally complained and Dan Vindigni spoke to the state about it. A person from the state came and viewed the area but he was in a large state truck and not a car and did not have a problem. Ms. Jedziniak stated the area also has another problem where Westerly Road comes out. She had concerns about drivers’ inability to see in these areas.
Reg Leonard updated the Commission on the Grandview Drive situation. He was before the Commission over a year ago. There has been no resolution regarding his daughter’s home at 10 Grandview Drive and her problems which started this whole thing two and a half years ago. The developer and the town staff have considered what Mr. Egan said, what Mr. Duren said, what Mr. DiPace said and what he personally said – that they have problems on the south side of Grandview Drive at 5, 7, 9, 11, and 15. They have serious problems and they have hired an attorney. Mr. Leonard noted the attitude of the developer has been “sue us.” He noted some of the items requested a year and a half ago by not only himself but by Commissioners Egan, Duren and Chairman DiPace. He wanted a legal opinion on the subdivision regulations as far as numerous text items that he brought before this Commission and he never got this. The request was also made by numerous people but such a legal opinion was never received. Mr. Leonard stated they have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the topographical map was wrong on 10 Grandview Drive and there were statements made by a soil scientist that a review of the subdivision grading plan for 10 Grandview Drive and a recent as built topographical map would indicate the developer did not create the lot according to the plan.
Reg Leonard stated as far as problems on Grandview Drive itself, there were numerous violations by the builder and the developer in not getting the proper permits, digging up land, not reporting it with this Commission and other matters which the Commission addressed. The point Mr. Leonard would like to make is he now has a letter from 5, 7, 9, 11 and 15 Grandview Drive, the southern part of the street, which they would like read because the residents could not be present this evening. The letter is from Beck and Eldergill to the developer which states “please confirm that whatever work is being performed, including the installation of drainage, is consistent with the local and state regulations and statutes and that the necessary approvals have been received by the town or the state. I do not wish to create any problems for my clients in the future.”
Mr. Leonard stated a video was previously viewed by the Commission and the Town Council showing water in this area of Grandview Drive running like a river. Two years later they are addressing that issue. His concern is two or three weeks ago, this work was started by the developer. He asked that Chairman DiPace ask Mr. Giner if they have come before this Commission and asked for approval to do this. He stated the water is now coming down the property line and emptying into the main sewer which is on a town street. He asked again if that has all been approved. Mr. Leonard stated this is underground and there is a drain in the back which has been dug up. This has occurred in the last three to four weeks. He asked if there are rules and regulations or a test done to determine whether a water flow can come through that area. He asked if the town has approved this or does the developer just come in, like he normally has done, thinking he can do whatever he wants without getting approvals. Chairman DiPace asked if the developer cut into the storm drainage system and tied it into this. Mr. Leonard stated he is not an expert but he saw the area dug up in the vicinity of the end of the sewer. It has been complete now for a week and he asked if Mr. Giner knows of any process in the last month and a half before this construction was started where approvals were given.
Mr. Giner stated this would not go through the Planning Office. Once a street is approved, any curb cuts or tie-ins that belong to the Town would have to go through the Department of Public Works for a permit. He will ask the Engineering Department if they received an application for any such permits.
Chairman DiPace stated when Grandview Drive was discussed, the developer was told if they were going to add any more drainage that drainage calculations would be needed and they would have to come back for a modification. Mr. Giner stated the one they were talking about they showed on an as built. He will check with Engineering regarding whether any permits have been issued for the road cut on Grandview Drive.
Mr. Leonard stated on the letter dated April 20, 2004 that was sent to homeowners at 5, 7, 9, 11 and 15 Grandview Drive, the five that have hired an attorney, it states copies were sent to Wayne Bickley and Jose Giner. The people in Planning were aware of this. Chairman DiPace stated the Commission will look into this.
Mr. Leonard stated he would like, no later than tomorrow, a telephone call from the Planning Department or the Engineering Department at 745-6552 telling him if they did obtain a permit and if they did follow the rules regarding this particular work. Chairman DiPace stated someone will call Mr. Leonard but he cannot guarantee it will be tomorrow. He assured Mr. Leonard that the Commission will have an answer by their next meeting in two weeks.
Commissioner Weseliza asked who did the work on Grandview Drive. Karen Camidge, 10 Grandveiw Drive, stated the son-in-law of the builder who owns Somerset Development dug the drains and tied them into the sewer system. Ms. Camidge stated the group of six homeowners is very concerned and did take legal action. The builder agreed there were problems with the way the subdivision was graded and water problems. The homeowners had an engineer come out to recommend the correct way to fix the curtain drains and other items. The builder agreed to go by what their engineer recommended. Also listed out were the dates when this was going to occur. They needed to be notified who it was that was going to be on a particular property. Three weeks ago someone showed up on a Sunday afternoon and started digging up the area with the homeowner not home. He started digging a trench between the two houses, putting drains down, cutting the sewers and patching them with cement. This work continued to occur whenever the person doing the work had time to come to the area. Ms. Camidge stated for the original drains, water calculations had to be submitted to make sure that the runoff would be handled by those drains and the neighbors are afraid that nothing was done and the person has taken it upon himself to come and do it at his leisure. The neighbors went the legal route hoping to get some control on what was going to happen but the builder is arrogant and wants to do it when he wants to do it. Ms. Camidge’s intent is to make sure this Commission is informed of what is occurring.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace noted receipt of a letter from the Town Manager’s Office regarding a picture of the Commission which needs to be done by October to be included in the town calendar. Chairman DiPace recommended this photograph be taken at the Commission’s September 8, 2005 meeting.
Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Giner confirm the meeting dates for 2006 with the Town Manager’s Office. Mr. Giner will check with Wetlands prior to completing the 2006 meeting calendar.
Chairman DiPace requested Mr. Giner prepare a text change for the approval dates. Mr. Giner explained with subdivisions, the state law says you have to file within ninety days of the appeal period. On special permits, which have to be filed on the land records, the effective date by law is the date they get filed in the land records but the law does not state when you have to file them. Mr. Giner stated someone could not file a special permit for a year or two and the effective date does not become effective until it is filed. He recommended including something in the regulations that states construction must be started within a year of the approval date rather than the effective date on the land records. This would also be easier for staff to track.
Chairman DiPace noted receipt of a Notice of Action from Inland Wetlands dated June 7, 2005. Commissioner Duren stated page 2, number nine, answers a question he had asked. He asked if this could be made part of the record for the next meeting.
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of the Notice of Actions of the Inland Wetlands from June 21, 2005. Correspondence also includes a 2005-06 Connecticut Chapter of American Planning Association directory, various publications from the American Planning Association and information on a Connecticut Conference of Municipalities convention to be held Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at the Hartford Convention Center. Chairman DiPace stated a bulletin was also received from the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities regarding a workshop on Tuesday, July 12, 2005. Correspondence also included the College of Agricultural and Natural Resource Journal from the University of Connecticut.
Mr. Giner reported there is a workshop next Wednesday, July 13, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the offices of Shipman and Goodwin in Hartford regarding legislation passed in 2005 and a discussion on the recent Supreme Court case regarding eminent domain.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – NEW
a. PH#2510 – Resubdivision of a remainder parcel into five new building lots and one remainder parcel on 221 Shaker Road and 38 Bacon Road, zoned R-44 and I-1, Map 94, Lot 4, Estate of Joseph Polek, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by July 21.)
Attorney Charles Parakilas and Paul Fox appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Attorney Parakilas stated this is an application for a resubdivision of land situated on the northerly side of Shaker Road and the westerly side of Bacon Road consisting of a tract of land that was originally twenty acres more or less. The northerly portion is in an I-1 zone which abuts Bacon Road. On this portion is a machine shop known as 38 Bacon Road. The southerly portion which abuts Shaker Road and a portion of Bacon Road is in a Residential-44 zone. On this portion is Joseph Polek’s residence known as 221 Shaker Road. Freshwater Brook cuts across the middle running east to west.
Attorney Parakilas confirmed that all public hearing signs have been posted for more than ten days before this hearing and the applicant has received unanimous approval from the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Agency and a copy of that approval has been included in the record of this application.
Attorney Parakilas stated during Joseph Polek’s lifetime he built his residence on what is now 221 Shaker Road. He deeded a lot to his son, Albert, who built his residence on what is now 215 Shaker Road. He subsequently deeded a lot to his daughter and son-in-law, Barbara and Ken Maynard, who built their home on a portion of what is now known as 38 Bacon Road which he leased out to his son-in-law. The drawings on the E-1 map show the existing state of conditions of the property. Mr. Polek died leaving a will in which he divided the remaining land in a manner that would constitute a resubdivision of land without zoning approval. This is the subject of this application. In making this application for resubdivision, Attorney Parakilas stated they also took the opportunity to further resubdivide the remaining portion of land in the R-44 zone and I-1 land instead of having to return later on. Attorney Parakilas stated they deem this application to be the highest and most effective use for this land. They have also created and dedicated a conservation easement across the middle of a portion of the I-1 portion from Bacon Road to the west. The net result is they are creating a building lot on existing house #221 Shaker Road and confirming it and that is shown as Lot 1 on Map P-3. They are also creating three new residential lots on Shaker Road and a portion of Bacon Road. Those three lots are shown as Lots #2, #3, and #4 on Map P-2. They are also creating an I-1 lot on the existing machine shop known as 38 Bacon Road. That is shown as Lot #5 on Map P-1. Also on Map P-1, they are creating and leaving the balance of the land, together with the conservation easement, in the Industrial-1 zone.
Commissioner Duren asked if the conservation easement will be in the I-1 zone. Attorney Parakilas confirmed that it will be in the I-1 zone with slivers of it in the R-44 zone. Commissioner Duren asked if the sliver of R-44 in the middle will remain and Attorney Parakilas noted it would.
Chairman DiPace asked about the location of the dividing line on page RS-1 where it shows an I-1 zone and an R-44 zone. Attorney Parakilas stated the zone line would be the center of the brook. Chairman DiPace saw a need to define this zone line. Mr. Giner stated Sheet C-1 shows a center line defined by a “C” and an “L” overlaid. Chairman DiPace would like a condition of approval that this zone line be marked on the plan. Attorney Parakilas stated they have no problem showing that zone line.
Commissioner Egan stated in the application it notes a conservation easement of 5.683 acres but on Map T-1 there is an indication of 7.775. Paul Fox stated on the title sheet there is a grand total square footage shown. Commissioner Egan asked if the conservation easement would be 7.775 acres. Mr. Fox confirmed that to be the case and stated the conservation easement spans both zones and is a pretty sizeable easement.
Commissioner Egan asked why a figure of 5.683 acres is shown in the application. Mr. Fox stated this could be an error on the application. Mr. Giner stated originally it may have been one figure and after Wetlands approval, the acreage may have changed. He would use the surveyor’s numbers.
Mr. Fox stated they will have to submit a deed of easement with a running description and other details.
Commissioner Egan asked if calculations were done on the conservation easement to determine whether only thirty-three percent of open space can be in the wetlands. Mr. Fox stated the conservation easement is 7.775 acres according to the plan. Although the plans show the land back to the very beginning before lots were taken out over the years, the land that the applicant controls today is only part of that or something in the area of twenty-one acres. It is not the original tract of twenty-eight acres but 21.67 acres.
Commissioner Egan asked if a wetlands agent report has been submitted. Mr. Fox noted the conservation easement is far more than the wetlands and a document was submitted to the Wetlands agency. Mr. Fox noted after doing the calculations, thirty percent of the property of the easement would be wetlands. Mr. Giner stated they are requesting that the conservation easement be considered part of the open space instead of a fee dedication. Under the regulations, this can occur. A further requirement is that at least thirty-three percent of the area of the open space shall not be encumbered by wetlands. Mr. Giner stated there is a need for a calculation to show the applicant has at least that amount in open space.
Mr. Giner stated the other issue the Commission may want to consider is the calculation regarding the total area of the subdivision. Ten percent of 27 acres would be 2.79 acres. He asked if the Commission wants thirty-three percent of the required open space or thirty-three percent of the entire open space. Chairman DiPace stated it should be only what is required.
Commissioner Egan stated they are giving 7.775 acres which the town is taking over and will have all the liability. Mr. Fox stated there will be a restriction on the property. The concern that they have is that the brook be left alone because of a very serious matter that occurred in the past. Commissioner Egan stated the Commission is asking that the applicant comply with the regulations. He would interpret the regulations as thirty-three percent of what is being provided or other options would be used. Commissioner Egan asked if there is a 40’ entrance way into this conservation area. Mr. Fox stated there is frontage on Bacon Road and the property can be accessed.
Mr. Giner discussed the two types of conservation easements allowed by the regulations – passive and active. Passive has no public access and active has public access granted with the applicant stating what type of easement they propose.
Mr. Fox stated they are making a proposal but it is up to the Commission to determine what is most appropriate for the situation. Chairman DiPace questioned if the conservation easement should have public access and he recommended a passive conservation easement. Mr. Giner stated this would be a liability issue for the property owners of the subdivision. Passive open space would protect the open space for its own purposes.
Chairman DiPace stated in the past this has been a badly flooded area and it could be important to the town to preserve this area so it doesn’t have a flooding problem. He felt the thirty-three percent should be based on the amount of space that’s required under the regulations and that is ten percent. Mr. Fox stated the review area is 200’ on either side of the brook. All the lots proposed will have water and sewers.
Commissioner Egan stated he did not think Inland Wetlands wanted access to the conservation easement by the public. Mr. Giner stated it is up to the Commission to determine the manner in which open space is to be conveyed.
Commissioner Duren asked about the waiver on sidewalks. Mr. Fox stated he brought some pictures indicating that the town in its reconstruction of Bacon Road planned for sidewalks but the state did not. He noted the pictures show some of the enlargements of the conditions along Shaker Road which is a state highway. There is a sheet on the reconstruction of Bacon Road and other sheets on the two projects on Shaker Road, one at the intersection of Bacon and Shaker which was reconstructed and then a project to the west from the east of Freshwater Brook all the way west of Washington Road. In all cases, there was no provision for sidewalks. The highway is a rural highway. The runoff is sheet flow. There isn’t any curbing in this area. The front yards on the existing properties on the lower side of Shaker Road are topographically inappropriate to put a sidewalk. Mr. Fox indicated there is also a legal problem because in order to install sidewalks on the frontages they control, they need easements from abutters and they do not have the powers of condemnation. There is a legal impediment and it would also be quite an engineering nightmare to try to do this. Mr. Fox stated it is possible to install a sidewalk on Bacon Road but he questioned the demand. He has talked to the Town Engineer and he is not looking for sidewalks there as he understands it. Mr. Fox stated if the town ever needs a sidewalk on Shaker Road, the people to talk to are the State of Connecticut. They would have to do some heavily engineered plans to do sidewalks which would probably occur on the south side of the road but would result in the loss of many mature trees.
Mr. Fox stated they are asking for consideration of the application fee because there is very little in the application that requires review from an engineering standpoint. They will confirm the open space issue and, if necessary, make an adjustment.
Chairman DiPace opened this public hearing to the audience. No one requested the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Giner stated most of the requirements of engineering have been met. His only question was regarding the thirty-three percent. He presented a list of conditions for the Commission’s review. He stated the Commission has some time to vote on the fee reduction and it is not necessary to vote on that tonight. Chairman DiPace suggested making the calculation regarding the open space a condition of approval for this application.
Commissioner Duren questioned what the proper acreage would be for the open space. Commissioner Egan stated the correct number should be shown on the plans. Mr. Giner stated he would use the stamped plans from the surveyor. Mr. Fox confirmed that he is almost certain that the open space figure is the larger number and that is shown on the plan. He requested that the Commission make this a condition of approval and the applicant will meet it.
Commissioner Egan brought up another inconsistency. He noted the Wetlands Commission has approved 5.368 acres and this Commission is going to approve 7.775 acres. The Wetlands Commission should be aware of the change because their permit is not going to be accurate. Further discussion followed led by Commissioner Egan as he raised the possibility that it looks like there are additional wetlands in the 7.775 acres that the Wetlands Commission had not considered. Mr. Fox stated the Wetlands Commission had the same plans.
Commissioner Egan requested that the record reflect that the conservation easement is 7.775 acres.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to waive the sidewalks on Bacon Road and the sidewalks on Shaker Road for PH#2510, the resubdivision of parcels on Shaker Road and Bacon Road. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to approve PH#2510 - Resubdivision of a remainder parcel into 5 lots including 3 new building lots and one remainder parcel at 221 Shaker Road and 38 Bacon Road, zoned R-44 and I-1, Map 94, Lot 4, Estate of Joseph Polek, 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:
"Resubdivision of Estate of Joseph Polek, Enfield, Connecticut. Title Map Property of J. Polek, Enfield, Connecticut" Drawing No. 1, Scale: "As Shown" by Igor Vechesloff, Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor, dated 08-01-2004 and revised to 4-25-05.
"Property Survey Map Estate of J. Polek, Enfield, Connecticut," Drawing No. E-1 Scale: 1"=60', by Igor Vechesloff, Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor, dated 05-29-2004 and revised to 4-19-05.
"Resubdivision Map Estate of J.Polek (According to the Will of J. Polek, an exhibit to the Application for Re-subdivision), Enfield, Connecticut," Drawing No. RS-1, Scale: 1"=60', by Igor Vechesloff, Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor, dated 05-29-2004 and revised to 4-19-05.
"Proposed Resubdivision Estate of J.Polek, Enfield, Connecticut," Drawing No.T-1,Scale: 1"=40', by Igor Vechesloff, Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor, dated 05-29-2004 and revised to 5-11-05.
"Proposed Resubdivision Estate of J.Polek, Enfield, Connecticut," Drawing No. T-2, Scale: 1"=40', by Igor Vechesloff, Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor, dated 05-29-2004 and revised to 5-11-05.
"Proposed Resubdivision Estate of J.Polek, Enfield, Connecticut," Drawing No.T-3, Scale: 1"=40', by Igor Vechesloff, Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor, dated 05-29-2004 and revised to 5-11-05."Details and Narrative Property of J. Polek, Enfield, Connecticut," Drawing No. D-1, Scale: "As Shown", by Igor Vechesloff, Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor, dated 04-19-2005.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Mylars:
1. The Town Engineer shall review and approve the final plans.
2. The Final Mylars shall contain the application number "PH #2510" prominently displayed on each sheet above or near the Title Block.
3. Location and types of street trees shall be shown on the plans in accordance with the Subdivision requirements. Notes shall be placed on the plans stating that the trees are a required public improvement and may not be removed without permission of Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
4. All mylars submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
5. 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 onto the final mylars prior to the signing of the mylars.
6. A landscaping bond for any new trees that may be required, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.
7. All deeds, or easements shall be submitted, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits or start of construction:
8. Two sets of final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to 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.
9. Final plans reflecting the approval of the Commission shall also be submitted in a digital format prescribed by the Director of Planning.
10. 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.
11. Road cuts will be necessary for water connections of the two proposed lots on Shaker Road, which will require State permits before that work commences.
12. The driveways will be required to meet the State Standard. More detailed information regarding the driveways will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application.
13. Erosion controls will be required for building permit approval of each individual lot
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. No certificates of compliance shall be issued until the Enfield Water Pollution Control Division has inspected and approved the sewer connection for the project.
16. No certificates of compliance shall be issued until the Water Company has inspected and approved the water delivery system for the project.
General Conditions:
17. 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.
18. This project is subject to conditions of approval from the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency filed separately in the Planning Department.
19. 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.
20. The zone line and the river shall be better defined.
21. The final plans shall show the calculation of areas that would conform to the requirements for acceptable land for open space. (There was an addition that on page 2 of 4 in the fourth paragraph that reads the applicants are not proposing any dedication of land or fees in lieu of. Instead they are proposing a 7.775 acre conservation easement that replaces a 6.83 acre figure that was in the memo and that also conforms with the number on the plans on T-1 dated 5/29/2004.)
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
b. PH#2511 – Special Use Permit to utilize the vehicle bays to position ambulance as determined by call volume, for efficient response at 1296 Enfield Street (Old Fire House), zoned HR-33, Map 19, Lot 62, Town of Enfield, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by July 21)
Town Manager Scott Shanley appeared before the Commission regarding this application along with Art Groux, the Town’s Emergency Medical Director. Per the Town Council direction, their intent is to complete a fully operational EMS system including paramedic service by September 1, 2005. The town is currently operating an EMS crew from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. every night without paramedics. In two weeks, they will begin operating with paramedics for the first time in Enfield. They are currently operating completely out of the Police Department facility and the facility will continue to be the EMS headquarters with Mr. Groux’s office, the break room for EMS staff and the storage of critical supplies.
Town Manager Shanley stated the town purchased the old fire house on Enfield Street several years ago. The front part is being used by the Enfield Historical Society, the middle part was previously used by the Purple Heart Museum and the rear portion has been used by the town for storage.
Town Manager Shanley stated the proposal is to take the rear portion which consists of two bays and operate out of that facility as call volume demands and also store an ambulance at this location since there is a heated bay. There is also a plan to have a rest area for ambulance crew members at this location.
Town Manager Shanley stated this facility will no longer be used as a fire department with a siren. They do not plan to have an exterior siren. The proposal would be when there is an ambulance station there and there’s a call, the ambulance would go to the site. In order to pass through the traffic light, if the light is red, they do need to sound one of the sirens on the ambulance because that’s the law. Otherwise, there is no need for the ambulance to make a lot of noise while leaving the site.
Commissioner Egan asked if this facility is going to be manned twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Mr. Shanley stated it could be. They would seek to be permitted to do so but he did not know that it would be. If the call volume indicates it makes sense to have a unit there at any given time, they would like to have a unit there. Whatever the call volume demands is what they would like. Town Manager Shanley confirmed their present request is to be permitted to use it twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.
Commissioner Duren asked if there is sufficient turning radius with the use of the back bays. Mr. Groux stated the turning radius of the ambulances is much narrower than the previous fire trucks. They have checked the radius and there is more than adequate room.
Commissioner Duren asked if the control of the stop light could be controlled from inside. Mr. Groux stated no. There was a pendant light but that has been removed. Mr. Shanley stated while it would be nice to have, at this time they do not believe it will be necessary because the ambulance can go through the red light as long as it uses its siren.
In response to a question from Commissioner Weseliza about whether the Historical Society would be displaced, Mr. Shanley stated they will not displace them but plan to use the rear portion of the building. There is an office that had previously been used by the Fire Marshal of the Enfield Fire District. If they find that it is code compliant, they would use that. There is also a kitchen that was part of the space used by the Purple Heart Museum. Mr. Shanley has talked to the President of the Purple Heart Museum and they are releasing most of the materials that they had. The town’s intent is to try to use this space for municipal record storage.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if the site is an approved bunk house. Mr. Shanley stated it would not be a bunk house. There would be no sleeping. Employees would be on a given shift. Mr. Groux stated the facility would be used for ambulance personnel to complete their run reports.
Commissioner Weseliza asked what the procedure would be to exit the facility if there is a lot of traffic. Mr. Groux stated there probably will not be a unit in the building in the majority of the high volume times. They are in the process of going through and determining those exact times. During those high volume times, the units would be posted in given districts depending on call volume. The chance of there being a unit parked in that garage, with the exception of inclement weather, is very slim. They would be looking to have these units leave the facility predominantly during the slower traffic times.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if this is okay with the Enfield Historic District. Mr. Giner stated the Historic District only considers appearances and not uses. Uses are the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public.
Lisa Ellis, 1308 Enfield Street, stated years ago when the Fire Department had wanted to expand, some issues were brought up concerning whether it was a proper place for a fire department to be housed. She has some of those same concerns with an ambulance being housed at this location. Ms. Ellis stated on Enfield Street there are many walkers including children that walk to school. One of the previous concerns was when the emergency vehicles were exiting, it could be a hazard to the walkers especially with the second light being taken out. Ms. Ellis stated she lives three doors down from the Old Fire House and she knows the p |