THESE MINUTES ARE IN DRAFT FORMAT AND HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE

ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

OFFICIAL COPIES OF THE MINUTES ARE SIGNED BY THE SECRETARY

AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK.

ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

DECEMBER 1, 2005

A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, December 1, 2005, in the Town 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

              Jeffrey Cooper

              Charles Duren

              Robert Egan

              James Hickey, Jr.

              Karen Krebs

              Kathleen Sarno, Alternate

              Nicles Lefakis, Alternate

ALSO PRESENT: Neil Angus, Assistant Town Planner

MINUTES

Commissioner Krebs made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve the Minutes of November 3, 2005. The Minutes were approved by a 6 – 0 – 1 vote. Commissioner Krebs abstained.

STAFF COMMENTS

a. Town Attorney (in writing)

b. Zoning Enforcement Officer (in writing)

c. Director of Planning

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

CORRESPONDENCE

Correspondence included a letter from Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley to a resident at 1 Till Street regarding an accessory hoop structure erected without the necessary permit, the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Notice of Action dated November 15, 2005, and information regarding an AMA training seminar to be held on December 7, 2005.

Chairman DiPace stated also included in Correspondence is an email regarding the December 15, 2005 meeting on Stonegate. Chairman DiPace stated the Wetlands Commission must act on this application and the Planning and Zoning Commission cannot take action until after the Wetlands Commission has acted. Mr. Angus stated the hearing for Planning and Zoning is scheduled for December 15, 2005 and the Wetlands hearing was continued to the December 13, 2005 meeting.

Chairman DiPace noted receipt of a copy of a Wetlands Permit for the Henderson Property Development Company. Mr. Angus stated this is the hotel application and it is a modification to approve the sidewalks that the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission approved but which were not on the original Wetlands application.

Chairman DiPace noted receipt of information from the Capitol Region Council of Governments dated November 17, 2005.

PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued from November 17, 2005 meeting

a. PH#2526 - Conditional Approval for a proposed 15-lot residential re-subdivision at end of Meetinghouse Lane and north of Bridge Lane with a proposed road intersection with Bridge Lane at #44 Bridge Lane, zoned R-33, Map 19, Lots 1 and 10; Margaret R. Pappas, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by December 1)

Chairman DiPace noted that Alternate Kathleen Sarno will be participating in this application. Commissioner Lefakis did not participate in this hearing.

Attorney Ken Slater appeared before the Commission regarding this application of Margaret R. Pappas for a proposed 15-lot residential re-subdivision at the end of Meetinghouse Lane and north of Bridge Lane with a proposed road intersection with Bridge Lane at 44 Bridge Lane. Attorney Slater thanked the Commission for the continuance of this hearing to this evening since he was out of state during the Commission’s last meeting.

Attorney Slater stated they will make a short presentation tonight and they would reserve the right to present any rebuttal after members of the public speak.

Attorney Slater stated they received a comment from the Town Engineer by email this week that requested that an analysis be done for the fifty-year storm despite the fact that the main section regarding Subdivisions provides that the subdivision be designed to address a twenty-five year storm. Mr. Coon will be doing some additional analyses about storm water that he was not able to complete in one day’s time. Attorney Slater submitted a letter from him verifying this request and requesting that the public hearing be continued to the Commission’s December 15, 2005 meeting to allow Mr. Coon to conduct that analysis and confer with the Town Engineer. Attorney Slater stated they would like the hearing continued for that purpose but they would like to proceed with presenting the changes in the plans resulting from the last session of the public hearing.

Attorney Slater stated one of the changes is in response to Chairman DiPace’s questions and concerns as to whether or not the road entrance would involve any nonconformities with the locations of existing structures. Attorney Slater stated Mr. Coon did that analysis and there were some existing structures that would be within the minimum setback. Attorney Slater could not find any law that would deal with that issue because the setbacks ordinarily apply to when you initially construct the structure. It has to be within a certain distance of the side yard or front yard. Attorney Slater was not able to find anything that would prohibit the construction of a road by the Town or by a private party when an existing structure is within a certain distance of where the road is proposed. As Mr. Coon will describe, they have been able to modify the plans so that there would be no infringement on the necessary side yards or front yards required by the regulations. Mr. Coon will also outline his efforts to respond to Commissioner Egan’s questions regarding existing conditions near the subdivision as well as giving an overview of a map to better delineate how the water flows through the site. Attorney Slater noted there were concerns raised during the public hearing and Mr. Coon will present a colored version of a map describing the watersheds on or near the subdivision and demonstrate why this subdivision will not exacerbate existing drainage problems that may be in the neighborhood.

Tim Coon from J. R. Russo and Associates stated they began with the issue of the road, its location on the lot 44 Bridge Lane and its location relative to the existing structures on adjacent lots at 42 and 46 Bridge Lane. The initial site plan showed the road coming in at approximately the middle of the lot and straight through. After Chairman DiPace raised some concerns about where the existing structures were, they went out and surveyed them and they have been located on the plan. They determined that some of the structures would be within the 40’ front yard setback from the right of way associated with that road. They have revised the plan to bring the road in on an angle and shift it somewhat so that it now has a curve in it. This allows them to maintain the minimum 40’ front yard setback between the proposed right of way line and the existing structures. There now should be no nonconformities created.

Chairman DiPace asked about the buffer and noted the 40’ setback is from the property line. Mr. Coon stated they are proposing a 50’ right of way associated with the road. The lot is 100’ which means there is additional land on either side. At the previous public hearing session, they stated it was their intention to give that land to the property owner. The abutters have already expressed that they really don’t want that property. If they do receive an approval and the abutters still do not want the property, they will attach that property to Lots #2 and #3. The right of way will be maintained at 50’ and there will still be 30’ from the right of way line to the existing structures.

Chairman DiPace stated he does not know if this meets the context of the regulations. The regulations clearly state corner lots. He felt the Commission may need to get an opinion from the Town Attorney. Chairman DiPace questioned what happens to the lots in the front and are they going to become corner lots. Mr. Coon stated even if they did become corner lots, there’s still 50’. Chairman DiPace stated it is 40’ from their property line in and not the right of way. If it is a corner lot, from where they own, they have to go in 40’. Mr. Coon stated if the strip is there, it wouldn’t be a corner lot but would still be a side yard. Chairman DiPace stated this is where he feels the Commission may need a legal opinion from the Town Attorney. Technically, those are not going to be lots that are going to be deeded over.

Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Angus obtain a legal opinion from the Town Attorney addressing the concerns. He asked if these are going to end up being corner lots, what the status of this property in the center is going to be, what effect it’s going to have and what impact it’s going to have from a zoning standpoint.

Commissioner Cooper stated if the abutters accept the land, then they would become corner lots. Chairman DiPace asked if they don’t accept the land, are they still corner lots and what is the status of the property up front. Is that going to end up being a corner lot even though it’s not a building lot?

Mr. Coon stated because of the building setbacks themselves, it would not be buildable in that area. Chairman DiPace stated there would be no structures.

Mr. Coon pointed out a map that he prepared because Commissioner Duren had requested additional information on what the existing drainage patterns were in the area. Mr. Coon assembled a plan using the Town topographical map and he focused on four areas which are relative to their site and to the drainage in Bridge Lane. Mr. Coon pointed out the area shown in green which drains to the railroad. This is approximately 7.4 acres and this is an existing condition. Area two shown in orange contains approximately three acres which currently drain into the two catch basins at the western end of Bridge Lane and they currently discharge to the river. Area three shown in yellow is the area which currently drains to the pond and it crosses under the road into the tributary to Beaman’s Brook. Area four shown in pink is the area which drains into the drainage system which currently comes down Bridge Lane from Route 5. There’s about thirty-two acres on the west side of Route 5 which includes Mitchell Drive and most of Riverview Street in the two drainage systems which currently drain there. They all discharge into a drain line which comes down Bridge Lane and discharges on the south side of Bridge Lane through a culvert and into the same tributary of Beaman’s Brook. In addition to the 32 acres on this side of Route 5, there’s an undetermined area which does drain and connects into the drainage system which runs down Bridge Lane.

Mr. Coon stated at the public hearing on November 3, most of the public’s comments regarding drainage problems appeared to be associated with the east end of Bridge Lane, the area of the pond, Riverview Street and area four, which their site does not have any impact on. Their site contributes to areas one, two and three and not four. As discussed previously in the drainage report, areas one, two and three will not be negatively impacted by the project. Drainage area two will be reduced. The area on the map outlined in purple is the area which will be collected in their drainage system and piped directly to the river. That area will be eliminated from the drainage area to the pond and to the railroad tracks. With regard to area two, they are not really changing the contributing area there but they will be adding three new catch basins in the street there and upgrading the drainage system. The result will be it will take the water out a little quicker and there will be less flooding in the street resulting in improvements to the present situation.

Mr. Coon addressed Commissioner Egan’s comments. He had specific concerns about area one which goes to the railroad track and in response to those concerns, Mr. Coon tried to determine where that actually discharges and if there is a culvert that goes under the railroad tracks to the river. Mr. Coon stated he reviewed DOT maps that were available for the railroad tracks and he also walked the property line to see if there was anything visible. The railroad maps that were available were dated 1915 and did not show any culverts. Mr. Coon was also unable to see anything visibly from the site subject property which would indicate there is a culvert there. Mr. Coon stated he was unable to determine or confirm if there is a cross culvert which takes the drainage away from the area. Mr. Coon stated as a result of their subdivision, they are eliminating 1.7 acres of area that used to drain to this area. The result of that, as demonstrated in the drainage report, is that there’s going to be a reduction in runoff to that area. Therefore, with the reduction, if there is an existing problem now, it’s only going to be improved.

Mr. Coon stated it appears there may be some confusion with regard to the sanitary sewer service that is going to service their subdivision. He stated their lots are all going to connect into an existing 8” sanitary sewer which currently runs across the field and which will run underneath their new roadway which ties into the existing twenty-four inch main along the western end of the property. This twenty-four inch main connects with the existing Bridge Lane sewer which is a twelve-inch main at this location where the pipe size increases to thirty-six inches and which carries it down to the treatment plant. They have no direct connection with the existing twelve-inch sanitary sewer on Bridge Lane. Mr. Coon stated anyone who is complaining that they are going to have an impact and create more problems if there are existing problems there is wrong. They are not connecting to that and are going to be downstream. At this location where the twelve-inch and twenty-four inch come together and go into a thirty-six inch pipe, the thirty-six inch pipe actually has more capacity than the twelve and twenty-four inch combined. There is going to be no backup there as a result of anything they do.

Mr. Coon stated John Cabibbo’s email dated November 30 which was received yesterday does request that they run a fifty-year storm through the existing system. Their drainage report looked at the twenty-five year storm but they will complete this evaluation of a fifty-year storm and provide it to Mr. Cabibbo for his review. Mr. Coon stated they will have the answers for the next meeting.

Chairman DiPace asked where they would be tying in. Mr. Coon stated they are tying into a twenty-four inch pipe. Actually, they are tying into an existing eight-inch but the system is set up so that the eight-inch ties into a twenty-four inch which ties into a thirty-six inch. Chairman DiPace stated the twenty-four inch pipe is the sanitary sewer pipe. He asked which one the storm drainage will tie into. Mr. Coon stated the storm drainage is going to tie into a storm drainage system and not the sanitary sewer system.

Commissioner Egan asked where the stream channel encroachment line is on the drainage plan presented this evening. Mr. Coon stated the stream channel encroachment line is going to be on the edge of the river. Because there is such a steep bank there, it doesn’t extend that much. Mr. Coon verified that the blue on the map indicates the river.

Commissioner Egan stated that was his point on doing only the twenty-five year storm numbers and this is what he was trying to get to at the last hearing. He thanked Mr. Coon for the narrative presented. It verified that they are taking the flow and putting it through that pipe into the river. Commissioner Egan’s concern was that pipe was not going to handle it and would back up and flood the entire area.

Chairman DiPace asked if Mr. Coon did the drainage calculations for Meetinghouse Lane. Mr. Coon stated that was done by another firm.

Chairman DiPace stated in looking at one of the lots on the plan, in the front corner it shows a 30’ x 60’ temporary construction and grading easement. He asked if there is a drainage problem there. Mr. Coon responded they do have a low spot where it floods as a result of the grading that was done when the house was built. When they put in their road, they plan to put in an area drain to alleviate that problem with flooding and connect that area drain to the drainage system. At the previous hearing, they presented a temporary construction easement for that work on that property. Chairman DiPace asked about the height for the grade of the road. Mr. Coon stated it is approximately 69.5. Chairman DiPace noted where this drain is going in is about one and a half feet lower than the road. Mr. Coon confirmed that is correct, that is the low spot of the road and the road goes up from there.

Chairman DiPace noted receipt of a letter of extension from the applicant to December 15, 2005. He added that the Commission has quite a bit on the agenda that evening. Attorney Slater stated his client would be agreeable to an extension to the meeting after the December 15, 2005 meeting or to a meeting in January. Chairman DiPace stated the January 5, 2006 meeting of the Commission is an organizational meeting with no business conducted. Mr. Angus stated the Commission has 65 days from December 1, 2005 to continue this hearing which covers through February. He requested that the Commission state the specific date to which this hearing is going to be continued for the benefit of the public.

Following additional discussion on the specific date to continue this hearing, the consensus of the Commission was to continue this hearing to January 19, 2005. Attorney Slater confirmed they would grant the additional extension.

Steve Mitchell, Manager of Transportation Engineering for F. A. Hesketh and Associates in East Granby, responded to some of the comments made previously during this public hearing. He offered a couple of items of clarification and noted these were summarized in a letter he sent to Mr. Giner dated November 9, 2005 with two memoranda attached. Mr. Mitchell stated many in the public spoke and brought up a variety of items.

Mr. Mitchell stated a number of people talked about school children being forced to walk alone on Bridge Lane with potentially unsafe conditions on the street. Mr. Mitchell stated they looked into the policy of the Enfield Board of Education, Policy 3545.1, amended through January 23, 1996. According to the Enfield Board of Education, this is the current regulation regarding transportation of students. That policy states clearly that any students who are residents along Bridge Lane are entitled to bus transportation at their door. There is no requirement for children to be walking on Bridge Lane if their parents feel that is an unsafe condition. Mr. Mitchell stated while some children do walk on Bridge Lane, it really is a misstatement to say that the students are required to do so. Any parent who feels it is unsafe can have their child bused.

Mr. Mitchell stated a number of people spoke about the traffic counting and talked about the fact that the counts began at 8:00 a.m. and they know it is busier at 7:00 a.m. Mr. Mitchell stated the only reference to 8:00 a.m. that was made in their testimony was that when they did show that brief video of the actual traffic, the video shown was taken at 8:00 a.m. Mr. Mitchell stated he did that because 8:00 a.m. is, in fact, the highest counted hour of traffic on Bridge Lane. However, counts began at 7:00 a.m. They counted through the 7:00 a.m. hour and the 8:00 a.m. hour and determined the traffic volumes were actually higher at 8:00 a.m. In addition, the automatic traffic counting machines counted twenty-four hours a day. They did not miss any peaks and counted all the hours of the day and all the days of the week and several seasons of the year.

Mr. Mitchell stated there were several references to the school situation at the Enfield Street School talking about capacity problems at the school, that there were children being bused to other places and that the school cannot accommodate additional students because of overcrowding. Mr. Mitchell spoke with Superintendent Gallagher’s administrative assistant and she was quite clear that the school is not over capacity and she supplied him with the enrollment of all the grades K-6. The maximum class sizes vary between 17 students and 23 students per class depending on the particular grade. She further indicated that there are no students bused out of their district anywhere in town due to capacity problems. Mr. Mitchell stated it is possible that individual families request on an individual basis that their child attend a school out of district and that is because of specific needs and most often related to child care needs. Those parents opting for that are responsible for their own transportation.

Mr. Mitchell stated a number of people, in spite of the evidence shown on the video that there is not much traffic on Bridge Lane, made statements to the effect that Bridge Lane was at capacity, it is very congested and additional traffic would add to the congestion and safety problems and exceed the capacity of the road. Mr. Mitchell stated there is no evidence that would verify any of those statements. The road has plenty of potential capacity, is a low volume roadway and they would be adding a very small number of vehicles to that road in peak hours and throughout the day. Mr. Mitchell felt that the traffic conditions will be unchanged at the end of the proposed development.

Attorney Ken Slater noted the applicant has and will continue to provide information that goes above and beyond the specific requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. An example of this is Mr. Mitchell’s comments about school capacity. This is not a basis for the Commission to deny a subdivision in any event. They are providing additional information to address some of the points that have been brought up and to help the Commission understand. Attorney Slater would not want to suggest that this is a valid consideration for the purposes of approval or denial of the subdivision.

Attorney Slater stated they would reserve their right to respond to additional information.

Chairman DiPace asked about the house where the road is coming through and the fact that it was purchased recently. Mrs. Pappas confirmed it was purchased in January or February. Chairman DiPace asked about the purchase price of this house. Attorney Slater requested the relevancy of this question and stated he will ask his client. Chairman DiPace stated he is trying to find out the purchase price of this house and subtract that from the rest of the land to determine how the appraisal came about and if the house was included in the appraisal. Attorney Slater stated the appraisal will be based on the area as it would be developed. Chairman DiPace stated the purchase price of the house is being incorporated into the subdivision and without the house, you would not have the subdivision. Attorney Slater stated the house is coming down. Chairman DiPace asked if the property containing the house was a part of the appraisal. Attorney Slater stated the value of the home itself is not relevant to determining the value of the whole which is what the appraisal did. Chairman DiPace stated the condition of the land prior to subdivision or the state it is in right now is usually how it works regarding the appraisal. This parcel of land is part of the subdivision. Chairman DiPace would say that the value of that piece of property should be incorporated into the rest of the land to figure out what the appraisal is. Attorney Slater stated he does not know the answer to this question and the appraiser is not present tonight. Since it is clear that the public hearing will not close tonight, he will inquire and respond to the Commission’s concern as to whether or not that portion of the property was incorporated into the appraisal. Attorney Slater further stated the appraisal would not be relevant if the Commission decided to accept the open space dedication.

Chairman DiPace stated that is why he was asking about the value of the home because appraisals are done prior to the construction of the subdivision. This application is a little different in that it has a current home as part of the subdivision property. Following additional discussion, Attorney Slater stated rather than guess as to what the appraiser did, they will get an answer to the Commission from the appraiser as to how that was handled. It is possible based on the Commission’s question that the number would have to be adjusted but he will review this with the appraiser.

Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.

Michelle White stated she is the owner of the house that will be across from the street that is going to be in the area where the home will be destroyed. She reiterated her question from the last hearing that has not been addressed. There is a smell that emits from the treatment center and she questioned if that is going to pose a problem eventually and is the smell going to be more excessive than it has been in the past. Regarding the drainage, it was mentioned that the major problem is up near the top. Ms. White stated in front of houses #34, #40 and her home it takes the water from the rain sometimes days to dissipate. There is no sewer that picks up this water and she cannot see where the street that is going to be across from her house is going to help the puddle that already sits there for days and days.

Ms. White stated when she moved to this house, it was vacant for three months. She has spent tens of thousands of dollars to replace many things in this house. They did this to beautify the home and stay with the way the street seemed to be when they moved in. Ms. White had a concern about the privacy she is going to lose and how she will recoup the money she has invested. She feels a little deceived and felt people that will move into these houses and have water in their cellars may also feel deceived. Ms. White felt the removal of this house will ruin this neighborhood and the traffic will increase. She invited people to come down Bridge Lane with the pot holes and the sunken manholes due to a deteriorated road. Ms. White stated since the house was bought in deceit, she may not totally believe everything that is being said by the applicant. She hopes that the town thinks about this and about whether it will be good for the town and the neighborhood.

Chairman DiPace asked Ms. White how far back her home is set from the property line. Ms. White could not give a specific figure but noted that three cars would fit in her driveway.

Peter Kenney, 45 Bridge Lane, pointed out his home location for the Commission’s information. He stated on Pearl Street Extension there is a pond. There is going to be water diverted into that pond and that pond is going to drain into another pond that’s at the foot of Pearl Street Extension which is right behind Mr. Kenney’s home. He noted when they built Pearl Street Extension, they improperly put in storm drains and the water just backs up and it does so into his backyard. Mr. Kenney fails to see how adding more water to this pond which is going to empty into that other pond is going to do him any good. It will just add to the water in his backyard. Mr. Kenney asked why the plan was originally for twenty-seven lots and now it is reduced to fifteen. He also asked if they are going to add fifteen lots later after they get the first fifteen approved. This is a concern to him. When he was here for the previous hearing, they showed a letter from the water treatment people which stated they were going to reserve signing off on this project until later. Mr. Kenney asked about the status of this sign off and why haven’t they signed off. He also asked where the railroad stands on this issue. Mr. Kenney stated within the town there is a movement to install sidewalks and he questioned why sidewalks are not a requirement for a new development. If the water runoff is too great and it backs up the storm drains, Mr. Kenney asked what is the recourse for homeowners, who do they go to and what is the Commission’s responsibility to the existing homeowners.

Mr. Kenney stated it seems to him that buying the house so far in advance of getting approval from this Commission smacks of a high degree of confidence. From the planning that he has seen, he doesn’t see anything in the plan that anyone would draw any confidence from. Mr. Kenney stated he has seen too many developments in Enfield that have been mishandled by the developer and the only recourse the property owners have is their own checking account. He questioned what is going to happen when the storm drains back up and when back yards are flooded.

Chairman DiPace stated the applicant will respond to these questions in their rebuttal.

Jodie DeFord, 42 Bridge Lane, stated it is her understanding that the twenty feet that she was not going to accept is going to the other property owners. She had previously asked about the privacy or protection for her children and would a privacy hedge or some time of fencing be installed. She questioned if the new developers put up privacy fencing or hedging to help her children, who is to say that that won’t be taken down later on by the new owner because they will own the land. Who is going to mow the land and will the new owners keep it up? Who is protecting her and her children? When this house is torn down, who is protecting the families and the housing around this house when the destruction of the home occurs? Where is the safety of the neighborhood at that point? What is the status of the deconstruction? Ms. DeFord stated none of her concerns have been answered. She added who is going to tell the new owners about the coyotes that come out every night or all the different wildlife that inhabit the property. Ms. DeFord stated this is now getting personal and she stated the applicant has enough money. If this is a thing to make money, she suggested they donate it to wildlife or give the land away. Chairman DiPace stopped Ms. DeFord at this point and requested that she only discuss the application and what will be built rather than remarks against the applicant.

Ms. DeFord stated they keep coming back. They got the four houses. The existing pipe in the back was just installed when they put in the four homes and they make it sound like it has been there forever. She had approximately fifty feet of woods and now behind her house there is only ten feet. They have destroyed the privacy and have already done the sewer. The cul de sac is curved except for the last piece because they knew what they were going for and that they were going to keep asking. Ms. DeFord asked when it’s going to stop and when is this neighborhood going to be preserved.

Chairman DiPace noted that Ms. DeFord’s home is located approximately 85’ off the road. Ms. DeFord also confirmed that she has lived at this home since about 1997. Chairman DiPace asked if the property has been farmed in the last five years. Ms. DeFord stated there has been taking down of brush and clearing out but no actual vegetation planted.

Jack Sheridan, Buchanan Road, stated he has a question in regard to if it is a new house as opposed to somebody selling a used house and if the disclosure requirements for these new homes are the same. If they are, will it need to be disclosed that these lots are below the water level and that the foundation drains and the curtain drains are going to be below the street drains? Mr. Sheridan felt there is obviously going to be a problem there. He would think there would need to be disclosures for those kinds of things. If they are going to put sump pumps in, they will need generators because often when there is a storm, you lose electricity. Mr. Sheridan stated at one of the meetings they stated they dug one and a half feet and hit water. To him, it is obvious the problems they will have. Mr. Sheridan discussed the situation on Grandview Drive which resulted in litigation. He also noted the subdivision off Abbe Road and how over a million dollars in taxpayers’ money has been spent on litigation and fixing the drainage problems. He felt there has to be some kind of checks and balances for the people.

Kathy Rothchild stated she grew up at 46 Bridge Lane. She asked will the houses in the proposed subdivision be built up on a hill like the applicant’s and where is that water going to go. Her mother has a sump pump in her cellar and it runs constantly. Behind her house, there is a puddle from the rain the other day. There are animals including rats in the area with no place to go. Ms. Rothchild stated her concern is for her mother who has lived there for forty-six years. She reiterated her question of where is the water going to drain.

Patrick Decoto, 11 Riverview, has two concerns. He can look out his backyard and see the school district property because he abuts the school district. He can see puddling and surface water and almost like a trench that was made to divert it over to the pond. On the flat area that goes more towards the football field, he can see puddling. In past years they used to mow the area so that you could see the surface water but this past year it was only mowed once. The result was you could not see the puddling but you now can see it because the area has been cleared. This is a concern to Mr. Decoto in terms of their building in that area where the water is at the surface level. He can see the water in the area where they want to build. Mr. Decoto stated the other concern he has is he thinks that the school district has to look at its census and projections. While they may not be at maximum now, he would suggest the Superintendent and School Board has the responsibility to look at strategic planning and how this development will impact that school by seeing what the census counts are going to be.

Richard Gustafson, 3 Bridge Lane, asked what impact redoing of the high school fields and related drainage will have and where is that water going to go. They are in terrible shape in back of Enfield High School and that connects to where Mrs. Pappas proposes to build.

Mike Miller, 31 Bridge Lane, noted it is his understanding that the pink area on the map shown previously indicates the water that comes down Bridge Lane. He noted they want to connect their drain line into that Bridge Lane storm drain where they are cutting the road in the area of the house. Chairman DiPace further explained the drainage pattern. Mr. Miller asked if they have calculated in any way how much water is being carried in the storm drains coming down Bridge Lane that they want to tie into. Their claim is they are going to tie in at the end of the road. Mr. Miller noted that only works if the line isn’t already full under normal heavy rain conditions. If the storm drains are already near capacity because of the area they are draining, the water they are trying to drop into that line where they cut in is either going to cause a surcharge or backup up Bridge Lane. Another possibility is it is not going to be able to go into Bridge Lane and it is just going to back up into the new houses where they are trying to pump out whatever they have connected to drain their property into these storm drains. Mr. Miller has not heard anything that tells people how much water is actually in that line already and they are trying to tell residents it is going to improve things by putting more water in it.

Diane Taft, 16 Riverview, asked if it is realistic to expect that the children in this neighborhood are only on the streets because their parents are expecting them to walk to school. Are children expected to be prisoners in their own home because walking on Bridge Lane is optional? Ms. Taft stated the number of cars going up and down Bridge Lane is irrelevant because you only need two cars going in the opposite direction at the top of Bridge Lane. Both cars have to slow down and Bridge Lane needs to be in a better state before additional cars can be added to it.

Chairman DiPace asked if the applicant would like to address any of the comments or would he like to reserve his response for the continuation. Attorney Slater stated they would reserve the right to respond at a later date with one exception. He would like Mr. Coon to again clarify some of the recent comments regarding the Bridge Lane tie-in with the storm sewer.

Tim Coon stated the gentleman from 31 Bridge Lane was talking about this development tying into the existing drainage system which currently comes down Bridge Lane and discharges to the tributary on the other side of Bridge Lane. This is not where they are tying into the drainage system on Bridge Lane. They are not impacting that portion of the drainage system at all. They are tying into the two existing catch basins at the west end of Bridge Lane. They have done an analysis to determine what the capacity is of those pipes and added theirs to it. Those calculations were all part of the drainage report.

Chairman DiPace asked about the pond up at the top and if there is any change being made to that or where it drains. Mr. Coon stated that area that formerly drained to that pond is being reduced. They are not doing any changes to the pond. All they are doing is reducing the amount of area that runs to it thus reducing the runoff to it. There will be a reduction in runoff downstream and down to the pond that was mentioned off Pearl Street Extension.

Mr. Angus stated the applicant will need to amend their written request for an extension as this hearing is going to be extended to January. Attorney Slater confirmed to the Commission that they would grant the extension and he will supplement that with another letter. Chairman DiPace requested that Attorney Slater change the date in his current letter and initial it so that the Commission has something for the record.

Chairman DiPace continued this hearing to January 19, 2005. Chairman DiPace and Commissioner Duren requested that Mr. Angus make sure this hearing gets re-advertised for January 19, 2005.

The Commission recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARINGS – NEW

a. PH#2531 – Application for Special Use Permit for unmerging of 2 lots of record at #30 O’Hear Avenue, zoned R-33, Carl Nelson Construction, Inc., Applicant/John T. and Mary M. Sessa, Owners. (Must close by January 5, 2006)

Chairman DiPace read a letter of withdrawal from Carl Nelson regarding Public Hearing #2531. At this time, Chairman DiPace opened this public hearing to the public.

John Sessa, owner of 30 O’Hear Avenue, questioned this withdrawal. It was his understanding yesterday that this hearing would go forward. Commissioner Duren stated the letter of withdrawal signed by Mr. Nelson was received today, December 1, 2005, in the Planning Office.

Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Krebs, to accept the withdrawal of PH#2531, 30 O’Hear Avenue, Carl Nelson Construction, Inc., Applicant/John T. and Mary M. Sessa, Owners, without prejudice. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Sarno voting.

9. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW (continued)

b. PH#2533 – Application for modification of plans previously approved to allow each home to place a shed no larger than 100 square feet in each yard at Pheasant Hill Planned Community, zoned R-44, Map 16, Lot 39, Pheasant Hill Homeowners Association, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by January 5, 2006)

and

OLD BUSINESS

a. Discussion of complaint re: vegetation clearing/landscaping at Pheasant Hill Planned Residential Community off Weymouth Road

Chairman DiPace noted that Commissioner Sarno will be sitting in on this application.

Attorney Paul Smith, 36 Main Street, Windsor Locks, Connecticut, appeared before the Commission representing the Pheasant Hill Homeowners Association. Also present was Nancy Tetrault, President of the Pheasant Hill Homeowners Association, 7 Pheasant Hill Drive.

Attorney Smith presented some documents to the Commission providing some of the historical background of this project.

Chairman DiPace stated the Commission is well aware of this project and there is also another Pheasant Hill item on the agenda this evening for an enforcement action. Attorney Smith stated he would be agreeable to combining the two items in order to save time.

Attorney Smith presented a series of maps which are signed off landscaping plans by the town. One set relates to the original approval in 1993. The second is another approval which was done at the end of 1999 or approximately six years later and includes information for both the hearing this evening on the sheds and the questions involving the enforcement action.

Attorney Smith stated this was 32 single-family detached units that were built under a special use permit in Section 10. Attorney Smith is unsure if this exists today in the form in which it was approved. Chairman DiPace stated this is a single-family condominium development. Attorney Smith agreed and stated there are no attached units and they are all separate units. In each unit, the declarant reserved the rear area of each unit to the property line as a reserve portion for each homeowner. This is what has been recorded by the declarant when the units were sold. What this means is that each of these homeowners is responsible to maintain that portion of their property. They mow their own lawns and maintain their own landscaping. There is some supervision by the homeowners association but in terms of how they use the rear area of each home, this is determined under the declaration by the unit owner. This is seen more today where each homeowner owns a home and a lot but there’s also an overall common interest. This is one of the first ones Attorney Smith has seen and they are single-family homes in a planned unit or condominium development with each homeowner having exclusive use and maintenance of the yards for each of the homes.

Chairman DiPace stated when these units were approved, this was a common use area around all the units. There were no lines drawn.

Attorney Smith noted the second stamped 2000 plan. Chairman DiPace stated this is strictly a landscaping plan. Attorney Smith stated the plan shows lot lines but they are not lot lines to create separate individual lots. What those lines do is delineate the exclusive use area for each unit or each house. It has existed this way since the first unit was sold. Attorney Smith sees nothing in the prior approvals that prevented that kind of mechanism from going into place.

Commissioner Duren stated this is why the denials were made for the sheds. Chairman DiPace presented the original approval from September 23, 1993. There are no lines on the site plan. No one owns a certain area outside their unit. Attorney Smith stated that is correct. He stated they would acknowledge that the property is owned by the association but under the declaration each unit owner has exclusive control of the area that is shown on the plan. Attorney Smith stated this was recognized by the Commission because if you look at the plan that was signed off on, it shows the delineation of those exclusive use areas. Attorney Smith stated what they have is legal title sitting in the name of the homeowners association but the right of control vested in each unit owner or homeowner by the declaration.

Attorney Smith noted this brings up two contrary issues. One is what can each unit owner do with that area that is under their exclusive control. Attorney Smith stated from the declaration what they are entitled to do is anything that an individual homeowner may do. They have certain obligations to the association. They have to mow the lawn, they have to maintain it in a reasonable manner and they cannot do anything that’s noxious or offensive. They do have an exclusive right to control that area and maintain it relatively as they see fit. This leads forward to the year 2000 where there were two issues with the town and this Commission. One was they don’t view themselves as a condominium association but as homeowners with homeowner responsibilities. Attorney Smith stated what they were looking to do is some limited use of their exclusive area. They came to the Commission in 2001 with three items which included patios, decks and sheds.

Attorney Smith stated they are present tonight to explore whether the homeowners ought to be allowed, within their exclusive area and sensitive to the issues the town has, to place a small shed that would allow them to store a lawnmower or a snow blower. This is something that from their perspective is an issue not only of accommodation but an issue of safety. Attorney Smith referenced the Fire Marshal’s letter in this regard.

Commissioner Duren stated it was his understanding from the beginning that the association was to do the lawn mowing so he doesn’t understand the need for sheds.

Attorney Smith stated the documents state that each unit owner is responsible to maintain their own lawn and their own driveways. Commissioner Duren asked what document is being referred to. Attorney Smith stated this is the unit owners’ declaration that was filed by the developer.

Chairman DiPace asked if the original approval of Pheasant Hill is available this evening. Mr. Angus stated he does not have it with him tonight. He has the previous application for decks and patios which was heard on February 1, 2001. This was an application for decks and the patios and sheds were not approved. Commissioner Duren stated there were also limitations on the decks.

Attorney Smith stated that approval from February, 2001 was never formalized because each homeowner has an exclusive use area. An approval requires a vote of more than two-thirds of the homeowners of the association. The reason for this is these actions affect areas where people have exclusive use. The document creates the right for the unit owners to use that property as their own. This Commission may say this is what we want but they would have to get an approval from the homeowners for any changes. Attorney Smith stated his understanding of what occurred in 2001 is there were some people interested in decks, some interested in patios and some in sheds. Some people looked at the conditions the Commission wanted to impose and some owners did not want to give up that area of use on their property. There are thirty-two units. Attorney Smith stated they are fairly united on this application tonight and twenty-nine of the owners have signed a petition which accompanies the application asking for sheds. The three that did not include one that already has a shed that was approved by the town in 2000 and the other two units are vacant units. The one unit that was approved received a building permit but the town later said they were no longer allowed.

Attorney Smith stated the unit owners all feel in order to do the things that they need to do in their exclusive use area like snowplow, mow the lawn and related items, they would like a shed to store their equipment. The units are all one-car garage units and there is not a lot of storage space for this kind of equipment in the garage. The other thing is the addition of sheds will not detract from the neighborhood. These are well maintained homes and there are several levels of maintenance. These include what the homeowner has to do. The second is the association which oversees that to a degree. Third is the town which has rather vigorously overseen the association and the homeowners. The addition of sheds would not increase living space, would not increase the intensity of use and would have no negative impact. These sheds would enhance the value of these homes and would not detract from abutters.

Attorney Smith brought up the issue of buffers. Looking at the two landscape plans presented, the landscape plan in 1993 does not have any buffers on it. That plan was approved and recorded and in 1996 lots and homes were declared and sold. 1997 was the first recorded map which showed a buffer. The next map further delineated it at the end of 1999. Attorney Smith referred to the smaller map attached to the declaration for the unit and noted it does not contain any buffer information. Therefore, for anyone purchasing units in 1996 and 1997 (11-14 units were sold by the end of 1997), there was nothing in the recorded documents in town and there was nothing in the recorded documents presented to them by the developer which indicated there were any buffer conditions on any of the units or the lots.

Chairman DiPace stated the unit owners’ lawyers did not do their job at the closing. The Commission approved this condominium development with exclusive use and with the understanding that it was going to be a condominium development where the yards would be taken care of and the driveways plowed. There was also a landscape buffer. Chairman DiPace stated the Commission had the developer before them several times. The Commission explained to him what he was required to do from the Commission’s approval and the need to put something on the deeds.

Attorney Smith stated the problem is the first approved plan that was recorded shows no buffers. So, he, as an attorney doing a search for his client, would not find any buffer area. Attorney Smith stated he did review the conditions of approval and they were routine conditions with no landscape buffer mentioned. Commissioner Lefakis noted the zoning regulations mention a buffer. Attorney Smith acknowledged that Section 10-2 requires a buffer area. What he is explaining is from the standpoint of a homeowner purchasing this property. Chairman DiPace asked if every homeowner knew they were buying a condominium. Attorney Smith stated they knew they were buying into a unit development but the documents made it very clear that each unit owner had exclusive control of their yard. Chairman DiPace felt these homeowners were deceived because they bought condominiums and they only own inside their four walls. Attorney Smith stated there is nothing in the conditions of approval by the town that would support that. Chairman DiPace stated he plans to continue this hearing to the next meeting in order for the Commission to review the original file of the Pheasant Hill Planned Residential Development.

Chairman DiPace stated he was on the Commission when the original approval was granted. These were to be condominiums and there was to be something on the record when these units were sold that they only owned inside the four walls. They did not own outside and it was a common use area. Attorney Smith stated the Commission is correct in saying that the unit owner does not own the lot. What the documents do say is unit owners have exclusive control of the lot and they are responsible for maintaining it, mowing it, landscaping, snow plowing and everything. Chairman DiPace stated it is an exclusive use but it does not say they own it. Attorney Smith agreed but stated the exclusive use requirement puts upon them the maintenance issues of mowing and snow plowing. Commissioner Duren stated it was to be an exclusive use but the association was to maintain it. Attorney Smith stated there is no requirement for that in any of the documents that the owners have. Commissioner Duren asked if Attorney Smith has those documents to submit tonight. Attorney Smith stated he can provide a full set of the documents which are approximately two hundred pages. He offered to separate out the salient portions for the Commission’s information and provide the full set to town staff.

Commissioner Hickey stated what he is hearing tonight is that the condominium declaration is contrary to the approval. Chairman DiPace noted if they do not work hand in hand, he does not see how they are legal. Attorney Smith stated that can be discussed further but he saw nothing in the Commission’s letter of approval which would say to him that anything in the documents was contrary to what was in the conditions of approval. Chairman DiPace stated he was present during the original approval and the Commission wanted to make sure that when the developer sold these units that it was quite clear to people that they were buying a condominium. Chairman DiPace stated this development is a reason why Enfield no longer allows condominiums.

Attorney Smith stated most of the homeowners of Pheasant Hill are fairly content with their homes and the development. They are more than happy to do their own maintenance. They have those privileges of a homeowner who owns their own lot but they are also under the umbrella of the association which plows the road and related items.

Chairman DiPace asked what has changed from 2001 with the application for decks, patios and sheds to now to make the sheds more appealing. He asked that Attorney Smith give the Commission a reason why they should be allowed now. Attorney Smith stated they have put strict limitations on the proposed sheds by limiting them to a 10’ x 10’ shed. They have noted that the shed has to architecturally fit the house in regard to color or design. Chairman DiPace questioned who would approve these sheds. Attorney Smith offered to have every shed go through staff for approval after approval by the association.

Attorney Smith brought up compliance with the buffer areas. He thought the problem with that was up until 2000, most of the unit owners had no idea there were any buffer requirements. It was not contained in the documents and any attorney up until about 1998 doing a search for their client purchasing a unit could not discover that there was a buffer around part of the property.

Commissioner Duren noted the Commission’s minutes of February 1, 2001, page 22, includes (1) within the 50’ buffer area required by the regulations and previous approvals located behind units 24, 22, 20,18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4 and 2 and (a) is there shall be maintained a twenty-five foot planted strip. Commissioner Duren stated this goes on and it keeps mentioning this planted strip. Attorney Smith stated that was after the final set which was in 1999 and at that point there was a buffer area. The Commission can see it on their 2000 plan approval.

Chairman DiPace stated he can remember several occasions previous to 1999 meeting with the Zoning Enforcement Officer on this buffer issue. Attorney Smith stated the difficulty for some of these homeowners is not the fact that there is a buffer area but that at some point they became aware of the buffer area and had purchased with no knowledge or reasonable notice of one. There was nothing in the documents and there was nothing recorded on the land records indicating that.

Commissioner Duren stated the association was aware of the buffer. Attorney Smith stated when the Commission refers to the association, up until approximately 2000, this was the developer. He surrendered the association around 2000. Attorney Smith stated the unusual part of this is that none of his documents disclose to a homeowner that there was a buffer. Also, nothing that he looked at on the Land Records up until about the end of 1997 would disclose it either.

Chairman DiPace asked if the developer turned over any of the files of the association prior to 2000. He had several cease and desist orders. He had several orders to be at Commission hearings. The developer appeared before the Commission once or twice a year. Attorney Smith stated that is something he cannot answer but he will look into it.

Chairman DiPace stated the Commission talked about caveats to let people know what they were purchasing. He cited specific enforcement regarding unit #2 where they had a playscape located in the buffer area. Attorney Smith stated he is not suggesting there haven’t been enforcement actions. He is stating that the record is very unclear from the homeowners’ position as to how this developed and how there were records recorded that has no notice of it until units had been sold. Even after that, none of the documents, including the sixteen amendments to the declaration, state there is a buffer area. Not one deed or one document states there is a buffer area.

Chairman DiPace stated this Commission will review what can be done but one of the conditions he would require is to find out how, through the Town Attorney, and when every deed for every one of these units can be clearly re-filed with what needs to be included addressing the buffer and the approvals and the fact that they are condominiums. This is so that for whoever buys these units in the future, there is no misunderstanding.

Attorney Smith suggested an easier way to do that which is for the homeowners to reaffirm the buffer areas if he can work out the necessary arrangements and record it on the land records as part of an amended declaration notice. Every unit owner would then have a central document that an attorney would find. This would be included in the resale package for every unit owner. Commissioner Sarno noted a buyer would have to sign the resale package prior to purchasing a unit.

Attorney Smith stated it sounds like the Commission had a different idea on how this was going to be structured. In most condominiums or PRD’s, it is up to the association to get someone to mow the lawn or plow the snow. In those cases, sheds would not be needed. This is not the case for this development. Attorney Smith stated he is willing to review all the documents and work with staff. He did ask them if they did have the full set of plans from the first approval but they only keep them for the last ten years. Attorney Smith will obtain copies of the plans from the Town Clerk.

Neil Angus stated he has the original landscape approval from 1993 and it does have the same statement regarding the buffer requirements as shown on the map that was handed out by Attorney Smith. The buffer is not delineated on the original plan but the updated plan does show the buffer delineation along the backs of units 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24. Also, the buffer yard requirements are on the new map and it indicates a Type B buffer yard. It is listed on the new approval but not clarified on the old approval.

Commissioner Sarno stated the condo fees for Pheasant Hill are approximately $50 per month and the reason they are so low is because they are doing their own maintenance. Otherwise, the monthly fee would be closer to $150. Attorney Smith stated the residents of Pheasant Hill have all purchased these units with the idea that they are going to maintain it. This was pretty clear to the unit owners and part of the attractiveness of this development was that the owners would get some of the condominium benefits but also get to maintain their own space. Attorney Smith confirmed to Commissioner Sarno that a private service does maintain the road.

Chairman DiPace saw a need for the Commission to see the entire file. He noted Mary Ann Turner would have this information. The approval was signed off in 1994 by the then Chairman Eugene Calcasola. Chairman DiPace stated if after a review of the original approval, it clearly states the approval and conditions, his feeling is that is what needs to be enforced.

Attorney Smith stated the owners are not trying to dodge the issue. Chairman DiPace stated since this was approved, the homeowners association has dodged the Commission the entire time even up until the time the sheds and decks were discussed. One of the reasons the Commission ended up approving only the decks was because they did not want to impact any more into the buffer area. In the mid nineties, the buffer area was staked. Chairman DiPace stated he has never seen a development that has gone around and around with the Commission like this one has. The response has been no one told us or no one understands.

Attorney Smith stated to a degree that is probably accurate. When the development reached the year 2000, the issue became could I put a shed in my back yard similar to other single-family homeowners. Attorney Smith stated most of these unit owners felt the same way. They were in this development but they had a house and they had this yard which was theirs to do what they wanted with and like any other homeowner, they would make requests to the town for permits to construct a shed. The other part of it was there is so much correspondence regarding what is the buffer area and what can you do in the buffer area. Attorney Smith noted the dramatic difference in the two landscape plans that were approved. They are totally different. The first landscape plan was in 1993 and in 1998 the landscape plan tightened up and landscaping was being put in even through 2000. You have unit owners that are buying units in 1996 with plans that are changing on their property.

Chairman DiPace stated the 2000 plan actually has a lot less landscaping on it than what was originally approved. Commissioner Duren read from the previous minutes which included that “Chairman Costanza noted there are thirty-two homes in the Pheasant Hill Development with three different designs.” Units have been approved initially with decks measuring 8’ x 10’ and there were various sizes of decks out there. So to help the association and make everything legal, language was added that stated any deck existing prior to June, 2000 that may be outside the parameters shall be determined in compliance and require no further approval but no additional construction extending beyond the 15’ x 21’ deck maximum would be allowed. Commissioner Duren stated this is the type of thing that has been going on year after year with this development.

Attorney Smith stated this Commission has lived the history of this development and he has not. He noted the recent conduct of the homeowners association has been that when the town has come to them and identified a homeowner that is out of compliance, a letter is sent to the unit owner by the homeowners association stating they have to comply.

Commissioner Duren noted there are buffers that have been totally destroyed and the Commission has been enforcing this from day one by Lot #1 which is one of the first lots sold. That playscape was in the buffer area. Chairman DiPace stated there have been violations as recently as in the last month.

Chairman DiPace stated the Commission addressed the decks and patios in 2000-2001 and they clarified to the homeowners association what they could do and could not do. He had a concern about problems still occurring four years later. Chairman DiPace asked what does the Commission need to do to correct this.

Attorney Smith stated the difficulty here is the Commission can talk to the association but they do not control the exclusive use area of the homeowner. The homeowner that has an exclusive use can pretty much do whatever he wants. If the homeowners association finds the unit owner is in violation, the association sends a letter. Attorney Smith stated it is not like other developments similar to this where the association has exclusive jurisdiction over what is done regarding mowing the lawn or plowing the snow.

Chairman DiPace stated this Commission is going to enforce the landscape buffer to the point that the next time the Zoning Enforcement Officer issues a cease and desist order, the Commission will go to the Town Attorney’s Office and get a judge to hear the matter. If someone goes in there and starts cutting down the buffer again, it will not be a by accident cutting. This would be against a court order and fines would be imposed. Chairman DiPace stated the Commission needs to do something because this cannot continue. It has been twelve years and it is still going on.

Attorney Smith stated he understands what the Chairman is saying. Looking at the events that have occurred, the unit owners are the victims in terms of the documents they were provided and the documents they could access in terms of their rights and responsibilities with regard to the property. Has this changed since 2000? Attorney Smith stated since 2001 they were all on notice.

Chairman DiPace asked how many units are involved. Attorney Smith responded thirty-two. Chairman DiPace asked how many owners have lived there for more than five years. The president of the homeowners association responded three-quarters or seventy-five percent have lived there prior to 2001.

Chairman DiPace asked how many of the units are occupied by the original owners. Attorney Smith stated the units were sold between 1996 through 2000 but he did not have that number.

Commissioner Krebs asked about the unit owner that has a shed. Attorney Smith stated that unit owner was issued a building permit in 1996 and it is unit 18.

Attorney Smith stated looking at correspondence, everyone seems to focus on what can or cannot be done in the buffer area. Commissioner Duren stated the buffer was to be left alone and he stated the development will have to restore it. Attorney Smith stated he does not see anything in the documents that would tell anyone that is the case. There is nothing in the approval documents, the maps or the condominium documents.

Commissioner Lefakis requested the Commission be provided with a copy of the minutes from the original hearing.

Commissioner Sarno asked if the Commission signed off on the association bylaws. Chairman DiPace stated the procedure now is that the Commission gets a copy of condominium bylaws.

Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.

Gillian Bateman, 8 Pheasant Hill Drive, discussed the problems with their landscaping and the buffer zone. There was one problem on the fire lane and they hired a landscaper. Someone not from Pheasant Hill had dumped material in the area of the fire lane. The landscaper was instructed to clean up the mess. Also, the trees had grown right over the fire lane and they thought they should trim the trees expediently so that if a fire truck had to access the development, it would not be a problem. There were three people who showed the landscaper what was to be done. Ms. Bateman stated they then found out that the landscaper had gone way beyond what he was supposed to do. Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley came out and one of the board members went out with Mr. Bickley and explained what had happened. The Zoning Enforcement Officer told them they had to do something and they had the landscaper plant four shrubs to try to rectify the problem. Regarding the planting of the line of trees, Ms. Bateman stated these trees are miniatures and they really don’t grow any more than about two feet high. Also, the man who lives in this unit doesn’t speak English and they have had problems because of that. This unit owner was sent a letter and was told to cease any work on the outside. Ms. Bateman stated they heard about this when they received a notice of this hearing. They did not even know there was a question there at all. After they found out, the letter was sent. They spoke to Mr. Bickley and the board members and Mr. Bickley are going to meet with this unit owner at a time Mr. Bickley designates to decide what can be done. They are currently addressing the problem.

Ms. Bateman stated they have a letter from Town Attorney Christopher Bromson that addresses the buffer zone and in it he says they cannot cut trees but that they can eliminate poison ivy, poison oak and the prickly bushes. Ms. Bateman noted the entire buffer zone behind her house is prickly bushes. They have not cut trees down and that is what they have cut out.

Ms. Bateman stated the unit owners have exclusive use of their piece of property and with that they plant flowers, fertilize and do all the things that homeowners do. Such activities require lawn mowers, gasoline and associated items. The units only have a one-car garage and a small driveway. Ms. Bateman stated unit owners are storing lawn mowers in their basements which is not safe. They do need sheds because it is dangerous the way things are presently. There are also many children in the development and their parents have no place to store child related items.

Ms. Bateman noted she purchased her unit in August of 1997.

Ed Cowan, 4 Pheasant Hill Drive, stated he was just replaced as president of the homeowners association. He has only lived at Pheasant Hill for three years and the Commission has stated they have been listening to this since 1993. While the Commission talks about the builder and all the problems associated with this development, Mr. Cowan noted the builder is no longer around. The unit owners have kept these homes up and he would think that the town and Commission would be happy with that. He noted other places in Enfield where there is litter in yards, cars and other items. He would think the Commission would want to help these unit owners get this resolved, forget about the builder and go on for the future of the Town of Enfield.

Kristen Hamilton, 5 Pheasant Hill, stated she bought her home in 1996. She stated her neighbors are not a bunch of trouble makers but they work very hard to comply with the town’s regulations. Ms. Hamilton assured the Commission that if she was not made aware of her exclusive use area when she moved into her home in 1996, she would not have been maintaining it as she has been for all of this time. Her exclusive use area is approximately one-third of an acre and is one of the larger exclusive use areas in the neighborhood. As original owners, they were never led to believe that it was anything other than their responsibility to maintain their exclusive use area. Ms. Hamilton noted the town plans no future approvals of planned residential developments and because of that, she would see no precedent setting issue approving their sheds.

Chairman DiPace identified the many developments that were built prior to this one such as the Laurels and Candlewood. This would open the door for them to come in for the same thing. Ms. Hamilton questioned if they do the same maintenance as Pheasant Hill owners. Chairman DiPace acknowledged they do not but they would be entitled to have sheds.

Commissioner Sarno disagreed because those types of things are listed in the condominium bylaws as to what they can and cannot do in their area.

Chairman DiPace stated the town only allows senior residential developments at this time and this has been the case for six or seven years.

Ms. Hamilton stated some of the other condominium projects have two-car garages and less of a need than Pheasant Hill owners for the maintenance equipment. She encouraged the Commission members to visit her neighborhood because she is very proud of the way her neighbors maintain this neighborhood. She felt they add value to the Weymouth Road section of Enfield and she finds it highly surprising that any of the nearby neighbors would make any complaints about their neighborhood. Ms. Hamilton felt the beautification of their neighborhood far outweighs some of the areas in which some of their nearby neighbors live and are complaining about Pheasant Hill. Ms. Hamilton stated what they are requesting is not unreasonable and they want to comply with everything the town will ask them to do in order to choose sheds that are an appropriate size and appearance. Ms. Hamilton felt this does not have to be some kind of decades old vendetta with a builder. This is a way that unit owners can be accommodated whether or not the impression was that this was not how their community was going to be set up to begin with. The reality is that this is how their community operates and it is not a safe or practical solution to continue as they are and the addition of sheds would be a benefit to all unit owners. Ms. Hamilton strongly requested that the Commission consider accommodating what she thinks is a very reasonable request.

Mary Ann Turner, 7 Meadow Road, stated she would just like confirmation on the record that the Commission will be continuing this hearing. Chairman DiPace stated this hearing will be continued. Ms. Turner stated the Commission is welcome to her file.

Chairman DiPace emphasized there is no vendetta against anyone. There are rules and regulations that need to be enforced and the Commission is tired of them not being followed.

Ray Bouchard, 23 Pheasant Hill Drive, stated it is clear from the discussion this evening that there is a serious problem but the problem lies in two groups of people operating from two different perspectives. There is the Commission which believes it approved a set of rules but the homeowners were told an entirely different thing. Mr. Bouchard is an original homeowner. He was told by the builder and the real estate agent many different things than what the Commission is saying this evening. They were told when they were purchasing their home that if they were on the buffer side, they were not allowed to do anything. They couldn’t put in fences or sheds. They were also told they could have a pool if they were located on the other side of the street. They were told that they had exclusive use of their property and they understood it was a planned unit development. They knew there was an association, the road was private and they were responsible for that road. They were also responsible for the maintenance of their driveways and their lawns.

Mr. Bouchard stated if the Commission members visit Pheasant Hill, he will show them where the developer pinned every one of their lots to delineate the exclusive use areas. Mr. Bouchard stated things were done to make the unit owners believe that they were operating in a different plateau than what the Commission is saying. No unit owner is attempting to defraud anyone. They will do exactly what the town expects them to do. Mr. Bouchard stated the owners are curious about letters that come from the town that actually are in conflict. There are letters from the Town Attorney that state they can remove brush or brambles from the buffer. They have a letter from Zoning Enforcement Officer Bickley that says they cannot do that.

Mr. Bouchard encouraged and requested that the Commission go to the very beginning and tell the unit owners what they can and cannot do. He also requested that the Commission seriously consider granting them the ability to have sheds because this is an issue of safety. He noted thirty-two lawyers cannot be wrong when the deeds are being researched and houses are being sold. There cannot be the serious problem. He asked that the Commission and the unit owners work together because they are very willing to do that.

Chairman DiPace stated if someone bought their house with title insurance and the title was not done properly, he would look into it. The Commission reviewed this development in 2001 when they came in for the decks and discussed what could and could not be done in the buffer. Here it is four years later and there are still problems.

Mr. Bouchard stated they are having a problem with one homeowner. They also had a problem with an area of the fire road and that situation was previously explained. The contractor hired went way beyond what he was asked to do. Mr. Bouchard stated the owners expect communication from the town and the courtesy that they would be told immediately that there is a problem so that it can be corrected. There are plans to do that with Mr. Bickley regarding the current issue that they have. But to affect thirty-two unit owners together because of the actions of one or one or two things that occur is beyond what they would expect from the standpoint of fairness. Mr. Bouchard stated if there are issues, there is no one more willing to work with the Commission than the Pheasant Hill Homeowners Association to maintain the regulations and whatever restrictions are placed on them. Mr. Bouchard stated the Commission has their set of ideas with how this development was approved and there are thirty-two homeowners who have a different view of that approval. They have signed rules and regulations of how they operate which states they have an exclusive use area. He asked that the Commission work with them to resolve this.

Chairman DiPace stated the Commission is aware there were problems and things were not disclosed properly. However, he noted the amount of time that the Commission has had to spend on problems regarding this development. Chairman DiPace stated there is no other development where there have been half the problems that there have been with this development.

Mr. Bouchard stated one violation was the over exuberance of a subcontractor. He stated the issue of sheds is a safety issue for their homeowners.

Chairman DiPace stated the main concern is the buffer which is supposed to be left to grow naturally. If there are briars or poison ivy, that can be removed. However, the trees are not supposed to be cut down. Chairman DiPace stated in the past a tree was cut down and it was supposed to be replanted.

Chairman DiPace stated he hopes this can get resolved between the town and the association because the next step is to let a judge decide. Mr. Bouchard requested that the Commission not go that route and instead work with the Pheasant Hill people. He reiterated that listening to people this evening, as well as Attorney Smith, there have been two sets of how people operated, what they were told and how they were looking at this whole thing. It is too late to discuss whose fault it is.

Commissioner Duren asked how do we solve the problem and he cited the playscape where the Commission was told they didn’t know. Mr. Bouchard stated this is something the board needs to work harder on. They no longer have the original owners and they have new owners that are dealing with realtors who are telling people something entirely different. Mr. Bouchard stated if the Commission tells them exactly what it is they want to set parameters on, they will do everything they can to enforce these things.

Commissioner Duren stated no one is talking about maintenance and Pheasant Hill is a beautiful place. The only problem is what the Commission had asked and what the unit owners have been told and this just continues and continues. He questioned how to stop this as units turn over. Mr. Bouchard suggested the Commission tell them what the rules are going to be so that it is in writing, every homeowner has it and it gets passed on as the units are sold.

Commissioner Duren read from the previous approval document, item 3. It reads “The Homeowners Association shall notify all unit owners of the conditions of the approval and shall incorporate all applicable conditions of this approval into its bylaws.” Mr. Bouchard stated this is from the February, 2000 action that was not accepted.

Chairman DiPace stated the Commission needs to know with the continuation of this hearing whether that condition just stated is going to be acceptable to the association again. Commissioner Duren agreed it has to go with the bylaws somehow.

Commissioner Duren stated he has not seen anything on the plans about the location of the sheds. He asked that that information be presented because the Commission did not receive this tonight. If they had been asked to vote, they would not have done so.

Chairman DiPace stated there needs to be locations so that sheds are not showing up in the buffer. He would like to see something that states such sheds shall be no more than twenty-five feet away from the owner’s existing house. This would avoid sheds being located in the buffer. Commissioner Duren stated the Commission would like to see some uniformity and to keep them consistent.

Ed Cowan, 4 Pheasant Hill Drive, stated when he first brought this application to Jose Giner, he informed Mr. Cowan that if and when the shed was approved, that he would sketch out on each person’s property the location for a shed. He would show the owners where they can and where they cannot place a shed. Chairman DiPace stated he would much rather see the association come in and make a recommendation as to what they are looking for rather than having something come in, have the lines drawn and find that such a plan does not work for the unit owners. Mr. Cowan stated the shed location would not be the same for every lot. He noted his own back yard where the trees are situated to the point where he cannot even locate a shed there. Some other people do not have trees at all. Commissioner Duren stated they would have to show the Commission why they cannot have the sheds uniform.

Chairman DiPace stated if the sheds do get approved, there will be a maximum size which means that unit owners could install something smaller. The Commission also has to review their regulations and if such sheds are not permitted, the Commission would have to consider a regulation amendment.

Nancy Tetrault, 7 Pheasant Hill Drive, stated she has talked to Mr. Giner about the complaint and they are meeting with him in the next week or so and addressing it.

Mary Ann Turner, 7 Meadow Road, stated she was originally going to postpone her comments but would like some information included in the record today. There was a letter that was sent out. They have had numerous attorneys and this attorney would need to be briefed. The letter was sent to the town on May 14, 2003. This letter specifically states what can and cannot be done in the buffer. It goes on to discuss individual items like trees or shrubs and the question asked is can the tree be replaced or cut down. The response was you have to replace it. The letter includes a litany of items.

Ms. Turner stated the violations at Pheasant Hill have been numerous and the Commission is well aware of them. When the Commission gets the opportunity to visit Pheasant Hill, she would like them to also take a ride over to 7 Meadow Road, Hickory and Weymouth. It is a fifty-year old neighborhood and it is not a shabby place. She takes exception because this is not the first time that it has been implied that they are one kind of development and we’re different. The neighbors that abut the Pheasant Hill side are meticulous in taking care of their yards.

Ms. Turner stated regarding the January 1, 2001 letter that was proposed but that was not agreed to by Pheasant Hill, the whole point of that letter was to get on the record that the buffer would stay intact, would be marked and would stay marked so that it would be left alone.