|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 15, 2005
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Sunday, December 15, 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
Jeffrey Cooper
Charles Duren
Robert Egan
James Hickey, Jr.
Karen Weseliza
Nicles Lefakis, Voting Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve the Minutes of November 17, 2005. The Minutes were approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Lefakis voting.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace noted receipt of information from the Capitol Region Council of Governments regarding their next meeting scheduled for January 19, 2006. Also received was the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Notice of Action dated November 29, 2005, the Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies quarterly newsletter, and a Christmas card addressed to the Commission from Attorney Willis.
COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE
Commissioner Duren brought up Samantha’s Restaurant which has been closed for some time and yet their sign is still standing. Mr. Giner stated a new owner is renovating the restaurant and he will check with the Building Inspector regarding the name of the new restaurant.
Commissioner Duren stated in the Minutes of November 17, Commissioner Lefakis had asked about TGI Friday’s tower. Mr. Giner stated Mr. Bickley went out and spoke to the owners. They do not yet have their final c.o. so the renovation is not technically finished. The owner is saying the tower will be the color they said it would be.
Commissioner Duren asked if the town was supposed to be forming some type of architectural review board for Thompsonville. Mr. Giner stated the plan was to work on guidelines for this area first. He will communicate with Mr. Alsbaugh for an update on what is being done regarding Thompsonville. Mr. Giner stated a staff person is working on doing an inventory for Thompsonville and coming up with some sample guidelines.
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of information from the American Planning Association entitled “Making Great Communities Happen.” Also received was the December edition of the American Planning Association magazine.
Chairman DiPace discussed the schedule for the January 5, 2006 meeting which is to include a workshop to review some of the items previously discussed by the Commission throughout the year. Some of these items include open porches, outside display, the grading regulations and the use of pods. Chairman DiPace would like these discussed at the January 5, 2006 meeting and suggested the Commission set a priority for implementing these amendments.
Mr. Giner stated he will talk to Engineering regarding their suggestions to the existing Subdivision Regulations.
Commissioner Egan stated one of the other issues was some of the language in the Subdivision Regulations. He stated the Commission should consider, with all the flooding along the river, an upgrade by taking the condition of the 25-year flood plain and upgrading it to the 50-year flood plain. Commissioner Egan saw an inconsistency with the regulations. If there is an impact off-site, you have to do the fifty-year calculations. If you are not going to have an impact off-site, then you can do the 25-year. Commissioner Egan stated in most of the situations that have come before the Commission recently, they have had an impact on-site. Mr. Giner stated Engineering is considering this and looking at any implications for a design for a 50-year storm. Mr. Giner also saw a need to update the regulations to reference the new state guidelines that recently came out.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2534 –Special Use Permit/Site Plan Review for 85-unit senior residential development at the east end of Mayfield Drive and north of West View Drive and Pine Hill, zoned R-44, Map 79, Lot 11, Stonegate Associates, Applicant/Angelina J. McGillivray, Owner. (Must close by January 19, 2006)
Robert DiGennaro, one of the principals of Stonegate Associates and Somerset Development Corporation of Suffield, Connecticut, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated he is the proposed developer for this site. They have submitted an application in the name of Stonegate Associates because under Connecticut law, each condominium must be a separate and legal entity. The final entity for this project will be known as Stonegate Estates by Somerset Homes, LLC.
Mr. DiGennaro stated this company has been building homes and condominiums in the Town of Enfield since 1995. Their current project is the first active adult project approved by this Commission. It is a fifty-six unit active adult community known as Autumn Fields by Somerset Homes located on Elm Street just across from the police station. Mr. DiGennaro noted this project was particularly challenging due to the environmental sensitivity of the site due to the wetlands and the existence of endangered species. They worked closely with the Inland Wetlands Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection for the better part of two years to protect the wetlands and any endangered species. More than sixty percent of the 86-acre Autumn Fields project is a perpetual conservation trust. They are now building the final units of Autumn Fields. They have sold or closed on nearly fifty units and take great pride in what they and the residents of Autumn Fields believe is aesthetically and otherwise a significant contribution to the Town of Enfield.
Mr. DiGennaro congratulated the new Police Chief, Carl Sferrazza. He added the Police Chief is also the proud owner of a Somerset Home which was built for him ten years ago at Birch Hill Farm.
Mr. DiGennaro stated the Stonegate project was actually the vision of John Coccomo who purchased the Mayfield Drive property approximately twenty-five years ago. Mr. Coccomo divided the property into three distinct parcels and actually developed the middle parcel in the mid 1980’s. It is now known as the Dartmoor Condominiums. Mr. Coccomo also received approval for the development of the front parcel for an assisted living facility which was never constructed. His long-term plan was to develop the rear parcel, now the subject of this application, as a continuation of the Dartmoor Condominium project.
Mr. DiGennaro stated when the real estate market took a downturn in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, Mr. Coccomo deferred his plans and came to an untimely death in the late 1990’s. Just prior to Mr. Coccomo’s death, they entered into an option agreement with him for the purchase of the rear land off Mayfield Drive. The option agreement was subsequently renewed by an heir of Mr. Coccomo, the present owner. Mr. Coccomo was careful to preserve all rights for the use of Mayfield Drive for access to the rear parcel, the parcel which is the subject of this application. An easement document relating to this was properly recorded in the Land Records of the Town of Enfield and they have provided a copy of the recorded easement with this application.
Mr. DiGennaro stated they have spent the last several months going through the public hearing process with the town’s Inland Wetlands Commission. This past Tuesday evening, the Commission closed their public hearing and the matter will be on the agenda for a vote at their January 17, 2006 meeting. Mr. DiGennaro stated the Stonegate plan for detached, active adult condominium units on ninety-six acres of land has been a painstaking process conceived to have a minimal impact on the wetlands. The total wetlands disturbance is less than 4,400 square feet. As a matter of right under the zoning regulations, Mr. DiGennaro noted they would be allowed to have a total of 155 units on this site. Their plan calls for only fifty-four percent of this number or 85 units. A huge portion of the 96-acre site or a total of 64 acres out of the 96 or 65% of the site will be in a perpetual conservation trust.
Mr. DiGennaro stated in order to achieve a minimum impact on the wetlands, a loop road which would have required two wetlands crossings was redesigned early on to provide for a single cul de sac with one wetlands crossing. This approach minimizes the impact on wetlands but will require a waiver from this Commission due to its length.
Mr. DiGennaro stated there is an ever growing need for active adult communities. As the first of the baby boomers turn sixty in January, 2006, this trend will continue for the next ten years and more. As has been seen with Autumn Fields and the creation of other active adult communities, not only are residents of Enfield making a choice to purchase their units but also the parents and relatives of younger Enfield residents are now able to make the choice to move to Enfield to be closer to their family members. Active adult communities are also very attractive to the town because they create substantial tax revenue with a minimal demand on town services.
Wesley Wentworth, a PE and Soil Scientist with Wentworth Civil Engineers of Lebanon, Connecticut, the engineer for the applicant, made a formal presentation regarding the proposed Stonegate development.
Mr. Wentworth stated to the west of the site is North Maple Street. The entrance in to the Dartmoor Condominiums immediately to the west of this property is Mayfield Drive. That comes in and ends at a cul de sac. To the south of the property is Westview Drive which connects out through Lake Road and to North Maple Street. To the south of the property is West Shore Drive and southeast is Shaker Pines Lake. The northern border of the property is the Massachusetts state line.
Mr. Wentworth stated the site is 95.8 acres zoned R-44. They are proposing an 85-unit senior residential development in accordance with the town’s zoning regulations. This is one parcel of land that will be developed as a condominium under common ownership and management and overseen by a homeowners association comprised of individual unit owners. The proposed dwellings are single-family detached dwellings and residents, according to the regulations, will be fifty-five years and older.
Mr. .Wentworth stated the site access is in from Mayfield Drive and a continuation of the cul de sac. A second road access will be from Westview Drive and Pine Hill Road at the existing intersection. There will be no paved street or permanent access to West Shore Drive but they are providing a temporary construction access to the town for proposed maintenance on West Shore Drive. As part of that, the Fire Marshal has also asked for an easement to allow emergency access through at that point.
Mr. Wentworth stated roads throughout the project are proposed to be paved twenty-four feet wide with sidewalks on one side of the two main roads, Stonegate Drive and West View Drive. The site is to be serviced by public sanitary sewers and public water. The infrastructure, though built to town standards in accordance with the subdivision regulations, will be privately owned and maintained by the homeowners association. Roads, sidewalks and utilities will all be privately owned within this development.
Mr. Wentworth stated they are requesting some waivers of the subdivision road specifications. The reason for this is to reduce environmental impacts. He pointed out the wetlands shown in green on the site plan with the 100’ upland review area or setback shown in red. Mr. Wentworth stated they plan to have only three wetlands crossings and they have aligned the roads in order to minimize activities at those crossings. To aid in that, they have requested a waiver regarding the snow shelf or shoulder. Typically, there is a 13’ wide shoulder and at the wetlands crossings they have requested that the shoulder be reduced to 5’ wide. This would allow the disturbance to the wetlands and the overall footprint to be reduced to the greatest extent possible. The second waiver they are requesting is for sidewalks through this entire area. By ending the sidewalks at Stonegate Drive, they do not need to have a sidewalk and a wider shoulder within the roadway meaning less disturbance to the wetlands. Because of the type of community this is, Mr. Wentworth noted there are no children and the sidewalk and pedestrian traffic flow would be internal to the site. Mr. Wentworth stated the request for the waivers made sense to them and would reduce their wetlands impact on the crossing.
Mr. Wentworth stated the third waiver requested involves a waiver of cul de sac length for Westgate Drive. It is 1,142’ in length and the maximum allowed by the regulations without a waiver is 600’. Commissioner Duren noted there are over forty units in this area. Ms. Wentworth agreed and stated with the original layout, they had two wetlands crossings with a loop road. They have chosen to proceed in this manner to minimize their impact to this wetlands corridor and not break up this corridor in two places. Mr. Wentworth noted similar waivers have been granted by this Commission in the recent past and up to 1,200’ for some subdivisions in the town. They feel they are consistent with the waivers the Commission has previously approved.
Commissioner Duren asked where such waivers were given and how long they were. Mr. Wentworth stated he can provide that information at a later date and does not have it available tonight.
Mr. Wentworth stated they are providing fire protection throughout the site through hydrants and twelve-inch water mains. They have a letter from the Connecticut Water Company stating they can provide adequate flow for fire protection throughout the site.
Mr. Wentworth stated they are also requesting a waiver of standard curbing to a cape cod curb which is a little bit wider curb with a little wider slope. Because such curbing is not so steep, it would allow for access by amphibians and wildlife should they get on the road. Chairman DiPace asked about the curbing on Mayfield Drive at this time. Mr. Wentworth stated he would assume it is standard curbing. The cape code curbing is the same height but rather than being only nine inches, it is fourteen inches and lays the slope back to the curb.
Mr. Wentworth stated conservation easements are being provided on the site as shown on the site plan. Sixty-four acres of the 95.8 acres are protected in the form of conservation easements. They are also providing a buffer of this wetland and the upper third portion of Shaker Pines Lake that will not allow units or lawn areas to expand down in that direction of the shore.
Mr. Wentworth stated they meet the minimums for the open space set aside of 2,500 square feet per unit.
Mr. Wentworth stated they have been through a very thorough process that began approximately two years ago with informal layouts coming before this Commission and the Inland Wetlands Commission. The Inland Wetlands Commission requested that a state environmental review team produce a report on this site. They had a site walk in June, 2004 with this environmental review team and the team produced a report in October, 2004 regarding storm water, environmental issues, where the resources are on the property and how best to develop it. They developed the layout before the Commission in order to minimize wetlands impacts and keep all of their units greater than 100’ from all wetlands on the site.
Mr. Wentworth reviewed the storm water design on the site. They have storm ponds and detention basins in the central portion of the site to ensure that they have no peak impact in runoff from a water quantity standpoint. They provide and exceed their minimum requirements for peak flows and that water is detained from a low frequency two-year storm all the way up through 100-year storm events. They had a very strong focus on water quality and the DEP has gotten back to them with storm water quality recommendations. They provided a lot of things they were able to implement into this plan in the form of storm water quality basins, wetlands treatment of storm drainage and the use of sedimentation basins and oil hoods where they have pipe flow. On the eastern portion of this site, they have sandier soils and they have no direct discharge for low frequency storms of any runoff from this entire section except into infiltration basins. These basins are designed to maximize infiltration into the ground of storm water which not only recharges the ground water but also is favored within the DEP manual in order to minimize the potential for pollutants to downstream receiving waters.
Mr. Wentworth stated forty-three of the units, or just over fifty percent of the units, have rain gardens as part of this plan. A rain garden catches the roof leaders, the first one-inch of water, and discharges it into a shallow depression that’s landscaped with vegetation. Fifty-percent of this roof water is not going through the storm drainage or directly into the wetlands as runoff.
Mr. Wentworth stated they have a very detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan that they developed as part of this project that meets the DEP standards. They have done erosion and sedimentation phasing of the project to minimize exposure time and not open the entire site up at one time. As part of the wetlands approval, there were concerns from neighbors. The Shaker Pines Lake Association retained the services of Dr. Davis, a water quality expert from Bay State Environmental. He was present at the Inland Wetlands public hearings and voiced certain concerns and had suggestions. The result was a very involved public hearing process that went on for months where they would implement changes and provide reports. They reached a point where they were able to do a phosphorus loading study which showed they have minimal phosphorus coming off which is a limiting factor in the future of the lake. They were able to implement certain water quality practices not only during construction but also develop a storm water maintenance plan for the long term. One of the nice features of this site is it is under common ownership of a homeowners association that has a management plan in place. As part of that management plan, they have included a storm water maintenance plan which outlines when and what to do regarding procedures like snow removal, sweeping of the sand on the roads, cleaning and inspecting all storm water structures, detention basin outlets, storm water outlets and infiltration basins. This will ensure that the project will function over the long term.
Mr. Wentworth stated they have committed to low phosphorus and no phosphorus fertilizers on site. Their studies revealed that two of the main sources of phosphorus in this type of residential development are the blanketing of high phosphorus or a standard type fertilizer. They developed an integrated pest management fertilization application plan which allows only fertilizing where needed and the application of pesticides in very small areas.
Mr. Wentworth stated as part of their review by Inland Wetlands and this Commission, they have provided a traffic study by David Spear, Professional Engineer, from Windsor, Connecticut. The proposed layout will complement what the typical peak flows would be. With this type of development, a large portion of the residents are retired. The finding for similar communities is that residents do not leave the site until approximately 10:00 a.m. The traffic flows generated are only forty percent of what a standard single-family development would be. There would be a sixty percent decrease in traffic because of the nature of this development. Mr. Wentworth stated the traffic study determined there is more than adequate capacity of the road systems for this development.
Mr. Wentworth stated they submitted landscaping plans by Raymond Jefferson, a landscape architect. He has addressed unit buffering and unit landscaping. The landscaper was involved with the development of the site from an environmental and wetlands review standpoint and was able to implement wetlands planting plans for detention basins, drainage outlet areas and wetland crossings as a mitigation measure to enhance the site.
Mr. Wentworth stated their plans and their supplemental data reports and long-term maintenance plans are part of the condominium documents once this is approved and filed on the town land records. Their application package is very extensive and responsive to the needs and concerns raised by the town staff, the Commission and abutting land owners. The plans are well thought out and not only have they utilized new technologies but they have also combined that with a lot of tried and true practices that have been implemented for many years from an environmental and an engineering standpoint. It is Mr. Wentworth’s opinion that they will have no adverse impact to the public health, welfare or safety as a result of the development of this project.
Commissioner Duren noted receipt of a letter from the Connecticut Water Company in which they mention there will be some units under the standard of forty square inch pressure. They noted the applicant will need to have a limited service agreement signed and have in-house boosters. Commissioner Duren asked if that has been accommodated in the plans presented.
Mr. Wentworth stated there is more than enough volume of water but for individual domestic use of the homes, when you get down to 35 or 38 pounds of pressure, it is often not adequate and homeowners are unhappy. The developer has committed to installing individual booster pumps in every unit. This is an individual pump right by the water tank and these pumps would be installed in the entire development. Commissioner Duren asked about the fire hydrants and if they will be under pressure. Mr. Wentworth stated Connecticut Water has an excess of flow there and with the pumps on the truck, they are able to pull the water through without a problem. Commissioner Duren stated it was his understanding the fire department required a certain amount of pressure in each hydrant. Mr. Wentworth stated he believes that minimum pressure is there but they do not have a final review from the Fire Marshal. Commissioner Duren noted the need for a letter from the Fire Marshal.
Commissioner Duren saw that many of the units are going to require sump pumps. Mr. Wentworth stated there are very few that will require sump pumps. They have designed a common footing drain system. Because the site is very flat and they are providing detention on site, they didn’t want to just discharge into the storm drainage. They were able to get a deeper system to the rear of many of these units and only five units will require sump pumps. Those five units would be in the central portion of the development. Commissioner Duren suggested that those homes be furnished with a generator should there be a power failure. Mr. Wentworth state no generator is proposed at this time.
Mr. Wentworth stated as part of the Inland Wetlands approval, they were requested to raise six or seven foundation elevations. There were six or seven that required sump pumps and they were raised between one foot and two and a half feet. Mr. Wentworth stated because those came up at the last minute, he needs to re-verify whether those homes still need sump pumps. They may have addressed the problem and be able to achieve all gravity flow.
Mr. Wentworth stated the plans before the Commission tonight went out to the Inland Wetlands Commission a week ago Wednesday. Those plans were reviewed by Engineering and Neil Angus, the Wetlands Agent, provided a final memo the day of the meeting. They were out of time as far as extensions of their public hearing.
Chairman DiPace asked if the plans sent to the Inland Wetlands Commission show all the waivers requested. Mr. Wentworth stated they do and if they do not receive the waivers and if the road can’t be built in the same amount of disturbed area, this would require a modification of the Inland Wetlands approval.
Commissioner Duren stated Mr. Wentworth mentioned they were going to allow access to the Fire Department from West Shore Drive. He asked if pavers would be installed. Mr. Wentworth stated they did not request any road improvements and just wanted an easement. This would allow the Fire Department, if they felt the need to install an access, to have the legal right to do it. The Fire Marshal initially just wanted the right to come in and out of the property. Mr. Giner clarified if the easement is ever needed for the Road 2000 program where Public Works would have to go in and build, they would install the gravel. Commissioner Duren saw a need for another fire entrance. Mr. Giner stated presently they are going through some Hallmark property. They had to close the street down to improve it and the town wanted the ability to cut through an easement and put in a temporary road. Mr. Giner confirmed the Fire Department just wanted the easement and the town would put in whatever they needed. This would not be something permanent but something needed for road repair. There are some very narrow roads in that area and there are examples occurring now where they are repairing the roads and the town has to get easements over private property.
Commissioner Duren stated he is concerned with the sensitivity of the runoff and how the association is going to handle all this without a professional on staff. Mr. Wentworth stated there are measures at certain points where they have to get a professional. Commissioner Duren noted there is a lot of sensitivity to the environment with this project and it will take a person with know how to direct the residents in such things like not using high phosphorus fertilizer. Mr. Wentworth stated all the maintenance on the grounds is done by one contractor and that is how the documents are structured. Commissioner Duren stated he would like to see the management plan tightened up.
Chairman DiPace asked what is the length of the driveway from the cul de sac to the very last house to the north. Mr. Wentworth responded 220’. Chairman DiPace asked what is the length from the start of that cul de sac or the loop up to the other cul de sac. Mr. Wentworth responded 1,054’. Chairman DiPace asked what is the length of the road headed north. Mr. Wentworth responded to the farthest garage it is 195’.
Chairman DiPace asked if all these driveways are common driveways. Mr. Wentworth stated these are common driveways. Engineering initially was looking for the standard rear lot driveway and through the review process, they came up with driveways only serving two units or less are 12’ wide. If you had three or more units, they went to a 22’ wide driveway. Mr. Wentworth felt this is pretty excessive for a common driveway for only a few units but this is the minimum the Town Engineer was comfortable with.
Commissioner Weseliza stated these designs are based on waivers that have not yet been granted. Mr. Wentworth stated with the process of going through Inland Wetlands at the same time as Planning and Zoning, they prepared the plans to demonstrate that they did look at all prudent and feasible alternatives from a wetlands impact standpoint. They proceeded with the plans including the waivers and tried to minimize the environmental impact to the wetlands based upon obtaining those waivers.
Commissioner Hickey stated the proposed 95-acre development will be built to subdivision standards but it will be privately owned and maintained. He asked if the crossing of the wetlands would include a bridge. Mr. Wentworth stated there are three culverts. One is a thirty-six inch culvert. One is a bridge and one is a box culvert eight feet in width and three feet high. Commissioner Hickey asked the square footage of the total private roadway. Mr. Wentworth stated the total length is approximately 5,200 linear feet or about one mile. All of that, including the structures mentioned, will become the responsibility of the homeowners association to maintain.
Chairman DiPace stated this applicant has a wetlands application before Inland Wetlands but in order to meet the wetlands requirements, they cannot meet this Commission’s requirements and granting waivers would be necessary. Mr. Wentworth confirmed that to be correct.
Commissioner Lefakis asked what percentage of phosphorus is considered low phosphorus. Mr. Wentworth stated he could provide that information to the Commission.
Chairman DiPace stated he received a memo today indicating the Inland Wetlands Commission is not going to act on this application until January 17, 2006. The Commission is opening this hearing tonight and will have thirty-five days to conduct a hearing or until January 19, 2006. Some discussion followed regarding the specific date to continue this hearing.
Commissioner Duren stated a final signoff has not been received from Water Pollution Control. Mr. Giner stated Water Pollution Control is saying as part of the conditions of their approval, they would have to implement the CVM recommendations. Commissioner Duren stated these should be on the plans. Mr. Wentworth stated they met with Marvin Sierra of the WPC and he provided them with the recommendations from CVM. He also informed them that before they tie into any sewers, the work would have to be done and they have agreed with this. What this involves is there is an off-site small pump station on West Shore Drive that currently services that existing community and their sewers are tying into that. Commissioner Duren stated with a couple of other applications, the designs were part of the submission of the plans. Mr. Wentworth stated this would be a replacement and he would have no problem adding them to the plans.
Mr. Giner stated the Fire Marshal received the plans this week. Commissioner Duren asked if the Fire Marshal could address the water pressure issue.
Mr. Giner stated he spoke with the Fire Marshal and the only concern he had with the length of the cul de sac was if people have guest traffic, there is not a lot of guest parking. It has been his experience where if someone has guests, the traffic lines the street making it difficult for emergency vehicles to get through. His recommendation would be that one side of the street be posted “no parking.” The Fire Marshal will put his recommendations in writing for the next meeting.
Commissioner Duren stated with the length of the cul de sac, he would think there should be no parking on both sides. He saw a potential problem if there are too many cars parking on the street.
Chairman DiPace asked about the colors for the units. Mr. DiGennaro stated they would be similar to the colors of Autumn Fields or muted colors.
Mr. Giner stated regarding the cape cod curbing, this was a specific recommendation of the environmental review team. The team included David Askew, District Manager of the North Central Conservation District, Nicholas Bellantani, State Archeologist, Brian Brancifort, a research assistant with DEP, Franklin Wildlife Management Area, Robin Lemieux, a resource assistant of the DEP Wildlife Division, Dawn McKay, a biologist with DEP, Ms. Patel, a sanitary engineer with DEP, David Fourier, an archeologist with the Connecticut Historical Commission, Sally Snyder, Connecticut River Basin Coordinator of DEP, Julia Victoria, Wildlife Biologist, and Judy Wilson, Wildlife Biologist. This review team and Neil Angus went out before the plans were designed and came up with recommendations. Engineering has no problem with the recommendation of cape cod curbing. There was also a recommendation that in some areas there is no curbing to provide for sheet flow where it can infiltrate into the ground rather than go into the storm water system.
Commissioner Duren stated he had some management plan concerns. He suggested that Sheet 33 of the plans be made part of the management plan so that everyone receives it and they know exactly what the requirements are regarding the environment. Commissioner Duren would like to see the entire section that was included in the storm water runoff management plan be made part of the management plan. Mr. Wentworth stated they have already committed to do that for the Inland Wetlands and they would do the same for this Commission.
Commissioner Duren stated on page 3 of the management plan there are some x’s and he would like to see definite information. On page 5, regarding the placement of temporary structures, it says without consent of the Stonegate Estate Homeowners Association. It should also say without prior approval of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission. Item six is the storage of vehicles and that should also say prior to approval by the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Duren asked that when those changes are made, he would like to see the management plan as revised for his information.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public.
Nelson Rodriguez, 38 Willard Drive, President of the Shaker Pines Lake Association, stated they made it very clear to the Inland Wetlands Commission that they are definitely against this plan because of the water runoff and the direct impact it will have on the lake. They plan to hire an attorney next week and he again stated they are definitely against this project.
Michael Minola, 57 West Shore Drive, stated he has some concerns that have yet to be addressed with possible ground water damage of the wells that are in the area. They have asked that someone be held responsible if there are problems. They keep being told that there will not be problems but Mr. Minola noted water is going to go the path of least resistance. There is a lot of ground water in the area. They did their study during a two-year drought. Anyone that lives in the area knows that the ground is constantly wet. The applicant has yet to say where all the water is going to go if there should be a big storm. Mr. Minola felt the water will end up in the lake and the other wetland areas. With the roads and everything, it will act like a big funnel. The other problem he has is one of the access roads is coming out right at the bottom of his driveway. They have no sidewalks and West View and Lake have limited sidewalks. There are a lot of children in the area and Mr. Minola questioned if that has been given consideration. There will be added traffic and the children have no place to walk but in the road. Another concern is the construction entrance and where are the dump trucks going to be accessing. Mr. Minola doesn’t want them coming down his road with his children in the area. Mr. Minola stated the sewage tank is a problem and residents have had problems with the pumping station by the lake. The residents are concerned about what dumping 85 extra homes into that line will do.
Mr. Adam Silver, the President of the Dartmoor Condominium Association, stated he has attended all the Wetland hearings and it seems that every time there is a hearing, something else comes up. The Commission asks intelligent questions but no one seems to be able to answer them. The engineers are not sure of the water pressure and the engineers are not sure where the water is going to run off to. They are not sure about the impact of the fertilizers in the water. Mr. Silver stated you cannot assume that somebody is going to buy a home and not going to put fertilizer on their lawns. The other aspect of this project is the impact on Mayfield Drive. Dartmoor has been in existence for approximately twelve years, they have maintained that road and they have had some problems in the past with dirt bikers. Mr. Silver stated he cannot understand why they want to construct 85 homes on top of a swamp. It is known that it is wetlands. Mr. Silver stated if he was going to buy a new home, he would have a concern about buying one with a sump pump in the basement. Also, the impact of the traffic on Mayfield is a concern. Mr. Silver stated Inland Wetlands has not approved this application yet because there are many outstanding questions. Sometime in the past, Mr. Silver noted the water company could not give a correct answer regarding water pressure when they were going to build the 100 homes at the bottom of Mayfield Drive. Mr. Silver stated everyone’s water pressure is very low and the impact of another 85 homes is certainly going to make a difference in water pressure.
Patricia Holden, 67 West Shore Drive, is concerned about the impact to the lake with this project. She has lived here all her life and she knows if the lake is lost, it won’t ever be returned. If any of the fertilizers or anything else changes the spring fed lake, the lake could be lost. Ms. Holden feels this lake is an important part of the town and the Shaker history. She is also concerned about the pumping station. She lives near it and has called the town, the water company and the police department several times when she has heard beepers going off indicating something is wrong. The addition of 85 units is a concern to her. It is also located right by the lake and if it malfunctions, it could leach into the lake. Ms. Holden stated the road sizes at the lake presently are very narrow which creates problems with passing cars, plowing snow or leaf pickups. With another 85 units going into these roads, it is a concern to her and she asked that the Commission take this into consideration. Ms. Holden also noted the concern about the wells and if something does happen to the lake, she questioned who would be responsible.
Jack Sheridan, Buchanan Road, stated his concern is the impact it might have to the taxpayers to go back and repair the drainage systems of these places if there should be water problems. Mr. Sheridan brought up what occurred at Buckhorn which cost over $1.2 million of taxpayers’ money to fund the repairs to the water drainage there. Mr. Sheridan stated he did some research within the town to find how prospective homeowners could obtain information. He saw a need to fix this process because there are departments within the town pointing to each other causing residents to go from one department to another trying to find out where these rules are. He questioned how a prospective homeowner knows the rules and how they apply to them. The answer is they don’t because it is not on the individual lot plan. A prospective homeowner would have to go two or three tiers down depending upon how many people developed the land and where that information is. While you can obtain the information, it is difficult. Mr. Sheridan stated it is a great idea to have this information before prospective homeowners so that when people are interested in purchasing such property, they will know that they will have potential problems. He saw a need for this information to be on the plot plan of record in order to notify potential homeowners and take the liability away from the town.
Paul Broso, 90 West Shore Drive, stated he has a well and he is concerned about possible contamination of the lake and the inadequate pumping station which is not designed for another 85 units as it is. Mr. Broso felt a $10,000 surety bond should be posted by the Stonegate Homeowners Association for at least ten years in case there are some unforeseen events that occur.
Mr. Wentworth stated they would be happy to respond to the comments made this evening. He began with the storm water and stated the storm water from this site now undeveloped drains down through Shaker Pines Lake. They presented throughout the public hearing process that when the site is developed, the water will continue to flow to Shaker Pines Lake. They have extensive treatment to hold back those quantities to prevent flooding in two to one-hundred year storm events. They are to a greater extent removing pollutants from the water and ensuring that they exceed the DEP minimums of eighty percent total suspended solids to be removed. They are in excess of that amount and that has been done with mechanical and vegetative measures and through the use of cutting edge technology that has been provided to them from the DEP.
Mr. Wentworth stated in regard to the wells, most of the wells abutting this property to the south and southwest are located on property up gradient of their facility. In regard to the amount of water in those wells, they have no activities proposed such as the blasting of sewer lines up gradient from a well or installation of utility lines which may cause a concern in the construction process. They don’t have any of those items proposed. Mr. Wentworth responded to Chairman DiPace that some of the wells are shallow wells and he has heard testimony at Inland Wetlands that some are fifteen feet. There is a community well located 800’ to 1,000’ south that services Shaker Pines Heights Water Company, a small private water company. They are not required to notify them through the Wetlands public hearing process but the Wetlands Commission asked that they be notified. They were notified and asked to attend the hearing if they had any concerns.
Mr. Wentworth stated regarding contamination to the wells, they are proposing public sanitary sewers and no on-site septic systems. They have a maintenance plan in place and this is not 85 individual lot owners that will be maintaining and owning separately each of their lots. These people are responsible for the interior of their homes and everything outside of these homes is maintained by the homeowners association in one contract. Fertilizer application will be done by a person who is certified to do that. The long-term storm water maintenance plan states how to apply these things and by what process. The revised management plan done this past Tuesday for the Inland Wetlands meeting outlines that an environmental representative at certain test stations is to come out and they are going to monitor phosphorus in the water immediately to establish a base. They will then come out on a regular basis, bi-annually at first through construction and after a number of years annually, and evaluate to ensure that phosphorus fertilizers are not being used on site. That includes a review of the records that need to be kept by the person applying the fertilizers. Mr. Wentworth stated there is a condominium document that is on file in the Town Clerk’s Office and as part of that document, there is a management plan which refers to the storm water maintenance plan and the testing. It is all there for one owner. There is one legal entity who is responsible to implement all this and they are ultimately legally responsible if they don’t. It is up to the homeowners association to keep up with those.
Commissioner Duren felt the individual homeowner should be aware of that and in many cases they are not. It really should be on each deed for each unit owner.
Commissioner Duren asked if the unit owner can plant flowers around the outside of his home. Mr. Wentworth stated he believes they have a small landscaping area in front of their foundation. Commissioner Duren raised the possibility that fertilizer would be used in these areas. He noted the town does not have anyone on staff that can go out and tell each homeowner how to take care of their garden. Mr. Wentworth stated it will be self-policing by the homeowners association.
Mr. Wentworth stated regarding traffic flow, in his opinion, Mayfield Drive, a 30’ inch wide road built beyond town standards is a much better road for ingress and egress from the site. He would think people who are residents are primarily going to be utilizing Mayfield Drive.
Regarding the pump station currently located on West Shore Drive, Mr. Wentworth stated it is a constant problem and it is known to the WPC that it is an issue. It is known to the neighbors and right now it is nearly in shambles. As part of this development, they have committed, prior to tying in to even one unit, to rebuilding and reconstructing that pump station. This will be a benefit not only to this development but also to the neighbors who are hooked up to it in the area.
Commissioner Egan stated there is a state provision, Chapter 124, Section 8, of the zoning regulations of the Connecticut General Statutes that makes reference to development within a lake area. There is a restriction that requires that any development take place 2,000’ from the lake and the qualifying factor is that the lake has to be 500 acres or so. Commissioner Egan asked if this was looked into and questioned if this is a factor. Mr. Wentworth stated he doesn’t believe this lake meets that threshold. Commissioner Egan asked that this be confirmed and Mr. Wentworth agreed to do so.
Commissioner Lefakis asked in the homeowners association documents, is there any reference to an exclusive use area by the homeowner. He added the Commission would prefer that there not be. Mr. Wentworth stated they get a patio or deck off the back but there are no exclusive use areas.
Commissioner Duren suggested that there be language included that the three-season room cannot be converted into any other room such as a library or another bedroom.
Mr. Giner asked if the Commission is going to act on the waivers this evening. Chairman DiPace stated the Commission has never done so until the hearing is closed and the application put to a vote. Mr. Giner stated there would be no sense continuing the hearing if some of these waivers were not granted. There would be a need to redesign this subdivision.
Chairman DiPace noted the new Commission members, Elizabeth Ballard and Jason Jones, are present for tonight’s hearing.
Chairman DiPace continued this hearing to January 19, 2006.
b. PH#2535 - Special Use Permit for a Class 3 Package Store license for the sale alcoholic beverages at 155 Hazard Avenue, Zoned BL, Map 74, Lot 254, Bahadur Singh, Applicant/ Karios Properties, LLC, owner. (Must close by January 19, 2006)
Chairman DiPace noted the applicant is not present this evening and the sign was not posted properly.
Chairman DiPace asked for public input. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Chairman DiPace continued this hearing to January 12, 2006 to allow proper posting of the public hearing sign.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR #1351 - Application to freshen the look of the building by paint at 5 Palomba Drive, Zoned BR, Map 57, Lot 320, Midas Service Center, Applicant / Balise Automotive Realty, Owner.
Denise Evans, Co-owner of the Midas Service Center at 5 Palomba Drive, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. She noted the building was already painted and she presented a colored rendering of a similar building.
Commissioner Duren asked if the brick on four sides has been painted. Ms. Evans stated it has. The only sign change is the swoop but that is not on their building.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission needs a colored rendering of the building at 5 Palomba Drive. Ms. Evans agreed to provide such a picture.
Chairman DiPace continued this hearing to January 12, 2006 pending receipt of the picture requested.
b. PH #2404/SPR #1240 - Request by American Inn for extension of Special Use Permit (approved December 18, 2003) until June 17, 2006, to allow a Residential retirement community with assisted living facilities and congregate care living on property located easterly of North Maple St. just south on the Connecticut/Massachusetts border and along a private street known as Mayfield Drive, Zoned R-44, Map 78, Lot 30, and Assessor Map 79, Lot 95, The American Inn Owner/Applicant.
Mr. Giner stated this application is scheduled to expire a year after the effective date of the permit. They filed it on the land records on June 17, 2004 and a one-year extension would be until June 17, 2005. They are entitled to another extension to June 17, 2006. Without another extension, it would expire this Sunday. Mr. Giner stated the wetlands permit was a five-year permit and is still valid.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to allow an extension of this application, PH#2404/SPR#1240, to June 17, 2006. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Lefakis voting.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Regulations Workshop
b. Applications to be Received
The following applications were received:
SPR#1353 – Application for color changes on building at 562 Enfield Street, zoned BL, Map 33, Lot 3, Dunkin Donuts, Applicant.
The Commission discussed upcoming applications and Commissioner Duren asked if the Commission will be provided with the original approvals for Pheasant Hill. Mr. Giner stated he has a copy of the plans that were filed.
ADJOURNMENT
Prior to adjournment, the Commission recognized two Commission members that are leaving the Commission, Karen Krebs and Robert Egan. Chairman DiPace thanked them both, on behalf of the Commission, for their service to the Town of Enfield.
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to adjourn. Following a 7 – 0 – 0 vote, the Commission adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|