|
THESE MINUTES ARE PRESENTED IN DRAFT FORM AND HAVE NOT BEEN FORMALLY APPROVED BY
THE ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OFFICIAL COPIES OF MINUTES WHEN APPROVED CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE TOWN CLERK OR PLANNING OFFICE.
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
(POSTPONED FROM MARCH 2, 2006)
MARCH 9, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, March 9, 2006 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
Elizabeth Ballard
Jeffrey Cooper
Charles Duren
Jason Jones
Charles Ladd, Voting Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to add action on the February 16, 2006 Minutes to the March 9, 2006 agenda. The motion was approved unanimously.
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to approve the February 16, 2006 Minutes. The Minutes were approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.
STAFF COMMENTS
a. Town Attorney (in writing)
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer (in writing)
Commissioner Duren noted the letter regarding 1 Till Street and stated there are at least two units at this location. Mr. Giner will remind Mr. Bickley that there is more than one unit.
c. Director of Planning
Mr. Giner brought up the upcoming planning dinner at the Aqua Turf on March 23, 2006. Chairman DiPace asked that those attending meet at the Town Hall by the back door at 4:30 p.m.
Mr. Giner reported all the hearings regarding the zoning amendments have been scheduled for March 16, 2006. CRCOG was sent the applicable zoning amendments.
Mr. Giner stated he received from the State 2004 aerial photos for the Town of Enfield. Mr. Giner noted the Town spent town funds in 1993 to do this for mapping purposes. The new photos from the State are being used with the Town’s GIS and CAD systems and also for enforcement issues.
Mr. Giner brought up the Fermi High School driveway. Commissioner DiPace stated the driveway for Fermi High School in the area where the buses exit to North Maple Street was formerly a one-way driveway. The sign has been removed and the driveway is now two-way resulting in the buses being lined up with cars driving in as the buses are driving out. Chairman DiPace felt this is a safety factor. He is attempting to find out what was on the original site plan and who gave them the right to change this driveway. Chairman DiPace stated Fermi High School was completed in 1972 and he asked that Mr. Giner research this matter. Mr. Giner will check with the Engineering Department or the Town’s records retention person.
In response to a question from Commissioner Duren, Mr. Giner reported Officer Santanella is the new Traffic Safety Officer.
Commissioner Duren noted on Route 5 at Porcello’s on the east side of the street, it was his understanding that the Commission decided the following: they were operating within the Thompsonville Village regulations and, therefore, their customers’ cars could be parked within 500’ of their business but they were not supposed to be parking their own vehicles at the location across the street. Mr. Giner confirmed that because of its proximity to the main use, the parking lot across the street was considered accessory. Mr. Giner stated the Town Attorney previously issued an opinion on this location. Commissioner Duren stated their own vehicles have been parked across the street for quite a while and some people in the area were asking about it. Chairman DiPace requested that the Commission receive a copy of the Town Attorney’s opinion regarding Porcello’s. It was his opinion that if the use is being changed from a customer parking lot to a different use, it would require coming back to this Commission for a site plan review. Mr. Giner agreed and stated he and the Zoning Enforcement Officer will review the Town Attorney’s opinion.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Jack Sheridan, Buchanan Road, brought up property known as L-70 off Town Farm Road at the end of Kennedy Road and the potential subdivision. Chairman DiPace stated the Commission has a pending application regarding this property. Mr. Giner stated the application has been withdrawn.
Jack Sheridan stated regarding this property, he accessed the aquifer map and reported this area is very wet land. He has a couple of pictures confirming how wet the property is. He has been a resident in this area for thirty-eight years and he remembers when Charlie Conlin was Starr’s foreman and some houses at the end of Kennedy Road had their basement floors pop from hydraulic pressure. It turned out there was an underground aquifer in the area that caused the pressure. There was a lot of work done at that time to restore and dry out those homes. Mr. Sheridan’s concern is the application requests a change from R-88 to R-44 and the area is impassable at this time because it is so wet. There is also a running stream that goes through the area and it is shown on the map. His purpose in speaking tonight is to make the Commission aware how wet this property is.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission is aware that the property is wet and the town mapping shows part of the property in the 100-year flood zone and part in the 500-year flood zone. Mr. Sheridan elaborated on the quick sand type of soil through the area. He presented pictures showing the water as it stands within the past week on this property. Also, looking at Kennedy Road and looking at the level of this property, it is about four feet lower which could create some problems. Something would also have to be done with the stream and the regulations do not allow changes to streams. Mr. Giner asked that Mr. Sheridan keep the pictures should a new application be forthcoming.
Margaret Jedziniak, Abbe Road, spoke about the same property off Town Farm Road at the end of Kennedy Road. She noted several years ago there was a project proposed in this area called Abbewood and there were a lot of reasons why it was turned down at that time. The area is very wet and some of Mrs. Jedziniak’s friends had to spend $5,000 to keep the water out of their cellar because the water was always running down into their house. A visit by Roger Olsen, previously a member of the Wetlands Commission, resulted in his car getting stuck requiring removal from the area by a wrecker. Mrs. Jedziniak also noted some of the biggest aquifers in the state are around the Abbe Road area. She has previously viewed the aquifer maps and had the Army Corps of Engineers visit the site. The Planning and Zoning Commission denied this first application. Mrs. Jedziniak also noted the Hazardville Water Company had difficulty getting water pressure to this area at that time. She asked that the Commission keep these things in mind.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of a Summary of Zoning and Subdivision Referrals from the Capitol Region Council of Governments and the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Notice of Action dated February 7, 2006.
COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace noted receipt of information on the Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies dinner on March 23, 2006, correspondence from the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities regarding the Connecticut Commission on Children, information from the American Planning Association, the Planning Commissioners’ Journal, and the College of Agricultural and Land Natural Resource Journal, winter 2005-06 edition.
Mr. Giner informed the Commission that new members should be receiving the publications mentioned in the near future.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2516.02 – Modification of plans previously approved to add second driveway on Elm Street (855 Enfield Street and 5, 7, 9, and 11 Elm), zoned BL, Map 26, Lots #23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and portion of 118, A&L Troiano Family LLC, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by 4/6)
Chairman DiPace noted this application was postponed from March 2, 2006 to March 9, 2006 due to inclement weather.
Alternate Ladd will be participating and voting on this application.
Steve Mitchell with F. A. Hesketh and Associates, East Granby, and Frank Troiano representing A&L Troiano Family LLC appeared before the Commission regarding this modification of plans previously approved to add a second driveway on Elm Street.
Mr. Mitchell stated this modification involves the bank building and office building previously approved by this Commission at 855 Enfield Street and 5, 7, 9 and 11 Elm Street. He presented a site plan of the northeast corner of Elm Street and Enfield Street showing the bank building and the medical office building currently under construction. Mr. Mitchell stated the site plan was approved originally for the bank building with its access points on Route 5 and Elm Street. The second building was approved and it was assumed they would use the same access point on Elm Street. The plans went to the state for their approval for the additional traffic that would be using this driveway. The state began to question them about the use of this driveway and had two major concerns involving the cars that would be turning left into the site from Elm Street. First of all, they feared that when the light is red, if traffic on Elm Street backs up beyond this point, the traffic trying to pull in would not be able to gain access resulting in Elm Street being blocked. Mr. Mitchell stated if that occurred, traffic coming east on Elm Street would get stuck behind them and possibly back out into the intersection.
Mr. Mitchell stated their observations are that the traffic never reached those types of levels but the state was concerned and requested they investigate other ways of dealing with the driveway. Through a lot of discussion, they ended up with the state only accepting a situation where in order to allow left turns in, they would have to be on the other side of the building. It was their desire to keep such turns as far away from the Route 5 intersection as possible. Mr. Mitchell stated the previously approved plans show an aisle of parking in the location of the proposed driveway. They are proposing to punch through with a full movement driveway at this location and to prohibit left turns into the site at a second location. They would be building a triangular island similar to the other island already in place at Route 5 which is there to channel the cars and prohibit left turns at that location.
Mr. Mitchell stated this plan has been approved by the state but it does require Commission approval. There are also a couple of minor modifications necessary. During the construction process, there were a couple of items noted in the field. One involves a slight modification to the sidewalk pattern at the front of the building which would reduce the grades on the sidewalk and make them flatter with better accessibility. The second modification is that the dumpster location which used to be on the end of one of the islands has been relocated to a much less intrusive location at the rear corner of the building. This was necessary because of the traffic going through to the bank. The parking count would stay the same.
Frank Troiano, applicant and owner for the Enfield Medical Building, stated they actually had many discussions regarding the secondary entrance on Elm Street. They think the proposal might be an improvement to the property and it seems to be a conducive idea for the tenants, the people accessing the property, and fire and safety ingress and egress. Following their discussions with the state, everyone seems to agree the modification would be a good idea. Mr. Troiano stated it would be an easy modification to punch a driveway through that same parking lot and it would not result in any design change to the property.
Mr. Mitchell stated the parking layout will remain the same. There is a trade of one parking space from one side to the other because of the movement of the dumpster.
Commissioner Duren stated they have an entrance to down under from the east side where ambulances coming in would come in the east entrance and go under. Mr. Mitchell stated traffic was always able to go under the building at that point but the major difference here is that the dead end aisle has been eliminated allowing ambulances and other vehicles to circulate in and out of the site from both sides of the building.
Commissioner Duren asked if the state required any signing on Elm Street regarding a left-hand turn. Mr. Mitchell stated they will have to post the left turn prohibition at the western driveway. There is a typographical error on the plan showing a left hand turn sign posted at both driveways. It is not supposed to be at both driveways but only at the western driveway. Commissioner Duren stated his concern is if a sign is not posted across the street on the CVS side, traffic will go in the out drive. Mr. Mitchell stated they could post an auxiliary sign on the right side.
Mr. Giner recommended the addition of conditions to address the Commission’s concerns regarding signage. He recommended the following language: that the sign on the eastern side be removed and a sign installed across the street be shown on the final plans. Mr. Mitchell stated one of the two signs was put in the wrong place by the drafter preparing the plans. Mr. Giner recommended a condition that the final plans show a no left turn sign on the south side of Elm Street.
Chairman DiPace opened this public hearing to the audience.
Jack Sheridan stated his only suggestion is perhaps a stop on red sign should be located at those driveways so that traffic does not back up through the intersection.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve PH#2516.02 – Modification of plans previously approved to add second driveway on Elm Street (855 Enfield Street and 5, 7, 9 and 11 Elm), zoned BL, Map 26, Lots #23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and a portion of 118, A&L Troiano Family LLC, Applicant/Owner. This approval is granted subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Enfield Medical Office Building, Enfield, Connecticut, Master Plan Prepared for A&L Troiano Family LLC, 7 Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet MP-1; Scale 1” =40’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 05-11-05 and revised to 01-12-06.
“Enfield Medical Office Building, Enfield, Connecticut, Layout Plan Prepared for A&L Troiano Family LLC, 7 Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet LA-1; Scale 1” =20’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 05-11-05 and revised to 01-12-06.
“Enfield Medical Office Building, Enfield, Connecticut, Landscape Plan Prepared for A&L Troiano Family LLC, 7 Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet LS-1; Scale 1” =20’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 05-11-05 and revised to 01-102-06. (typo)
“Enfield Medical Office Building, Enfield, Connecticut, Front Entry Plaza Prepared for A&L Troiano Family LLC, 7 Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet LS-1; Scale 1” =20’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 05-11-05 and revised to 01-12-06.
“Enfield Medical Office Building, Enfield, Connecticut, Grading and Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan Prepared for A&L Troiano Family LLC, 7 Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet GR-1; Scale 1” =20’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 05-11-05 and revised to 01-12-06.
“Enfield Medical Office Building, Enfield, Connecticut, Utility Plan Prepared for A&L Troiano Family LLC, 7 Elm Street, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet UT-1; Scale 1” =20’; by F.A. Hesketh & Associates, Inc., dated 05-11-05 and revised to 01-12-06.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
2. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
3. One set of mylars and two sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the commission.
4. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land Records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
5. All necessary easements and deeds required for the project shall be on file in the land records prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
6. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
7. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
General Conditions:
8. This approval is for the specific use and structure identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structure will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
9. This approval is for an amendment to the plans to provide a secondary driveway. All previous conditions of approval for PH#2516 not expressly modified by this approval shall remain in full force and effect.
10. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
11. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms to this approval.
12. The no left turn sign shall be relocated to the south side of Elm Street by the CVS entrance.
The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Ladd voting.
b. PH#2539 – Special Use Permit to operate a Child Day Care at 585 Hazard Avenue, zoned BG, Map #110, Lot #12, Kristi Bonazelli, Applicant/ P&D Realty, Owners. (Must close by 4/6)
Chairman DiPace noted this hearing was postponed from March 2, 2006 to tonight due to inclement weather.
Kristi Bonazelli appeared before the Commission regarding this application. She stated she is looking to operate a preschool daycare at the facility she currently operates called the Kids Academy. The Fire Marshal and the Health Department have visited the facility.
Ms. Bonazelli stated the facility presently does activity classes, after school tutoring and birthday parties. The proposal is to go to an all-day preschool daycare facility.
Commissioner Duren stated the North Central Health Department had some problems. Ms. Bonazelli stated they visited the site on Tuesday and she is in the process of addressing their concerns.
Commissioner Duren asked if they will be installing eight inches of absorbing material. Ms. Bonazelli stated she has been in contact with the Park and Recreation Department but has not yet received a response regarding when they do their maintenance. Commissioner Duren stated there is also a need for an agreement between the town and Ms. Bonazelli for maintenance issues. Ms. Bonazelli stated she was not aware of that. She has talked to the Recreation Department and they have approved her use of the park facility.
Commissioner Duren asked if there is any type of insurance that will be required. Ms. Bonazelli stated not anything else that she is aware of other than the insurance that she carries for the business. Chairman DiPace stated the town does require such organizations like Enfield Little League and the soccer teams to carry such insurance. Ms. Bonazelli stated this is the first she has heard about additional insurance. Mr. Giner stated the risk manager has informed him that town playgrounds are used by other daycare uses.
Commissioner Duren brought up the distance the children would be walking to the town playground and the requirement to provide water and cups for those using the area. Ms. Bonazelli stated they changed their playground policy. The change in the policy stated that teachers will bring a thermos of water with cups for the children as well as a communication device to the playground.
Commissioner Duren stated Enfield’s Fire Marshal had no problem with the use but he was waiting for the State Fire Marshal’s Office to respond. Ms. Bonazelli stated the state has not put anything in writing as of today. Mr. Giner stated the Fire Marshal informed him he had been in contact with the state and expected a written answer within a week. What was requested was a modification regarding the exiting and it was the Fire Marshal’s opinion that it would probably be granted.
Mr. Giner reported he called Geoff McAlmond regarding the town’s maintenance policy. The town does spring maintenance but they are not going to be responsible if North Central requires them to bring it up to the standards for a daycare. Mr. Giner suggested a condition that the applicant work out an agreement with the Department of Public Works to address anything regarding the playground maintenance needed prior to the spring cleanup.
Commissioner Duren stated this is a year-round activity and he asked if the sidewalk is always plowed. Mr. Bonazelli stated she would assume it would always be plowed but if the sidewalk is not, the children would stay inside on that day. The facility has an indoor area for recreation for the children.
Commissioner Duren asked if any other daycare would be using the playground facility. Ms. Bonazelli stated she has talked to the Recreation Department and was told that people in the area use the playground from time to time but they did not inform her that any group was using it on a regular basis.
Commissioner Duren asked about the procedure should a child become sick at the playground. Ms. Bonazelli stated one of the teachers would bring the child back to the daycare facility. Commissioner Duren asked if a car would be used. Ms. Bonazelli was concerned about liability for the use of a vehicle that was not a school vehicle. Commissioner Duren had a concern about the distance from the facility to the playground.
Commissioner Jones questioned if the walking rope will be sufficient. Mr. Giner stated a condition could be added that the playground policy as suggested by the Traffic Safety Officer shall be adhered to.
Mr. Giner requested a copy of the revised policy for the daycare center. Ms. Bonazelli submitted it for the record. Mr. Giner stated he proposed a condition that prior to their getting a certificate of compliance or a zoning permit, that any outstanding issues with North Central Health be resolved. Condition #5 would require a cell phone or comparable communication device to be carried at all times by at least one adult supervising the recreational activities. Condition #6 is in regard to pre-packaged snacks. Mr. Giner noted if they are going to do any on-site cooking,, they would have to return to North Central District Health and there would also be involvement by the Water Pollution Control Authority.
Ms. Bonazelli stated the ratio is ten children for every one teacher per the state regulations. She stated the facility will probably be licensed for no more than thirty-two children.
Commissioner Duren saw a need for at least two teachers to accompany children to the recreation area. Ms. Bonazelli confirmed that two teachers would accompany the ten children to the playground. Some discussion followed regarding the length of the walk to the playground for preschoolers.
Chairman DiPace discussed the parking and drop-off of children. He asked if the parking spaces proposed would be sufficient for thirty-two children. Mr. Giner stated the drop-offs would be at different times. There are no specific standards and the requirement has been that the applicants show a drop-off area. Mr. Giner noted in past applications the Commission has required additional parking which was not used. The present parking requirements are one space per employee and one space for every five students. There are eight parking spaces available at this location.
Commissioner Duren brought up the playground usage and stated for the record that the applicant has agreed that the children will be walked with two adults to no more than ten children who are secured on a rope and utilizing the sidewalk. Mr. Giner stated Condition #9 addresses the recommendations of the Traffic Safety Officer. Commissioner Duren stated he would like this specifically referenced for the benefit of the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Some discussion followed regarding the exact language to include in the conditions.
Chairman DiPace asked about the distance from the facility to the playground. Ms. Bonazelli could not confirm the exact distance but stated she has walked it many times with her two and five-year-old.
Commissioner Jones suggested an additional condition to address the maintenance. The following language was agreed upon for Condition #3: Prior to a zoning permit or certificate of compliance, some understanding or agreement shall be reached with the Department of Public Works regarding the playground standards.
Chairman DiPace asked what other daycare centers in the town use public playgrounds. Mr. Giner stated the former YMCA building in Hazardville is one. He reiterated that the town’s risk manager notified him it is a public park. Mr. Giner referred to a January 19 email regarding the playground usage.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve PH#2539 – Special Use Permit to operate a child day care at 585 Hazard Avenue, zoned BG, Map #110, Lot #12, Kristi Bonazelli, Applicant/P&D Realty, Owners. This approval is subject to conformance with the application record and the following conditions:
Conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of a Zoning Permit and Certificate of Compliance:
1. Final Inspection and approval of the North Central Health District is required.
2. Any issues regarding emergency exiting from the occupancy shall be resolved to the Fire Marshal’s satisfaction.
3. Prior to a zoning permit or certificate of compliance, some understanding or agreement shall be reached with the Department of Public Works regarding the playground standards.
4. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
5. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land Records by the owner of the property. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits or compliance signoffs.
6. At least one adult supervising the recreational activities of the children at the Green Manor Playground shall carry a cell phone or comparable communications device.
7. The only food to be served on site shall be pre-prepared snacks. Any changes to this shall require additional North Central District Health and Water Pollution Control Division approvals.
8. There is no exterior work proposed or approved with this application. Any exterior work will require further site plan approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
9. This project shall be conducted and maintained in accordance with the application record. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
10. There shall be at least two adults to walk and monitor ten children who are secured on a rope to and from the Green Manor Recreation Area and utilizing the sidewalk.
Chairman DiPace stated he has some concerns because this application would put a liability on the town. He does not think it was the intent to use the town’s playgrounds for daycare facilities. He further noted that the Commission has required other daycare centers to build their own playgrounds. Chairman DiPace did not feel it was a wise decision to walk these children one-quarter of a mile to a town playground and put the town at risk of a child getting hurt on a town playground at someone else’s expense.
Commissioner Duren stated he has the same concerns. The Commission has made the conditions very specific but he thinks that walking three to five-year olds on that sidewalk is a concern.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission did not have a problem approving the Kids Academy with various activities but this is a whole different use with different requirements. The concern at the time was that this was not an appropriate place for a daycare.
The motion was denied by a 0 – 6 – 0 vote with Alternate Ladd voting.
c. PH#2541 – Petition for Zone Change for 25+ acre parcel on east side of Powder Hill Road from R-88 to R-44 District, Powder Hill Road and Long Hollow Road, zoned R-88, Map #84, Lot #15 and #16, Powder Hill Sand & Gravel, LLC, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by 4/6)
Dana Steele with J. R. Russo & Associates, Ed and Mark Spazzarini, and Jay Ursery, a registered land surveyor with J. R. Russo appeared before the Commission regarding this petition for a zone change.
Mr. Steele stated the proposed parcel for which the zone change is being requested is a twenty-five acre parcel located on the east side of Powder Hill Road. They have submitted a zone change map with the application. The application is to change the existing R-88 zone to an R-44 zone. Currently the parcel is an active sand and gravel removal operation. Over the years, material has been removed from this site and the property owner is now at a point where they are trying to decide what to do with this property. They could continue with the sand and gravel removal but at this time the property is getting to the point where it would be still useable for residential development. The applicants asked Mr. Steele to take a look at this property and determine exactly what could be done.
Mr. Steele stated there is a parcel on the east side of Powder Hill Road and a parcel to the north that is currently undeveloped with some steep slopes. There is also state open space connecting to the Scantic River. The Scantic River runs to the north of the property along one side and crosses the bridge. There is also some undeveloped land to the east. To the south there are several single-family homes. There are eight parcels with five homes on one side and three on the other on a portion of Powder Hill Road.
Mr. Steele stated the property is presently zoned R-88 with a two-acre lot size required and 175’ of frontage. In a review of the property, because of the topography and the shape of the parcel, the only practical way to develop this as residential would be with a single road and homes on both sides. However, in R-88 in order to get the frontage and area requirements, the road has to be a considerable length. The plan proposed under R-88 would result in ten lots on the twenty-five acre parcel. They then discussed the possibility of a zone change. They reviewed going to R-44 and the concept plan submitted with the application shows the road being the same length and the frontage requirements the same. The difference is with the reduced lot area, there would be more of a standard looking residential development.
Commissioner Duren asked if the entrance proposed is the same entrance presently used by the sand and gravel operation. Mr. Steele stated the entrance is located a little bit to the south of the existing driveway. Regarding whether fill would be needed, Mr. Steele stated the property goes up and is all up higher than the road. Commissioner Duren pointed out some gullies existing on the site plan. Mr. Steele stated there has been additional excavation and there still needs to be more removal and regrading.
Chairman DiPace asked when you get to where the property line is, what is the difference in height as you go halfway up the proposed new street. Mr. Steele stated about fifty feet. The area is like a bowl and it slopes on all sides resulting in a very private isolated area. There is a ridge of pine trees around the area and there would be stabilization of the slopes.
Commissioner Duren asked if there are sewers in this area. Mr. Steele confirmed there are not and the area is quite a ways from the nearest sewer at Abbe Road where Monroe, Abbe and Powder Hill Road come together. There are also sewers at the Powder Hollow bridge. Regarding water, there is no water in the area but water may be easier to get to the site than sewers.
Commissioner Duren stated the Commission has a letter from the Connecticut Water Company and he asked if this has been reviewed by Hazardville Water Company. Mr. Giner stated there is a Level B well field that belongs to Hazardville Water Company but no correspondence has been received from them. Mr. Steele confirmed they did send notices to both water companies.
Regarding the depth of the aquifer, Mr. Steele stated they have not yet done any test pits but at this point there is plenty of room to install septic systems.
Mr. Giner confirmed that the entire area across the street is wetlands and the area is close to the recharge area. Mr. Steele stated if you look at the elevation of the Scantic River, it is down approximately eighty to one hundred feet below this elevation. The site elevation is in the 100’ to 120’ range.
Mr. Giner will research the depth of the aquifer and where they will be drawing the water from. Mr. Steele stated the wells are to the north. Mr. Giner stated the entire Connecticut Water Company land is in the flood plain and also in the wetlands. It was his opinion the water table in the area is high.
Mr. Steele stated the Connecticut Water Company representative was informed the homes would be on septic tanks and wells. She stated in her letter that the Connecticut Water Company doesn’t have objection to residential uses in an aquifer area. Her concern was having it too dense.
Mr. Steele stated the plan is to attempt to bring water into this property so they would not be looking for wells in a future application. The Connecticut Water Company representative expressed concerns about the density issue and Mr. Steele contacted her. Because of the shape of this parcel and the topography, they are not talking about doubling the density by going from R-88 to R-44. The reality is in this R-44 design there are fourteen lots as opposed to ten lots in R-88 or four extra lots. As the plan shows, there is no land for future development and this is the maximum development. The Connecticut Water Company representative wanted to be able to recharge the ground water and Mr. Steele explained to her that there are methods of recharging so that there is not a depletion of the wells. She was satisfied with that additional information.
Mr. Steele stated along with the increase of four homes by changing the zone to R-44, the average lot size would be 1.6 acres. The minimum lot size for R-44 is one acre. Fourteen lots on a twenty-five acre parcel would compute to .56 units per acre. The density for R-88 is .5. Mr. Steele emphasized that changing this parcel to R-44 is not going to result in a drastically increased density over the R-88 zone.
Regarding the neighborhood, Mr. Steele stated there are existing residential properties to the south of this proposed development. That area is zoned R-88 but none of the lot sizes meet the R-88 requirements. They are actually R-44 lots in terms of their size and many do not meet the frontage requirements for R-44. In terms of compatibility, the proposed lots are going to be the same size as the only other lots in close proximity on the street.
Mr. Steele stated the proposed layout is typical for a residential subdivision with 175’ frontage for the lots. Regarding the spacing between the homes, there is approximately 100’ between the houses. If you go to R-88, even though it is only four less lots, the spacing almost doubles to 200’. Mr. Steele stated the R-44 proposal seemed to keep the standard separations and lot sizes consistent with the immediate neighborhood.
Regarding the town’s Plan of Development, it talks about this area of town or the area southeast of the Scantic River and it recommends that it be maintained as low density single-family detached housing. The area is presently a mixture of R-88 and R-44. Mr. Steele noted it would appear that the thinking of those compiling the Plan of Development was that both R-44 and R-88 are considered low density. When you consider this parcel, the increase is pretty minimal as compared to other properties where you could have closer to one unit per acre rather than .56 units per acre.
Mr. Steele confirmed they received a letter from the Connecticut Water Company indicating they were no longer opposed to this zone change. There was also mention made in the Town Planner’s report regarding terrace escarpment slopes. The slopes in this area near the Scantic River are often terrace escarpment slopes which are prone to erosion and are areas where you generally want to discourage a lot of development. However, this is a sand and gravel operation where all that material has already been removed from the site. There are no terrace escarpment slopes on this property now. What has been exposed is sub soil and it is not the same soils prone to erosion that you see on terrace escarpments.
Mr. Steele agreed with Commissioner Duren that in the area where the sand and gravel operation is still working, there would need to be some work done on the slopes. Mr. Steele stated in terms of looking at this as an undisturbed area that would be best left alone, this is not the case. The area has been a gravel removal operation and it seems like a good opportunity to stop that operation at this point and look at a more permanent use of the property for residential. Mr. Steele asked that the Commission consider this zone change favorably.
Commissioner Ballard stated with this application, the Commission is either approving or not approving the zone change and not the proposed subdivision. Later on when they come in with plans, the Commission would consider the subdivision application. Chairman DiPace stated the concept plan presented is a requirement of the zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Ballard asked if the applicants have written confirmation to install water. Mr. Spazzarini stated Hazardville Water Company would bring the water to the site. Commissioner Duren noted the lack of response from the Hazardville Water Company regarding the proposed zone change.
Mr. Giner explained Level A and Level B aquifer mapping for the benefit of the Commission.
Commissioner Ladd asked about the last heavy rain and its effect on this property. Mr. Spazzarini stated the rain did have an effect and there was some erosion. They would, in the future, design a storm water drainage system to handle the water flows. There would also be some drainage measures in the back yards.
Chairman DiPace stated one of the concerns is the storm water drainage which will run down toward the river. Mr. Ursery stated the drainage measures would be a water quality basin that would have to adhere to the new guidelines. Mr. Spazzarini added with the concept plans they took that into consideration to make sure everything worked.
After further discussion by Commissioner Cooper about the lack of response from the Hazardville Water Company, Mr. Ursery stated they submitted a notice to them on February 2, 2006. Mr. Steele submitted to Mr. Giner the receipt from the Hazardville Water Company letter.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public.
Mavis Collins stated she is one of the homeowners on Powder Hill Road and is the only homeowner present this evening. She added the other homeowners were all going to attend the previous meeting which was postponed. As a spokesperson for the street, Ms. Collins stated she and her neighbors are very concerned about this new project and would ask that the zoning not change from R-88 to R-44. There was also a request from the homeowners that the hearing be postponed to another time. However, if this cannot be done, Ms. Collins stated she wanted to report a few concerns of the homeowners.
Ms. Collins stated all the homeowners thought that with all the sand coming out of this sand pit that there would probably be more homes coming into this area in the future. However, they are concerned because of the two water companies being right down there with Connecticut Water Company on one side and Hazardville Water Company on the other side. Ms. Collins questioned if the Hartford County Soil and Water Conservation has done a site review on this project. Her husband is also the Chairman of that district and he asked the District Manager today if there had been a site review done and he was not aware of one. Ms. Collins suggested the applicant should look into having this done because this is in an area of concern regarding the water.
Ms. Collins asked that the Department of Environmental Protection be alerted. Also, they live at the top of the hill and she had a concern where the driveway comes out. As you come down the hill towards Hazardville, that hill is pretty steep and at the bottom sometimes you can’t really see what is coming out of that driveway. Many times when the big trucks pull out, it is pretty dangerous.
Ms. Collins questioned if there are to be sewers installed, does that mean that all the residents on Powder Hill Road would also have to connect to the sewers. The neighbors are concerned that it would be very costly to do this.
Ms. Collins stated the biggest concern of all is the water. In listening to the Commission tonight, she noted they have the same feelings that the residents do regarding the water. She would very much like the town to call the water companies to see what their feeling is on this issue. Chairman DiPace noted the Commission has a letter from the Connecticut Water Company saying they have no problem with the proposed development.
Jack Sheridan, Buchanan Road, questioned the relationship with Long Hollow Road in comparison to the new road that would be built and what the drainage effects are from the properties on Long Hollow Road. Also, when the runoff and street drains going into the Scantic were discussed and the concerns were raised with the various fertilizers and chemicals that the homeowners would be using, Mr. Sheridan had a concern about the effects to the Scantic River. Also, if the Commission approves an R-44 zone tonight, Mr. Sheridan questioned couldn’t the property then be sold to someone who decides to build one house per acre. This is a concern to him.
Margaret Jedziniak, Abbe Road, stated her concern is the aquifers. She knows from being involved in a previous project, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the application. She discussed the proposed location of the street on the right hand side near the entrance to the sand pit now and stated she cannot believe that anyone would want to own a home and come out in that area. She uses this road frequently and she discussed previous occurrences with slippery roads. The street is banked the wrong way and there is the possibility of cars landing in the ravine. Ms. Jedziniak stated this is a very dangerous area for travel and she cannot believe they would want a street to come out at that location. She also questioned if this will affect this Scantic River Park. She noted years ago when the town had bad flooding, the whole valley was flooded and it took out the bridge. She asked if the water runoff will affect the area if there is a flooding situation. Ms. Jedziniak expressed a concern about the building in town and questioned when it is going to stop. She asked that the Commission take into consideration that there are people concerned about the town’s drinking water and the environment.
Mr. Steele stated he would be happy to respond to any of the comments made.
Chairman DiPace asked if it was the applicant’s intent to install sewers. Mr. Spazzarini stated that is not their intent but if the lots did not perk out with North Central, they would have to come up with a plan for a sanitary sewer. Mr. Steele stated regarding whether the other people on the street would have to hook up to the sewers, the answer is no, they would not be required to do so but it would be an option.
Mr. Spazzarini stated in a review of possible concepts, on their road they would run a gravity system down to a small pump station, bring gravity up to the top of Powder Hill and pump up to that point. He added that it would be more feasible to them to get the fourteen lots because there are a lot of associated costs.
Mr. Giner provided maps to the Commission and stated the recent aerial photographs show nine years of changes. Chairman DiPace asked about Long Hollow Road. Mr. Giner stated it shows up on town maps but he doesn’t think there is actually a Long Hollow Road in this area. It comes off Abbe but it stops short of this parcel.
Mr. Ursery added what the deed information currently says is that it does call out a Long Hollow Road in this area. If you come off Abbe and come down Long Hollow Road, there are a number of houses and the road more or less ends. However, if you look into the woods, you can see where some time ago that road did continue. If you look at the topography, you can actually see where the road did come all the way through. The road has not been passable in the area where this property is for approximately fifty years. The actual status of the road is somewhat uncertain although they believe that it is a road that’s probably been discontinued. If they come forward with an application, this is something they will have to research further.
Mr. Giner stated he understands this is a sand and gravel operation presently and you cannot get a much more intensive use of the property. His concern, however, is the Plan of Development shows the area as open space. If the town had performance based zoning or soil based zoning, he could see looking at each individual parcel to consider the appropriate density and development of it. However, that cannot be done under zoning. It has to be uniform throughout the district. Mr. Giner stated the Commission needs to take a long hard look as to whether or not they want to continue R-88 zoning in this area. Looking at the zoning map, the whole area shown as open space was left as R-88 with a few exceptions. In those exceptions, the perceived benefit was the fact that you could get large chunks of land under open space zoning to add to the river belt. Part of the justification was the fact that you could get open space zoning and the town would get more than the regular ten percent that they would under conventional zoning or almost twenty-five percent. Mr. Giner stated this occurred with Katie Lane where they provided a parcel of land for the river way to the State of Connecticut. In the Abbewood area, there was a large piece of land donated to the State of Connecticut. This also occurred on Neelans Road and Mr. Giner elaborated on what occurred.
Mr. Giner stated in this area there is not that opportunity. He felt the Commission should have a rethinking of whether they should continue the R-88 zoning or what the appropriate zoning should be to protect the river belt area. Under R-88 zoning, if you are able to get water down there, you could come in for an open space subdivision. Mr. Giner felt the cost savings of a lesser road with an open space subdivision might offset the loss of four lots. If you can get public water in there, that would save up to fifty percent of the land for open space. If you do R-44, you would have to bring in both water and sewer and then you can get up to twenty-five percent open space. The other thing is if you bring in water and sewer, it would open the parcel up to a more intensive development like a senior residential development.
Chairman DiPace felt if someone came in with an over fifty-five development, the Commission would have every right to deny it. He noted a lot of the land in the area is not useable for development. In the Plan of Development it was noted to be open space but that would require the town taking down all the houses in the area along with the farm and the ice cream stand. These are uses at the top of the hill in the open space area. Chairman DiPace stated this is one of the few parcels that could be graded out and homes developed.
Mr. Giner stated all the development scenarios assume that the Commission would allow waiving of the 600’ length of cul de sac to a maximum of 1,200’ off a town accepted road.
Mr. Giner noted some residents did want to come last week and they called and could not make tonight’s meeting. He suggested the Commission keep the hearing open to April 6, 2006 for additional public input.
Commissioner Jones would like to see this hearing kept open. The Commission did cancel the March 2 meeti |