|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 20, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, April 20, 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
Jeffrey Cooper
Charles Duren
James Hickey, Jr.
Jason Jones
Karen Weseliza
Charles Ladd, Voting Alternate
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
Nicles Lefakis, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Anthony DiPace noted receipt of a letter from Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley to LIA Used Cars, the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Notice of Action dated April 4, 2006, the American Planning Association correspondence and planning magazine and a copy of Connecticut Wildlife.
Mr. Giner informed the Commission he received a question from someone who farms and has shade netting regarding whether signage on top of the netting visible only from an airplane would constitute a sign. Mr. Giner stated this is a new request for the town. Having read the town’s regulations, it states that a sign has to be visible from the street in the definitions. He told the gentleman to do what he likes regarding advertising on top of the netting as long as there are no complaints received. Commissioner Sarno requested a photo of the proposed advertising so that the Commission is aware of what it says. Mr. Giner stated this is an idea the gentleman had to sell advertising. Chairman DiPace added that if you can look down a hill and see this, it would constitute a sign.
Commissioner Lefakis brought up a safety issue in front of the Senior Center where there was a barn removed. Following the removal, a cement slab still remains and Commissioner Lefakis is concerned that someone may get hurt because of this cement slab. He felt it should be cut off or removed. Mr. Giner will write a memo to Public Works regarding this item. Commissioner Jones stated when the Council approved the barn removal, the cement was also supposed to be removed.
Commissioner Lefakis had a concern about lights being on in the basement in the A. D. Higgins facility at night and asked if there is any reason for this. Mr. Giner will check on this because the building is presently empty.
Commissioner Ladd stated he was at the Hazardville Park today and he noted the slides really heat up in the afternoon. He asked if there was any way these slides can get covered. Chairman DiPace stated this would be a Town Council item. Mr. Giner stated there is an ongoing program in place for replacing playground equipment. Commissioner Ladd requested that Mr. Giner have Public Works look into this and make a recommendation to the Town Council.
COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE
Commissioner Duren reported he visited Pheasant Hill as requested in the letter from Mr. Turner. He noted there have been some changes. One of the gentlemen is sculpturing his pine trees and has trimmed them from the base. Another owner has some beautiful plantings which Commissioner Duren would not like to see removed but they are in the 25’ area. They also put up a stockade fence which is not on their property and they pay for it to be installed on the abutter’s property.
Mr. Giner stated Mr. Bickley visited Pheasant Hill and the trimming occurred about three months ago and that has been resolved by the Association. Commissioner Duren stated the Pheasant Hill owners should follow the planting plan. Commissioner Duren mentioned the arborvitae which has been added to the 25’ area. Mr. Giner stated the regulations call for screening and arborvitae will grow quicker than pine trees. Commissioner Cooper stated the area was supposed to remain in its natural state. Mr. Giner stated some parts remained natural but some had to be replanted.
Mr. Giner stated the owner near Ms. Turner’s home was required to install some new evergreens. Commissioner Duren stated some sheds have been added in the Pheasant Hill project and they look good.
Mr. Giner stated he has not received any recent complaints regarding Pheasant Hill and the people involved seem to like the improvements and the replanting of the area. Mr. Giner added the homeowners association realizes it is in their best interest to police the area themselves.
Commissioner Duren stated the area looks nice but he can understand the concerns about the 25’ buffer. Some property owners are ignoring it. Chairman DiPace suggested that Mr. Giner have someone in the Planning Department take some pictures of what is at Pheasant Hill today for the file so that they can be used for a comparison in the future. Chairman DiPace also suggested distributing cd’s with this photo information to the Zoning Enforcement Officer and Commission members.
Chairman DiPace brought up a request from the Enfield Little League regarding their Mark Twain concession stand. They would like to relocate this stand behind left field and add power to the stand. The Little League will pay for the power. The purpose would be to install a scoreboard at the field by June for use during their playoffs. The property is owned by the Town of Enfield. Following a consensus by the Commission that this is a minor application that can be handled administratively, Chairman DiPace directed Mr. Giner to handle this request. Mr. Giner stated he will communicate with Public Works and the Little League and will report to the Commission by letter on the status of this request.
Chairman DiPace stated the Town of Enfield is requesting authorization for temporary storage for a trailer for athletics in Powder Hollow. He noted the situation there is the Fermi High School fields cannot be used. They are, therefore, housing the equipment at this time in the concession stand. With that being used, the Little League which begins next week, doesn’t have a concession stand. The request is to add a storage trailer so the Little League can have their concession stand. The concession stand proceeds go towards the light fund to install lights on the field within the next year.
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to take items out of order and consider item 9b. at this time. The motion was approved unanimously.
9.b. Town of Enfield request to authorize temporary storage trailer for athletic equipment at Powder Hollow Park.
Jeff McAlmond, Deputy Director of Public Works, appeared before the Commission with a proposal to install an 8’ x 20’ overseas container to be located just beyond the existing block building where the electrical power supply is distributed at Powder Hollow Park. The container location was oriented so that when people come into the park, it is not staring right at them. The temporary container would be shielded by the existing building. Once the container is installed, it will be repainted in a color that will blend in with the surroundings. Mr. McAlmond stated in the interim, while they are rebuilding the sports fields at the two high schools, there is a need for alternate places for the high school teams to play. The contamination issues at Fermi have added to the concerns and the high school team is already practicing at Powder Hollow Park. Once the new concession stand is built, they may be able to use the old concession stand for storage and remove the temporary storage trailer.
In response to a question from Chairman DiPace about the proposed length of time this temporary container would be used, Mr. McAlmond estimated two years. The Town of Enfield Building and Grounds will be responsible for maintaining this storage trailer.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve the temporary use of a storage container for the athletic equipment at Powder Hollow Park for a period of two years at which time if an extension is needed, the applicant shall return to the Commission. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Ladd voting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – Continued from April 6, 2006 Meeting
a. PH#2552 – Subdivision to divide a 5.42 acre piece into 4 lots, one for an existing house and garage and three for new construction at 205 State Street (off Enfield Street) zoned R-33, Map 35, Lot 240, Carl Nelson Construction, Inc., Applicant/Owner. (Must close by May 11)
Carl Nelson appeared before the Commission for the continuation of this public hearing. He owns Carl Nelson Construction with two of his sons. He is before the Commission tonight regarding 205 State Street. This is a 5.42 acre parcel that was purchased which has an existing house and garage. The request is to divide this property into four lots, one for the existing house and three for new homes. They have been before Wetlands and received a Wetlands permit. They have also met all the Engineering Department concerns. The lots proposed will be from 1.2 to 1.6 acres and have 150’ of frontage.
Mr. Nelson stated at the last meeting there was a concern regarding the useable area of Lot #1. Their surveyor did the calculations and Engineering checked and agreed with them. Lot #1’s useable area is 36,518 square feet which is the smallest of the four lots.
Mr. Nelson stated the open space regulation requires that ten percent of the land be set aside or a fee. In lieu of the land dedication and fee, they are proposing use of the conservation easement which they are donating to protect the fragile areas of land in the backs of the lots. This would be well over the ten percent requirement. They are also requesting a waiver regarding sidewalks. Mr. Nelson noted there are no existing sidewalks on State Street and it is a very low traffic area.
Chairman DiPace read from the drawing regarding the slopes and stated the area does have a slope of greater then twenty-five percent. Mr. Nelson stated the entire south area is sensitive to wetlands. The wetlands are at the bottom of the slope. Chairman DiPace stated they are going from an elevation of 166’ to 124’ or more than 40’. In his opinion, it is greater than twenty-five percent. He calculated 29,000 square feet for this lot.
Chairman DiPace stated in the front there is a pretty steep slope. He couldn’t see all the way back to the slope on the other side and he is going by the numbers on the map. He asked what the elevation of the property is in the back. Chairman DiPace stated in the back, the property line is listed as 166.53 and he was using that as an elevation. Mr. Giner stated the elevation in the back is a 110’ contour or about 108’. Mr. Giner stated the sanitary sewer elevation would be 78’. Chairman DiPace wanted to make sure that the slope is not greater than twenty-five percent.
Following further discussion regarding the numbers proposed, Mr. Giner confirmed the slope is not in excess of a twenty-five percent slope. Mr. Nelson also stated that he gave the map and numbers to Town Engineer Jeff Bord and they were acceptable to him. Chairman DiPace stated the Commission previously did not have these calculations and he is now satisfied that the proposed lot meets the requirements.
Commissioner Duren asked when noting the maps showing the conservation easements and checking Mr. Giner’s proposed conditions, is there any way that the note about the steep slopes can be placed on the deeds. Mr. Nelson stated this is a condition of the Wetlands Permit. Mr. Giner confirmed it can also be added to the Planning and Zoning conditions.
Commissioner Ladd stated there is a note from the Town Engineer agreeing with the calculations. Chairman DiPace stated the regulations state if you have a slope of greater than twenty-five percent, you can only use twenty-five percent of that. If it is wetlands, you can use half of that. He noted he was counting both sides when he did the calculations last time. Chairman DiPace stated the applicant has now shown the Commission that the calculations comply with the town’s requirements.
Commissioner Hickey asked about the sidewalks. Chairman DiPace stated a waiver of sidewalks has been requested. Commissioner Duren stated they are starting to build sidewalks on upper Enfield Street as part of the Gateway Project. There will be more people walking in the area with the additional homes.
Commissioner Hickey stated the Commission needs to look very hard at sidewalks because this is a section of town that is much more urban. Commissioner Jones stated the Gateway Project plan is to run sidewalks further down on Enfield Street and the sidewalks would go right past this area.
Commissioner Weseliza stated the development on Post Road was required to install sidewalks. She felt the Commission should maintain this sidewalk requirement. Chairman DiPace discussed other areas of town where sidewalks were waived and now the residents want sidewalks.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission is in receipt of a note from the Conservation Commission. They are recommending the Commission not accept the conservation easement. Mr. Giner stated they are the open space agency for the town but there are various functions of open space. In this area, it is wetlands preservation.
Chairman DiPace led some discussion regarding the open space fund. The purpose of this fund was instead of accepting open space that was not useable, the Commission would accept a fee. That fee was supposed to be used for acquiring property for recreational uses and improving the quality of recreational use. Chairman DiPace felt these funds have not been used for their original intent and he questioned whether the Commission should go back to accepting open space.
Commissioner Jones stated on many occasions, the Town Council used money from the open space fund to buy land for the Scantic River Park. Chairman DiPace stated his original intention was to use some of the open space fund to improve the town’s parks and recreational uses.
Mr. Giner stated the conservation easement proposed is well over the ten percent required and a fee in lieu of open space is not necessary for Mr. Nelson’s application.
Mr. Giner corrected a typographical error in his memo. On condition #10, page 3, the word “either” should be struck. Mr. Giner further stated that if the Commission does not waive the sidewalks, a condition should be added that states sidewalks designed to town standards shall be added to the plans submitted for signature and approved by the Town Engineer.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to waive sidewalks as requested by the applicant for Public Hearing #2552, the division of a 5.42 acre parcel into four lots at 205 State Street. The motion was denied by a 0 – 7 – 0 vote with Alternate Ladd voting.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commission Jones, to approve the subdivision at 205 State Street as heard in Public Hearing #2552 with the 21 conditions as outlined in the memo from Jose Giner dated April 6, 2006 with a change to condition 10 eliminating the word “either” and with two additions. Condition 22 is sidewalks designed to town standards shall be added to the plans submitted for signature and approved by the Town Engineer. Condition 23 is Wording shall be placed on all deeds, as recommended by the Town Attorney’s Office, that portions of property containing steep slopes, wetlands, or watercourses are therefore subject to Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses regulations as amended. No disposing of leaves, grass, clippings, brush or other lawn refuse, screening, filling or other modifications shall be made to the portion of this property that is encumbered with the conservation easement.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission has a memo from the Enfield Conservation Commission stating they would like this Commission to do the fee in lieu of open space instead of the conservation easement. The Commission has considered this and decided to accept the conservation easement.
Commissioner Duren stated he would prefer to accept the conservation easement because it is a water course and it drains a good portion of the northern part of Enfield. If the town should ever have to do maintenance in this area, the town would have the right of way to do so.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Ladd voting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2550 – Amendment to the Enfield Zoning Regulations, Section 12.20, Enforcement and Administration, to require as-built surveys for foundations before allowing framing to begin and to set requirements for such surveys. Staff Initiative. (Must close by 5/25)
Mr. Giner stated the amendment before the Commission was an initiative by staff. During one of the recent ART meetings, a building official stated the new building code now requires as-built surveys for foundations only in the flood plain as part of the 100-year flood zone. Mr. Giner stated the town has seen high water tables in many of the subdivision applications with the need for footing drains. There have been occasions where subdivision plans have been received that are very general in nature and the final grade of the house was not what was originally approved on the plan. Mr. Giner noted there is no way to catch this before the final c.o. is given.
Mr. Giner stated the suggestion is to check for compliance at the foundation level rather than waiting until completion when it is difficult and expensive to make changes. He noted the proposed regulation requires that upon the placement of foundation or lowest floor including the basement or prior to backfilling or further vertical construction, a builder shall submit documentation prepared, signed and sealed by a Connecticut registered land surveyor showing the as-built elevation of the lowest floor, including basement, and the elevation of the top of the foundation wall. The as-built document shall also include the locations and elevations of any footing drain outlets when footing drains are required by soil conditions or shown on the approved site plan. The elevations shall not be lower than those on the approved site plan and not more than six inches higher than those on said plan. Any deviations from these tolerances shall subject the site plan to further review. A signed and sealed recommendation and explanation from the Connecticut registered professional engineer who designed the approved site plan shall be submitted prior to approval of these changes.
Mr. Giner stated the amendment would put the burden on the applicant to give the town changes and have their engineer explain that they are not going to affect the construction. Mr. Giner stated a further addition of the amendment is at the final as-built, spot elevations would be required to show that the approved scheme has been followed.
Chairman DiPace asked if this is going to be for only new construction or for additions as well. He questioned if someone was proposing a minor 10’ x 10’ addition, will they be forced to have an engineer do an as-built for the foundation and hold up their development. Chairman DiPace felt the intent is more for the entire house rather than a small addition.
Mr. Giner stated Section e. applies to all new single-family dwellings and uses requiring site plan approval. This would mean commercial uses would all have to provide final as-builts. Section f. right now applies to all additions. Chairman DiPace suggested further revision of this amendment is necessary.
Mr. Giner stated the amendment should set a limit regarding the size of the addition.
Chairman DiPace felt this amendment should apply to someone doing an addition if the addition is greater than fifty percent of the size of the home.
Mr. Giner stated the town has regulations where basements are required if you increase the size of the house by more than twenty-five percent. He suggested putting in similar language in the amendment regarding as-builts.
Commissioner Lefakis stated there have been a few occasions where two-family homes are destroyed by fire and a new two-family home is constructed on the spot. He questioned how two-family homes would be affected because the amendment states all new single-family homes. Mr. Giner suggested changing the language to new residential dwellings.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Commissioner Weseliza saw a need to continue this hearing to further modify the language.
Commissioner Hickey noted a survey is not a simple undertaking and for a small homeowner, it could be a detriment.
Commissioner Duren asked if this amendment will take care of the problems that occurred on Grandview Drive. Mr. Giner stated the problem at Grandview was there were substantially different elevations on some of the houses. The proposed amendment would have triggered a review on many of those homes. The drainage patterns were not changed but the home elevations were changed in this instance. At the time, the subdivision regulations did not address this. The Commission initially approved a concept plan and each individual lot showed the home size and location but the grades around the houses got changed resulting in some homes visually being higher but still draining in the same spot.
Chairman DiPace continued this public hearing to May 4, 2006.
b. PH#2553 – Special Use Permit and Site Plan Review for change of nonconforming use to construction and electrical contractor’s yard with site location for permanent storage areas at 167 South Road, zoned I-1, Map 55, Lot 81, Matthew Auchy, Applicant/Owner. (Must close by 5/25).
Mr. Giner stated the applicant is not present for PH#2553. The Town Engineer still has some outstanding issues. Chairman DiPace stated the public hearing sign for this application was not properly posted and it has been reinstalled twice by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. This necessitated a need to continue this hearing.
Mr. Giner informed the applicant to contact the Town Engineer on Monday upon the Town Engineer’s return from vacation. Commissioner Duren noted this application has not gone through an Administrative Team Review.
Commissioner Duren stated under Section 6.3.30.5 it states a maximum of six vehicles can be parked here. He asked if the applicant is aware of that restriction. Mr. Giner stated the use is a nonconforming use presently. It was a contractor’s yard. The applicant is coming in under the Special Permit provision to change from one nonconforming use to another. The applicant will not therefore conform to everything. Under those regulations, he has to show that what he is doing is the same or more conforming than what is existing.
Commissioner Duren stated the plans presented are incomplete. He also asked what type of storage containers the applicant is referring to. Mr. Giner stated the applicant was informed of the need to provide better plans. Mr. Giner will schedule an ART regarding this application in the near future.
Chairman DiPace asked for public input. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace continued this public hearing to May 18, 2006.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR#1361 – Application for additional parking spaces at 4 Anngina Drive, zoned I-1, Map 82, Lot 60, Precision Camera, Applicant/John P. and Martha A. O’Brien.
Mr. Giner stated this application has to go through Wetlands. The Wetlands Commission just recently received the plans and tabled this application.
Chairman DiPace tabled this application until May 4, 2006.
BOND RELEASES
a. PH#2393 – Request for release of two bonds (Engineering for $1,226,000 and Erosion and Sediment for $5,050) by Costco for their building on Freshwater Boulevard (130 Elm Street).
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to release the Engineering bond in the amount of $1,226,000 for Costco, 130 Elm Street. This motion does not include the release of the erosion and sediment control bond or the off-site improvements. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternate Ladd voting.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Preliminary discussion with Thomas Gissen, Management Member of Professional Planned Development, LLC regarding whether boulevards would – where appropriate – serve as an acceptable alternative to two entrances/exits.
Thomas Gissen appeared before the Commission for a preliminary discussion regarding the use of boulevards in fifty-five and over planned residential developments.
Mr. Gissen stated he is the President of Professional Planned Development LLC with offices at 35 Horseshoe Ridge Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut which is in Newtown, Connecticut. He is a planner by profession although he is now a developer. He has his masters in city and regional planning; he is a member of the American Planning Association and a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. Prior to starting his own company last year, Mr. Gissen was the Executive Vice President for a regional development company and started the Connecticut division approximately seven years ago. He obtained entitlements and approvals for nine different communities with a total of about 1,200 units in Connecticut.
Mr. Gissen stated the reason he is before the Commission tonight is he has a piece of property in Enfield under contract. He is trying to assess whether the property would be viable for the use that he would hope to develop it for or an active adult community. Mr. Gissen requested clarification on access issues. There are presently restrictions on cul de sacs in Enfield and the opportunity for what constitutes more than one access might be met by either a through road, an emergency access or what some communities have allowed or a boulevard. This would be two roads that are side by side.
Mr. Gissen stated with the nine communities he did in Connecticut, one of them was a cul de sac. Three of them had through roads. Two of them had boulevards and three of them used emergency accesses as the second point of access.
Mr. Gissen stated he sent in material to Mr. Giner which goes over a couple of plans he did where boulevards were used. He noted a book that was published jointly by the Urban Land Institute, the Institute of Traffic Engineers, the American Society of Civil Engineers and the National Homebuilders Association. A section of this book discusses some of the relative merits of boulevards versus through roads. He added in the boulevard situation that he did in Litchfield and Newtown, he previously looked at the alternative of a through road. It was decided that a boulevard was the best solution for a number of reasons. The reasons included a balancing of whether you wanted to have through traffic cutting through and what the environmental impacts might be. In the case of Litchfield, they asked that he eliminate the second road and go with the boulevard because they did not want them crossing a stream. In the case of Newtown, they asked that he look at a boulevard because to put in a second road would have required a fairly massive amount of earth movement. Mr. Gissen stated it was really a balance of what makes the most sense and does it work.
Mr. Gissen stated he is not asking for an opinion on whether it would make sense for his particular piece of property and noted this will be part of the site plan review process. The Commission may determine a boulevard is not appropriate or it is. In order for Mr. Gissen to move forward, he needs to get a sense of whether the use of boulevards would be something the Commission would be open to considering if it made sense. What he has in his situation is a property bisected by a stream with associated wetlands and flood plain. While it can be crossed, it would be both costly and have environmental impacts as compared with accessing this property from two sides, one of which would be just a small cul de sac and the other which would be a boulevard. Mr. Gissen is presently looking to an adjoining property to see if he can do something regarding a secondary access. At this point, he has approximately 100’ of frontage which would constitute an acceptable area for a boulevard with room for buffering between the neighboring homes.
Mr. Gissen reviewed his plans and requested a sense from the Board as to whether the use of a boulevard is something the Commission would consider.
Commissioner Hickey asked if the town’s zoning regulations include the definition of a boulevard. Mr. Giner stated they do not. They state a property has to have two ways of access in and out.
Mr. Giner stated Mr. Gissen is asking if what is generally considered a boulevard would meet the town’s requirements of two ways in and out.
Mr. Gissen stated the definition would encompass it from his perspective because there are two accesses – one in and one out. Many communities are open to the use of boulevards but not all are.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if there are boulevards in the industrial park area. Mr. Giner confirmed there are. Phoenix Avenue is a boulevard.
Chairman DiPace stated one of his concerns is whether a boulevard would constitute two points of in and out. In his opinion, it would not. There would only be a 12’ road and an accident causing the road to be blocked would be his concern.
Mr. Gissen stated the idea is if there was a serious accident in this location, that there would be emergency vehicles there. The question is whether during an emergency, can the other emergency vehicles get through? The classic example is having an accident at the boulevard location and someone is in need of an ambulance deeper inside the community and the question is whether they can get in. Mr. Gissen stated the idea is when you have a boulevard situation, by the very nature of having that accident there, you are having police or fire control so that emergency vehicles can get in and out and even direct traffic. While this is not ideal for a great deal of time, it is to service the emergency.
Commissioner Duren stated if you have a tree going down and one of the roads is blocked and emergency vehicles are needed in the housing development, the possibility of a fire truck or ambulance getting through the other side of the boulevard is pretty tight.
Mr. Gissen presented pictures of boulevards from other towns. Chairman DiPace felt if the proposed boulevard was a little wider, like 14’, cars would be able to get in and out if one side was blocked.
Commissioner Duren noted this Commission just denied an application about a year ago that proposed one way in and one way out. He noted his major concern is safety.
Chairman DiPace stated he is open to looking at a boulevard but would like to see it a little bit wider. Mr. Gissen stated they did create breaks so that you can go around and then cut back. He acknowledged that the boulevard could be widened. They have also used what is called a mountable curb so that a vehicle could more easily crisscross.
Mr. Giner stated on rear lots, the town requires a certain width of driveway and that the shoulders be capable of holding emergency vehicles. His concern with widening it one lane in width is are they going to create a situation during normal operations where people might think there are two lanes existing and try to pass each other. Mr. Giner stated the solution may be to maintain the pavement width so that people know that is the driving lane and have a shoulder on each side of a specific width that has to be kept clear of vegetation.
Regarding the width of road regulations, Mr. Giner stated the subdivision regulations presently require from 24’ to 30’.
Commissioner Duren stated it is only the residents that would be using this drive and he doesn’t know if they would be passing each other.
Mr. Gissen stated what typically happens is you have a boulevard until you can open into a loop road so that there are always two ways to get to every specific point except at the very end. He gave examples of this from his previous projects.
Commissioner Jones referred to the Meadows project off Washington Road. He cannot imagine them doing that project without having a fire access road because it does have a boulevard at the beginning.
Chairman DiPace stated this request will require input from the Fire Departments.
Chairman DiPace stated he doesn’t have a problem taking a look at this as something that might be doable. There will have to be a certain frontage requirement to do a boulevard and he doesn’t think they should be allowed where you only have 50’ of frontage. In his opinion, the two lanes should be 14’ and the abutting area should be landscaped.
Commissioner Hickey saw a need for a definition of a boulevard in the regulations. Chairman DiPace stated boulevards should not be allowed to extend a quarter of a mile but if someone wants to come in and install a boulevard to handle vehicles, this could be considered. Chairman DiPace and Commissioner Duren requested input from the Traffic Safety Officer regarding boulevards. Commissioner Duren suggested this be the subject of a future ART. Mr. Gissen stated he would appreciate the opportunity to meet with the Fire personnel and the Traffic Safety Officer.
Chairman DiPace stated there is a need to get the necessary input. He acknowledged that the plans presented by Mr. Gissen look very nice and would be a great asset to the town provided the project meets all the safety concerns.
Mr. Giner asked how long the other projects Mr. Gissen has been involved with have been up and running. Mr. Gissen stated the one in Newtown is just about complete with ninety-six homes. The one in Litchfield is still under construction and in the relatively early stage of construction. The project in Newtown is located on Route 6 right by the Bethel border. It is across the street from Casio Kennels. The project in Litchfield is in the area of Route 202 and he can provide the Commission with more detailed directions. Mr. Gissen stated the last project he showed was not one he did but it has been around the longest. It is Sterling Woods in Danbury which includes several hundred homes on that boulevard. It includes a boulevard with cross over points in between.
Mr. Giner plans to set up an ART regarding the subject of boulevards in order to get input from the town personnel.
b. Discussion of TGI Friday’s elevations at 130 Elm Street
Philip Price, the Project Manager of T. G. I. Fridays, appeared before the Commission for a discussion of the building elevations and remodeling. He noted his understanding is there is a problem with the roof color.
Chairman DiPace questioned if the color used for the roof is the approved color. Mr. Price stated T.G.I. Fridays separated their construction and architecture divisions and he is now assigned to go places and complete construction.
Chairman DiPace asked Mr. Giner about the approved roof color for this building at 130 Elm Street.
Commissioner Jones noted it was not blue. Chairman DiPace stated the response from TGI Fridays was the metal was blue and that is the way it came. If they paint it a different color, it is going to peel, fade and not going to last.
Commissioner Duren was not pleased with the appearance of the tower and cited its unfinished appearance. Commissioner Jones stated the tower is what they said it was going to be. Mr. Giner presented the tiles that were proposed to be used. Mr. Price stated what is different is the sign people did not allow them to do the tumbler and they had to come back and do a block slate tumbler. Commissioner Jones stated he liked the tumbler that was used.
Mr. Price presented a rendering of the building. Chairman DiPace asked if the roof could be painted with the color that has been used for the trim. Following some discussion with Mr. Price, the consensus of the Commission was that the roof color be changed to the color of the darker trim shown in the drawing presented to the Commission instead of the present blue roof. Chairman DiPace requested that a paint be used that does not allow the previous color to show through. If this occurs, the roof will have to be repainted. Mr. Price presented a building rendering showing the perfect greige roof color.
b. Applications to be Received
The following applications were accepted:
PH#2555 – Petition for proposed amendment to Section 3.10 of the zoning regulations to limit the number of driveways permitted on residential lots, Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission, Applicant.
A public hearing will be scheduled for May 18, 2006.
SPR#1363 – Application for installation of playground equipment on the site of Thomas Alcorn Elementary/Memorial Park at 1010 Enfield Street, Map #22, Lot #18, Enfield Public Schools, Applicant, Town of Enfield, Owner.
SPR#1364 – Application for installation of playground equipment on the site of Nathan Hale Elementary School, 5 Taylor Road, zoned R-33, Map #110, Lot #4, Enfield Public Schools/Applicant; Town of Enfield, Owner.
The consensus of the Commission was to allow this application to be handled administratively.
SPR#1365 – Application for modification to first floor of the North Central Health Department building on North Main Street (T’ville Tavern site).
SPR#1366 – Application for installation of 8’ x 20’ metal storage container for equipment storage at Powder Hollow Park, Town of Enfield, Applicant/Owner.
OTHER BUSINESS
Denise Duclos, 38 O’Hear Avenue, appeared before the Commission to express her concern regarding a kennel approved next door to her. On April 7 she sent a letter to many town officials, including the Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley, asking for help regarding a situation that has arisen because the town issued her neighbors a kennel permit at 36 O’Hear Avenue. She thanked everyone that has been involved for taking the concerns she has as seriously as she does with regard to the safety of her children.
Ms. Duclos stated it is truly upsetting to her that there seems to be no current background check process required before a kennel license is issued. For instance, it only makes sense to run a records check on nuisance complaints and visits to the home by local and/or state animal control or to see how many times mail has been withheld from an address due to a loose dog. Perhaps even a sign announcing a public hearing could be placed on the front lawn of the home before issuing the kennel license.
Ms. Duclos presented a photograph of one of the pit bulls that are being bred at 36 O’Hear Avenue running on her property. This picture was taken on April 11 at 12:38 p.m. There were actually two dogs loose at the time but because they were running, it was difficult to catch them both on film. The photo shows the dog clearly running on her property and the homeowner was home at the time. She was painting her front door. Ms. Duclos is thankful that she and her children were inside their home at the time. In the photo of the roaming dog, also visible is the neighbor’s fence. The logs which were lined up along the fence were placed their by Mr. Duclos’ husband to keep the adult dogs and puppies in the neighbors’ yard from continuing to come under the fence. Ms. Duclos and her husband had to modify their fence in an effort to keep the animals contained in their own yard. Ms. Duclos stated something is very wrong with that and she hopes it shows they are willing to do what they need to do as a way to keep their children safe in their own yard.
Ms. Duclos presented another photograph of one of the German shepherds fighting with one of the pit bulls in the front yard of #36 O’Hear. This photo shows three adults and two of them are the dog owners attempting to separate these animals. The photo shows the dogs are unleashed which, according to Animal Control Officer Wilson, is allowed as long as the dogs are under control of the owner. Officer Wilson has informed her that the town has an in control of your dog law and not a leash law which does not require your dog to be on lead whether on your own property or public property as long as you are in control of your animal. Ms. Duclos noted the photo of these fighting dogs with three adults attempting to separate them proves not only that the dogs can be violent but also that these dog owners are not in control of their animals. This was the second incident of this type within two weeks.
Ms. Duclos obtained copies of the town records of nuisance complaints to the Police Dispatcher and Animal Control Office. The records show excessive barking and roaming complaints began in October, 2004. Animal Control was also called out to the home once in April, 2005, twice in September and once in October, 2005. Ms. Duclos noted the Animal Control records are incomplete as they are missing at least two nuisance complaints which were placed by email. The emails were sent to Animal Control and Chief of Police Marcotte by Ms. Duclos in the autumn, 2004. She was later asked to call rather than email Animal Control.
Ms. Duclos stated in the complaint dated September 9, 2005, she watched one of the German shepherds chase two male Jehovah Witnesses off the property at 34 O’Hear Avenue. Ms. Duclos immediately called police to report the incident and explained to the dispatcher that the dog was now in the home of #36 O’Hear. She noted hese are not homeowners in control of their dogs.
Ms. Duclos stated in the complaint dated April 6, 2005, a German shepherd was loose and roaming both in her yard and in other neighbors. Animal Control responded and found the gate and fence broken. They left a pink slip for the homeowner and in the complaint dated September 1, 2005; again that same German shepherd was loose and roaming. Animal Control responded and the homeowner at #36 O’Hear admitted that the dog had broken her fence and she was in the process of fixing it. The fence had been broken since April. If Ms. Duclos had not continued to complain, this gate and fence might still be broken.
Ms. Duclos stated by pointing out these specific complaints she is hoping to show the Planning and Zoning Commission that the homeowners at 36 O’Hear Avenue have not shown the responsibility required to take proper care of the ten dogs which they had before they were issued their kennel license. The September 1 complaint shows that the Animal Control officer who responded found all ten dogs in the home unlicensed. The homeowners were given one week to license their dogs and on September 8, 2005, the Town of Enfield issued their kennel license.
Ms. Duclos stated she hopes she has been able to raise more than a few red flags regarding the dog limits and the way kennel licenses are issued in the Town of Enfield. It seems the current ordinance is severely flawed. To Ms. Duclos it doesn’t make any sense to give permission for an unlimited number of dogs to be kept on a property smaller than a quarter of an acre. She thanked the Commission for their prompt attention to this matter.
Chairman DiPace asked who issues kennel permits. Mr. Giner stated all kennel licenses are obtained from the Town Clerk’s Office. The state allows an owner to obtain two types of licenses. The Town Clerk issues one for up to ten dogs and there were a few kennels that were allowed up to twenty.
Chairman DiPace stated this is a zoning issue and kennel licenses need to come before this Commission. Mr. Giner stated the people that obtain these licenses claim they are not commercial kennels. Ms. Duclos stated these dogs are bred for sale.
Mr. Giner stated commercial kennels are only allowed in the Business General zone. Chairman DiPace stated if they are running a kennel, they do not have any approval from this Commission. If people are breeding dogs to sell, they are running a business in a residential zone and Chairman DiPace would like them to come before this Commission. Mr. Giner discussed a court case in New Milford. His feeling is people are coming in and saying they have ten dogs which are their pets. In trying to avoid paying for the individual dog licenses, they come in and request a kennel license. The state set up kennel licenses approximately ten years ago and it is causing problems in many towns.
Mr. Giner stated he is getting together with the Town Attorney to discuss these kennel licenses because there are many such licenses in the town. In New Milford, the town planning and zoning commission interpreted their regulations for accessory uses because they didn’t want to grandfather people that already had ten or twelve dogs. They adopted an interpretation under the accessory use that it was common and reasonable to have not more than four dogs in a residential property. The state appellate court ruled in favor of the town on this. The town reviewed their dog licenses and determined that a reasonable and customary use of property was to have not more than four dogs and anything beyond that was not reasonable.
Chairman DiPace stated the Town of Enfield should not allow more than four dogs. Mr. Giner stated he is meeting with the Town Attorney to discuss kennel licenses. Chairman DiPace felt a cease and desist order should be issued in this matter as soon as possible. Mr. Giner stated there is a need to have a consistent policy in place before doing so.
Ms. Duclos noted that #36 O’Hear Avenue advertised two litters for sale last summer in the Reminder. However, she failed to keep this advertisement because at the time Animal Control had told her it was legal for them to have ten dogs on their property. Chairman DiPace stated this proves a business located in a residential zone.
Mr. Giner read the definition of a commercial kennel in the town’s ordinance which reads a commercial operation in an open or closed area in which four or more dogs are kept for breeding, boarding, training or sale. Chairman DiPace requested that a cease and desist be issued tomorrow morning.
Ms. Duclos asked if the four dog limit is initiated at some point, what would happen to the number of dogs over the four that her neighbor has. Chairman DiPace stated they would have to get rid of them.
Mr. Giner stated he will address this but it may take a couple of weeks working with the Town Clerk’s Office and the Town Attorney.
Ms. Duclos stated this property is only one-quarter of an acre. Chairman DiPace agreed that a kennel use does not belong at this location. He invited Ms. Duclos to come back to the Commission at the May 4, 2006 meeting if nothing has occurred or if she has additional concerns. Chairman DiPace stated a cease and desist usually takes ten days and could be longer if there is an appeal of the decision.
Mr. Giner stated this has been brought to his attention by the Town Manager. Also, the Assistant Town Attorney requested that Mr. Giner work with her regarding this matter. Commissioner Duren questioned if commercial kennels are listed in the town’s regulations, why hasn’t the Town Clerk been forwarding such applications to the Commission. Mr. Giner has discussed this with the Town Clerk and noted the need for a change in the law stating such kennel licenses cannot be issued unless zoning signs off on these licenses. Presently, the recent state law says if someone applies for a kennel license, the town has to issue it. Chairman DiPace suggested that a sign be placed in the Town Clerk’s Office that says although you are obtaining a kennel license, it may not meet zoning requirements and you should check with the Planning Department upstairs. Mr. Giner stated he is working with the Town Clerk to address this.
Commissioner Sarno brought up pet day care and suggested if changes are made, that this use also be addressed.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission and Mr. Giner will work to resolve this matter in the near future.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Weseliza made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr |