|
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
MAY 18, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, May 18, 2006 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Charles Duren
James Hickey, Jr.
Jason Jones (arrived at 8:18 p.m.)
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
Charles Ladd, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve the Minutes of April 6, 2006. The Minutes were approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote. (Commissioner Jones was not present for this vote.)
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve the Minutes of April 20, 2006. The Minutes were approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote. (Commissioner Jones was not present for this vote.)
CORRESPONDENCE
(Correspondence received requesting informal discussion requested by Attorney Thomas J. Tyler with regard to 78 Post Office Road, zoned R-44, Map #47, Lot 275)
Attorney Thomas Tyler appeared before the Commission representing his wife, Marilyn Tyler, who is Conservatrix for her Dad. Mr. Mokrycki had been before the Commission eight years ago, in 1998, with regard to this seventeen-acre parcel on Post Office Road. He was represented by Kiran Majmudar and J. R. Russo was his other engineer. Mr. Mokrycki put through a seven-lot residential subdivision on Post Office Road. He went through the Wetlands process, got approval from Wetlands on or about April 21, 1998, and then this Commission approved it shortly thereafter. Mr. Mokrycki was about eighty years old at the time and a couple of years later ended up in a situation where he needed a conservator appointed for him.
Attorney Tyler noted in 2001 while preparing an inventory for probate court and to determine assets, they hired Dave Peterson to do appraisals. Mr. Peterson went through the Planning records and the Town Clerk’s records and discovered that the mylar had never been recorded in the Town Clerk’s Office as required under state statute to perfect the subdivision approval. Attorney Tyler stated he looked at the same records and reached the same conclusion that the mylar had not been recorded. He asked his father-in-law at that time why he hadn’t recorded the mylar. He responded that he was advised not to record it because it would cost more in taxes because they would now have individual lots which he had just spent tens of thousands of dollars getting engineers’ plans done to get a subdivision.
Attorney Tyler stated several weeks ago they resurrected the idea of at least trying to figure out what to do with Post Office Road and he called together the engineers, Kiran Majmudar and Russo, to put together a plan. It was at that time that they discovered that his father-in-law had brought a mylar in to the Planning Department timely. The approval was granted in April, 1998. His father-in-law had brought in the mylar for signature in June of that year. The drop dead date for recording it was about mid August of 1998.
Attorney Tyler stated they are still investigating the circumstances surrounding what went on and he met last week with Mr. Giner and Mr. Angus with regard to the approvals. Mr. Giner was not here in 1998 when these incidents occurred. It was the prior planner who appears to have been responsible for handling these things. Attorney Tyler stated Mr. Giner was helpful in terms of trying to help figure out what’s going on and did volunteer that he had seen the mylar around the Planning Office at some point in time. Mr. Giner confirmed that to be the case.
Attorney Tyler stated the intent at this time is to come back and do the same approval process. He emphasized they are not looking for a short cut and they would actually just file the same documents that were filed previously. He stated the property consists of about seventeen acres on Oliver Road and Post Office Road. The lots would be all on Post Office Road except for one on Oliver Road and they all meet the 175’ requirements of an R-44 zone. Part of this property is in I-1 which they left in I-1 so that the neighbor would have a 100’ buffer in case the neighbor wanted to do anything.
Attorney Tyler stated his father-in-law had curb cuts put in consistent with some of these lots that were approved and all of the lots were pinned which is unusual for somebody to do who doesn’t file a map. Attorney Tyler stated his father-in-law informed him on one occasion that he brought the plans into the Town Planning Department.
Attorney Tyler stated the purpose of his being before the Commission tonight is to inform the Commission of the status of where they are in terms of bringing it back so that they don’t have to reinvent the wheel and go through all brand new engineering plans. They were all certified back at that time. They plan to have the same engineer here to recertify that what he did then is accurate.
Attorney Tyler outlined the three waivers that were granted at that time. One was a waiver of sidewalks on Oliver Road because there are none there. Second was a waiver of curbing on Oliver Road. There’s no curb there. And the third waiver was a waiver of landscaping and planting trees on the Oliver Road side because they wanted to maintain the rural character of that particular area.
Attorney Tyler summarized this is a seventeen-acre parcel with seven lots, all of which meet or exceed the minimum requirements for an R-44 zone.
Chairman DiPace asked about the lots being pinned. Attorney Tyler confirmed the lots are all pinned. He added that had he known what had transpired, he would have come back and asked to extend or done something with the approval process. They anticipate filing again with Inland Wetlands and plan to file both applications simultaneously.
Regarding the wetlands, Attorney Tyler noted there was no disturbance of wetlands proposed by his father-in-law regarding this subdivision. The difference between then and now is there was a twenty-five foot review area at that time and now it has been extended to one hundred feet. While they may have some issues with regard to that, their posture is the wetlands are protected and not going to be disturbed then and they are protected and not going to be disturbed now. Also, one of the conditions of approval which was stamped on the plan was that if they or any subsequent homeowners wanted to do anything that might impact the wetlands, they would have to return to the Wetlands Agency. So, the only wetland that would be touched was one of the lots on Oliver Road. The driveway touched a wetland to get from Oliver Road on to the property.
In response to a question from Chairman DiPace, Mr. Giner noted the major change done to the town’s subdivision regulations had to do with public improvements. He does not think this subdivision included any public improvements or standards for pipes and related items. The only recent change to the subdivision regulations was the way lot area is calculated. Mr. Giner noted all these lots are fairly large and may not be affected by this change.
Chairman DiPace asked if there is any information regarding why the mylar did not get filed. Mr. Giner stated Ms. Higley, his administrative assistant, recalls sending letters to Mr. Mokrycki saying the town has the mylars. She recalls that the mylars were signed and never picked up for filing.
Chairman DiPace noted this application occurred before Mr. Giner’s employment. Mr. Giner estimated this application was approved in May or June by the Commission and he began work in August. His first meeting was the first week in September. Mr. Giner noted at that time there had not been anyone in the office for a few months.
Mr. Giner stated another application is necessary because according to state statutes this one has expired. Chairman DiPace questioned if the Commission could reapprove the application if Mr. Tyler brought the same application forward. Mr. Giner thought this could be done especially if the application has to meet the requirements of today’s regulations. Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Giner review the plans and verify this and if there are any changes needed, advise the Commission what can be done to correct the plans. Chairman DiPace stated he does recall the Commission approving this application initially and he stated it may have even come back for an extension at one point. Commissioner Duren remembered the requirements instituted to keep the abutting neighbor protected.
Attorney Tyler stated they were unable to locate the mylar in his father-in-law’s office when going through the documents. They also hired a forensic accountant and had another attorney go through them because there were a lot of business records. They were unable to find the mylar even after contacting the engineers. Attorney Tyler stated in his father-in-law’s records there were no mylars of any subdivision or zone changes that he kept without ever recording. He added that in checking with his engineers, their recollection is Kiran Majmudar gave the mylar to Attorney Tyler’s father-in-law to bring to Town Hall and that his father-in-law brought it to the Planning Department. In the notes, they have been able to determine the Inland Wetlands approval was April 21, 1998. The Zoning approval was April 23, 1998. The mylar was actually given to the Town Planner’s Office on June 18, 1998. The drop dead date, they believe, was August 12, 1998. Attorney Tyler added about a year after that his father-in-law got a letter from the town stating they had a lot of changeover in staff and that, therefore, the mylar did not get signed or given back to him until after the expiration of the ninety days. His father-in-law doesn’t recall getting that type of letter and the engineers also never received such a letter. Attorney Tyler didn’t get a copy but the letter was not copied to any of his agents either. Attorney Tyler presented a copy of this letter to the Commission.
Mr. Giner stated there was no professional staff employed during the month of July, 1998. Attorney Tyler noted he was not representing his father-in-law at this time. Mr. Giner stated he began work on August 17, 1998.
Commissioner Duren stated that Lori Whitten was assistant planner at the time.
Chairman DiPace stated the letter presented has Mr. Giner’s signature on it. He stated he does remember this application coming back for an extension. Chairman DiPace added while he does not know how the rest of the Commission feels about this application, it is seven lots and seventeen acres. The lots are already pinned. Chairman DiPace would have no problem with the same application being submitted again. Regarding possible changes, Mr. Giner stated he could not find anything initially except for the recalculation of the amount of wetlands per lot. He also recalled there was a lot line revision that was necessary.
Attorney Tyler stated they are still doing checking to attempt to figure out what happened. He noted he is trying to resolve this before it gets really big.
Mr. Giner recalled that there was previously an adjustment in the lot lines and this must have been something Engineering picked up. Attorney Tyler stated after looking at the map that the engineer provided to him, it said that they wanted his father-in-law to do whatever is necessary after the Town Engineer or Fire Marshal gave his comments. Attorney Tyler thought the second mylar would have been in relationship to the lot line adjustment. Attorney Tyler did go to the Town’s Engineering Department and they had two maps there. He requested copies of their maps and it looks like theirs was similar to a copy of the mylar his father-in-law filed to start with and then the second one was after they made some adjustment on the lot lines.
Commissioner Sarno asked why there was a need to reinvent everything and why not just revise what needs to be revised.
Chairman DiPace did not see why the Commission couldn’t review the same application. He asked that Mr. Giner review it to see if it meets all the requirements. If it does not, he asked that Mr. Giner inform the Commission what it does not meet and what the Commission would have the right to waive.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission can waive requirements of the Subdivision Regulations by a three-quarter vote. Commissioner Duren asked if the Commission can waive the fees. In his opinion, this applicant should not be charged again because it was the town’s error. Mr. Giner will check the ordinance regarding fees. Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Giner draft a letter from the Commission to the Council requesting a waiver of the fee if this is the consensus of the Commission. Mr. Giner stated this may not be necessary and the Commission may have the right to waive. He will check the ordinance and report back to the Commission.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace read a memo from Colleen Brand to the Town Hall Department Heads regarding the Town Hall roof replacement and new canopy. The roof is scheduled to be replaced on the Town Hall beginning May 16, 2006. There will also be a new canopy built for the exterior entrance to the Town Council Chambers. The installation of the new canopy will limit the use of the Council Chambers to meetings that do not exceed fifty people. Work is anticipated to be completed by mid July, 2006.
Mr. Giner stated the plan for this Commission is to meet in the Alcorn School if any meetings may exceed fifty people. The June 1, 2006 meeting is scheduled to be held in the Enfield Room. Mr. Giner anticipated the last meeting in July and perhaps the first also will have to be held at the Alcorn School.
COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace noted receipt of a letter from the Shaker Pines Lake Association regarding a nuisance beaver situation occurring at the dam adjacent to the Woodstone Pond in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts. Mr. Giner stated this would be handled by the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineer or someone who may have jurisdiction over state boundaries.
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of the Zoning Board of Appeals Notice of Action for April 24, 2006, the Historic District Commission Notice of Action for April 26, 2006 and the Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Notice of Action dated May 2, 2006. Also received was a letter from Jay Ursery of J. R. Russo regarding PH#2554, Division of Merged Lots, Fairview Avenue. This letter requested the continuance of Public Hearing #2554 on behalf of Mark and Edward Spazzarini since the applicants are still working on information involving the removal of an underground storage tank located on the property.
Chairman DiPace stated Correspondence also includes the APA magazine for May, the Planning Commission Journal, Spring, 2006, and correspondence from the Institute of Land Policy regarding on line courses.
Chairman DiPace stated this past week in the Hartford Courant there was a write-up about bringing back downtowns. It brought up some good points about restoring the downtown and included ideas. He will bring it to the next meeting.
Mr. Giner noted correspondence put on the table tonight. One is a memo from the Town Engineer regarding the subdivision that the Commission recently approved, #2552 – State Street. At that time, the Commission denied the request for a waiver of the sidewalks and asked that the applicant submit final mylar plans consistent with the town standards. In reviewing the plans with the engineers, there is a guard rail and a deep gully. The engineers’ opinion was they could not get a sidewalk there and they would like to stop the sidewalk even with the driveway of the last lot. The consensus of the Commission was they were in agreement regarding this change. Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to amend the approval of PH#2552 to permit a waiver of sidewalks as referenced in Jeff Bord’s memo to Jose Giner dated May 18, 2006 ending the sidewalk at the driveway before the start of the gully. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.
Mr. Giner reported Northeast Utilities Communities Building Institute is sponsoring a course on Wednesday and Thursday from 6:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at the Northeast Utilities headquarters on the Berlin Turnpike regarding economic development geared toward commission members. He asked that any Commission member who is interested contact Virginia Higley in the Planning Office or email his office.
Regarding a request from Dave Ziaks of F. A. Hesketh, the Commission scheduled an informal discussion regarding a proposed zone change for the property for sale across from Palomba Drive, the Bissonette Property, presently zoned Residential, for the June 1, 2006 meeting. Commissioner Duren stated part of this area was discussed previously for the transition zoning area on Elm Street.
Chairman DiPace read a letter from Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne Bickley regarding 49 Hazard Avenue and the bank renovations. Mr. Bickley notes on Friday, May 12, 2006, he received a request from Borghesi Builders for a final zoning inspection. There was no as built site plan submitted with the paperwork as required. Mr. Bickley then checked the Planning file and found that there were no site plans nor was there a copy of the signed and recorded special use permit on file. He then checked the Building Department file and found that the building permit was issued by the Chief Building Official without Mr. Bickley’s signature and without a zoning permit. Mr. Bickley noted his signature is required under Connecticut General Statute Section 8-3f prior to a building permit being issued. It is his responsibility as the Town Zoning Enforcement Officer to make sure the Planning and Zoning Commission’s conditions of approval are met prior to signing his name on the building permit. The bank owners are hoping to open soon and this will set them back for an unspecified amount of time. Commissioner Duren noted there are also no mylars signed and no plans signed. Mr. Giner confirmed that the zoning was all taken care of this week. He stated the applicant should have known an as built plan was going to be required because that was part of the conditions of approval. He added the building official and Fire Marshal were at the site today doing their inspections. Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Giner forward all this information, including the letter regarding 49 Hazard Avenue, to the Mayor and the Town Council because such actions will not be tolerated. Mr. Giner confirmed that state law says that you cannot issue a building permit until the zoning enforcement officer says it complies.
Commissioner Duren stated he has noticed a change on some of the plans he has been signing. The Commission requested that one sheet of the plans include the conditions and recently that has not occurred. Commissioner Duren requested that it be a standard procedure to have the conditions on the front sheet of the plans.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission requested that he handle 325 Hazard Avenue administratively and the parking was to be paved. Chairman DiPace read a letter dated May 12, 2006 in which this applicant was requested to pave the area in the next thirty days or restore it to its previous state. Mr. Giner stated he has talked to the owner and they should have the parking area paved within thirty days.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – Continued from April 20, 2006 Meeting
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 tonight.)
Commissioner Hickey recused himself noting that he is an employee of the Facilities Department of the Postal Service.
Matthew Auchy appeared before the Commission regarding this application and requested a special use permit. They are three contractors, an electrical contractor, a site contractor and a carpenter. They are trying to get a change of use because of storage containers they would like to keep on the site. In talking with Mr. Giner and Mr. Bickley, they have heard that in the past the previous tenant did not abide by any of the rules and did not go through Planning and Zoning. The use is nonconforming and they wanted to start off going down the right road.
Chairman DiPace asked if they are using the site as three separate businesses. Mr. Auchy confirmed that they are. Mr. Auchy stated Evergreen Construction is one of the group and they do home construction as well as minor renovations.
Commissioner Duren noted the incompleteness of the plans presented which lack a location map and do not meet the requirements.
Mr. Auchy stated the intent was to offer a plan that was very simple. He also told Commissioner Duren that he has not attended an ART meeting. They have been talking to several people in the Planning Department. Commissioner Duren saw a need for an extension because of the time constraints by state law. Mr. Auchy stated he would give an extension. Commissioner Duren noted there is no correspondence from the Fire Department and Engineering has some concerns.
Commissioner Duren stated under Section 6.30.5, a maximum of six vehicles is allowed. Mr. Auchy stated they realize that and that is another reason they are before the Commission. When they submit again, they intend to change the building currently from a single three offices on the left hand side and modify it to accommodate all three across the front and side. That is being designed and they will make a complete full submission. The idea behind the simplistic plan was only to get them through this initial wrong doing that’s been happening in the past where these people did not come in and go through Planning and Zoning. Mr. Auchy stated they are not changing anything and they have had the building official, Mr. Taylor, at this location. He says the offices and storage space that is currently there is exactly what it is. Nothing is changing.
Chairman DiPace stated this Commission handles the use and currently the use is not what was there.
Commissioner Duren asked that the applicant define a utility trailer. Mr. Giner stated there were preexisting nonconforming uses on the property. Mr. Giner has reviewed the 2004 aerials and whether they were there legally or not is difficult to determine. Mr. Giner noted it looks like there was a bucket loader. Mr. Auchy stated that is M&M Construction.
Chairman DiPace asked if contractor yards are permitted in this zone. Mr. Giner stated they are not. The request is to change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use. It is up to the Commission to determine whether the change is more conforming or not.
Commissioner Duren stated Section 7-10.9 deals with junk and he questioned what is stored on the site. He added former truck bodies are not allowed and they have to be storage containers. Mr. Auchy stated the proposal is to have containers on top of a slab on grade.
Commissioner Duren saw a need for this applicant to go through the ART process.
Commissioner Duren questioned the wetlands on the property. Mr. Auchy stated Mr. Angus has issued a report on the property and it doesn’t appear that there are wetlands. The only thing Mr. Angus found was on one side of the property he asked them to stay approximately five feet off the property line and they have done so. They had a soil scientist come out and he did recommend putting in stand pipes to determine how the water is settling.
Commissioner Duren cited the letter received from Attorney Clinton dealing with a road that is shared. Mr. Auchy stated the only thing they did up to that point as far as any type of digging was to do some digging with a shovel to locate a property pin.
Mr. Giner stated this lot is landlocked and there is no frontage. It is off of an existing right of way in the back so the lot itself is nonconforming with respect to lot frontage but it is a lot. There is a building on it. Mr. Giner included a copy of the aerials in the meeting packet and on the farther shot it shows the lot with the lot in front of it. The front lot contains a nonconforming auto body shop.
Mr. Giner stated he did prepare a request for an extension from this applicant. The aerials that the Commission has were taken by the state in 2004 and the lines shown are rough property lines and not survey ones and may be off somewhat.
Chairman DiPace noted receipt of a memo from John Cabibbo dated today as well as the letter from Fire Marshal Ed Shirley dated today.
Mr. Auchy stated the comments of town staff will be addressed. He just received this information today but was told to come to the meeting to begin the application.
Mr. Auchy stated they are three upstanding contractors who do a lot of business. They are neat and clean and they maintain everything they own including their equipment, yard and building. Changing the use to what they are requesting would be a massive improvement over what the property currently is. Mr. Auchy understands that it is still a nonconforming use but they will make it a treat for the eye from the road.
Chairman DiPace stated anything approved by this Commission will have conditions on it that will be enforced by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. The determination the Commission needs to make is to find out how far they are expanding from one nonconforming use to another. The intent is to go from one nonconforming use to three separate businesses with expansions. Chairman DiPace informed the applicant it might be advisable to go to the ART’s and address the concerns. Mr. Giner stated Mr. Auchy could attend the ART scheduled next Wednesday. He further recommended the extension date be changed to June 15, 2006 to allow sufficient time.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public.
Joseph Bosco, owner of 157 South Road, which is located between South Road and the building Mr. Auchy just purchased, spoke to the Commission regarding this application. He stated Mr. Auchy told the Commission about the various improvements he is going to make but he never asked Mr. Bosco, the owner of the road. Mr. Bosco stated it has taken him thirty-five years to pay for this property. The back property has always contained only one company and he never had a traffic problem at this location. If the Commission now allows Mr. Auchy to locate the three businesses, it is going to put a hardship on his family. He now leases the property to a business. Mr. Bosco’s concern was that his tenant would lose customers because of the increased traffic resulting in the business going under and causing Mr. Bosco to lose the rent. Mr. Bosco stated in the meantime he still has to pay the taxes to the Town of Enfield, the insurance and other expenses. He asked that the Commission take into consideration that this use will create a hardship for him and his tenant. Mr. Bosco presented a paper to the Commission that verifies that he is the owner of the property. Chairman DiPace stated the Commission also has a copy of the original easement agreement dated November 25, 1997.
Mr. Bosco stated the applicant was marking the location of a pipe on his property. Chairman DiPace stated they were only digging to locate the property pin. Mr. Bosco noted this is a private road.
Ray Pacheco, owner of Pacheco & Son, 157 South Road, stated the concern he has is the traffic that will be going up and down the existing road. Their lease specifies they have to take care of the property and this includes the road. Mr. Pacheco stated his concern is the possibility there are going to be construction trucks going up and down this road all day long. He noted the road is a gravel road and when it rains, they have to rake it. Having more traffic in addition to their body shop traffic is a concern since they are responsible for the drive.
Commissioner Duren stated the agreement states there is equal maintenance of that road between the Bosco’s and the owner in the back. Mr. Pacheco stated the last guy that was at that location never took care of it. Commissioner Duren stated they could have sent him a bill according to the agreement since the easement agreement states they are responsible for half the maintenance. Mr. Pacheco stated if he is paying the expenses for half of one hundred trucks per day using the road while he has approximately ten cars, it doesn’t seem fair.
Mr. Auchy stated in response to the comments about the digging, they took the power that was currently run down the property via three utility poles and put it underground to their building on their property. They called for dig safe and because they are 1,000 feet off the road, they had to mark the easement starting from South Road. The digging that was done by him and his partners was with a shovel locating a property pin. There is one property pin that is currently visible which resembles a pipe and the other one was folded over. There was no excavation or no call to the gas company which was listed in the lawyer’s letter. Chairman DiPace asked if permits were taken out to put the electrical underground and Mr. Auchy confirmed that they were. As far as the road goes, Mr. Auchy stated he is a site contractor and he has already been out there twice with his bulldozer and loader grading the road. He noted he will continue to do this. If it becomes an issue with Mr. Bosco, Mr. Auchy stated he would be willing to sign any document necessary. He offered to take care of the entire road including plowing, grading and crowning the road with a compactor. This is what he does for a living and he has no problem doing it in the area where his business would be located.
Mr. Auchy responded to the amount of construction vehicles noting there are three owners that make their offices at this location. The owners are the only ones at this location doing their paperwork. It is three vehicles and assorted trucks and will not be hundreds of trucks. It may be ten vehicles coming and going in a day and this would be no more than Mr. Pacheco has at his establishment.
Chairman DiPace asked how long this building has been operating. Mr. Auchy stated approximately a month to a month and a half.
Mr. Giner asked that Mr. Auchy attend an ART meeting this coming Wednesday at 11:30 a.m.
Chairman DiPace continued this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to grant a 30-day extension to PH#2553. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote. This application will be on the agenda for June 1, 2006 with the meeting location in the Enfield Room. If the application is not ready, it will then be continued to June 15, 2006.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – Continued from May 4, 2006 Meeting
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. (no deadline)
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke regarding PH#2550.
Chairman DiPace continued this public hearing to June 1, 2006.
b. PH#2554 – Application for a Special Use Permit for division of merged lots on the south side of Fairview Avenue, adjacent to the railroad, zoned R-33, Map 20, Lots 90, 344, 345, 346, Mark and Edward Spazzarini, Applicants/Robert F. Kelliher and Donald A. Fortin, Owners. (Must close by 6/1)
This public hearing was continued to June 1, 2006.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2555 – Initiative 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. (Must close by 6/15)
Mr. Giner stated PH#2555 was sent to CRCOG and it was received by them on April 13, 2006 which is well over thirty days. Their next meeting is not scheduled until May 20 and Mr. Giner has not received anything in writing from CRCOG.
Mr. Giner stated the proposed amendment states you can only have one driveway cut per lot in a residential district unless someone comes in and formally asks for another one. It is not designed to be an application process. Someone can request to be on the Commission’s next agenda and explain to the Commission why they need another driveway. There would be no application fee involved.
Chairman DiPace felt this amendment will give the Commission some control so that driveways do not start popping up all over town.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public.
Steve Munse, 10-12 Cooper Street, stated he has firsthand experience with this particular regulation. He owns 10-12 Cooper Street and his neighbor at 8 Cooper owns a flag stick piece of property that goes between Mr. Munse’s house and 1 Gordon Lane. Back in the 1980’s, the property was one parcel. Through some abstract regulation, they were allowed to break up this piece of property and to meet that regulation, they took a flag stick piece of property consisting of 3,000 square feet between Mr. Munse’s house and 1 Gordon Lane. The 8 Cooper Street owner now wants to put a driveway from 1 Gordon Lane right into his backyard for storage of a boat and other items. Based on what the owner is storing on his property now, Mr. Munse would not venture to know what will be stored in the back. He did some investigative research and added he is definitely in favor of this amendment going through. He asked if the Commission wants to get a firsthand look at this situation, that they drive by 10-12 Cooper and 1 Gordon Lane and envision a twenty-foot piece of driveway going through the back which does not make sense.
Chairman DiPace stated he did some research regarding Mr. Munse’s property and the shed that was out back. Mr. Munse confirmed that 10-12 Cooper Street was supplying that shed with power because it was all part of one lot at one time. Chairman DiPace stated when you take a piece of property with a shed and that shed goes to another property, that is an incorrect application and the town is now feeling the ill effects some twenty years later.
Mr. Giner stated the old zoning regulations had a rule that stated if you were doing a first split of your property, you could take eighty percent of the lot area or the frontage. This regulation has since been removed from the ordinance. Frontage now has to be contiguous.
Jay Haire, 1 Gordon Lane, stated he is in favor of this amendment.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve PH#2555 for an amendment to the Enfield Zoning Regulations, Section 3.10 of the regulations, to limit the number of driveways permitted on residential lots. The amendment has an effective date of June 1, 2006. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.
OLD BUSINESS
a. SPR#1362 – Modification to approved plan (change of use from residential to retail use with coffee bar) to waive A-2 Survey, surveying the property for grades, and the need for a digital formatted plan, at 540 Enfield Street, zoned BL, Map 33, Lot 63, Adspresso, LLC, Applicant/Adsmedia LLC, Owner.
Chairman DiPace did not participate in this application.
Mr. Giner stated upon a review of the plans submitted at the last meeting, there was a note on the plans that it was based on an A-2 survey. He asked that the Commission waive the requirement for an A-2 survey. Mr. Giner noted the regulations also require that digital plans be submitted unless waived by the Commission. Mr. Giner stated when that rule was adopted, there was recognition that there may be some surveyors whose business is not yet computerized and there was an escape clause put in which would require a waiver.
Mr. Giner stated minor applications have received such a waiver in the past.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to waive the A-2 survey of the property at 540 Enfield Street as required in SPR#1362. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to waive the requirement of digital format and plan for 540 Enfield Street for SPR#1362. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
NEW BUSINESS
Regarding recently approved PH#2561, Commissioner Duren brought up a typographical error. The Commission’s approval listed two L-1’s regarding the plans and it should be L-1 and L-2. Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to allow the Secretary to correct the number on the plan sheet and sign the plan for PH#2561. The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Applications to be Received
The following applications were received by the Commission:
PH #2557 - Application for a special use permit to unmerge lots #14 and #16 according to 3.20.2 of the Enfield Regulations at 29 Woodlawn Avenue, Zoned R-33, Map 33, Lot #148, Richard Leno, Applicant/Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for June 15, 2006.
PH #2558 - Application for a 3 lot subdivision at 29 Woodlawn Ave, Zoned R-33, Map 33, Lot 148, Richard Leno, Applicant/Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for June 15, 2006.
PH #2559 - Application for a special use permit to hold a weekly cruise night (weather permitting) with award of trophies at 111 Hazard Avenue on a weekly basis (on Tuesday) - hours will be 6-9 p.m. (approximate) to October, Zoned BP, Map 65, Lot 67, Country Diner, Applicant/Colli Management LLC, Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for July 6, 2006 at Alcorn School.
PH #2560 - Petition for Zone Change at 281 State Street, from I-1 to BG, Map #34, Lot #1, Eric Riddle, Applicant,/McLaughlin Enterprises, Inc., Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for July 6, 2006 at Alcorn School.
PH #2561 - Application for a special use permit for the operation of a motor vehicle sales entity (franchised new & used power sports dealership - motorcycles, ATV, scooters, personal water craft and repairs) at 281 State Street Zoned - see above, Eric Riddle, Applicant/McLaughlin Enterprises, Inc., Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for July 6, 2006 at Alcorn School.
PH #2562 - Application for modification of PH #2393 for facade modifications to former Media Play space at 130 Elm Street (Stateline Plaza), Zoned BR, Map 57, Lot 329, Circuit City Stores, Inc., Applicant/Galileo Freshwater/Stateline LLC, Owners.
A public hearing will be scheduled for June 15, 2006.
SPR #1249.2 - Application for modification of approved plans to include a concrete pad to be located near the south east corner of the facility to be used for support of a process cooler and cooling tower, at 2 Peerless Way, Zoned I-1, Map 94, Lot 53, Harley DuLude. Applicant/Owner.
The Commission requested that Mr. Giner handle this application administratively.
SPR #1368 - Application for Administrative Review Approval by the Fourth of July Committee to allow Helicopter landings and take offs on Higgins Field as part of the 4th of July Celebration.
The Commission requested that Mr. Giner handle this application administratively.
SPR #1369 - Application for modification of existing Elm Plaza (Kohl's Plaza) site plan for new Famous Footwear retail store (pad previously approved under PH#2500), at 95 Elm St., Zoned BR, Map 43, Lot 1, Kimco Realty Corp. Applicant/KIOP Enfield L.P., Owner.
SPR #1370 - Application to paint building and roof at 117 Elm Street (Burger King), Zoned BG, Map 43, Lot 8, FPS Associates, Applicant/Owner.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman DiPace brought up the aquifer protection regulations which the state is requiring that towns provide. He further noted that the Commission previously asked that staff notify businesses regarding the fees that will be instituted by these regulations. Mr. Giner stated the regulations have to go to a public hearing and he will ask someone from the state to be present at the public hearing. Chairman DiPace stated that every business located on an aquifer will have to register every five years and be required to pay fees. Chairman DiPace requested that a public hearing be scheduled for July 20, 2006.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr
|