|
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
JULY 6, 2006
1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A regular meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, July 6, 2006 at the Enfield Community Center, 100 High Street, Enfield Connecticut. Chairman DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. and led the assembly in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
2. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Charles Duren
Jeffrey Cooper
James Hickey, Jr.
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
Charles Ladd, Alternate
Karen Weseliza
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
Commissioners Sarno and Ladd were seated as full voting members.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of Minutes – May 18, 2006:
A motion was made by Commissioner Hickey and seconded by Commissioner Cooper to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 18, 2006. Vote was 7-0-0.
Approval of Minutes – June 1, 2006:
A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper and seconded by Commissioner Hickey to approve the minutes of the meeting of June 1, 2006. Vote was 6-0-1(Sarno).
4. STAFF COMMENTS
a. Town Attorney (in person)
The Town Attorney was not present. No report.
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer (written):
No Report.
c. Director of Planning:
Mr. Giner suggested adding two items to the agenda. The first is for discussion of change of façade for Brookside Plaza. The second item is regarding the current bonding regulations.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hickey and seconded by Commissioner Cooper to add two items to the agenda under “Other Business” and move current item a. Applications to be accepted, to c.
New items to be added: a. Brookside Plaza façade;
b. Bonding Regulation changes. Vote was 7-0-0.
Mr. Giner reported that he took photos with Ms. Turner at Pheasant Hill. The photos are of the area along the fence and then coming from the condo side. The photos show the vines climbing. The vines can be taken down before they kill trees.
Commissioner Cooper requested copies of the photos.
Mr. Giner explained that they are digital photos, on the computer. If the Commissioners prefer, he will bring a laptop computer and projector to the next meeting so that all of the members can see the photos in color.
Mr. Giner added that the Commission’s next meeting is scheduled for July 20, 2006 and should be back in the Council Chambers at Town Hall.
None of the Commissioners had any questions for Mr. Giner at this time.
5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Mr. Frank Dubish of 42 O’Hear Avenue stated that the owners of 40 O’Hear Avenue are running a business with trucks and asked if the Commission had any information on this.
Mr. Giner responded that the Building Official and the Zoning Enforcement Officer were at the site last week. Mr. Bickley has stated that the apartment above the garage complies with the law as an in-law apartment. Mr. Giner had written a letter regarding other issues at that address.
Chairman DiPace referred to Mr. Bickley’s memo and a copy of the document giving permission by the owners for inspection.
Mr. Dubish stated that the addition was built 4 years ago and asked if this sort of thing is happening all over town, waiting 4 years to be inspected. The area above the garage was to be for storage only.
Mr. Dubish provided photos of two storage sheds that were there in 2003. There are also numerous vehicles and landscape equipment, including a bobcat.
Commissioner Sarno asked if this is the person’s business address.
Mr. Dubish stated that it was supposed to be just for a home office but the owner has plows, trucks, etc. This has been going on for 13 years and has gone on way too long.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if the issue is having a business or a 2 family home.
Mr. Giner stated that Mr. Bickley issued a Home Occupancy business permit with up to one commercial vehicle, within the guidelines, allowed. The issue now is whether the owner has exceeded the parameters of a home occupation.
Mr. Dubish stated that the owner built a 3-bay garage to house equipment. Personal vehicles are parked outside all winter so that the equipment can go in the garage and utility shed. He also submitted a copy of the portion of regulations pertaining to equipment that is or is not allowed, such as the bobcat.
Mr. Giner stated that the owner has a legal in-law apartment. It was originally a garage with storage above and then a permit was obtained for an in-law apartment.
Mr. Dubish asked when the owner came in for the in law permit. Mr. Dubish has a copy of a permit dated early in 2006 but the area was originally used as an in-law apartment from day one as part of his 2002 building permit to construct a garage.
Chairman DiPace confirmed that Mr. Bickley has been out to the property.
Mr. Giner stated that Mr. Bickley visited the site most recently on June 22, 2006. The Town does not have an ordinance allowing fines. The only remedy available is to require obtaining a permit, if the applicant is able. This ends the violation as long as it complies. The Council could adopt regulations to allow fines.
Mr. Dubish feels that no one inspected the site during construction of the garage.
Chairman DiPace stated that it was originally planned as storage but then finished off. It is currently in compliance.
Mr. Dubish expressed his displeasure regarding the business at the property. Especially with the bobcat use. This is supposed to be a residential area and he feels this is too much heavy equipment for a residential area.
Commissioner Sarno agrees that the owner must have a lot of equipment because this is the same person who has done work at her condominium complex.
Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Bickley check the property this week, as soon as possible. Mr. Dubish has provided photos, dated this week, which show 2 sanders and a bobcat. These are not permitted residentially, and must be removed.
Mr. Dubish also noted that the owner has workers and other trucks – 5 – which are stored in the garage. He noted that the trucks all leave after a complaint call is made to the Town Hall and after the inspection, the trucks all reappear.
Mr. Giner noted that he was at the site once and saw one extra truck. At that time, Mr. Bickley notified the property owner that there was a violation.
Mr. Giner went on to say that this is “a moving target”. This is the second time he has dealt with this issue and has discussed it with the Town Attorney.
Mr. Giner added that he has requested that all complaints be submitted in writing. They can be answered in writing and any disputes with the determination of the zoning enforcement officer can be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals if necessary. He also added that the Town cannot enter the owner’s garage without a search warrant.
Chairman DiPace stated that the photos show a bobcat. It is clearly commercial equipment and should not be there. The equipment must be removed.
Mr. Dubish stated that he hopes it will not just be moved into the garage.
Commissioner Weseliza stated that the evidence shows that he’s doing more than his own yard work on the property.
Chairman DiPace requested that the issue of Zoning fines be added to the first September agenda.
Mr. Dubish also brought up that the owner has a bright light on outside of his house that lights up the adjoining property. This is against regulations.
Chairman DiPace asked if it is in the commercial or residential regulations.
Mr. Dubish stated that it is 7-10.6 in the residential regulation.
Mr. Giner stated that it is in the General Standards.
Chairman DiPace noted that Mr. Bickley does not work nights so it will be difficult to inspect.
Mr. Dubish stated that he will send photos to Mr. Giner.
Chairman DiPace reminded Mr. Dubish to put complaints in writing in the future so that if he is not satisfied with the response received, it can be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Ms. Suzanne Dubish of 42 O’Hear Avenue also complained about 40 O’Hear Avenue. She stated that she has written letters to Mr. Giner and also called him. She feels that he and Mr. Bickley lied to her. She feels that the Town is stalling.
She also feels that the owner believes that he is above the law because of town employees that he knows.
She also complained about the height of snow piles created by the owner and lack of line of sight created by the piles.
Chairman DiPace stated that personal attacks on staff would not be tolerated. Mr. Bickley will be out to inspect tomorrow, or as soon as possible.
Regarding the storage containers, the Town did not have regulations on them several years ago. The regulations were just modified a few months ago, but the existing ones are grandfathered.
Chairman DiPace reiterated his plan to discuss instituting zoning fines at the first meeting scheduled in September.
Chairman DiPace then asked Mr. Giner if a person applies for a building permit prior to start of construction, if there is one set of fees, but a different set if application is made after the fact.
Mr. Giner stated that it there is such a provision in the Council approved ordinance. Planning does not set fees. He also added that he has continuously requested that complaints be put in writing to create a legal document and the ability for the Town to respond.
Chairman DiPace suggested that if Mr. Bickley is not available tomorrow to inspect the property, that perhaps Virginia Higley, Zoning Technician, could perform the inspection.
Mr. Giner noted that he will be out of the office in the morning and is unsure of the staffing level during his absence.
Mr. “Reg” Leonard of 42 Fairfield Road asked the progress of the PZC’s request to Town Council for additional powers to extend the limit of fines to those tying into town sewers.
Chairman DiPace was unsure if the Town Council acted on the request.
Mr. Giner was also unsure.
Chairman DiPace asked Mr. Giner to request a written response from the Town Council on this matter.
6. CORRESPONDENCE:
Chairman DiPace noted receipt of four items of correspondence:
* Copy of letter sent certified mail, dated 6/21/06 from Mr. Bickley to William Guzie regarding zoning violation at 275 Brainard Road – landscape business and commercial vehicles.
* Summary of zoning, subdivision and POCD referrals from CRCOG, 6/22/06-6/28/06
* Inland Wetlands & Watercourses, June 6, 2006 Notice of Action
* Inland Wetlands & Watercourses, June 20, 2006 Notice of Action
7. COMMISSIONER’S CORRESPONDENCE:
a. Discussion on McDonalds in Scitico Plaza landscape substitution:
A letter was received regarding removal of bushes located between the drive up windows at the McDonald’s restaurant in Scitico Plaza. The existing bushes were rubbing up against cars. Mr. Giner has recommended that non-spreading type bushes, not daylilies be planted.
It was the consensus of the Commissioners that the bushes recommended by Mr. Giner will work. Commissioner Duren cautioned that they should be bushes that are low growing.
b. Discussion on Happy Times Preschool at 133 Post Road:
Mr. Giner explained that the applicant is looking for an interpretation of the term “daycare” verses “nursery school” approval. The site has currently has a nursery school special use permit but not it is not clear if this includes daycare.
He also stated that the license granted by the state includes child care and pre-school. The Town’s regulations are not specific as to whether or not a nursery school can also be considered a daycare. The State does not recognize the term “nursery school”.
Commissioner Duren asked how both entities could have the same address.
Mr. Giner stated that the parcel had originally been one address but had been split.
Chairman DiPace recalled a recent application for a daycare.
Mr. Giner stated that it was for a site plan. A public hearing was not required for that. They then requested a public hearing for the daycare. The applicant now before the Commission had a public hearing and received a Special Use Permit because the business is in a residential area.
Mr. Giner read from the applicant’s license to run a Child Day Care Center, with approval for the service of preschool.
It is Mr. Giner’s understanding that the applicant is not looking to change any aspect of the current business except to expand the hours to accommodate parents.
Ms. DelGreco stated that the State does not differentiate between daycare, nursery school or preschool. However, the local town approval must state that it is a daycare. She requested that the PZC allow this change through an administrative review process.
Chairman DiPace stated that Ms. McCord’s Special Use Permit was specifically for a nursery school. If the state does not differentiate between the terms, there should not be a problem for the applicant to receive a license. If there is a difference, then the applicant needs to come before Planning and Zoning for approval of a daycare or modification for change of a special use permit. He gave an example of another applicant in town that is only requesting a change in hours for an approved use. They are scheduled for the July 20, 2006 PZC meeting.
Ms. DelGreco stated that the programs at the school will not change. It is only for children over the age of three and is an educational facility. The State does, however, require that the town’s special use permit specifically state child care. She feels it would be easier for everyone if the town’s regulations stated that childcare is part of nursery school or preschool.
Chairman DiPace offered Ms. DelGreco the option of obtaining a letter from the State saying that they do not recognize a difference between nursery school, preschool and daycare. Otherwise, the applicant will need to apply for a modification of the special use permit.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if the applicant was looking for the change to begin in September.
Ms. DelGreco responded that she was anticipating receiving it this month. She didn’t realize it would be an issue.
Chairman DiPace reiterated the need to either get a letter from the State or to apply for a modification of special use permit.
Other CORRESPONDENCE:
Chairman DiPace noted receipt of the following items of correspondence:
* American Planners Association list of elected officers,
* recent issue of American Conference of Municipalities newsletter,
* invitation from the D.E.P. to a “No Discharge Area” ceremony on July 12, 2006 at 4:30 p.m. in Essex
* July, 2006 issue of American Planning Association
* May/June 2006 issue of CT Wildlife
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued from June 15, 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)
This item was continued.
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 July 6)
Commissioner Duren read into the record, a letter from the applicant requesting withdrawal of this application.
A motion was made by Commissioner Weseliza, seconded by Commissioner Hickey to accept withdrawal without prejudice. Vote was 7-0-0.
READING OF THE LEGAL NOTICE
Legal notice of the public hearing was read by Commissioner Duren.
Present were: Anthony DiPace, Chairman, Charles Duren, Jeffrey Cooper, James Hickey, Jr., Kathleen Sarno, Alternate, Charles Ladd, Alternate, and Karen Weseliza Also present was Jose Giner, Director of Planning.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH #2565 - Subdivision for 7 lots on 17.3 acres with public water and sewer situated at 78 Post Office Road on the south side of Post Office Road and the north side of Oliver Road (Map 47, Lot 10) R-44 and I-1 zones - Marilyn Tyler, Cons. For John Mokrycki, Jr. applicant/owner. (Must close by July 20)
Mr. Tom Tyler of 18 Bridge Lane, Enfield, CT along with Jay Ussary of J. R. Russo represented the applicant. Mr. Tyler explained that Mr. Ursery, Mike Gragnolati, soil scientist, and Kiran Majmudar, engineer had all been part of the original application under Mr. Mokrycki, Jr. Mr. Majmudar and Mr. Gragnolati were unable to attend this evening.
Mr. Tyler briefly explained the reason for his application. He stated that the original application had been approved but the mylars had not been properly recorded in the Town Clerk’s Office within the prescribed time and the approval expired through no fault of the applicant.
He is requesting a reduction of fees and feels that he meets all of the parameters that the reduction rules require.
* application for reduction was made within 60 days of learning that the original approval had expired;
* the previous application had paid all fees in full
* is substantially the same as the one previously filed and approved
* minimal additional staff time will be needed for review and processing of the application.
Mr. Tyler went on to say that he received IWWA approval at their meeting of June 20, 2006.
Mr. Ursery stated that this application has not changed. The parcel is 17.32 acres located on the southwest corner of Post Office and Oliver Roads. There will be 7 lots; 6 facing Post Office Road and the 7th on Oliver Road. It is in R44 zone with a minimum 175’ lot frontage. The subdivided lots range in size from 1.09 acres (47,400 square feet) to 7.75+/- acres (337,128 square feet), exceeding the minimum requirements.
It has all public utilities – gas, sewer, water. The laterals were installed when the sewer was built. Most of the cuts have been made. Also the sidewalks and iron pins are in.
These are all frontage lots and the conceptual house layouts are included for each lot. There will be no new roads and no change for the existing storm water runoff patterns.
There is a small 15” culvert that leaves onto Oliver road, opposite the house on lot #7.
Mr. Giner stated that the applicant has requested a fee in lieu of Open Space if the Commission agrees with the appraisal report.
Mr. Ursery stated that he spoke with Mr. Cabibbo who did not plan on submitting any additional comments. This was confirmed by Mr. Giner.
Also, a letter from the WPCA has been received stating that their comments regarding laterals have been addressed.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if lot #7 is all one lot.
Mr. Ursery replied that it is.
Mr. Tyler added that it is hoped that the size of lots one and 7 will continue to encourage agricultural use and the rural character.
At this time, the hearing was opened for public comment.
Marilyn Cherry of Middlesex Drive read a letter she had written regarding a lack of park and recreational areas in this part of town, other than the schools. She is against this development because of the lack of recreational space and that it will ruin the agricultural characteristics of the area. She asked that the application be denied and that the Town purchase the parcel for recreational use.
She added that there is nothing in the area except school playgrounds and there are no facilities for small children, or even any park benches.
Mr. “Reg” Leonard of Fairfield Road stated that his property abuts the Oliver Road part of the applicant’s parcel. He stated that it is a flat, overgrown site with a tractor and old house on it. On Post Office Road there are 4 nice homes. He feels 7 houses on 17 acres are within the Planning & Zoning guidelines and feels that new houses will enhance the area.
Commissioner Cooper asked if there is any ordinance saying that one cannot bring kids to school playgrounds during school hours.
Commissioner Duren stated that it would be up to the individual school.
This public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Duren and seconded by Commissioner Sarno to approve PH#2565 with conditions.
Mr. Giner noted that the applicant has requested waivers and that they should be addressed prior to the application being approved.
A motion was made by Commissioner Duren to waive the requirements for sidewalks curbing. Vote was 7-0-0.
A motion was made by Commissioner Duren and seconded by Commissioner Cooper to waive the sidewalk requirement. Vote was 7-0-0.
A motion was made by Commissioner Duren and seconded by Commissioner Cooper to waive the requirement for street trees along Oliver Road to avoid disruption within the wetland regulated areas. Vote was 7-0-0.
A motion was made by Commissioner Duren and seconded by Commissioner Hickey to accept the fee-in-lieu of Open Space, based on the recommendation of the Town Planner. Vote was 7-0-0.
A motion was made by Commissioner Duren and seconded by Commissioner Weseliza to approve reduction of application fees to $280. Vote was 7-0-0.
Vote was then taken on Commissioner Duren’s original motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno TO APPROVE PH #2565 - Subdivision for 7 lots on 17.3 acres with public water and sewer situated at 78 Post Office Road on the south side of Post Office Road and the north side of Oliver Road (Map 47, Lot 10) R-44 and I-1 zones - Marilyn Tyler, Cons. For John Mokrycki, Jr. applicant/owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans, as may be required to be modified by this motion, and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Sunny Brook Farms, Subdivision Plan Prepared for John Mokrycki, Jr., Marilyn Tyler, Conservatrix, Post Office Road & Oliver Road, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 1 of 2, Scale: 1”=40’, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 5-31-06, revised to 6-13-06.
“Sunny Brook Farms, Subdivision Plan Prepared for John Mokrycki, Jr., Marilyn Tyler, Conservatrix, Post Office Road & Oliver Road, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 2 of 2, Scale: 1”=40’, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 5-31-06, revised to 6-13-06.
“Sunny Brook Farms, Site & Location Plan, John Mokrycki, Jr., Marilyn Tyler, Conservatrix, Post Office Road & Oliver Road, Enfield, Connecticut.” Drawing 1 of 2, Scale: “Noted”, by L.P. Consultants, dated 5-31-06 and revised to 6-13-06.
“Sunny Brook Farms, Site Plan, John Mokrycki, Jr., Marilyn Tyler, Conservatrix, Post Office Road & Oliver Road, Enfield, Connecticut.” Drawing 2 of 2, Scale: “Noted”, by L.P. Consultants, dated 5-31-06 and revised to 6-13-06.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Mylars:
1. The Town Engineer shall review and approve the final plans.
2. Water Pollution Control review and approval required prior to signing of final plans.
3. The Final Mylars shall contain the application number “PH #2565” prominently displayed on each sheet above or near the Title Block.
4. The applicants have chosen to offer a fee–in-lieu of Open Space. The appraisal for the pre-development value of the property is $170,000 resulting in a total payment of $17,000 as fees-in-lieu of Open Space. A note shall be placed on each lot on the mylars stating that a $2,429 per lot fee is owed to the Town of Enfield prior to the first sale of each lot.
5. All mylars submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
6. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of this approval motion shall be incorporated onto the final mylars prior to the signing of the mylars.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits or start of construction:
7. Two sets of final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to signature to the Commission. One set of signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk and one set shall be retained by the planning department.
8. Final plans reflecting the approval of the Commission shall also be submitted in a digital format prescribed by the Director of Planning.
9. Signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk no later than ninety (90) days from the expiration of the appeal period or this approval shall be null and void. The applicants shall provide such mylars to the Planning Department sufficiently in advance of this deadline to allow for review of the plans and the arrangement for the Commission Secretary to sign the mylars. The applicant may request an extension of the filing deadline in accordance with Section 8-25 of the CT. General Statutes. Any extension requests must be received in time to allow the Commission to act on them before the original deadline expires.
10. Erosion controls will be required for building permit approval of each individual lot.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Zoning Certificate of Compliance:
11. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
12. No certificates of compliance shall be issued until the Enfield Water Pollution Control Division has inspected and approved the sewer connection for the project.
13. No certificates of compliance shall be issued until the Water Company has inspected and approved the water delivery system for the project.
General Conditions:
14. 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.
15. This project is subject to conditions of approval from the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency filed separately in the Planning Department.
16. 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 of this approval. Vote was 7-0-0
10. OLD BUSINESS
a. 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:
Tabled.
11. NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR #1373 - Application for change of use to middle unit at 71 Hazard Ave., (formerly orthodontist office) to Beauty Salon for 4 stylists Zoned BL, Map 56, Lot 36, Erin Handfield, Applicant/Glen Toner & Dale Roberts, Owners.
Ms. Erin Handfield and Ms. Sue Ann Lennon represented the applicant.
Chairman DiPace asked if there will be any exterior changes.
Ms. Handfield stated that there will not be any exterior changes. The only changes will be interior, changing from an orthodontist’s office to a hair salon.
A motion was made by Commissioner Duren and seconded by Commissioner Weseliza TO APPROVE SPR #1373 - Application for change of use to middle unit at 71 Hazard Ave., (formerly orthodontist office) to Beauty Salon for 4 stylists Zoned BL, Map 56, Lot 36, Erin Handfield, Applicant/Glen Toner & Dale Roberts, Owners. Vote was 7-0-0.
After discussion of SPR #1316.02, Commissioner Duren modified his previous motion and Commissioner Weseliza modified her previous motion on SPR #1373 to include the following conditions:
This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans, as may be required to be modified by this motion, and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Floor Plan, Middle Unit, 71 Hazard Ave.” undated.
General Conditions:
1. 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.
2. This project shall 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.
3. 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 of this approval. Vote was 7-0-0.
b. SPR #1316.02 - Application to relocate a cardboard dumpster to a location which has been approved by Fire Marshal at 54 Hazard Avenue for 99 Restaurant, Zoned BR, Map 56, Lot 26, Michael Amato, Applicant/Hazard Avenue Associates, Owners.
Mr. Michael Amato, construction manager for 99 Restaurant, represented the applicant. He explained that the dumpsters are currently open containers. He has been working with the Town to put them in a contained area, closer to the building. It is a safety issue and is required by the Fire Department. It will be three sided, with a fence.
Commissioners reviewed Mr. Giner’s memo and proposed conditions of approval.
Commissioner Duren made a motion TO APPROVE SPR #1316.02 - Application to relocate a cardboard dumpster to a location which has been approved by Fire Marshal at 54 Hazard Avenue for 99 Restaurant, Zoned BR, Map 56, Lot 26, Michael Amato, Applicant/Galileo Enfield Stop & Shop LLC , Owners.
This approval is subject to conformance with the submitted plans, as may be required to be modified by this motion, and the following conditions:
General Conditions:
1. The dumpster shall be constructed on a pad that meets the Town of Enfield’s minimum standards.
2. The dumpster shall be screened in a similar fashion as the existing dumpster next to the building.
3. 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.
4. This project shall be 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.
5. 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 of this approval.
12. BOND RELEASES
a. SPR #1368 - Request by Dan Roulier Builder for release of Engineering Bond in the amount of $127,800 and Erosion & Sediment Bond in the amount of $7,200 for the Medical Building on 170 Hazard Ave.
No action. There was no information provided to the Commissioners on this request for release of bond.
b. PH #2485 - Request by Hazardville Water for release of Site Bond (combined with erosion and sediment for 1 bond) in the amount of $18,610 for Bucken Road Water Storage Tank (off Marion Place)
c.
A motion was made by Commissioner Duren and seconded by Commissioner Cooper to recommend release of bond. Vote was 7-0-0.
13. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Brookside Plaza Façade:
A representative of Brookside Plaza presented proposed changes to the façade of the Brookside Plaza. Two alternatives were shown.
Chairman DiPace requested balancing of the roof line, otherwise he stated that he is in favor of the plans.
The applicant stated that he feels that the owner would be agreeable to this in order to expedite the start of construction.
A motion was made by Commissioner Duren and seconded by Commissioner Hickey to handle this matter administratively. Vote was 7-0-0.
b. Bonding Issues:
Mr. Giner explained that the current regulations require up front bonding for public improvements.
Site plans have also been requiring bonding up front, but his office has had questions as to why this up front bonding is necessary. The Certificate Of Occupancy could be held up as an alternative to the bonding, to make sure that unfinished work is completed. Or, the bonding could be required after the fact, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Chairman DiPace asked how a road can go in without bonding? This should be allowed on private property, where the Town is not liable. He feels that the Planning & Zoning Commission is not at fault for being unfriendly to businesses.
Chairman DiPace continued, stating that he feels that a bond should be posted after construction, at the time of a Certificate of Occupancy. Private engineers now have to certify that all of the work is completed correctly; the Town does not inspect private improvements on private property.
Only Erosion and Sedi |