|
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 20, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, July 20, 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
James Hickey, Jr.
Charles Duren
Jeffrey Cooper
Jason Jones
Karen Weseliza
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
Charles Ladd, Voting Alternate
Nicles Lefakis, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to approve the Minutes of July 6, 2006. The Minutes were approved by a 6 – 0 – 1 vote with Alternate Sarno voting and Commissioner Jones abstaining.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace noted correspondence includes a letter regarding an Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Agency permit addressed to Mr. Flagg of the Hazardville Water Company, a letter confirming a wetlands permit to Benderson Property Development Company, the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency Notice of Action dated July 5, 2006, the Historic District Notice of Action dated July 12, 2006, a memo from Wayne Bickley regarding 40 O’Hear Avenue dated July 13, 2006 with pictures attached and a letter to Kathy DelGreco from the State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health, regarding New England Preschool Academy.
Chairman DiPace addressed the last item from New England Preschool Academy which is a request to expand the hours of the day care. The consensus of the Commission was they would sign off on the permit.
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of a letter from the Enfield Montessori School that was distributed to parents. Also received was an article from the Hartford Courant regarding town centers and a summary of zoning and subdivision referrals from the Capital Region Council of Governments.
Mr. Giner requested that the Commission add two items to the agenda under bond releases. The Commission will not be meeting in August and the meeting packet includes a memo from the Assistant Planner regarding landscaping bond releases for Enfield Transit Mix and Camerota’s truck business for the new building constructed on Shaker Road. Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to add two items to tonight’s agenda under Bond Releases, b. Enfield Transit Mix and c. Camerota’s. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote with Alternate Ladd voting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PH#2563 – 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).
Mr. Giner will re-advertise this hearing for September, 2006, due to the many continuances.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – NEW
a. PH#2563 – Modification of Condition #2 of approved Special Use Permit PH#1414.02 to change the approved hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 to 7:00 a.m. and not on Sundays, to allow unrestricted hours of operation up to a maximum of 90 hours per week for an existing crematorium at 61 South Road, zoned R-33, Map 73, Lot #88/ Portion of Lot 89, Leete-Stevens, Inc., Owner/Applicant.
Attorney Thomas Fahey, 487 Spring Street, Windsor Locks, and Richard Stevens, the principal of Leete Stevens, Inc. appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
Attorney Fahey stated Leete Stevens, Inc. operates the Leete-Stevens Funeral Home at 61 South Road which has a crematory. The Special Use Permit was granted on September 8, 2005, PH#1414.02, and they are seeking a modification to that permit. Attorney Fahey requested that the record of PH#1414.02 be incorporated into this public hearing including all the submissions, transcripts and rulings. The specific condition of approval they are requesting a modification to is Condition #2 which is included in the notice of this hearing. Currently the crematory pursuant to the permit can operate from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and from 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. but not on Sunday. This is a total of 90 hours per week currently.
Attorney Fahey stated they are not seeking to modify the total number of hours per week but to simply have them unrestricted as to when the hours occur. The reason for this request is the demand of the consumers that use the services of the Leete-Stevens Funeral Home and Crematory. The current hours have caused some inconvenience and disappointment in two respects, religious and cultural. The religious demand of some people has created a demand for some Sunday cremations. Also, in terms of the timing of these creations, in many cases there are people that have services in the morning during the weekdays and the demand has risen after the service is completed to have the cremation take place then. Since they are now limited with hours from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., there is not enough time to complete the cremation which is a source of some inconvenience and disappointment to the people. This seems to be more of the direction of funerals and Mr. Stevens’ client base would like the convenience of having the entire service, including the cremation, occur all at once. There have been some difficulties in serving the public because of the present hours.
Attorney Fahey questioned how this would be monitored and how the Commission will know they are not going to exceed ninety hours per week. The present state regulations include a very detailed log book which is monitored by the state. They would propose to make this log available to town staff on a monthly basis at the site or mailed to the town. This log will show what the hours are but they would delete the names for privacy reasons. Attorney Fahey stated he is not personally aware of any similar restrictions in terms of hours of operation or total hours of any other operating crematory in Connecticut.
Attorney Fahey stated they would like to indicate regarding what impact any of this would have that based on the findings of the Special Use Permit, the Commission concluded the application met the criteria for the protection of the general public health and welfare, comfort and convenience of the residents and is harmonious with the appropriate and orderly development of the area. The Commission also concluded the use did not create any hazardous waste issues, that the equipment met all federal and state requirements and that the noise was within the town regulations. In fact, some Commissioners indicated they had visited operating crematories and heard or smelled nothing. The Commission also concluded there was no negative impact on property values after an evaluation of an extensive record and two lengthy public hearings.
In view of this, Attorney Fahey stated there doesn’t appear that there are any negative implications to adjusting the times of operation. He also noted that since the issuance of this permit in September, Mr. Stevens has not received any complaints about the noise or emissions from anyone at the state or local level. To the contrary, his customers and those who use the services for the preparation of the body for burial have been very appreciative. They have noted the convenience and opportunity to do everything and it is those same customers that have created the demand for the modification to the hours requested today.
Attorney Fahey read some letters from the abutters. One was dated July 5, 2006 from Frank Newport, 75 South Road, Enfield writing in favor of the change. Another was a letter dated July 7, 2006 from Daniel Hinckley, the owner of 57 South Road, writing in support of the change of hours. The final letter was from Mary Raffia, 64 South Road, dated July 7, 2006 supporting the change requested. Attorney Fahey also submitted the P&Z minutes of the meeting of September 8, 2006 and copies of the notice of action.
Commissioner Weseliza asked what the current hours of operation are. Mr. Stevens estimated about twenty-five to thirty hours as an average with more or less in some weeks. He confirmed he has not ever reached ninety hours per week.
Commissioner Weseliza noted the original hours that were agreed upon had to do with children walking to school. Mr. Stevens stated there were allegations that cremations would emotionally affect children walking to school. Attorney Fahey stated they never agreed to the hours mandated but those were the conditions placed upon the applicant.
Commissioner Cooper asked how many hours Carmon’s Funeral Home operates. Mr. Stevens was unsure of the amount but he stated he knows they do more cremations than he does. They also operate on Sunday or whenever the need arises.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if a vote was necessary this evening.
Commissioner Jones stated he has not reviewed the minutes and was not on the Commission during the original application and he would like an opportunity to review them prior to voting.
Commissioner Duren asked about the various religious problems that Mr. Stevens may run into. Mr. Stevens stated they serve many ethnic and religious groups today. One is the Hindu religion with a service of two to three hours. The men then carry the casket to the crematory and they stay for the duration of the cremation. What they like to do is take the cremated remains back to India with them. Mr. Stevens has tried to accommodate them by doing the service in two days. This has occurred six or seven times. The Buddhist families also like to have the cremation take place right after the service and they have a similar ceremony as the Hindu’s. There are Christian families that opt for cremation and they may be from different parts of the country and want to take the cremated remains back with them. If they have a service on Saturday evening, a cremation cannot be done on Sunday and they have to wait until Monday. Mr. Stevens stated he is restricted by what the Commission has dictated to him and customers wish they could have the service provided to them. Mr. Stevens stated they also have families that stay until after the cremation and they are restricted by the hours. Jewish patrons like to have cremations on Sunday. Mr. Stevens saw a need to work to meet the needs of this blended community.
Commissioner Weseliza asked about the length of cremations. Mr. Stevens stated it can vary but some will take longer depending on the circumstances. It would not be less than three or more than five hours. Their log book documents each cremation and it is inspected annually by the state.
Mr. Stevens stated the ability of having this crematory in their facility is putting people’s needs at ease. It is so important because there are some families that come and want to see that person placed in the crematory.
Chairman DiPace asked Mr. Giner if he has received any complaints about this use. Mr. Giner stated he is not aware of any complaints.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public.
No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Commissioner Lefakis noted there was a reference made to Carmon’s in Windsor not having restrictions. He asked if this use is located in a business or residential area. Mr. Stevens stated their crematory is located less than 300’ from a house that sits behind their facility. There is a car dealership next to them. The crematory is located on the southwest corner of their property and they have another located in the building itself. The building is located in a business zone. The mother of Mr. Carmon lives on the second floor of the funeral building.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if this business should change hands, would the approved hours of operation still be maintained or would the Commission have recourse to go back and revisit the hours. Chairman DiPace stated the condition would go with the business and the conditions are filed on the land records.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Action on this application was tabled to the September 7 meeting. Mr. Giner stated a vote by the Commission would be needed by the second meeting in September.
b. PH # 2564 – Special Use Permit under Section 3.40.1 c of the Enfield Zoning Regulations to allow a change from one non-conforming use (automotive general repairs license) to another (wholesale used vehicles dealer) at 41 Mullen Rd. in an R-44 District, Map 49 Lot 1, Paul Varno, applicant; John Sheehan, owner.
Chairman DiPace recused himself from this application and left the hearing room. Vice-Chairman Hickey presided. Alternate Lefakis participated for Chairman DiPace.
Paul Varno, 44 Indian Run, appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated he would like to change the use of the property at 41 Mullen Road from General Repairer to Used Car which is a different level of motor vehicle use. His intent is to run a wholesale used car business on the property and use the local auction to sell the vehicles.
Commissioner Lefakis asked if repairs would still occur on the property. Mr. Varno confirmed that there would be and such repairs would be open to the public on a very limited basis. His goal is to sell twenty vehicles per month which would break down to five or six vehicles per week with a maximum of twenty vehicles on the property. Mr. Varno stated there would not always be twenty vehicles on the property.
Commissioner Weseliza asked if the change proposed would be a change to Business General. Mr. Giner stated it is a residential district and the current use is nonconforming. The request is to convert the business to a different nonconforming use. Commissioner Weseliza questioned if such use has to be more conforming in order to be approved. Mr. Giner stated one of the questions he had was whether auto body work would be done on the site. Mr. Varno stated his basic thing is to recondition vehicles. Some would probably require a small amount of touch up work but it would not be major collision repair or that type of auto body work.
Commissioner Ladd asked if painting will occur. Mr. Varno stated there would be a small amount of painting to address scratches and dents. The facility is equipped with a spray booth and fire equipment. The former use of this facility was an auto body repair shop with general repair open to the public.
Commissioner Cooper asked about the limits of the repair work. Mr. Varno stated repairs would be limited to reconditioning a vehicle by doing any type of repair work that needed to be done to make the car ready for sale.
In response to a question from Commissioner Cooper regarding hours of operation, Mr. Varno stated his hours would probably be from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday with no Sunday hours.
Commissioner Duren asked if Mr. Varno is planning to continue the general repairer’s license. Mr. Varno stated it comes under the used car dealer license. He would also like to have the ability to address individuals that come to his business with vehicles.
Mr. Giner stated the license would allow retail sales and the Commission could limit it to say no retail sales. Commissioner Duren stated the proposal is a wholesale use and this to him means selling to other dealers and not to individual members of the public. Mr. Varno stated with the license, the only restrictions regarding wholesale and retail would come from the town. Commissioner Duren stated this use is already nonconforming and it would become more nonconforming by allowing members of the public to have repairs done.
Mr. Varno stated the only difference with the new license is he would have the ability to buy and sell cars on a wholesale level. The business has already been run as a body shop and a general repairs use. Mr. Varno stated he does not plan to sell cars to the general public.
Commissioner Duren felt this would be an expansion of a nonconforming use.
Commissioner Hickey felt the present use is a more intense use than what is proposed.
Commissioner Lefakis asked if any vehicles that were repaired at this location were also sold.
Mr. Giner stated the material provided to the Commission shows the present use with the cars for sale in the front.
Commissioner Lefakis stated if the work is going to be geared primarily to wholesale, it would seem to him that the use would be less intensive because you would not have the influx of many retail customers. Commissioner Jones stated the proposal is to still offer limited retail with repairs.
Some discussion followed regarding the fact that this use is in a residential zone.
Commissioner Hickey stated the Commission does have the authority to determine the conformity of this location and grant a special use permit. Mr. Giner stated the Commission may approve a special use permit that allows a change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use after making findings that such change is more nearly conforming to the regulations and that such change is more compatible with abutting land uses. The question is whether the proposal is more or less nonconforming.
Commissioner Duren stated the fact that the owner is going to keep the auto body repairs and adding to them with the car sales is, in his opinion, an increase in a nonconforming use. Commissioner Jones agreed.
Mr. Varno stated most garages that are in the auto body business have collision vehicles and smashed cars waiting for insurance appraisals. He would not be in that type of business. He will be buying vehicles that may have scratches or dents and require minor repairs. He is not looking for retail business but would like an approval for it in order to increase income.
Commissioner Hickey stated the use is already a nonconforming use as a body shop. With the addition of wholesale business, the question before the Commission is whether this a more intensive use.
Mr. Giner stated to his knowledge there were no retail sales associated with the previous use. There was a file dated 1989, PH#1626, where the applicant had applied to allow used car sales but that was later withdrawn.
Mr. Giner asked if the repairs that will be offered to the public are general repairs only or will there be auto body work. Mr. Varno stated he would not be doing body work for the public.
Commissioner Jones asked with the wholesale dealership, where is Mr. Varno planning to store the cars prior to sale. Mr. Varno stated on the property. In the back there is an area designated that would hold approximately fifteen cars and there are also a few spaces in the front. He would be parking in the front of the building.
Mr. Giner stated the previous plan shows five parking spaces along the westerly side all inside a chain link fence. He presented the previous plan to the Commission for their review.
Commissioner Hickey stated the lot is 250’ deep and he asked if Mr. Varno is planning on storing cars all the way back rather than in the parking area designated on the plan. Mr. Varno stated the present parking area is all overgrown. There’s about twenty feet behind the fence to the brush and tree line. Mr. Giner stated behind this use there are wetlands shown on the map.
Mr. Giner suggested a proposed condition that vehicles awaiting repair be stored within the fenced-in area.
Commissioner Hickey asked if there will be twenty cars at one time on the site. Mr. Varno stated there will only be five or six cars per week.
Mr. Giner discussed the proposed conditions. He recommended designating the front area for licensed cars only.
Commissioner Duren asked if a dumpster is required. Mr. Varno stated there is a dumpster located on the property. He would not be changing the exterior of the property but only the license. He plans to do the work himself at this time.
Commissioner Sarno asked about the procedure for selling the wholesale cars. Mr. Varno stated the car is bought from the wholesale auction and then resold as quickly as possible.
Commissioner Duren had a concern that such a use would become similar to a Southern Auto. Mr. Varno stated a wholesale business would be sold dealer to dealer or an auction. He would not have retail customers coming in. He will not be collecting sales tax for the sales of vehicles. There would be some minor retail sales as far as repairs. Mr. Varno stated it is not his goal to have the last item for his business but it would be an asset to him to have that ability.
Commissioner Jones asked about traffic and how the cars would be delivered from the auction. Mr. Varno stated they would be dropped off by a flat bed truck. He did not predict a high traffic volume.
Commissioner Sarno asked how the retail repairs would be monitored. Commissioner Jones stated with the repair and wholesale business added, to him that would be an increase in use.
Commissioner Ladd had a concern about cars that are not sold immediately and what will happen to them. He discussed a wholesaler on Broad Brook Road. Mr. Varno stated cars will turn over quickly and his site would not be collecting a lot of junk.
Commissioner Jones asked if other car dealerships could purchase cars from this location. Mr. Varno stated it would be from dealer to dealer and he would not have a lot of display items at the site.
Commissioner Hickey opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Commissioner Hickey closed this public hearing.
Mr. Giner discussed the options open to the Commission for action on this application.
A motion was made by Commissioner Duren and seconded by Commissioner Cooper, finding that the application met the criteria of reducing a nonconforming use if subjected to the conditions suggested by the Planning Director and those discussed at the hearing. The vote was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
Commissioner Duren had a concern about tightening some of the conditions for this applicant such as the hours of operation and the area for car storage. Commissioner Jones would like to see a limit on the hours of delivery. Commissioner Cooper would like to see the repairs to the general public completely eliminated.
A motion was made by Commissioner Duren and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve PH # 2564 – Special Use Permit under Section 3.40.1 c of the Enfield Zoning Regulations to allow a change from one non-conforming use (automotive general repairs license) to another (wholesale used vehicles dealer) at 41 Mullen Rd. in an R-44 District, Map 49 Lot 1, Paul Varno, applicant; John Sheehan, owner. This application is subject to conformance with the submitted record and the following conditions:
Conditions:
1. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
2. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records by the owner of the property.
3. This approval is for the specific use identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
4. This approval extinguishes the non-conforming use of the property for auto body and general repairs to the public.
5. There is no site work proposed or approved in conjunction with this application.
6. This project shall be maintained in accordance with the submitted plans and application record. Minor modifications to the plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
7. 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.
8. Hours of operation (including pick-up and delivery of vehicles) are limited to 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday with no Sunday activity permitted.
9. This approval allows only wholesale sales of vehicles. No retail sales to the public are permitted.
10. Parking of vehicles other than licensed cars shall be limited to the fenced in area located in the back of the building.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
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.
Chairman DiPace noted this applicant has not yet appeared before the Inland Wetlands Commission.
A motion was made by Commissioner Duren, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve the application of Matthew Auchy, 167 South Road, as presented. The application was denied by a vote of 0 - 7 - 0.
Reasons given for denial were: The applicants have not responded to requests for application to the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency and, therefore, no report has been received as required by law. The applicants failed to adequately prove that the proposed use of the property was not an increase in the nonconforming use over what was previously there.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR# 1362 – Request under Section 9.10.5 D. for phasing of required bond at 540 Enfield Street to require that only those portions of site work not completed be bonded prior to issuance of a Certificate of Compliance, Ida DiPace, Owner of Adspresso, LLC.
Chairman DiPace recused himself from this application and left the hearing room. Vice-Chairman Hickey presided with Alternate Lefakis sitting in for Chairman DiPace.
Mr. Giner stated this application was discussed at the last meeting regarding the phasing of bonds.
A motion was made by Commissioner Duren and seconded by Commissioner Cooper to approve the phasing of the bond for 540 Enfield Street and require only those portions of the site work not completed to be bonded prior to the issuance of the certificate of compliance. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote. (Mr. Giner is presently working on including this change in the town’s ordinance.)
Commissioner Duren asked why the procedure was changed. Mr. Giner stated passbooks previously were in the town’s name requiring two signatures for withdrawal. Over time, people were able to withdraw those funds. The auditors found the controls were not adequate and suggested to the Finance Department that passbooks not be accepted. The present procedure is a check that gets deposited immediately to an escrow account. Further discussion followed.
b. SPR #1376 - Request for site plan review to construct an 18,900 sq. ft. addition to their existing manufacturing and office facility as well as the extension of the parking area and necessary site improvements at 4 Peerless, Zoned I-1, Map 94, Lot 69, Associated Builders, Applicant/Senior Operations, Inc., Owner.
Peter Wood of Associated Builders appeared before the Commission along with Douglas Mattoon, their architect.
Mr. Mattoon stated they were before this Commission in 2003 and presented this project. Business has been very well for what was originally Sterling Machine and most recently was acquired by a new company called Senior Aerospace. They are before the Commission for a site plan review. Mr. Matoon stated the plan originally was set up so that they could do an expansion off the back. Business has been good and they are now back with an expansion plan.
Mr. Mattoon presented a map showing the new plan. The existing building is approximately 35,000 square feet and the proposed addition would be 18,900 square feet. Sterling Machine and the Aerospace Manufacturing are tool companies that manufacture parts for the aerospace industry. The 18,900 square foot addition is strictly additional manufacturing space. Associated with that is the need for additional parking to accommodate additional staff. They have reconfigured the parking lot to add additional parking spaces as well as to allow the truck turning movements to remain on the site. They have a new door which means it is not a recessed dock but a drive-in. The trucks would come in and back into the door and turn and leave the premises.
In September, 2005, Mr. Mattoon stated they had an ART and received input from the police and fire. They have also been before Inland Wetlands. The Inland Wetlands held a special meeting last night and approved this application.
Mr. Mattoon requested approval of this site plan review. The site is zoned I-1 and the building is conforming to all the zoning regulations and uses permitted in the I-1 district. What is before the Commission is a representation and the building addition will be the expansion of an existing facility. Mr. Mattoon stated the addition would not be visible.
Mr. Mattoon discussed the requirements of landscaping imposed by Inland Wetlands.
Mr. Mattoon stated all the utilities were originally proposed in the existing building. They have done the necessary improvements to the storm water management as a result of the additional parking and impervious area. They are under the maximum impervious area and conform with lot coverage, front and rear yard setbacks, building heights and associated items. This will be their third industrial use on Peerless Way.
Mr. Mattoon stated they have added fourteen spaces beyond what is required to address the swing shift of the company.
A motion was made by Commissioner Weseliza and seconded by Commissioner Hickey to approve SPR #1376 - Request for site plan review to construct an 18,900 sq. ft. addition to an existing manufacturing and office facility as well as the extension of the parking area and necessary site improvements at 4 Peerless Way, Zoned I-1, Map 94, Lot 69, Associated Builders, Applicant/Senior Operations, Inc., Owner. This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Senior Aerospace Proposed Addition, 4 Peerless Way, Enfield, Connecticut” Locus Map, Plan List, Project Contacts, by Associated Builders, Inc. Sheet revised to 7.12.06.
“L-1 Existing Conditions Plan, Sterling Machine 4 Peerless Way, Enfield CT 06083” Sheet # L1-3866, Scale 1”=30’, by Associated Builders, Inc., revised to 6/20/03.
“L-2 Layout and Utility Plan, Sterling Machine 4 Peerless Way, Enfield CT 06083” Sheet # L2-3866, Scale 1”=30’, by Associated Builders, Inc., revised to 12/21/05.
“L-3 Erosion Control and Grading Plan, Sterling Machine 4 Peerless Way, Enfield CT 06083” Sheet # L3-3866, Scale 1”=30’, by Associated Builders, Inc., revised to 12-21-05.
“L-4 Landscape and Lighting Plan, Sterling Machine 4 Peerless Way, Enfield CT 06083” Sheet # P-1, Scale 1/8”= 1’ -0”, by Associated Builders, Inc., revised to 6/20/03
“Demolition Plan, Proposed Building Addition, Senior Aerospace, 4 Peerless Way, Enfield, CT 06083” Sheet # 5904-L1, Scale 1”=30, by Associated Builders, Inc., dated 06.16.06.
“Layout and Materials Plan, Proposed Building Addition, Senior Aerospace, 4 Peerless Way, Enfield, CT 06083” Sheet # 5904-L2, Scale 1”=30, by Associated Builders, Inc., revised to 07.12.06.
“Grading, Utilities + Erosion Control, Proposed Building Addition, Senior Aerospace, 4 Peerless Way, Enfield, CT 06083” Sheet # 5904-L3, Scale 1”=30, by Associated Builders, Inc., revised to 07.12.06.
“Landscape Plan, Proposed Building Addition, Senior Aerospace, 4 Peerless Way, Enfield, CT 06083” Sheet # 5904-L4, Scale 1”=30, by Associated Builders, Inc., revised to 07.12.06.
“Site Details (1) , Proposed Building Addition, Senior Aerospace, 4 Peerless Way, Enfield, CT 06083” Sheet # 5904-L5.1, Scale: “NTS”, by Associated Builders, Inc., revised to 07.12.06.
“Site Details (2) , Proposed Building Addition, Senior Aerospace, 4 Peerless Way, Enfield, CT 06083” Sheet # 5904-L5.2, Scale: “NTS”, by Associated Builders, Inc., revised to 07.12.06.
“Site Details (3) , Proposed Building Addition, Senior Aerospace, 4 Peerless Way, Enfield, CT 06083” Sheet # 5904-L5.3, Scale: “NTS”, by Associated Builders, Inc., revised to 07.12.06
“Elevations, Proposed Building Addition, Senior Aerospace, 4 Peerless Way, Enfield, CT 06083” Sheet # 5904-A3.1, Scale 1/16”= 1’ -0”, by Associated Builders, Inc., dated 06.16.06..
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
2. The Application number, “SPR # 1376” shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
4. Final approval for any new sewer connections must be obtained from the Water Pollution Control Division.
5. Two sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
6. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
7. The applicant shall post a bond for Site improvements in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney.
8. A Separate Erosion and Sediment Control Bond shall be submitted in the form of a passbook, pledged to the Town, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
9. A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
10. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
11. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
General Conditions:
12. 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.
13. This project is also subject to conditions of the Enfield Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency.
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. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by July 20, 2011 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
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.
Mr. Giner stated the Commission did receive a memo from Inland Wetlands regarding this application.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
c. SPR #1377 – Site Plan review for modification of previously approved parking and landscaping layout at 109 Elm St., Zoned BG, Map 43, Lot 7, AAA-Allied Group, LLC, Applicant/Owner.
Arnold Biondi of LP Consultants appeared before the Commission regarding this application. The application is for a modification of the site plan for the Triple A building on 109 Elm Street. The modifications include refurbishing of the site. The major modifications include removing a significant amount of pavement and adding a handicapped ramp to the main entrance on the east side of the building.
Mr. Biondi stated there is a drive-through lane and canopy that has not been used for some time and will be removed. The south and west will have additional grass and landscaping and less pavement. There was a drop-off lane for a previous photo company on the north side of the site and this will also be grassed over with a new curb along the access drive. The handicapped ramp will be on the east side of the building under the overhang. There is a planter there now and that is the location of the handicapped ramp. A new planter with landscaping will be built in front of the existing wall. In addition, there is a dumpster pad located on what is now part of the drive-through lane. At the moment, the dumpster is sitting in a parking space next to the access drive.
Mr. Biondi stated a number of the existing trees are going to be removed on the west side of the property. They are very old, overgrown and dying evergreen and maple trees. There are two canopy trees in the southern island of the parking lot which are overgrown and blocking the parking lot light. Those will be taken out and new, smaller appropriate trees will be put in their place. In addition, all the landscaping on the property will be replaced.
Mr. Biondi cited the landscaping plan presented which includes some landscaping on the north side of the building where there is none at this time.
Mr. Biondi stated they have met with the staff to review the plans and have incorporated their comments into the most revised set of plans. There are two comments from the Engineering Department. They wanted them to retain a portion of the drive-through lane on the south for drainage from the building down to the existing catch basin. They have chosen a different design and they are taking that out and running the curb along the north side of the southern island. Mr. Biondi pointed out the area on the site plan and cited the reasons for the change.
Mr. Biondi stated the other comment from Engineering was to add a note that they are going to be milling and overlaying the pavement. There is a note to that effect on their detail sheet but they will reword that to the wording proposed by Engineering. All other staff comments have been addressed.
Commissioner Hickey stated this is a tired property and can certainly use some updating. Mr. Biondi stated they have been concentrating their work previously on the interior of the building.
A motion was made by Commissioner Weseliza and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve SPR #1377 – Site Plan review for modification of previously approved parking and landscaping layout at 109 Elm St., Zoned BG, Map 43, Lot 7, AAA-Allied Group, LLC, Applicant/Owner. This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“SPR #1377, Site Modification Plan Prepared for AAA-Allied Group, Inc. at 109 Elm Street, Enfield, CT 06082”, Sheet LP-1, Scale: 1”=20’, by L.P. Consultants, LLC, dated 6-28-06 and revised to 7-18-06.
“SPR #1377, Site Modification Notes & Details Prepared for AAA-Allied Group, Inc. at 109 Elm Street, Enfield, CT 06082”, Sheet LP-2, Scale: “As Noted”, by L.P. Consultants, LLC, dated 6-28-06 and revised to 7-18-06.
“SPR #1377, Site Modification Landscape Plan Prepared for AAA-Allied Group, Inc. at 109 Elm Street, Enfield, CT 06082”, Sheet LP-3, Scale: 1”=20’, by L.P. Consultants, LLC, dated 6-28-06 and revised to 7-18-06.
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. All plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
2. Add a note that pavement to remain is “to be milled and overlaid”.
3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
4. Two sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.
5. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
6. The applicant shall post a bond for Site improvements in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney.
7. A Separate Erosion and Sediment Control Bond shall be submitted in the form of a passbook, pledged to the Town, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.
8. A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
9. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.
10. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
General Conditions:
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by July 20, 2011 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
< |