|
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
OCTOBER 19, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, October 19, 2006 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Elizabeth Ballard
Charles Duren
James Hickey, Jr.
Jason Jones
Kathleen Sarno, Alternate
Nicles Lefakis, Alternate
Charles Ladd, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
EXECUTIVE SESSION – 7:00 P.M. (Thompsonville Room)
a. Discussion of pending litigation matters with Attorney Carl Landolina
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to go into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. The motion was approved unanimously and the Commission went into Executive Session at 7:02 p.m. Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to come out of Executive Session. Following a unanimous vote, Executive Session ended at 7:35 p.m. There were no votes taken or decisions made during the Executive Session.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to accept the recommendations of the special counsel discussed in Executive Session. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 2 vote. Chairman DiPace and Commissioner Lefakis abstained.
AQUIFER PROTECTION AGENCY AGENDA- 7:30 P.M.
Chairman DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Present were Chairman Anthony DiPace, Elizabeth Ballard, Charles Duren, Jason Jones, James Hickey, Jr., Kathleen Sarno, Alternate, Nicles Lefakis, Alternate, and Charles Ladd, Alternate.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – NEW
A. Consideration of the adoption of Aquifer Protection Area Regulations in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes §22a-354p and R.C.S.A. §22a-354i-3. These regulations will enable the Agency to administer all provisions of An Act Concerning Aquifer Protection Areas, C.G.S. §22a-354a to§22a-354bb (the Act), and to approve or deny registrations, issue permits, issue permits with terms, conditions, limitations or modifications, or deny permits for all regulated activities in aquifer protection areas in the Town of Enfield pursuant to the Act.
Mr. Giner stated the process for these aquifer protection area regulations has been going on for at least eighteen years. There was a blue ribbon commission established at that time on aquifer protection and one of the recommendations was the DEP adopt regulations for what is known as a high yield aquifer. These are generally aquifers over public water supply wells controlled by utilities such as Connecticut Water Company and Hazardville Water Company. Eighteen years later there were different delays by the legislature in actually implementing this. About four or five years ago the DEP was directed to draft the regulations. They did so and after that, the towns had so many days after the DEP sent the model regulations to adopt those regulations. The other thing the town had to do was delineate level A mapping, those well fields in town that have already conducted the proper technical studies to determine what their areas of influence are. Those had to be mapped and also had to overlay them on the zoning map. Mr. Giner pointed out the mapping that has been completed.
Mr. Giner pointed out the O’Grady well field and the Powder Hollow well field on the map. The areas where this regulation would apply include both well fields. The law requires it to be applied to where Level A studies have been completed and Mr. Giner acknowledged this may not be the final plan. There are other well fields and they have not completed their technical studies in sufficient detail to determine what their level A areas of influence are. Prior to these regulations, the only requirement for the areas identified was to notify the water company.
Mr. Giner stated the map before the Commission is a computerized map sent by the state and the town has no say in where the boundaries go. They are based on technical studies and required by the state. The mapping shows the areas of influence that the new regulations would apply to.
Mr. Giner stated when the regulations were first proposed, they included provisions for towns shutting down uses which did not comply with the prohibited uses list. That did not go forward because it would have required the town and the state to pay for these businesses to shut down. The regulations evolved and there is a list of regulated activities within the regulations that are identified and if they don’t occur now in there, they are prohibited. Existing uses within those areas are allowed to continue. They have to register. Existing uses are those uses which have been in operation and received a building permit within the last five years. If you haven’t been operating for five years, you don’t get grandfathered. What the regulations require is if you’ve had an operation that’s been ongoing at least within the last five years, you have to register with the Aquifer Protection Agency within 180 days of the regulation being adopted. In this case, when the Commission approves the regulations, they do not become effective until the DEP determines they comply with their minimum standards. The regulations will become effective as of the time the Commissioner sends the town a letter saying they have been approved. At that point, there’s 180 days that anyone with a regulated activity will have to register with the Commission. The Commission may require a storm water management plan to be filed if there is any concern about activities such as the storage of chemicals having an impact on the ground water. They may also require other best practices.
Mr. Giner stated the town can adopt more stringent requirements but cannot adopt anything less than what the state has proposed. If people think more stringent requirements are needed, the Commission can do so as long as they are reasonably related to water quality issues.
Mr. Giner stated technically these regulations should have been adopted within a certain number of days. It has been over a year since these regulations came out. Mr. Giner noted many towns are adopting these regulations now. The DEP has made it clear that it is time for towns to adopt these regulations and the mapping.
Commissioner Duren read into the record a letter from Cindy S. Fazendeiro, Manager Source Protection and Real Estate, Connecticut Water Company, 93 West Main Street, Clinton, Connecticut dated October 16, 2006 and listing their recommendations. Their recommendations are as follows:
1. Enforcement – Under Section 14 we recommend a copy of any notice of violation or suspension/revocation of a registration or permit should be sent to CWC.
2. We recommend the regulations include a requirement that would limit the amount of impervious coverage allowed within the aquifer protection areas. Reducing impervious surface coverage within the aquifer protection areas will help to minimize the loss of aquifer recharge and also minimize water quality concerns associated with storm water runoff.
Mr. Giner commented that regarding the second point, the Commission currently does limit impervious coverage in areas zoned commercial. There is no impervious limit on residential. This may be something the Commission might want to consider but that’s really a function of the zoning regulations. Mr. Giner felt that notice to the water company is a very good idea.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public.
Karen LaPlante, 166 North Maple Street, made the following statement to the Commission:
As a business woman with numerous business associates that will be impacted by these regulations, I have been asked to read the following statement that we wish to be part of the record.
We would first like to say that we all understand the importance of protecting our drinking water supply now and for future generations.
We realize these draft regulations provides the citizens of Enfield with the maximum protection as required by State regulation. We also would like the Commission, Town Council, State Representatives and Legislators to understand the economic impact this will have on Enfield, the local businesses and property owners located in this Aquifer Protection Area.
The map presented on the cover of the draft regulations currently includes only Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) approved Level A Aquifer Maps. It is our understanding approximately one third of the land in Enfield will be designated as Aquifer Protection area once the mapping has been completed. (See the attached DEP map showing the designated areas for Enfield.) Surrounding towns have much smaller, if any, designated aquifer protection areas. Affected Enfield businesses may be more inclined to move out of Enfield, thereby eliminating the tax revenues and jobs generated by these businesses.
Small businesses that are required to provide a Materials Management Plan and a Storm Water Management Plan may consider these an added burden, not required by other similar businesses in other areas of Enfield and surrounding towns.
Implementation of the proposed draft Free Schedule for registration, inspection and monitoring, or review of the required plans will add to this burden. We request the Commission waive all fees for initial registration.
We also request the Town provide a technical seminar prior to the adoption of these regulations to fully explain these regulations and procedures to all landowners in the current and future Aquifer Protection Area.
Due to the vast future impact area, we suggest the Town request special funding from the State or apply for a grant to cover the cost of implementing and managing this program. If that is not possible, these costs should be borne by all of the Enfield taxpayers, who will continue to benefit from these regulations and the clean water that will be available for future generations.
We are concerned proper enforcement of these regulations and our current zoning regulations will suffer if the Zoning Enforcement Officer is required to take on these additional duties. We suggest a new employee be properly trained and designated to implement this program, handle enforcement, inspections, permit applications and other issues for the Aquifer Protection Agency. Management of this program could still be within the Planning and Zoning Department.
We have the following questions that should be addressed prior to the adoption of these regulations:
1. When will the town have a workshop for property owners within the Aquifer Protection Area?
2. How will multiple owner/tenant properties be handled?
3. If individual registrations are necessary, are the proposed fees based upon the area of each tenant or the entire property.
4. How will enforcement be handled?
5. When will the final aquifer map be completed for Enfield?
6. A fee is listed in the draft regulation fee schedule for Facility Inspection/Monitoring – when and how will inspections and/or monitoring take place?
7. Section22a-354g of the Connecticut General Statutes states “that the state should provide technical assistance and education programs on aquifer protection to ensure a plentiful supply of public drinking water for present and future generations.” Will the town encourage the state to provide affected businesses with the technical assistance to produce the Materials Management Plan and Storm Water Management Plan?
8. Has a policy been established for the purchase of property within the Aquifer Protection Area by either the town or the state?
9. How is undeveloped land in the Aquifer Protection Area going to be handled? What options does a land owner have if already zoned I-1? These regulations will restrict the development of these properties and may make development impossible all together.
10. Does the town intend to notify all property owners in the Aquifer Protection Area? If so, when?
11. Can the town delay in passing these regulations until all the property owners within the Aquifer Protection Area are notified properly and have had the opportunity to attend a workshop explaining these regulations and ask specific questions?
12. Will the town consider abatement of all initial registration fees?
13. Have members of this board or town staff received proper training as required by Section 22a-354o© of the Connecticut General Statutes?
Proper administration of this program is vital to its success. The Town needs to “step up to the plate” and find the funding for this program so the many businesses affected by these regulations may continue to provide jobs and a stable tax base for the Town of Enfield, and its citizens.
Chairman DiPace felt there are quite a few questions that need to be answered. He asked if the state will come and do a workshop. Mr. Giner stated he did talk to someone from the state and they said they would be happy to come to the town prior to the effective date. He also talked to the Economic Development Director about notifying everyone that will be affected by this and having the state come in and answer questions about the program. One of the things that has not been done is to come up with the forms and technical procedures. Mr. Giner noted it is up to his department to come up with the procedures and he would certainly like input from people.
Chairman DiPace stated the state should do a little more than they have done. They did do some training for the Commission but there needs to be something for the public in order to answer their questions. He saw a need to table this hearing until the state is willing to come to the town and answer some of these questions. Some very valid concerns have been expressed and the Commission needs to get some answers.
Mr. Giner stated what is shown on the map is the level A areas. It is up to the water companies to provide the technical studies. The areas shown on the map are going to be the areas. Mr. Giner stated he can ask the Economic Development Director to contact businesses.
Chairman DiPace saw the earliest point to vote on implementation of this regulation as sometime after the first of the year.
Commissioner Hickey stated he does believe the state DOT does have informational sessions and the town should receive this courtesy.
Commissioner Jones stated there is a need to understand the number of people this regulation will be affecting. He also asked what would happen if the town does not adopt these regulations.
Mr. Giner stated implementation is probably tied to some grant funds but he would have to check on this.
Chairman DiPace felt the state should come out because the town does not have all the answers.
Commissioner Jones thought we should find a way to waive the fees. Commissioner Duren suggested the Commission discuss this with the Town Council.
Mr. Giner stated the fee schedule would get adopted by the Commission. The fees proposed are those that have been adopted in other towns. Chairman DiPace asked if the fees could be reduced or waived for the first year. He added that such fees are only paid once every five years.
Some discussion followed about having the Zoning Enforcement Officer go to all these businesses.
Mr. Giner stated the state did have hearings and they were attended by many business groups. The fee provision was included because the state was not providing any funding.
Chairman DiPace asked if a study has been done to determine how many businesses will be affected. Mr. Giner stated at one point the state did a land use inventory in the level B areas. This occurred a few years ago.
Chairman DiPace suggested that Ray Warren may have something in his office to determine the extent to which businesses are going to be affected.
Chairman DiPace asked that Mr. Giner contact the state and talk to them about a workshop. The other item would be to forward this information on to the Town Council including the citizens’ concerns.
Commissioner Hickey complimented Ms. LaPlante on her thoughtful and insightful ideas.
Commissioner Sarno would like to see something done on the town level to see how many businesses would be affected. Mr. Giner has a list from the state which is four to five years old.
Commissioner Ladd suggested looking into grant money because this is an unfunded mandate. Chairman DiPace stated we should contact the state representatives to inform them of the needed funding. Mr. Giner stated the state has heard from the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities on this subject and their response was you can charge fees.
Some discussion followed about the need for a full-time position to administer this aquifer protection procedure.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.
Frank Kogut, 350 Hillcrest Terrace, Meriden, Connecticut, stated he would like to be notified about these hearings. He heard about this evening just today and there may be other property owners not aware of this.
Chairman DiPace asked about how this will work with agricultural uses and would they have to register pesticides. Mr. Giner stated they do now under a different program. Also, some of this is registered with the fire department under the various state regulations.
Jack Sheridan, Buchanan Road, had a question on projects being considered with septic systems over aquifers. How is this affecting residential development? Mr. Giner stated the Health Department already regulates septic systems. As of October 1, notification to the State Health Department is necessary for the aquifer protection areas identified.
Frank Kadis, President of the Enfield Industrial Condominium Association, 13 Vernon Road with a business address of 9 Moody Road, stated businesses are affected by this and they would like to do what is proper for the aquifer. He expressed a concern about not hearing about this meeting until he spoke to his neighbor. There are several businesses in his association and those businesses really do not affect the aquifer. He asked for some kind of a system that lets the people that are in these affected areas know there is something going on and something has to be done about it.
Mr. Kadis referred to the map and the location. Chairman DiPace stated the area is located near the Laurel Condominiums. Mr. Kadis asked if the state is exempt. He asked who is this going to affect. Chairman DiPace stated it will impact his business. He added the most important part of this legislation is to protect the drinking water for this generation and future generations. Mr. Kadis raised concerns about what might affect the aquifer from an individual homeowner. He noted there are alternatives to the use of salt and he would like to have someone look into that. Mr. Kadis saw a need to get the information out to businesses about the aquifer protection.
Mr. Kadis mentioned testing that was being done on Beech Road and he questioned if it was the water company. He asked if it is determining the aquifer area. Commissioner Sarno thought this was to do with the sewers.
Chairman DiPace saw a need to continue this hearing. He asked that Mr. Giner attempt to get some answers to the concerns raised this evening. Also, he should talk to the DEP and schedule some type of workshop, forward information to the Town Council to look at funding some of this and send a copy of the letter received tonight along to the Town Council and the State DEP in order to obtain answers.
Commissioner Sarno would like to see the businesses notified. Mr. Giner will look at the land use inventory supplied by DEP and go from there.
Chairman DiPace asked that if some answers are obtained that they be posted on the town’s web site.
Chairman DiPace continued this hearing to November 16, 2006.
Adjournment
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to adjourn the Aquifer Protection Meeting. The motion was approved unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING –IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING AQUIFER PROTECTION AGENCY MEETING
Chairman DiPace called the meeting to order at 8:15 p.m.
Present were Chairman Anthony DiPace, Elizabeth Ballard, Charles Duren, Jason Jones, James Hickey, Jr., Kathleen Sarno, Alternate, Nicles Lefakis, Alternate, and Charles Ladd, Alternate.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of information from the Capitol Region Council of Governments. Also received was the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Notice of Action dated October 3, 2006.
COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of information from the American Planning Association regarding new legislation, planning and environmental law.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – Continued from October 5, 2006 meeting
a. PH #2568 - Special Use Permit for a rear lot at 20 Bacon Road, zoned R-44, Map 95, Lot 2, Brad Collins, Applicant/Shirley Kelliher and Donald Fortin, Owners. (Must close by Nov. 2)
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of a letter from Attorney Landolina requesting a continuance of this public hearing to November 15, 2006. The applicant consents to an extension of the public hearing date to accommodate this request. The applicant has been requested by the Inland Wetlands Agency to make revisions to his plans. The Inland Wetlands Agency will be reviewing these revisions at its November 8, 2006 meeting.
Chairman DiPace continued this hearing to November 2, 2006. He noted the need for an extension of this public hearing at the next meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – NEW
a. PH #2571 - Special Use Permit for reconstruction of running track, athletic fields and bleachers, installation of synthetic turf and 80 ft. lights at existing football field for Enfield High School at 1264 Enfield Street, zoned R-33, Map 19, Lot 68, Enfield Department of Public Works, Applicant, Town of Enfield, Owner.
Vincent McDermott, Senior Vice President of Milone and MacBroom, the consulting firm hired by the town Department of Public Works to prepare the plans and specifications about Enfield and Fermi High Schools, appeared before the Commission regarding this application.
It was the desire of the Commission to hold both the Enfield and Fermi hearings simultaneously.
Mr. McDermott stated Colleen Brand, Arthur Pongratz and seven members of the Committee charged by the Council to develop these plans are present this evening. He addressed the Enfield High School field and stated the proposal is to reconstruct the playing field before you get to the football field by reorienting the baseball diamond and having the ability to have multi-purpose fields across the outfield areas. The area of disturbance is identical. The difference is they are proposing to cut into the hill slightly in order to give better spacing between the fields and thus be able to reconstruct the four fields in a safe manner.
Mr. McDermott stated what is shown on the site plan is the area to the west side of the fence, the site of the existing football field and bleachers. What is now a cinder track will become a synthetic track. In the interior is the area where the synthetic field will be located. Where there now is soil, that soil will be excavated and replaced with stone and then covered with a synthetic plastic material that is infilled with sand and rubber. He elaborated further on the system. At this site, the major storm drain elements are already in place and there will have to be some minor modifications.
Mr. McDermott discussed erosion and sedimentation control and site grading. Right now along the southerly property line with the exception of the southeasterly corner of the field there is an earthen berm that was constructed at the time the fields were built. Most of the water that is flowing in that northeast to southwesterly direction is directed by that berm to an existing catch basin. That water then flows in the northerly direction and ties into a 48” storm drain. They are not changing that with the exception of a small piece of pipe at the entrance. With the grading, they have maintained the flow of water so that there is a zero net increase in runoff to the property to the south.
Mr. McDermott addressed the storm drainage system associated with the synthetic surface and stated it is a surface drainage system. Along the edge of the track, water from both the field and the track flows into a channel drain. That water then goes into a sub surface perforated pipe system and that is discharged into two directions. Beneath the stone is a waffle drain system about an inch thick by ten inches wide and that facilitates the collection of the water and discharging it into the storm drainage system. The nature of this is it functions very much like grass, can stand abuse and over use and also you can play in adverse weather conditions because of the nature of the collection system.
Mr. McDermott stated they are proposing that these fields be illuminated by four lights, two located behind the proposed bleachers and two located on the opposite side. Those poles are approximately eighty feet in height and have full cut off lighting so that within thirty feet of the track and eighty feet to the sides, the lighting can be brought down to below point three foot candles on average. The field itself during games will have an illumination of fifty foot candles which is what is recommended for scholastic play.
Mr. McDermott stated they have shown on the plan a sedimentation and erosion control plan. This did go before Inland Wetlands and received favorable approval from them. There are temporary detention basins during construction, sediment traps and stone filters in some places, sediment filter fences entirely along the southerly property line and inlet controls around all catch basins.
Mr. McDermott pointed out the bleacher system. The bleachers at Enfield High School will be approximately sixteen feet at the back, fully handicapped accessible. The existing press box that is there will remain. Those bleachers would be fully ADA compliant. They would be elevated and have handicapped seating. The access to the bleachers is through a walk way system extending from the parking lot. They have met with staff and there are two ways of accessing it for emergency purposes.
Commissioner Duren asked if the food shack will be rebuilt. Mr. McDermott stated that building is not being touched under this project.
Commissioner Sarno asked if the park was part of this project. Mr. McDermott stated the park area no longer exists.
Mr. McDermott stated Fermi High School has a similar program and he presented plans to the Commission. He added that what is shown in green is part of the soil remediation project. This is where the soil will be covered with six inches of new topsoil. In terms of athletic use and land use, the uses shown are the same ones as they are there today. The major difference is what is now a grass football field and a cinder track will now be a synthetic track surface and synthetic football surface. The bleachers are the same general concept planning for the long term and keeping the existing press box. Light poles will be installed similar to the ones at Enfield High School 80’ in height on both sides. The same level of cutoff is being proposed so that there’s no light dispersion beyond the property.
Mr. McDermott stated one of the differences at Fermi is there is a wetland system along the entire easterly side of the property and what is now the fence line is the limit of work. The Wetlands Commission is allowing work to occur beyond that exterior to the wetlands and they will be maintaining that. All the area of the fence and some vegetation inside the fence line will be maintained and the entire area will be regraded.
Mr. McDermott stated the press box at Fermi High School will remain as it is today and the bleachers brought up to it. Regarding field positioning, the baseball field is going to be regraded and remain in its present location. The multi-use field will be in the same location. What had been the soccer field going over toward what is now the girls’ softball field is the same. There are also some multi-use fields. Right now the access point from Moody Road into the site will be upgraded to provide satisfactory emergency access to the new facilities. In addition, they are providing ADA compliant walkways over to the area of entrance to the football, soccer and track areas.
Mr. McDermott stated they have done a drainage analysis and provided it to staff. The tributary to Freshwater Brook is controlled by the outlet structure going under Moody Road and there is less than one CSF increase as a result of the additional impervious surfaces related to walkways and driveways.
Chairman DiPace asked if there will be bleachers on both sides at the football fields. Mr. McDermott responded no because in the case of Fermi they do not have any room to put in bleachers. What they are trying to do here is to create a fat track compressing the shape of the track and pushing it out on its side. In so doing, there is insufficient room on the side to accommodate bleachers. In the case of Enfield, they also have a fat track and they are hampered a little bit by a sewer easement and a Northeast Utilities easement on the west. They also intend to have a good separation from the track and baseball fields. If there is a big game, some portable bleachers would be used.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.
Lawrence Avery, 148 Pleasant Street, stated he is in favor of both proposals for various reasons. He is a graduate of Enfield High School and stated the running track at that time was the same as it is now. It was also the same at Fermi High School during that time. He still continues to follow football and every Saturday when Enfield is home for the past two years, he has gone down there and is a part of the chain gang for the football field. Last year even the officials noticed that the field was out of line. Mr. Avery stated last Thursday after a morning rain, at game time one of the officials was concerned about water on the field and the game was almost not played.
Mr. Avery stated another concern he has is at the present location at Enfield High School, when the Enfield High School Field Hockey team plays home games, either practice is going on or the JV soccer team has to play there and sometimes the balls are kicked and come on to the field hockey field. He asked how that would be remedied.
Mr. McDermott stated the current proposal is by pushing the fields slightly to the east and into the hill side with some regrading of the hill side, they are able to locate end to end field hockey fields along the easterly slope. Soccer would be located in the middle going in a different direction. He would expect that more and more games would be played on the synthetic field because of being able to separate things out. There is the practice football field to the north and things will be spread out a little more than they are now to allow safe play.
Mr. Avery stated at Enfield High School he is concerned about the location of the school up on the hill during cold weather. At Enfield High School, the team has to sit out in the elements. At Fermi there are lockers available. Mr. Avery wishes something could be done for home team football to provide cover. Mr. Avery asked that the Commission approve these measures.
Mr. Avery discussed games being played with other towns which could generate revenue for Enfield with game charges. Mr. Avery is in favor of both proposals which would allow night games. He noted more people attend Friday and Saturday night games.
Commissioner Duren asked if there are jump pits. Mr. McDermott stated the pole vault and long jump are in one D zone and the high jump is in the other D zone. The throwing events are located going toward the practice field.
Jack Sheridan, Buchanan Road, stated his concern remains the same with the water drainage. They talked about the clay pipe drains and how they were collapsing. Even though they are there and have been repaired fairly recently, they are said to be on the verge of collapse. Mr. Sheridan’s concern is spending a lot of money on these fields and then having to tear them up to replace the old clay pipe. Secondly, regarding the storm drain going down to the river, the Commission heard in an application for a subdivision recently that the pipes diminish in size as they go towards the river. They start off at 48” and then go to 24”. It is like a big funnel now and the reason the water backs up when there are really bad storms is because it’s draining into the storm drainage. This is on record as having been a concern with a subdivision.
Mr. Sheridan stated the other thing that was not mentioned was about the warrantee on this artificial turf and the fact that it is predicated on good drainage. He is concerned because of the problems that have been in the area that it will come back to haunt us after this is completed.
Mr. McDermott stated the 48” pipe runs all the way to the river and they are not changing that. The Engineering Department did an extensive analysis prior to this project and confirmed that there is zero net increase and no adverse effect on the 48” drainage pipe. There was a collapse of a 24” pipe that runs in a south to north direction. That had been causing ponding in the southwesterly area of the baseball fields. The Public Works Department fixed that three years ago and the quality of the fields improved as a result of those repairs. The pipe system shown on the plans is designed to accommodate flow from significant rainfall. It evacuates the water from the stone into the pipe system and discharges into the 24” and 48” pipe. The clay tile is not part of this project and the fields will be regraded so there’s a crown. The existing fields at Enfield High School are probably pitched in many areas much too flat and given the nature of the soils, they should have been crowned more uniformly at about one and a half percent given the nature of the soils. After great discussion with the town staff, the choice was to reshape the fields putting in a drainage collection line at the toe of the slope which is not there now. It would catch surface drainage and ground water from the slope. That is being collected and discharged in the same manner through a pipe system and then back into the 48” pipe. By crowning it properly, they can divert runoff to appropriate basins that are on the perimeter of the playing field.
Jack Sheridan stated he was told when they repaired those pipes three years ago and it is on record that Mr. Kazmarski said it was a temporary fix and that he didn’t know how long it would last. The clay pipe was in such deteriorated shape. Mr. Sheridan stated he is only repeating what he heard put on record and it is still a major concern of his. He thinks it is a great project but he would like to make sure there are no problems.
Mr. McDermott stated the nature of the soils did not permit the clay tiles to function in any way. The main line going from south to north was inspected by the town before they were involved and the repairs were made to it.
Commissioner Duren asked about the sewer manhole cover on the infield. Mr. McDermott stated that has been changed already.
Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve PH #2572 - Special Use Permit for reconstruction of running track, athletic fields and bleachers, installation of synthetic turf and 80 ft. lights at existing football field at Fermi High School, 124 North Maple Street, zoned R-33, Map 82, Lot 14, Enfield Department of Public Works, Applicant/Town of Enfield, owner. This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Enrico Fermi High School Athletic Fields & Track Reconstruction, 1264 Enfield Street, Town of Enfield Connecticut, Planning, Zoning & Wetlands Set: Sep. 6, 2006” Index Sheet prepared by Milone & MacBroom.
“Existing Conditions, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enrico Fermi High School, Moody Rd. & North Maple St, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet EX-1, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 6, 2006.
“Existing Conditions, and Removals, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enrico Fermi High School, Moody Rd. & North Maple St, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet EX-2, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 6, 2006.
“Existing Conditions, and Removals, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enrico Fermi High School, Moody Rd. & North Maple St, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet EX-3, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 6, 2006.
“Existing Conditions, and Removals, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enrico Fermi High School, Moody Rd. & North Maple St, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet EX-4, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 6, 2006.
“Site Plan -Layout, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enrico Fermi High School, Moody Rd. & North Maple St, Enfield, Connecticut..” Sheet LA-1, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 6, 2006.
“Site Plan -Layout, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enrico Fermi High School, Moody Rd. & North Maple St, Enfield, Connecticut..” Sheet LA-2, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 6, 2006.
“Site Plan -Layout, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enrico Fermi High School, Moody Rd. & North Maple St, Enfield, Connecticut..” Sheet LA-3, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 6, 2006.
“Site Plan -Layout, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enrico Fermi High School, Moody Rd. & North Maple St, Enfield, Connecticut..” Sheet LA-4, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 6, 2006.
“Site Plan –Grading and Utilities, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enrico Fermi High School, Moody Rd. & North Maple St, Enfield, Connecticut..” Sheet GR-1, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 6, 2006, revised to Oct. 3, 2006.
“Site Plan –Grading and Utilities, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enrico Fermi High School, Moody Rd. & North Maple St, Enfield, Connecticut..” Sheet GR-2, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 6, 2006, revised to Oct. 3, 2006.
“Site Plan –Grading and Utilities, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enrico Fermi High School, Moody Rd. & North Maple St, Enfield, Connecticut..” Sheet GR-3, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 6, 2006, revised to Oct. 3, 2006.
“Site Plan –Grading and Utilities, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enrico Fermi High School, Moody Rd. & North Maple St, Enfield, Connecticut..” Sheet GR-4, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 6, 2006.
“Site Plan –Sedimentation and Erosion Controls, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enrico Fermi High School, Moody Rd. & North Maple St, Enfield, Connecticut..” Sheet SE, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated September 6.
“Site Details, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enrico Fermi High School, Moody Rd. & North Maple St, Enfield, Connecticut..” Sheet SD1, Scale: “As Noted”, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 6, 2006.
“Site Plan, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enrico Fermi High School, Moody Rd. & North Maple St, Enfield, Connecticut..” Sheet SD2, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 6, 2006.
“Site Plan, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enrico Fermi High School, Moody Rd. & North Maple St, Enfield, Connecticut..” Sheet SD3, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 6, 2006.
“Site Plan, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enrico Fermi High School, Moody Rd. & North Maple St, Enfield, Connecticut..” Sheet SD4, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 6, 2006.
“Site Plan, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enrico Fermi High School, Moody Rd. & North Maple St, Enfield, Connecticut..” Sheet SD5, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 6, 2006.
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. Plan sheets SD2,SD3,SD4 and SD5 should be revised to substitute “Details” for “Plan” in the Title Block.
3. A set of drainage calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for final review.
4. The Application number, “PH #2572” shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
5. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of the approval with conditions shall be placed on the final plans.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
6. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
7. A mylar and two sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
General Conditions:
8. A Final As-built survey shall be required. If the facilities are to be completed and put in use in phases then progress as-built surveys shall be submitted prior to the use of the finished phase.
9. 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.
10. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
11. Work must commence within a year of the effective date of this Permit or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
12. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by October 19, 2011 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
b. PH #2571 - Special Use Permit for reconstruction of running track, athletic fields and bleachers, installation of synthetic turf and 80 ft. lights at existing football field for Enfield High School at 1264 Enfield Street, zoned R-33, Map 19, Lot 68, Enfield Department of Public Works, Applicant, Town of Enfield, Owner.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve PH #2571 - Special Use Permit for reconstruction of running track, athletic fields and bleachers, installation of synthetic turf and 80 ft. lights at existing football field for Enfield High School at 1264 Enfield Street, zoned R-33, Map 19, Lot 68, Enfield Department of Public Works, Applicant, Town of Enfield, Owner. This application is subject to conformance with the referenced plans and the following conditions:
Referenced Plans:
“Enfield High School Athletic Fields & Track Reconstruction, 1264 Enfield Street, Town of Enfield Connecticut, September 6, 2006” Index Sheet prepared by Milone & MacBroom.
“Existing Conditions, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enfield High School, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet EX-1, Scale: 1”=50’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 5, 2006.
“Site Plan -Layout, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enfield High School, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet LA-1, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 5, 2006.
“Site Plan -Layout, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enfield High School, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet LA-2, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 5, 2006.
“Site Plan –Grading and Utilities, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enfield High School, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet GR-1A, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 5, 2006, revised to Oct. 3, 2006.
“Site Plan –Grading and Utilities, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enfield High School, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet GR-2A, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 5, 2006, revised to Oct. 3, 2006
“Site Plan –Sedimentation and Erosion Control, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enfield High School, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet SE-1, Scale: 1”=50’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Aug. 30, 2006.
“Sediment & Erosion Control Notes & Details, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enfield High School, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet SD1, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 5, 2006.
“Site Details, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enfield High School, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet SD2, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 5, 2006.
“Site Details, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enfield High School, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet SD3, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 5, 2006.
“Site Details, Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enfield High School, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet SD4, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 5, 2006.
“Athletic Field & Track Reconstruction, Enfield High School, Enfield, Connecticut.” Sheet SD5, Scale: 1”=30’, by Milone & MacBroom, dated Sep. 5, 2006.
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 plan sheets shall be revised to include the proper revisions necessary to show the alternative approved under the Inland Wetland permit.
3. A set of drainage calculations shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for final review.
4. The Application number, “PH #2571” shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.
5. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners,and their successors and assigns. A copy of the approval with conditions shall be placed on the final plans.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
6. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
7. A mylar and two sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.
General Conditions:
8. A Final As-built survey shall be required. If the facilities are to be completed and put in use in phases then progress as-built surveys shall be submitted prior to the use of the finished phase.
9. 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.
10. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.
11. Work must commence within a year of the effective date of this Permit or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
12. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by October 19, 2011 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
b. PH #2575 - Planning and Zoning Commission initiative for proposed zoning amendment pertaining to section 9.10.5 and 9.10.9 dealing with site plan bonding and compliance to allow for posting of bonds for non-public improvements at the time of Certificate of Occupancy rather than before a permit is issued.
Mr. Giner stated this is a Commission initiative which was discussed prior to the Commission breaking for the summer. Currently people have to post 100% of the bond up front or ask for a waiver. For private improvements which are paid for by commercial owners, they would be allowed to go ahead and do the work and at the time that they were looking for a certificate of compliance, if any of the work was not done at that time, it would be bonded and only for a period of 180 days. Some discussion followed regarding Famous Footwear.
Mr. Giner stated it has always been asked why the town is bonding for what is on people’s property. Sidewalks would be considered a public improvement and would be bonded up front. Our Engineering Department doesn’t inspect private improvements during construction. They only require an as-built and a certification by a project engineer at the time of c.o. that the project engineer has inspected all the work and certifies that it was put in in accordance with the plans. The procedure for doing that uses the administrative review team to be notified when such a request is made. Staff takes a look at it and does a report which gets sent to the applicant. The second part is Section 9.10.9 might prevent a lot of actions under the blight ordinance. It says once you get a site plan approved, all those improvements listed have to be maintained in good order and repaired on a continuing basis. This is not in the regulations at this time.
Mr. Giner felt this is a more business friendly way of handling bonding and it does not expose the town to any liability. Chairman DiPace stated this is a good start.
Commissioner Duren asked about setting up a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce to discuss problems with property owners. Mr. Giner will schedule something for January.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.
Commissioner Duren made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve PH#2575 with an effective date of November 1, 2006. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Sarno and Ladd voting.
BOND RELEASES
a. SPR #1253 – Application for landscape bond release in the amount of $56,000 by Borghesi for Bernie’s at 1559 King Street.
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Duren, to approve release of the landscape bond in the amount of $56,000 for Bernie’s at 1559 King Street. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
The Commission recessed at 9:35 p.m. and reconvened at 9:45 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Discussion regarding potential development at southeast quadrant of Palomba Drive, Middle Road & Hazard Ave. intersection with Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C.
Attorney Susan Hays of Updike, Kelly & Spellacy appeared before the Commission regarding the property on Hazard Avenue and Middle Road. It is next to the liquor store and is currently zoned Business Professional. The request was to look at a rezoning to Business Local. Before they go through the exercise of getting plans, the thought was to get a sense of what the Commission would feel about this. Across the street is the Big Y plaza which is Business Local. The liquor store is Business Local. The Mobil Gas Station is also Business Local. It will be a difficult property to get a full entrance on to Hazard Avenue because you are limited to that specific location because of the wetlands. Attorney Hays questioned if it would make more sense rather than having the zone line go diagonally through the property if you changed the line a bit so that you squared it off. You would end up with a residential lot which would be about 76,000 square feet and you would only be able to get one lot in there. For residential there is a 35’ buffer requirement between residential and business. You would not be able to do much except to have an entrance off Middle Road. You could have a restricted entrance on Hazard with right in and right out and then have more of an entrance on Middle. From a practical perspective, if this were to stay BP, Attorney Hays noted you would probably have to move that zone line anyhow because no one would be able to get a full entrance at that location off Hazard Avenue. Anyone who would want to do anything on this property would have to have some kind of entrance off Middle Road and you would not be able to enter a commercial property across from a residential property.
Attorney Hays could not recall that this property has been before the Commission previously.
Attorney Hays stated the insurance office and the smaller lot are part of the property. The entire property is about six acres including that parcel. You could probably get 10,000 to 15,000 square feet of development on this parcel in the unwet area with just an access point that would come out on to Middle Road.
Chairman DiPace asked about the uses. Attorney Hays stated the most you could get on there is 10,000 or 15,000 square feet and it would be more than one tenant.
Commissioner Hickey did not see any major issues given the local zoning.
Commissioner Duren stated when this zone was changed to BP, it was to protect the people on Middle Road.
Chairman DiPace stated no matter what goes in there, you won’t get a full driveway. Whether it is BP or BL it will require a second driveway out the back because it is going to be difficult on Hazard Avenue for a curb cut. BP generates a lot more traffic than BL.
Attorney Hays stated the map before the Commission shows the existing zone line. Other than being able to have an access on to Middle Road, there really wouldn’t be any difference due to the wetlands. You could have a residential home in this area with the buffer but from the edge of the wetlands to the edge of the buffer all you will be able to get is an access driveway.
The consensus of the Commission was this proposal makes sense. Commissioner Lefakis stated his only concern is access on Middle Road where you have a lot of residences.
b. Applications To Be Received
The following applications were received:
PH #2580 - Application for a special use permit for approval of a third apartment at 8 Columbus Ave., Zoned R-33, Map 39, Lot 48, Connie Crochetiere, Applicant/Eleanor Trigilio & Stephen Dellaquilla, Trustees.
A public hearing will be scheduled for November 16, 2006.
SPR #1385 - Application to convert some of their storage space to retail space at 44 Enfield Street, Zoned BL, Map 35, Lot 79, Steven Parasis, Applicant/ Dave Grunberg, Owner.
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to have a public hearing for SPR#1385 for the first meeting in December. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote.
Chairman DiPace brought up the sign at the Edge Tatoo Parlor which has been closed for over a year. He asked if there is anything that can be done to remove this sign. Mr. Giner will send notification to South Windsor about this sign.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Charles Duren, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
jmr |