|
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 16, 2006
A Regular Meeting and Executive Session of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission were held on Thursday, November 16, 2006, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman DiPace called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman
Jeffrey Cooper
James Hickey, Jr.
Jason Jones
Kathleen Sarno, Voting Alternate
Charles Ladd, Voting Alternate
Nicles Lefakis, Voting Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
a. Discussion of litigation matters with Attorney Carl Landolina
Commissioner Cooper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to go into Executive Session to discuss litigation matters. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote and the Commission went into Executive Session at 7:05 p.m.
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to come out of Executive Session. Following a unanimous vote, Executive Session ended at 7:45 p.m.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to authorize Attorney Carl Landolina to proceed with what was discussed in Executive Session. The motion was approved unanimously.
REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M.
Chairman Anthony DiPace called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.
MINUTES
Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to approve the Minutes of November 2, 2006. The Minutes were approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace stated Correspondence includes a fax to Wayne Bickley regarding 167 South Road, a summary of zoning subdivisions and POCD Referrals for the Capitol Region Council of Governments, and the Zoning Board of Appeals Notice of Action for October 30, 2006.
COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman DiPace reported receipt of a cease and desist order for Elia Realty at 55 Enfield Street which is the Edge Tattoo which has been closed for over a year. Also received were an interoffice memo regarding the Capitol Region Council of Government members that the Commission appointed, information on urban planning, a letter from Brandt Willis regarding fees, Connecticut Wildlife Magazine, the Connecticut Land Development Specialist from the American Planning Association, and the Planning Commissioners’ Journal.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – Continued from October 19, 2006 Meeting
a. Consideration of the adoption of Aquifer Protection Area Regulations in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes Section 22a-354p and R.C.S.A. Section 22a-3545i-3. These regulations will enable the Agency to administer all provisions of An Act Concerning Aquifer Protection Areas, C.G.S. Section 22a-354a to Section 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.
Chairman DiPace saw a need to advertise this hearing under the Aquifer Protection agenda. Mr. Giner will correct this in the future. Mr. Giner informed the Commission an informational meeting will be held with DEP officials on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Giner did meet with the Town Council on Monday evening and discussed the Aquifer Protection Regulations. They had some concerns and asked if the town could put off adopting regulations until all the mapping was done. They wanted the Town Manager and a couple of Council members to form a study committee with Mr. Giner to explore the town’s options.
Regarding the meeting on November 28, 2006, Commissioners asked if a quorum showed up would it be considered a meeting. Mr. Giner stated the Commission is not voting on anything and it is strictly an informational meeting by the state. He can take minutes and introduce it as part of the record.
Chairman DiPace opened this public hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace continued this hearing to January 4, 2007.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – Continued from November 2, 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 tonight.)
Attorney Carl Landolina and Mark Kement appeared before the Commission regarding this application. Attorney Landolina stated they have been before Inland Wetlands on three occasions and made several changes to the plans to accommodate their concerns and some of the concerns of the abutters.
Mr. Kement stated the property is located on the south side of Bacon Road east of North Maple Street. The parcel area is five acres in an R-44 zone. The front lot of this application will be 1.38 acres and the rear portion will be 3.62 acres. The property is serviced by public water and sewers. He presented a slight modification to the plan originally submitted. Inland Wetlands made some alterations and the rear house had to be shifted west about 25’. They also added a conservation easement on the property with a total area of 3.47 acres or fifty-nine percent of the total parcel. They are here tonight for a rear lot application. This project does meet the criteria in Section 4.40.5 of the Enfield Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Giner stated Inland Wetlands did close this hearing but one of the Commissioners wanted to make sure all of the conditions were in order prior to voting. It will be on their agenda next Tuesday for a vote. The Commission can keep this hearing open until December 9, 2006. He further recommended the Commission could close this hearing and wait for the Wetlands’ decision. Attorney Landolina concurred with this approach.
Attorney Landolina submitted an email from John Cabibbo directed to some ground water issues that were discussed at the Wetlands hearing.
Commissioner Jones asked if the Fire Marshal has seen these plans. Mr. Giner stated he has. Commissioner Jones stated for the back lot he only sees 12’. Mr. Giner stated that meets the town’s requirements. The regulations require a three-foot shoulder up to eighteen feet with a base over which a fire truck can pass. The rear driveway is over 200’ and the Commission may require sprinklers because of its length. Attorney Landolina stated they have not proposed sprinklers at this point.
Attorney Landolina pointed out it has been the applicant’s plan all along to build these homes at grade and if the Commission wanted to make that a condition of approval, he would have no problem with that.
Chairman DiPace opened this application to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace continued this hearing to December 7, 2006 pending action by the Inland Wetlands Commission. Attorney Landolina will provide the Commission with an extension in writing.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NEW
a. PH#2580 – Special Use Permit for approval of a third apartment at 8 Columbus
Avenue, zoned R-33, Map 39, Lot 48, Connie Crochetiere, Applicant/Eleanor Trigilio and Stephen Dellaquilla, Trustees. (Must close by 12/21).
Cheryl Kertanis appeared before the Commission regarding this application. She noted this apartment has actually existed for many years. They are selling the property and found that the field card had this home registered as a two-family instead of a three-family. The Fire Marshal has inspected the house and it has been a three-family although Ms. Kertanis noted she cannot prove this.
Chairman DiPace recalled this home being a three-family home in the late 1960’s. Ms. Kertanis stated this was the father’s house originally and it was purchased in the 1920’s. The whole family grew up there. It probably meets or exceeds the requirements for a three-family home. There is sufficient parking and it complies with all the ordinance requirements. She asked that it be corrected to a three-family.
Mr. Giner stated this arises because banks insist on some type of certification before they will issue financing.
Chairman DiPace stated he remembers the house and it was always a three-family home. Commissioner Lefakis also recalled it being a three-family home.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace closed this hearing.
Commissioner Hickey made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve Public Hearing #2580 - Special Use Permit for approval of a third apartment at 8 Columbus Avenue, Zoned R-33, Map 39, Lot 48, Connie Crochetiere, Applicant/Eleanor Trigilio & Stephen Dellaquilla, Trustees. This approval is subject to conformance with the submitted record and the following conditions:
General 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. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.
3. This approval is for the specific use and structures identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structures will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
4. 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.
The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote with all alternates voting.
b. PH#2573 – Special Use Permit and site plan review for a 73-unit senior residential development at the east end of Mayfield Drive and north of Westview Drive, and west of Shaker Pines Lake, Map 79, Lot 11, Stonegate Associates, Applicant/Angelina J. McGillivray, Owner. (Must close by 12/21)
Chairman DiPace read some rules for this evening’s public hearing because there is an applicant and an intervener.
Wes Wentworth, the engineer for the applicant, made a presentation regarding the proposed development. The parcel is 95.8 acres and zoned R-44. They are proposing a senior residential development for residents fifty-five and over. The project is proposed as a condominium development where all the land will be owned by the homeowners’ association. There is a private road and infrastructure system within the site. All roads are built to town standards but they will be privately owned and maintained. Access to the site will be provided from the end of Mayfield Drive and it will become Stonegate Drive all the way to the end. Westgate Drive will come out to the intersection of West View and Pine Hill Road giving two accesses into the site. There will be no permanent access to West Shore Drive but the town has asked for a temporary construction access to rebuild West Shore Drive. The Fire Marshall has asked that the easement be a permanent emergency access easement. Mr. Wentworth stated sanitary sewers are coming through there but no vehicular traffic on a permanent basis.
Mr. Wentworth stated the roads are proposed to be 24’ wide with sidewalks on one side of the two main roads. The site is serviced by public sanitary sewers and public water. Public water will be provided by Connecticut Water Company. The infrastructure will be privately owned and maintained by the homeowners’ association.
Mr. Wentworth stated there are a number of waivers being requested by the applicant in regard to the road design. They have received their Inland Wetlands approval and as part of that approval, they have to prove to the Wetlands Commission that they have met all prudent and feasible alternatives in the sense of minimizing direct impact to the wetlands system. In order to do that, they felt it was necessary to include some waivers.
Mr. Wentworth stated the first waiver was regarding a reduced snow shelf width at three wetland crossings. By reducing the width, they reduce the footprint of the fill and the disturbance to the wetlands. A standard snow shelf would be thirteen feet and they have reduced it to five feet in areas without sidewalks and nine feet in areas with sidewalks. These are only at the wetlands crossings.
Mr. Wentworth stated they have sidewalks for the entire length of Stonegate Drive but Westgate Drive on the south only has sidewalks to a point or for about half the road where the units are proposed. To continue south and west with sidewalks on West View Drive would require putting sidewalks through where the wetland crossing is. They feel because of the nature of the development, it will have inter-neighborhood pedestrian traffic flow. Because there will be no sidewalks for the first 500’ of West Gate Drive, a waiver is required.
Mr. Wentworth stated they are requesting a waiver of standard bituminous curbing. For most of the site they will be using a cape code curbing of the same height. It is a wider curb of 14” instead of 9” and is recommended by DEP. It allows a lot of small wildlife to not get caught and trapped in the road but be able to climb up the curbing. There are some areas where curbing has been eliminated.
Mr. Wentworth stated their final waiver would be regarding cul de sac length. The town regulations allow up to a 600’ cul de sac and it is allowed to be waived up to 1200’ by the regulations. Stonegate Drive up to its terminus is 1,163’ long and there are no common driveways at the end of it. The next short cul de sac is Shady Rise which is 1,074’ and there is a single common driveway to two houses. Lastly, at the end of Sunny Wood Lane is 723’.
Mr. Wentworth stated fire protection is being provided in the form of hydrants. Fire lanes have been installed and there is adequate flow for the hydrants according to a letter from the Connecticut Water Company. Water pollution control is being provided down through West Shore Drive. They will be connecting into the town sewer to service the entire site. To the southwest there is a small pump station in disrepair. The Water Pollution Control is mandating that prior to them tying into that sewer, it is up to them to bring the pump station into conformance.
Chairman DiPace asked if the sewer lateral they are tying into is adequate. Mr. Wentworth stated yes, it is an eight inch town sewer pipe.
Mr. Wentworth stated conservation easements are proposed on the site. They are a little over 68 acres or 71% of the site. They have provided buffering of natural vegetation around the edges of the site and provided an excellent natural buffer to be undisturbed in excess of 100’ all the way down the wetlands corridor and the frontage of Shaker Pines Lake.
Mr. Wentworth stated they have been working on this project with the town in excess of three years. They have met informally with town staff and this
Commission. Wetlands asked for an environmental review team with the state and they walked the site with the Wetlands Commission in June, 2004 and provided an ERT report. They have gone through an extensive review process by the Wetlands Commission. They were also before this Commission last year but they ran out of time and got to the point where the Wetlands Commission did not feel they had enough information and could not approve the site. They therefore had to withdraw from the Planning and Zoning Commission last January. They were able to go back in and resubmit and make some changes. In July of this year they received a wetlands approval for the site.
Mr. Wentworth reviewed some of the constraints of the site. He pointed out the wetlands systems on the site map and reviewed what has been done to preserve storm water quality. From a water quantity standpoint, they have extensive detention basins that were sized in the center of the site that account for any increase in runoff off the site. In addition, they did some infiltration basins where they infiltrate the storm drainage into the ground water for up to a twenty-five year storm event. This was reviewed by the Town Engineer and the Wetlands Commission and ultimately they did approve the wetlands permit. It is the same with storm water quality. They have utilized the DEP 2004 storm water quality manual that allows them to come up with significant ways to treat their storm water drainage before it leaves the site. They have gone through multiple steps and have detention basins they’ve designed as wetlands and they have pretreatment in the form of swirl concentrators which are a primary removal. In the western portion of the site they have infiltration basins where they treat the water by infiltrating it back into the ground. This is a recommended process by the DEP in terms of storm water quality.
Mr. Wentworth stated erosion and sedimentation control has also been addressed. This site is not what he considers to have a high potential for erosion. A lot of the site is sandy and flat with soils that are not considered to be of high erosion potential. They did produce a complete set of erosion and sedimentation control plans to the town standards and under the guidelines set by the State of Connecticut. They realize they have to go to DEP once they get the town approvals because they have to review the erosion and sedimentation control plan. The plans are ready to go to the DEP for review and approval.
Mr. Wentworth stated they have provided a detailed storm water management plan which is on the plans and outlines snow removal, cleaning of catch basins, monitoring of all the storm water facilities and it spells out when things should be checked or inspected and how they are to be repaired. This will be part of the condominium declaration that will be filed with the Town Clerk’s Office. They have a detailed management plan regarding who takes care of the private upkeep of the infrastructure. Part of that includes landscape and integrated pest management guidelines. They have a no phosphorus fertilizer and minimum use of pesticides.
Mr. Wentworth stated they have prepared a traffic study which has been submitted. The traffic engineer states this is about the best type of thing you can come up with in terms of not combining peak flows and in terms of surrounding use of traffic. Fifty-five and over communities tend to have a large portion of retired people who leave more like 10:00 a.m. The peak flow generated will be forty to sixty percent less than if this were a single-family subdivision.
Mr. Wentworth closed by saying they feel there is no adverse impact to the public health, welfare and safety as a result of the approval of this project.
Chairman DiPace asked about the ground water elevation in the area where these homes will be built. Mr. Wentworth stated the ground water will be below where the foundations are and there will be footing drains for the homes. No sump pumps are required based on the design. All the roads will be tied into a common foundation drainage system which bypasses all the detention basins. Some of these basins can back up and they would not want to flood the area. There are common systems going to the rear of the buildings and coming out down gradient. They are discharged and are below any storm pipes or detention basins that could back up.
Commissioner Ladd brought up a letter to Mr. Giner from the DEP. Mr. Wentworth stated on January 1 he will be starting his fifteenth year and he has been involved in many commercial and residential projects in Connecticut. The next step is to get their approvals in place in order to go to DEP.
Attorney Kari Olson of the firm of Murtha and Kulina spoke to the Commission representing the applicant. She addressed the DEP letter. She learned today that Mr. Metzler has never been to the property. A copy of the environmental review team report has been submitted with this application. It is just a preliminary overview. They, at all stages of this plan, thoroughly intended to meet with the DEP and address any concerns that they might have. At this point, it is important for the Commission to know that while the preliminary report suggests that there are areas of the property that should be looked at, there is no conclusive information that suggests that there are any concerns that need to be addressed. They feel they have taken into account any of these potential areas and that they have designed the project around them and would be able to easily address any concerns of the DEP. They have communicated with Mr. Metzler and they intend to meet with him and to move forward to address the DEP concerns.
Commissioner Ladd felt this still leaves things up in the air regarding DEP. Attorney Olsen stated their position on this is there will be enough information for this Commission to make a decision with the knowledge that there will be further review by the DEP. With all the submittals, even though they don’t believe there are any concerns that they have not met, they have taken account any recommendations by the team in designing this project.
Attorney Olson referred to the management plan which is incorporated by reference into the declaration which is the governing document for the community. The management plan addresses all of the management aspects of the community and sets forth all the occupancy and other restrictions that are required by statute and by the town’s regulations. In addition to that, they have the integrated pest management plan which they believe is an extremely aggressive plan. It is designed to minimize any potential impact from pest management or landscaping procedures by the occupants of this community. Both of these documents were created with input from town staff and the Inland Wetlands Commission.
Chairman DiPace stated these documents will be part of the hearing file and are a part of the public record.
Attorney Olson stated the third document she is offering tonight is a letter of opinion from REMA Ecological Services. This letter provides an opinion from an environmental standpoint as to the quality of the acreage that’s being offered for conservation easements and a general expert opinion of the plan with respect to the environmental impact. She also pointed out that the author of the three documents before the Commission tonight is present this evening should the Commission have any specific questions.
Attorney Olson presented an impact analysis to the Commission. It was created pursuant to Section 4-40 of the town’s regulations. It is a summary of the project and the other information that is being provided to the Commission. It summarizes it and comes to a conclusion as to the impact on municipal services pursuant to the town’s regulations.
Attorney Olson stated the final document is a response to the petition for intervention that was provided to the Commission today. This is a written response designed really to point out that this is not the first petition for intervention by the Lake Association relating to this project. In fact, the Lake Association also made a petition that is virtually identical and raises the same issues in the petition that was submitted to this Commission. It was a long and lengthy process before Wetlands with multiple public hearings where both the intervener and they provided expert opinions and information to the Inland Wetlands Commission. At this point, they respectfully request that this Commission give due deference to the Wetlands Commission’s decision with respect to the wetlands and environmental issues.
Chairman DiPace had questions regarding the process the Commission should follow with the presence of an intervener. The last time the Commission took a formal vote whether to allow the intervener or not. Mr. Giner had a discussion with the Town Attorney but he is unsure. Chairman DiPace felt this is something the Commission should vote on because it is the way it was handled in the past. He cited the case of Leete Stevens which occurred approximately a year ago. Mr. Giner stated he did give this to the Town Attorney today for review. The petition was received as a fax today and he assumed the original would be presented tonight. Attorney Stavropoulos did get a copy of this but has not yet responded.
Chairman DiPace asked if the Commission has to grant the intervener status. Attorney Blaymore Paterson, the attorney for the intervener, stated she believes so. She would prefer that to have it on the record.
Commissioner Cooper asked who the intervener is representing. Attorney Paterson stated the intervener is the Shaker Pines Lake Association and she will be speaking on their behalf. From a legal standpoint and doing a formal presentation, it will all be coordinated through her so there would not be duplicate testimony in that regard. Commissioner Cooper asked how many are in the Lake Association. Attorney Paterson will get that information. She also believed there are statutory parameters that an intervener has to meet and for that reason they would concur with the conclusion that the Commission would need to address whether this is the proper petition and then vote on it. Attorney Paterson stated over two hundred residences are part of the Lake Association.
Chairman DiPace stated the paperwork is upstairs regarding the criteria to grant intervener status. He suggested a recess to get that paperwork to make sure everything is done properly. Commissioner Cooper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, to take a ten-minute recess. The motion was approved by a 7 – 0 – 0 vote and the Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 9:15 p.m.
Chairman DiPace read from the information noting the intervener is authorized by the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act of 1971, General Statute, section 22A-19A, to intervener party in this proceeds on the following to verify pleadings which statutes state is pertinent fact: (1) In any administrative proceeding and in any judicial review thereof made available by law any association may intervene as a party on the filing to verify the petition asserting that the proceedings or actions for judicial review thereof involve conduct which has or is reasonably likely to have an effect of unreasonable polluting, impairing or destroying of public trust in the air, water or natural resources of the state.
Chairman DiPace felt what this is saying is that an intervener is saying one of those things is going to happen. Attorney Paterson noted reasonably likely to happen, yes.
Chairman DiPace asked if the Commission has to grant intervener status or is it automatic. Attorney Olsen stated her position is when a petition of intervener is presented to the Commission, the Commission has to satisfy itself that the intervener has met the criteria under that statute.
Attorney Paterson agreed and thought there are certain criteria set forth in the general language of the statute that have been somewhat clarified by case law. She made clear that the purpose for intervention is to make sure that the allegations fall within this Commission’s jurisdiction. There are certain things they are raising here that they would not raise before the Wetlands Commission because it is not within their jurisdiction. However, with that said, the petition for intervention does not have to prove its case on its face. It opens the door for the intervener to come in and show you that you have jurisdiction over the environmental impact issues that are being alleged in the petition and then they get to present it as well. At the end of the day the Commission may determine that they have not proven the allegations or that they have. The petition is based on allegations only.
Chairman DiPace stated based on that, he would urge the Commission to err on the side of caution and grant it for the time being and hear both sides and at the end make a decision as far as where it stands.
Mr. Giner did not feel a motion was required. Both sides try to prove their points and at the end, in the Leete Stevens case, in addition to making findings with respect to the regulations, the Commission also stated their findings with respect to the intervener’s petition.
Chairman DiPace stated at this point the Commission will allow the intervener status. The Commission will allow them thirty minutes and then open the hearing to the public. Based on the input this evening, the Commission will either continue or close this hearing.
Attorney Olsen stated there were a couple of points that her expert from REMA pointed out to her. The first is there is a typographical error in the opinion letter dated November 16, 2006 provided to the Commission from REMA Ecological Services. On the second page, the first sentence, it talks about the southwestern portion of the site. This should say northwestern portion of the site. The other thing to be clarified was in response to Commissioner Ladd’s comments, in the response to the ERT report, Stonegate Associates did have their experts go out and actually map and measure any potential critical habitat areas on the property and then designed their project around those areas. This was done despite the fact there have been no specific findings with respect to the DEP. They believe they have addressed the issues and will continue to work with the DEP to address any outstanding issues. They believe that the application and information submitted does give this Commission the ability to grant the application without any further input from the DEP.
Attorney Amy Blaymore Patterson appeared before the Commission representing the intervener, the Shaker Pines Lake Association. She confirmed for the record that this Commission has granted them the status of intervener and will not rule on whether or not they have satisfied their burden under 22-19 until the end.
Chairman DiPace stated the Commission is going to allow the intervener to proceed.
Attorney Patterson noted Attorney Olson had submitted five new documents tonight. She would like to reserve the right to respond to those documents at the next hearing session.
Attorney Patterson submitted the original petition for intervention. They had wanted to get it into the Commission’s meeting packet but there were some revisions.
Chairman DiPace stated if he had known about these documents prior to this meeting, he would have requested the Town Attorney be present.
Attorney Patterson stated she read through Attorney Olson’s letter which was a response to their petition. She would like to make a couple of comments in response. On the second page, you have the ERT in your record. On page 22 that ERT says unequivocally that the particular surveys they are saying they have accomplished need to be performed by a qualified ecologist. What it says is please contact our program ecologist, Ken Metzler, DEP, who would be able to assist in reviewing proper survey protocols to provide for the conservation of the significant Connecticut habitat. Attorney Patterson noted they are not at all suggesting that these surveys be done, submitted to the Commission and approved or denied without their input. They are saying coordinate this through Ken Metzler now. They are calling this preliminary. Well, even their preliminary comments then are saying coordinate the survey through DEP. This was back in 2004. Attorney Patterson takes issue with the comment and they do concede that DEP should have the ultimate word on this but it should be done now and not after the Commission approves or denies this application.
Attorney Patterson referred to Attorney Olson’s letter again which states Stonegate Associates planned, as in the normal course, to seek its local permits before making application to the P&Z. Attorney Patterson stated that is fine but the ERT specifically says to coordinate the surveys through Ken Metzler and, apparently, that wasn’t done. She questioned why it was not done and felt the Commission needs to have this information.
Attorney Patterson stated in the letter, the last paragraph, it states the Association now seeks a second bite of the apple from this Commission. Attorney Patterson noted this is their first bite of the apple with this Commission. Now, there is a different set of parameters they are working under and this goes to jurisdiction. Attorney Patterson stated it is interesting to her that Attorney Olson said before the Wetlands Commission they addressed all the wetlands and water courses concerns and environmental impact. She stated if this intervener had gone before that Commission and raised general environmental impact issues, the attorney would have said they were outside the scope of what this Wetlands Commission is able to do under the statutes. They need to look at adverse impacts and unreasonable pollution under 22A-19 but only as to wetlands and watercourses and the watershed environment that those wetlands encompass. This Commission’s jurisdiction under both the statute and the regulations is much broader. Attorney Patterson noted an email between Ken Metzler and Neil Angus. In that email Mr. Angus had outlined what measures were taken by the Wetlands Commission in terms of mitigation and protective measures. Language was included in their petition that not only are they alleging that the Commission has jurisdiction over these other water environmental impact issues but the town’s former staff member agrees. Attorney Patterson submitted this email for the record and read from it for the Commission’s information.
Attorney Patterson stated the wetlands proceedings were long but it resulted in so many of the intervener’s experts being incorporated into the plan. They contend that the plan is improved but they still believe that it poses a threat to the water resources on and off the site. Those will be considered as part of the general environmental concerns. They will mostly be concentrating on the critical habitat issue impact. When they were before the Wetlands Commission, they had emphasized to the Commission that the focus needed to be not just on the impacts to the pond itself. This Association, being limited by the jurisdiction the Wetlands Commission had, did the right thing. They focused their presentation at that time on what they perceived to be the problems with the plan that would create impacts to the wetlands and the water courses. They have every right as a Lake Association to be equally as concerned with what goes on on the site with respect to environmental impacts as they do with respect to impacts on the lake. It is one eco system and it is all interconnected. Just because the Wetlands Commission has a narrow focus in terms of their jurisdiction, it doesn’t change the fact that the water bodies, the wetlands, the vernal pools, the critical habitat areas all encompass one larger environment. Now they are before this Commission so that the Commission can consider everything.
Attorney Patterson referred to the town’s regulations. The Commission is being asked to evaluate a senior residential development. They have consulted experts but do not know if they will be able to appear because of budgetary constraints. Section 4.40 states that these applications require a more intensive review by the Commission. 4.30.19 – looking at the criteria for evaluation and decision making, subsection Siii – the Commission needs to evaluate whether the development will have a negative impact and whether it is compatible with surrounding development. The Commission needs to evaluate this development in the context of the larger environment both as it is currently developed and as it is undeveloped. Section 4.40.3Aiii goes right to the heart of their intervention. It states the site’s significant natural features are preserved in their natural state to the greatest extent possible by limiting excessive grading and tree and soil removal. Under 4.40.3, the Commission also needs to consider the consistency with the Plan of Conservation and Development when evaluating any application before them. Attorney Patterson referred to Section 6 and 8 of the Plan of Conservation and Development.
In 22A-19, Attorney Patterson noted they have their own burden of proof under that. They need to present evidence that the activities associated with this development are reasonably likely to cause unreasonable pollution to the natural resources. She stated the applicant has noted on their plans certain areas as critical habitat areas. If the Commission agrees and finds there is a reasonable likelihood of such unreasonable pollution, the Commission cannot issue a permit if there are prudent and feasible alternatives to what they have proposed. That is their burden. The applicant’s burden is under the regulations.
Attorney Patterson did not feel the Commission has all the information it needs from an ERT standpoint. Getting the ERT input early makes for a more informed Commission and often times a better project. The ERT is saying you need to get as much information as possible in order to have an informed decision. The Plan of Conservation says this as well on page 72, paragraph 5. Attorney Patterson read this section. The Plan of Conservation is telling the Commission they should get as much information as possible on the areas that they are to be concerned about. In this case, the Commission doesn’t know how much concern they should have for these areas because they don’t necessarily have, according to DEP, all of that information.
Attorney Patterson stated the application is on this 95.8 acre parcel which abuts the lake and the site was subject to the ERT report. Most importantly, the property is part of the 175 acre Shaker Pines site. This was identified by DEP in its natural community survey. That survey was cited in a report of an expert they had used for Wetlands, Dr. DeSanto, who is not helping at this time because he is unavailable. Attorney Patterson submitted one of his reports for the Commission’s information. She noted that Ken Metzler of DEP identifies the Shaker Pines bush site as one of the thirteen most imperiled eco systems in Connecticut. He estimates over 95% of these barrens have been developed or otherwise degraded. Attorney Patterson noted the applicant proposes to develop directly portions of the critical habitat area.
Attorney Patterson pointed out a sampling of the concerns the ERT makes. It has to do with surveys and making sure you have the right surveys done and making sure those surveys are coordinated in the right way. They talk about a wildlife corridor and state a 100’ upland review area may not be sufficient to protect and maintain the current assemblage of plant and wildlife on the project as a whole. Attorney Patterson stated the ERT is saying the proper inventories have to be done and the Commission needs to know as much as possible about the environment. She noted this is not just any site. If you come away with anything, she hopes the Commission comes away with that. The ERT emphasizes this and their experts will emphasize it as well. This is a very small piece of a very critical environment, one that has been designated as one of the thirteen most imperiled. Any development on here is not to be taken lightly.
Attorney Patterson did not feel what they are proposing makes this so significant but where they are proposing to build it. She had their own experts research the area and submitted a report by Dr. DeSantos. This is his second report. He met with Ken Metzler because he was doing a lot of research. Attorney Patterson also submitted Dr. DeSantos’s resume for the Commission’s information.
Attorney Patterson stated Dr. DeSanto concluded that the development will cause unreasonable pollution and adverse impacts to not only the wetlands and water courses but to the private property. He goes on to say the project impacts one of the Connecticut’s most imperiled eco systems.
Attorney Patterson discussed access. She noted Attorney Olson said she was surprised to learn that Mr. Metzler had not been on the site. When Dr. DeSanto met with Mr. Metzler, they talked about a site visit and this was after the Wetlands Commission had already decided the issue. They contacted Mr. Metzler to get more information on his report and Attorney Patterson asked him if he would be interested in walking the site along with Dr. DeSanto and George Logan of the applicant’s team. He expressed an interest in doing so. They did contact the applicant but the applicant was reluctant to let their expert on the site. In denying access, they also denied Mr. Metzler access. Attorney Patterson presented the email correspondence between herself and George Logan and Kari Olson. They did ask for access and that access was denied.
Attorney Patterson felt Mr. Metzler is saying in his letter the things that were supposed to be done have not been done. From that letter, she would get a sense that they have not satisfied DEP and it should not satisfy this Commission either. DEP wants a detailed survey following specific protocol as to what the species are on this site. Attorney Patterson pointed to the assessment of impacts under 4.30.19 and Section 8 of the Plan of Conservation and Development.
Attorney Patterson stated they did not have access and at that point it was early September and they were trying to coordinate a meeting with Mr. Metzler off site. Had they been able to do that, they would have notified the applicant but they were not able to do so. Mr. Metzler said they would not allow it and at that point Dr. DeSanto became unavailable. They contacted another expert to assist them in trying to evaluate the critical habitat areas and what the impact could be upon those areas. They spoke to Dr. Dwight Smith who is a PhD in zoology and Chairman of the Biology Department at Southern Connecticut State University. Dr. Smith accompanied two members of the Association on the periphery of the property but not on the property. Attorney Patterson submitted Dr. Smith’s resume to the Commission. She noted he put together a report from the site walk on October 1. This is a report the Commission will need to mull over. The important thing is he doesn’t say this is a horrible project because he doesn’t have enough information but he is saying you need to stop and make sure in accordance with the DEP recommendations that you have the proper surveys to determine the presence of the species that everyone is concerned about. Attorney Patterson reviewed other parts of the report for the Commission’s information. Dr. Smith is saying the same thing as the ERT and that is in light of the eco system on and adjacent to the site, the surveys that you have may not be and in his opinion are not complete. This Commission is the last stop in the approval process and they need to know about this property and where it sits in terms of the larger eco system.
Commissioner Cooper asked if Dr. Smith used binoculars when he walked the property. Leslie Cunningham, Vice President of the Shaker Pines Lake Association, stated Dr. Smith walked the borders of the property and did a visual inspection of the plants on the properties that abut this site. He did not use binoculars. Attorney Patterson stated it would have been great to go on the site with the three experts to get a feel for what is going on on the site but that is not what occurred. She stated she anticipates having one other report prepared by Mark Gooden to evaluate the plan as presented tonight. She will present that to the Commission in their meeting packet for the next hearing.
Attorney Patterson presented a report by Ken Metzler and David Wagner entitled “Thirteen of Connecticut’s Most Imperiled Eco Systems”. She also presented the national community survey that was mentioned by Dr. DeSanto and cited in her petition for intervention.
Commissioner Hickey stated he heard many references to Mr. Metzler this evening and he asked what the protocol is for DEP approval. Attorney Patterson responded they recommended in the ERT that the protocol be that he be consulted because of his expertise particularly with this area when doing the survey. They wanted to make sure that the protocols were being followed in accordance with DEP and that the surveys were comprehensive. The general protocol if there was not an ERT probably would not be to coordinate with DEP but this ERT is recommending very expressly that that be done. DEP gets consulted, as Attorney Olson had stated, afterwards as well with the general permit. The critical issue here is the knowledge the Commission needs to make a decision. The DEP and Mr. Metzler are raising these red flags and now is the time to ask the questions.
Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the audience.
James Dean, 43 Dartmoor, questioned having so many residences on cul de sacs especially with regard to fire protection. He asked if this is something that can be addressed by the Commission. Chairman DiPace stated that the town does have a maximum cul de sac length and the applicant needs to show they are going to meet it during this application.
Lou Silver, 31 Dartmoor, stated he is opposed to the project. He also read a letter from Barbara Kronie, 1 Dartmoor, who was also strongly opposed to this development. She cited the traffic that would change Dartmoor and also felt the water pressure would be affected.
Gerome Houle, 41 Dartmoor, had concerns. He noted this is a very sensitive land and he is concerned about the number of trucks and the amount of topsoil that will have to be brought in. The traffic will be more than double the traffic that the road sees now and he is concerned about maintenance of that road.
Allen Levitz, 57 Dartmoor, is opposed to this project. He is on the Board of Directors of Dartmoor and he is speaking on behalf of the residents of Dartmoor. They are opposed to the development because the water runoff will affect five of the units that abut the wetlands. There is a standing body of water there from early spring to mid summer which can only enlarge if there is a water runoff. Construction trucks may damage Mayfield Drive and who would pay to fix the damage. It is a private street and Dartmoor does maintain it. The third concern is excessive dust and dirt from spring through summer from the trucks hauling in all of this fill. Also, there will be excessive auto use of Mayfield with the addition of the 73 units plus what is also being built at the end of Mayfield. Mr. Levitz stated that Mayfield Drive is the only practical entrance and exit to Route 192. He did not feel anyone would utilize the Lake Road because of the narrow conditions and the number of children on the street. Mr. Levitz distributed some articles regarding other developments that have had problems with wetlands.
Reginald Leonard, 42 Fairfield Road, had concerns about responsible building, meeting the town regulations and enforcement of such regulations. He has followed this application for the last year and a half and has been to most of the Wetlands meetings. He felt it will affect the characteristics of the neighborhood and the abutters to an extreme sense. He commented about the Inland Wetlands meetings and stated they were looking for simultaneous approvals about a year ago. The application a year ago was denied for fourteen reasons. This last application he felt is hit and miss. Every time the intervener brought something up, the plan was changed. Two members of Wetlands could not agree because of the amount of runoff, the calculation accuracy and the runoff volume and pipe sizes. Mr. Cabibbo stated there were several places on the plan at the time where the minimum pipe requirements had not been met. They were concerned about the detention basins and the maintenance of these.
Mr. Leonard stated Wetlands normally has ten or eleven conditions and this application has twenty-nine exceptions they want followed. He addressed #19 which required a wetland scientist to be hired to oversee all the wetland crossings and file a report. Regarding tonight’s application, Mr. Leonard stated there are too many variances and waivers. They are on curbs, on wetland crossings, and on snow shelves. There are fire and safety concerns. There is a cul de sac that is double the size of the regulations which will have an abundance of people living around this cul de sac. Mr. Leonard questioned what will happen when these homes have visitors and emergency vehicles cannot access the area.
Mr. Leonard stated he went to the town hall and was concerned about storm water runoff. This application states inspect and clean for the management plan. He expected to see the rules and regulations the state has. One of the rules is all construction projects that result in the disturbance of ten or more acres requires a storm control plan and approvals. He questioned how the Commission can approve it and then have the developer come back in with this plan. He did not hear a plan mentioned tonight. Mr. Leonard stated one of the speakers at Inland Wetlands wonders why anyone in their right mind would want to do any building on a swamp.
Jessica Duga, 101 Cottage Road, stated she is against the Stonegate development. They had a really big flood in the area last year and she was concerned if this should happen again. She has a concern if they develop and no one is monitoring the catch basins, what will happen if there is a lot of runoff. There is no ground left to saturate the water. Enfield has had a lot of economic development in the last few years. In 2004 there were 2,500 building permits issued with 300 acres being considered for development. Ms. Duga stated there are some areas that should be left alone and not developed. She felt this is one of those areas and it should be protected. The letter from Mr. Metzler of the DEP says there are some species that are endangered. There are a number of different species that are on the endangered list and Ms. Duga cited many of them. Who knows how many of those species are living in this area. She felt it is a travesty to build a senior housing complex in this particular area which is important to the state, the people at the lake and the people at Dartmoor. It is necessary for the town to say it’s a good project but let’s put it someplace else. She asked that the Commission not approve this application.
Bob Rossman, 14 Shaker Hill Road, presented a letter from Guy Beck at 139 Cottage Road which states that he is strongly opposed to this development. He feels it will dramatically weaken an already fragile habitat. Mr. Rossman addressed open space. As far as the Town of Enfield subdivision regulations, open space is required. Chairman DiPace stated this is not a subdivision but a senior residential development. Mr. Rossman addressed the length of the cul de sacs. The town has rules about ingress and egress on an accepted town road. Mayfield Road only has one egress which is North Maple Street and, second, it is not a town road. As far as the cul de sac itself, the regulations stated 600’ with a waiver possible up to 1,200’ but it also states there are no driveway curb cuts within the transition curbs and no more than three driveways per circle. With this proposal, there are four or five driveway cuts. He presented an article from the Hartford Courant dealing with cul de sacs and not in favor of them. Mr. Rossman stated they requested a waiver for the last 500’ going on to West Shore Drive and that is in violation of the access. He noted there already is a complex within Shaker Pines called Cranberry Hollow which is now more rental units than owner occupied units. He has a concern that this may happen to this project.
Patricia Holden, West Shore Drive, stated she is opposed to this project. She doesn’t feel that building in this area is appropriate. She lives in a home that was once named Whippoorwill Hill and she questioned if they are still in the area.
Linda Marr, 109 Cottage Road, is opposed to this project for all the reasons the Commission has already heard. She does not understand why we would risk a development in an area that is already a flood zone. She has a lot of questions about the results of the Wetlands Commission. They asked for a lot of modifications and the responsibility for the maintenance is going to be on the homeowners. This is a lot of maintenance that will be up to one person willing to take that on in the condo association. We’re going to have a lake and a flood zone up to private elderly homeowners that have to maintain the project. Another concern is running additional sewers to the pump station which is already in disrepair. Also, West Shore Road was just recently repaved and now the Commission is considering issuing a permit to go back in there with construction trucks for this development. She questioned why the town paid all this money to now let someone come in with more construction.
Maureen Butler, 69 West Shore Drive, had similar concerns. Long term - who will maintain this project? She is opposed to this project. She has been to hours of meetings and does not believe this is a good project.
Laurie Parker, 105 Cottage Road, opposes the development. She has concerns about the impact on the eco system, the impact on the quality of Shaker Pines Lake and the change in the character of the neighborhood. It appears the proposal may be in conflict with the Enfield Plan of Conservation goals and, in particular, goal number one, number 6, number 8 and number 11. There are also many points within these goals and Ms. Parker cited some of them. Ms. Parker stated the plan also seems to be in conflict with the State of Connecticut’s Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut, 2005-2010. The letter from Mr. Metzler of the DEP does note that it is an area of significant environmental value and the species in the area have not been considered. Also, in the State’s plan they talk about preservation areas and protecting significant resources by avoiding structural development except that which is directly consistent with the preservation value. Ms. Parker stated there are a lot of concerns about the lake and residents have been taking measures to improve it. There have been prior problems with the sewage pipe. As mentioned earlier, she would hate to see the flooding problems exacerbated. In regard to the character of the neighborhood, the senior housing would change the face of the single-family home neighborhood. Ms. Parker questioned what will happen if these units are not all owner occupied.
Susan Heller, 21 Dartmoor, voiced her concern about the environmental vulnerability. She thanked the Commission for taking the time to review this site and hopes they take it as seriously as the crowd here tonight does.
Irene Percoski, 77 West Shore Drive, stated she is an abutter to this project. While she has always been an advocate for change, she is against this project. There are many dirt bikes in the area and they will not stop because the senior housing goes in. There will be more complaints. Also, there are no sidewalks on any of the roads getting in there and there are many children and animals. Seniors will have to be cautious driving these roads. Also, seniors do like to walk. There is nowhere for them to walk to. Ms. Percoski has a brook running next to her house which she noted never runs dry. She doesn’t feel there is going to be adequate drainage. She is the Tax Collector for the Shaker Pines Lake Association. They are a tax district registered with the State of Connecticut. Any repairs that have to be done, they have the power to do through a tax which is levied to the homeowners. As a homeowners association, she doesn’t know if they will have the same leverage in collecting money to do their repairs. Ms. Percoski stated these reasons and the others stated tonight are why she is against this project.
Vincent Demaro stated he is on the Board of Directors at Dartmoor. He thought what will happen with 72 more homes in the area elevated, the water will go somewhere. There’s going to be more water coming into basements and back yards. He doesn’t think this is the place for such a development and there are other dry, flat places in Enfield. He questioned if there is more flooding when this project is developed, what recourse do people have. Can they sue the town? In Mr. Demaro’s opinion, the area is a swamp and he doesn’t see how you can develop a project in such an area.
Commissioner Jones asked who owns and maintains Mayfield Drive now.
Attorney Kari Olson stated the maintenance of Mayfield is committed to three of the abutting property owners, Stonegate Estates, the Dartmoor Condominium Association and American Inn upon approval. Today it is a private road owned by Dartmoor and American Inn. Chairman DiPace asked that this be confirmed during the next hearing session.
Attorney Kari Olson rebutted a comment from Attorney Patterson. Regarding the site walk, her client has reached out to this Lake Association and has offered to meet with them on multiple occasions. She has also done the same. They were repeatedly told that the Association did not want to meet with them while the Inland Wetlands permit was pending. Only after that permit was approved and the appeal period had expired did she receive an email from Attorney Patterson requesting a site walk with their experts. This was after months of hearings before the Inland Wetlands Commission. Her email reflects the response that they see no reason to agree to anything at this point and they would be happy to have Mr. Metzler view the site at the appropriate time. They were the ones who directly spoke to Mr. Metzler about a site walk and he indicated to REMA that he thought a site walk was premature with no permit pending.
Chairman DiPace stated in previous applications, the Commission has heard from the State DEP. They do not have that with this application. He asked if that would be supplied before the close of this hearing. Attorney Olson stated they have reached out to Mr. Metzler and they are meeting with him. Chairman DiPace stated he would expect to have a letter of positive results from him before the close of this hearing. This is a very sensitive area and the State has made the Commission aware of this with other applications in the area. Attorney Olson stated they will address this when they meet with Mr. Metzler.
Chairman DiPace stated recently there have been changes to the town’s regulations and one of them says the length of a cul de sac shall not exceed 1,200’ from a public road. Because this is not a public road, Chairman DiPace questioned if this is a valid application. Chairman DiPace requested a legal opinion from the Town Attorney on this question.
Attorney Olson stated she can represent to the Commission that they met with the Administrative Review Team. They were very much aware of the waiver and expressed no concern with respect to it. Chairman DiPace stated it was not a public road prior to a few months ago and now it says a public road. |