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

DECEMBER 7, 2006

A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, December 7, 2006, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Second Vice Chairman Jeffrey Cooper called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

PRESENT: Anthony DiPace, Chairman (arrived at 8:40 p.m.)

Jeffrey Cooper

Elizabeth Ballard

Jason Jones

Karen Weseliza

Nicles Lefakis, Alternate (arrived at 7:35 p.m.)

Charles Ladd, Alternate

ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning

MINUTES

Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to approve the Minutes of November 16, 2006. The Minutes were approved by a 4 – 0 – 1 vote. Commissioner Weseliza abstained.

STAFF COMMENTS

a. Town Attorney (in writing)

b. Zoning Enforcement Officer (in writing)

c. Director of Planning

Mr. Giner noted there is correspondence from Sullivan and Hays which will be discussed under Correspondence. He also reported the town has a new assistant planner and wetlands officer and he seems to be fitting in quite well.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Margaret Jedziniak, Abbe Road, discussed the handicapped parking at the Town Hall. She notices there are two signs for handicapped parking and an automatic door but it is not properly set up for handicapped people because the elevator is located at the other end of the building. This would pose a hardship to people in wheelchairs. She felt the parking and the automatic door should be at the end where the elevator is located.

Margaret Jedziniak stated Mr. Giner made a presentation to the Town Council this past Monday evening. She took offense because he showed a picture that showed a group of people and there was one person in the center of that group that had red clothing on. Mr. Giner made the statement that you can’t please everybody and just that one person was the person complaining about what was going on with Planning and Zoning. In Ms. Jedziniak’s opinion, one person matters and she didn’t think Mr. Giner’s statement was a good one. Mr. Giner apologized for this and stated it was only his intent to be humorous.

COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Giner brought up the letter from Sullivan Hays dated November 30, 2006. Mr. Giner showed the Commission what they approved for the building facade for Hampton Inn and the proposed change to the facade. Commissioners were in agreement with the change. Mr. Giner will approve this change administratively.

Commissioner Cooper reported receipt of a cease and desist order issued by Wayne Bickley to 148 Enfield Street. There is a letter to Peter Olko regarding a storage violation regarding carnival equipment. Commissioner Cooper reported receipt of a letter on the Aquifer Protection Program meeting held recently and a report from the Capitol Region Council of Governments. Also received were Notices of Action for Inland Wetlands dated November 8 and November 21. Also received was a notice of a job opening for a Town Planner in Groton and magazines from the American Planning Association.

Commissioner Ladd reported the Mill Street situation has been resolved. They filled the holes and put up a sign indicating it is a private road.

PUBLIC HEARINGS – Continued from November 16 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 12/21)

Attorney Thomas Fahey appeared before the Commission regarding this application. Mr. Giner stated the Commission should have a copy of the wetlands permit which was approved this past Tuesday.

Attorney Fahey confirmed that the Wetlands Commission did approve this application.

Commissioner Ladd asked about the Fire Marshal’s comments and his desire for a 24’ road. Mr. Giner stated he spoke with the Fire Marshal and he thought this was a subdivision. Rear lots require a 12’ width with a 3’ wide shoulder built to stand a fire engine. Attorney Fahey confirmed that they did comply with Section 5-10.1 referring to the width.

Second Vice Chairman Cooper opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Second Vice Chairman Cooper closed this hearing.

Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to approve 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. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans as may be required to be amended by this approval and the following conditions:

Referenced Plans:

“Plan For Rear Lot By Special Permit Prepared for Brad Collins #20 Bacon Road Enfield, Conn. Zone R-44” Sheet 1/2, Scale 1” =40’, by Sanderson & Washburn, dated June 16, 2006.

“Site Development Plan Prepared for Brad Collins #20 Bacon Road Enfield, Conn. Zone R-44” Sheet 2/2, Scale 1”=40’, by Sanderson & Washburn, dated June 16, 2006, revised to Nov. 1 2006.

Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Mylars:

1. All mylars submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.

2. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns. A copy of the final motion shall be incorporated on the final mylars submitted for signing.

3. The Public Hearing file number “PH 2568 shall be displayed prominently on all final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.

4. The Final Mylars are subject to Town Engineer approval prior to signature by the Commission.

5. 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.

Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:

6. Two sets of final mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to signature to the Commission. One set of signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk and one set shall be retained by the planning department.

Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Zoning Certificate of Compliance:

7. Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance. In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit to the Planning Director, final plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.

8. The driveway shall be finished to the Rear Lot standards prior to issuance of a CO.

9. No certificates of compliance shall be issued until the Enfield Water Pollution Control Authority has inspected and approved the sewer connection for the project.

General Conditions:

10. This project is also subject to conditions of approval under Inland Wetlands Permit IW 468.

11. 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.

12. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.

The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.

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 December 21).

Commissioner Cooper read instructions to the audience regarding the procedure for this public hearing.

Commissioner Cooper asked if the Commission would be required to vote as far as the intervener status. Mr. Giner stated the procedure would be that as part of the final motion, the Commission rules on the merits of whether the intervener has proven their case. Mr. Giner stated the Commission’s attorney during the Leete Stevens case advised the Commission to take all testimony and at the end make a separate finding with respect to the intervener’s points.

Attorney Keri Olson introduced Bob DiGennaro, one of the principals of Stonegate, who gave a brief overview of the site and the proposed development.

Mr. DiGennaro stated they have submitted this application under Stonegate Associates because under Connecticut law each condominium must be a separate and legal entity. The final legal entity for this project will be Stonegate Associates by Somerset Homes, LLC.

Mr. DiGennaro stated his company has been building homes in the Town of Enfield since 1995. Their current project is Autumn Fields, the first condominium project approved by this Commission which is 56 units located on Elm Street. He discussed the environmental challenge of building this condominium development.

Regarding the Stonegate project, it was actually a vision of Mr. John Coccomo who purchased the property twenty-five years ago. Mr. Coccomo divided the property into three distinct parcels actually developing the middle parcel in the mid 1980’s now known as Dartmoor condominiums. Mr. Coccomo also received approval for the development of the front parcel as an assisted living facility which was recently re-approved by this Commission. His long term plan was to develop the rear parcel, now the subject of this application, as a continuation of the Dartmoor condominium project. When the real estate market took a down turn in the late 80’s and early 90’s, Mr. Coccomo deferred his plans and came to an untimely death in the late 1990’s. Just prior to Mr. Coccomo’s death in 1998, Mr. DiGennaro entered into an option agreement with him for the purchase of the rear land off Mayfield Drive. The option agreement was subsequently renewed by the heir of Mr. Coccomo, the present owner. Mr. Coccomo was very careful to preserve all the rights for the use of Mayfield Drive for access to the rear parcel, the parcel which is the subject of this application. An easement document relating to this was properly recorded in the town land records and a copy of the recorded easement is provided with this application.

Mr. DiGennaro stated they spent the last eighteen months going through the public hearing process with the Town’s Wetland Commission. Their first application was denied without prejudice on January 18, 2006. Their second application which proposed a major layout revision and reduction in units from 85 to 73 was approved by the Wetlands Commission on August 3, 2006.

Mr. DiGennaro stated the Stonegate plan for detached condominiums on 96 acres of land has been painstakingly conceived to have minimal impact on the wetlands. The total wetlands disturbance is less than 4,800 square feet. As a matter of right under the zoning regulations they would be allowed to have 155 units on this parcel. Their plan calls for 73 units or 47% of the density allowable under the regulations. A huge portion of this 96 acre parcel or almost 66% of the site will be in a perpetual conservation trust.

Mr. DiGennaro stated in order to achieve a minimum impact on wetlands, a loop road which would have required two wetlands crossings was redesigned early on to provide a single cul de sac road with one wetlands crossing. This requires a waiver from the Commission due to the length of the cul de sac.

Mr. DiGennaro cited the ever growing need for active adult communities. Active adult communities are fiscally attractive to the town because they create substantial tax revenues with a minimal drain on town costs. All the roads and infrastructures are private. The Association and not the town absorbs the cost of maintaining and repairing those roads. There are no children and education is the town’s single largest budget line item.

Attorney Olson addressed a couple of the questions that had been raised by the Commission at the last hearing session. There was a question as to who owns Mayfield Drive. The Commission has a letter regarding the road. They have since confirmed that the road is owned in fee by the Dartmoor Condominium Association but subject to the rights of American Inn and the owners of the parcel in question for right of way for all purposes of ingress and egress.

Attorney Olson stated the second question that was raised by the Commission was the cul de sac concern. There has been submitted into the record a memo from Mr. Giner that has been approved by the Town Attorney.

Attorney Olson stated another concern was the letter submitted by Mr. Metzler of the Department of Environmental Protection. Attorney Olson stated they have met with Mr. Metzler and had an extensive site walk on November 29, 2006 and walked the entire 96 acres. They went through all portions of the site and visited every critical habitat. They viewed all of the wetlands and focused on each of the areas of wetland disturbance and wetland crossing. As evidenced by Mr. Metzler’s letter, their plan for development does do a very good job of conserving most of the critical habitat on the site. The plan also affords the opportunity to improve through mitigation the critical habitats on the site. Attorney Olson stated they talked to Mr. Metzler extensively about their willingness to go in and improve existing critical habitats as well as taking measures to try to eliminate the ATV traffic. The intention is to continue to work with Mr. Metzler through the storm water permitting process.

Commissioner Cooper stated one of the concerns by Mr. Metzler was their was no on-site inventory of the plants and animals that are on site now. He asked if that has been addressed. Attorney Olson stated they have done an analysis of the plant species on the site. While it was not provided to Mr. Metzler, the viewing of this site for the purpose of accepting critical habitat and endangered species is clearly within the expertise of the DEP and is something they will and have to do as part of the storm water permit process. They do predict it will be coming down the road. To move to the next step, they have to get by this Commission. They are committed to doing that and all of the concerns of the DEP can and will be addressed.

Commissioner Weseliza stated when she reads Mr. Metzler’s letter, it says in general the applicant did a reasonable job and there was a high potential for restoration offered. She reads this as they have done everything they are supposed to do to improve the critical habitat. Attorney Olson stated during the site walk Mr. Metzler noticed a lot of these critical habitats were not in the best of shape. A lot of the oak trees had grown over and caused some ground cover which naturally chokes out all of the plants. They talked extensively with Mr. Metzler about going in and cutting down with the DEP’s direction the trees to scarify the land underneath. They would be turning a marginal critical habitat into an excellent critical habitat. If the development does not take place, none of this mitigation will occur and these natural habitats will by nature disappear on their own.

Commissioner Ladd discussed a project in the area of his home which was similar to this one. One of the problems was the project eliminated all the predators causing an excess of skunks and field mice as well as squirrels and raccoons.

Attorney Olson stated with this application so much of the 96 acres is being preserved including the entire northern portion.

Commissioner Ladd had a concern that the destroying of predators would cause an imbalance to the environment. Attorney Olson pointed out this is something Ken Metzler will be heavily involved in and any situation will be addressed when they go for their storm water permit.

Commissioner Jones stated he would like to see the inventory of the different species done beforehand since this will have a big effect on the neighborhood. Attorney Olson stated she doesn’t think it would be that simple to go out in December and do the kind of analysis that is being requested. It is a step by step process. To do that analysis to the satisfaction of the DEP, it is generally done in conjunction with the storm water permit application. In order to apply for the storm water permit, they have to have an approved plan.

Commissioner Jones requested a preliminary look at such an inventory. Attorney Olson stated so many of the species are seasonally dependent and she doesn’t know how accurate an inventory would be at this time.

Attorney Olson stated she wants to address some of the rebuttal information submitted by the intervener. The first of which is they would like to respond to the report from Gooden Associates and Mark Gooden in particular. Attorney Olson turned the floor over to Wes Wentworth at this time.

Wes Wentworth with Wentworth Civil Engineers in Lebanon discussed the Gooden report and the Town Engineer’s report in regard to it. All the engineering issues that are raised in Mr. Gooden’s report all came up in prior reports submitted by the intervener during the wetlands process. These were in regard to storm water quality, storm water quantity,and erosion and sedimentation control. The Town Engineer in his review approved this application. Mr. Wentworth concurs and feels all designs and calculations that were submitted as part of this application are appropriate. Mr. Wentworth submitted a cover letter that states this. He will also include a couple of letters dated July 18, 2006 and June 6, 2006 addressed to the Chairman of Inland Wetlands. Mr. Wentworth confirmed that all his responses to the Gooden report are already written out and there was nothing new to address from an engineering standpoint.

Attorney Olson requested that George Logan address the Commission with respect to the Gooden Report, the DeSanto Report and the Smith Report.

George Logan with REMA Ecological Services appeared before the Commission along with Sigrun Gadwa. Their resumes are included as part of their report.

Mr. Logan stated what this report does is give the Commission some quick responses to some of the intervener’s claims of impact on natural resources on the site. They have reviewed the documents as well as the communications from Ken Metzler.

Mr. Logan stated they believe the Mark Gooden report is basically a rehash of a lot of the things that had been gone before the Inland Wetlands Commission. Instead of going through them individually, Mr. Logan has appended to this report a July 18 and a June 6 report to the Inland Wetlands Commission that addresses all of these issues put forward. If you look at Mr. Gooden’s report, you will notice that at least two of the rebuttals to the Inland Wetlands Commission on these same issues are part of his review list. The question is if Mr. Gooden knew already that some of these answers had been put forth, at least he could have acknowledged that and he did not. You will see in these reports things such as calculations for total suspended solids, quality volumes for the detention basins, and permeability testing.

Segrun Gadwa stated to clarify on the issue of where and how much critical habitat there is on the site, the actual critical habitat is very limited. It is the mapped areas shown on the plans. There are areas which Ken Metzler refers to as dry oak forests which used to be critical habitat. There is potential to put it back to critical habitat. The southwestern and northwestern portions of the site contain all this dry oak forest which could be restored.

Ms. Gadwa stated regarding the predators, the key thing is that there be enough open space for secluded nesting sites for the hawks and owls. This has been provided in the northern area.

Ms. Gadwa stated regarding the inventory, all the plant species are actually in the narrative already in the record.

Attorney Olson stated they feel that so much of the intervener’s brief was already submitted to Wetlands. They are not asking the Commission to take their word for it. She presented a package of comments from Neil Angus and John Cabbibo regarding the various issues that were raised before the Inland Wetlands Commission.

Attorney Amy Blaymore Patterson appeared before the Commission on the part of the intervener. She asked about the intervener’s status. She noted there were some documents that they did not receive regarding this hearing. Attorney Patterson wants to make sure they do have intervener status and are proceeding under that. Mr. Giner confirmed that the Chairman granted intervener status at the last hearing session. Attorney Patterson stated it is their understanding they are proceeding as intervener with that legal status.

Attorney Patterson added that most commissions make an active motion to accept the petition for intervention for purposes of the status only with the understanding that there will be a ruling on the status of it at the end.

Attorney Patterson stated they did not receive the Town Engineer’s response to Mr. Gooden’s report or Mr. Giner’s memo on the cul de sac issue. Chairman DiPace felt it was important that the intervener receive all memos regarding this application.

Attorney Patterson stated Attorney Olson references a letter from Mr. Metzler. She has a different take on a lot of things he said in his letter. She thinks it is interesting that Attorney Olson focuses on Mr. Metzler’s excitement on the plan having the opportunity to restore and enhance but the plan doesn’t do that now. They had the opportunity to do that and the best time to assure the Commission that this plan meets the town’s regulations is now. The ERT came out in 2004 and they had two years to take these surveys and add the mitigation measures. Attorney Patterson would submit that that needs to be shown now for this Commission’s purposes. This plan should be as complete as possible so that the Commission has the most effective review.

Attorney Patterson stated there was a concern by a Commissioner about Mr. Metzler’s point on the lack of surveys. She thinks Mr. Metzler is pretty clear in his letter. He says during the site visit, there was no evidence presented that a thorough inventory was conducted on site for the plants and animals. Regarding what Mr. Metzler meant, Attorney Patterson stated the best source would be to contact Mr. Metzler. It is clear to Attorney Patterson that Mr. Metzler was not satisfied that a thorough inventory was conducted. She felt the applicant is now at the last minute trying to do what they should have done two years ago when the original ERT came out. Attorney Patterson thought that mitigation should be offered as part of this plan now.

Attorney Patterson stated Commissioner Ladd raised an excellent point about the predataors. This goes to the issue of a wildlife corridor. The ERT talks about wildlife corridors and Metzler in his December 6, 2006 letter says (4) a careful inventory for the invertebrate species would determine whether the conservation easement captures the unique biological character of the site. This is important because you can preserve these areas they have preserved but by disturbing the other areas, you may well indeed be disturbing a corridor between those areas and the lake. The ERT talks about wildlife corridors and significant buffers of 750’ beyond a vernal pool. Just because they have preserved the critical habitat areas, it doesn’t mean that there won’t be adverse impacts as a result of the development elsewhere on the site. When you start to destroy a corridor, you begin messing with the predators and the whole balance of the eco system both for the plants and animal species.

Attorney Patterson brought up the discussion of why can’t we have some of these surveys done now. They said it was too late in the season and they couldn’t do it. In October of 2004 they had an ERT that recommended that all of this be done. Attorney Patterson felt it behooves the Commission to get all the information they can get especially information that has been requested by the ERT and by Mr. Metzler.

As to Mr. Gooden’s report, Attorney Patterson stated much of it was submitted as part of the Wetlands. The bottom line is he has the same concerns now as he did at Wetlanlds. Those issues in his professional opinion were not addressed. The answers were put forth but he doesn’t necessarily agree with them and that is why he is raising them again. All of these issues go to the impact of this development on the entire eco system. The focus here is much broader than the wetlands issues as Mr. Angus states in his memo.

Attorney Patterson stated she has submitted another report by Mark Gooden and she also submitted his resume. Mr. Gooden did testify extensively before the Wetlands Commission and many of his recommendations were adopted. Attorney Patterson did ask Mr. Gooden to review this again and he put forth this report because he believes these points have not been addressed in his professional opinion to his satisfaction.

Attorney Patterson stated they have already testified that they have done everything that they have been asked to do or that they don’t need to do it. She submitted that if you take anything away from Mr. Gooden’s report, it is that the applicant should be taking the most conservative approach with respect to designs and calculations. According to Mr. Gooden, they have not done so. He has provided examples of why they have not done so. There are comments which are outside of the scope of the petition for intervention but they are within the scope of this Commission’s review when looking at this application as a whole.

Attorney Patterson stated it is within the Commission’s discretion to determine which expert to believe. She urged the Commission to tread carefully here and heed the advice of those that are saying to you to take the conservative approach and get as much information up front. Request that any restoration or enhancement or surveys be done before hand so that the Commission has the opportunity to evaluate this in the best way possible.

Attorney Patterson pointed out on page 19 of Mr. Gooden’s report he urges the Commission to ask the ERT to review all aspects of this plan and then submit the current surveys to the DEP for evaluation. Take this plan and ask the ERT to look at it. They offered to do that and Attorney Patterson marked in the ERT where they say that. This is on page 19.

Attorney Patterson stated they have submitted to the Commission the reports of Dr. DeSanto, Mr. Smith and Mr. Gooden. There are two letters in the file from Mr. Metzler. Dr. DeSanto concludes that the destruction of a portion of the critical habitat areas are likely to lead to undue pollution. Dr. Smith says the assessments are not adequate enough and that further inventories are in order to know the full extent of the impact. The applicant stated they have avoided the critical habitat areas but not all of them. Attorney Patterson felt impact to areas outside the designated critical habitat areas may create adverse environmental impacts as well. Attorney Patterson submitted the wildlife corridor issue on pages 6, 11 and 28 of the ERT, Mr. Gooden on page 3, and Dr. DeSanto raised this point as well on page 28. Dr. Smith states merely staying out of the critical habitat areas which they haven’t done completely does not necessarily mean that the species that use those habitats will be unaffected. This is information that the applicant was going to gather later on but Attorney Patterson stated this information should be submitted now in order for the Commission to make an informed decision.

Attorney Patterson referred to Mr. Metzler’s letter since their take is different from Attorney Olson’s. The words speak pretty clearly. In the second paragraph, he says the applicant did a reasonable job. She questioned if the Commission wants to accept a reasonable plan when there are opportunities here to make it the best plan it can possibly be. In subsection two, Mr. Metzler is requesting mitigation. Attorney Patterson stated why not ask for it now. She read the last paragraph of the letter from Mr. Metzler. He is saying that the conservation easement that they are touting as part of their plan for environmental protection might not necessarily be enough. He is not satisfied with the surveys the way Attorney Patterson reads his letter. She again suggested the Commission ask for clarification from Mr. Metzler.

Attorney Patterson went through the intervener’s burden of proof. She submitted that Mark Gooden’s report is not something that should be tossed aside because many of those issues were raised in Wetlands. They are as much this Commission’s concern as they were the Wetlands Commission’s. Mr. Gooden who is a respected professional engineer has very significant concerns about the methodologies that were used in the design of this plan because they all go to pollution control. In his opinion, the most conservative approaches should be used for an areas as fragile and important as this one.

Attorney Patterson stated under 22A-19, they have the burden of proving as interveners that the activities that they are proposing are reasonably likely to cause unreasonable pollution. She noted Dr. DeSanto’s report where he says yes, there is a reasonable likelihood of unreasonable pollution. Mr. Gooden says it as well. He points out all of the deficiencies of this plan that will, in his professional opinion, lead to pollution of this very important site. Dr. Smith says they need more information. Attorney Patterson referenced page 5, Section 1.4 of the REMA report. She stated they agree and question why wasn’t this done when the 2004 ERT specifically said on page 22 to go to Mr. Metzler and coordinate these surveys.

Attorney Patterson stated it is their interpretation that the DEP is saying they did not find that the surveys were thorough enough for the type of application before the Commission. They have destroyed critical habitat, number one, they have essentially destroyed 1A and they don’t adequately buffer 1A and 3. This is unreasonable pollution.

Attorney Patterson went through the allegations of their petition. If you look at Subsection C of the petition for intervention, she would point to the Gooden report, the Smith report and Mr. Metzler’s letter to determine that the surveys have not been thoroughly accomplished and more information is needed. Subsection G of the petition for intervention are concerns regarding storm water quality and the drainage design, numbers 5 through 22 of Mr. Gooden’s report. Subsection H of the petition is the background portion and it is emphasizing in subsection H that this allegation is true and why we need certain specific controls on the storm water management. Subsection I of the petition is addressed in numbers 5 through 22 of Mr. Gooden’s report as is Subsection J of the petition.

Attorney Patterson stated based upon their petition for intervention and the expert evidence they have submitted, they have met their burden of proving that there will be unreasonable pollution of significant State of Connecticut natural resources.

Attorney Patterson stated the next question that they would need to address is prudent and feasible alternatives. It is their burden as an intervener to go on to say and have the Commission find that there are feasible and prudent alternatives to this plan that require less environmental impact. If the Commission finds that, then they cannot grant the permit. Attorney Patterson pointed to page 12, number 29 of Mr. Gooden’s report. He lists a number of prudent and feasible alternatives that would meet that burden. Attorney Patterson stated it is not the intervener’s burden of proof to redesign the plan but Mr. Gooden offers many alternatives which he feels are prudent and feasible and would result in less environmental impact. Neil Angus said in his email correspondence that the applicant is encouraged to avoid the critical habitat areas. Attorney Patterson questioned why they chose not to do so and why is it necessary to destroy critical habitat. The ERT offers recommendations for a significant buffer and these significant critical habitat areas don’t have them. Attorney Patterson questioned why not and felt these are questions the applicant should answer.

Attorney Patterson stated in Mr. Metzler’s letter he states there is more room to explore a plan which provides for more mitigation, restoration and enhancement. Attorney Patterson felt those should be asked and they go to prudent and feasible alternatives. Why haven’t they presented that to the Commission now?

Attorney Patterson stated maintenance is another point that Mr. Gooden raises. The efficacy of the storm water management system, which he goes into in great detail, depends upon proper maintenance, page 8 of his report, number 17 and 18. Dr. DeSanto’s report supports that conclusion as well. Attorney Patterson felt it is truly speculation on the applicant’s part to state that their storm water management system will have no adverse impact upon the eco system when the site has not been fully studied and maintenance cannot be guaranteed.

Attorney Patterson referenced Mr. Gooden’s report, numbers 23 through 25, where he points out other sections of the zoning regulations which are not necessarily pertinent to environmental impact but are under this Commission’s jurisdiction to ask. Section 4.40.19S, subsection 3, contains questions that should be asked. Have they met their burden of proving that this development will not have a negative impact on the surrounding area? Attorney Patterson did not feel they have and she stated Ken Metzler’s letter underscores that as well. There is much opportunity for improvement to this plan and they should be asked to do it now. Section 4.40 states that the application for this type of development requires a more intensive review. Attorney Patterson stated this plan is not complete with respect to the types of mitigation, restoration and enhancement methods and the types of environmental surveys that have been asked for since 2004. Section 4.40.3.A.subsection 2 – does the plan meet the goals and objectives of the Plan of Conservation and Development? Attorney Patterson referred the Commission to Sections 6 and 8, pages 69 and 70, of the Plan of Conservation and Development. There are significant goals and recommendations set forth in those sections and the Commission needs to ask does this plan as it currently exists now conform with the Plan of Conservation and Development. Section 4.40.3.A.subsection 3 – have they shown that the site’s significant natural features are preserved in a natural state in the best way possible. Attorney Patterson questioned how they could do that and meet that burden when according to DEP the surveys that should have been provided have not been provided to the Commission. Section 4.40.4.A.subsection 2 – delineation of open space – they outline the critical habitat areas and the regulations are very specific in terms of what needs to be shown in terms of open space delineation.

Attorney Patterson submitted the original letter from Dr. Smith with his signature.

Second Vice Chairman Cooper opened this hearing to the audience at this time.

Tom Sledger, 46 Cottage Road, stated he is opposed to this development. He has lived at Shaker Pines Lake for over forty years and he wonders how many people appearing on behalf of the applicant have lived at Shaker Pines Lake and would ultimately have to deal with the consequences of this development.

Mike Dubola, 57 West Shore Drive, has lived in this area for twenty-two years and has walked the property with both his son and his grandson. He thanks Mr. Ladd for bringing up the animal situation. There are copperheads and snapping turtles on the site. At one of the wetlands crossings, Mr. Dubola noted it appears to be a spring. He thinks there needs to be more studies done regarding the ground water. There are also people that have wells on the back side of West Shore Drive and Mr. Dubola questioned what effect this project will have on those wells. Is it going to dry the wells up and if it does affect the wells, who will be responsible for it?

Leslie Cunningham, Vice President of the Shaker Pines Lake Association and a resident at 26 Wheeler Drive stated she kayaks the lake in the spring through late fall. The end of the lake is a place where a lot of birds nest and raise their young. She discussed the various bird species that inhabit this area as well as other animals. She is opposed to the plan because she is concerned about the issues and taking care of the eco system that they have.

Reg Leonard, 42 Fairfield Road, stated the Inland Wetlands is responsible for getting a feasible use of this land and the least impact on the area. This Commission’s responsibilities are more than theirs. The ten standard conditions of Wetlands have been augmented with 19 other ones. This application also has problems with road design, snow shelves, sidewalks and curbing. He would like to have heard tonight what was raised at the last meeting about cul de sacs. Mr. Leonard’s main concern here tonight is to have the pertinent information. Storm water runoff is a serious concern. This application is going to have serious water problems unless they are addressed properly. The storm water permit process doesn’t have to be done with the regulations as they currently exist. Mr. Leonard felt this Commission should review the application before it goes to the state. He noted that Mr. Wentworth stated the plans are ready to go to the DEP and those plans should be presented to this Commission. Mr. Leonard stated on a prior application he researched over ten acres and he has been to Mr. Giner’s office and others at the town hall regarding this application. If they have to do this, the Commission has to monitor them. The state is saying that they expect municipalities to follow through on their regulations. Mr. Leonard could not find any of this existing with the Planning Department or the Engineering Department. If the town can produce something that should be done and is required by the state, Mr. Leonard would like to see it.

Eileen Wezelowski, 42 West Shore Drive, stated she was leaning against this application but after she heard the presentation tonight, she realized some things are still missing. She was born on the lake and has lived there over forty years. In August, 2004, their home burned down. They had a great insurance policy and chose to rebuild on the same lot. She had to appear before the Wetlands Commission with her builder and explain the plans. They had to meet many qualifications to rebuild and they went above and beyond to the tune of $10,000 to meet the mandates. She now has the driest basement on West Shore Drive. Ms. Wezelowski discussed the advantages to her children of living on the lake. She asked that the Commission not take this decision lightly and make a decision that will not hurt the environment or the people who so love the lake.

Laurie Parker, 105 Cottage Road, stated she is opposed to the development of this area. She reemphasized the goals of the Enfield Plan of Conservation and Development, goals 1, 6, 8 and 11. In particular, she drew attention to page 38 where Shaker Pond is specifically mentioned and it is stated that these water bodies are important to the drainage of the community and to its character and appearance. Ms. Parker reemphasized the Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut 2005-2010 and their management principles. In particular, number 4, is to conserve and restore the natural environmental, cultural and historical resources. Ms. Parker also brought up the Connecticut Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy which can be found on the DEP’s web site. She elaborated on this report regarding upland woodland shrub habitat. Ms. Parker is concerned that the plan is approved without knowing what species are out there. She asked if we can find out what is out there before it is approved. If this is not done, who will make sure that they follow the DEP’s recommendations. Ms. Parker stated this area is in the Level B aquifer protection area and she asked how that affects the application. There was a home to be torn down conveyed to Azura LLC and she could not find the deed in the application. In conclusion, Ms. Parker stated she is concerned about the eco system and the imbalance to the environment that this could cause.

Darlene Duga, 44 Cottage Road, stated she has lived here for 41 years and over the years she has seen the cottages become year round homes. This alone has taken away much of their watershed area. Since East Longmeadow has built up their industrial park on Denslow Road, many trees have been cut down there as well as around the lake and are not there to take up the water when it rains. Also, the Association has to treat the lake for algae and a job that used to cost $300 now costs $3,000. Ms. Duga strongly opposes this development and felt it will only add to the problems with the lake that they already have. Ms. Duga submitted two letters from neighbors who were unable to attend tonight’s hearing. The first one is from Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Dumoulin and the second from Florence Leishman both in opposition to the development.

Denise Petula stated she lives in the lake neighborhood and walks the area regularly with her dog. Right now there are no sidewalks and she has a problem walking especially at night. If a new neighborhood comes in, there will be a larger problem walking her dog in her own neighborhood. She opposes this development and all the new traffic coming into her neighborhood. Also, the new development coming in is uphill and the lake is downhill. Usually when it rains, everything goes downhill meaning a change to the lake. She would hate to see the lake change and she opposes Stonegate coming into her neighborhood.

Alan Levitz, 57 Dartmoor, expressed his concerns. He presented some photographs of normal and flooding around the lake. Secondly, Mr. Gooden’s report, page 9, paragraph 18, is about increasing runoff through the vernal pool which is behind his unit and four others. It is a standing swamp about eight months of the year and they are afraid this increased water will make the situation worse. Mr. Levitz noted if this project is approved, there will be 262 units on Mayfield Drive and there is only one way in and one way out. He asked if the fire department is aware of such a dangerous situation.

Irene Percoski, 77 West Shore Drive, moved into the area in 1965. She noted information found on the Governor’s web site for issuance of an executive order creating an office of responsible growth to coordinate state initiatives to control rampant ill-conceived development that threatens Connecticut’s special character. She read excerpts of this order for the benefit of the audience. Ms. Percoski stated for all the reasons mentioned she is definitely opposed to the Stonegate development.

Reg Leonard presented a document to the Town Planner. Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Giner make copies of this for the full Commission.

Attorney Olson would like George Logan and Sigrun Gadwa to rebut some of the information.

George Logan stated regarding the issue of surveys, this is probably one of the few projects where we have the opportunity to do it right. There is a significant amount of habitat left. He is convinced this is a good project that should meet with the approval of any land use agency. However, he thinks we have to put in the record the fact that the intervener has submitted certain information and they have to respond to it. On the issue of Mr. DeSantos’ letter, the June 6, 2006 letter went more into the pollution aspect. Mr. DeSantos believed there were certain things that they were doing that would result in a reasonable pollution of natural resources and water. The Wetlands Commission was very interested in that. One of the things they strongly disagree with from Mr. DeSantos is that he was very general. He had not been able to go on the property and he did not give any specific information. He was really relying on Mr. Gooden to be a springboard for his comments. He had no comments about roofs.

Mr. Logan stated his conclusion is there is really nothing in the record that was put forward by the interveners in his professional opinion that would lead us to believe that there would be a reasonable likelihood of unreasonable pollution. They took some of the more substantive concerns that Mr. Gooden had and they incorporated all of those. They have gone to the nth degree to make sure the intervener would be satisfied to see that they had done the best possible job following the state’s guidelines to protect the downstream resources including the lake. That has been done at the Wetlands Commission.

Chairman DiPace asked about the runoff flooding the lake. Last year he spent some time during the flooding where water came over the street. He had a concern that this not happen again.

Mr. Wentworth presented a site plan showing the lake and noted a vast majority of this property now drains toward the lake. The lake has a flooding problem. Their responsibility is not to increase that flooding problem. They cannot cure it but they have a drainage detention plan so that they do not increase any flooding during the peak flow downstream.

Chairman DiPace stated that is provided the water flow is at the right rate. He discussed a similar project on Taylor Road which is now a nightmare with the area washing out. Assurances were made but Chairman DiPace stated we cannot count on everything being done. Mr. Wentworth stated if you can’t count on professional testimony from a professional engineer and you can’t count on testimony from town engineering staff, he doesn’t know who he can count on. Chairman DiPace further discussed the Taylor Road situation.

Mr. Wentworth stated these ponds have been designed for in excess of twenty-five to thirty years. The volume of these detention ponds is over designed. He included infiltration basins and this whole portion of the site is going to be running off into infiltration basins that they didn’t even account for in their drainage calculations. They will be taking the water out of the storm water runoff equation and it won’t even be contributing to the flooding situation. The first inch of rainfall is going to be taken off the site in the form of rain guards, small infiltration basins for half of these sites. Mr. Wentworth stated the professionals all concur that not only is this a suitable design but it is over designed. No one is more concerned than he is about flooding and he takes his professional engineering seriously.

Chairman DiPace stated his concern is the town doesn’t end up with another messy situation because this one is even more critical because of the lake. The houses are very close to the lake and if the water table rises much higher, the people will have problems. Chairman DiPace wants some assurance that these people will be protected. If it isn’t working, he asked if the Commission has any assurance that they are going to stop and fix any drainage problem that may be created.

Mr. Wentworth stated the project is phased in five phases. The road, the infrastructure and the pond are in the first phase. Units in this area in the second phase. The road construction and the ponds in the third phase. And, finally, the last two phases. It is a long drawn out process.

Chairman DiPace asked if this gets approved and it is found out half way through that these aren’t going to work, will they stop and redesign so that it will not damage or create a problem on the site. Mr. Wentworth stated absolutely, they will have to. If the town puts on a cease and desist, they will have to. Chairman DiPace stated he is not saying a cease and desist. He is saying if there is a flooding problem and if it is not functioning like it should, without the town going through enforcement and issuing a cease and desist but the town saying you have to redesign and modify this. Mr. Wentworth stated he would be there redesigning the project. Mr. Wentworth discussed his personal reputation and noted he has worked in over thirty-five towns throughout the state. Mr. Wentworth stated while they are not going to solve the problems in the area, they are not going to make them worse. They have over designed their ponds for some improvement.

Attorney Olson stated Mr. Logan is circling the areas of concern on the plans in red. There are four areas outlined in red. There was a question regarding the inventory and Attorney Olson would like to explain to the Commission the inventory that has already been done on the site. She would also like to reiterate that looking at critical habitat and listing the endangered species is currently a requirement of the storm water permit from DEP. Attorney Olson stated the analysis needs to be done with the DEP and with DEP oversight. They fully intend to and are required to do that. Mr. Metzler is on board and they have agreed already to do restoration, mitigation and improvement of critical areas despite not being required to do so at this point. Attorney Olson stated their goal is to improve and not to take away from the value of this property and the conservation easement area.

Sigrun Gadwa stated the inventory approach they would take is a cover type and habitat inventory. They would crisscross the entire site and map out the different types of vegetation communities. At this site, a high priority was to map out the pitch pine scrub oak communities and the sand plain communities. Those are the areas in red marked previously by Mr. Logan.

Ms. Gadwa stated they also noted the higher density and diversity shrubs and ground cover vegetation in the buffer corridors. Those are of substantially higher value for wildlife than the level uplands adjacent to where the buildings are proposed. Those will be more than 250’ and will be valuable wildlife corridors. Ms. Gadwa apprised the Commission of some rare vegetation they encountered on the site. The legal requirements for the list of species are for species that have critical habitat and species that have been documented to be in the vicinity. There were only a few that were documented for the Mayfield Drive development. They looked at those particular species and screened the site for New Jersey tea and pitch pines. Those species were not found. There are dozens of other potential rare species in these habitats but doing a comprehensive survey is totally beyond the scope of what any developer ever does. It is not required by law. Ms. Gadwa suggested someone apply for a foundation grant and do this inventory.

Ms. Gadwa stated in 2003 and 2005 in April they walked through and carefully hunted for egg masses in every area on the site and they did not have any evidence of vernal pool species. They also did not see any wood frogs hopping around during their field work. Their theory is because of the sand the water table drops very precipitously.

Chairman DiPace asked if the flooding that took place in October impacted the area. Ms. Gadwa stated they hunted in April when the egg masses should be there. She could not find anything in the intervener’s comments to suggest that there has been unreasonable environmental damage.

Attorney Olson stated in summary she would like to go through why this plan should be approved pursuant to the town’s regulations. The criteria of 4.30.19 is met. The plan is proposed for a senior development over fifty-five. It will be a common interest ownership community. The proposed development is also directly consistent with the plan of development. Attorney Olson disagrees with Attorney Patterson on a few points where she said they did not comply. The first one is they believe this development does preserve and protect natural resources. Sixty-four acres of this property will be in a conservation easement or two-thirds of this parcel. By doing that, they are also enhancing and preserving open space areas. The entire northern portion of the property is being left open by conservation easement. As a senior residential development, it also provides the diversified housing market for the town. It provides housing that is an economic benefit to the town. This is an R-44 residential development and it is specifically slated for residential development by the town’s plan for conservation and development. Attorney Olson referred the Commission to the land use plan. The plan will minimally impact town services. It will not burden the town’s education budget because these are over fifty-five units. Based on the current property taxes, this development is likely to provide to the town property taxes of nearly one half million dollars. The project also meets the special permit criteria and, in particular, the fact that the Commission has to look at this development in relation to other property uses. There will be a huge buffer between the lake and this development. Right now within that buffer and directly along the lake is a huge ATV path which will no longer be in use once the development goes through. The abutting properties consist of a condominium development and an assisted living development that this Commission approved. This project is completely in harmony with these uses.

Attorney Olson stated there was a question tonight about fire and emergency services. They did have their meeting with the fire marshal and the emergency team and no one expressed any concerns about emergency access to this property. There are two egresses and ingresses required by the regulations. For all of these reasons and because they meet the criteria for the special permit, Attorney Olson asked that the Commission approve this project.

Attorney Olson reminded the Commission that they submitted the first night a conservative turf management and integrated pest control plan. The pest control plan provides for zero phosphorus fertilizer. Any impact to the lake is not going to happen because of this development.

Attorney Patterson stated she stands by Mr. Gooden’s report. In terms of compliance with the regulations, she urged the Commission to look at his section on page 10 starting at number 23 and going through the additional zoning requirements. Also, subsection R requires a detailed management plan be provided. 4.40.2 – Has an impact analysis been submitted? It is required under Subsection 8. Generalized statements have been provided but have those specifically been delved into. Attorney Patterson noted Mr. Gooden again lists other requirements in Section 23 to 25. He has a question about the layout of the sidewalk and parking. These are details Attorney Patterson hopes will be addressed by the applicant prior to closing this public hearing.

Attorney Patterson stated they stand by Mark Gooden’s report. He is a highly respected professional engineer. An excellent question was raised with respect to drainage and flooding particularly as it drains toward the lake. She would say to go to Mr. Gooden’s report starting with paragraph 13 and moving on. The bottom line in Mr. Gooden’s professional opinion is that the most conservative approach to drainage calculations and design methodology should be taken in order to protect an area that is prone to flooding and is highly sensitive in terms of its eco system. Those are contained in Sections 13, 17, 18 and, particularly 19 through 22. This is why in the flood prone area he is recommending the most conservative approach be designed.

Attorney Patterson stated it is unusual for her as an intervener’s attorney to be echoing the opinions and recommendations that have been set previously by both DEP and the ERT. That’s information they hope to have and they are forced to use their own experts to assess some of the same opinions and recommendations that have already been given to the Commission by an objective third party. The recommendation, page 22 of the ERT, that was part of the preliminary review. Those recommendations to go to Mr. Metzler were part of the preliminary review. That is very clearly stated in the letter on page 22 of the ERT. Similarly, Mr. Metzler’s report – the Commission can interpret it as they see fit. Attorney Patterson has given her opinion and the applicant has given theirs. It is this Commission’s decision and discretion as to how they read the letters and his recommendation. The bottom line is they are not making up the need for these surveys. They are coming from independent third parties.

Attorney Patterson stated land is getting scarce and this type of land may not have been considered for development in the past. The Commission’s responsibility is made that much harder by its own regulations which require higher scrutiny. Attorney Patterson urged the Commission to look at the zoning regulation concerns that Mr. Gooden had provided in his report. It is this Commission’s right and responsibility to make sure there are final answers to all of the questions especially those presented by independent third parties. Attorney Patterson asked that the Commission deny this application and wait until it is complete.

Chairman DiPace asked if the Commission received anything new from the DEP since the last meeting. Mr. Giner stated the Commission has the email/letter from Ken Metzler. Chairman DiPace read Mr. Metzler’s correspondence. He noted his concerns and he is saying the town should address these.

Attorney Olson stated she was at the site walk and it was extensive. They visited all the wetlands and all the critical habitat. What Mr. Metzler is referring to here are significant conversations they had during that site walk where people had an opportunity for the critical habitats currently declining to be rehabilitated and improved or created in existing areas. This would be done by cutting trees and scarifying. There were many discussions about that including their willingness to work with the DEP about that.

Attorney Olson stated when Mr. Metzler said there had been no evidence offered that an inventory had been taken, again, they did do the inventory of the critical habitat but they did not provide him a copy of the report at that time. They also discussed easements during the site walk and told Mr. Metzler that they didn’t have a definitive answer but they would be willing to do whatever the town wanted them to do. He worded it as no information was offered but they did have the discussion. Attorney Olson felt it was important for the Commission to understand that Mr. Metzler got very excited with the potential especially along the right of way to improve the critical habitat and create critical habitat. They are committed to doing that and Mr. Metzler is very much aware of that. If the Commission wants any further clarification from Mr. Metzler, they would be happy to get it.

Chairman DiPace asked if it would be possible to get recommendations from Mr. Metzler between now and the next meeting as part of the restoration. Attorney Olson stated that would be possible but it would have to be somewhat general.

Chairman DiPace would like to see something from Mr. Metzler and those could be made conditions. Attorney Olson did not feel it is permissible to condition this upon the DEP’s approval and the Supreme Court made that pretty clear. That doesn’t mean that they are not willing to work on this. Chairman DiPace stated he would like to see his recommendations to protect the natural habitat and can we get some recommendations from him.

George Logan stated the deal that was cut was that some of the critical habitat would have to go and in exchange they would do restoration enhancement to portions of the property. The way this usually tracks is the applicant makes the recommendation and the DEP responds. They might be able to approach Mr. Metzler and say here are some areas and how do we go about restoring and enhancing. Sigrun Gadwa thought Attorney Olson has conveyed it very accurately. If you look at #4 of Mr. Metzler’s letter, he says significant habitat exists both in the area to be developed and the area of conservation easement. He is looking for compensating by restoring. The bigger block on the north side of the power line has quite a lot of pitch pines and there are some mature oaks. If you take out some of those mature oaks and scarify and take some of the topsoil, it will come back. They won’t have any trouble in restoring five times the small acreage that’s going to be impacted.

Commissioner Ladd asked if they could have Mr. Metzler be clearer regarding his letter. The Commission should clarify what he is saying.

Attorney Olson stated she did not see the letter until 4:00 p.m. today and did put a call in to Mr. Metzler but was unable to reach him. She would be happy to try to get clarification of his comments for the Commission or perhaps the Commission can do that directly. Chairman DiPace directed Mr. Giner to ask for a clarification of Mr. Metzler’s letter with any recommendations he is looking for.

Attorney Olson stated they are more than willing to cooperate. Commissioner Jones stated he wants to be confident in this project because this Commission never sees what the DEP does. He would like to see it before hand. Attorney Olson stated they will strive to have a clarification of Mr. Metzler’s recommendations for the next hearing session.

Second Vice Chairman Cooper continued this hearing until December 21, 2006.

Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, for a ten-minute recess. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission recessed at 10:40 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 10:50 p.m. Commissioner Lefakis left the meeting at this time.

c. PH#2579 – Site Plan review for proposed addition to existing building with parking lot at 229 Post Office Road, zoned BL, Map 69, Lot 232, Sands Aeschliman, Applicant/ 229 Post Office Road, LLC, owner. (Must close by 12/21.)

Chairman DiPace noted this hearing is going to be continued but he asked for input from the public.

Margaret Jedziniak, Abbe Road, stated the reason she is interested in this is because she attended a lot of those meetings about the road they intend to build at Town Farm and Post Office Road. They were supposed to take property away from where the package store stands and the parking lot. Now, she hears that they are going to have an archeological study that will cost the Town of Enfield $100,000. They have now changed the plan and they are going to move the road over. Ms. Jedziniak wonders why this is all happening. They intend to build on to the package store and that building will be closer to the road. If they needed property that they wanted to take for the road in the beginning, Ms. Jedziniak asked why are they intending to build a building that will be closer to where the road is eventually supposed to be. She doesn’t understand what is happening out there and why have all these plans been changed for the road itself.

Mr. Giner stated the applicants are revising their plans. The drive-up windows are being removed.

Chairman DiPace asked about the state taking. Mr. Giner stated the applicant’s position was sometimes the state takes twenty years to do something and they would have to come back for another approval should the plans change. Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Giner contact the state to find out what they are doing and their timetable.

Commissioner Ballard would like to know how the road is going to go around that corner. Ms. Jedziniak heard they were going to put in a traffic light. She also noted they will not have enough parking spaces for the liquor store. She has a copy of the plans with her.

Commissioner Jones stated he said the same thing to the applicant and they have chosen to go forward knowing that the road expansion may happen.

Chairman DiPace requested that Mr. Giner check to see the difference of the setback of the new building is from the current road and what is being proposed by the state. Perhaps this building once they do the new road is not going to be in compliance.

Mr. Giner stated it is a state law that if something is built and the state does something to make the property nonconforming, the state has to get a variance or take the entire property.

Chairman DiPace stated if the Commission approves these buildings, the setback according to the regulations is what he would like to know. He questioned if once the state does their taking, will the building still be in compliance. Mr. Giner stated the state would be required by law to address any nonconformity by getting a variance. Mr. Giner stated the Commission has to act on the application as the conditions are now.

Ms. Jedziniak noted it is a terrible corner. Commissioner Jones noted the Commission previously requested a traffic study.

Chairman DiPace continued this public hearing.

Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote.

PUBLIC HEARINGS – NEW

a. PH#2583 – Special Use Permit to change a non-conforming use to another, for a hair salon at 119 Hazard Avenue (former gift shop next to Guido’s – 117 Hazard) zoned BP, Map 65, Lot 68, Laurie Meehan, Applicant/Joseph LaCroix, Owner. (Must close by 1/11.)

Attorney Thomas Fahey appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated Laurie Meehan currently operates a beauty salon on Enfield Street and she would like to move her business to 119 Hazard Avenue, a site that was formerly Guido’s Restaurant. The property is zoned BP. When the Commission changed the zone to BP, it made any uses not permitted as of right nonconforming. Therefore, the restaurant use and a hair dressing use is not in that list of permitted uses so it is a nonconforming use. Enfield has Section 3.40.1 which allows for one nonconforming use to be transferred to another nonconforming use as long as the use is less nonconforming and is compatible with the abutting land uses.

Attorney Fahey stated Laurie Meehan’s use has four stylists with one doing manicures. Very seldom are there more than three employees at the site at one time. There would be minimal parking needs. The package store had more of a demand for parking. The hair salon is a less intensive use. As far as being compatible with abutting land uses, there is Country Diner in the area which is also a nonconforming use. The other three sides of the property are vacant. If you go further east there is an office park and across the street is a medical campus. Ms. Meehan’s use is compatible with some of these uses.

Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace closed this public hearing.

Commissioner Cooper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to grant a waiver of the full submission requirements for Site Plans under Section 9.10.2 since we find that there is sufficient information to make a determination as to the application’s compliance with the zoning regulations.

TO PH#2583 –Special use permit to change a non-conforming use to another, for a hair salon at 119 Hazard Avenue (former gift shop next to Guido’s – 117 Hazard) zoned BP, Map 65, Lot 68, Laurie Meehan, Applicant/ Joseph LaCroix, Owner. This application is subject to conformance with the submitted record and the following conditions:

Conditions:

1. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.

2. This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary on the Land records by the owner of the property.

3. This approval is for the specific use identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.

4. There is no site work proposed or approved in conjunction with this application other than any necessary landscaping maintenance.

5. This project shall be maintained in accordance with the submitted plans and application record. Minor modifications to the plans may be allowed in accordance with the regulations, subject to staff review and approval.

6. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.

The motion was approved by a 6 – 0 – 0 vote.

b. PH#2581 – Site Plan review to convert storage space to retail space within an existing business (Bookends) located at 44 Enfield Street, Zoned BL, Map 35, Lot 79, Steven Paradis, Applicant/Dave Grunberg, Owner. (Must close by 1/11.)

Steve Paradis appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated they want to convert some storage space into additional retail space.

Mr. Giner stated the Commission changed the regulations. With the old regulations, the site plan required 44 parking spaces and 24 were provided. Under the new regulations, the demand went down but they are still nonconforming by three spaces with the current plan. The additional 600 square feet of retail would require an additional four parking spaces. In order to convert the retail space, they would have to find four more parking spaces.

Mr. Paradis stated he knows of two spaces he can convert.

Mr. Giner suggested continuing this hearing to December 21. In the meantime, Mr. Paradis can meet with him regarding the parking requirements.

Chairman DiPace opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman DiPace continued this public hearing to December 21, 2006.

c. PH#2582 – Special Use Permit for conversion of a single-family to a two-family apartment at 4 Cook Avenue, zoned R-33, Map 33, Lot 61, Stanley Glemboski, Jr., Applicant/Owner. (Must close by 1/11.)

Chairman DiPace did not participate in this hearing.

Stanley Glemboski appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated he has a house that he has been renting for four to five years as a two-family house. He bought it with the understanding that it was a two-family. After he bought the house, he put it up for sale and found out it was not a two-family house. That’s why he’s here. It was originally listed in the newspaper as a two-family house. Mr. Glemboski bought the house outright from the previous owner.

Commissioner Jones asked how long the house has been in use as a two-family. Mr. Glemboski stated since 2001 when he purchased it.

Mr. Giner stated the assessor’s card done in 2002 listed this property as a single-family house. There are some staircases and a rear deck that leads to the second floor. He asked when those were built.

Mr. Glemboski stated the door and the deck were built in 2001. Mr. Giner asked if building permits were issued for those. Mr. Glemboski was not sure.

Commissioner Weseliza thought that staircases had to be enclosed for two-family homes. Mr. Giner stated there are a couple of issues that need some clarification. One was that under 4.30.7, all exterior staircases shall be enclosed. Also, D2 has to be considered. However, 4.30.8 is a bigger issue. Mr. Giner stated if you look under duplex residences, it states that at least half of the abutting lots have to be multi-family for approval. There are five lots abutting Cook Avenue and three are listed as single-family, one is a multi-family and one is commercial.

In response to a question from Commissioner Weseliza, Mr. Glemboski stated he did the work on this home himself.

Mr. Giner stated the first section would be remedied by enclosing the staircase but it doesn’t look like the application meets the second criteria. It doesn’t meet the section on duplexes.

Commissioner Weseliza asked if there are two families currently living in the home. Mr. Glemboski stated yes, there are.

Commissioner Weseliza did not understand how you purchase a residence and not know if it is a one-family or a two-family. Mr. Glemboski stated he actually argued about it. They said the only reason it was not caught is because he bought the property outright with no bank involved. It was listed as a multi-family house in the newspaper.

Commissioner Ladd asked if Mr. Glemboski had an attorney who did a title search. He suggested Mr. Glemboski go back to his attorney to see if he has anything to prove that it was a two-family.

Commissioner Cooper suggested continuing this hearing so that Mr. Glemboski can come up with some proof that this was a two-family house. Mr. Glemboski stated he can try to come up with something.

Mr. Glemboski stated he bought the home under the impression that it was a two-family. The person he bought it from had the house less than a year. Mr. Giner asked if the house had a kitchen in the second apartment. Mr. Glemboski stated the plumbing was there but the kitchen was not in. The bathroom was up there.

Second Vice Chairman Cooper opened this hearing to the public.

Robin Kracunus stated this home has always been a single-family house. There is only one family living there at this time. There’s no one on the first floor. Ms. Kracunus has lived in the neighborhood for over thirty years.

Mr. Kracunus stated he doesn’t know how he bought the house but anyone can find out from the public record if it is a single-family or two-family house.

Second Vice Chairman Cooper continued this hearing until December 21, 2006.

BOND RELEASES

a. PH#2323 – Request for release of Landscape Bond in the amount of $29,449 for Shaker Heights Subdivision – Taylor Road.

Mr. Giner stated staff recommends tabling this bond release. Chairman DiPace stated this is the one he brought up during the public hearing and he noted the drainage problems in the area. This bond release was tabled.

OTHER BUSINESS

a. Section 8-24 Referral – For acceptance of Conservation Easement and Driveway Easement to the Town of Enfield from Jeffrey J. Filiault/Falcon Crest.

Steve Olenicki appeared before the Commission regarding this referral. He stated he resides on the street. He pointed out his residence on the site plan.

Mr. Giner stated the intent is to put in one house on four acres. To do that, the town owns the stub and they want a 30’ driveway. This plan would preclude any more development in the area.

Mr. Olenicki had a concern regarding drainage.

Commissioner Jones made a motion,, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to recommend approval to the Town Council of the Section 8-24 referral for acceptance of a Conservation Easement to the Town of Enfield from Jeffrey Filiault and the granting of a Driveway Easement to Jeffrey Filiault with the recommendation that the Council have someone review the drainage so that it doesn’t negatively impact anyone.  The motion was approved by a unanimous vote.

Applications to be Accepted

The following applications were accepted by the Commission:

PH#2585 – Application for a special use permit for building and site renovations for use of existing building to provide coffee and other retail uses and drive thru window at 599 Hazard Avenue, zoned BL, Map 110, Lot 356, Sweeney Exchange LLC, Applicant/Owner.

A public hearing will be scheduled for January 4, 2007.

PH#2586 – Application for special use permit for division of merged lots on south side of Fairview Avenue, adjacent to the railroad, zoned R-33, Map 20, Lots 90, 344, 345, 346, Mark and Edward Spazzarini, Applicants/Robert F. Kelliher and Donald A. Fortin, Owners.

A public hearing will be scheduled for January 4, 2007.

Adjournment

Commissioner Jones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Weseliza, to adjourn. Following a 6 – 0 – 0 vote, the Commission adjourned at 11:37 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________

Charles Duren, Secretary

Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission

Last Modified: 12/26/2006 9:20:45 AM