|
|
ENFIELD TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
NOVEMBER 19, 2001
A Special Meeting of the Enfield Town Council was called to order by Chairman Vayda in the Enfield Room of the Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut on Monday, November 19, 2001 at 6:36 p.m.
ROLL-CALL Present were Councilmen Edgar, Egan, Falk, Fiore, Hall, Kaupin, Mangini, Strom, Tait, Tallarita, and Vayda. Also present were Town Manager, Scott A. Shanley; Assistant Town Manager, Daniel Vindigni; Town Attorney, Christopher W. Bromson; Assistant Town Attorney, Maria Stavropoulos; Director of Public Works, John Kazmarski; Assistant Director of Public Works, Colleen Brand; Director of Information Technology, Charlene S. Bond; Director of Finance, Gregory R. Simmons; Town Clerk, Suzanne F. Olechnicki Director of School Facilities, Arthur Pongratz; Director of Enfield Head Start, Barbara Wachala.
DISCUSSION RE: HEAD START
Present for this discussion was Randy Daigle, Chairman of the School Building Committee; Bruce Kellogg of Jeter, Cook & Jepson; Nicholas Sinsigalli from the Enfield Board of Education.
Mr. Shanley stated the Town Attorneys Office is represented this evening primarily to advise the Council on process and is not representing either the Building Committee or the Planning & Zoning Commission in the legal issues. He noted the Planning & Zoning Commission rejected the latest application for the Head Start Building, and since then the School Building Committee met and requested a meeting with the Planning & Zoning Commission. He stated the Planning & Zoning Commission indicated having a discussion prior to the end of the appeal period would jeopardize their legal position. He noted the School Building Committee subsequently met again and asked to file an appeal, which has been done.
Mr. Shanley distributed a resolution relating to this issue. He noted the Planning & Zoning Commission was not invited to this meeting because this isnt a question and answer period on what the Planning & Zoning Commission did and why. He explained this is a presentation of the Building Committee directly to the Town Council.
Mr. Daigle reviewed the history over the past 14 months and explained why the School Building Committee feels theyve exhausted all the options and answered and addressed all the questions that were presented during every presentation.
Mr. Kellogg stated in May of 1999, Jeter, Cook & Jepson (JCJ) was involved in a feasibility study relative to the ten schools regarding additions and renovations to the elementary schools, JFK Middle School and the Head Start building. He displayed several presentation boards which showed the Enfield Street School property and different options for the placement of the Head Start building.
Mr. Kellogg stated in November of 2000 they began the Planning & Zoning process which consisted of the first Administrative Review Team (ART) meeting. He showed an illustration which displayed some initial elevations that JCJ had worked out. He noted as they went through the process, in June of 2000 they started to better define the Enfield Street expansion and they also started to work out where Head Start might be located on the site.
Mr. Daigle stated once they started having ART meetings and meetings with the users and coming up with the fire marshals requirements for the roads, egress, parking, turnaround, etc., they learned they were exceeding the areas that the referendum generally showed as the location. He explained with Head Start attached to Enfield Street School, there would be no room for any future expansion, and they would only be meeting the bare minimum for the program and users. He noted they started looking at different locations for this addition. He stated they explored one whole side, and no one wanted to use Mitchell Road as the main means of egress because there would then be a conflict of traffic. He noted they went to Bond Counsel, the Board of Education and the Town Council to ask if theres anything the Committee can do as far as taking any of the footprint of the existing football field. He stated after several exhausting meetings with the Town Council, Board of Education, Bond Counsel and the Town Attorney, they got the direction that they could take over some of the field. He noted they then started to explore as to how they could minimize the amount of field they would be taking over. He explained they first started on the high school side, but then they werent allowed to move the building outside the property, even if its the same owner, because the property lines dictated where it needs to be. Mr. Kellogg added this part of the process was occurring in January or February of this year. He added they also did a presentation to the Board of Education regarding several of these options because the Board of Education had the same concerns as the Building Committee in picking the right location.
Mr. Daigle stated at one point they had the entrance on one side of the building and the exit on the other side of the building, but the Committee was told the abutters were concerned with having the building so close to the property. He noted to satisfy that concern, they authorized the redesign of the entire field and flipped the building.
Mr. Daigle stated they then started addressing the concerns with the drainage and runoff.
Mr. Kellogg stated in March they attended the Wetlands meeting, and it was determined a permit was not required. He noted they went to the second ART meeting, and they had two issues one was drainage and there was a concern that site lighting be appropriate. He stated in April they did a presentation before the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Mr. Kellogg showed an illustration which displayed the retention basins and egress to and from the site.
Mr. Daigle stated they hired additional services to do a traffic study. He noted the study had to encompass the entire property. He stated prior to this, in March, the Committee started showing Planning & Zoning elevations of the free-standing building. He showed an illustration that was one of 37 options and drafts that were submitted to Planning & Zoning as far as layouts, footprints of the building, the drainage system, etc. He noted the Committee was directed to keep the “school house” look. Mr. Shanley requested clarification as to when Planning & Zoning first saw this. Mr. Kellogg stated Planning & Zoning first heard this April 5, 2001 after two review meeting with Town staff. Mr. Daigle stated at the April 5th meeting, Planning & Zoning indicated they wanted to see brick samples and window colors.
Mr. Daigle stated they tried to minimize the size of the retention area. He noted at one point it was 12 feet deep and there were concerns about maintenance and mosquitoes. He stated they then had an $18,000 change order to re-explore the drainage to come up with a more suitable and safe detention area for the runoff.
Mr. Kellogg stated they were back before Planning & Zoning in May with a revised application to start to address these concerns. He then showed an illustration which was the final application that was just recently before Planning & Zoning, and this shows the existing Enfield Street building, the expansion to that building, the Head Start building, the access in, the circular drive, parking, and a reduced retention area. He noted this was the proposal that was denied by Planning & Zoning.
Mr. Daigle explained how they would resolve eliminating the large detention area. He noted the Committee worked with the consultant, Public Works Department and the Engineering Department and exhausted hundreds of hours in exploring alternatives. He stated one of the things that came up was to enlarge one of the exiting pipelines from an 18” to a 24”, and that would reduce the runoff, and by tying into it, they would be able to reduce or eliminate that detention area.
Mr. Kellogg then displayed an illustration showing a landscaping plan which addresses Planning & Zoning comments, as well as input from staff and neighbors. He noted the Building Committee and JCJ did a presentation for the neighbors and solicited their input as well.
Mr. Daigle stated the two baseball fields that were on this site were small fields. He noted instead of two small fields, they created one large official sized field that could be used by the Little League and the Girls Softball League.
Mr. Kellogg stated some of the other adjustments made included trying to simplify the building to minimize as much of the footprint on site as possible and maximize the use of space.
Mr. Kellogg reviewed lighting distribution patterns. He referred to an illustration to explain the lighting of the site. Mr. Daigle stated the foot-candles are under the maximum allowed amount.
Mr. Kellogg displayed a large-scale footprint of the Head Start building. He noted there are six classrooms, an administration wing, kitchen, laundry, and the nurse area. He stated this amounts to 13,000 square feet. He pointed out the Head Start floor plan has been before the School Facilities Unit (SFU) at the State Department of Education.
He showed an illustration of the Enfield Street addition, which will consist of a new gymnasium, library, and some supplemental spaces.
Mr. Daigle stated at this time, the architect is questioning what direction are they going to go. He pointed out they have fulfilled their contractual obligation, other than putting it out to bid and doing the construction administration. He pointed out any different direction given to the architects is at an additional fee and additional time.
Mr. Daigle introduced Mr. Pongratz and Mr. Sinsigalli to explain where they stand with their grants.
Mr. Pongratz stated currently they have a federal grant for Head Start in the amount of $205,307. He noted they applied for that grant in 1998, and it was awarded in November of 1999. He stated their first request for a carry-over was approved, and that allowed them to keep this money until December 31, 2001. He noted right now theyre in the position of having to submit another request for a carryover, and this should be submitted by the end of November, 2001 in order to be processed before December 31, 2001. He stated there is no guarantee that the federal government will allow a second carry-over on these monies. He noted they dont expect an answer in writing on the carry-over until January or early February.
Mr. Pongratz stated prior to submitting for a second carryover, they should determine whether they will have a building to carry this over to. He noted they would not want to write to the federal government requesting a carryover for these monies if they dont have a facility that those monies are going toward.
Chairman Vayda stated it appears as though they have to request a carryover at this point in time, and Mr. Pongratz stated thats correct.
Mr. Pongratz stated their other grant is from the State of Connecticut Department of Education and is in the amount of $2,393,425.70, and that is at the 66.43% which is the number that the original grant was based on. He noted they are in consideration for an early education grant bonus, which would bring them up to 71.43%, amounting to $2,572,100. He explained that was applied for in 1999 and was awarded to them on May 16, 2000. He noted they completed their local fund authorization in November of 2000. He stated as a result of the grant, construction has to start on or before June 30, 2002, or the Commissioner of Education may disapprove the project. He pointed out they consider the beginning of construction to be the signing of the contract with the general contractor.
Chairman Vayda questioned if theres a time line that shows what events would have to occur beforehand in order to hit the June 30, 2002 target. He questioned when the first “drop dead date” is. Mr. Pongratz stated they would need approval from Planning & Zoning for the project so theyd be able to go out to bid. He noted JCJ has some finalizing they need to do with the State Department of Education, and the Department of Education will actually issue a School Facilities Unit (SFU) letter that will give them permission to go out to bid.
Mr. Shanley stated Colleen Brand, the Assistant Director of Public Works, indicated they would have to be out to bid the beginning of March in order to have everything fall into place so that they could meet the target date of June 30, 2002.
Mr. Daigle stated if they had to redesign any of this project, they would have to restart going back to the State (SFU), the Wetlands Commission, and Planning & Zoning. He noted if they had to resubmit a new design, they would be set back about six and a half months.
Councilman Strom stated if the Committee decided to bring this back to Planning & Zoning, and they looked for any kind of changes, would it be necessary to resubmit that to the State to be reviewed by them. Mr. Daigle responded yes, it would be a new application.
Councilman Falk stated his impression that drainage issues and the size of the building seemed to be the problem from day one. He stated he knows the Town has worked with the Committee regarding the drainage issue. He questioned if anything has been done regarding the size of the building. Mr. Daigle stated the further the building is set back from the property line, the higher the building can be. He noted based on where the building is located, they are under the maximum allowable height.
Councilman Falk questioned if mechanical/utility units are on the roof. Mr. Daigle stated the mezzanine area will be utilized for the mechanical systems. He noted the $205,307 federal grant is tied into the mechanical system, as well as the FF&E. He stated by redesigning this, they would have to reapply for that grant.
Councilman Falk stated his understanding that from his past experience with Planning & Zoning, they do not want utilities to be seen, therefore, they have to be hidden. He questioned if this is in compliance with P&Zs requirements, and Mr. Daigle responded yes.
Mr. Sinsigalli stated the delay of this project will definitely delay the Enfield High School Library Project.
Councilman Fiore questioned if April 5th was the first time this was presented to Planning & Zoning. Mr. Daigle responded that was the first time the free-standing building was presented.
Councilman Fiore questioned how many times the Head Start building, itself, was presented to Planning & Zoning. Mr. Daigle stated this was presented to P&Z seven times, with five ART meetings, and two meetings before the Wetlands Commission.
Councilman Fiore questioned will the foot candles for lighting be more or less than what the Enfield Ramblers Football team used. Mr. Daigle responded tremendously less.
Councilman Fiore questioned if the free-standing Head Start building has been presented to the State. Mr. Kellogg responded yes, that has been presented to the State Department of Education through their process, and they reviewed it and provided commentary back. He noted if anything is changed, they will again have to go through the State process.
Councilman Fiore questioned if the free-standing Head Start building has been officially approved by the State. Mr. Daigle stated by the end of this week or beginning of next week, they will receive that from the SFU. He pointed out they verbally okayed it.
Councilman Fiore clarified if the building had to be re-worked, the process with the State would have to be started over. Mr. Daigle responded thats correct, as well with all the other organizations. Councilman Fiore questioned if that would be the case if it was just site work and not the building. Mr. Kellogg stated if it were a minor site item, it could be submitted as an addendum. He noted they would have to be careful because the plan thats approved by the SFU is the plan that they would get reimbursed on, therefore, they would not want to jeopardize the Towns reimbursement for the project.
Councilman Egan questioned if it was the direction of Planning & Zoning or ART to have the style of the building as a schoolhouse look. Mr. Daigle stated hes unsure who initiated that idea.
Mr. Sinsigalli stated any delays would impact on the Enfield High School Library Project because they have a logistic problem because Head Start needs to be relocated in order to complete the project. He added there is also the safety concern of doing any heavy construction near young children. He stated its preferred to have the Head Start relocated before they start the major construction of the Enfield High School library. He stated their “drop dead” date on the library is June 30, 2003.
Councilman Tait questioned whether the library is related to the accreditation of the high school, and Mr. Sinsigalli responded its directly related and a primary factor to the accreditation of Enfield High School.
Councilman Kaupin noted the Building Committee asked for a meeting, but P&Z said no because it was during the appeal process, and now that a lawsuit has been filed by the Committee, what would keep P&Z from declining a meeting because of the lawsuit. Attorney Bromson responded theres always a possibility of having exploratory meetings and negotiations to reach consensus for settling. He noted this is something the parties could consider and enter into as long as their attorneys are present and they understand what the ramifications of the discussions are. Councilman Kaupin questioned if this is something that generally happens fast, or is it something that tends to drag on. Assistant Town Attorney, Maria Stavropoulos, responded it can if the parties want it to. She pointed out there is also a new mediation statute which specifically allows the parties to file for mediation, and that puts everything on hold in terms of the lawsuit, but it doesnt preclude either sides interest from being pursued ultimately. She noted it just puts everything on the side so they can pursue the mediation. She stated this is something that the Commissions lawyer and P&Zs lawyer can always consider as well. Attorney Bromson added this is really just an impetus to try and settle cases without having to drag them out for years of litigation.
Councilman Strom stated her understanding that such mediation could happen fairly quickly, however, this is November 19th. She noted this would require P&Z and the Building Committee to meet with their lawyers and then set up a mediation date. She noted they would then have to get together to discuss options, and if there were any possible changes to the building, then they would have to move on from there. She stated those changes would have to be resubmitted, therefore, the early March date doesnt seem very realistic. Attorney Bromson stated if theres a willingness to do this, they could try to move it along as quickly as possible. He noted if there are to be significant changes, they may be in a deadlock because they would have to go through the process as mentioned by Mr. Daigle.
Councilman Edgar questioned if they are at the point where the Committee and Planning and Zoning have attorneys and formal papers have been field with the Town Clerk. Mr. Shanley stated the formal papers have been filed from the Building Committee, and they do have an attorney. He stated he doesnt believe the P&Z have yet engaged an attorney because the papers were filed Friday afternoon.
Councilman Edgar questioned if theres still room to work. Mr. Shanley stated that would be their decision. He noted he cannot speak for the Planning & Zoning Commission, but he did have extensive conversations with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman before and he believes Councilman Strom is correct in that the position of the P&Z Commission probably will be that as long as theyre being sued, it would be quite a process to try and have an open discussion about the issue as long as that lawsuit is pending.
Councilman Mangini questioned if grant extensions are a normal process. Mr. Pongratz stated the difficulty is hes not sure how precedent it is to grant a second request for extension. He stated his belief the grantor would be looking for some guarantee that they are building something.
Councilman Kaupin referred to the distributed resolution and noted it states the “Town Council does hereby exempt municipal property from the Enfield Zoning Ordinance.” He stated he would not want to see this in force forever, but rather he feels its a temporary fix to an issue they are now facing. He questioned what the process would be to rescind this and give the authority back to P&Z. Attorney Bromson responded it would be the same process by which its passed six affirmative votes of the legislative body, and it would be by resolution, and it can be reversed.
Councilman Kaupin stated if this resolution was approved, what steps would need to be taken to allow for the Head Start building to continue, or does the Council just accept the plans as submitted, and that gives them the authority to go forward to start building the school. Mr. Shanley stated his belief the latter would make sense because if the Council were to do this, P&Z would no longer have jurisdiction, and it would come to the Council to determine whether or not the building and design was appropriate.
Councilman Kaupin stated he sat through that Planning & Zoning meeting, and from P&Z issues where some of the Commissioners brought up the concerns over the drainage and the height of the building, and one Commissioner asked for a stop sign to be added as well as additional screening, all of that reasoning seemed to be final as protecting the interests of the neighbors, therefore, those pieces should be incorporated into the plan. He questioned what steps would need to be taken if they decided to go this route. Attorney Bromson stated his belief if the Town Council made any substantial changes, they would be in the same position as P&Z if they did this, and the process would have to be started over. He noted it would have to be clear what plan had been approved by the Council although exempted from P&Z review.
Councilman Edgar questioned if this makes the Town Council “P&Z” for municipal properties. Attorney Bromson stated the Legislature has made it a very simple process by which municipal properties can be exempted. He noted they have not checked with CCM to see how many towns in Connecticut did this. He stated there will have to be another process in place because they never had to confront this. He noted the Council is taking on more responsibility in order to assure themselves and the community in how these properties are being developed.
Councilman Edgar stated his impression P&Z regulations would be the same ones that the Council would have to adhere to. Attorney Bromson responded no, because the Town Council would be exempting itself from the zoning regulations, therefore, they wouldnt apply any longer. Mr. Shanley added they would want to have something in place if the zoning ordinance no longer applied. Attorney Bromson stated staff will probably have to look at this and check with CCM to see what other municipalities have done to insure safeguards when this has been done.
Councilman Edgar stated he did not hear a specific reason for denial. Mr. Shanley stated he provided minutes in the Councils package that reflects the decision that was made by the Planning & Zoning Commission. He stated his belief the reasons for rejection can be found on the last page and a half. He noted according to Jose Giner, the Director of Planning and Community Development, its Commissioner Durens remarks on the last page that really are the ones that are of greatest impact “The location and size are detrimental to the orderly development of adjacent properties. The nature and relationship to the street will cause problems or be hazardous to the surrounding residential district. The proposed plan inadequately screens cars from residential lots.” He added on the previous page the Chairman makes a statement as well.
Mr. Shanley stated earlier on in the P&Z minutes, its noted the Planning Director made clear a denial based on the Comprehensive Master Plan is not a basis for denial for a special use permit.
Councilman Edgar stated according to the minutes, several residents spoke. He questioned if the residents concerns were taken into account. Mr. Daigle stated residents were invited to speak publicly for the Committee. He noted they responded to P&Z for each question that the residents had. Councilman Edgar questioned whether there are other minutes he should be looking for, and Mr. Daigle stated there are seven sets of minutes. Councilman Edgar stated he only has the minutes from the November 1st meeting, and Mr. Shanley noted these minutes are for the actual rejection.
Councilman Tallarita stated if the Town Council passes this resolution, are there any kinds of suits that can be brought up by anyone else to stall this process. Attorney Bromson responded perhaps. He noted the Council should check with the attorneys that have been retained for the Town before this is done to see if theres any impact on the litigation. He stated they should also check the Building Committee charge to make sure the Council retains the ultimate control. He noted they can never foresee who might bring forth a lawsuit.
Councilman Fiore questioned whether such an exemption would also exempt this from P&Z, ZBA, Inland/Wetlands and the Historic Commission. Mr. Shanley noted this wouldnt effect Inland/Wetlands because thats a state-regulated body.
There was no Executive Session.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION #5539 by Councilman Mangini, seconded by Councilman Tait to adjourn.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #5539 adopted 11-0-0, and the meeting stood adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeannette Lamontagne
Secretary to the Council
Suzanne F. Olechnicki
Town Clerk
Clerk of the Council
|
|
|