|
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
APRIL 19, 2012
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, April 19, 2012 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Duren called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Commissioner Falk took the roll.
PRESENT: Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Charles Ladd, Nicles Lefakis, Kathleen Sarno, Elizabeth Ballard, Peter Falk, Alan Drinan, Ronald Gregory, Sr., and Dominic Alaimo.
ALSO PRESENT: José Giner, AICP, Director of Planning and Kathleen DeGray, Recording Secretary.
ABSENT: Absent was Commissioner Lori Longhi.
Commissioner Drinan will be sitting in for absent Commissioner Longhi.
FIRE EVACUATION ANNOUNCEMENT
Chairman Duren read the Fire Evacuation Announcement.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. April 5, 2012 Regular Meeting.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve the Minutes of the April 5, 2012, PZC Regular Meeting as amended.
Amendments were as follows: At the top of Page 2, right after the statement saying the April 5, 2012 Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission resumed at 7:45 p.m., Chairman Duren asked that the following statement be added for legal reasons:
“The Chair stated that no decisions were made and no votes were taken during the Executive Session.”
Additional amendments were: Page 4, Paragraph 1, Line 3, change and industrial area to an industrial area; Page 5, Paragraph 1, Line 3, change Ms. Higley said the to Ms. Higley said that; Page 11, Paragraph 1, Line 2, change say to saying; Page 17, Paragraph 2, Line 3, change gift basked to gift basket; Page 18, under Next Regular Meeting, change the date from May 1, 2012 to April 19, 2012.
The motion was carried with a 6-0-1 vote. Commissioner Ballard abstained.
STAFF COMMENTS
a. Director of Planning (In Person)
Mr. Giner directed the Commissioners to a draft letter he created at the PZC’s request to Peter Yarum, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, offering the collective support of the PZC for Gary Williams’ request for variances to allow an automotive repair business to locate at 14 Cranbrook Boulevard.
Mr. Giner told the Commissioners that if they liked the letter the way it was, he had an original available for Chairman Duren’s signature. Mr. Giner said that Mr. Williams’ hearing in front of the ZBA was a week from Monday, so there was time to make changes if needed.
Chairman Duren asked for a motion to add the review and discussion of this letter to item b under Other Business.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to add discussion of Mr. Giner’s draft letter to Peter Yarum, ZBA Chair, expressing PZC’s support of a Request for Variance for 14 Cranbrook Boulevard, as Item b under Other Business.
The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.
Mr. Giner next showed the Commissioners a request he received today from Eppendorf Manufacturing Corporation to locate a gas cylinder storage cage at the rear of the Eppendorf, Inc., building located at 175 Freshwater Boulevard. Mr. Giner showed the Commissioners a picture of the storage cage and a site plan that Eppendorf included with their request.
Chairman Duren asked for a motion to allow Mr. Giner to approve this request administratively.
Commissioner Drinan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to allow Mr. Giner to administratively approve the installation of a small gas cylinder storage cage by Eppendorf Manufacturing Corporation at 175 Freshwater Boulevard.
The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.
Chairman Duren mentioned Mr. Giner’s Pending Project Status spreadsheet that was provided to the Commissioners. He commented that it was both interesting and useful to see the different projects and what stages each was in.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Chairman Duren opened the floor for public participation. No one came forward to address the Commission
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Duren referenced the following correspondence:
- Mr. Giner’s draft letter to Mr. Yarum that will be discussed later in the meeting.
- Forums 2012, Ideas, Issues, Inspiration and Innovation entitled “Is Nimbi’s Dead? Was it Ever Really Alive?”
Mr. Giner explained that this was a series of forums on Hartford’s partnership for strong communities. The program is on Tuesday, May 15th from 9 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. at the Lyceum, 227 Lawrence Street, Hartford. Mr. Giner said that the program is free as long as you pre-register. He said that there are usually some good issues raised on different matters of planning and public policy.
Chairman Duren said that there have been some interesting designs for pedestrian areas. He wasn’t sure whether some of them would work here as they are shown in the magazine. Mr. Giner said that some of the places featured in the magazine have a good core of mixes and uses, of retail and residential, and all it takes is a critical mass to get them going. The challenge is in getting the initial spark to work. Success breeds success.
- CRCOG Summary of Zoning, Subdivision, and POCD Referrals
- Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency (IWWA) Minutes, Regular Meeting, Tuesday, April 3rd.
- A letter from the Catholic Charismatic Church asking to withdraw their change of use application for 195 North Maple Street.
Chairman Duren said that the letter states the Church is withdrawing its application, but the Commission already denied the application at a previous meeting. He asked Mr. Giner if the Commission had to act on this letter, and Mr. Giner said it did not.
- A flyer from CLEAR – University of Connecticut Center for Land Use Education and Research – about their Land Use Academy Basic Training on Saturday, April 21, 2012 at the Middlesex County Extension Center, 1066 Saybrook Road, Haddam.
- Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies Quarterly Newsletter.
COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Duren said he was starting to see signs for “singles.com” around town. Mr. Giner said they have taken down as many as they could. He said that if you tried to go to the website, it didn’t exist. He said there is no way to contact anyone to tell them the signs are illegal. He said taking them down is the best that can be done.
Chairman Duren mentioned that the “We Buy Houses” signs are re-appearing, and also said he has noticed some sandwich boards around town as well.
Commissioner Ladd mentioned the Police Department testing signs on Hazard Avenue. Chairman Duren said they were in other locations as well.
BOND RELEASES
There were no bond releases on tonight’s agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – NEW
a. PH #2410.02 – Amendment to approved use mix to allow research laboratory uses in a Special Development District (SDD) approved under PH #2410.01 located at 1559 King St., Map 17, Lot 39, Bristol Fields LLC, applicant/owner.
Commissioner Falk read the legal notice and took the roll.
Present were Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Charles Ladd, Nicles Lefakis, Kathleen Sarno, Elizabeth Ballard, Alan Drinan, Peter Falk, Dominic Alaimo, and Ronald Gregory, Sr.
Absent was Commissioner Lori Longhi.
Commissioner Drinan will be sitting in and voting for absent Commissioner Longhi.
Tanya Cutolo, 2 Summit Place, Branford, CT came forward to address the Commission on behalf of the applicant, Steven Fields of Bristol Fields, LLC, regarding the property at 1559 King Street.
Chairman Duren said for the record that the Fire Department Okayed the application on April 12th. He said there was no response from Traffic Safety, Water Pollution, and Engineering.
Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner to confirm that this was not in the wetlands. Mr. Giner said that there is no site work. He explained that this was the Bernie’s property. He said there are regulations for what is called a Special Development District, which allows certain properties that have been vacant for a number of years, underutilized, and for which a use has not been found under any of the existing zones to apply for Special Development District. Special Development District allows for mixes and uses that might not otherwise be allowed under any of the set zones.
Mr. Giner said that the Bernie’s property had been vacant for nearly ten years before Bernie’s came in. Bernie’s wanted to have an industrial warehouse, but also wanted their corporate offices and a retail showroom. This mix did not fit within any of the existing zones, so Bernie’s came in and applied for Special Development District.
Mr. Giner said that there are two such districts in Enfield now, the Bernie’s property and Bigelow. Mr. Giner said Special Development District specifies the exact uses and what the mix of uses would be for the particular applicant. This was done for Bernie’s, allowing a specific amount of square footage for warehousing, office space, and a retail showroom. Now Bernie’s is gone, and the applicant wants to use a portion of the building for Underwriter Laboratories STR (UL-STR), which is a consumer products testing facility, testing everything from children’s toys to electronic goods to be sure they are safe for consumers.
Ms. Cutolo said that UL-STR is currently located at Ten Water Street. Mr. Giner said that Ten Water Street is in an industrial zone. The applicant would like to occupy a small portion of the space vacated by Bernie’s, primarily the area that was occupied by Bernie’s corporate offices and retail showroom. This requires an amendment to the Special Development District (SDD), which is equivalent to a text change, because the existing text was a motion made by the Commission back in 2003, specific to Bernie’s use of the space when they occupied it. The applicant would like the use mix amended to allow a portion of the space to be used for a research laboratory.
Mr. Giner referred the Commissioners to his April 12, 2012 memo, which shows the mix that is currently approved, and the mix that is proposed by the applicant. He explained that the rest of the building would still be vacant. He said if UL-STR ever leaves, as long as anyone wanting to move in to this space had a use that fit within the proposed mix, they could just move in and would not have to come back before the Commission if no site work was needed.
Mr. Giner explained that the applicant would not be doing any site work; they are not changing any parking spaces or doing any landscaping. All of the work would be internal. Chairman Duren commented that there was plenty of parking on this property, and Commissioner Falk said that traffic should not be an issue because there is a traffic light at the entrance/exit of the property.
Commissioner Drinan asked Ms. Cutolo is household voltage 110/220 would be the maximum used for testing. Ms. Cutolo explained that she represented the owner, Bristol Fields, not the actual laboratory. She said she is somewhat familiar with what they do, but she does not specifically know about the voltage used. She did say she could find out. Mr. Giner said that the testing is all on consumer products.
Commissioner Drinan said most likely 220 would be the maximum voltage, but UL-STR does do electrical testing, and that is why he is asking the question. If the voltage used for testing is very high, there is a potential fire hazard. Giner said that the Fire Marshal would be inspecting everything to be sure it is safe before a building permit would be issued. Ms. Cutolo also said that there would be an electrical engineer working with the tenant to be sure things were done safely and correctly.
Commissioner Falk asked Ms. Cutolo if there are any potential clients for the rest of the vacant space. She said there is only speculation. She said the owner would like to keep the current uses available for the vacant space in case a tenant is found that does not fit within the specific use mix being proposed for the UL-STR portion of the building.
Chairman Duren opened PH#2410.02 to the public and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to come forward and speak for or against this application.
No one came forward to address the Commission.
Chairman Duren closed PH #2410.02
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to approve PH #2410.02 – Amendment to approved use mix to allow research laboratory uses in a Special Development District (SDD) approved under PH #2410.01 located at 1559 King St., Map 17, Lot 39, Bristol Fields LLC., applicant/owner, as follows:
i. 16,543 s.f. +/- of office use.
ii. 27,983 s.f. +/- of research laboratory use.
iii. 20,800 s.f. +/- of retail use.
iv. an additional 21,600 s.f. +/- of office use.
v. 97,774 s.f. +/- of residual warehouse/distribution
and ancillary office use.
Provided, however, that the applicant/owner shall have the right, from time to time, to convert all or part of the space described in iii and iv to the use described in v above.
The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.
b. PH #2743 – Special Use Permit for a grocery beer license for an existing convenience store located at 935 Enfield St., in an R-33 District, Map 26, Lot 79; Alkaben A. Patel, applicant, Kalyan, LLC, owner.
Commissioner Alaimo recused himself from PH #2743.
Commissioner Falk read the legal notice and took the roll.
Present were Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Charles Ladd, Nicles Lefakis, Kathleen Sarno, Elizabeth Ballard, Alan Drinan, Peter Falk, and Ronald Gregory, Sr.
Absent were Commissioners Lori Longhi and Dominic Alaimo.
Commissioner Drinan will be sitting in and voting for absent Commissioner Longhi.
Commissioner Lefakis had to leave during PH #2743 due to illness. Commissioner Gregory will vote for the absent Commissioner Lefakis.
Mihir Patel, 935 Enfield Street came forward to address the Commission on behalf of the applicant, Alkaben A. Patel.
Mr. Patel explained that the applicant is applying for a permit to sell beer in an effort to increase their sales. He said they have already increased the food they offer by adding more frozen food and fresh fruit and vegetables. The applicant is trying to be the type of market where a person could go and get everything in one stop, and said that adding the sale of beer would be a good addition to the items that have already been added, as well as additional grocery items that the applicant plans to add.
Chairman Duren directed the Commissioners to an email from Paul Censki, Fire Marshal, dated April 19, 2012. Mr. Censki said he had no issue with the sale of beer in the store, but there were issues with the site that needed to be addressed. These included re-striping the parking lot to indicate the approved parking area; re-striping the handicapped parking spaces appropriately; replacing the fire lane signs in the front of the store that are weathered and faded with new signs that read “No Parking – Fire Lane – Cars will be towed at owners’ expense”. In the email, Mr. Censki also stated that the front of the building is not approved for parking and needs to be posted as a fire lane along with appropriate pavement markings.
Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if the applicant had a copy of this email so he knew what had to be done. Mr. Giner said he only received it this morning, and he gave Mr. Patel his copy.
Chairman Duren said that there was nothing on the plans specifying the location of the beer and the storage area for the empties. He said this had been required for other applications, and it was important to be consistent.
Mr. Patel referred the Commissioners to Exhibit 4 and said the location of the beer would be within the first three doors of the walk-in cooler. He said that the recycling storage area for the empties would be located behind the coolers in a separate storage area not visible to customers.
Chairman Duren said that Exhibit 4, while at least on graph paper, needed more detail. Commissioner Falk said that the location of the beer and the storage of empties should be clearly marked on the floor plan that he would sign. Chairman Duren asked what the circles represented in Exhibit 4, and Mr. Giner said that those were display areas. Chairman Duren commented that there was no door marked on Exhibit 4, and Commissioner Ballard asked how you got into the store. Chairman Duren also commented that there was no scale on the drawing.
Commissioner Ballard asked the applicant where the front door was. Mr. Giner said the front door was located to the left of the counter. Mr. Patel pointed out the location of the front door on Exhibit 4 for the Commissioners.
Commissioner Falk asked Mr. Giner if he had a measurement from the store to Alcorn School. Mr. Giner referred the Commissioners to Exhibit 5, which shows an aerial view of the 1,000-foot radius around the property. He said the distance from the property to Alcorn School is approximately 800 feet.
Chairman Duren said that the Family Resource Center was also located within the 1,000-foot radius, as well as the Village Center. Commissioner Falk said that if the 1,000-foot separation requirements were waived, these facilities were at least close to being on or outside of that perimeter.
In the interest of consistency, Commissioner Falk asked Mr. Giner if the Commission had waived the 1,000-foot separation requirement for other applicants. Mr. Giner said it had, and specifically cited the store in T-Ville Mart, which was very close to Saint Patrick’s Church.
Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if actual measurements were available specifically showing the distance from the store to Alcorn School. Mr. Giner used his laptop to access the GIS System. He said that the distance is right about 850 feet. Chairman Duren commented that the playground, the Resource Center and the Village Center would all be farther away than 850 feet, based on Exhibit 5.
Chairman Duren opened PH#2743 to the public and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to come forward and speak for or against this application.
No one came forward to address the Commission.
Commissioner Ballard asked the applicant if there was a back door that could be used as an exit in case of fire other emergencies. The applicant said there was a side door that customers could easily access if the need for an alternative exit arose.
The Commissioners discussed adding two conditions of approval to the six that were stated in Mr. Giner’s April 13, 2012 memo to the Commission. These additions are as follows:
Under Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits, Condition #2 would read:
All requirements cited in Fire Marshal Censki’s April 19, 2012 memo to Mr. Giner must be addressed.
From here, the conditions would be renumbered accordingly, and the following Condition 8 would be added:
The applicant will submit a floor plan for signing that includes the location of the storage area for empties as well as the location of both the front and side entrances.
Chairman Duren re-opened PH#2743 to the public and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to come forward and speak for or against this application.
No one came forward to address the Commission.
Chairman Duren closed PH #2743.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Drinan, to waive the full submission requirements of Section 9.10.2 because the Commission finds that the information is not necessary in order to decide on the application’s conformance with these Regulations.
The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to waive the 1,000-foot separation requirements between a lot used as a public school and/or public playground and a grocery beer sales permit for 935 Enfield Street for the specific purpose of grocery beer sales.
Commissioner Drinan said he had no problem with what the applicant was proposing in general, but he does feel that the setbacks and separation requirements that are imbedded in the regulations need to be adhered to. He said for this reason, he would be voting against the 1,000-foot separation waiver. Chairman Duren said he would also be voting against the waiver for the same reason.
The motion was carried with a 5-2-0 vote. Chairman Duren and Commissioner Drinan voted against the waiver.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Drinan, to approve PH #2743 – Special Use Permit for a grocery beer license for an existing convenience store located at 935 Enfield St., in an R-33 District, Map 26, Lot 79; Alkaben A. Patel, applicant, Kalyan, LLC, owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the application record and the following eight conditions as stated in Mr. Giner’s April 13, 2012 memo to the PZC and as amended by the Commission on April 19, 2012:
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Certificate:
1. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, landowners, and their successors and assigns.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
2. All requirements cited in Fire Marshal Censki’s April 19, 2012 memo to Mr. Giner must be addressed.
3. 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.
4. Final approvals must be obtained from the Fire Marshal and the North Central District Health Department.
General Conditions:
5. This approval is for the specific use and structures identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structures will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
6. The approval for the Class 4 grocery beer sales permit only. Any changes to the interior layout or functions of the space shall require an amendment to the Special Use Permit.
7. By acceptance of this permit and conditions, the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
8. The applicant will submit a floor plan for signing that includes the location of the storage area for empties as well as the location of both the front and side entrances.
Commissioner Drinan said he would be voting against this application because he feels the distance requirements in the regulations should be strictly adhered to.
The motion was carried with a 5-2-0 vote. Chairman Duren and Commissioner Drinan voted against this application.
c. SPR #1550 – Site Plan Review for a change of use to approximately 10,300 s.f. of vacant area to indoor recreational use with accessory party and snack area at property located in a Business-2 District at 481-483 Enfield Street, Map 33, Lot 256, Michael Lenares, applicant; Frank Enterprises V, LLC owner.
Commissioner Falk read the legal notice and took the roll.
Present were Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Charles Ladd, Kathleen Sarno, Elizabeth Ballard, Alan Drinan, Peter Falk, Dominic Alaimo, and Ronald Gregory, Sr.
Absent were Commissioners Lori Longhi and Nicles Lefakis.
Commissioners Drinan and Gregory will be sitting in and voting for absent Commissioners Longhi and Lefakis.
Michael Lenares, 166 Tromley Road, East Windsor, and Michael Zura, 35 Raffia Road, Enfield, came forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Zura explained that he is the business manager for this project and would be speaking on behalf of Mr. Lenares.
He said they wanted to open up a Whirly Ball facility at 481-483 Enfield Street, the former location of Serv-U and Gary Rome Kia. He explained that Whirly Ball was basically five-on-five bumper cars with a ball, where the object is to score on the opposing goal, which is similar to a basketball backboard and net. Mr. Zura said there would also be game and staging areas for people to enjoy while waiting for their turn to play Whirly Ball.
Chairman Duren referred the Commissioners to Exhibit 3, which was a floor plan of the proposed facility. Chairman Duren said the Fire Marshal, Earl Provencher, had no issue with the change of use. He did, however, have an issue with possible fire/building code violations in the interior that he said could be addressed as the project progresses.
Chairman Duren said there was no response from the Traffic Safety Officer. He was concerned about this because at one time there was a roller skating rink at this location, and traffic was an issue. Mr. Giner said that even though this was a Public Hearing, it is still a Site Plan Review, and as such traffic issues would not be a condition of the site plan approval. Chairman Duren said the Commission could still ask the applicant if they have thought about traffic control and what they plan to do.
Mr. Zura said that the majority of his business is by reservation. People call him and make a reservation to use the Whirly Ball court. He said because of this, traffic in and out of the facility is staggered and should not present a problem. Chairman Duren asked if it was only by reservation or if customers could just come in.
Mr. Lenares said that he has a similar facility in South Windsor and in 21 years he has never had anyone just come in. All of his business is by reservation. If you don’t have an appointment, you can’t just walk in and play. He said for the proposed facility in Enfield, he would like to change it up a bit and allow people to walk in and use the court in 15-minute intervals.
Chairman Duren asked about the bathrooms and said that they appear to be not easily accessible in the plans because they are located in a vacant area. Mr. Zura explained that the bathrooms for his facility are located in the front of the facility to the right of the entrance. He said that the bathrooms in the back that Chairman Duren was referring to were for the vacant space, which would not be occupied by the Whirly Ball facility.
The Commissioners were concerned with the location of the bathrooms because the public would be able to come in and access them without actually having to enter the Whirly Ball facility. Chairman Duren commented that this would make it difficult to control traffic in and out of the bathrooms. Mr. Zura said they plan to have their point of sale in a location that provides a clear view of the restrooms so that they can be monitored.
Mr. Zura also explained that there is a separate entrance and exit to the facility. He said they were thinking of making one of them exclusively for bathroom traffic and the other for coming in and out of the facility itself. Chairman Duren said they might run into fire code issues if this would result in their doors not being wide enough.
Commissioner Drinan asked if the areas that were vacant within the building, including the other restrooms, would be inaccessible to customers of the proposed Whirly Ball facility. Mr. Zura said that they would.
Commissioner Falk asked about the snack area and if it would be exclusively vending machines. Mr. Zura said that it would.
Commissioner Falk said he had been to the facility in South Windsor and that people were allowed to bring in their own alcoholic beverages. He asked if that was the plan for Enfield as well. Mr. Zura said that they would be complying with whatever the local ordinance was. He said it was allowed in South Windsor, and if it was allowed in Enfield, they would like to give customers that option.
Commissioner Falk asked Mr. Giner if he knew what was allowed in Enfield. Mr. Giner said if a premises holds a license to sell beer/liquor, customers cannot bring in their own alcohol, and the Liquor Commission would control this. If the premises is not licensed to serve alcohol, and the owner/operator wants to allow it, customers can bring in their own alcohol.
Commissioner Alaimo asked the applicant how they planned to control the alcohol and be sure that no alcohol was being provided to underage patrons. Chairman Duren said without some form of security this would be very difficult to do. Mr. Giner asked how many supervisors would be on staff. Mr. Lenares said at least three or four.
Mr. Zura said that the general public might not be allowed to bring in their own alcohol. He said this could be restricted to reserved parties only, and those would be held in a separate area, making it easier to monitor. Commissioner Alaimo asked about underage patrons that were part of the parties and how that would be controlled. Mr. Zura said that the responsibility falls on the applicant and that they would institute some form of ID system. Commissioner Alaimo said that would be difficult to enforce, as the patron could decline to show the ID. Mr. Zura said if that were the case, the patron would be asked to leave.
Commissioner Alaimo asked about a separate, roped off area specifically for alcohol consumption. In order to get into the area, you would have to show ID, and you could not leave the area with any alcoholic beverages. This way, it is easier to control. He said he likes the concept of allowing patrons to bring in their own alcohol, but he is very concerned about underage kids drinking and then driving.
Mr. Zura said that they would do whatever it takes for everyone to be comfortable; even if it meant not allowing alcohol at all. If alcohol is allowed, they are willing to accommodate any suggestions to be sure it is monitored and kept under control. Chairman Duren suggested that the applicant speak with the Chief of Police regarding having alcohol on the premises. Mr. Zura said they would certainly do that.
Commissioner Alaimo asked the applicant if the games would all be coin operated arcade games. Mr. Lenares said they would not be coin operated, they would be open play, and would come as a package with Whirly Ball.
Chairman Duren asked about hours of operation and said he would like to set them because there are residential areas near the facility. Commissioner Sarno asked what hours the South Windsor facility was open. The applicant said in South Windsor, they are open 24/7, by appointment. He said it is not unusual to have a party come in at midnight or later to play. Mr. Lenares said that they would not allow loitering in the parking lot, and that there would be enough activity inside to keep people from loitering outside.
Mr. Giner said that providing hours of operation is required for a special permit, but not for a site plan review. Commissioner Drinan said that even though the Commission can’t determine the hours of operation, it can ask what they are going to be. Commissioners Alaimo and Sarno both said that committing the applicant to set hours could hurt their business. The Commission, in general, agreed. Chairman Duren said they would rely on local ordinances and have faith in the applicants as business operators to keep things under control.
Chairman Duren opened SPR #1550 to the public and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to come forward and speak for or against this application.
Maurice Larosa, Vice Chairman, ZBA, 37 Litchfield Drive, Enfield, came forward to speak in favor of the application.
Mr. Larosa said that he has used the applicant’s facility in South Windsor for the past 15-17 years. He said it is a great facility, and he thinks this will be a great addition to Enfield. He said in his experience, noise is not an issue. If his group wants to socialize after playing, they do so inside. When they leave the facility, they get in their cars and go home. He said he doesn’t see it being any different in Enfield.
Mr. Larosa said that the South Windsor facility is very professionally run, and the applicant knows what he is doing. Mr. Larosa also said that bringing in corporate customers could stimulate area business.
Chairman Duren asked the applicant if they had seen Mr. Giner’s April 12, 2012 memo detailing the conditions of approval. The applicant said they had and there was no problem with any of the conditions.
Mr. Giner said that Condition 10 had a typographical error in the second line. The word form needs to be changed to from.
Chairman Duren closed SPR #1550.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to approve SPR #1550 – Site Plan Review for a change of use to approximately 10,300 s.f. of vacant area to indoor recreational use with accessory party and snack area at property located in a Business-2 District at 481-483 Enfield Street, Map 33, Lot 256, Michael Lenares, applicant; Frank Enterprises V, LLC owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans as may be required to be modified and the following 14 conditions as stated in Mr. Giner’s April 12, 2012 memo to the PZC and as amended by the PZC on April 19, 2012:
Referenced Plans:
“Whirly Ball 481-483 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut, Preliminary First Floor Plan” Sheet A-1; Dated 4/10/12
Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:
1. Each sheet of the plans submitted for signature shall require the seal and live signature of the appropriate professional(s) responsible for the preparation of the plans.
2. The application number “SPR 1550” shall be clearly indicated on each sheet of the plans submitted for signature in the area next to or above the Title Block.
3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, landowners, and their successors and assigns, a copy of the Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated on the plans submitted for signing.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:
4. Three sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.
5. Final approval of any interior work shall be obtained from the Fire Marshal.
6. A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.
7. A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance:
8. No Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval may be issued until the Zoning Enforcement Officer has signed off on the final work. When minor site work cannot be completed because of weather or other pertinent reason, a conditional approval may be issued for a period not to exceed 180 days, providing satisfactory surety shall be posted with the Town of Enfield in an amount sufficient to complete the site work and with surety acceptable to the Town Attorney and Finance Department.
9. A request for final project review from the Planning Department must be made at least 10 days before a Certificate of Occupancy or other final approval is requested from the Building Official.
General Conditions:
10. The rear of the building shall be kept clear and marked as a fire lane for sprinkler access and exiting from the building.
11. This project shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the referenced plans. Minor modifications to the approved plans as indicated in the application record may be allowed, subject to staff review and approval. Staff shall report any such changes to the Commission at the meeting following the approval.
12. 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.
13. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by April 19, 2017 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
14. 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 carried with a 7-0-0 vote.
d. XZA #12-01 – Proposed text change to Zoning Regulations Definitions #3 and #54 for the purpose of counting decks as building coverage; Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission, applicants.
Commissioner Falk read the legal notice and took the roll.
Present were Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Charles Ladd, Kathleen Sarno, Elizabeth Ballard, Alan Drinan, Peter Falk, Dominic Alaimo, and Ronald Gregory, Sr.
Absent were Commissioners Lori Longhi and Nicles Lefakis.
Commissioners Drinan and Gregory will be sitting in and voting for absent Commissioners Longhi and Lefakis.
Mr. Jose Giner, Director of Planning, spoke on behalf of the applicant.
Mr. Giner explained that this issue came up and was discussed at length at a joint meeting of the ZBA and PZC. He said that the proposed language was drafted in response to that discussion.
Mr. Giner said he has looked at what other towns are doing and has had some conversations with town development staff, and he thinks that considering decks as building coverage goes against what is in the existing regulations. He said the regulations are very clear in stating to be considered a building, the structure must have a roof over it.
Mr. Giner said he knows there is concern over decks and lot coverage, but he does not think that this text change is the way to handle that. In his professional opinion, the exclusion of decks from the definition of building coverage is a common and justifiable practice. While decks are considered structures, they are not buildings. He suggests instead of taking the unusual step to include decks in with buildings that the Commission instead add a definition for “Total Lot Coverage” which would be defined as follows:
The part of percentage of the total lot area occupied by buildings, surface structures, and parking lots.
Mr. Giner further suggests keeping the existing coverage ratios as they are for the different zones, and adding a new ratio for total lot coverage, which could vary by zone as many of the other coverage ratios do.
Chairman Duren said he liked the idea of covering everything in one simple change and that the language Mr. Giner is suggesting for total lot coverage is very good. He emphasized, however, that total lot coverage was not the subject of the public hearing and not what the Commission would be voting on tonight and therefore should be tabled for another time. He said that what was being voted on was Exhibit 2, and only Exhibit 2.
Chairman Duren opened XZA #12-01 to the public and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to come forward and speak for or against this application.
Maurice Larosa, Vice Chairman, ZBA, 37 Litchfield Drive, Enfield, came forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Larosa said he likes the text as written in Exhibit 2, but this whole subject has caused him to go back and thoroughly review the zoning regulations. He referenced a letter to Mr. Giner from Mr. Yarum dated March 31, 2012, which included an attachment of Article IV, Residential Districts, sections 4.00 and 4.10.
Mr. Larosa explained that he looked past the definitions and into the regulations. He said that 4.10 is very clear and there is no room for misinterpretation.
Chairman Duren read section 4.10, Area and Bulk Requirements into the record:
The following table establishes the lot, yard and bulk requirements for the HR-22, R-33, R-88, OS R-33, OS R-44, OS R-889, and The Thompsonville Village Center Zone. Except as herein otherwise provided, no lot shall have an area or width less than indicated in the table below. In addition, no building or buildings (including accessory buildings) as well as any loading docks, decks, porches, or steps attached to or otherwise associated with such building or buildings, shall encroach upon the minimum front, side and rear yards indicated below, nor shall they cover a greater area nor shall they exceed in height the amount set forth in the following table. (Table 4.10, Area and Bulk Requirements, can be found on Page 23 of the Zoning Regulations).
Mr. Giner said that in his opinion the wording within this regulation does not lead to the conclusion that decks should be considered building coverage.
Chairman Duren said he thought Mr. Giner’s proposed language regarding lot coverage would take care of everything all at once, but that was a topic for a different time. Mr. Larosa said that ZBA has to comply with the regulations as they are written until such time as any changes are made.
Mr. Larosa said that currently he believes that ZBA has a regulation, 4.10, that fits the need and he would like to be able to go back to ZBA and tell them that PZC is in agreement with that.
James Bailey Brislin, 43 Oakwood Street, Enfield, came forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Brislin said there are two angles to this, a legal angle and a public policy angle. He said from a legal perspective, there are conflicting internal interpretations of the regulations and definitions. He said he is against this application and is very concerned about the drainage problems and issues that would result in too much impervious coverage being allowed.
Chairman Duren closed XZA #12-01.
Commissioner Ladd made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno to approve XZA #12-01 – Proposed text change to Zoning Regulations Definitions #3 and #54 for the purpose of counting decks as building coverage; Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission, applicants.
The motion was denied with a 0-7-0 vote.
e. XZA #12-02- Proposed text change to Zoning regulations to add a new Section 4.40.5 that will set standards regarding the conduct of garage or tag sales. Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission, applicants.
Commissioner Falk read the legal notice and took the roll.
Present were Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Charles Ladd, Kathleen Sarno, Elizabeth Ballard, Alan Drinan, Peter Falk, Dominic Alaimo, and Ronald Gregory, Sr.
Absent were Commissioners Lori Longhi and Nicles Lefakis.
Commissioners Drinan and Gregory will be sitting in and voting for absent Commissioners Longhi and Lefakis.
There was discussion about the proposed tag sale regulations in Exhibit 2. The Commissioners had no problem with Items A-F, but most did have issues with Item G. Specifically, the concern was that G limited shared tag sales, which are very commonly done for fundraising.
Mr. Giner apologized to the Commission, as the version they had in front of them was not the final version. He stated that an Item I was added that states:
This section is not intended to limit the duration or frequency of sales or bazars sponsored by fraternal, religious or other nonprofit organizations for the purpose of fundraising.
After further discussion, it was decided that Item G should read as follows:
Goods offered for sale shall consist of unwanted household items previously used by the homeowner or other participating households. No goods shall be purchased from other sources specifically for the purpose of re-sale.
Issues of duration and hours of operation were discussed, and Commissioner Ladd said that there was already a section 4.40.5 in the regulations and this one would have to be renumbered.
It was decided that this public hearing would be continued so that Mr. Giner could revise Exhibit 2, incorporate the above-referenced items and provide the Commissioners with a finalized version.
Chairman Duren opened XZA #12-01 to the public and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to come forward and speak for or against this application.
No one from the audience came forward to address the Commissioner.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Drinan, to continue XZA #12-02- Proposed text change to Zoning regulations to add a new Section 4.40.5 that will set standards regarding the conduct of garage or tag sales. Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission, applicants, until the May 3, 2012 PZC Meeting.
The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.
OLD BUSINESS
a. SPR #1546 - Application for a 4,700 s.f. addition to the existing industrial building at 198 Freshwater Blvd., Zoned IP, Map 55, Lot 003, John Morgan, AIA, Applicant; MTA Properties, LLC, owner. (May 5, 2012 deadline for decision)
The applicant was not present and has not yet submitted revised plans.
Commissioner Ballard made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to continue SPR #1546 until the May 3, 2012 PZC Meeting.
The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.
b. Request for a second driveway cut under Section 3.10.2 of the Zoning Regulations for property located in a Residential 33 (R-33) District at 27 Prospect St., Map 24, Lot 144; Nick Siafakas, applicant/owner.
Chairman Duren asked if this was a legal conversion to a five-family residence. Mr. Giner said he had spoken with Ms. Higley and it was.
Chairman Duren also asked about the 23-foot curb cut, is that what is required of a residential driveway. Mr. Giner said for two-way traffic it would be, but 23-feet is rather large. He said the usual residential driveway is around 12 feet wide.
Nick Siafakas, 209 Pearl Street, Enfield, came forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Siafakas said that the reason he has a 23-foot curb cut on the plan is because that is how wide the opening in the existing fence is.
He said that his tenants presently drive over the curb now to park, but he was prompted to request the curb cut when one of his tenants damaged his vehicle and asked Mr. Siafakas to pay for it.
He said parking is a real issue in this area. He said when the soup kitchen is opened, there is nowhere to park.
Chairman Duren asked if he would be paving the driveway if the curb cut request was granted. Mr. Siafakas said he would put some kind of an apron at the bottom, and may pave the rest in the future, but only if it seems to be needed.
Chairman Duren said he has no problem with the project and thinks it will help with the parking problem in this area. He does question whether the applicant actually needs 23 feet, and asked Mr. Giner for his opinion. Mr. Giner said the only requirement was that it be no more than 24 feet, and the 23 feet fell within that limit.
Mr. Giner provided the applicant with a copy of his April 13, 2012 memo stating the conditions for approval. The applicant said he had no problem with the conditions. Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner to also be sure the applicant received a copy of Mr. Cabibbo’s memo.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve the request for a second driveway cut under Section 3.10.2 of the Zoning Regulations for property located in a Residential 33 (R-33) District at 27 Prospect St., Map 24, Lot 144; Nick Siafakas, applicant/owner, subject to the following five conditions as stated in Mr. Giner’s March 30, 2012 memo to the PZC:
1. The driveway opening shall be no more than twenty-four (24) feet wide, at the curb line.
2. There are 4 full sections of granite curbing in the requested curb cut area, which will need to be removed, and these sections shall be saved for the Town as they are in good condition and the Town can reuse them. The remaining granite curbs shall not be cut. The requested curb cut shall be made inside that four-section opening. The driveway apron is required to be paved at least to the back edge of the existing walk, which is about ten feet. The driveway apron pavement should be tapered up to the granite curbing edges, which will remain after the four sections are removed.
3. The four broken concrete sidewalk sections, which are presently being driven over, shall be removed before the apron is paved.
4. The new grade of the driveway apron and the remaining sidewalks shall be graded for safe pedestrian traffic across the new driveway apron.
5. The paving contractor who will be paving the driveway apron and removing the curbing and sidewalk sections will be required to obtain a street cut permit through the Engineering Office.
The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.
NEW BUSINESS
a. SPR #1549 – Application for rooftop camera towers and platforms at property located in and Industrial Park (IP) District at 150 Freshwater Blvd.; Jeff Stirling, Eli Lilly & Company, applicant; Eli Lilly & Company, owner. (June 7, 2012 deadline for decision)
Jeff Stirling, Manager US Regional Distribution Enfield, Eli Lilly and Company came forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Stirling explained that Eli Lilly had put a structure on the roof and some surveillance cameras but did not obtain the site plan approval to do so. This is being done retrospectively, to make everything official.
Chairman Duren said that the pictures were very helpful and that the structure can barely be seen from the street. Commissioners Sarno and Ballard commented that they would not have even known the cameras were there if this application was not before the Commission.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to approve SPR #1549 – Application for rooftop camera towers and platforms at property located in and Industrial Park (IP) District at 150 Freshwater Blvd.; Jeff Stirling, Eli Lilly & Company, applicant; Eli Lilly & Company, owner. (June 7, 2012 deadline for decision), subject to the following five conditions as stated in Mr. Giner’s April 13, 2012 memo to the PZC:
General Conditions:
1. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, landowners, and their successors and assigns.
2. This approval is for the specific use and structure identified in the application. Any change in the nature of the use or the structure will require new approvals from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
3. 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.
4. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by April 19, 2017 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
5. 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 carried with a 7-0-0 vote.
b. FLD # 034– Request for a Development Permit within a Special Flood Hazard Area for a proposed residential addition w/ attached deck at 34 Wheeler Dr., Map 80, Lot 159, Thomas J. Kidder, applicant/owner.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to continue FLD # 034– Request for a Development Permit within a Special Flood Hazard Area for a proposed residential addition w/ attached deck at 34 Wheeler Dr., Map 80, Lot 159, Thomas J. Kidder, applicant/owner, until the May 3, 2012 PZC Meeting.
The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Discussion of Farm Animal Regulations
b. Discussion of Mr. Giner’s Draft Letter to Mr. Yarum
Commissioner Drinan found a typographical error in the very last sentence of the letter. The first of needs to be changed to or.
Mr. Giner said he would make the change and get an original to Chairman Duren to sing.
Commissioner Drinan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard to accept Mr. Giner’s Draft Letter to Mr. Peter Yarum, Chairman, ZBA, expressing PZC’s support of a Request for Variance for 14 Cranbrook Boulevard, as amended, for Chairman Duren’s signature.
The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.
APPLICATIONS TO BE RECEIVED
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PH #2745 – Proposed vehicle display lot for automotive sales on property totaling 0.92 acres located at 787, 795, and 799 Enfield Street in a Business General (BG) District within the Enfield Street Design Overlay (Assessor’s Map #29, Lots #54, 55 and 56); GJWSJ, LLC Applicant, Enfield Properties, LLC owners.
Scheduled for May 17, 2012.
SITE PLAN REVIEWS
SPR #1551 – Proposed change of use to allow a convenience retail store at unit #2 of a commercial plaza located at 95 High Street in a TVCZ District, Map 25, Lot 6; Alex Contreras and Erick Rodriguez, Applicants; S&T Associates, Owners.
SPR #1551 is subject to ERSC review; it will be scheduled for the PZC agenda as soon as possible following that review.
NEXT REGULAR MEETING
The next regular meeting of the PZC will be Thursday, May 3, 2012
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lefakis, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Peter Falk, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
Kcd
|