ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

MAY 17, 2012

A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, May 17, 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 Ballard took the roll.

PRESENT:  Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Lori Longhi, Charles Ladd, Kathleen Sarno, Elizabeth Ballard, Peter Falk, Dominic Alaimo, and Ronald Gregory, Sr.

ALSO PRESENT:  José Giner, AICP, Director of Planning, Virginia Higley, Zoning Enforcement Officer, and Kathleen DeGray, Recording Secretary.

ABSENT:   Commissioners Nicles Lefakis and Alan Drinan.

Commissioner Gregory will be sitting in and voting for the absent Commissioner Lefakis.

FIRE EVACUATION ANNOUNCEMENT

Chairman Duren read the Fire Evacuation Announcement.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

a.            April 19, 2012 Regular Meeting.

The April 19, 2012 minutes remained tabled until the June 7, 2012 PZC meeting.

b.            May 3, 2012 Regular Meeting.

Commissioner Ballard made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Falk to approve the May 3, 2012 PZC minutes as amended.

Amendments are as follows:  Page 5, Line 3, change Pearl Street to Carl Street; Page 11, just before “Chairman Duren closed Public Hearing #2744”, add: Chairman Duren asked the applicant if he accepted the conditions of approval.  The applicant said that he did.  Page 14, right before “Old Business” add:  The motion was carried with a 6-0-0 vote.

The motion was carried with a 6-0-1 vote.  Commissioner Ladd abstained.

STAFF COMMENTS

a.            Director of Planning (In Person)

Mr. Giner said he attended a program sponsored by The Partnership for Strong Communities at the Lyceum in Hartford on Tuesday, May 15^th, called Case Studies in Conflict – Who Decides Where, When and How We Create Housing?  He brought material from the program and passed it out to the Commissioners.

Mr. Giner next referenced a list of planning-related bills that have been passed by the Legislature that was provided to the Commissioners.  He said that the one that the Commission probably needs to act on is the one concerning bonds and other surety for approved site plans and subdivisions.  He said that this act defines and limits what type of bonds can be accepted for site plans and subdivisions.  Mr. Giner said he would be meeting with the Town Attorney to see what might need to be changed in the regulations to comply with the new legislation.

Mr. Giner said another item, which has been pushed for since its inception in the mid 90s, concerns the liability of Zoning Enforcement Officers (ZEOs) regarding fines ordinances.  Mr. Giner explained that prior to the new legislation, the ZEOs could be exposed to treble damages in court regarding enforcement of fines ordinances.  He said that other commissions/agencies did not have this exposure.  He referred to Wetlands as an example, saying that the legislation is almost the same as for Zoning.  The blight ordinance for Wetlands does not have the treble damages exposure.  Mr. Giner said that the new legislation removed the treble damages exposure for ZEOs.

Mr. Giner next referred to PA 12-27, which authorizes planning commissions to notify regional planning agencies of subdivision applications via electronic mail.  Certified mail is no longer required.  Mr. Giner said that although this only applies to subdivisions on town boundaries, it would save the Commission some money over the long run.  Mr. Giner said that the law was changed a couple years back to allow planning commissions to notify regional planning offices about zoning changes via electronic mail rather than certified mail.  He said this change is already saving the Commission some money.

Mr. Giner said that he had attended the yearly training for municipal aquifer protection agents and gave the plume report from the Pride gas station to Robert Hust from DEEP.  Mr. Hust was going to make sure it got to DEEP’s remediation division.  Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if Mr. Hust knew about the plume report.  Mr. Giner said Mr. Hust did not know about it personally but that it might have gone through the remediation division.  Mr. Giner said he left Mr. Hust with his copy of the plume report, and Mr. Hust was going to give it to the remediation division to see if they knew about it and if not, if they should have known about it. 

Mr. Giner went on to say that he also forwarded a copy of the plume report to Cindy Gaudino at the Connecticut Water Company asking her if this was something they had received and if not, should they have.  Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if he had heard anything in response from either Mr. Hust or Ms. Gaudino, and Mr. Giner said not yet, but he did send a follow-up email to Mr. Hust just this morning.  Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner to continue to follow up.  Mr. Giner said that he would.

Chairman Duren asked about the town and if there was any record that anyone at the Town of Enfield was ever notified.  Mr. Giner said he did not know but he would look in to it.  Chairman Duren asked about North Central Health and if they had been notified.  Mr. Giner said he did not think they would receive notification.  Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner to touch base with North Central Health to see if they had been notified. 

Chairman Duren explained that this discussion arose because of a memo PZC received stating that remediation was going to be closed for a gasoline plume that originated with the gas station in Massachusetts that runs down to Knox Street in Enfield.  A major part of the plume is in Enfield.  He said that as people are aware, Connecticut Water Company wells are back up in the woods there in back of Knox Street.  Because of this the Commission just wants to know who is notifying whom about what is going on.

Chairman Duren commented that remediation has been going on for a long time.  He asked Mr. Giner what year the remediation started.  Mr. Giner said he did not have the exact date in front of him but that it was started quite some time ago.

Chairman Duren said he was glad Mr. Giner was staying on top of this.  He said he would like him to continue to follow up in order to get an answer from Connecticut Water and DEEP.  He said it might be worth having the company come in, but that they probably work under Massachusetts DEP.  Mr. Giner said the company is working for Pride Gas Station, and they have to report to the Massachusetts DEP under their regulations.  He said that Mr. Hust’s initial reaction when he told him about is was that if there was any contamination in Connecticut, his remediation division should have known about it, and that is what he was going to check into. 

Mr. Giner said that the company’s conclusion was that there were no trace levels of what they were looking at, and any levels they found were below any level of concern.  He said Mr. Hust was looking into whether or not DEEP would be able to check on this themselves.

Chairman Duren said that is why he asked when the Commission was setting up the aquifer protection.  He wans to know if the Massachusetts regulations dovetailed with the Connecticut regulations.  He said he was glad something was being done and asked Mr. Giner to please stay on it.  Mr. Giner said that he would.

Mr. Giner next referred to the updated Pending Project Status – Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission spreadsheet that was provided in the Commissioners’ packets.  He said that some of the projects are in progress, some have not even started yet, and some have been completed.  He said that the ones that show as completed on this spreadsheet would be removed in the next update.  This will keep the spreadsheet from getting too long and cumbersome. 

Chairman Duren asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for Mr. Giner.

Commissioner Longhi said that she noticed that Ms. Higley provides the Commission with a building permit count of what she signs off on.  Commissioner Longhi said that the Commission had asked to see the total list of building permits issues so that they could determine what permits are being issued without Ms. Higley’s sign-off, to be sure that Ms. Higley is signing off on everything that she should be signing off on. 

Mr. Giner said he has asked the Building Department, and they told him he could get it off the Internet.  Commissioner Longhi asked if Ms. Higley could be asked to print the list off.  Chairman Duren said it was a Town agency asking for this information and this was not an acceptable answer for the Commission to receive.  Mr. Giner said he would see if it could be printed out.  Commissioner Longhi said that Mr. Warren has said at so many meetings that MUNIS has all these capabilities, so she doesn’t understand why it can’t just print out this report.  She said that they must have, because they have to know for billing purposes what permits have been issued and how much income has been generated. 

Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if he had gotten the Town Attorney’s opinion on the re-assessment and its effect on PZC at a later time.  Mr. Giner said he had not formulated that request yet.  He said he was waiting for the minutes because he wanted to make sure he got it right.  He said he did talk by phone with the Assistant Town Attorney and said that the request was coming once he had an opportunity to review the minutes.  He said that since there were no changes to the minutes, he was just going to submit the question and use the minutes verbatim so the Town Attorney could see what the discussion was.  He said if the Commission would like to review the question before he sent it to the Town Attorney he would be happy to email it to the Commissioners.  Commissioner Longhi said she would like to look at the question before it is submitted.  Mr. Giner said he would get it to the Commissioners for their approval. 

Chairman Duren next asked about T & T Carpentry and what was going on with that.  He asked if they had applied for a permit or if they were going to come before the Commission.  Mr. Giner said that it was decided that the procedure would be that Ms. Higley would issue an order, and the applicant would then have an option to appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) if he disagreed with the order.  It was not necessary for the applicant to come before PZC for a variance.  The proper way was for the Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) to go out to the property and take a look, see what is there and decide if there was a violation or not.  If Ms. Higley found there was a violation, she would issue an order, which she did do.  The applicant could then appeal the order to the ZBA, which he is doing.  The PZC does not need to be involved with this.  Chairman Duren said that was fine, as long as the applicant was in the right place.

Chairman Duren next asked about an email from Marty Levitz asking to come before the PZC for the purpose of establishing parameters with regard to a Transit Oriented Development on his property on the river.  Mr. Giner asked if the Commission wanted to put Mr. Levitz on the agenda for the next PZC meeting under Other Business as an informal discussion.  Chairman Duren said that was fine, but he thought there might have been problems with the project.  He asked if Mr. Levitz should maybe go to ART first, because he wants to talk about the parameters for the project.  Mr. Giner said he thinks it involves the possibility of changing zones, and before he gets too far, Mr. Levitz wanted to talk with the Commission and get some feedback.

Commissioner Sarno asked which project this was.  Mr. Giner explained that Mr. Levitz owns some property on the river, the old power plant property for Bigelow.  He wants to present some ideas and see what direction he is going to go before he really starts putting pen to paper.  Chairman Duren said that Mr. Levitz’s use of the word parameters made it somewhat unclear as to what he was looking for.

Mr. Giner suggested putting him on the next agenda for an informal discussion.  Chairman Duren said that would be fine and the Commissioners agreed.   Chairman Sarno asked if the 15-minute time limit would apply, and Mr. Giner said that it would. 

Mr. Giner next discussed the Planning Commissioners Journal that the Commissioners had in their packets.  He said that this was the last paper issue, and that the publication was being discontinued and replaced with a Web version.  Mr. Giner said that the PZC was a charter member of the written publication when it first came out.  He said the Web version was an excellent resource and has anecdotes from different planning and zoning commissions about their job as a planning commission.  He asked the Commission to take some time to review it. 

Mr. Giner explained that what they were doing is going to a Web-based service, which they would offer for less money than the written publication.  He said that basic access for up to ten people would cost $95.00 per year.  He said that this would include everybody on the Commission.  Mr. Giner said that for an additional $40.00 per year, up to 20 people could be included, which would allow ZBA to also receive it.  He said that the print version costs $177.00, so even with the 20 people on the Web-based version, the Commission would be saving money. 

Chairman Duren said that the publication is a good source, and the Commissioners agreed.  Mr. Giner said that the business model is a good one.  He said with the Web-based version, any Commissioner can go on at any time.  He said Commissioners would have direct access on their computers to do research whenever they wanted to. 

The Commissioners agreed that the Web-based publication would be valuable and is something they would use.  Commissioner Longhi said that ZBA should definitely be included. 

The Commission agreed to subscribe to the Web-based Planning Commissioners Journal, Planners Web, with the option that includes up to 20 subscribers.  Mr. Giner said he would set up the Web-based subscription and let ZBA know about it.

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:

• A May 15, 2012 letter to Gary Williams from the ZBA granting his requested variances.
• A copy of the Planners Web previously discussed by Mr. Giner.
• The Pending Projects Spreadsheet previously discussed by Mr. Giner.
• The American Planning Association Commissioners Magazine. 
• The CRCOG Referrals for 4/26/12 through 5/3/12.

Chairman Duren pointed out that Enfield was on this CRCOG Report:

Z-2012-39 – Proposed amendment to the zoning regulations to establish a Multi-family Development District. 

Commissioner Ladd asked what an Incentive Housing Zone was.  Chairman Duren said that was a good question.  Commissioner Ladd said that Simsbury has a proposed amendment on the CRCOG Report to incorporate regulations pertaining to this type of zone, but he doesn’t know what it is.

Mr. Giner reminded the Commission of when David Fink, Partnership for Strong Communities, came to speak to the PZC.  He said they are basically zones for more affordable housing for workforce development; affordable housing for professionals like teachers.  This is a formal program by the State of Connecticut to promote the development of such zones.  You agree to where these developments would go and then run a study to see what the proper density would be in those zones. 

Commissioner Longhi asked if that is what is being proposed in Enfield.  Mr. Giner said it was not.  The amendment being proposed for Enfield does not have the affordability component.  It is basically for market-rate multi-family developments. 

Commissioner Longhi said she was somewhat confused and asked who in Enfield was proposing the Multi-family Development District.  Mr. Giner explained that the Multi-family Development District was a private application.  The applicant was not the Town of Enfield.

• The May 9, 2012 email from Martin Levitz previously discussed.
• The Planner’s Magazine

COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE

Commissioner Ladd talked about the light poles on Hazard Avenue in Hazardville that were put up when the neighborhood was upgraded.  He said there are two of them that are pretty beat up.  He said that one doesn’t even have a light anymore; somebody knocked it off. He said this was pole number 20.  Commissioner Ladd said that pole number 26 was standing at a list.  He said that the Town is supposed to be maintaining the poles, and they should be fixed.  Commissioner Ladd said that the new Director of Public Works has been hired, but he is not sure if he is in place yet. 

Commissioner Ballard mentioned that they are still waiting on a sign that says “Welcome to Hazardville”.  She said there is one for Thompsonville but nothing for Hazardville.  Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if he would refer the lamppost issues in Hazardville to the Department of Public Works.  Mr. Giner said that he would.

Commissioner Ladd commented that there is no longer a Blight Enforcement Officer.  Mr. Giner said that there is a person filling in until the position can be filled permanently.  Her name is Jenice Poulin, and she is acting as the interim Property Maintenance Inspector.  She is just starting out and getting acclimated.  Chairman Duren asked if she would have the same number of hours as Ms. Huhtanen did.  Mr. Giner said it would be a 19-hour per week job, which is the same as it was for Ms. Huhtanen.

Commissioner Longhi asked again about the Multi-family Development District.  She wanted to clarify that this was a developer coming in and proposing this, not the Town of Enfield.  Mr. Giner said that it was a private developer, not the Town.  He said that he believes it is the people that came before the Commission informally to discuss the Mayfield area. 

BOND RELEASES

There were no bond releases on tonight’s agenda.

PUBLIC HEARINGS – Continued from May 3, 2012

There were no Public Hearings Continued from May 3, 2012.

PUBLIC HEARINGS – NEW

a.       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.

Commissioner Falk read the legal notice (published in the May 5^th and May 10^th 2012 Journal Inquirer) and took the roll.

Commissioner Longhi recused herself from PH #2745.

Present were: Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Charles Ladd, Kathleen Sarno, Elizabeth Ballard, Peter Falk, Dominic Alaimo, and Ronald Gregory, Sr.

Absent were: Commissioners Nicles Lefakis and Alan Drinan.

Commissioners Gregory and Alaimo will be sitting in and voting for the absent Commissioner Lefakis and recused Commissioner Longhi.

Chairman Duren invited the applicant to come forward and present their application.

Gary Rome, Gary Rome Kia, Enfield, CT and Dana Steele, Professional Engineer, J. R. Russo and Associates, East Windsor, CT came forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Rome greeted the Commission and said that it was good to be back.  He said and his facility was near completion across the street.  Mr. Rome explained that tonight he was here to present his site plan for the Commission’s approval, and he turned the microphone over the Mr. Steele.

Mr. Steele greeted the Commission and explained that he was here tonight to present the proposal by Gary Rome Kia for the properties at 787, 795, and 799 Enfield Street.  He said this property was located on the corner of Park Avenue and Enfield Street and was currently owned by Enfield Properties, LLC.  Mr. Rome has an option to purchase the property and he is here to determine if he can do what he wants to do to improve his business before committing to the purchase.

Mr. Steele said that Mr. Rome has been investing in his existing property, which is just to the south across the street from Park Avenue and the subject property.  Mr. Rome is making investments in the neighborhood, and he would like to expand and do that on the other side of the street, as he needs more room.

Mr. Steele said that these properties were the subject of a recent zone change from Business Local (BL) to Business General (BG).  The intention of the zone change was to allow an automotive sales use, which is not allowed in a BL Zone but is allowed in BG Zones with a special use permit.

Mr. Steele explained that Mr. Rome is here tonight with a special use application and that signs have been posted on the subject property.

Mr. Steele started by explaining the existing condition of the subject property.  He said that sheet two of the plan set that was submitted was the existing conditions demolition plan.  The property consists of three parcels currently, a larger parcel on the left and two smaller parcels to the right. 

Mr. Steele said the first parcel, number 787, was the old garden center.  He said it is run down and has been vacant for some time.  He explained that Mr. Rome would like to be the person to improve this property and put it to good use.  Mr. Steele said that the existing pavement is in poor condition.  He said the front was paved, around the sides is paved, and there are two existing barns in the pack of the property.  Mr. Steele said the barns are in really rough shape and there is evidence inside them of trespassing and vandalism. 

Mr. Steele explained that the current pavement goes right to the sidewalk, right to the property line, so there are no buffers in the front.  He said that the structures in the rear are encroaching into rear-yard setbacks.  There are a number of non-conforming issues with the property, which the applicant wants to correct. 

Mr. Steele said if you go down Route 5, you would notice that the property to the south, Gary Rome Kia, has pavement that encroaches into the property line and also into the right of way past this.  He said there is a very narrow amount of green space property to the north.  He said the Troiano property also has pavement right to the property line. 

Mr. Steele said that this property at 787 is the greenest property in the area, and Mr. Rome proposes to make it even greener.  Mr. Steele said that the applicant is requesting some relief in the areas where the Commission has discretion, and he asked the Commission to respectfully consider those requests. 

Mr. Steele said the other two properties, 795 and 799 were residential uses, although in the back of the properties there is no lawn, it is all gravel parking, which presently goes over the property line.  He said because of this it is blended in with the next residential driveway to the east.  Mr. Steele said there is a large curb cut on Park Avenue, a curb cut shared by the two houses on Route 5, and another curb cut for the old garden center. 

Mr. Steele said referred the Commission to Exhibit 6 and explained the proposed project.  Mr. Steele said the applicant would like to take the three parcels and merge them into a single parcel, which would be conforming in regard to lot area.  The applicant is proposing to eliminate one of the existing curb cuts on Route 5, the one that is closest to the intersection, and maintain the other two existing curb cuts.  He proposes to pave the front part of the lots and the rear would be a gravel parking lot.  This would allow Mr. Rome to have the additional inventory storage that he needs on what is currently a very tight site.

Mr. Steele explained that when Mr. Rome was first looking at this property, he was looking for space to store over 200 vehicles.  However, Mr. Steele said that the applicant knows that one of the Commission’s concerns that he wanted to address up front was the delivery of vehicles to the property for this kind of use.  Mr. Steele said he knew this was an issue back when Mr. Rome looked at his existing property next door. 

What the applicant is proposing is to provide a dedicated delivery area, which is shown on Exhibit 6.  There would be striping on the pavement, which was requested by the Fire Department, so this area would be clearly designated.  He explained that the turning templates were checked and the details were submitted to staff and then reviewed.  Mr. Steele said a tractor-trailer could turn off of Route 5 onto Park Avenue and then make a left-hand turn into the proposed site from Park Avenue.  Once the truck is either loaded or unloaded, it can then proceed forward and exit directly onto Route 5.  Mr. Steele said that this is the best that can be done for turning templates.  He said this would be the worst-case scenario, accommodating the largest type of truck on the road.  He said that although this situation is not ideal, it does work and it is better than what is there now.

Mr. Steele said that the applicant has revised his site plan to address comments from staff at the ART meeting.  He said there were some additions, notations, and changes regarding the drainage system.  Mr. Steele said that the front portion of the site is going to be paved, and the rear portion would be gravel.  He said there would be a five-foot landscape strip across the front of the garden center property that is not there now.  He explained that this would be planted with evergreen shrubs so there would be some relief between the sidewalk and the vehicles. 

Mr. Steele said that the rear portions of the property are abutted by residential properties, and the applicant is proposing a ten-foot buffer on the east and south sides.  He said there would also be a 20-25 foot buffer on the rear portion where there are some existing encroachments from the abutting residential properties.  Mr. Steele said the applicant has talked with the property owners and he is willing to continue to let them use the areas they are using.  He is trying to be cooperative and work with the neighbors.

Mr. Steele said there would also be an arborvitae row that would provide a solid visual screen, protecting the abutting residential properties and offering them a view they don’t currently enjoy. 

Mr. Steele said a lighting plan was proposed with the applicant’s initial submission that included 24-foot high poles and intense lights in the front of the property for display of the vehicles, and less intense lights in the back.  Mr. Steele said that staff had asked what could be done to minimize the impact of the lighting on the surrounding properties.  Staff members asked about lower pole heights.  Mr. Steele said that based on staff input, the applicant went back and revised their lighting plan and reduced the pole height of the poles that abut the residential properties from 24 feet high to 12 feet high.

Chairman Duren commented that there was still a little overflow from the lighting, but not to the degree it was before the revision.  Mr. Steele said the revised lighting plan was submitted on May 12, 2012.  Chairman Duren confirmed that the Commission had it.  Mr. Steele said that the revised plan shows the three poles that were reduced to 12-feet highlighted in yellow.  He said all three poles have physical shields on the light fixtures on the backside, as well as internal shields that direct the light away from the residential properties and towards the intended use.   

Mr. Steele went on to say that there were discussions about security and keeping lights on for security reasons.  He said that the applicant intends to keep the property lit during business hours, which are from 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m., and then the lights would shut off.  In the interest of security, the possibility of having a few of the lights stay on, but only on motion sensors, was discussed.  This would help to discourage any type of inappropriate activity, as the lights would come on when there was any motion on the property.  He said there would be four fixtures that would have the motion sensors, two along the front of the property and two along the north side. 

Mr. Steele said the applicant is also proposing a flagpole on the corner of Park Avenue and Route 5.  This would be a 35-foot high pole with the American Flag on it and it would be lighted.  Mr. Steele said that there was discussion at the ART meeting to be sure that this was not going to be used for a sign or a Kia flag.  The applicant assured the staff that it would only be the American Flag.

Mr. Steele said the proposed project would increase the site’s impervious coverage and thus increase the runoff.  He said that the applicant has mitigated this by providing a subsurface detention system.  There are catch basins in the parking lot that run into subsurface storage chambers that hold the water back and release it slowly so there would be no increase in runoff leaving the site.  The proposed system would discharge into the state drainage system and as such would be inspected regularly.

Chairman Duren said he noticed that an inspection schedule was included on the plans.  Mr. Steele said that on Page 5 of the plan set there is a recommended maintenance schedule for the drainage system.

Mr. Steele again discussed the truck delivery area.  He said that one of the comments brought up by the Town Engineer was in regard to what impact would the turning movements have if there are cars parked on Route 5.  Mr. Steele said that there are parking restrictions but they are pretty close to the corner.  The applicant is proposing to push the No Parking sign back so that more of the area remains clear to improve movement.

Mr. Steele said the applicant has also proposed to put a crosswalk across Park Avenue, and the Traffic Safety Officer is in agreement.  Final details about the configuration and location of the crosswalk would be subject to the Traffic Safety Officer’s approval. 

In summary, Mr. Steele said the site has existing landscaping in the back, large pine trees, all of which would remain.  He said that existing non-conforming structures would be removed, and the landscape buffer on the garden center property is being increased.  He said a buffer is being provided with a solid visual screen, and the lights have been minimized to reduce impact on surrounding properties.  There will be no outdoor speakers making announcements, and this has been noted on the plans. 

Mr. Rome said he would also be installing a new fire hydrant, which was requested by the Thompsonville Fire Department.  The fire hydrant would be maintained by the Connecticut Water Company but will be installed at the applicant’s expense.

Mr. Steele asked the Commission if there were any questions.

Commissioner Sarno asked if the abutting residential neighbors were aware that the proposed buffer is only ten feet, rather than the 35 feet typically required and if they were in agreement with that.  She asked Mr. Rome if he had sent a letter to the neighbors.   Mr. Rome said he did not send out a letter, but he did talk with the abutting neighbors.  He mentioned that one of the abutters was in the audience tonight and intends to speak about the application. 

Mr. Rome referred the Commissioners to the plan and said that as they put the ten-foot buffer in, on the other side the properties already have an existing fence.  They are protected already with their fence, and then there would be an additional ten feet with the buffer of arborvitaes. 

Mr. Steele said that the ten-foot buffer is a reduction of the required 35 feet, but the applicant is proposing a denser planting screen than is required.  There will be no visual passage through the buffer.

Chairman Duren said that required street setbacks were also not being met.  Mr. Steele said that in a conventional parking lot, depending on the number of spaces, you need a certain amount of setback.  The applicant is proposing five feet.  Chairman Duren said the required setback is normally 10-25 feet, but this projects is such an improvement compared to what is there now.

Commissioner Sarno asked if anything needed to be waived to accommodate the lesser setback.  Chairman Duren said there would have to be a waiver.  Mr. Giner pointed out a draft motion to waive the setback requirements that was in his May 6, 2012 memo to the Commission.  Mr. Giner said there is a provision in the regulations that says setbacks can be modified when in the opinion of the Commission the adjoining landowners are sufficiently protected.  He said that the applicant has asked for this modification, and the draft motion is included should the Commission decide to use it.

Mr. Giner said there is no modification to the front setbacks. What the applicant is asking the Commission to consider is that the garden center property has pavement right up to the front, and they would be making an existing non-conforming use less non-conforming by at least providing a five-foot setback.  Mr. Giner said he knows the Commission is also concerned about cars parking in the landscaped area as people tend to do.  Mr. Giner said the applicant was asked to put a row of bushes in to prevent parking in the setback area.

Chairman Duren pointed out that the applicant would also not be meeting the interior landscaping requirements.  Mr. Giner said that the regulations do allow for some flexibility.  He read the following into the record: 

“The Commission may decide that all or portions of existing landscaped areas that are to be saved and that some or all existing materials satisfy the standards of the intent of this section and may modify the parking area landscaping plan to reflect such a decision.”

Commissioner Sarno said she agreed that the whole area is going to be nicer.  She said her main concern is do the abutting neighbors know.  She asked if there are waivers, why they are not in Mr. Giner’s memo.  Mr. Giner said there was a motion to modify in his May 8, 2012 memo and he pointed it out to the Commission on page 2.  Mr. Giner said that this motion would have to be made and approved before the actual application could be voted on.  Without this modification, the application would not meet the requirements.

Chairman Duren asked if the Commissioners had any other questions.

Commissioner Alaimo referred to page three of the ART report.  He asked about parking capacity on the property.  Mr. Steele said he put a note on Plan Number 15 that the proposed inventory storage lot has a maximum capacity of 156 passenger vehicles.  He said there was room for more, but not with the proposed truck delivery area.

Chairman Duren asked if there was a breakdown of that number between the pavement and the gravel areas.  Mr. Steele said he did not break that down, but he certainly could if the Commission needed him to.  Chairman Duren said he knows the applicant is limited by the conditions in Mr. Giner’s May 8, 2012 memo to parking only new vehicles in the gravel area.  He said the reason for this was that staff was concerned about possible fluid leakage which is more likely with used vehicles. 

Mr. Steele said the applicant has no problem with this or any of the other conditions for approval.

Commissioner Alaimo asked why the back portion of the property was gravel rather than pavement.  Mr. Steele said it was because the regulations don’t permit the applicant to pave the entire site.  There is a maximum impervious coverage, and about two-thirds of the site is the most that can be paved.  Mr. Steele said the applicant did not max out the allowed impervious coverage.  He said it made sense to stop the pavement where they proposed to.  Mr. Steele said that the gravel area would be used a more of an overflow area.

Chairman Duren said that there were letters from Engineering saying they were okay with the proposed project.  He said there was nothing from Water Pollution Control, but he supposes they will be involved.  He asked if they would be involved with the capping, and Mr. Steele said there is a note on plans that they are to be notified.  Chairman Duren said the Commission did not receive a letter to that effect, and there should be one in the file. 

Chairman Duren said there was not a note from the Fire Department, but they were at the ART and requested a new hydrant.  Mr. Giner said that there was an email from Paul Censki dated May 9^th that is labeled Exhibit 18 and should have been in the Commissioners’ packets.  Some of the Commissioners had the Exhibit and some did not.  Mr. Giner apologized for some of the packets being incomplete.

Chairman Duren said there was nothing from the Traffic Safety Officer, and he asked Mr. Giner if he was okay with this.  Mr. Giner said he didn’t mention anything, but there is a condition stating that with respect to the crosswalk, the final plans submitted for signature should include the crosswalk and the location approved by the Traffic Safety Officer.  This forces him to get involved.

Mr. Giner said the other traffic safety issue that needs to be discussed with the applicant is signing across the street for no parking so the delivery trucks can make the proper turning movements.  If there are cars parked across the street, it will be very difficult.

Chairman Duren asked if there was any reason, other than turning radius, why the trucks could not come in from Enfield Street and exit via Park Avenue.  Mr. Steele said the turn coming from that direction would be too tight; the trucks would not be able to make the turn.  There is much more room the other way.

Chairman Duren asked Mr. Rome if he would be notifying the delivery trucks of the proper procedures.  Mr. Rome said they have been training them.  He also said as a point of reference that there is an existing no parking sign; the proposal is to move the sign to the east to clear a larger area.  He said that most of the time, the cars parked on the street belong to his employees.  Commissioner Ladd asked if the proposed project would alleviate the parking problem and give employees a place to park on the property.  Mr. Rome said that it would.

Chairman Duren asked the Commissioners if there were any more questions.  There were none.  He asked Mr. Giner if he had anything to add.

Mr. Giner said that there was an extensive ART, the results of which are in the Commissioners’ packets.  He also referenced his May 8, 2012 memo to the Commission, also included in the packets.  He said he thinks the applicant has made all of the changes that were requested during the ART. 

Mr. Giner said that the only thing he would add to his memo is a condition stating that the plans indicate that the lateral for the fire hydrant to the water main should be a minimum of six inches, as requested by Fire Marshal Censki in his May 9^th email to Mr. Giner.  It was agreed that this would be added as condition number 5 and the rest of the conditions going forward would be renumbered.

Chairman Duren referred Mr. Giner to page 2 of his May 8^th memo, at the bottom, under Referenced Plans, regarding the lighting plan.  The plan date needs to be changed from 4-12-12 to 5-9-12.

Chairman Duren opened Public Hearing #2745 to the public and asked if there was anyone present who wanted to speak either for or against this application.

Jay Cekala,9 Park Avenue, Enfield, CT, came forward to speak in favor of this application.

Mr. Cekala said that his back yard would be abutting Mr. Rome’s proposed parking lot.  He said after seeing what Mr. Rome did to the front of the Kia Dealership, he has no problem with the proposed project and he thinks it will be good for the neighborhood.  He said that this area is not presently very attractive, and that once Mr. Rome is finished cleaning it up, it would be much better.  Mr. Cekala said he has no objections to Mr. Rome doing what he needs to do on the property. 

No one else came forward to address the Commission. 

Chairman Duren closed Public Hearing #2745.

Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to modify the buffer yard requirements of Section 10.20B with the finding that the proposed landscaping and lighting measures proposed by the applicant will sufficiently protect the adjoining land users.

Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if this covers all three, including the setbacks.  Mr. Giner said that this motion includes only the buffer yards requirements and that the setbacks and other pre-existing non-conforming issues are covered by approval of the plans.  The record does document this discussion, as well as the ART report.

The motion was approved with a 7-0-0 vote.

Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve 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.  This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans, as amended, and as may be required to be modified by this approval and the following 23 conditions as stated in a May 8, 2012 memo from Mr. Giner to the PZC, as well as one added condition stating that the plans indicate that the lateral for the new fire hydrant to the water main should be a minimum of six inches:

Referenced Plans:

“Gary Rome KIA, 787, 795 & 799 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut” Title Sheet, w Index and Key Map, by J.R. Russo & Associates, revised to 4-30-12.

“Existing Conditions/Demolition Plan, Gary Rome KIA Inventory Holding, 787, 795 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 2 of 7, Scale: 1”= 20’,  by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 4-12-12.

“Site Plan, Gary Rome KIA Inventory Holding, 787, 795 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 3 of 7, Scale: 1”= 20’,  by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 4-12-12, revised to 4-30-12.

“Lighting Plan, Gary Rome KIA Inventory Holding, 787, 795 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 4 of 7, Scale: 1”= 20’, by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 5-9-12.+

“Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Notes, Gary Rome KIA Inventory Holding, 787, 795 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 5 of 7, Scale: “As Noted”,  by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 4-12-12.

“Detail Sheet, Gary Rome KIA Inventory Holding, 787, 795 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 6 of 7, Scale: “As Noted”,  by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 4-12-12, revised to 4-30-12.

“Detail Sheet, Gary Rome KIA Inventory Holding, 787, 795 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut” Sheet 7 of 7, Scale: “As Noted”,  by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 4-12-12, revised to 4-30-12.

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, PH # 2745, shall appear on each page submitted for signature either in the title block or in the area immediately outside it.

3. The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns, a copy of the Conditions of Approval shall be incorporated on the plans submitted for signing.

4. The Plans submitted for signing shall include the location of a crosswalk on Park Ave.  that has been approved by the Traffic Safety Officer.

5. The plans submitted shall indicate that the lateral for the new fire hydrant to the water main should be a minimum of six inches.     

Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits or start of construction:

6.   Three sets of paper plans and one set of mylars, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.

7.   A pre-construction meeting between the applicant, site contractors, project engineer and Town Staff shall be held.

8.   An Erosion and Sediment Control and Site Restoration Bond shall be submitted in the form of cash or a check, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.

9.   A landscaping bond, in an amount to be determined by the Planning Department shall be submitted to the Town.

10.  A copy of an environmental assessment report indicating findings including any underground storage tanks, contamination including pesticides/ fertilizers on all three properties shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal.

11.  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 which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :

12.  Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 and T-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance. The as-built plan shall also contain a certification by a Professional Engineer that they have inspected the site improvements and that they have been installed in accordance with the approved plans. Any deviations or omissions must be noted.

13.  In accordance with Section 9.10.6 of the Regulations, the applicant shall also submit final plans in a digital format consistent with the Town’s Guidelines for Digital submissions.

14.  No Certificate of Zoning Compliance 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.

15.  A request for final project review from the Planning Department must be made at least 10 days before a Certificate of Compliance or other final approval is requested from the Building Official.

General Conditions:

16.  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.

17.  The site shall comply with all applicable sign regulations.

18.  The landscaping shown on the plans shall be maintained at all times.  Any damaged or dead plantings shall be promptly replaced.

19.  Parking of inventory shall be limited to the areas shown on the plan.

20.  There shall be no parking lot lighting or deliveries between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.

21.  Graveled parking area is to be used for new vehicles only. There shall be no storing of damaged, used vehicles on the gravel due to the possibility of soil contamination from leaking fluids from the vehicle into the soil. 

22.  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.

23.  All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by May 17, 2017 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

24.  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.

Chairman Duren asked the Commissioners if there was any discussion.  Commissioner Falk said he thought this project would be an asset to the community by enhancing the beauty alone.  He also said he thinks the lighting with the motion censors will make it a safe area and discourage loitering.  He said it improves the safety and wellbeing of the area as well as the aesthetics.  Commissioner Sarno agreed.

There was no further discussion.

The motion was approved with a 7-0-0 vote.

Chairman Duren again stated that this was a significant improvement to this area, especially to the garden center property, which has been vacant for a long time.  He also said there have been a lot of problems with the barn in the back and this project should help the neighborhood.  Chairman Duren thanked Mr. Rome and said he is glad he is doing well in Town and wants to expand.

        b.        PH #2746 – Special Permit for a Change of Non-conforming Use to allow a car detailing business on property previously used as a wholesale used car dealer located at 41 Mullen Rd. in an R-44 District, Map 49 Lot 1, Dennis Rayburn, applicant; P&J Ventures, LLC, owner.

Commissioner Falk read the legal notice (published in the May 5^th and May 10^th 2012 Journal Inquirer) and took the roll.

Present were: Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Lori Longhi, Charles Ladd, Kathleen Sarno, Elizabeth Ballard, Peter Falk, Dominic Alaimo, and Ronald Gregory, Sr.

Absent were: Commissioners Nicles Lefakis and Alan Drinan.

Commissioner Gregory will be sitting in and voting for the absent Commissioner Lefakis.

Chairman Duren invited the applicant to come forward and present their application.

Dennis Ryburn, One Lancer Drive, Enfield, CT, came forward to address the commission.

Mr. Ryburn explained that he is looking to take the existing building, which was automotive, and make it a detail shop.  He said the inspector was there today and he went through the septic system and gave the thumbs up.  The inspector has asked Mr. Ryburn to wash the vehicles at another facility down the road, which he would do, and then bring the vehicle back to the shop to be detailed.

Mr. Ryburn said he received an email about a fire lane being painted somewhere.  He said he believes the Fire Chief would have to come out and show him where he wants it painted and he will make sure it gets done.  Mr. Ryburn said he would be cleaning cars on the property. 

Commissioner Falk asked the applicant if he would be washing vehicles on the property.  The applicant said he would not.  Chairman Duren said that the application does state that the applicant would be washing cars on the property.  He asked the applicant where the location is that he will be washing the cars off-site.  The applicant said the car wash is right on Route 5 about a half mile away, next to the East Windsor DPW.  Mr. Giner asked Mr. Ryburn if he meant the State salt shed.  He said that was not the Town of East Windsor.  It is the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation.  Mr. Ryburn said that is the location he was talking about.

Mr. Giner explained that the location was near the Comfort Inn and the Cracker Barrel, right on Route 5.  The applicant said that just past this there is a car wash facility on the right-hand side.

Chairman Duren said that this throws a whole different thing into the application.  He asked Mr. Giner why this had not gone through Wetlands.  Mr. Giner said it was a Change of Use.  There is no outside land development.  The applicant is not disturbing anything.  Commissioner Longhi said if the applicant was going to wash cars on the premises, it would impact the outside.  Mr. Giner said that there would be no washing of cars on the premises.  He said when this was referred to North Central District Health Department, that was their biggest concern, because the property is not on septic, it is on a holding tank. 

Chairman Duren said that was obvious.  There are no sewers out there and there are wells.  Chairman Duren said this is just like the old EDB we had with the tobacco farms.  Mr. Giner said that is why it was referred to North Central.  Chairman Duren said that is why he wondered why it never went to Wetlands.

Mr. Giner said the applicant provided a list of some of the solvents that he would be using, and that is what was sent to North Central District Health Department to review. 

Chairman Duren referenced Exhibit 3, Suds’Sational Liquid Car Wash Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and asked the applicant if he would be doing anything related to this on the property.  Mr. Ryburn said he would not since the inspector had come out today.

Commissioner Gregory referred to the May 17, 2012 email from Mr. Caronna, North Central District Department of Health.  He said the email is very clear about what their findings were and how any problems that might arise could be rectified.

Commissioner Longhi asked about car cleaners and things of that nature.  She asked if anything was going to be used there or if the applicant would only be vacuuming.  The applicant said that he would be using chemicals inside the shop to detail the cars.  Chairman Duren pointed out that the chemicals would still be on the property even if they were inside the shop.

Chairman Duren referenced Mr. Caronna’s email, stating that there are no floor drains.  He said the only access to the applicant’s tank that Mr. Caronna talks about having pumped regularly is through the toilet or the washbasin.  Chairman Duren asked the applicant how he proposes to clean up the materials he is using to detail the cars from the ground.  Mr. Ryburn explained that the cleaning chemicals are applied to a towel and then applied to the vehicle surfaces.  Chemicals are not being sprayed all over the car and running off onto the ground.

Commissioner Longhi asked where the dirty towels go.  Mr. Ryburn said they get washed.  Chairman Duren asked where they got washed.  Mr. Ryburn said a laundry facility?  Chairman Duren said he shouldn’t be asking, he should have a concrete answer.  Mr. Ryburn said he would have a qualified facility wash his towels.  Commissioner Longhi said this should be looked into to see if it is even proper.  Mr. Ryburn said it would be the same as an automotive facility having their towels washed.  He would be doing the same thing.  He said a laundry service would pick up the towels, clean them, and then drop them back off.

Commissioner Longhi said she had a couple of issues on the actual use.  She referenced something Mr. Giner had sent about a non-conforming use.  She said that according to the regulations, specifically 3.40.4, under Abandonment.  She read the following into the record:

A non-conforming use, which has been abandoned, shall be thereafter resumed.  A non-conforming use shall be considered abandoned when there is an actual cease of the use, coupled with the intent not to put the premise again back to the same use.

Commissioner Longhi continued reading:

If there is a nonuse of a non-conforming use for a period of one year, than the use shall be deemed abandoned unless there is proof offered to intent that the abandonment was not of the use.

Commissioner Longhi said that this building was empty.  Mr. Giner asked Commissioner Longhi which section she was looking at.  She referred him to page 22, Section 3.40.4.

Commissioner Longhi said that the Commission knows there was a used car business here a long time ago.  It has been empty for a long time.  Chairman Duren said that in between there was a person that came in to sell wholesale autos.  Commissioner Longhi said it has been empty for several years.  She said unless there is an active license there to show that the use is continued, she doesn’t see how the Commission can go off of that this was a non-conforming use. 

Mr. Giner said that the section Commissioner Longhi was reading, he thinks there have been recent court cases the have found that there has to be clear intent to abandon the non-conforming use.  Commissioner Longhi said that clear intent would be if there were a dealer license there for new cars, used cars, or whatever, and there wasn’t a clear intent to abandon, the license should still be associated with that facility.  Mr. Giner said he is not so sure about that.  He said that a landlord might lose a tenant that holds that license and the license would leave with the tenant.  Mr. Giner said in this case the landlord would not have a clear intent to abandon the use, even though the tenant left.

Mr. Giner said the previous use for this property was a car dealer.  Commissioner Longhi said that this application would not be the same use.  Mr. Giner said it would not and that is why the applicant is here.  If he were going back to the exact same use, he would not need to apply to the Commission, because we have already determined that a wholesale auto dealer was appropriate for this property.  Mr. Giner said the previous auto dealer had a specific condition that it was an auto body use, but that was being voluntarily abandoned.  He said the applicant is trying to say that car detailing is even a lesser use than the wholesale auto, and he is asking the Commission to make that determination; that it is in fact a lesser non-conforming use.

Commissioner Longhi said the Commission knows that is true, but does this mean the applicant is abandoning the other use.  Mr. Giner explained that one of the items that would show clear abandonment is when you put the property to a more conforming or conforming use.  As an example, he said if someone tore everything down on the property and put up a house, you could not go back to the non-conforming use.  You are not grandfathered because you used to have a non-conforming use.  Once you put the property to a conforming use or even a less non-conforming use, it is considered abandonment of the previous non-conforming use. 

If this applicant decides after some time to leave his business for any reason, the property cannot go back to the previous non-conforming use.  Mr. Giner referred the Commissioners to his May 9, 2012 Memo, condition number five, which states that approval of this application extinguishes the non-conforming use of the property for a wholesale auto dealer.  Chairman Duren asked if auto repair should also be included in condition five.  Mr. Giner said that wholesale auto dealer was the non-conforming use and that auto repair was not approved for this property.

Mr. Giner said that the conditions of approval, which are recorded in the land records, clearly extinguish the previous non-conforming use of the property as the use becomes less non-conforming or conforming.  Mr. Giner said this proposed use is still non-conforming, as it is a commercial use in the middle of a residential zone.  However, it is less non-conforming than the previous non-conforming use.

Commissioner Longhi said the conditions would need to be changed to specifically say there will be no car washing at all on the premises.  Chairman Duren said this would be Condition 9 – Washing of cars on the premises is prohibited. 

Mr. Giner said that Mr. Caronna was on-site at the property this afternoon and that is why his email to Mr. Giner arrived so late.  He said Mr. Caronna had initial concerns about the holding tank, and his last paragraph outlines the conditions under which he would endorse the application.  Mr. Giner wants to add these to his conditions of approval outlined in his may 9^th memo.   Chairman Duren said Condition 10 should be about the holding tank being inspected, and he asked how often. Mr. Giner said Mr. Caronna’s conditions stated within six months or sooner, based on usage.  Chairman Duren said this is to have it pumped within six months, but the tank should be inspected so many times a year.  Commissioner Longhi said twice per year.

Mr. Giner said that ideally there should be an alarm placed on the tank so that if there is an overflow there is a warning. Chairman Duren said that this should be Condition 10 - A new alarm shall be installed on the septic system holding tank to monitor its level.  Mr. Giner said this would tell you when the tank needed to be pumped – the minute the level reach the point of setting off the alarm you would know.

The Commissioners discussed whether Condition 10 should also specify having the tank pumped out every six months or sooner depending on usage.  Commissioner Sarno said she understands the need for the alarm, but does not think a requirement to pump out the tank every six months should be a condition.  She pointed out that maybe the tank would not need to be pumped out that often and if it did, the alarm would make the applicant aware of that.

The applicant explained that the six months was put in there to check the tank and see how much it filled in a six-month period.  From this, a timeline can be developed as to when the tank would need to be emptied.

The Commissioners discussed that if the tank did overflow, it would go into the wetlands.  It was agreed that having the alarm on the tank to monitor the level would prevent this from happening.  The alarm would sound long before the tank would reach the point of overflowing.

Chairman Duren asked the applicant what chemicals he used to detail the cars.  The applicant said he used all-purpose cleaner for the interiors – the carpets and the vinyl.  He said the chemicals are all biodegradable.  He reminded the Commission that the chemicals would be applied to a towel first and not just sprayed into the air.  Mr. Ryburn said he uses a wax to buff the car on the outside, and glass cleaner for the windows. 

Commissioner Longhi asked the applicant to confirm that all of this work was going to be done inside the building.  The applicant said that it was.  Commissioner Longhi asked if a condition of approval stating that all work would be done inside the building should added.  The Commission agreed to make this Condition 11 – All work is to be done inside the building.

Chairman Duren asked the Commissioners if there were any further questions.  There were none.

Chairman Duren opened Public Hearing #2746 to the public and asked if there was anyone present who wanted to speak either for or against this application.

No one came forward to address the Commission.

Chairman Duren closed Public Hearing #2746.

Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Longhi, to approve PH #2746 – Special Permit for a Change of Non-conforming Use to allow a car detailing business on property previously used as a wholesale used car dealer located at 41 Mullen Rd. in an R-44 District, Map 49 Lot 1, Dennis Rayburn, applicant; P&J Ventures, LLC, owner. This approval is subject to conformance with the submitted record and following eight conditions as stated in a May 9, 2012 memo from Mr. Giner to the PZC as well as the following added conditions:  Condition 9:  Washing cars on the premises is prohibited; Condition 10:  A new alarm shall be installed on the septic system holding tank to monitor its level; Condition 11:  All work is to be done inside the building:

Conditions:

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

2.   Prior to occupancy the applicant shall establish the fire lane as directed by the Fire Marshal.

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.

4.   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.

5.   This approval extinguishes the non-conforming use of the property for wholesale auto dealer.

6.   There is no site work proposed or approved in conjunction with this application.

7.   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.

8.   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.

9.   Washing cars on the premises is prohibited.

10.         A new alarm shall be installed on the septic system holding tank to monitor its level.

11.         All work is to be done inside the building.

Chairman Duren asked the applicant if he had any objection to the conditions for approval.  Mr. Ryburn said he had no objections.

Chairman Duren said that this would put to use an abandoned building, one that has been abandoned for quite a while.  He said he had some concerns when he saw the chemical use, but that has been properly explained and taken care of.

The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.

Chairman Duren wished the applicant luck and said that this would be a less non-conforming use for the property and would be better for the environment than the previous non-conforming use.

       c.          PH #2748 – Subdivision of former 115.06 acre LEGO campus at 555 Taylor Road into 4 lots; property located in an Industrial-1 District, Assessor’s Map 99, Lot 11; NIP Owner, LLC, applicant/owner.

Commissioner Falk read the legal notice (published in the May 5^th and May 10^th 2012 Journal Inquirer) and took the roll.

Present were Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Lori Longhi, Charles Ladd, Kathleen Sarno, Elizabeth Ballard, Peter Falk, Dominic Alaimo, and Ronald Gregory, Sr.

Absent were Commissioners Nicles Lefakis and Alan Drinan.

Commissioner Gregory will be sitting in and voting for absent Commissioner Lefakis.

Chairman Duren asked the applicant to come forward to present their application.

Attorney Thomas Fahey, Fahey and Landolina, 487 Spring Street Windsor Locks, CT came forward to address the Commission on behalf of the applicant, NIP Owner, LLC.  Attorney Fahey introduced Mark Friend, Professional Engineer, from Megson and Heagle, 81 Rankin Road, Glastonbury, CT.

Attorney Fahey explained that this is an application for a subdivision of developed parcels known as the Lego Campus on Taylor Road, Moody Road, and Shaker Road. 

Attorney Fahey said that over the years, as Mr. Friend will show during his presentation, there have been buildings on the site that have been occupied.  There are a series of cross easements that allow certain rights for the occupants of the different buildings to travel over the other portions of the property and to have easements and things of that nature.  Attorney Fahey said that the purpose of the subdivision is that it does lend itself now in this commercial market where there might be owners who are now tenants or prospective tenants who are interested in buying a building.  This would require a separation of ownership from the single owner that there is now.

Attorney Fahey said they have looked into it and it does work and it does comply with the regulations.  He said that all of the easements, cross easements and things that are necessary to make this work are shown on the plan prepared by Mr. Friend.  Attorney Fahey said that there would be a document following the approval of the subdivision, a master set of restrictions and covenants would be recorded on the land records.  All of the lots will be subject to those restrictions and covenants and that will set forth all the rights with respect to utility easements, rights of way, and access points. 

Attorney Fahey said that everything is already there in terms of frontage on streets and things of that nature.  He said at this time he was going to turn the floor over to Mr. Friend to provide the details of the subdivision.

Mr. Friend introduced himself to the Commission.  He said he had the affidavit here for the posting of the public hearing signs.  He said he posted three of them on the low frontages for the property.  Mr. Friend shared a map with the Commission and explained he would be using the map to show what they were proposing.  He explained that North was up and the scale was one inch equals 100 feet for relativity.  He said that the entire property is 15 acres in size and it has frontage on several streets, Taylor Road on the right side, Cybulski Road, and Print Shop Road, which has been the main access to the property for years.

Mr. Friend pointed out Shaker Road on the map and said there is a 100-foot easement that was granted during the approval process of the distribution center, so there is actually no frontage on Shaker Road, but there is an easement that has been in place that would stay in place for access to Shaker Road. 

Mr. Friend explained that the property has four existing on it, which are shown in red on the map.  The first is known as 300 Shaker Road, the Lego Distribution Center, which is unoccupied.  He said this was a very large building, approximately 500,000 square feet in size.  Next is the Compass House, which is the office building that Lego Corporation still occupies.  The access for this is off Taylor Road.  The Compass House has its own independent access that goes out to Cybulski Road, but it does not connect to the rest of the facility.  The next building is 100 Print Shop Road, which was the original building on the site and has been expanded over the years.  The last building is 99 Print Shop Road, which would access the property off of Print Shop Road.

Mr. Friend explained that the proposal is to subdivide this property, which is 115 acres, into four building lots.  There are no changes proposed to the property in terms of buildings or driveways or anything else.  This is simply an application to subdivide what exists into four lots.  Mr. Friend said that the lot sizes range from 5.14 acres, which he pointed out on the map as Lot 4, to 49 acres, which is the lot on 100 Print Shop Road.  Mr. Friend pointed out the lot on 100 Print Shop Road to the Commission on the map and said there is a parking lot that services the existing building on this lot.  Mr. Friend said that these two lots have proposed frontage on a private road, which would be an extension of Print Shop Road. 

Mr. Friend pointed out on the map where the public portion of Print Shop Road ended.  He said the road used to end in this location, and then a number of years ago, Lego came in and asked to have this section of the road abandoned.  Mr. Friend explained that in order to meet frontage requirements of the regulations, this section would become a private road, which would be owned by Lot 1, but there would be the rights to use this section of the road for the other two lots.  Mr. Friend explained that the frontage for Lot 4, which is 230 feet of frontage, would be on this private road.  Lot 1 gets its frontage on the other two sides of that private road.  Lot 3 gets its frontage along Taylor Road, and Lot 2 also has extensive frontage along Taylor Road. Mr. Friend said that each lot has the required frontage according to the regulation.

Mr. Friend said that currently some of the buildings are occupied and some are vacant.  He said that Compass House is fully occupied and there is a small section of the distribution center that is occupied.  Mr. Friend said that the building at 99 Print Shop Road is currently vacant.  Mr. Friend said to create the subdivision there would be cross easements, which are shown on the plans that are necessary.  He said there are some utilities that cross over and are common to some of the buildings.  Mr. Friend used the fire suppression system as an example.  He said there are two fire storage tanks and a booster pump, which were installed for 300 Shaker Road on the Compass House when it was constructed.  He said those are tied in and shared with other buildings.  Mr. Friend said there is domestic water that is also shared.

Mr. Friend said they have shown the necessary cross easements on the plans for the necessary utilities, as well as for the access drive.  He pointed out that when you come up Print Shop Road, there is an access drive that goes around through the whole campus and comes out onto Shaker Road.  Mr. Friend said that these three buildings would have cross easements so that they all can use that driveway.  He said that the cross easements would be part of the significant amount of documentation that Attorney Fahey is working on for the project.

Mr. Friend continued by saying that all of the required coverages are all met quite easily.  He referenced a table in the plans showing impervious coverages and building coverages.  He said that the lot frontages, lot sizes, and all other aspects of what is being proposed meet the regulations.

Mr. Friend said that this is fairly straight forward, and he does not have an extensive presentation because there are no improvements or changes other than just creating subdivision lot lines.  He said there are some possible buyers for some of these properties, and the subdivision is really the only way to be able to do that. 

Mr. Friend said that they did ask for a fee reduction of items C and E.  He said C is the engineering review, which was not necessary, and E is the erosion and sedimentation control review, which also was not necessary because there is no construction being proposed.

Mr. Friend said that this concluded his presentation and asked the Commissioners if they had any questions.

Commissioner Longhi had questions about parking.  She said it was the one thing that wasn’t put on the plans.  She said she saw that the applicant had done all of the impervious coverage, but these buildings now have cross-used parking, and there is nothing to delineate that each of the buildings has enough parking for their own separate lot.  Mr. Friend explained that the reason they did not do that was because the uses in the buildings haven’t changed and the parking lots that went with those buildings have stayed the same.  He said when these buildings were all approved, the parking regulations were different than the current regulations are now.  He said they did not go through that exercise because for subdivision approval, it didn’t seem to be necessary because all the uses stay the same.

Commissioner Longhi asked how we would know now that the buildings are going to be on separate lots that they have enough parking to support what they have in each building.  Mr. Friend said that the buildings would have the same parking that they have had all along.  Commissioner Longhi said that they might not have the same parking.  She said in the past when Lego came before the Commission, they were using overflow parking or other parking, and she said that is what she cannot tell based on these plans anymore, what building goes with what parking, and how much parking is for each building.

Mr. Friend said the parking that’s for each building would be the parking lots that are on the individual lots.  There is no plan for any cross easements for parking.  The intent was that as an existing facility that was fully approved, which each of the buildings was with individual site plans before this Commission, the parking regulations were met.  The parking lots that were approved under those site plans will stay with each building.

Chairman Duren said that the question might be, for example, the warehouse.  If the use for this is changed from a warehouse, the parking requirements would change and then what would happen.  Mr. Friend said if this were the case they would have to come back before the Commission.    

Mr. Giner said that any time there is a change in use that increases the parking demand, the applicant would have to come back before the Commission for site plan review to show that they could accommodate additional parking.  Chairman Duren said they have no room up there for additional parking.  Mr. Giner said if that was the case, a change of use requiring additional parking would not be granted.  He said it is self policing. 

Commissioner Longhi said she specifically remembers the last time Lego was in, it was very tight on parking with the expansion of their building, but they were utilizing some of the other parking for the other buildings as overflow.  With the subdivision, it seems like that overflow parking option would be going away.  She said she does not feel comfortable splitting off something without knowing there is adequate parking for these buildings.

Mr. Giner said he believed additional parking was added on the proposed Compass House lot the last time Lego was in.  Mr. Friend said that when the Compass House building was designed and build back in the 90s, there was the potential to add two more wings to it, and there was room included on the property for future parking.

Mr. Friend said the point is that the creation of the subdivision does not change any parking needs.  Chairman Duren said that is true for now, but the Commission is thinking for the future.  He said if you are binding, for example, the warehouse, what if something changes.  Mr. Giner said the applicant would be binding themself and would not necessarily be able to market the distribution center property for some other use.  For all intents and purposes, the distribution center would stay a distribution center if no additional parking can be found.

Mr. Giner said that if any of the buildings, once subdivided, wanted to add employees or change uses, the property owner(s) would have to come before the commission and prove that they could accommodate parking requirements.

Commissioner Longhi said her other question was on the frontage.  She said the frontage appears to be on a private road, and she thought that the regulations required it to be a public road.  Mr. Giner said he had the same question initially, but that is not the case.  Commissioner Longhi asked Mr. Giner where this was in the regulations, because she wanted to read it for herself.  Mr. Giner said that you have to follow the definitions on page 9.  He referred Commissioner Longhi to definition number 55, Lot Frontage:

The linear distance measured along the points of intersection of lot with the street right of way.

He then referred Commissioner Longhi to the definition of Street on Page 11:

Any public or private thoroughfare which affords the principal means of access to abutting property or proposed public thoroughfare shown and opened upon any subdivision plan duly approved by the Commission.

Mr. Giner said a street is defined as either public or private, so frontage can be on a private road.   He said he had the same discussion with the applicants when he saw the frontage proposed on a private road, and this led to a review of the definitions.

Attorney Fahey wanted to further address the parking issues that were raised.  He said that a lot of time went in to where the lines were drawn to subdivide this property so that parking needs would be accommodated.  He said that the existing buildings are pretty much dedicated to certain types of uses.  Obviously, the property owner would not even consider selling the separate lots unless the parking could sustain the potential sale, nor would a buyer purchase a 500,000 square foot distribution center if they did not think there was adequate parking for it.  He said a lot of attention was paid to the layout, and as the Commission noted, if for some reason some other type of use that required more parking was to happen, it couldn’t happen without coming back before the Commission because it would be a change of use and it wouldn’t comply with the regulations.

Attorney Fahey said the engineers and development team spent a lot of time in terms of including, from the most practical standpoint, what parking belongs with what facility and also how the lots are going to be maintained.  They are confident that the proposed plan would work, and they also understand what their obligations would be if some potential owner wanted to do a completely different business. 

Commissioner Longhi said the Commission just wants to be sure the applicant is aware that there could be repercussions down the road.  Attorney Fahey said the applicant is aware and knows what their obligations would be. 

Chairman Duren mentioned that the day care center was not on the plans.  He asked what the situation was with that.  Mr. Friend said that day care center was an individual, standalone lot that was not part of the proposed subdivision.

Chairman Duren asked the Commissioners and Mr. Giner if they had any additional questions for the applicant.  There were none.

Chairman Duren opened Public Hearing #2746 to the public and asked if there was anyone present who wanted to speak either for or against this application.

No one came forward to address the Commission.

Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if there was any reason to keep this hearing open.  Mr. Giner said there was not and he referred the Commissioners to his May 9, 2012 memo for a suggested approval motion.

Chairman Duren closed Public Hearing #2748.

Mr. Giner said that the only thing that would need to change is the applicant/owner’s name – it should be NIT Owner, LLC, not National Investment Properties, LLC.

Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to approve PH #2748 – Subdivision of former 115.06 acre LEGO campus at 555 Taylor Road into 4 lots; property located in an Industrial-1 District, Assessor’s Map 99, Lot 11; NIP Owner, LLC, applicant/owner.  This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans as may be required to be modified by this approval and the following ten conditions as stated in a May 9, 2012 memo from Mr. Giner to the PZC:

Referenced Plans:

“Index Sheet, Hackman Capital Industrial Subdivision Prepared for PM Realty Group, Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 1 of 13, Scale: 1”=200’, prepared by Megson & Heagle, dated 3-26-12”

“Overall Subdivision Plan, Hackman Capital Industrial Subdivision Prepared for PM Realty Group, Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 2 of 13, Scale: 1”=100’, prepared by Megson & Heagle, dated 3-26-12”

“Overall Subdivision Plan, Hackman Capital Industrial Subdivision Prepared for PM Realty Group, Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 3 of 13, Scale: 1”=100’, prepared by Megson & Heagle, dated 3-26-12”

“Subdivision Plan, Hackman Capital Industrial Subdivision Prepared for PM Realty Group, Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 4 of 13, Scale: 1”=40’, prepared by Megson & Heagle, dated 3-26-12”

“Subdivision Plan, Hackman Capital Industrial Subdivision Prepared for PM Realty Group, Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 5 of 13, Scale: 1”=40’, prepared by Megson & Heagle, dated 3-26-12”

“Subdivision Plan, Hackman Capital Industrial Subdivision Prepared for PM Realty Group, Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 6 of 13, Scale: 1”=40’, prepared by Megson & Heagle, dated 3-26-12”

“Subdivision Plan, Hackman Capital Industrial Subdivision Prepared for PM Realty Group, Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 7 of 13, Scale: 1”=40’, prepared by Megson & Heagle, dated 3-26-12”

“Subdivision Plan, Hackman Capital Industrial Subdivision Prepared for PM Realty Group, Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 8 of 13, Scale: 1”=40’, prepared by Megson & Heagle, dated 3-26-12”

“Subdivision Plan, Hackman Capital Industrial Subdivision Prepared for PM Realty Group, Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 9 of 13, Scale: 1”=40’, prepared by Megson & Heagle, dated 3-26-12”

“Subdivision Plan, Hackman Capital Industrial Subdivision Prepared for PM Realty Group, Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 10 of 13, Scale: 1”=40’, prepared by Megson & Heagle, dated 3-26-12”

“Subdivision Plan, Hackman Capital Industrial Subdivision Prepared for PM Realty Group, Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 11 of 13, Scale: 1”=40’, prepared by Megson & Heagle, dated 3-26-12”

“Subdivision Plan, Hackman Capital Industrial Subdivision Prepared for PM Realty Group, Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 12 of 13, Scale: 1”=40’, prepared by Megson & Heagle, dated 3-26-12”

“Subdivision Plan, Hackman Capital Industrial Subdivision Prepared for PM Realty Group, Enfield, Conn.”, Sheet 13 of 13, Scale: 1”=40’, prepared by Megson & Heagle, dated 3-26-12”

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 on each and every sheet..

2.   The application number, PH # 2748, shall appear on each page submitted for signature either in the title block or in the area immediately outside it.

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

4.   A draft agreement with respect to the maintenance and access rights over the proposed private portion of Print Shop Road shall be submitted for Staff review.

General Conditions:

5.   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.

6.   Signed mylars shall be filed with the Town Clerk no later than ninety (90) days from the expiration of the appeal period or this approval shall be null and void.  The applicants shall provide such mylars to the Planning Department sufficiently in advance of this deadline to allow for review of the plans and the arrangement for the Commission Secretary to sign the mylars. The applicant may request an extension of the filing deadline in accordance with Section 8-25 of the CT. General Statutes.  Any extension requests must be received in time to allow the Commission to act on them before the original deadline expires.

7.     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.

8.     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.

9.     There is no new development proposed or approved with this subdivision. Any changes to the site layout of any of the lots will require prior approval from the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.

10.  The Open Space provisions of the regulations are being met through the use of existing conservation easements that protect environmentally sensitive areas of the property.

Chairman Duren asked the applicant if they had any problems with any of the conditions for approval.  The applicant said there were none.

The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.

Chairman Duren said the proposed subdivision probably makes this property more saleable, and hopefully this means that some new industry would come in to Enfield and possibly create more jobs.

       d.         XSU #12-03 – Special Use Permit for an Accessible Playground and Pavilion to be located behind the Enfield Central Library at 104 Middle Road in a Residential-44 District, Map 74, Lot 52; Enfield Rotary Club, applicant; Town of Enfield owner.

Commissioner Falk read the legal notice (published in the May 5^th and May 10^th 2012 Journal Inquirer) and took the roll.

Present were Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Lori Longhi, Charles Ladd, Kathleen Sarno, Elizabeth Ballard, Peter Falk, Dominic Alaimo, and Ronald Gregory, Sr.

Absent were Commissioners Nicles Lefakis and Alan Drinan.

Commissioner Gregory will be sitting in and voting for absent Commissioner Lefakis.

Chairman Duren invited the applicant(s) to come forward and present their application.

Present for the applicant were:  Ed Palomba, Chairman of the Playground Committee for the Enfield Rotary Club; Dana Steele, Professional Engineer, J. R. Russo and Associates;Bill O’Neal, Northeast Playgrounds; Mike Helachoo, (phonetic), President; Attorney Henry Dutcher, Library Director; Peter Burke, Public Works; John Jalbert (phonetic), Northeast Playgrounds; and Robert Saunders, J. R. Russo and Associates.

Mr. Palomba said the applicant has been to two Council meetings and two ART meetings to date, and the intent is to construct an accessible playground on the grounds of the Enfield Public Library, 104 Middle Road.  The proposed playground would be to the back right rear of the property, abutting the softball fields.  Mr. Palomba said part of the project includes a pavilion, park benches, and eight picnic tables.

Mr. Palomba said the Rotary Club received a grant from the Lego Children’s Fund this past January for $250,000 which jumpstarted the project considerably.  He said they are in the final stages, ready to start construction as soon as they are given the okay.

At this point, Mr. Palomba turned the presentation of the site plan over to Mr. Steele. 

Mr. Steele said the applicant is pleased to be able to present this proposal for a new playground facility at the Eli Whitney School/Enfield Central Library campus. 

He said the proposal is to locate the playground between the parking area for the Library and the Eli Whitney ball fields.  Mr. Steele showed the Commissioners a site map and pointed out Eli Whitney School, the Library, the ball fields, and the proposed playground site.

Mr. Steele showed the Commission a picture of the proposed playground and said that Bill O’Neal was the playground designer.  There was also a series of pictures being shown to the audience on the projection screen.   

Mr. Steele said they are doing everything they can to make this work.  They are proposing some modifications to the existing parking, including merging some spaces near the proposed playground to include more handicap-accessible parking spaces.  Because this is an accessible playground, it makes sense to have handicap spaces near it.  The only handicap spaces available now are near the front entrance to the Library. 

Mr. Steele said that three handicap-accessible parking spaces are being proposed near the location of the playground.  One would be van accessible and the other two would be standard.  There is also a proposed hatched crosswalk to allow pedestrians to safely get from the existing walk inside the driveway over to the playground area.

Mr. Steele said they are also extending the vituminous walk so that it connects up with the Library’s walk.  There will be some good connectivity between the rear entrance to the Library, the front walk, and the crosswalk getting to the playground area.  Mr. Steele said this property is in a residential zone and thus is surrounded by residential properties.  This is a special use permit because it is in a residential zone.

Mr. Steele said that there are many features to this project.  He said it is actually two playgrounds, one for two-five year olds and a more elaborate one to the east for older children. There are proposed concrete sidewalks connecting the two playgrounds as well as a pavilion in between the two playgrounds.

Mr. Steele said the pavilion would be a wood structure.  There is an elevation of wood trusses and frames.  It would all be open, but it would have a shingled roof, a wood frame, and a concrete floor.  The pavilion will be the center of the proposed playground complex, offering a place to meet and gather and including benches and picnic tables.  There are sidewalks proposed to access the handicap accessible parking as well as the proposed playground.

Mr. Steele said the distance between the parking area and the two – five year old playground was tight, and a timber guiderail has been proposed to create some delineation.  The playground for the older children is better buffered from the parking area and does not need the timber guiderail.

Mr. Steele said a yard drain is being proposed, but this might be revisited with Town staff to see if a better, more cost-effective drainage solution can be found.  Part of this plan would be to allow a small portion of the yard to drain over the playground area.  The original intent was to get everything draining away from it, which would be ideal, but very costly.  The playground surface is a spongy, soft surface, which is pervious.  The water goes through it, so there is not a problem with increased runoff.  In fact, the surface would allow for more infiltration and will offset some of the increases in impervious surface created by the pavilion and the sidewalks.

Mr. Steele said there is a screen proposed for the ball fields for precautionary reasons.  This would include a fence with a screen/netting on top of it to protect the playground from any well-hit balls.  Mr. Palomba said that the netting would be ten feet high, on top of the existing chain link fence.  Mr. Steele said there is an example of this type of netting at Asnuntuck and he showed the Commissioners some pictures.  Chairman Duren asked about the maintenance of the netting.  Mr. Palomba said it would be easy to take down and replace if or when it became necessary.  He also said that the pavilion would be a wood structure, but it would be covered with PVC.  He said the PVC would be white and the roof would be green tin or possibly red, the color for the roof has not been chosen yet.  This would make the pavilion a very low-maintenance building.  Mr. Palomba went on to say that all of the picnic tables will be under the pavilion and bolted to the concrete floor.  He went on to say that the benches, located throughout the playground area, would also be bolted to the ground.

Mr. Steele thanked Mr. Palomba for his clarification and turned the presentation over to Bill O’Neal, the designer for the playground.

Mr. O’Neal introduced himself, saying he was from Northeast Playground Builders.  He thanked the Commission for letting him provide a presentation.  Mr. O’Neal said that Northeast Playgrounds has been designing and building playgrounds for over ten years and they are happy to be a part of this project.

Mr. O’Neal said his company takes pride not only in the playground itself, but also in the surrounding area, taking into account the community and the age range and ability level of the end users, and most importantly the safety of the design.

Mr. O’Neal said they were asked to put together a design that would not only meet ADA requirements but would also be fully wheelchair accessible.  He said this is not something you see very often, and he said it has been a true pleasure working with a group as caring and thoughtful as the Enfield Rotary Club.

Mr. O’Neal referred the Commissioners to the pictures displaying on the projection screen.  He said these were examples of how this type of design would look in person, but these pictures are not of the actual playground being proposed. 

Mr. O’Neal said the design meets IPMA Certification, as well as being CPSC compliant.  The design also meets all ASTM standards as well.  He invited the Commissioners to look at the pictures and also shared with them some samples of the building materials. 

Mr. O’Neal asked the Commissioners if they had any questions.

Commissioner Ladd asked how graffiti proof the playground would be.  Mr. O’Neal said that all surfaces are tested and have to stand up to regular power washing.  He said nothing is fool proof, but the materials used are graffiti resistant and easy to clean up in the event of graffiti.

Mr. O’Neal explained the concept of the two different playgrounds for the different age groups.  He said the reasoning behind this is because a child’s anthropometrics change at age 5.  Their head and shoulder proportions change, and there is a different set of safety guidelines. 

Commissioner Falk asked what the life expectancy of the equipment would be.  Mr. O’Neal said he just inspected one not too long ago that was 18-years old.  He also said that much of the material used is under warranty.  As an example, he said that the posts used were under warranty for 100 years.  He said each section has different warranty levels.

Commissioner Falk said he assumes that water goes right through the pervious playground surface and does not mold or mildew.  Mr. O’Neal said this was correct, and more importantly because it is fully permeable it won’t heave in the winter because water won’t get trapped within it and freeze.  Mr. Palomba added that underneath the pervious surface of the playground was an additional foot of crushed stone.

Commissioner Alaimo said there were designs for two different age groups for a reason, and he asked who was going to monitor the playgrounds to be sure they were being used by the right age groups.  Mr. O’Neal said that the pavilion in the center would allow parents with children in both age groups to easily monitor both play areas.  He also said that the two-five year old playground had equipment that would appeal to this age group and most likely would not appeal to the older children.

Commissioner Falk said he didn’t notice monitoring at any other playgrounds in Town that had age-delineated equipment.  He said the parents would most likely be at the playground with their children and would monitor their safety.

Mr. O’Neal said there are signs and stickers strategically placed throughout the playground that do not contain random language – the language is aimed at meeting regulatory guidelines and ensuring public safety.

Commissioner Sarno asked about trash receptacles around the playground and whether or not there would be recycle receptacles.  She said hopefully children will have their parents with them and that littering would not be an issue.  She asked if there would be running water.  Mr. Palomba said there would be no running water and no electricity on the site, at least at this time.

Commissioner Longhi asked what is going to be done about parking.  She referenced the very expensive parking study that was done and the traffic study.  She said this playground will bring people, and there isn’t a whole lot of parking.  Mr. Steele said that there are not too many peak times where parking should be an issue.  He said what you would most likely see is dual use.  People who come to use the Library might also use the playground.  The same would be true for the ball fields.  People coming to watch a game might visit the playground before or after. 

Commissioner Longhi asked if there would be some kind of a cut through from the School to the Library so that parking at Eli Whitney could also be utilized for those coming to the playground.  Mr. Palomba said that the parking for the softball fields is supposed to be in the Eli Whitney School parking lot, but sometimes parents may park in the Library lot if they are planning to use the playground during the game.

Henry Dutcher, Library Director, and Rotary Club Member, came forward to address the Commission.  He said he was involved in putting together the traffic study, and he wasn’t sure how clear it came across.  He referred the Commissioners to Monday morning at 11 a.m.  He said he chose this day and time because it is the Library’s busiest day and time.  This would be the most usage, and these same people attending the Library programs that are creating the traffic would be those most likely to be using the playground.  Traffic would not increase much beyond what it is at peak times because of the playground.

Mr. Dutcher said it is very easy to get from the Eli Whitney parking lot to the Library parking lot – you can go across the fields or you can walk around the side on the sidewalk. 

Commissioner Sarno said it was likely there would be a lot of foot traffic from the abutting residential neighborhoods, and this would not have any impact on parking.

Mr. Palomba said that all surfaces are the poured in place material.  There would be no wood chips or sand.  This was done to make the maintenance easy for the Town.  Commissioner Falk asked if the Town was on board with maintaining the playground area.  Mr. Palomba said this was brought up during the discussions with Town Council.  Once the playground is completed, it gets turned over to the Town.  Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if the Town was the owner on the application.  Mr. Giner said it was and that the Town was well aware of the playground and the need for routine maintenance of the area.

Mr. Palomba referenced Peter Burke who is a certified playground inspector.  He said Mr. Burke helped to choose Northeast Playgrounds as the designer of this playground complex and the vendor of choice.  Part of that decision was based upon the ease of maintaining the material used in this project.

Commissioner Longhi asked about the temporary storage container and if it would block the view of the playground in any way.  Mr. Palomba said that the storage container would only be there during construction, and then it would go away. 

Chairman Duren asked if there would be any lighting installed for evening protection or if they would rely on exiting lighting in the area for that.  Mr. Palomba said there are two poles near the area one in the corner of the south part of the parking lot, the other near the two-five year old area.  They are presently talking to electricians to try and get the telephone pole replaced with a metal pole so that the children won’t get slivers if they grab it. He said that they would piggyback on the back of the existing poles with lights that would shine on the playground area just for security purposes.  The lights would be on sensors like the ones there now and would go on at dusk and off at dawn. 

Chairman Duren opened Public Hearing #2746 to the public and asked if there was anyone present who wanted to speak either for or against this application.

No one came forward to address the Commission.

Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if there was any reason to keep this hearing open.  Mr. Giner said there was not and he referred the Commissioners to his May 9, 2012 memo for a suggested approval motion.

Chairman Duren asked the applicant if they had any issues with the conditions.  There were none, but they did mention the drainage issue that they would like to revisit with Town staff.

Commissioner Falk said a condition should be added stating that the application number should be added to the drawings.

Chairman Duren closed Public Hearing #XSU #12-03.

Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve XSU #12-03 – Special Use Permit for an Accessible Playground and Pavilion to be located behind the Enfield Central Library at 104 Middle Road in a Residential -44 District, Map 74, Lot 52; Enfield Rotary Club, applicant; Town of Enfield owner.  This approval is subject to conformance with the referenced plans as may be required to be modified by this approval and the following seven conditions as stated in a May 9, 2012 memo from Mr. Giner to the PZC, as well as the following added condition:  Condition 8:  The application number, XSU #12-03, shall be added to all of the drawings:

Referenced Plans:

“Proposed Accessible Playscape, Enfield Central Library” – Index Sheet with Location Plan, by J.R. Russo & Associates, undated.

“Special Use/Site Plan (XSU#12-03) For An Accessible Playscape”, Sheet 2 of 7, Scale “As Noted”; by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 4-02-12, revised to 5-01-12.

“Grading/Playscape Plan (XSU#12-03)”, Sheet 3 of 7, Scale: “1=40’; by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 4-02-12, revised to 5-01-12.

“Detail Sheet (XSU#12-03) For An Accessible Playscape”, Sheet 4 of 7, Scale: “As Noted”; by J.R. Russo & Associates, dated 4-02-12, revised to 5-01-12.

Detail Sheet (XSU#12-03) Equipment Details”, Sheet 5 of 7, Scale: “N.T.S.”; by Northeast Playground Builders, LLC, dated 5-01-12

“Section Prepared for Enfield Rotary Club at Enfield Library, Enfield, CT.” (Pavilion) Sheet 6 of 7; Scale: “As noted” by L.P. Consultants, dated 3/27/12

“Framing Plan Prepared for Enfield Rotary Club at Enfield Library, Enfield, CT.” (Pavilion) Sheet 7 of 7; Scale: “As noted” by L.P. Consultants, dated 3/27/12

Conditions to be met prior to signing of Plans:

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

2.   The Conditions of Approval shall be included on the plans submitted for signature.

Conditions to be met prior to issuance of permits:

3.   Three paper copies of the plans, with any required revisions, shall be submitted for the Commission’s signature.

Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits or start of construction:

4.   This approval will become effective upon the filing of a Special Use Zoning Certificate signed by the Commission Secretary in the office of the Town Clerk. Proof of such filing shall be in the file prior to the issuance of any permits.  

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.   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.

7.   All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by May 17, 2017 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

8.   The application number XSU 12-03 shall be added to all of the drawings.

Chairman Duren said the Town has been waiting a long time for this playground and he is certain the children of Enfield will be very happy with it.  He thanked the Rotary Club for making this happen.

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.

Commissioner Falk took the roll.

Present were Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Lori Longhi, Charles Ladd, Kathleen Sarno, Elizabeth Ballard, Peter Falk, Dominic Alaimo, and Ronald Gregory, Sr.

Absent were Commissioners Nicles Lefakis and Alan Drinan.

Commissioner Gregory will be sitting in and voting for absent Commissioner Lefakis.

Chairman Duren invited the applicant to come forward to present their application.

Chairman Duren referenced an email from John Cabibbo, a memo from Mr. Giner, and a checklist.  There are no new plans, only the ones referred to dated October 2004.

Mr. Giner said this was the exact same application that was approved on October 7, 2004 under SPR #1283.  The owners did not follow through with construction, and the five-year statutory time frame for completion of the project expired.

The applicants re-applied for and received a wetlands permit from IWWA.

Mr. Giner said we had been waiting on final Engineering approval to go forward.  There was a misunderstanding between the applicant and the Assistant Town Engineer as to whether or not the plans had been revised to reflect the conditions of approval issued back in 2004.

Mr. Cabibbo submitted an email to Mr. Giner dated May 11, 2012 that states that all of Engineering’s concerns, previous and present, have been addressed.

John Morgan, AIA, introduced himself as the architect for the project and said he was representing MTA Properties, LLC, owner of the property.

Mr. Morgan explained that the property was at 198 Freshwater Boulevard, a corner lot where it meets South Road.  He said the existing building is 5,000 square feet and the proposed addition is 4,700 square feet.  The new addition will be primarily used for production and warehousing so that the operation can be expanded.

Mr. Morgan said the project went though Wetlands and was approved without incident.  He also said that all issues with the plans/drawings have been resolved.  He said that the building is in full compliance with the Town of Enfield Regulations at this time.  There is adequate parking, and the coverage ratios in compliance.

Mr. Morgan said you cannot see the new addition from the street because it is behind a heavily wooded area.  He also said the new addition is slightly lower than the existing building, so it is completely screened for Freshwater Boulevard by the existing building.

Chairman Duren said that he noticed that the applicant had re-signed and re-stamped the plans.

Chairman Duren asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for the applicant.  There were none. 

Chairman Duren asked the applicant if he had any issues with the conditons.  The applicant did not.

Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve 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.  This approval is subject to conformance with the submitted record and the referenced plans as may be required to be modified by this approval and the following 18 conditions as stated in a May 17, 2012 memo from Mr. Giner to the PZC:

Referenced Plans:

“M.S.C. Liquid Filtration, 198 Freshwater Blv. Owner, Mike Assimus 198 Freshwater,. Enfield, CT 06082, S1 Site Plan.” Prepared by Wilson M. Alford, Jr.. Dated  “Rev July 04”, and stamped Received by the Planning Office on February 12, 2012.

“Existing Conditions Prepared for MSC Liquid Filtration 198 Freshwater Boulevard, Enfield, Connecticut.” By Alford Associates, Inc. Dated 9/24/04.

“Floor Plan, MSC , 198 Freshwater Blvd, Enfield, CT 06082”, Sheet A-01, by AECON Inc., dated 8/31/04.

“Elevations, MSC , 198 Freshwater Blvd, Enfield, CT 06082”, Sheet A-02, by AECON Inc., dated 8/26/04.

“Section, MSC , 198 Freshwater Blvd, Enfield, CT 06082”, Sheet A-03 by AECON Inc., dated 8/28/04

“Schedules & Details, MSC , 198 Freshwater Blvd, Enfield, CT 06082”, Sheet A-04, by AECON Inc., dated 8/27/04

Conditions to be Met Prior to Signing of Plans:

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

2.   The SPR file number “SPR 1546” shall be displayed prominently on the final plan sheets either in the title block or in the area around it.

3.   Any remaining site issues of the Fire Marshall shall be satisfied.

4.   The conditions of this approval shall be binding on the applicant, land owners, and their successors and assigns.   A copy of these conditions shall be placed on the plans submitted for signature.

Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits:

5.   Four sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.

6.   Unless waived by the Planning Department, a pre-construction meeting shall be held between the applicant, contractors and relevant staff.

7.   Final site plans to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division and Fire Marshall.

8.   An Erosion and Sediment Control and Site Restoration Bond shall be submitted in the form of cash or a check, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer.

9.   If needed, 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:

10.        Complete as-built plans certified to Class A-2 accuracy shall be submitted prior to the issuance of any certificates of zoning compliance.

11.        The applicant shall submit to the Planning Director final as-built plans in a digital format prescribed by the Director.

12.    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.

13.    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:

14.        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.

15.        This approval is also subject to conditions of Inland Wetlands Permit #549

16.        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.

17.        Construction of facilities as approved must commence by May 17, 2017 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

18.        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.

NEW BUSINESS

a.       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.

Commissioner Falk took the roll.

Commissioners Longhi and Sarno recused themselves from this hearing.

Present were Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Charles Ladd, Elizabeth Ballard, Peter Falk, Dominic Alaimo, and Ronald Gregory, Sr.

Absent were Commissioners Nicles Lefakis and Alan Drinan.

Commissioners Gregory and Alaimo will be sitting in and voting for the absent and recused Commissioners.

Chairman Duren invited the applicant up to present his application.

Alex Contreras, 14 Garden Street, Enfield, CT, came forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Contreras said he would like to open a Mexican convenience store.  He said he would be selling Mexican spices, beans, and other ingredients.  He would also be selling snacks and beverages.  He said he would like to give people a chance to experience Mexican Culture.

Chairman Duren said this had already been through Revitalization and they recommend approval.  He said we have nothing from the Fire Department or the Health Department, but they might get involved later.

Chairman Duren asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for the applicant.

Commissioner Falk asked the applicant if he planned to sell beer.  The applicant said he did not and would not in the future.

Chairman Duren asked the applicant if he had any problems with the conditions of approval, and he said he did not.

Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner to please have future applicants put directional on their plans so North, South, East and West are delineated.  He also said in this case the entire plaza should have been shown so that the Commission would have a reference.

Commissioner Ballard asked the applicant what his hours of operation would be.  He said 7:00 a.m to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Saturday.  The Commissioners asked Mr. Giner to add this as Condition 10 for approval.

Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd 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 6-0-0 vote.

Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve 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.  This approval is subject to conformance with the submitted plans and the following nine conditions as stated in a May 9, 2012 memo from Mr. Giner to the PZC, as well as the following added condition:  Condition 10:  The hours of operation shall be Sunday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m. – 11:00 p.m.

  Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Permit :

1.   Any necessary approvals from the Thompsonville Fire Marshal, and the North Central District Health Department shall be obtained.

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

2.   All North Central District Health Department regulations shall be met.

3.   A final Inspection will be required.

General Conditions:

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

5.   Any signage for the proposed requires a separate permit from the Zoning Enforcement Officer.

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

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

8.   All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by May 17, 2017  or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.

9.   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.

10.                Hours of Operation will be 7:00 a.m – 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Saturday.

The motion was carried with a 6-0-0 vote.

b.            SPR #1552– Proposed change of use to allow a tattooing establishment at 27 North Main Street, in a TVCZ District, Map 27, Lot 116; Michael Scalzo, applicants; Michael T. Panella, owner.

Chairman Duren invited the applicant to come forward and address the Commission.

Michael Scalzo, 1328 Bigelow Commons, Enfield, CT, came forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Scalzo said that he is looking to open up an art gallery on 27 North Main Street that would also offer tattooing. 

Chairman Duren asked the applicant to define “art gallery”.  Mr. Scalzo explained that he would be accepting art from artists all over the county and would be displaying them in his establishment for sale.  Chairman Duren said that this was not part of the application, which was only for tattooing.  Mr. Scalzo said that the primary income would be from tattooing.  Mr. Giner said he could hang anything he wants on the walls; there shouldn’t be any issue with the art.

Chairman Duren referenced Exhibit 4 and said it was well done, but there again no directional reference and no reference to what streets were where.

Chairman Duren read Fire Marshal Censki’s April 25, 2012 email into the record:

I stopped by space today to compare sketch to actual conditions in the building.  The floor plan submitted does not totally depict conditions found.  The space does have two existing bathrooms and that the proposed space does not extend into the rear space as suggested in the drawing.  With that being said, the proposed tattoo establishment does not appear to hinder fire department operations or accessibility to the building.  It is assumed that parking for patrons will be via street parking.  Will parking be allowed in Health Department parking lot or have arrangements been made to park there with them?  Also, this approval does not extend to the building permit process which a separate code compliance review will take place.  Any questions please let me know.

Chairman Duren said that the Commission needs more accurate plans.  He said it is unclear what portion of the area the applicant would actually be using based on what has been submitted.

There was discussion between the applicant and the Commissioners regarding parking, and the applicant said the Health Department had no problem with them using the first row of parking spaces in their lot.  Chairman Duren disagreed, and read the following May 16^th email from Mr. William Blitz:

It has come to my attention that applicants and patrons of 27 North Main are proposing to use the parking lot and have access to the lot belonging to North Central Health.  We recently posted signs in an effort to prevent unauthorized parking in our lot and have experienced vandalism to our vehicles in the lot.  Please take this into consideration for any applications that come before the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding uses of this property.  Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

The Commission told the applicant they would need something in writing proving he had permission to use the North Central Health lot for parking.

The Commission said that this matter needs to be cleared up and if North Central Health does not allow use of their lot, this should be added as a condition of approval.

The applicant said if this was an issue, they would not use that parking lot.  The Commissioners discussed parking issues and said there was not room to add any parking.

The Commissioners discussed the need for new plans and more information such as hours of operation and plans that reference the entire area, not just this location.  The Commission also wants to see a better layout of how the space will be used inside.

Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner to add a condition with the hours of operation, which would be Sunday through Saturday from 11:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m.

The Commission agreed to table this application until the next meeting.

This application was tabled until the June 7, 2012 PZC meeting.

OTHER BUSINESS

a.    Discussion of Farm Animal Regulations.

Virginia Higley, Zoning Enforcement Officer, came forward to discuss Farm Animal Regulations.  Ms. Higley referred the Commission to the draft regulations she submitted as well as a chart showing what area towns are doing regarding farm animals.

Ms. Higley said a few months ago she was charge by Planning and Zoning to come up with regulations concerning the possibility of allowing chickens and ducks to be kept on residential properties under three acres.

She said that Commissioner Longhi agreed to help her, as she is both a farmer and a chicken owner.

Ms. Higley said that she and Commissioner Longhi met several times to come up with reasonable language that would allow this.  She said she did some research and 12 towns in Connecticut out of 100 allow and address them in their regulations.  That doesn’t mean that the other towns don’t have them, it’s just that they aren’t regulated.

Ms. Higley said that she and Commissioner Longhi felt that minor tweaking to the existing regulations would accomplish what they wanted to do.  She referred the Commission to her handout – Article II Interpretation and Definitions.  She referred to number 4 – Agricultural Activity – the words “on three or more acres” were added to the end of this.

The next change was section 4.20.1 Notes to Use Table.  Number 1 was left alone, but a number 2 was added, Non-commercial animal agriculture.  The residential keeping of poultry on owner occupied parcels under 3 acres (no more than 2.99 acres nor less than 17,000 sq. ft.) for eggs for the owner’s personal use registered with the Zoning Enforcement Office.  No slaughtering is allowed on site.  No more than 4 chickens or ducks can be kept at one location.  No males may be kept on the premises.

Regarding coops, the maximum lot coverage would be 5%.  Minimum yard setbacks, Front – not allowed; rear and side – 35 feet.  Rear and side setbacks can be reviewed and modified on a case-by-case basis by the ZEO.

Ms. Higley said that registrations should be renewed annually so that the number of chickens/ducks can be monitored and so nothing falls through the cracks.

Ms. Higley also said that she would like to come back before the Commission a year after the regulation is adopted to give a report as to how it is going.

There was some minor discussion about the language and possible re-wording.  It was agreed that Mr. Giner would show the language to the Town Attorney and ask him to review it and offer his opinion before the next meeting.  Mr. Giner would then send the proposed changes to CRCOG.

The Commission will continue discussion of this topic at the next meeting.

   b. Discussion of Draft Definition for Vocational Rehabilitation Services.

Mr. Giner will submit this to CRCOG.

APPLICATIONS TO BE RECEIVED

PUBLIC HEARINGS

PH #2749 – Special Use Permit to allow the long term rental of two rooms to individuals in an existing mixed use building located at 127 Pearl Street in a TVCZ District, Map 22, Lot 9, Richard Binns, applicant; RB Realty Associates, LLC owner. (Subject to ERSC Review)

Scheduled for the June 7, 2012 PZC Meeting.

PH #2750 – Special Use Permit for upgrades to an existing wireless communications facility located at 1111 Enfield Street in an HR33 District, Map 20, Lot 122, AT&T applicant, CT Water Company, owner.

Scheduled for the June 7, 2012 PZC Meeting.

NEXT REGULAR MEETING

The next regular meeting of the PZC will be Thursday, June 7, 2012.

ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Longhi made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, to adjourn.  Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 10:30 p.m. 

                                                Respectfully submitted,

                                                __________________________

                                                Peter Falk, Secretary                                                                                    Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission

Kcd