|
THESE MINUTES ARE PRESENTED IN DRAFT FORM AND HAVE NOT
BEEN FORMALLY APPROVED BY THE ENFIELD PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION. OFFICIAL COPIES OF MINUTES, WHEN APPROVED,
CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE TOWN CLERK OR PLANNING OFFICE.
ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 21, 2012
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Thursday, June 21, 2012 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Duren called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Commissioner Falk took the roll.
PRESENT: Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Charles Ladd, Kathleen Sarno (arrived at 8:07 p.m.), Peter Falk, Elizabeth Ballard, Dominic Alaimo, and Ronald Gregory, Sr., (arrived at 7:12 p.m.)
ALSO PRESENT: José Giner, AICP, Director of Planning, and Kathleen DeGray, Recording Secretary.
ABSENT: Absent were Commissioners Lori Longhi, Nicles Lefakis, and Alan Drinan.
Commissioners Alaimo and Gregory will be sitting in and voting for the absent Commissioners.
FIRE EVACUATION ANNOUNCEMENT
Chairman Duren read the Fire Evacuation Announcement.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. June 7, 2012 PZC Regular Meeting
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd to approve the June 7, 2012 PZC minutes as amended.
Amendments are as follows: Page 11, Paragraph 7, Line 1, change not to note; Page 16, Paragraph 2, Line 3, change slop to slope; Page 16, Paragraph 9, Line 3, change slop to slope; Page 30, fourth paragraph up from the bottom, Line 4, change June 28th to June 25th.
The motion was carried with a 4-0-1 vote. Commissioner Ballard abstained.
STAFF COMMENTS
a. Town Attorney (In Writing)
No Report.
b. Zoning Enforcement Officer (In Writing)
No Report.
c. Property Maintenance (In Writing)
No Report.
d. Director of Planning (In Person)
Mr. Giner said he has been busy processing many applications. He said since the Commission does not meet in August, the next two meetings would be July 5th and July 19th. He said there are a lot of applications coming in that are trying to get in before the August break. Mr. Giner said that Mr. Warren stated he might ask for a special meeting if something does come up that cannot wait or to move some projects along.
Mr. Giner said that he would be out of the office from July 27th through August 17th.
Mr. Giner said he attended the Transit Oriented Development session on June 15th at the Lyceum in Hartford. He said it was a good session and he got some good leads.
He said that they were just finalizing the request and going through the financing and making sure all the regulations are being complied with for the request for qualifications for the zoning study for Thompsonville. He said that CRCOG has approved it and now the details just need to be worked on. He said a consultant has to be hired to conduct the study and give the Commission some draft regulations.
Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if he had a timeline on this. Mr. Giner said that everything should be finalized next week in terms of the RFQ. He said then a legal notice needs to be published to see who responds. Mr. Giner said then the proposals would be opened and a consultant would be chosen and a contract signed. He said he hopes that once the contract is signed, the study could get started. He said this would likely be the end of August, and the hope is to have something finished by the first of the year.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Chairman Duren opened the floor for public participation.
Steve Cattell, 2 South River Street, came forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Cattell said he would like to comment on the June 15th front-page article about high rises in Enfield in the Journal Inquirer that referenced Mr. Levitz’s proposal that was discussed at the last PZC meeting. He said that the article gave the impression that the PZC had never heard of this concept before when in fact this was the subject of a great deal of controversy in 2010 regarding the Plan for Conservation and Development. He said that this, or a similar proposal was to be included in that document; but not one member of PZC or any other official brought up how the residents of the area and Thompsonville expressed their opposition to this type of development.
Mr. Cattell said that in 1995 Mr. Levitz requested a zone change for his property from R-33 to TVC. He submitted a map showing the future division of his property into 14 5,000 square foot lots, which he said would be sold for single-family dwellings. Mr. Cattell said that not one member of the Thompsonville Revitalization Strategy Committee supported his request. Mr. Cattell said that a week before Mr. Levitz’s proposal was supposed to come before PZC, he withdrew it.
Mr. Cattell said now Mr. Levitz is coming before the Commission to ask for support of not 14 units but hundreds of units in the form of high rises along the Connecticut River. Mr. Cattell said the reasons that this type of development is not feasible for this area that existed then still exist now.
Mr. Cattell said a letter that was written by Attorney Mark Branse was submitted to PZC on June 29, 2010 and provided eight pages of reasons why a proposal of this nature is not feasible. Mr. Cattell said he had copies of that letter for the Commissioners to refresh their recollection. Mr. Cattell said he is confident that once the Commissioners review this information, as responsible public officials, that proposed high rises along the Connecticut River would no longer be a topic of discussion for this Commission.
Chairman Duren told Mr. Cattell that Mr. Levitz does have the right as a citizen to submit anything he wants to propose for the area, and the Commission would have to have a hearing on it. He said that what had taken place at the last PZC meeting was just a discussion with the PZC and it was not a hearing of any type.
Mr. Cattell said he is aware of that, and that this is not a new concept for the Commission. He again stated that this was an issue of significant controversy in developing the Conservation and Development Plan. Chairman Duren told Mr. Cattell that this type of development is part of the Conservation and Development Plan for the development of that area.
Mr. Cattell said he has letters to give the Commission stating why this type of development for that area is not feasible. Chairman Duren said the proper time to submit that information would be during a public hearing. Mr. Cattell said the information was just for the Commission’s reference and he would like to leave it for them. Chairman Duren told Mr. Cattell to give the information to Mr. Giner and he would stamp it and receive it in for the record.
Alan Levitz, 57 Dartmoor, came forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Levitz said he wanted to speak about the proposed development on North Maple Street. Chairman Duren said that this topic was the subject of an open public hearing and that Mr. Levitz would be able to speak at that time. Mr. Levitz asked if this meant he was not allowed to voice any concerns. Chairman Duren said the concerns could not be voiced now, but could be voiced during the public hearing.
No one else came forward to address the Commission.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Duren referenced the following correspondence:
- The CRCOG Referrals for 6/7/12 – 6/15/12 and 6/15/12 – 6/21/12.
- A couple of magazines/articles that Mr. Giner had emailed the Commissioners about.
- The Town Attorney’s (Kevin Deneen) response to Mr. Giner regarding issues raised by Commissioner Longhi regarding assessment procedures and their effect on PZC in the future.
COMMISSIONERS’ CORRESPONDENCE
None.
****It was noted for the record the Commissioner Gregory arrived at 7:12 p.m. and would be voting for one of the absent Commissioners going forward.****
BOND RELEASES
a. SPR #1469 – Enfield Medical Partners – 100 Hazard Avenue (aka 17 Middle Road) request to release $73,960 Landscaping Bond for new medical building and associated site work.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to approve SPR #1469 – Enfield Medical Partners – 100 Hazard Avenue (aka 17 Middle Road) request to release $73,960 Landscaping Bond for new medical building and associated site work as suggested in a June 15, 2012 memo from Mr. Giner to the PZC.
Chairman Duren referenced Mr. Giner’s June 15, 2012 memo to the Commission recommending approval of the bond release. He also thanked Mr. Giner for the pictures and said they were very helpful.
The motion was carried with a 6-0-0 vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – Continued from June 7, 2012
a. PH #2747 – Petition for a Zoning Regulation Text Change to establish a new residential district that would permit multifamily developments subject to specified standards; Clifton Chapman, applicant. (July 5th deadline for closing hearing)
Commissioner Falk took the roll.
Present were: Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Charles Ladd, Peter Falk, Elizabeth Ballard, Dominic Alaimo, and Ronald Gregory, Sr.
Absent were: Commissioners Kathleen Sarno (arrived at 8:07 p.m.), Lori Longhi, Nicles Lefakis, and Alan Drinan.
Commissioners Alaimo and Gregory will be sitting in and voting for the absent Commissioners.
Chairman Duren thanked Attorney Webster for her quick turnaround in getting the Commission all the material she was able to get to them in the necessary two-week time frame.
Attorney Antoinette Webster, Kahan, Kerensky, & Capossela, LLP, 45 Hartford Turnpike, Vernon, Connecticut, came forward to address the commission on behalf of the applicant, Clifton Chapman.
Mr. Chapman identified himself and gave his address as 40 Pinnacle Road, Ellington, Connecticut.
Attorney Webster said for the record that this public hearing was opened at the last PZC meeting on June 7th and was continued until tonight to allow time to respond to comments/concerns raised by the Commission and the general public.
Attorney Webster explained that she provided the Commission with a clean version of the proposed text amendment that incorporates the suggested changes and the public comments/concerns.
She said what she would like to do is go through text amendment, as changed, (Exhibit 17) with the Commission so that they can see that the suggested changes and public comments were addressed and incorporated.
Attorney Webster said she changed the text for this district from R-55 to MFHD throughout the document. She said that she also, on the first page, referred back to the definitions in the regulations today for landscaping standards and buffer yard requirements when a residential development abuts a proposed MFHD development.
Attorney Webster referred the Commissioners to the bold portion on the bottom of the first page that references the buffer yard requirement that exists today in the regulations.
She next referenced page 2 and said that under Density, she added (maximum) to the 10 dwelling units per developable acre, and also included the following definition of Developable Acre:
Pursuant to Section 2.30 Definitions, “Developable Acre” is defined as the net area of a lot expressed in acres after (i) 50% of floodplain and inland wetlands areas and (ii) 25% of areas with slopes in excess of 25% have been deducted.
Attorney Webster stated that this would represent net acreage. She said you take your main acreage and deduct these percentages off of that to get your developable acre. She said that any development would be allowed to have 10 units per that developable acre, that net number.
Attorney Webster said she also added (maximum) for lot coverage, impervious coverage, and height, as there was discussion last time as to whether these were minimum or maximum percentages/measurements. She said that all of this information was intended to be added to Table 4.10 in the existing regulations.
Attorney Webster next referenced Section 4.10.2, Part A, and said the added the following statement to the end of the paragraph:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, slab-type construction, without full cellar and foundation beneath the finished floor area, shall be permitted in the MFHD where each individual dwelling unit has a dedicated garage.
Attorney Webster said this change was made to address some of Chairman Duren’s concerns/confusion raised at the last meeting regarding this language.
Chairman Duren asked Attorney a question for clarification. He referenced page 10 of the June 7th PZC meeting minutes. He said that the discussion was that slab-type construction would be an alternative when it was not feasible to have a basement. He asked Attorney Webster if this still held. Attorney Webster said for that this type of development, multi-family housing, was typically build on slab-type construction. She said they are not typically constructed with a full basement, and that is why this language is being proposed.
Chairman Duren said he understood that, but referenced the minutes again saying that Attorney Webster stated that the slab-type construction would only be used when it was not possible to have full basements. Attorney Webster said that in terms of the text amendment, slab-type construction was more economically feasible for a developer.
Chairman Duren said what is economically feasible for developers is not the Commission’s concern. He said the Commission is concerned with what is best for the public and the Town of Enfield.
Attorney Webster said she understood. She also said that putting this provision in the regulations allows for the option of slab-type housing, but does not dictate that the Commission would have to approve it for any given area.
Chairman Duren said he liked the statement in the minutes, because there are many areas where it would not be feasible to have a full basement because of high water tables. Commissioner Gregory asked where in the minutes Chairman Duren was referencing. Chairman Duren directed him to Page 10, right about the middle of the page. Mr. Giner said that he recalls the discussion being that the slab-type construction would include garages, which would offer storage space when there was no basement.
Attorney Webster said that the way the language reads, it would be one or the other. There would either be a full basement, or there would be slab-type construction with a dedicated garage for each unit. She said without this language, slab-type construction would not be allowed at all.
Attorney Webster next referenced Paragraph J, and referred the Commission to Page 3. She said that once again, the landscaping standards were specifically included in response to some concerns raised by the Commission and the public.
Attorney Webster discussed the landscaping buffer and the fact that it has come up twice as an issue. She said as an example, when a MFHD would abut a residential district, there would be 50-foot rear setbacks on either side. She said the Commission has the ability to require a 25-foot landscaping buffer within this area that is in accordance with the existing regulations. She also referenced the existing regulations that state that if a residential district abuts a business district, up to a 35-foot landscaping buffer could be required. She said these are protections that the regulations already provide for.
Mr. Giner said that this is already stated in the regulations, that the Commission may require an “A” buffer yard when a special permit is being approved for a lot abutting another lot in a residential district. He said the density required for an “A” buffer yard is two canopy trees, 6 understory evergreens, and nine shrubs every 100 feet. He said there would be the rear setback, and within that the 25-foot buffer with the required density.
Attorney Webster continued on Page 3 with the Minimum/maximum floor area. She said in response to comments/concerns the square footage was amended as follows:
One Bedroom Minimum 900 and maximum 1,200 sq. ft.
Two Bedroom Minimum 1,100 and maximum 1,700 sq. ft.
She next referenced section 4.30.22, Paragraph B, and said the language “as approved by the Commission was added to the end at the Commission’s request.
She moved on the Paragraph C, Design Standards, subsection ii, which now reads as follows:
Each dwelling unit shall have only private entrances. There shall be no common entrances, hallways, or corridors.
Attorney Webster next referenced page 4 at the top. She said there was some confusion as to what was meant by centralized mail and recycling areas. The following language was added for clarification:
Centralized mailbox building center for resident use. The interior of said mailbox building shall provide mailboxes for all residents of the MFHD and may provide a community bulletin for residents as well as freestanding newspaper stands for newspaper purchase.
Centralized enclosed recycling facilities for resident use. Any and all dumpsters shall be screened and concealed.
Attorney Webster said she had some pictures for the Commission to help clarify this concept. Chairman Duren cautioned Attorney Webster to stay with the text amendment and to stay away from specific design proposals.
Attorney Webster said she understood, and that the pictures were strictly meant for clarification, not to show any design proposal. Chairman Duren allowed Attorney Webster to submit the pictures.
Commissioner Ladd asked if in subsection iv, line 1, the words building center could be switched so that it read “mailbox center building”. He thought this would be clearer. He also suggested the same change is subsection v, Centralized, enclosed recycling facility building.
Attorney Webster moved on to amenities. She said that the applicant changed the number of amenities required from two to three. There were also eight amenity choices added, in response to comments from the Commission and the public. She said these additions are listed on page 4 of Exhibit 17, Paragraph D, Subsections v-xii.
Chairman Duren commented that the list was quite comprehensive.
The next area Attorney Webster discussed was Open Space. She said in response to concerns and discussion, the following language was added to define open space:
There shall be a minimum set aside of open space equal to 1,000 feet per dwelling unit.
Areas with greater than 15% slope or wetlands soils as identified by a Certified Soils Scientist shall not count toward meeting this minimum requirement. Any undeveloped areas that are used for determining permitted density shall be reserved for open space or recreational purposes as approved by the Commission.
Attorney Webster next referenced Paragraph F, Management plan. She said that language was added as follows to address concerns and comments that were discussed at the last meeting:
A Management Plan shall be submitted along with the Site Plan as a requirement of the Special Permit. The Management Plan shall outline the maintenance and management plan for the MFHD, including:
i. Schedule of dwelling unit inspections to perform preventative maintenance and observe compliance with lease terms; and
ii. Operation and maintenance of grounds, streets, driveways, storm water drainage system, signage and roadway lighting areas well as general landscaping.
Attorney Webster talked about the addition of Paragraph G in response to Commission and public concerns about parking:
G. Parking
Parking standards shall apply in accordance with Article X, Site Development Regulations, Table 10.10.2, which requires 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit.
Commissioner Ladd asked if the garage was being counted as a parking space, and Attorney Webster said that it was.
Attorney Webster said in the next Section, 4.40, MFHD was added to the list of included special residential developments.
Attorney Webster said that the remaining pages of Exhibit 17, 5-8, were directly from the existing regulations. She said that there were many layers an applicant would have to go through to get a project approved, each of which allows the Commission to enforce the regulations. She specifically referenced the Administrative Review Team (ART) and an informal review by the Commission as two things before the application was even submitted.
There was some discussion about the “informal review” and whether or not that was usually done. Mr. Giner said it is stated in the regulations that an applicant can come before the Commission for an informal review before submitting a formal application, but nothing stated during the informal review is binding. He said the reason for this is to avoid having an applicant spent a significant amount of money, only to find out that they might be headed in the wrong direction.
Attorney Webster said that in addition to the ART and the Informal Review, there was a whole list of Submission Requirements, specifically listed in Section 4.40.2, which include Traffic Analysis, Impact Analysis, and Site Plan Data.
Commissioner Falk asked Attorney Webster in her experience what would be the number of school-age children in the type of development this text change would allow. Attorney Webster used an example, saying that in a current 1,100-unit development owned and operated by the applicant in Vernon, Connecticut, there are a total of 24 school-aged children. She pointed out that an applicant would have to prove this to the Commission as part of the impact analysis.
Attorney Webster again reiterated that many of the comments and concerns discussed at the last meeting were already addressed in the existing regulations that she included on pages 5-8. She specifically referenced page 8, subsection v, where the following language was added to the end of the paragraph:
Except in the MFHD, any proposed open space is of the size, design, and quality to be of recreational value to the residents of the MFHD only, unless said open space is deeded to the Town of Enfield or any other entity as directed by the Commission.
Attorney Webster said that there are a significant number of provisions already in the regulations to protect the existing community and provide plenty of safeguards. She said that the Commission would have control mechanisms at every level.
Commissioner Falk asked if walkways could be put within the 25-foot buffer. Mr. Giner said they could not, that the buffer is just that, a buffer. He did say that walkways could be put within the 50-foot rear yard setback, just not within the buffer itself.
Chairman Duren said he went to Ashmead Commons to take a look at the layout. He said there are four buildings; two of them are 16 units, and two of them are 8 units. He asked Mr. Giner what the total acreage was at Ashmead, and Mr. Giner said it was 17 acres. He added that Dartmoor was 27 acres.
Chairman Duren asked about Attorney Fahey’s comments and concerns and his proposed changes. Mr. Giner said that all of Attorney Fahey’s comments and proposed revisions were included in the packets as Exhibit 18, 18a, 18b, 18c, and 18d to this public hearing.
Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if there was any way to word the text amendment so you could reduce the required acreage if it was determined by the Commission that what was being proposed was compatible. Mr. Giner said you would have to set some kind of standard - you can’t just say if we like it, we will reduce the requirement. A standard would need to be set.
Chairman Duren suggested something like the following:
Minimum lot size may be reduced when the Commission determines the parcel provides transition or buffer to establish residential areas from existing or future non-residential use.
Mr. Giner said the Commission could certainly modify it, either now or later. Chairman Duren said he thought the regulation should be set, and then if a particular application justifies modification, the Commission could do so then.
Chairman Duren also referenced Attorney Fahey’s concern about a common entrance and elevators. He said the way the text amendment reads, this would not be allowed. Mr. Giner said that over a certain height, elevators would be required.
There was discussion about different applications and how or when modifications would be made. Mr. Giner said that if there are specific standards set, they have to be backed up with evidence. For example if an applicant said there would be minimal impact on schools, and had an impact study to prove it, the Commission would need an expert to refute this claim if they wanted to possibly not consider the application. He suggested having some sort of fiscal analysis required when an applicant came in for a zone change; something that would talk about the impact on the community and its resources.
The Commissioners discussed different properties that Mr. Giner identified as potential development sites. They discussed the market and how it likely would help control the number of MFHD in Town. If there were no demand for this type of housing, developers would not be proposing this type of development. Commissioner Ballard commented that a 60-acre requirement tightened up the regulations and Chairman Duren agreed.
Chairman Duren opened Public Hearing #2747 to the public and asked if anyone from the audience would like to come forward to speak for or against this application.
Anthony Curto, one Dartmoor, Dartmoor Commons, came forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Curto said he is against a project like this from being put on the proposed property. Chairman Duren told Mr. Curto to stay with the text change and not discuss a specific project or a specific location.
Mr. Curto said that he and his wife’s property is only 80 feet from a property that would qualify for the type of development this text change would allow. Chairman Duren said that this text amendment would allow this type of development throughout the Town of Enfield, and is not specific to a particular property. He told Mr. Curto that the time to raise concerns about a specific project or property would be when that project is before the Commission and a public hearing has been opened.
Mr. Curto asked the Commission members how they would feel if something like this was being proposed in their backyards. He thanked the Commission for their time.
Alan Levitz, 57 Dartmoor, came forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Levitz said that a proposed zone change like this raises many concerns, regardless of where a particular project might be located.
He said his primary concerns would be the impact on schools, water pressure, sewers and bond issues. He said any type of project like this would have a significant impact on the areas surrounding the project.
Mr. Levitz said in summary his concerns would be the impact on the area around a proposed project, regardless of where it was.
Adam Silva, 27 Dartmoor, came forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Silva started to say he couldn’t think of a better use for the property in question. Chairman Duren stopped him and told him to focus only on the text amendment. Mr. Silva said he was president of Dartmoor and the board was in support of this project. This comment caused significant outbursts from the audience. Chairman Duren restored order and said that the time for this type of specific discussion was when and if there was an application and a public hearing had been opened. Discussions tonight are to be contained to the text amendment only.
Karen LaPlante, 166 North Maple Street, Chair of the Enfield Conservation Commission (ECC) came forward to address the Commission.
Ms. LaPlante introduced herself and handed out to the Commission a summary of what she was planning to discuss.
She said that the ECC was against this text change application. She said that the MFHD would have a negative impact on existing farmland and open space. She said there is an active and vibrant farm community in Enfield eager to preserve and grow their agricultural businesses and the ECC feels that the choice of 60 acres is still going to impact some of these properties. She said developers would be more inclined to develop these properties based on the number of units they would also be able to build on these properties. She said this would make it more economically interesting for farmers to sell their property and not continue farming.
Ms. LaPlante went on to say that the cost of community services studies around the country have shown that farmland and other open space generate more public revenue than they require in municipal services. For every dollar of taxes raised, the median cost to provide community services is:
Residential: $1.25
Farmland and open space $0.37
Commercial and industrial land $0.29
Ms. LaPlante said she got this information from the Planning for Agriculture Guide. She offered Mr. Giner a copy of the page from the Guide for the record.
Ms. LaPlante said that a lot of these farms are in Public Act 490 (PA-490). She said the intent of PA-490, which she read from the PA-490 booklet, is as follows:
It is in the public interest to encourage the preservation of farmland, forestland, and open space land in order to maintain a readily available source of food and farm products close to the metropolitan areas of the state, to conserve the state’s natural resources, and to provide for welfare and happiness of the inhabitants of the state.
Ms. LaPlante said that 11 of the 14 parcels shown on the map produced by Mr. Giner include land that is currently listed under PA-490. She said these parcels are large open space and farmland areas that are protected by current zoning regulations. Introduction of the MFHD classification would encourage the development of some, if not all, of these farmland and open space parcels. Ms. LaPlante said that of these parcels, three contain highly desirable soils for farming, some contain woodlands, and others contain wetlands and pingos unique to this area.
Ms. LaPlante went on to say that although privately owned, these properties provide large open space tracts for aquifer recharge areas, wildlife habitats, and offer a wide variety of natural resources.
Ms. LaPlante said that ECC recently sponsored a well-attended meeting with farm owners and PA-490 listed property owners to discuss consumer-supported agriculture. The details of PA-490 were presented by a Farm Bureau representative, and various grant programs available from the State Department of Agriculture were also discussed.
ECC feels that density of 10 dwelling units per acre is too high, and that the PZC should consider a much lower number. Ms. LaPlante provided a listing of other towns and the density allowed by each. She commented that 10 dwelling units per acre seemed high compared to what was being allowed in surrounding towns, and she asked the Commission to consider a more reasonable number.
Ms. LaPlante asked what the need for the text change was. She said that it is true that anyone can come in and ask for it, but has anyone shown a need. She said there are already an abundance of multi-family housing units at various price points available within the town, and this zone would not only add the burden of additional taxes to our citizens, it would stress our school system and increase costs to maintain our infrastructure and services.
Ms. LaPlante said ECC would like to know where the 1,000 square feet per dwelling unit came from. She asked what the basis for that was.
Ms. LaPlante referred to Page 8 of the proposed text amendment. Specifically to the area that read as follows:
Any proposed open space is of the size, design, and quality to be of recreational value to the residents of the MFHD only.
She asked if this meant that the Commission was not going to ask for any public open space, which most developments are required to give to the Town, either in lieu of money or in lieu of land, or some other settlement of open space.
Ms. LaPlante again told the Commission that she could submit any of her documents for the record if they would like them. She concluded by saying that the ECC asks the PZC to reject this text change request.
Chairman Duren asked if there was anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Commission regarding this application.
Maryann Turner, 7 Meadow Road, came forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Turner stated that her opinion on the text change is that it should not be done at all. She said that if such a project is going to be built in Town, the Commission has all the parts and pieces in the regulations already. An applicant can come forward with a project and the Commission can take it under advisement.
Ms. Turner went on to say that as for the buffer zone, it is absolutely too narrow. She said that an A buffer yard is too skinny. She said she knows what a 50 foot buffer yard is supposed to be and she now knows what 25 feet actually consists of. She said she fights with this every spring. She said the Commission sees her or hears from her every spring.
Ms. Turner quoted an article from the Tuesday, June 12th edition of the Journal Inquirer. It referenced a 480-unit luxury apartment complex being proposed for a site in East Windsor. She said she wanted the Commission to pay particular attention to the first paragraph, which stated:
This is a 480-unit luxury apartment complex on 168 acres
Ms. Turner said the Commission is looking at a proposal of 60 acres with a potential of 600 units. She said she knows 600 units is a ridiculous number, especially when other buildings are taken into account. She did say that it could very well end up being 500 units, however. Ms. Turner referenced Attorney Webster’s discussion that the square footage per unit could go to 1,700 square feet. Ms. Turner stated that this was larger than her house. Ms. Turner said that with this project that has been brought forward, with the types of things the applicant is putting before the Commission, she said she believes there is an opportunity to build a project. She said she just doesn’t think the Commission wants to tie its hands so closely with a regulation that could open up a door that could make it very difficult.
Ms. Turner addressed Chairman Duren and his comment earlier that said that maybe the actual number for minimum acreage could be left open. She said she strongly advises against this. She said that anyone could come before the Commission any time, with any proposal. She asked the Commission to please be very careful of that. She suggests if the Commission goes forward at all with this project that they should get rid of the regulation idea and go forward under a Special Use Permit, which the Commission already has, and focus on a particular piece of property for a particular reason. She said the Commission should not open this door for anything around town.
Ms. Turner referenced 40 or 50 years ago when urban renewal came through. She said we got the urban, but not the renewal. She said that apartment buildings were stopped for a reason, because there were a good amount of them and they were older. She said we could not make people keep their buildings in perfect shape 50 years from now. She referenced a gentleman who came before the Commission and suggested that new, upscale projects would place pressure on existing property owners to upgrade their properties. She said that does not happen.
Ms. Turner asked the Commission to not move forward with the proposed zone change. She said if they wanted to work on a specific project, to work only on that specific project.
Chairman Duren asked if there was anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Commission regarding this application.
Roger Alsbaugh, 22 Roger Street, came forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Alsbaugh said he would like to expound on what the ECC referred to earlier, concepts that he feels are apropos for consideration. He said one was the ongoing threat to the farmland in Town. He said this Town has worked very hard to be supportive of the farmers, creating regulations and plans of development to encourage the saving of farmland and to have it available for potential use in the future when it may very well be needed.
Mr. Alsbaugh said the other subject he wanted to touch on has to do with planning and the standard planning concept of not expanding your infrastructure. He said that the State strongly suggests that towns don’t do that sort of thing, and the State plan discourages the expansion of infrastructure.
Mr. Alsbaugh said he knows that a case could be made that a developer would be paying for the installation of certain aspects of infrastructure, yet the economy never stays the same, unemployment and employment never stays the same, nor do they rise and fall at the same rate. He said he thinks it’s inevitable that the costs of maintaining the expanded infrastructure is going to fall broadly across the shoulders of the taxpayers of the Town of Enfield. He said he thinks this is a very important thing to keep in mind, that the taxpayers would probably not be very supportive of development along that line of thinking.
Mr. Alsbaugh said the last thing he wanted to bring up was he thinks the Commission received some very intelligent and appropriate recommendations from the consultants that were hired for the current Plan for Conservation and Development, in that they recognized and promoted the more intensive development of the mall areas. Mr. Alsbaugh said he thinks Enfield could probably be the poster child for a successful development of that sort.
Chairman Duren interrupted, asking Mr. Alsbaugh to stay with the text amendment.
Mr. Alsbaugh said he guessed what he was saying is if the Commission is considering a multi-family development that perhaps the location would be better considered in those areas where existing commercial and residential and infrastructure . . . .
Chairman Duren said that there was nothing that would stop potential developments from being put in those areas. He said he does not know how many acres the mall has.
Mr. Alsbaugh said what he is saying is that he sees it as a valid alternative in a creation of a zone for multi-family housing. He said he doesn’t believe at the present time multi-family housing is permitted where the malls are.
Chairman Duren said there is no multi-family housing district anywhere.
Mr. Alsbaugh said he is only suggesting that it would be wise to consider any multi-family development in those areas.
Chairman Duren said if an applicant had such a proposal, the Commission would consider it. He again asked Mr. Alsbaugh to stay with the text change.
Mr. Alsbaugh said he is not proposing that developments go there, he is saying he would not recommend the multi-family development throughout Town with the expansion of infrastructure that would inevitably be a burden on the taxpayers.
Chairman Duren asked if there was anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Commission regarding this application.
Attorney Thomas Fahey, 487 Spring Street, Windsor Locks, came forward to address the Commission.
Attorney Fahey stated that he was representing Mr. Frank Troiano, as he stated at the last meeting. He said he spoke then in support of the application for a text amendment presently before the Commission.
Attorney Fahey said he had asked the Commission to consider some revisions to the proposed text amendment. He said he applauds the Commission for at least entertaining a multi-family zone. He said he thinks it has been a long time coming.
He said that the text amendment the Commission has before it does an excellent job for one certain type of multi-family housing. He said he thinks since it is the first time in 30 years the Commission is seriously considering making a text change, that it seriously consider making some revisions along the lines of what he prepared and submitted at the last meeting, as well as the additional comments that he submitted to the Commission after the meeting.
Attorney Fahey said what he tried to do was back up what he was saying by creating a Multi-Family Use Comparison Chart that shows how other towns in the surrounding areas approach multi-family housing. He said after some comments that were made at the last meeting, he went back and added to this chart. He stated that no town in this area has a 60-acre minimum. He said that even the 25-acre minimum that he asked the Commission to consider is higher than the other area towns.
Attorney Fahey said there is another key criterion that is totally missing from the proposed text amendment. He said if the Commission looked at all of the other towns that he submitted information for, there is nothing wrong with locating a project on a 60-acre site, but it should not be the only type of site that is allowed.
Attorney Fahey talked about the comments made regarding taking up farmland. He said that some farmland would be suitable for subdivisions and some would not. He said he totally agrees that someone should have the opportunity to make his/her case.
Attorney Fahey said what the Commission is eliminating by not including criteria that most of the other area towns consider is allowing multi-family housing to be located in transitional areas, areas that are in proximity to the edge of residential and non-residential property. He said multi-family developments in these areas could serve as a transition, a transitional intensity between single-family uses and commercial uses. He also suggested locations along routes where there is public transportation that would not negatively impact single-family neighborhoods.
Attorney Fahey referenced Mr. Alsbaugh’s discussion and said that the development opportunities that many towns are taking advantage of now, the multi-family housing developments, are for people who may not want to drive their car every time they go out to dinner or go to a store. These people want to be closer to stores, medical offices, and the like. He said there are not many 60-acre lots that are proximate to these types of locations.
He again reiterated that 60 acres is large, and so it the 25 acres he is proposing, compared to other towns. He said the site has to work. Any applicant would still have to come before the Commission for approval of any project under the rules that already exist for special permits in terms of public services like sewer and water, wetlands, and how the traffic lays out.
He asked the Commission why it would want to eliminate this opportunity. Why is there a fear that dictates the 60-acre minimum?
Attorney Fahey went on to say that the proposed regulation is very specific as to what a unit has to look like. He said he is sure a development built under the specific regulation proposed would be beautiful, but that doesn’t mean there can’t be another type of apartment unit that would be just as beautiful but would look a little different.
Attorney Fahey asked why someone should be prohibited from bringing in an application just because it won’t look exactly as proposed by the current text amendment. He said he could not understand why the Commission would want to create such limitations.
Attorney Fahey said that there were a couple of statements that were made tonight that were just plain wrong. He said there is a high demand for apartments in Enfield. He said he has studied this many times and had submitted studies to the subcommittee for housing that the Town had a couple of years ago. He said the Housing Authority had commissioned a study done by Mr. Amandine years ago that has been submitted to the Commission a number of times. He said that even then the need for new multi-family housing was recognized in this community. He said the occupancy rate for all of the apartment buildings in Town is in excess of 95 percent. Attorney Fahey said that is really high and shows the demand right there.
Attorney Fahey said if anyone has figures that dispute what he is saying, he would love to see them, because they don’t exist. He said there is an extreme demand in this Town, as well as most any other town in northern Connecticut, right now for multi-family housing, one- and two-bedroom units. He said it is wrong to say that the Town does not need this. The Town does need it. He said the Baby Boom generation is reaching age 65, and they are looking at this as an affordable alternative to single-family housing.
Attorney Fahey again asked the Commission why it would want to limit multi-family housing to 60-acre parcels, especially if someone could build a development on a transitional site, say a 25-acre parcel, and prove to the Commission that it would work.
Attorney Fahey said the other thing that towns are finding out is that multi-family housing developments are major tax generators. He said they pay their way much more than a four-bedroom colonial house would in the present economy.
Attorney Fahey said he has no problem with the proposed text change, but if the Commission is looking at the text change specifics as a way to limit development, that is the wrong way to approach it. He said with very few modifications, the Commission would have a regulation that would not have to be reviewed and possibly revised every month or whenever an applicant requested a revision or variance. He said his proposed modifications would allow an applicant with a site in a transitional area that might be less than 60 acres come in and present a viable project. The project would still have to meet all of the existing criteria in the regulations, as well as the finalized text amendment.
Attorney Fahey said he hoped the Commission would give this strong consideration. He does not speak in opposition to the applicant’s project, but he hopes the Commission would seriously consider making a better regulation so that other property owners in this Town who pay their taxes would have an opportunity to use that property for multi-family housing if desired.
Attorney Fahey talked about abutting parcels and the Commission’s concerns with that. He said he included language in his proposed modifications that specifically states the parcel must be an existing parcel. He said this language, if adopted by the Commission would solve that problem.
Attorney Fahey said he hoped the comments and the modifications he has made on behalf of Mr. Troiano would be considered by the Commission when it acts on the proposed text amendment.
Chairman Duren asked if there was anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Commission regarding this application.
Maryann Turner, 7 Meadow Road came forward to address the Commission for the second time.
Ms. Turner said we have been here before with text change. She said she would stick with this text change. She said we could possibly have this text change come forward and as soon as this project starts to enter the planning stages, a new request will come in like has happened with previous builders. She said this text change could possibly open the door for future changes before the project even starts. She said with that understanding, and the 60-acre requirement and the discussion a previous speaker just had, you could end up doing exactly what has happened previously.
She said there is a project on the table that could possibly move forward that the Commission is going to be in favor of and then within a matter of months somebody will come back to the Commission to change the regulation to allow different kinds of housing stock. She also said that the multi-family housing units being proposed could also be swapped out to condos in the future, and there is nothing in the regulations that talks about the trash and other services and what effect this would have on that. She said apartments would have to keep trash on their own property, but if they were flipped to condos, this would not be the case.
Chairman Duren asked Ms. Turner to stay on the text change.
Ms. Turner said the text change would have to have this put in it so that trash and other services would be handled if the apartments became condominiums. She said you couldn’t change the text amendment after the fact.
Chairman Duren said this was discussed at the last meeting and there is nothing the Commission can do to prevent apartments from changing over to condominiums. Ms. Turner said the Commission could put in the text amendment to be sure trash removal and such stays on the property and does not become part of the condo change.
Chairman Duren said it is already in there.
Ms. Turner said that previous speakers have had a lot of latitude.
Chairman Duren asked if there was anyone else in the audience that wanted to address the Commission regarding this application.
Attorney Antoinette Webster, Kahan, Kerensky, & Capossela, LLP, 45 Hartford Turnpike, Vernon, Connecticut, came forward to address the commission on behalf of the applicant, Clifton Chapman for the second time.
Attorney Webster said she wanted to first respond to the public comment and then continue with her presentation if that was acceptable to the Commission.
Attorney Webster said that one member of the public discussed impacts on the community. She said she had addressed this issue earlier by stating that existing regulations and the text amendment being proposed incorporates impact analysis as part of any application for this type of use. She said this would cover water pressure, school impact, electric grid impact and bonding issues. She said that bonding happens with development. She said the Commission would address bond issues when and if an applicant came in with an application.
Attorney Webster next addressed the comments from the Chair of the ECC. She said that as a general concept, anybody, whether it be a farmer or not can come before the Commission today and ask for a text change. This is their privilege and their right. She went on to say that a multi-family use is a use that does not otherwise exist in Town today. She said that just because the use might be permitted does not mean it in and of itself is going to raise the hand of the farmers or anyone else that has land that is categorized as PA-490 today. She said that could happen with or without this text change.
She next addressed the comment that the farmers are protected by the current regulations. She said the current regulations are not changing by adding this text amendment. If there are protections in place today, they are going to remain in place. If there are incentives in place today, they are going to remain in place. Adding this use is not going to take anything away from the existing regulations. It will only supplement the current regulations.
Attorney Webster next addressed the ECC Chair’s comments about the Plan for Conservation and Development earmarking preserving farmland. She said that may be the case, but she asked the Commission to keep in mind that the Plan for Conservation and Development specifically asks for a multi-family use to be permitted in Town. She said this was a specific action item of the Plan that she submitted at the opening of this public hearing. She said the Commission has it and the language is very clear.
Attorney Webster next mentioned taxes and schools, and Chairman Duren said this was already covered. Attorney Webster said she wanted to talk about specifics. She said the applicant has a lot of experience with multi-family development.
Chairman Duren asked Attorney to please stay with the text change.
Attorney Webster said that part of the public comment involved the impact on the school system when comparing single-family homes with multi-family housing developments. She said she could tell the Commission based on her client’s experience and his numbers that the towns where apartments exist benefit from that type of use. They get the increased tax revenue for that type of use, not only from the property taxes, but also from sewer usage fees and property taxes associated with vehicles owned by the residents.
Chairman Duren told Attorney Webster that the Commission is not supposed to get into that. The Commission is supposed to deal with Planning and Zoning Regulations, not how much the Town could make. Attorney said in planning for the impact to the Town of a regulation change, she thinks it is important to note that you can benefit from this type of development in Town fiscally.
Chairman Duren said there were detriments to this type of use that have also been noted, and the Commissioners were well aware of both sides of the story.
Attorney Webster returned to the Plan of Conservation and Development. She said it talks about the Town’s economic condition as good with caution and also proposes this type of use to attract professionals to come to Town so that they can increase spending and contribute to the economic environment in Town. She said again that this was part of the Plan for Conservation and Development and that this type of use is supported by that Plan.
Attorney Webster next addressed the additional comments about the open space that were made by the ECC Chair. She said that the Chair read the first portion of Attorney Webster’s language but did not read the second part. She said the second portion had been read into the record previously, and it said that if the open space were deeded to the Town, the restriction of being for the use of residents only would not apply.
Attorney Webster next addressed the public comments regarding the A buffer yard. She said this has been talked about and she thinks that 25 feet is more than sufficient based on the current regulations.
She next moved on to the 60-acre requirement earmarked for this text change. She said she thinks the 60 acres gives the Commission the opportunity to test the waters. She said the applicant is interested in 60 acres, but in the Town itself, has pointed out which areas have 60 acres to be developed for this type of use. She said it would not be an automatic; an applicant would still have to come before the Commission and present their application. She said this would just be the first of many steps. She said the 60 acres was not a gross figure that was going to be used for density purposes.
Chairman Duren said there was at least one Commissioner that was interested in less acreage as a minimum, and that the concern was not so much acreage but whether or not the type of development being proposed is something the Commission wants on the plans.
Attorney Webster said she understood, but there were a lot of comments regarding the acreage. She said when you are talking about 60 acres, that is your gross acreage. She said from this number you take off certain things to get to your developable acre, which was defined earlier. She said it doesn’t stop here. There are restrictions within the site itself, such as wetlands, areas that you cannot build on, or existing right of ways. She said that when you are looking at an application, it really does become site specific. The applicant would have to have the 60 acres minimum to come before the Commission, but that 60 acres could shrink down to really not that much acreage for development. This is something the Commission would be looking at and considering as a concept for that specific site.
Attorney Webster said that the proposed text amendment really just asks to add the use and give an applicant the opportunity to come before the Commission and make his or her case for a zone change.
Attorney Webster next discussed an audience member’s suggestion that the special development zone that already exists be looked at for possible multi-family use. She said this would not work, as it only applies to land that has abandoned, vacant buildings on it. Chairman Duren said this was addressed and answered at the last meeting.
Attorney Webster said she thinks 60 acres is a good starting point for the Commission to consider in terms of a text amendment. She said the Commission could go from there. There is nothing to say that if the 60 acres gets approved as part of this text amendment that the Commission can’t consider less than that in the future. She suggested that the Commission use the 60 acres as an opportunity to see what kind of developments they will get.
Attorney Webster said that the market really does dictate the type of development that would be coming in front of the Commission. If the market dictates something that you don’t have, like it does today, the Commission would have an application in front of it like it does today. She said that today the market dictates apartments and the applicant would like to propose that type of use in the Town of Enfield.
In summary, Attorney Webster said that she believes adding this multi-family use to the regulations would help provide a very needed housing component while also providing the safeguards and controls that the Commission would want in acting on an application. Attorney Webster said the text in front of the Commission provides many layers if criteria before an approval is actually put into place.
She said the proposed use is consistent with market demands and is not taxing on Town services. She said the occupants in her client’s existing developments are primarily professionals and empty nesters. She said that apartments do not typically draw families. She said the comment that was made earlier about four people to an apartment is not realistic. She said realistically, it is usually two people per apartment, even with a two-bedroom unit.
Attorney Webster mentioned a comment about maintenance costs to the Town. She said in an apartment community, it is preferable for the developer to own the roads. She said sometimes the Town owns them because it wants to, but in most cases the developer owns them within the community. She said there is also private garbage collection. Chairman Duren said the Commission is not really supposed to consider the costs or the financial benefits.
Attorney Webster said she mentioned at the opening of the public hearing that the State Statute specifically provides that local regulations should encourage development of housing opportunities and it specifically says including opportunities for multi-family housing. She said this was in Section 8-2. She said in order to approve a text amendment, the State Statute says the Commission should consider its Plan of Conservation and Development, and that text change should be consistent with that plan. Attorney Webster said that the request for multi-family housing is mentioned throughout the Plan of Conservation and Development. She said the Plan states that rental housing could actually be an asset for the Town and that it would suit the needs of people that cannot yet buy a house or don’t want to buy a house because they don’t want the maintenance issues.
Attorney Webster also said that CRCOG specifically stated that this type of use would be consistent with its Regional Plan of Conservation and Development. She said you have State Statute, the local Plan of Conservation and Development, and CRCOG all saying to add this use because it is consistent with all the plans that are in place.
Attorney Webster reiterated that the proposed text amendment gives the Commission a lot of safeguards and provides sufficient ability for the Commission to really look at the application and really figure it out to see if it fits in the neighborhood it is being proposed for. She again stated that this is not an automatic approval; it is just an opportunity for an applicant to come in front of the Commission and ask for a zone change. At the zone change, the Commission could say yes or no. It could stop right there. After the zone change, there is the special permit and all of the other steps and conditions that were discussed earlier.
Attorney Webster said that the applicant respectfully requests that the Commission consider the proposed text amendment and approve it, and give the applicant and others an opportunity to come in front of the Commission with a zone change application.
Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if he had any input at this time before he opened the hearing back up to the public.
Mr. Giner said that there was time available to continue the hearing if the Commission wanted to without having to worry about extensions.
Chairman Duren said that would depend on whether or not the Commission wanted to keep the hearing open. He said he did not see any need to keep it open, but asked Mr. Giner if the Town Attorney needed to look at the proposed amendment. Mr. Giner said the Town Attorney did not need to look at the specifics. He said he already approved the main one as to form, and if the Commission should adopt the proposed changes, it would have to be put into the existing regulation in a way that it would fit. The final language that the Commission would approve would have to go into the regulations in the proper place. He said this has been looked at by the Town Attorney and from what Mr. Giner can see, the proposed amendment fits within the existing regulations as proposed.
Chairman Duren asked the audience again if there was anyone present who wanted to come forward to address the Commission.
Gretchen Pfeiffer-Hall, 4 Somers Road, came forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Pfeiffer-Hall addressed Chairman Duren and said she thinks he asked the right question when he asked if this is something the Town wants and that the Commission desires. She said she thinks the people have spoken and it isn’t something the Town is interested in. She said that the Commission members are the final arbiters, and they have to make the decision that is in the best interests of this Town. She said from what she has heard, she does not feel that this is what is in the Town’s best interest.
Ms. Pfeiffer-Hall said she thinks what is proposed is way too intensive. She said as far as will the market determine, maybe it will. She said we have seen what the market can do. She referenced bailing out banks, and said the market is in the condition it is in because of people jumping on the bandwagon. She said there are condo developments that are overdeveloped and single-family developments that are overdeveloped.
Chairman Duren asked Ms. Pfeiffer-Hall to stay with the text change.
Ms. Pfeiffer-Hall referenced Commissioner Alaimo’s comment that the market would determine and that banks don’t lend money. She said that banks do lend money and they make big mistakes and we all pay for them.
Karen LaPlante, 166 North Maple Street, came forward to address the Commission for the second time.
Ms. LaPlante said that when spoke earlier, she did not have open space numbers, but she did find that she had some of the regulation information with her. She said that according to the regulations, senior residential developments require 2,500 square feet of open space per unit, minimum. She said the 1,000 that the applicant is proposing was very low.
Chair LaPlante asked Mr. Giner about the Special Development District (SDD). She said she thought that that also included abandoned land, not just buildings. Mr. Giner said that it only included buildings. Chair LaPlante asked him to check that, because she really thought it included land.
Chairman Duren asked Attorney Webster if she wanted a chance to respond to Ms. Pfeiffer-Hall and Ms. LaPlante’s comments. She did not.
Mr. Giner found the SDD regulation and read the following into the record:
The Commission may establish Special Development Districts for one or more contiguous lots containing any vacant, deteriorated or otherwise underutilized buildings when the proposal for the rehabilitation or re-use of the property and buildings is proposed if the Commission finds the proposal meets all of the following criteria:
a) Existing buildings contain a gross floor area of 1,000 square feet or more.
Mr. Giner stopped there, stating that this was the first criterion. The regulation applies to buildings, not vacant land.
Chairman Duren asked the Commissioners and Mr. Giner if there was any reason to keep Public Hearing 2747 open.
No one wanted to keep it open.
Chairman Duren closed Public Hearing #2747.
Chairman Duren said that the Commission would review and take into account all of the information it received from the applicant and the public and would be prepared to vote on this matter at the next PZC meeting.
Commissioner Ladd asked if Mr. Giner was going to get the Town Attorney’s input. Chairman Duren said that he had already asked Mr. Giner about that and he said the attorney had approved the text amendment in form and did send a memo recommending the change in the name of the proposed zone from R-55 to something that is more representative of the use. Based on this input, it was decided that Multi-Family Housing District (MFHD) would be used.
Mr. Giner said the policy decision was up to the Commission. He said once that is made, he would work with the Town Attorney to be sure that any language that was adopted fit within the current regulations.
This matter will be added to the July 5, 2012 PZC Agenda as an item for discussion under Old Business.
b. 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. (July 5th deadline for closing hearing)
Commissioner Falk took the roll.
Present were Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Charles Ladd, Peter Falk, Elizabeth Ballard, Kathleen Sarno, Dominic Alaimo, and Ronald Gregory, Sr.
Absent were: Commissioners, Lori Longhi, Nicles Lefakis, and Alan Drinan.
Commissioners Alaimo and Gregory will be sitting in and voting for the absent Commissioners.
Chairman Duren opened Public Hearing #2749 to the public.
No one came forward to address the Commission.
This matter has already been continued to the July 5, 2012 PZC meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – NEW
a. PH 2751 – Special Use Permit for upgrades to an existing wireless communications facility located at 290 Brainard Rd., in an R-44 District, Map 77, Lot 65, AT&T applicant; CT Water Company, owner.
Commissioner Falk read the legal notice (published in the 6/9/12 and 6/14/12 Journal Inquirer) and took the roll.
Present were: Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Charles Ladd, Peter Falk, Elizabeth Ballard, Kathleen Sarno, Dominic Alaimo, and Ronald Gregory, Sr.
Absent were: Commissioners, Lori Longhi, Nicles Lefakis, and Alan Drinan.
Commissioners Alaimo and Gregory will be sitting in and voting for the absent Commissioners.
Chairman Duren asked the applicant to come forward and present their application.
Attorney Anthony Morando, Cuddy and Feder, LLP, came forward to address the Commission. Also present was Derick Creaser, Project Engineer, Hudson Development Group.
Attorney Morando explained that this application was very similar to the one he presented at the last PZC meeting.
He said the applicant was here to obtain approval to amend the plans and for a special use permit to make minor modifications to an existing wireless facility located on the water tanks and on or around the water tanks at 290 Brainard Road.
Attorney Morando, in the way of background, explained that this was for AT&T to deploy the new LTE mobile technology, to improve its voice and data services for its customers living, working and traveling through the area.
Attorney Morando explained that the site currently operates with three antennas flush mounted to the exterior of the water tank at approximately 75 feet. He said that each antenna is six feet or less in length now. He said as part of the existing facility, AT&T also has equipment located on a concrete pad within an existing fenced in compound at the base of the tank.
Attorney Morando explained that the water tank he is discussing is actually blocked by another tank and mature vegetation on all sides. He said essentially you cannot see it from the road.
Attorney Morando said the proposed upgrade involves adding three antennas, one per sector, around the exterior of the tank, for a total of six antennas. He said the new antennas would be on similar mounts and would be next to the existing antennas. He said there would also be other associated equipment, which is detailed in the drawings.
He said that one of the three antennas being proposed exceeds six feet in length, which is really why they are here tonight. The new antennas and frames would be flush mounted and painted to match the existing tank, and the additional equipment would be located on a very small expansion of the concrete pad, which is within the existing fenced in compound.
Chairman Duren asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for the applicant.
Commissioner Falk asked the applicant how many antennas were on the tower now. Attorney Morando said there were three. He asked how many would be added, and Attorney Morando said three would be added. Commissioner Falk stated that would be a total of six, and the applicant agreed.
Commissioner Falk said when the last application came in, the existing antennas were being replaced with a newer design. Attorney Morando said the last application had either six or nine antennas and what they were doing was swapping out some of those antennas for newer ones. He said that water tank already had six antennas on it. This one only has three and they want to add three more.
Commissioner Falk asked why there was a need for additional antennas. Attorney Morando explained that for this site, they were short on antennas so they want to add new antennas to be able to provide the new LTE technology. The existing antennas would stay to support existing technology, and the new antennas would be to support the new LTE technology.
Chairman Duren referenced an article he had read in today’s Journal Inquirer a legal notice regarding an upcoming impact hearing for AT&T. Attorney Morando said he was not aware of an upcoming hearing.
Attorney Morando stated that his colleague just informed him that there is an upcoming hearing but it involved an FCC Regulation and was just a formality and unrelated to the zoning process.
Chairman Duren asked Attorney Morando’s colleague to come forward and identify herself for the record.
Lauren Groppi, present on behalf of AT&T, came forward and introduced herself for the record.
Chairman Duren opened Public Hearing 2751 to the public and asked if anyone from the audience wanted to come forward to address the Commission.
Jeffrey Myjak, 3 Sharp Street, Chair of the Enfield Clean Energy Committee, came forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Myjak said he would like to recommend that any new cell proposals that come before the Commission be required to have a 168 hour backup battery. He said everyone saw last year what happened with the snowstorm; cell towers were out for days on end. Mr. Myjak said this would be a step in the right direction, requiring the backup batteries.
Chairman Duren said he didn’t think the Commission could do that; he said he thought that was state regulated. Mr. Giner said that for cell towers, it typically is state regulated. He said the only reason this application is even before the PZC is because it is on an existing structure, which is local jurisdiction. Mr. Giner said that it would have to first be put in the regulations. He said this applicant could not be required to have a battery backup, as it is not currently in the regulations. Mr. Giner said if it is something the Commission wants to pursue, he could discuss it with the Town Attorney.
Chairman Duren asked if there were any other members of the audience that wanted to come forward to address the Commission.
No one else came forward.
Chairman Duren closed Public Hearing 2751.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ballard, to approve PH 2751 – Special Use Permit for upgrades to an existing wireless communications facility located at 290 Brainard Rd., in an R-44 District, Map 77, Lot 65, AT&T applicant; CT Water Company, owner, subject to conformance with the referenced plans, the application record, and the following 10 conditions as stated in a June 13, 2012 memo from Mr. Giner to the PZC:
Referenced Plans:
“AT&T Site Number: CT5813, Site Name: AWE-Enfield North” ,8 Sheets T-1; GN-1; A-1 through A-4;S-1; and G-1, by Nexlink Global Services, LLC, revised to 05/2/12. (Exhibit 9 in the record)
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 # 2751, 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.
Conditions to be met prior to the issuance of permits or start of construction:
4. Three sets of paper plans, with any required revisions incorporated on the sheets, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for signature of the Commission.
5. 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.
6. All applicable Building and Fire Codes must be complied with prior to the issuance of any permits.
Conditions which must be met prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance :
7. 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.
8. 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:
9. 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.
10. By acceptance of this approval and conditions, the applicant and owner acknowledge the right of Town staff to periodically enter upon the subject property for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of this approval.
The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.
b. XZA 12-05 – Proposed Text Change establishing a definition and standards for “Vocational Rehabilitation Services” uses in Industrial 1 Districts, Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission applicant.
Commissioner Falk read the legal notice (published in the 6/9/12 and 6/14/12 Journal Inquirer) and took the roll.
Present were Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Charles Ladd, Peter Falk, Elizabeth Ballard, Kathleen Sarno, Dominic Alaimo, and Ronald Gregory, Sr.
Absent were: Commissioners, Lori Longhi, Nicles Lefakis, and Alan Drinan.
Commissioners Alaimo and Gregory will be sitting in and voting for the absent Commissioners.
Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner if he would be representing the applicant for this hearing. Mr. Giner said he would be and that there would also be some public input.
Jose Giner, Director of Planning, addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant.
Mr. Giner said that the reason this text change came about was because of Allied Services’ vocational rehabilitation services that are offered in Town. Allied had previously come before the Commission to explain their unique situation and what the property is used for. Mr. Giner explained that their use does not really fit in to any of the existing regulations, so it was deemed appropriate to come up with vocational rehabilitation as a unique definition in the regulations and allow for certain ancillary types of uses that Allied undertakes but that are not typical of industrial or retail uses.
Mr. Giner said that what this regulation does is provide a definition of vocational rehabilitation and allows accessory uses. Mr. Giner specifically referenced a footnote to the retail outlets in industrial zones, which currently allow retail outlets by special permit not to exceed 2,000 square feet. He said this is the type of retail that is generally open to the general public. He said the type of retail used by Allied in its vocational rehabilitation services is more therapeutic in nature and is geared toward providing their clients with the training and services necessary to be able to find outside employment.
Mr. Giner explained that the text change would allow, without having to go through the special use process for site plan review, a 4,000 square foot floor area that provides an opportunity for targeted individuals to receive job training and is limited to the sale of by-products of the vocational rehabilitation services as well as donated used clothing and goods.
Mr. Giner said they are not running a retail store for profit. They are offering services that benefit their clients.
Chairman Duren asked if anyone from the audience would like to come forward to address the Commission regarding this application.
Donna Schebel, Allied Rehabilitation Services, and Joan Danziger, President and CEO of Allied Rehabilitation, 3 Pearson Way, and 294 George Washington Road, came forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Danziger said that Mr. Giner was accurate in his description of what Allied does. She said they operate the Allied’s Attic Thrift Store right now, which is located on Enfield Street, and they have four people with intellectual disabilities that are working there on a regular basis. She explained that what Allied wanted to do was to be able to provide that service to the community and provide the training and real work opportunities for the people they serve in the building that they already own.
Ms. Danziger explained that Allied does not make a profit on this endeavor, nor do they make a profit on their jewelry. She said it is purely set up to give people opportunities. She gave an example of one of her clients who is applying for a job at Plato’s Closet. She is able to do this because she has learned how to hang and sort with Allied and this is a very natural transition for her.
Ms. Danziger said she has seen how much Allied’s clients like to interact with the public. They love when the public comes in, they love to make a sale, and they love to show the public the jewelry they have made. It is a very positive thing for them to interact with the community and to be a vibrant part of that community. She said this is real work training, not just busy work or “fake” work. She said this is state of the art. She said the families and the participants are very enthusiastic and feel better about themselves and that is why Allied wants to get approval on this.
She said that Allied does not need to make a profit on this. She said it is purely a way to move forward the abilities of the people that they support.
Chairman Duren asked the Commissioners if they had any questions on this application.
Commissioner Falk asked if Allied was planning to close the facility on Enfield Street. Ms. Schebel said that Allied did plan to close Allied’s Attic on Enfield Street and move the facility over to the Pearson Way/Washington Road facility.
Commissioner Falk referenced Table 6.20 Use Requirements, and said that this would not be far off from what is already listed as Trade Schools and Training Facilities. Ms. Danziger said it would be different, as the public would be able to come to the facility and make purchases, but it would still be training.
Chairman Duren referenced a letter from CRCOG dated June 21, 2012 stating that the referral has been reviewed and there is no apparent conflict with regional plans and policies or the concerns of the neighboring towns. CRCOG further states that this proposed regulation is in harmony with the regional plan’s Economic Development goal to “Maintain a Focus on Workforce Development.”
Chairman Duren asked Mr. Giner and the Commissioners if they had any further questions or input. They did not.
Chairman Duren again asked if there was anyone present in the audience that wanted to come forward to address the Commission regarding this application.
No one else came forward to address the Commission
Chairman Duren closed Public Hearing XZA #12-05.
Commissioner Falk made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sarno, to approve XZA 12-05 – Proposed Text Change establishing a definition and standards for “Vocational Rehabilitation Services” uses in Industrial 1 Districts, Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission applicant, as recommended in a June 13, 2012 memo from Mr. Giner to the PZC.
The motion was carried with a 7-0-0 vote.
***The next three public hearings, PH 2753, PH 2754, and PH 2755 are applications to establish a before and after school child day care program. The applicant is the same for all three, and the proposed day care program is the same for all three. The only difference in the applications is the school where the day care program would be located. The Commission has agreed to have the applicant address the Commission only once for all three hearings. It was also decided that the legal notice would be read only once, but that each individual location would be referenced. The Commission will vote on each application separately.***
Commissioner Falk read the legal notice (published in the 6/9/12 and 6/14/12 Journal Inquirer) and took the roll.
Present were Chairman Charles Duren and Commissioners Charles Ladd, Peter Falk, Elizabeth Ballard, Kathleen Sarno, Dominic Alaimo, and Ronald Gregory, Sr.
Absent were: Commissioners, Lori Longhi, Nicles Lefakis, and Alan Drinan.
****COMMISSIONER GREGORY RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THIS HEARING AND LEFT THE MEETING AT 9:30 P.M.****
Commissioner Alaimo will be sitting in and voting for the absent Commissioner.
Chairman Duren invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Dana Sears, YWCA Hartford Region, 135 Broad Street, Hartford, came forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Sears explained that the YWCA would be offering before school and after school child care at Prudence Crandall, Parkman, and Nathan Hale schools. She said this would go from 7:00 a.m. until the start of school and then would go from the time school ended until 6:00 p.m. at night.
Chairman Duren asked Ms. Sears what rooms would be used for the day care program. She said they would be housed primarily in the cafeteria, also using the gymnasium and the outdoor play scape.
Chairman Duren referred the Commissioners to the leases from the Town that are in their packets. He said that the leases were all signed by the Town Manager.
Chairman Duren asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for the applicant.
Commissioner Falk asked the applicant if the child card would be for the children that attended the particular school where it was located. She said it would. He stated that since the children already go to school there, that the facility is already equipped with everything that is needed and age appropriate. Ms. Sears said that was true and that they also have to be licensed by the State of Connecticut so there are many regulations the program has to meet and many conditions that have to be met before they could even open.
Chairman Duren asked if there was anyone in the audience that wanted to come forward to speak for or against these applications.
Elizabeth Davis, 201 North Maple Street, came forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Davis said she is extremely for this service. She thought it was going to be available this school year and it was not. She said it is very inconvenient for a lot of families not to have this service, especially since the reorganization of the schools. She said the parents really need the YMCA program for the next school year. She said there have been enough
c. PH 2753 – Special Use Permit to establish a before and after school child day care program at the Prudence Crandall School located at 150 Brainard Rd., in a R-33 District, Map 62, Lot 65, YWCA Hartford Region applicant; Town of Enfield owner.
Chairman Duren closed Public Hearing #2753.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Falk, to approve PH 2753 – Special Use Permit to establish a before and after school child day care program at the Prudence Crandall School located at 150 Brainard Rd., in a R-33 District, Map 62, Lot 65, YWCA Hartford Region applicant; Town of Enfield owner, subject to conformance with the application record and the following three conditions as stated in a June 13, 2012 memo from Mr. Giner to the PZC:
General Conditions:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by June 21, 2017 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
The motion was carried with a 6-0-0 vote.
d. PH 2754 – Special Use Permit to establish a before and afterschool child day care program at the Parkman School located at 165 Weymouth Rd., in a R-33 District, Map 52, Lot 60, YWCA Hartford Region applicant; Town of Enfield owner.
Chairman Duren closed Public Hearing #2754.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve PH 2754 – Special Use Permit to establish a before and after school child day care program at the Parkman School located at 165 Weymouth Rd., in a R-33 District, Map 52, Lot 60, YWCA Hartford Region applicant; Town of Enfield owner, subject to conformance with the application record and the following three conditions as stated in a June 13, 2012 memo from Mr. Giner to the PZC:
General Conditions:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by June 21, 2017 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
The motion was carried with a 6-0-0 vote.
e. PH 2755 – Special Use Permit to establish a before and after school child day care program at the Nathan Hale School located at 5 Taylor Rd., in a R-33 District, Map 110, Lot 4, YWCA Hartford Region applicant; Town of Enfield owner.
Chairman Duren closed Public Hearing #2755.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to approve PH 2755 – Special Use Permit to establish a before and after school child day care program at the Nathan Hale School located at 5 Taylor Rd., in a R-33 District, Map 110, Lot 4, YWCA Hartford Region applicant; Town of Enfield owner, subject to conformance with the application record and the following three conditions as stated in a June 13, 2012 memo from Mr. Giner to the PZC:
General Conditions:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. All work associated with the construction of facilities as approved must be completed by June 21, 2017 or this approval shall be rendered null and void, unless an extension is granted by the Commission.
The motion was carried with a 6-0-0 vote.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
OTHER BUSINESS
a. Request of Lee Pinney for an informal discussion regarding proposed activities on Moody road
Mr. Pinney addressed the Commission and explained that he has rented property on Moody Road and would like to hold Halloween activities there this fall. He said he has done this in the past at his farm in Somers and would like to do it here this year.
Mr. Pinney explained that he wants to offer a corn maze, hayrides, pumpkins, and other Halloween activities. He said there would also be Indian corn for sale and would like to grow strawberries this year to be available for picking next year. There was also discussion about possible lacrosse fields, but that is farther off in the future.
The Commissioners liked Mr. Pinney’s ideas and told him to work with Mr. Giner and prepare his plans and bring them before the Commission for review.
APPLICATIONS TO BE RECEIVED
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PH #2697.03 – Modification of Plans Previously Approved for privacy fences at Carriage House Condominiums at Steele Road and Mullen Road, in an R-44 District, Map 52, Lot 420; Carriage House I Enfield Association applicant/owner.
Scheduled for the July 5, 2012 PZC Meeting.
PH #2758 – Special Use Permit for a proposed 1.74 acre Rear Lot to be located behind 80 Simon Road, in an R-33 District, Map 69, Lot 6; Fortune Building & Remodeling LLC applicant; Doris M. Legienza, Ronald D. Freeman, and Anna M. Freeman owners.
Scheduled for the July 19, 2012 PZC Meeting.
PH #2759 – Special Use Permit for a proposed 2.84 acre Rear Lot to be located behind 80 Simon Road, in an R-33 District, Map 69, Lot 6; Fortune Building & Remodeling LLC applicant; Doris M. Legienza, Ronald D. Freeman, and Anna M. Freeman owners.
Scheduled for the July 19, 2012 PZC Meeting.
PH #2760 – Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision located at 80 Simon Road, in a R-33 District, Map 69, Lot 6; Fortune Building & Remodeling LLC applicant; Doris M. Legienza, Ronald D. Freeman, and Anna M. Freeman owners.
Scheduled for the July 19, 2012 PZC Meeting.
PH #2761 – Special Use Permit for proposed Day Care Center at 95 Raffia Road, in a BL District, Map 67, Lot 424; Shannon Brooks, applicant; George Raffia & Sons, Inc. owner.
Scheduled for the July 19, 2012 PZC Meeting.
SITE PLAN REVIEWS
SPR #1553 – Change of use for “Buy, Sell, Trade” at Unit 8 of a commercial plaza located at 95 High Street in a TVC District, Map 25, Lot 6, Shawn Mateo, applicant; S+T Associates, owners.
Pending ERSC review/approval.
SPR #1554 – Façade change for Men’s Warehouse at former Blockbuster’s located at 10 Hazard Avenue, in a BR District, Map 56, Lot 22, Men’s Warehouse/Don Kirby applicant; Equity One, LLC, owners.
Scheduled for the July 5, 2012 PZC Meeting.
SPR #1555 – Request for Administrative Review for location of an emergency generator at property located at 1699 Kind Street in an I1 District, Map 14, Lot 25; White Diamond, LLC applicant/owner.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Falk, to allow Mr. Giner to administratively approve SPR #1555 – Request for Administrative Review for location of an emergency generator at property located at 1699 Kind Street in an I1 District, Map 14, Lot 25; White Diamond, LLC applicant/owner.
The motion was carried with a 6-0-0 vote.
SPR #1556 – Request for Administrative Review to allow a 10 x 20 tent for a one-week temporary grand opening event at 604 Enfield Street; Diane Taber, Colorado Ski & Bike applicant; Enfield Retail Properties, LLC owner.
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Falk, to allow Mr. Giner to administratively approve SPR #1556 – Request for Administrative Review to allow a 10 x 20 tent for a one-week temporary grand opening event at 604 Enfield Street; Diane Taber, Colorado Ski & Bike applicant; Enfield Retail Properties, LLC owner.
The motion was carried with a 6-0-0 vote.
NEXT REGULAR MEETING
The next regular meeting of the PZC will be Thursday, July 5, 2012.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Sarno made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ladd, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Commission adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Peter Falk, Secretary
Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission
Kcd
|