Enfield planning board previews downtown zoning rewrite; members debate Union Street, uses and heights

The Enfield Planning Board reviewed a draft reformat of the town’s downtown zoning — reorganizing existing text into tables and clearer sections — and debated boundaries, permitted uses and dimensional standards for the Community Business (CB) and proposed Enfield Village Downtown (EVD) districts.

Board members said the reformatting is intended to preserve current regulatory outcomes while making the ordinance easier to read. A working group (Paul, Bianca, Jason and another board member) is preparing a revised EV4 district for June, a Route 4 revision for July and, possibly, an Infield Village revisit in August, with the goal of finishing drafts by the end of summer so public forums can start.

On the map, board member Jason proposed removing Union Street from the downtown CB district, arguing that the street is mainly a quiet residential block where added commercial activity would conflict with children riding bikes and local character. "It would be a bit in conflict to have commercial activity that is beyond a home‑based business on that street," Jason said. Other members, including Tim, pushed back, noting the road had historic commercial uses and could offer prime locations for businesses that serve rail‑trail users.

The board inspected parcel topography and said most Union Street lots (except the Union Fire Station) are unlikely to support rail‑trail servicing businesses because many sit above the trail or have steep gullies. Members agreed to flag the fire station as an exception that may merit different treatment if the property’s future use changes.

Members combed the reformatted land‑use tables for specific ambiguities. They agreed motorsports and off‑road vehicle trails are incompatible with the downtown CB district and should be excluded. Performance venues, by contrast, were judged a grayer case — indoor or small performance venues would likely be evaluated as special exceptions.

The board debated how to classify "craftsman shop" uses (line 96 in the new table). Discussion centered on whether such shops should be treated as home‑based businesses, retail/service uses, or light manufacturing. Board members noted enforcement challenges tied to employee counts and said the reformat should correct inconsistencies so existing local shops are treated sensibly.

Auto service establishments and vehicle fueling were another point of contention. The board confirmed auto service stations appear in the current zoning, and the working group proposed disallowing some auto‑service uses in the EVD to better match a walkable downtown character; a gas station without vehicle service remains distinguishable as a fueling station or convenience store.

On institutional uses, members reviewed whether churches and daycare facilities must be allowed by law in some districts. They noted state law can supersede local zoning and that litigation over related statutes is ongoing; the group said it will reflect current zoning intentionally and flag any state‑law conflicts for voters.

Dimensional rules drew extended debate. The working draft proposed a 0.1‑acre minimum lot size for much of downtown; several members supported that cutoff as realistic for existing parcels. Board members were divided on minimum road‑frontage requirements — some favored retaining a 30–50‑ft frontage standard, while others argued frontage rules can preclude useful narrow/deep lots and preferred relying on setbacks and building‑code protections.

Members tentatively supported a 40‑foot maximum building height for downtown (allowing roughly three flat stories), based on a partial field survey and a desire to preserve the village scale. Several members, however, requested a more complete height survey before adopting a firm numeric limit and discussed alternatives tied to roof pitch or street context.

The group also debated whether storage facilities (e.g., self‑storage) should be allowed in EVD. Because Baltic Mill is a large, grandfathered multiuse property, some members recommended treating storage as a special exception so the Zoning Board of Adjustment can evaluate compatibility on a case‑by‑case basis.

Next steps: the working group will refine the reformat and the land‑use table this summer, bring proposed changes back to the full planning board for approval, and plan public outreach materials that highlight what has changed versus last year’s defeated proposal. The board emphasized that the reformat is meant to keep substantive rules the same unless changes are explicitly noted.