ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 28, 2008
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, April 28, 2008, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Kibbe called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Kevin Kibbe, Chairman
Richard Scott Hozempa
John Rinaldi
Mary Ann Turner
Peter Yarum
Maurice LaRosa, Alternate
Charles Mastroberti, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
MINUTES
Mr. LaRosa made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the Minutes of March 31, 2008. Mr. Yarum noted on page four, paragraph five, “Chairman Yarum” should be changed to “Mr. Yarum”.
Ms. Turner stated she was not in attendance at this meeting and would like some clarification. On page 2, second paragraph, Chairman Kibbe stated it was his intent to keep this Board from being political. She has no idea what is meant by that as she does not think this Board is political. Chairman Kibbe stated it was his intent that it not be a Republican versus Democrat scenario.
Ms. Turner stated the Board went into great detail about the regularly scheduled meeting and that if there is no meeting, how members would be notified and that members are supposed to call the office if they cannot attend. Ms. Turner totally agrees.
Ms. Turner noted it was repeated many times in these Minutes that the discussion that she had with Mr. Giner was having the packets delivered by the Police Department. This is wrong. It should read auxiliary police. On page 3, third paragraph, third line, it should read “The packets by the auxiliary police department….” The discussion may have been inadvertent because she was not here. It was never the intent on Ms. Turner’s part to have the police department deliver the packets. It was always to be the auxiliary police and that was brought up by Mr. Jose Giner. In Ms. Turner’s discussion with Mr. Giner, he actually suggested that the Board’s packets be delivered by the auxiliary police because it is done by other boards and commissions and they take advantage of that service. Ms. Turner does agree that the Police Department should not be delivery people but the auxiliary is a different part of the department.
Ms. Turner would like auxiliary police substituted wherever it says police department.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked if the previous Minutes should be changed or should the change be made in tonight’s meeting minutes. Ms. Turner agreed it should be changed in tonight’s minutes for clarification. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed Ms. Turner is not asking the Minutes to be amended but to make it clear in the present Minutes that the reference was to auxiliary police.
Ms. Turner wanted to double check with some of the other boards and commissions who get their packets delivered. Inland Wetlands used to have their packets delivered by the auxiliary police but they are now mailed. The Historic Commission has always gotten their packets delivered by Mr. Alsbaugh. The delivery by the auxiliary police has been done by other boards and commissions and Ms. Turner noted the thought was to just use a framework in place with other boards and commissions. She further noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission does get their packets delivered by the auxiliary police.
The Minutes, as amended, were approved by a 6 – 0 – 1 vote. Mr. Hozempa abstained.
VARIANCES – NEW
ZBA 2008-04-01 – Jonathan & Susan Ruggieri, Applicants & Owners, 5 Howard Street, Map 67/Lot 100, R-33 Zone, requesting a front yard setback variance of 20 ft, 15 ft. requested, 35 ft. required to construct a garage addition – EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Chairman Kibbe read when a variance can be granted and discussed tonight’s meeting procedure for the benefit of the public.
Chairman Kibbe opened the public hearing for ZBA 2008-04-01.
Jonathan and Susan Ruggieri appeared before the Board regarding this application.
Susan Ruggieri stated they want to add a second garage to their home. Their home is located on the corner of Bond and Howard Streets. Bond Street angles back so vision will not be a problem. The addition will not interfere with visibility for traffic. Currently they park their cars where it blocks more vision than a garage will because they have to park closer to Howard Street. They have an easement on the west side by the gas company and that easement required their house to be placed with extra land on the west side and, therefore, shortening the amount of distance they had on the east side or the Bond Street side.
Ms. Ruggieri stated they want a garage because they prefer not to house their cars outside any more due to the harsher winters.
Ms. Turner asked if the easement will affect where they will build this garage. Ms. Ruggieri stated the easement doesn’t even come into play. It is on the west side. The proposed garage is on the east side. The easement required the house to be placed further east than it probably normally would have. They have a very wide lawn on the other side because of the easement.
Mr. Yarum asked if this variance is granted, will the existing curb cut on the road be enlarged as well. Ms. Ruggieri stated the driveway will stay exactly as it is. The driveway is actually built for a second garage because it flares out.
Ms. Turner asked if the garage is going to stay flat like the home. Ms. Ruggieri confirmed that it is and stated it is just going to continue on.
Ms. Turner asked about the back and if there is something that will be added. Ms. Ruggieri stated they have a roof on the back now for the patio and their intent is to install a better roof. That’s on the first bay and they will probably extend it into the second bay if the garage is built. They would at least replace what they currently have. They would like to make it a little bit bigger but they would replace what they currently have and make it better.
Chairman Kibbe stated he visited this location and there is an outline of where the garage is going to be. Ms. Ruggieri stated that is the excavation and it is a little bit bigger.
Mr. Yarum noted on the application, question 5 has a response of yes. In looking at the site plan, there is an existing garage that is shown as 11’ wide and they are proposing an addition of 15’ for a total of 26’. Mr. Yarum stated the applicant is saying that is the minimum they need for a two-car garage. Ms. Ruggieri stated it includes a couple of feet for storage. Twenty-four feet would probably be the minimum. Mr. Ruggieri stated currently they are putting a snow blower right in back of the car. They would like to have a little bit of room on the side of the garage to put the snow blower. Ms. Ruggieri stated they could probably get by with 24’ but their wish is for 26’. Mr. Yarum noted they are only going 20’ deep. Ms. Ruggieri stated that is the current depth of the garage.
Ms. Turner asked if they are going to take a wall down and make it one big garage. Mr. Ruggieri stated that is the intent. Ms. Ruggieri stated they are taking down one wall and expanding it out.
Ms. Ruggieri presented a notarized sheet indicating that the signs were posted.
Mr. Rinaldi asked about the right of way coming through and if it is pinned and whether the gas company actually owns it. Ms. Ruggieri stated it is their property but they cannot do anything in the area of the easement.
Chairman Kibbe opened this hearing to the public.
Edward Davis, 8 Howard Street, spoke in favor of this variance. He felt they could have more security. He has been there for fifteen years and he felt they are doing a good job. They drive shorter cars also and if they were to be parked in the driveway, the view for anybody coming up Bond Street or Howard Street is plenty and they will not be losing anything. In fact, they will gain because the cars will be inside the garage.
Chairman Kibbe closed this public hearing.
Ms. Turner made a motion, seconded by Mr. Yarum, to approve the request for a front yard setback variance of 20 ft, 15 ft. requested, 35 ft. required, to construct a garage addition – EZO Section 4.10.2H
Reference is made to a map titled “141 Lots, Southwood Acres, Sheet 6”, dated Nov 1957, and signed “Approved by the Town of Enfield Town Plan Commission”, and to other site plans and an air photo marked “A” through “G”, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2008-04-01.
Ms. Turner stated she went out and looked at the property and many of the homes in the area have a two-car garage. The Ruggieri’s are not asking for anything different. Ms. Turner can see the problems with a corner lot.
Mr. Hozempa stated because this is an R-33 zone, if they were not a corner lot, they would be able to build what they propose.
Mr. LaRosa agreed that the issue is this being a corner lot. Essentially they have two front yards.
Mr. Yarum stated he visited this property and he addressed a couple of issues. They do have a gas company easement and they did not think that was a hardship but, in fact, it is. It is because they cannot expand to the west. Their only feasible option is to expand to the east. What limits their expansion is because they are a corner lot. The corner lot has two front yards. Mr. Yarum noted the Board has had many applications in the past with corner lots. Mr. Yarum felt they do have a legal hardship.
Mr. Rinaldi stated just because it is a corner lot doesn’t justify anything over that frontage. The regulations say it has two frontages and that is how you have to treat it. In the past, with corner lots, the Board took everything into consideration. In this case, the right of way is significant and that is what makes this property stand out in his mind as an exception.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reasons for approval are (1) The lot is encumbered by a gas company right-of-way along the entire west side and (2) of all the corner lots in the subdivision, only two are encumbered with this right-of-way, of which the applicant’s is the smaller lot of the two.
OTHER BUSINESS
· Amendments to the ZBA By-laws as discussed at the 3/31/08 regular meeting
Chairman Kibbe opened the discussion regarding changes to Article VIII Meetings of the Board’s By-laws.
Mr. Alsbaugh presented in writing the points that were brought up at the last meeting. The second item referred to the minimum application submittal date. Someone had asked about the latest time someone could legally submit an application.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated in Section 1 and Section 3, the only reference in the By-laws is about notice to members. It doesn’t say anything about getting the packets to the Board members’ homes and this should be the place to make a revision. This is also the place to change the time limit for advance notice of a meeting. The present By-laws state 48 hours in both places. In Section 3, it is really talking about special meetings which are differentiated from the Board’s regular meetings. Mr. Alsbaugh did not recommend changing that because that would mean the Board could not have a special meeting if they wanted to have one on shorter notice.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated with a special meeting you really couldn’t have a public hearing because there are minimum advertising times by statute. However, if the Board needed a special meeting for whatever reason, they would still need to give themselves the option of a minimal notice time to everybody.
Some discussion followed of when special meetings might be warranted. Mr. Rinaldi discussed executive sessions. Mr. Alsbaugh stated executive session can be placed on the agenda by a three-quarter vote of the Board and that doesn’t have to be advertised ahead of time. You cannot make any decisions in executive session. You have to come out of executive session and then have a public discussion prior to a decision.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated a special meeting might be called if a public hearing was closed and a decision needed to be made by a certain date. The Board doesn’t have to make a decision the first night they hear an application. They have to make a decision within 35 days of closing the public hearing. The Board can decide not to close the public hearing and table the discussion until the next meeting and still have thirty-five days to make a decision.
Ms. Turner questioned why Section 3 needs to be amended as it has to do with special meetings only. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he referenced all the parts of the By-laws that discuss notice. Mr. LaRosa also recommended leaving Section 3 as is.
Mr. Yarum discussed a situation where there was a meeting in January. The Board asked the applicant for more information and the next meeting, because it was a short month, was not going to fall within the thirty-five days. Hence, a special meeting was going to be called but the applicant then decided to wait until March.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board can always request an extension. This is just if something came up and the Board wanted to have a special meeting or if someone wanted to come in and talk to the Board informally about something. The Board could have that meeting and post an agenda. Mr. Alsbaugh would have to inform Board members in writing within forty-eight hours of that special meeting that that meeting was going to be held.
Mr. Hozempa stated a reason for a special meeting might be if the Board was involved in a lawsuit and the attorney needed to come in and talk to the Board. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the intent of the section is to make sure that all members get forty-eight hours notice prior to a special meeting.
Ms. Turner brought up Section 1 in which seven days is recommended regarding meeting packets. She asked what if a packet is late. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he explained the logistics of getting that seven-day lead time. Ms. Turner stated if the packet is late by no fault of the Planning Department, and if it is made part of the By-laws, there is no wiggle room. Mr. Alsbaugh stated these are the Board’s By-laws and the repercussions come from this Board.
Ms. Turner stated if the good intent was to do everything that could be done to make that seven day window, then a good intent was made. If you haven’t made a good intent, it is a different story.
Mr. LaRosa stated you have to give yourself that leeway because once you make the By-law change, rules are rules. He suggested appropriate wording to address a lateness that may occur without intent.
Some discussion followed on how to address exceptions to the seven days. It was decided that the wording would read to make a good intent to deliver packets to the homes of membership seven days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting.
Mr. Rinaldi felt adding good intent is fine because Mr. Alsbaugh pretty much holds everything together for the Board. If he is gone, and someone comes in that doesn’t care, that’s a different story. What the Board is trying to prevent is someone that doesn’t care. Mr. Rinaldi stated adding the intent wording is perfect.
The Board voted unanimously to adopt a change to Section 1 of Article VIII Meetings under the Board’s By-laws: The third sentence under Section 1 should be changed to read: The Planning Office shall, with good intent, make arrangements to have the packets at the Board members’ homes a minimum of 7 days prior to the regularly scheduled meeting date.
Mr. Alsbaugh provided copies of the revised Enfield Zoning Ordinance Regulations to Board members. Mr. Hozempa requested a map.
Mr. Rinaldi asked when the Board is discussing the Minutes, does that go as part of the Minutes’ discussion or should there be new business to clarify what might be part of the last meeting. It is his understanding that meetings are a record of what transpired. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board is not changing the Minutes. It was only a discussion within this month’s meeting Minutes to talk about the last Minutes. Mr. Rinaldi asked if there was something totally wrong, then that should be New Business. It seemed like this was on the line. Mr. Alsbaugh stated what was discussed was discussed and we are not changing the Minutes. Mr. Rinaldi stated it started out that the Minutes were going to be changed. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that was clarified and addressed. Mr. Rinaldi is talking in general. Ms. Turner stated if she wanted to discuss it in more detail, it technically would be New Business. Mr. Rinaldi stated if something was misinterpreted, the Board would want to know about it. Mr. Yarum stated if something is wrong with the Minutes, it goes into discussion and those Minutes don’t get approved. You can’t move forward and approve the Minutes if there is something controversial in those Minutes. Mr. Rinaldi stated if you started off a meeting with an initial statement and that initial statement is wrong, you’re not going to change that. Mr. Alsbaugh stated what Mr. Rinaldi is saying is instead of continuing it as a discussion of the Minutes, you say let’s make this an addition to the agenda as New Business and then go back to discussion of any changes to the actual Minutes. Mr. Rinaldi stated he is saying this because things are on record. The Board has been to court twice and they really can’t change something that was documented to be said.
Ms. Turner asked when the Zoning Board of Appeals actions, agendas and Minutes will be updated on the web site. Mr. Alsbaugh stated as soon as he can get the necessary time each day, he will update them. Ms. Turner asked that the latest things be placed on the web first. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he was receiving personal instruction and he started with the Minutes. Ms. Turner went on line today to see how far Mr. Alsbaugh had gotten and there is nothing new. The agendas go back to 2007. The Minutes are up to 2006 and the actions are up to 2006. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he was working on the longest item. He apologized if he was going from oldest to newest. Ms. Turner asked if the items automatically go into the system or do they have to go through IT and then are uploaded. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it is automatic. He has to do it twice. He has to publish and then link it and then it is there. Ms. Turner stated there is a need to test it because nothing is showing up. Further discussion followed.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Turner made a motion, seconded by Mr. LaRosa, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
John Rinaldi, Secretary
jmr Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals