ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 28, 2008
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, January 28, 2008 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum,, Chairman
John Rinaldi
Kevin Kibbe
Richard Scott Hozempa
Mary Ann Turner
Maurice Larosa, Alternate
Charles Mastroberti, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
MINUTES
Mr. Hozempa made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the Minutes of October 29, 2007. The Minutes were approved by a 3 – 0 – 4 vote. Chairman Yarum, John Rinaldi and Scott Hozempa voted in favor; Mary Ann Turner, Kevin Kibbe, Maurice Larosa and Charles Mastroberti abstained.
CORRESPONDENCE/STAFF REPORT
Mr. Alsbaugh reported the Board has received a memo explaining the nominations and voting in regard to Board Bylaws. Mr. Alsbaugh reported receipt of the Member’s Handbook. Following an explanation by Mr. Alsbaugh as to how the Board would like to receive their packet information, it was the consensus of the Board to have a large binder with all the materials included. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed that the present process would remain in place.
Mr. Alsbaugh reported the Board received the new Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies quarterly newsletter. The Board also has all the updated membership information. An attendance sheet will be received by Board members at every meeting as the staff is required to keep track of attendance.
Mr. Alsbaugh reported receipt of Ted Furey’s letter of resignation. There are also approval letters from the last meeting of October 29, 2007. There were five approvals and one was held over from the month before. The Board received an updated packet of all the ZBA meetings and other land use meetings scheduled for 2008. Mr. Alsbaugh reported receipt of a letter from Richard Scott Hozempa requesting training which has been organized for this evening. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board has received booklets and if they have any questions about any of the material, they should feel free to bring it up at a meeting.
Correspondence also includes a repeat of the November memo regarding the ongoing reminder apply for appointment. When a board member’s term is coming up for renewal, the staff begins to let that member know ninety days in advance. This will allow them to submit a new application to the Town Manager’s Office to be reappointed. A new application is required every time a term is up; re-appointment is not automatic.
Correspondence includes a short article from a planning magazine dated January, 2008, about the denial of a height variance.
Mr. Alsbaugh reported what had been a potential appeal of the Zoning Enforcement Officer from Mr. Morris on Ellis Road. It was resolved by the applicant changing on the ground what he was doing and bringing it into compliance with the regulations by connecting the outbuilding to the main house.
Mr. Larosa requested a copy of the ethics statement and it was provided to him. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the ethics form should be obtained from the Town Manager’s Office.
PUBLIC HEARING(S) / PROCEDURAL & POLICY STATEMENTS BY CHAIRMAN
(Legal Notices for the following public hearings were published in the Journal Enquirer on Monday, January 14, 2008, and Monday, January 21, 2008.)
ZBA 2008-01-01 – Jessica Chapman, Applicant & King Street Associates, LLC, Owner, 1671 King St., Map 13 / Lot 25, I1 Zone, requesting a variance for extension of the 6 month rule in which to rebuild a non-conforming structure - EZO Section 3.40.2C
Jessica Chapman appeared before the Board regarding this application. She requested an additional six months to complete the building that’s being renovated at 1671 King Street.
Chairman Yarum requested additional explanation.
Ms. Chapman stated she would like the time to finish the building properly. 1671 King Street is a small property consisting of ten apartments. One apartment, apartment #7, was in complete disrepair. When they began making efforts to renovate it, they realized there was no original foundation to the building and it was on cinder blocks that were under ground and the building was built on top of that. There was a lot of damage to the wood that was in the ground and above it. It was infested with ants and just completely rotting from the ground up. In an effort to rebuild it to today’s standards, Ms. Chapman needs additional time.
Chairman Yarum stated his understanding of the six month regulation is that if you have some type of damage to a nonconforming structure, then within that six month time frame you need to restore it and if in the event during the restoration process it is still nonconforming but it exceeds that nonconformity, then you need Planning and Zoning approval. Chairman Yarum asked when Ms. Chapman purchased the property. Ms. Chapman responded in November, 2005. The structure was demolished early last year or in 2007. Chairman Yarum asked when in 2007 Ms. Chapman began rebuilding, did she go through the application process of getting a building permit. Ms. Chapman stated she did not.
Chairman Yarum asked what is different about the structure that Ms. Chapman built compared to the old structure. Ms. Chapman stated the old structure was in an “L” shape and now it is perfectly square. It has moved a little bit away from the existing property line. The square footage if it has changed is less than a 20 square foot difference.
Ms. Turner noted the applicant has stated there was no building permit. She asked how did Ms. Chapman end up here in the first place. It was Ms. Turner’s understanding that Ms. Chapman received a cease and desist. Ms. Chapman confirmed that. Ms. Turner stated the Zoning Enforcement Officer showed up and told her to stop but the building had already been built. Ms. Turner asked when Ms. Chapman got the notification from Mr. Bickley. Ms. Chapman stated in September, 2007. Ms. Turner asked if Ms. Chapman was supposed to file some other paperwork with Planning and Zoning or was she just supposed to come before this Board.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the paperwork with Planning and Zoning is out of this Board’s purview. From the time the building was taken down, more than six months had passed. The issue of going to Planning and Zoning will always be separate from this particular issue. If things had been done correctly the first time, getting the building permits and then going to Planning and Zoning, the six month time period would not have been an issue. Ms. Chapman would have been able to proceed to Planning and Zoning and would have gotten her building permit in time to make the six months. But because the building was taken down and reconstructed without building permits, the six months had already passed by the time the Zoning Enforcement Officer cited her in September. Mr. Alsbaugh asked when in 2007 did this occur. Ms. Chapman responded around March or April. Mr. Alsbaugh stated she was already past the six months and that is why at this point the cease and desist and the legal action is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion. The only thing that is lacking at this point for her to come into compliance is the ability to proceed to reconstruct a nonconforming structure. She is past the six month limit and that is what she is requesting a variance for. She was cited past the six months from Mr. Bickley. The town was not aware of the situation and did not cite her prior to the six months. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the only thing the Board has to decide is whether or not Ms. Chapman will be allowed to go forward with the process necessary to file the plans. The thing lacking at this point is the variance of the six month limitation.
Ms. Turner noted she cannot do anything to this building unless she gets the additional six months. Mr. Alsbaugh stated she will not get a c.o. for that building nor will she be allowed to continue doing anything to it. The six months is a time frame in which she would have to go to Planning and Zoning, receive an approval and pull a building permit. Ms. Turner asked why she hasn’t been moving forward to Planning and Zoning. Mr. Alsbaugh stated she had to get plans drawn up by an engineer. She was informed that at the point where she was to go to Planning and Zoning she was going to need good plans. She was already past the six months so it didn’t really matter. She had to get money together to be able to afford those plans. Then the plans came to the town and the application was submitted for a variance.
Mr. Larosa stated Ms. Chapman was already past the six months when Mr. Bickley cited her and now it is taking an additional six months to get everything ready to move forward with the property. Ms. Chapman stated it took a little less than three months. She got a letter from Mr. Bickley in September, obtained her surveyor by October and received her plans at the beginning of January and is here tonight.
Mr. Rinaldi stated when you pull in the driveway it is a half circle. This is a square building and there are still some wires hanging out near the door. The exterior is almost complete. What Mr. Rinaldi is grappling with is the Board is looking for an exception. This is kind of unique because the Board usually gives a place and not a time. He asked if he is supposed to be looking for the exception of why time is a factor at this point or is he going off on a tangent here. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board would be the best judge of that.
Mr. Larosa asked why wasn’t the initial permit pulled to begin with. Ms. Chapman stated it started off with all good intentions of what was going to be a normal remodeling project and then it just snowballed. Mr. Larosa asked if anyone was there to advise Ms. Chapman that she needed permits to rebuild the structure. Ms. Chapman responded yes but she knows that is no excuse.
Mr. Rinaldi asked what remodeling was the original intention. Ms. Chapman stated mostly the bathroom and the kitchen. She presented some pictures to the Board and noted the bathroom was sinking six to eight inches down to the point where the toilet was separated from the floor. The former owner at some point had put in insulating foam to seal the spaces between the toilet and the floor. Ms. Chapman stated when she bought the property, (the resident in) this particular apartment was being evicted and she was never able to view the apartment prior to purchase.
Mr. Rinaldi asked at what point did Ms. Chapman decide it wasn’t worth it any more. Ms. Chapman stated when they lifted up the bathroom floor and saw that it was falling off the cinderblocks. Ms. Turner asked if Ms. Chapman was renovating any other structures on this property. Ms. Chapman stated not at this time.
Mr. Hozempa asked if Ms. Chapman was renovating this property or did she hire someone to renovate it for her. Ms. Chapman stated both.
Mr. Larosa asked if an inspection was done prior to the purchase of the property. Ms. Chapman stated she did not have one done. She knew it was a distressed property and did not pay a lot of money for the property. She took that into consideration and felt there was nothing here that couldn’t be fixed. She has been doing this for fifteen years and she has never seen something that someone was living in like this. It was a learning curve.
Chairman Yarum entered into the record five pages, eight and a half by eleven, consisting of twelve colored photos of the before and after pictures of the property submitted by the applicant.
Ms. Turner stated Ms. Chapman has stated she has been doing this for fifteen years. She asked if it is the first time in Enfield. Ms. Chapman responded yes. She never got a demolition permit to knock down an entire building but she has done the interior rehab. Ms. Turner questioned if a permit is needed for internal rehabilitation. She is concerned that it did not occur to Ms. Chapman to apply for a permit. Ms. Chapman stated it quickly got out of control. The other projects she has done on the property she has come down and pulled permits.
Ms. Turner stated if the extension is granted, what is the point of the extension. Is it so she can just file the paperwork? Chairman Yarum stated she cannot commence any work on the building until the paperwork is in place. Mr. Rinaldi stated all the Board is doing is giving the applicant the go ahead to move on to the next step. It is a Planning and Zoning issue after this Board.
Chairman Yarum stated with the application form that was filled out, the question was what is the specific hardship. Ms. Chapman’s response was it was an eighty-plus year old structure and that it was deteriorated and needed renovation. However, in this particular application, that is not the hardship. Ms. Chapman needs an extension of time and Chairman Yarum questioned what is the hardship.
Ms. Chapman stated the hardship was open to the most interpretation. She asked if Chairman Yarum is asking why she needs the extension. Chairman Yarum asked if the hardship on this application is the fact that she did not follow procedure and in doing so, she could no longer go forward. Ms. Chapman stated that is correct.
Chairman Yarum referred to question #5 on the application. The question says is the amount of variance requested the minimum necessary to meet the needs of the applicant or property owner. Chairman Yarum noted this is a different situation and he asked what is the minimum amount of time Ms. Chapman would need to go through the process. Ms. Chapman responded six months. Ms. Turner had a concern it may become seven months.
Mr. Alsbaugh noted it would be unlikely to take seven months if the applicant filed an application with Planning and Zoning and got on an agenda in a timely manner. They would make a decision (presumably in her favor for this discussion) and then the Building Department would review the plans. For this type of application, it would be unlikely if it took more than six months. But it is up to the Board to decide if six months is sufficient.
Mr. Hozempa asked if the Board is approving for an additional six months or for the time to actually put the application before Planning and Zoning. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that is up to the Board. The proposed motion is to approve the request for a variance for extension of the six month rule in which to rebuild a nonconforming structure. Mr. Alsbaugh left it vague so the Board could discuss what would be appropriate and that could be added under revisions / conditions.
Mr. Larosa referred to the pictures. Ms. Chapman stated the pictures are from last spring. Mr. Larosa asked if that was before she needed to tear it down and rebuild it. Ms. Chapman stated that is correct. She had a year and a half or so in between when it was getting worse and worse.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if everything is in place on Ms. Chapman’s end if she were to proceed. Are all architectural drawings finalized? Ms. Chapman stated the architectural drawings are not completely finalized. She put them on the back burner to decide if she could go forward or not. They are close to finalizing and could be completed in less than two weeks.
Chairman Yarum read Section 3.40.2, Section c. which states a nonconforming structure or a building which is damaged or destroyed by fire or explosion or natural disaster may be reconstructed, repaired or rebuilt to its previous floor area and exterior appearance provided such reconstruction or rebuilding is commenced within six months of such damage. Chairman Yarum asked how much time Ms. Chapman needs for an extension of the six month rule.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the commencement of any extension would be from the actual filing of the variance unless the condition was retroactive. Mr. Giner stated they can set a deadline.
Chairman Yarum stated the applicant doesn’t need to finish the project in six months. They just need to start it. In order to commence it, they have to go through the process with Planning and Zoning and the building permit. If the application was received on January 10, 2008, what she is requesting is six months from that date to go through the process. Ms. Chapman stated that is correct.
Chairman Yarum noted this application is different in that the Board is dealing in time where most applications before the Board are dealing with land. When we look at those applications, we look at hardships on a financial basis and hardships that are self-imposed. He asked if that application still works in this situation. Mr. Alsbaugh stated yes and all the criteria are applicable in this situation. This is a part of the ordinance that is time related rather than spatially related.
Ms. Turner asked if Planning and Zoning denies the application, does it come back to this Board. Chairman Yarum stated it could not. Mr. Kibbe stated this Board is giving her the time to go to Planning and Zoning.
Mr. Larosa asked if Planning and Zoning says no, what happens to the structure that is there. Board members stated it would be torn down. Mr. Hozempa stated once P&Z rules, this Board’s request for a variance goes away.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kibbe, to approve the request for a variance for extension of the 6 month rule in which to rebuild a non-conforming structure – EZO Section 3.40.2C
Reference is made to the site plan titled “ZBA Application Plan, 1671 King Street, in Enfield, CT 06082, Prepared for King Street Associates, LLC, BSC Group, 180 Glastonbury Blvd, Glastonbury, CT, Sheet 1 of 1 and dated December 21, 2007, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2008-01-01.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he can relate this to the Hamilton Credit Union that was before this Board for reconstruction of an existing nonconforming use. Part of it was similar where they intended to do a renovation and it ended up being a total demolition. It was in front of this Board because they had to have this Board’s approval to put the building on the existing footprint. He is trying to relate that to this application. If things were done the way they should have been done, architectural plans would have been finalized. There would have been a plan. Instead it was a remodel that became a disaster. It was something unforeseen. It is unsafe and unsanitary. Mr. Rinaldi sees the hardship being this was not expected to become this and take that long. He is not trying to excuse the applicant for not going through the proper channels but that is the hardship he sees. He is trying to relate it to time. Having to deal with the architect once you realize that it’s going to be a total demolition and now you are scrambling to try to get everything lined up and to him it is almost impossible to do. That is why there are rules in place so that maybe things like this don’t happen.
Mr. Kibbe stated mistakes were made. It was an interesting set of circumstances that Ms. Chapman walked into. He would like to see Planning and Zoning handle this.
Chairman Yarum stated he believes the applicant’s reason for being here is mostly because it is self-imposed. Being in the business for fifteen years, Ms. Chapman should have known what the procedure was and what the policy was. When the building was to be renovated to the point where a new foundation had to go in and new walls had to go in, she should have known that requires a building permit. At that point, the red flag would have gone up and she would have been told that she needed Planning and Zoning approval. She would not have been in this situation that she’s in now if she had followed proper procedure.
The motion was approved by a 4 – 1 – 0 vote. Mr. Hozempa, Mr. Kibbe, Ms. Turner and Mr. Rinaldi voted in favor; Mr. Yarum voted nay.
Chairman Yarum stated there is a need to set a time frame. Personally he thinks six months from January 10 is excessive. He recommended an extension to March 10, 2008 provided she can get the application in to Planning and Zoning. Mr. Larosa did not feel two months may be enough. He does not know the time frame for P&Z. Mr. Giner stated it is a site plan review and she can get on the P&Z agenda fairly quickly or by the end of February or the beginning of March.
Mr. Hozempa asked if the Board has to approve the total time frame for her to go to Planning and Zoning or do they have to approve the time until she gets her application in. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the six month rule has been to get an actual building permit. Mr. Giner stated the construction commenced without permits so if they want to say get a building permit by X date, it is up to the Board.
Mr. Rinaldi asked what if there is no quorum. Mr. Giner recommended by the end of April would be sufficient time.
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hozempa, to extend the six-month regulation until April 30, 2008 for Jessica Chapman, Applicant and King Street Associates LLC, Owner. The motion was approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote. Mr. Kibbe was not present for this vote. Board members informed Ms. Chapman she needs to have her paperwork in next week in order to comply with the end of April time frame.
OTHER BUSINESS
· Board training / new member orientation by Maria Elsden, Sr. Assistant Town Attorney
The Board received a power point presentation on the role of the Zoning Board of Appeals from Senior Assistant Town Attorney Maria Elsden. Accompanying Attorney Elsden was Town Attorney Deneen and Director of Planning Jose Giner. Board questions and comments followed Attorney Elsden’s presentation.
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING [January biennial Organizational Meeting: election of officers& review of by-laws; even numbered years]
1. Review of By-laws
2. Nomination of Officers
3. Election of Officers
Chairman Yarum advised that alternates cannot vote in the organizational meeting and those elected will be elected by a majority vote.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the last couple of years this Board hasn’t had good attendance and he is glad of the new enthusiasm. He hopes to have quorums now. He knows the majority party in the town likes to have a chair and vice chair but his only concern would be that the Board have a chair and vice chair that would have a good record of attendance or some experience. In the past few years, the Board has collectively made great strides. No changes were made to the Chairman because the Board seemed to be running very well and why make any changes. Mr. Rinaldi would ask that the Board consider attendance and experience. He thinks it would be a benefit if Peter Yarum were to be either Chairman or Vice Chairman to help whoever the nominee is.
Mr. Alsbaugh at first asked for the vote on the Secretary but, after some discussion, it was decided to vote on the Chairman first.
Chairman Yarum reminded the Board that at least one officer has to be of the minority party.
Mr. Hozempa nominated Kevin Kibbe for Chairman. Nominations were closed. Mr. Kibbe was elected Chairman by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
Ms. Turner nominated Richard Scott Hozempa for Vice Chairman. Mr. Rinaldi nominated Peter Yarum for Vice Chairman. Nominations were closed. Mr. Kibbe, Mr. Hozempa and Ms. Turner voted in favor of Richard Scott Hozempa. Mr. Rinaldi and Mr. Yarum voted in favor of Peter Yarum. Mr. Hozempa was elected Vice Chairman by a 3 – 2 – 0 vote.
Mr. Yarum nominated John Rinaldi for Secretary. Nominations were closed. Mr. Rinaldi was elected Secretary by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
Mr. Kibbe thanked Peter Yarum for his long service as Chairman of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals and thanked the Board for the opportunity to be Chairman.
Ms. Turner requested Board members refrain from shuffling of papers during the meeting because with the new microphones, it is very distracting.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
John Rinaldi, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr