ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
JULY 30, 2007
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, July 30, 2007, in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
Chairman Yarum asked for Roll Call:
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
John Rinaldi, Vice-Chairman
Edward Furey
Kevin R. Kibbe
R. Scott Hozempa
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
MINUTES
June 5, 2007 Special Meeting: Mr. Hozempa made a motion to approve the minutes of the special meeting of June 5, 2007 as presented. Seconded by Mr. Furey. Vote was 4-0-1(Kibbe).
CORRESPONDENCE / STAFF REPORT
Mr. Alsbaugh noted that he had no new information on identification tags or any information on new members being appointed to the Board. He added that it was his understanding that the Town Council will not meet for 2 full months.
1. PUBLIC HEARING(S) / PROCEDURAL & POLICY STATEMENTS BY CHAIRMAN
(Legal Notices for the following public hearings were published in the Journal Enquirer on Monday, April 16, 2007, and Monday, April 23, 2007.)
He also explained the meaning of “hardship” as it pertains to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Chairman Yarum seated Mr. Hozempa as a voting Regular Member.
ZBA 2007-07-01 – Brinker International, Applicant & Centro Enfield LLC Owner, 90 Elm St., Map 57 / Lot 323, BR Zone, requesting a landscape setback variance of 40 ft., 50 ft. required, 10 ft. proposed, and Front Yard Setback variance of 5.8 ft., 100 ft. required, 94.2 ft. proposed, to construct a restaurant and parking - EZO Sections 10.10.7iii & 5.10 Table.
An e-mail was received by Mr. Alsbaugh requesting that this application be removed from the agenda.
ZBA 2007-07-02 – Mark Engelman, Applicant & Charlotte Schneider, Owner, 269 Moody Rd., Map 112 / Lot 6, R44 Zone, requesting frontage variance of 27.99 ft., 175 ft. required, 147.01 proposed, to proceed with subdivision - EZO Section 4.10 Table
Mr. Mark Engelman of 1216 Woodgate Circle, Enfield, represented the applicant. Mr. Engelman explained that he was speaking for his grandparents regarding their farm. It is a 10 to 11 acre parcel of land. One parcel was left open to build a home on.
The land was left as the proper size for a house to be built but several years ago, the zone was changed from R33 to R44 and the lot is now short of frontage by 28’.
Chairman Yarum asked if the property had always been one contiguous piece.
Mr. Engelman replied that it had, except that a ¼ acre was added several years ago because the property line had gone through the barn. That transaction was not related to this request. It has otherwise always been once piece of property.
He added that it has never been subdivided. The family has owned the land since 1961.
Chairman Yarum reviewed the site plan and noted that if the property were still within the R33 zone, the frontage requirement would have been 150’.
He also noted that the existing home was not grandfathered with a setback.
Mr. Kibbe stated that he visited the site and found there to be a “good chunk of land” that was once a building lot, under the R33 zone. The change was made by the Town, not at the request of the owners.
Mr. Alsbaugh noted that the last major zone changes made by the town was done in 1987.
Chairman Yarum asked if additional property to the east can be purchased to create a legal size lot.
Mr. Engelman explained that the property is being given to him. The landowners to the east are good neighbors but have a shed that would then be on the property line if additional property were purchased. The shed is approximately 15 feet from the existing property line.
Chairman Yarum asked if any member of the board had any other questions. There being none, he asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in favor or against this application. No one in the audience came forward to speak.
The public hearing was closed at 7:16 p.m.
A motion was made by Mr. Rinaldi and seconded by Mr. Kibbe TO APPROVE the request for a frontage variance of 27.99 ft., 175 ft. required, 147.01 proposed, to proceed with subdivision - EZO Section 4.10 Table
Reference is made to a map titled “BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, #269 MOODY ROAD, PREPARED FOR MARK ENGELMAN, ENFIELD, CT 06082, AESCHLIMAN LAND SURVEYING, PC, MAP NO. 207029-1”, dated 4-09-07 and revised to 6-21-07, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2007-07-02.
Mr. Rinaldi stated that had questioned the intent of the zone change but a variance would be required for either the R33 or R44 zone.
Chairman Yarum added that he lives in an area that is now R44 zone, but used to be R33 zone. He understands the need for new construction to be in R44 zone to have the necessary acreage but it makes it difficult when existing lots and homes are based on R33.
Mr. Rinaldi stated that this area of the property is not currently being used. It is obvious that it was set aside for a building lot since the remainder of the property is being utilized.
Chairman Yarum asked if there was any other discussion. Hearing none, he asked for a vote. The motion was approved by a 5-0-0 vote.
Mr. Rinaldi stated that the reasons for approval are that based on the owner’s intent under R33 and that the rest of the property is developed with barns, garages and gas pumps, the area in question was purposely left unbuilt, showing evidence of intent under R33.
Chairman Yarum added that the zoning changed to R44 by the Town, thereby creating a hardship.
ZBA 2007-07-03 – Donald Murphy, Applicant & Owner, 12 Carmela Terr., Map 63 / Lot 171, R33 Zone, requesting a side yard setback variance of 1 ft., 25 ft. required, 24 ft. proposed, to construct a garage - EZO Section 4.10 Table
Mr. Don Murphy of 10 American Way, Windsor Locks, CT represented the applicant.
Mr. Murphy explained that he inherited the house and wants to add onto the garage to create a 2-car garage. He has 9’ of unusable space due to the layout of the house.
The hardship is that he has only 24’ of space for the garage within the frontage allowed. 26’ is needed to fit 2 cars because of the 9’ of unusable space. The current garage is about 12’ wide.
Chairman Yarum asked for clarification of the 9’.
Mr. Murphy explained that the stairwell against the house foundation is 3’ wide plus the landing to the kitchen is an additional 3’, leaving approximately a 5’ protrusion.
Chairman Yarum asked if this was the original design of the house and if there is other means of access to the basement.
Mr. Murphy replied that it is the original design of the house and there is no other means of access to the basement.
Mr. Kibbe asked if a hatchway could be constructed behind the garage, and cut off entry to the basement within the garage.
Mr. Murphy replied that it would be very expensive to do so. He is trying to keep costs down. He didn’t think the request for a 9” variance would be a “big deal”. He is requesting 1’ but really only needs 9”.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if any of the existing garage would be demolished.
Mr. Murphy replied that some of it would be demolished in order to construct the addition but the foundation will remain.
A friend of Mr. Murphy’s, Richard, stated that the stairs going from the kitchen to the garage are approximately in the center of the wall. There are three 12” steps and are probably not building code compliant. The house foundation is 1’ higher than the garage foundation.
Chairman Yarum noted that the new stairs will need to be projected further out to meet current building code.
Richard agreed and added that one also has to consider the need to be able to open car doors.
Mr. Hozempa asked if the garage had previously been a carport.
Richard responded that it would seem that there has always been a garage because there has always been access to the kitchen and garage in this spot.
There being no further questions from Board members, Chairman Yarum asked for public comment.
Mr. Bill Gallagher of 17 Carmela Terrace stated that he is not against the application, he is only seeking clarification.
He noted that grading is to be done in the back. There is a brook on the south side of the property that runs down to his property and wants to make sure that the additions do not affect the brook, thereby affecting his property. He also stated that he heard there would be 12 or 13 cars parked on the property and asked if this were true.
Chairman Yarum stated that the applicant has stated there would be 3 cars.
Mr. Alsbaugh explained that there are wetland issues on the right side of the house but the application before the Zoning Board of Appeals has nothing to do with that side of the house.
Mr. George Berube of 14 Carmela Terrace stated that he has lived there since 1961. It has always been a garage and he has no objection to the proposed garage addition.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed at 7:42 p.m.
A motion was made by Mr. Kibbe and seconded by Mr. Furey to approve the request for a side yard setback variance of 1 ft., 25 ft. required, 24 ft. proposed, to construct an addition to the garage - EZO Section 4.10 Table
Reference is made to a map titled “Lot 171, 12 Carmela Terrace”, and date stamped “RECEIVED, JULY 9, 2007, PLANNING OFFICE, ENFIELD, CT”, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2007-07-03.
Mr. Kibbe noted that the current owner had no say in how the house was originally built. It is not a self imposed financial hardship.
Mr. Hozempa stated that due to the existing stairs, the current garage is almost unusable.
Mr. Rinaldi added that the existing garage is 14’ wide, but only 9’ is usable. The owner is trying to remedy the existing garage and create a 2 car garage. A 2 car garage is not a necessity but it seems reasonable to go the extra 9” to make it a 2 car garage.
Chairman Yarum noted that adding a hatchway would only be considered a second access under the building code. The stairwell would still be required.
In discussion on the reason for approval, Mr. Kibbe stated that the original floor plan did not allow enough area for 2 cars.
Mr. Rinaldi expressed concern in the wording of the approval. He did not want everyone to think that they deserve a two car garage. Under the circumstances, however, the applicant is only requesting 9” and the configuration of the existing stairs and required access to the basement make this a feasible request.
OTHER BUSINESS
NONE
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________
Kevin Kibbe, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals