ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 26, 2007
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, March 26, 2007 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
Ted Furey
Kevin Kibbe
John Rinaldi
Paul Thorogood, Voting Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
MINUTES
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kibbe, to approve the Minutes of October 30, 2006. The Minutes were approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE/STAFF REPORT
Mr. Alsbaugh reported the town is going ahead again on commission badges. The Health Department now has an id producing machine but Mr. Giner wanted to coordinate all the boards and commissions before proceeding with the badges. Mr. Alsbaugh will keep the Board informed.
Chairman Yarum reported David Alexander has resigned from the Board due to attending the Marine Corps Officer Candidate School in Virginia.
Chairman Yarum reported on February 12, 2007 the Chairs and Vice Chairs of all the boards and commissions of the town received an invitation to a meeting with the Mayor and Town Manager. Also attending were the Deputy Mayor, the Assistant Town Manager, the Director of Planning and Zoning, the Director of Economic Development, the Director of the Information Technology Group and the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss items that were in need of improvement.
Chairman Yarum stated some of the suggestions made included a better sound system for the Council Chambers. Some discussion followed on bringing in television setups so meetings would go on public television. The particular item discussed for this Board was absenteeism. According to the Mayor, they have received the notifications this Board has sent them regarding the concerns. They have made it an agenda item to implement an ordinance to be done internally and come up with something that relates to all boards and commissions regarding absenteeism. Mr. Alsbaugh reported he has nothing new to report regarding the absenteeism.
Public Hearing(s)/Procedural and Policy Statements by Chairman (Legal Notices for the following public hearings were published in the Journal Inquirer on Monday, March 14, 2007, and Monday, March 19, 2007.)
PUBLIC HEARINGS – CONTINUED [Appeals and/or Variances]
NONE
APPEALS – NEW
VARIANCES – NEW
ZBA 2007-03-01 – Pamela J. Schweitzer, Applicant & Owner, 1 Holly Lane, Map 58/Lot 369, R-33 Zone, requesting a front yard setback variance of 11 ft., 35 ft. required, 33 ft. legal pre-existing nonconforming, to obtain building permits to construct an attached family room and garage – EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Thomas and Pamela Schweitzer appeared before the Board regarding this application.
Thomas Schweitzer stated they would like to construct a garage and family room on their property in order to park their cars, have a room to walk into and increase the value of their home.
Pamela Schweitzer stated they require a variance because they cannot have reasonable use of the property the way it is. The back of the property slopes all the way downward with all drainage pipes underneath going to a storm drain that four homes share, two on Holly and two on Cartier. Therefore, they cannot add on to the back of the house.
Ms. Schweitzer stated when her home was built in 1983, at that time they had thirty feet from the curb to add on if they wanted to do so. It was then changed to 35’.
Chairman Yarum noted this property has two front yards because the property is a corner lot. Hence, the 35’ setback for the side yard which is what would be used for tonight’s purposes is really the front yard.
Ms. Schweitzer stated they have another hardship because they have a stop sign ten feet from their driveway. They are only allowed to have a single-car driveway at the bottom and there are four cars in the family. They have added on to the top of the driveway but they need more room than that because the bottom part of the driveway will always have to stay a single lane. They can never have a double driveway at the bottom and can only double it at the top. They would like the paving at the top to go over as far as it can.
Chairman Yarum clarified that the curb cut for the driveway can only be for one car and Ms. Schweitzer confirmed this to be the case. As she drives in, that width will expand to the full length of the garage. The reason for this single curb cut is the proximity to the intersection and the stop sign.
Mr. Thorogood noted the plan is to keep the driveway as a single one at the bottom because of the safety issue. The applicant plans to make the driveway at the top the width of the garage and family room which is 31’ wide.
Mr. Thorogood also noted the footings and the drain pipes that go down to the back corner and the fact that the proposed garage and family room location is the applicant’s only option.
Mr. Rinaldi asked in the case of the corner lot if they consider a detached garage, are they still bound by that 35’ setback because it is considered two front setbacks. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that is correct and there would be limitations for placement. They would still be constrained by the present 35’ setback and there would be additional rear placement issues because of it being a detached structure.
Mr. Rinaldi asked from the frontage of where that address is taken, if that detached garage would have to be behind the rear building line of the house. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed that to be correct.
Chairman Yarum stated on the print submitted, if he looks at the topography, it looks like from the back of the home to the back of the property is about a six foot drop. Ms. Schweitzer confirmed that was correct. Chairman Yarum stated along the side of the property that faces Ridge Road there is a row of evergreens. He asked if it is the applicant’s intent to keep those evergreens in place. Ms. Schweitzer responded that is the intent.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked if there were any questions about the 30’ setback from the original open space subdivision. Mr. Rinaldi stated there were two charts for R-17 and one had 35’ and the other had 30’ regarding setbacks. Mr. Alsbaugh stated one is the regular residential zone and the other is the setback for the open space subdivision which this was.
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. Furey, to approve the request for a front yard setback variance of 11 ft., 35 ft. required, 33 ft. legal pre-existing nonconforming to obtain building permits to construct an attached family room and garage – EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Reference is made to an A-2 site plan titled “Property of Anthony Spazzarini, Lot #150 Holly Lane and dated June, 1983, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2007-03-01.
Mr. Rinaldi stated being a corner lot, it is not the regular shape and he is trying to find the exception in this case. His main focus was the extreme slope of the yard. To try to move the garage further back and over would mean it would be further down the slope. He questioned the practicality of this location. Mr. Rinaldi noted the contours on the plan and the fact that the proposed placement of the garage is the only other spot it could be located.
Mr. Thorogood acknowledged the number one reason is the fact that this lot is a corner lot. However, in his opinion, a family room eleven feet wide isn’t extravagant. He reviewed the other side and noted no matter which way they located the garage, they would have to ask for a variance. He stated they have a cause for this variance request and there is also the safety issue.
Mr. Furey stated these corner lots always present problems because you have two frontages and you are really constrained as to what you can do. His concerns are the slope of the land and the constraint that they have on the opening of the driveway with the stop sign. Mr. Furey felt this presents a unique situation.
Mr. Kibbe agreed with what has been said and noted there is nowhere else to locate this garage on the property.
Mr. Rinaldi added that he doesn’t believe that sight line would be an issue. There are existing evergreens as the Chairman pointed out.
Chairman Yarum stated the one concern he had was the curb cut. He thought it would enlarge to a two-car driveway but that doesn’t appear to be the case.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reasons for approval are the uniqueness of the property is due to the parcel being a corner lot which limits the options and topography grade change in excess of six feet. The applicant is requesting the minimum needed to be in uniformity with the neighborhood and being a nonconforming legal corner lot, any direction for expansion would require a variance. The proximity of the existing stop sign has been addressed by the applicant only requiring a single curb cut.
OTHER BUSINESS
· Discussion item – Board member ID’s
This item was covered earlier in tonight’s agenda.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he was signed up for the recent Connecticut Bar Association seminar in Middletown but did not make it because of the snow storm. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it was his understanding they were making a tape available of this seminar and would offer it as part of the program.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________
Kevin Kibbe, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr