ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

OCTOBER 30, 2006

A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, October 30, 2006, 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

John Rinaldi

Edward Furey

Kevin Kibbe

Paul Thorogood, Voting Alternate

David Alexander, Alternate

ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner

MINUTES

Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the Minutes of September 25, 2006. The Minutes were approved by a 4 – 0 – 1 vote. Mr. Kibbe abstained.

CORRESPONDENCE/STAFF REPORT

Chairman Yarum noted Correspondence includes a copy of the court’s decision on Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission, et al v. Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals et al. Mr. Alsbaugh noted this court decision was in this Board’s favor and the decision was not appealed.

VARIANCES – NEW

ZBA 2006-09-03 – Blake Investments, LLC, Applicant and Owner, 2 Shaker Road, Map 64/Lot 70, BL Zone, requesting a variance to allow a second tenant sign below the main freestanding sign – EZO Section 10.30.5.

Douglas Palmer, Director of Construction for Galaxy Development, appeared before the Board regarding this variance request. He stated he is here for a hardship due to the fact that they have indicated approximately 3.5 acres of land at the intersection of Shaker and Elm to be donated and dedicated for future use for the relocation of the intersection and the installation of a traffic light. It is their opinion that the intersection as it now stands and the approach to the property which contains the two buildings has very good visibility. If this relocation of the intersection is moved up 185’, the angle will now severely impact the visibility of the second building, the bank building.

Mr. Palmer stated they are looking for that second panel down at the bottom of the sign to address the tenants in the second building. Last month, Mr. Palmer noted there was considerable discussion as to the fact that a second sign would be allowed on Elm Street. However, due to the current size of the lot which is under ten acres, a second sign would not be allowed.

Mr. Palmer stated in talking with the owner, Mr. O’Brien, if the lot was considered at its original size prior to the donation of the back portion of the property to the town, he would be willing to withdraw this application for a second panel on the one sign and make a smaller panel on the Elm Street entrance which would be dedicated to the second building. The one on Shaker Road would have just the name of Walgreen’s on it.

Mr. Thorogood stated the request is for a sign on the same pylon, the one located at the merge, with a second sign underneath. Mr. Palmer stated last month they were allowed a second sign but due to the smaller nature of the site, they are not now allowed a second sign. What he is saying is as opposed to having two panels on one sign, if the Board wanted to go back and say the original size of this parcel was over ten acres and allow a sign on both streets, they would do so. They would dedicate one to Walgreen’s and the second one to the bank building.

Mr. Rinaldi stated the argument is that in this case, the second building would be blocked by the larger Walgreen’s building. There are many examples of this throughout the town. Mr. Rinaldi is trying to find the exception to the rule. If you drive down Routes 220 or Hazard Avenue and you look at the strip malls, there are many out buildings that have frontage and the buildings behind only have one entity. Mr. Rinaldi gave several examples and noted Radio Shack which cannot be seen from the street. Mr. Rinaldi stated he is trying to find where this unique hardship is.

Mr. Palmer stated the hardship they feel is due to the fact of the roads meeting at an angle. There is now a perfect view but when and if the state determines that the front .3 of an acre is dedicated and the intersection changed, this would be a condition not of their making. They agreed to donate the land but it would not be a condition that they created.

Mr. Rinaldi stated there are many businesses within the mall and yet there is only one entity on that sign. In this situation, he questioned why there is a need for two signs.

Mr. Palmer stated their contention is the land as it now stands, both buildings have very good visibility. When the road is changed, the visibility won’t be as good and that is not a situation of their making. They were willing to donate the land in the interests of safety but when that happens, it will penalize the visibility of the second building.

Mr. Rinaldi asked why couldn’t the sign with one entity say Walgreen’s Plaza.

Mr. Palmer stated Walgreen’s doesn’t own the plaza and he questioned what would happen if Walgreen’s moved.

Chairman Yarum stated he heard stated within Mr. Palmer’s testimony if the intersection is moved. He asked if we have confirmation that the intersection is to be moved. Mr. Palmer stated not that he is aware of although the state has asked them to show them a plan as to how it could be moved.

Chairman Yarum stated within Mr. Palmer’s testimony he stated under present conditions, it is not an issue. Within the application responses to questions 1, 2 and 3, the responses all reflect that the hardship is due to the relocation of this intersection if an when it happens. Prior to receiving approvals from the town to go forward, Mr. Yarum asked if Mr. Palmer was aware that this intersection could possibly be relocated. Mr. Palmer stated not that he is aware of.

Chairman Yarum stated in question number four it asks what difficulty or unnecessary hardship would result if the variance were not granted. The response is the reduced visibility of the bank/retail building could cause traffic problems for customers trying to locate and visit the tenants of this building. Chairman Yarum questioned how is this a hardship and not an inconvenience. Mr. Palmer agreed it is an inconvenience.

Chairman Yarum stated when Mr. Palmer was before the Board last month, he stated that the primary reason for having two names on the sign was for 911 purposes. Mr. Palmer stated the two buildings have different addresses for 911 purposes. They were not aware until construction that the second building had a different address. This is the way safety wanted it for response to a 911 call.

Mr. Thorogood asked prior to Mr. Palmer going for the overall development of this, did he think he would have a problem or a concern for signage owning the thirteen acres at that time. Mr. Palmer stated he did not work for the company at that time.

Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.

Mr. Thorogood made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request for a sign variance to allow a second entity on the allowed freestanding sign for the site at 2 Shaker Road, Map 64/Lot 70, BL Zone.

Reference is made to the file copies of an 8 and ½” by 10” color site plan and a black and white elevation of the proposed signage and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2006-09-03.

Mr. Thorogood thinks there is a hardship. They had thirteen acres prior to the land donation and if it was know prior to, they would be putting up two signs. The sign sits high enough at 20’ where it shouldn’t have a problem regarding visibility. Mr. Thorogood felt the sign needs to be there and this is not something unusual and it has been approved in the past.

Mr. Furey has a problem with multiple signs. He sees more traffic problems in places where they have multiple signs in one place. Mr. Furey would hate to see this Board approving multiple signs because there are many places in town that could request this.

Mr. Rinaldi stated the sign variance approvals that have been done in the past have been tied in with public safety. He did not feel this sign was warranted for safety reasons.

Chairman Yarum stated throughout the town there are single freestanding signs with multiple names on them but that is not because they received a variance. It is because they have met the requirements of the regulations. In this case, the issue he has is that the applicant has stated if and when the intersection is relocated and has also given testimony that under the present condition, there is not an issue involved. If and when the intersection is relocated, the applicant could come back with a hardship. But, presently, Chairman Yarum did not feel there was a hardship.

Mr. Thorogood discussed the need for signs that are visible to avoid traffic problems. He thinks the sign is large enough where it would make it easier for the consumer to view and would be helpful from a safety standpoint.

Mr. Kibbe agreed with Mr. Thorogood. If the sign is 20’ and it is visible far enough in advance, customers know when to make a turn and it would be a safety issue regarding access.

Mr. Rinaldi disagreed and focused on the hardship. He stated this could actually create more of a dangerous situation. It is a busy intersection and drivers only process things one at a time. He does not see the hardship.

The motion was denied by a 2 – 3 – 0 vote. Mr. Kibbe and Mr. Thorogood voted in favor; Mr. Yarum, Mr. Rinaldi and Mr. Furey voted against.

The reasons for denial are the Board failed to see the uniqueness of the property. The request was based on future possibilities and not an existing situation.

ZBA 2006-10-01 – Carmelo Cicero/Solidus, Applicant & Hamilton Sundstrand Federal Credit Union, Owner, 385 Enfield Street, Map 33/Lot 232, BL Zone, requesting a variance to demolish an existing building and construct a new building on an existing foundation that is 45 +/- feet from the front property line where 60 feet is the minimum required – EZO Sections 3.40.2B (nonconforming structure) and 5.10 (BL front yard setback)

Carmelo Cicero, Alan Nathas and Dana Warren, the architect, appeared before the Board regarding this application. Mr. Cicero stated Hamilton Sundstrand purchased the property which was the previous McDonald’s building and proposed to renovate the existing building to accommodate the new facility. They were originally going to completely gut the building and renovate it. The existing footprint will be reused. The hardship is at some point down the line the building setback got pushed back and the building setback is now roughly 12’ off the front setback of the road.

Mr. Nathas gave some history about the building and presented previous plans of the building. The intent of this project was to use parts of the existing building but they found this could not be done. They will be using the existing footprint and not expanding it. They propose a setback of 48.53’. The drive through is located on the other side and they will be leaving the front area green. The building would encroach into the 60’ line by about 12’. Another hardship is if they would have to move this building back to the 60’ line, it would affect the parking situation. They would not have sufficient room for the parking with 10’ from the property line.

Dana Warren stated they started this project with the idea that they would reuse the building. It is a classic 1985 McDonald’s building. As they evaluated it, they realized it was a combination of a 1961 structure and the building would not be useable. Ms. Warren elaborated on what would need to be done resulting in the decision to begin again. They concluded the best alternative was to remove all the walls and use the existing foundation. They developed on the same footprint a gable ended structure they felt was more in keeping with the neighborhood.

Mr. Rinaldi asked about the parking situation if the building was to comply. Mr. Nathas stated they had to move the building back 12’ and there is a requirement for green space.

Chairman Yarum asked about the size of the existing building. Ms. Warren stated 2,500 square feet is the size of the proposed credit union. If they had to reduce the square footage, the use would not function with a smaller size. They are in another building diagonally across the street at the present time but it is not serving all the functions that will be served in this building. They currently do not have customer service in that building. The new facility will have three customer service areas and a full teller line and an ATM.

Mr. Alexander questioned the safety of building on an older foundation. Ms. Warren stated the building was evaluated by a structural engineer at purchase. This is where the client received the misconception that the building would be re-useable. It stated it was a sound building with a few roof leaking issues. However, that report did not take into account trying to change the roof line of the structure.

Ms. Warren discussed the present foundation structure. It is slab on grade with a full foundation wall at least four feet deep on the outside of the building. Three quarters of the foundation was built in the 1980’s and one quarter was built in the 1960’s.

Chairman Yarum questioned what makes the property unique compared to others in the same neighborhood or zoning district. Mr. Cicero stated it is commercial like the two adjoining spaces on either side. The footprint now falls past the building setback line. Ms. Warren added the area was designated as a blight area and it encouraged them to improve the neighborhood.

Mr. Thorogood stated this application would not be necessary if they did not have to demolish the building. Ms. Warren confirmed that to be the case and stated if they had maintained a couple of walls, they would not need to be here. However, the best approach for the safest building was to remove all the walls, use the foundation and build a structurally sound building that meets all the building codes.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated the issue is not the setback but the intent of demolition. The applicants also mentioned the design guidelines and with a new structure, they are actually accomplishing a more compatible structure design as opposed to the older inefficient design that would not have served their purpose or code.

Mr. Thorogood asked if they did have to move back to 60’ would that have an influx. Mr. Alsbaugh stated what you would be looking at is parking in front rather than parking in the back. Mr. Thorogood stated this would have an impact on the flow of the traffic going in and out of the property. Going 60’ back would impact the flow of how they come around that building and impact where the parking would be. Mr. Alsbaugh stated it would change the location of parking activities.

Chairman Yarum stated if the ordinance requires during a demolition to bring the current site up to current regulations, he is not convinced that he has heard where the hardship is. Mr. Nathan stated he doesn’t know that they could build this building on this site and get the parking they need to accommodate it. He elaborated on the difference in parking using the 60’.

Chairman Yarum asked if there is a parking requirement based on square footage for this retail operation. Mr. Nathan stated they would require 25 parking spaces and 25 are provided.

Chairman Yarum asked if they were to move the building back to meet the setback line, how many parking spaces would there be. Mr. Nathan stated there would be a difference of a couple of parking spaces. He would lose twelve spaces in the back and gain approximately eleven in the front.

Ms. Warren stated there is an uphill slope from the street up to the property line. Chairman Yarum asked what that incline is. Mr. Alsbaugh stated there is about a three foot change from the street to the front of the building. Mr. Rinaldi noted that the lot tapers in the front.

Chairman Yarum stated item 6 of the application asks to what extent is the request for a variance based upon a desire of the owner, occupant or applicant for increased financial gain from the property or to reduce an existing financial hardship and the response was the budget for the project does not allow for removal of existing foundation. Ms. Warren stated if the building has to move, the client would probably not work with this property and move elsewhere. If it is compromised at a certain point, it would not make economic sense to move forward. Mr. Cicero added they are trying to achieve a safe traffic flow and if it doesn’t make sense, it would make sense to resume the project.

Mr. Rinaldi stated the initial professional opinion was that it was a structure that could be used as is and the intent was not to demolish it. Ms. Warren stated upon the real estate purchase, there was a structural analysis. Conditions of the building were reviewed but they did not review it for this specific purpose. When the design team came on board and analyzed the building was when they decided it was not structurally feasible to reuse the building.

Mr. Rinaldi referred to the zoning regulation, 3.40.2b, and asked if it is the intent to totally demolish the entire structure which includes the foundation. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he does not think a total demolition requires the actual removal of a foundation. Often times that will be left and buried. Mr. Rinaldi asked if that is specified before the demolition takes place. Mr. Alsbaugh stated yes, there is a demolition permit.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated there are more issues to consider than just the ones brought up. What is the intent of the current design overlay and what is the result of a rebuild and how the new issues balance out against the zoning requirement that if it is totally demolished, it cannot be rebuilt. Is the nonconformity more desirable than the improvements that meet other aspects of the zoning ordinance? Mr. Rinaldi sees it as two separate issues. He is bringing up the ordinance to see if there is something different about this. It sounds like the intent was not to demolish it and then it sounds like they had to do something. Mr. Alsbaugh stated then you have your building codes and it is not as clear but you have the knowledge of how the building is actually constructed as opposed to the initial analysis saying that the building was sound. The more indepth analysis was the focus of the decision making after the purchase.

Mr. Rinaldi stated after this situation is addressed, there are other things to be addressed such as the economic development of brown fields and addressing the term demolition partial versus total. Mr. Alsbaugh stated as far as demolition, it is currently interpreted as a full demolition rather than a partial that would have allowed them to remodel. Any remodel would have probably been required by Planning and Zoning to meet the current design regulations. You would still end up with the engineering requirement of modifying the old design extensively to meet the new design regulations which is most effectively accomplished with the demolition.

Mr. Thorogood thought their real intent was to use the building, to use the foundation and not come in front of this Board. Once they evaluated the building in detail, they found from a building code standpoint, it wasn’t going to meet the requirements. Mr. Thorogood doesn’t see many options other than one, they build on the foundation and they are granted to variance or two, we don’t grant the variance and we move it back 60’ at which time they are going to be back in requesting a setback which if not granted affects traffic flow and parking. The third thing is it is a lot safer the way this is laid out with the parking in the back. Mr. Thorogood also agrees with the Chairman that budget does not affect this Board’s decision. It is the hardship and the safety issues.

Mr. Alsbaugh stated he doesn’t think you can completely address the engineering problems being brought up. You can make an initial assumption that the scenario will not be as beneficial as it is now because it is not as wide across the front as it is in the back. You will have a net loss of area to switch your operations.

Mr. Thorogood stated in his opinion the public health and welfare would be affected if the Board doesn’t approve this variance request.

Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.

Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kibbe, to approve the request for a front yard setback variance of 15 feet +/-, 60 feet required, 45 feet +/- existing, 45 feet +/- proposed, to demolish a nonconforming structure and then reconstruct a new building on the existing foundation. EZO Sections 3.40.2B and 5.10.

Reference is made to 14 pages of plans titled with various iterations of “Hamilton Sundstrand”, and designated “Sheet No.’s C-1 through C-7 and Sheets “SL-1.1; SL2.1, L1.1, L1.2; R1.1; A6.1; and A6.2”(all stamped with the October 25, 2006 Planning Department receipt stamp and numbered consecutively 1 – 14), and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2006-10-01.

Mr. Rinaldi stated if you look at 3.40.2a, the intent was to expand, alter or extend this nonconforming structure without further violation of things such as the setback. That was the initial thought process. If we try to make it conforming, we may have a parking issue. He thought he would allow it on the existing footprint.

Mr. Furey looked at it aesthetically for the town. Here we have a blighted piece of property and they are developing a handsome structure and they are presented with a series of problems which Mr. Furey felt they addressed. He thinks the overall benefit to the town of this new structure in this area is going to up the area. Any variance should be granted to accommodate what they are trying to do.

The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote. The reason for approval is the variance request is unique to the property because of the demolition of the previous structure and the required setbacks. By taking a nonconforming structure to meet current regulations would create another nonconforming parking use and a health and safety concern.

ZBA 2006-10-02 – Kyle and Roland Atkinson, Applicants/Owners, 24 Glen Oak Drive, Map 58/Lot 54, R-33 Zone, requesting a variance to allow a shed in the front yard of a corner lot adjacent to Pine Grove Avenue, instead of locating it in the required rear yard – EZO Section 3.30.7Aii.

Kyle Atkinson appeared before the Board regarding this application. He presented some additional documents to the Board.

Chairman Yarum noted receipt of the following: (1) the sign affidavit; (2) the Town of Enfield Planning and Community Development memo on notice of water companies project within watersheds; (3) a faxed copy of the receipt of that notification; and (4) a signature page of the neighborhood where Mr. Atkinson received 23 signatures on his request for a variance in favor of this request.

Mr. Atkinson stated in their backyard they have a pool so there are only two spots where they can put the shed – either on the right hand side or the left hand side. They would like to place it on the left hand side because of privacy. He presented pictures that show the land on the left hand side is sloped so that the fence is actually about a foot and a half lower on this side of the yard. This fence is actually below the window level of their neighbors across the street. The first thing was privacy. The second thing was the landscape of the yard. On the left it is sloped which doesn’t give them any use of that yard. You can also see on the left hand side there is a tree which does not give them any utilization of the land.

Mr. Atkinson stated on the right hand side of their yard it is wide open and that is where all family activities are conducted. There is a tree in the corner and there is a neighbor’s bush that hangs over their fence to their side. The only place to put a shed would be right in the middle which is the only spot available for use of the yard.

Chairman Yarum noted receipt of four photos of the applicant’s property showing the back yard.

Mr. Rinaldi asked about photos 1 and 3 and asked if that is the side street. Mr. Atkinson stated yes. Technically, it is their second front yard because it is a corner lot.

Mr. Atkinson summarized the three issues are privacy, the landscaping and the utilization of the yard. He noted there is a safety issue by forcing them to conduct their activities on the left hand side of the yard with the tree there. In the summer, that tree is full.

Mr. Alexander asked if Mr. Atkinson wants to put the shed where the frame is currently. Mr. Atkinson stated that is correct. It is the left hand side of the yard where they want to locate the shed within their fenced area.

Chairman Yarum stated if you were to take your fenced in area facing the house from the street, the back right hand corner – is that not an option for the shed. Mr. Atkinson stated it is an option but there is a neighbor’s bush overhanging the fence. Also, opposite of that corner is where they have another tree and there would be limited space for the shed.

Chairman Yarum asked if the fence is on the property line or offset. Mr. Atkinson believes the right hand side is on the property line.

Chairman Yarum stated on the site plan submitted, looking to the right of the house, you have 31’ of side yard and 12’ of carport for a total of 43’. Then directly behind that you have 30’ of fence and 8’ of gate for a total of 38’. Somewhere between those two points there was a loss of five feet. Mr. Atkinson stated there are a couple of feet between the gate and the house and the carport.

Chairman Yarum stated putting the shed in the back right hand corner is an option but because of the neighbor’s shrub that hangs over would be an inconvenience to them. Mr. Atkinson agreed and stated it really minimizes the use of their yard.

Chairman Yarum stated under the current regulations a freestanding building has to be how many feet from the property line. Mr. Alsbaugh stated a minimum of five feet. In this case, it is the location behind the line of the house. Chairman Yarum is looking at putting it in the back right hand corner and with the five feet, it would move it out farther into the yard.

Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the public.

Alice Lamagna, 27 Glen Oak, spoke against this variance request. They have resided at this location for over thirty years and have the same corner property. In all of that time, all of the other occupants of 24 Glen Oak Drive have maintained a shed on the right hand side of the property. The little tree Kyle refers to is an eight inch circumference tree which could be removed. He has 34’ of space and 30’ from the property line to his pool. This is flat land. Ms. Lamagna asked about the height of the shed. She noted the slope that Kyle is talking about is very small and is in a limited part of the yard. As far as the little tree, this tree is also a skinny little tree with an 8” circumference. Ms. Lamagna stated everyone else in the neighborhood has managed to keep their shed to the back of the property. She asked if this would be setting a precedent by allowing this shed to go there.

Chairman Yarum accepted three photos from Ms. Lamagna showing the applicant’s property taken from 27 Glen Oak Drive.

Mr. Atkinson stated the tree mentioned is definitely more than 8” in circumference. In the winter, it is a small tree but in the summer time, it is full and the base of it is much more like a couple of feet. It is below head level and it expands a significant amount.

Mr. Alexander asked how high the shed will be. Mr. Atkinson stated they are anticipating between seven and eight feet in height. Mr. Alsbaugh stated 12’ is the maximum height allowed.

Michele Fredema stated she has mowed the lawn and there is definitely a slope on the left hand side and not on the right.

Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.

Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kibbe, to approve the request for a variance to allow a shed in the front yard of a corner lot adjacent to Pine Grove Avenue instead of locating it in the required rear yard – EZO Section 3.30.7Aii. Reference is made to a hand drawn site plan indicating the proposed location of the accessory structure/shed created by the applicant, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2006-10-02.

Mr. Rinaldi stated in the past when we looked at corner lots, we looked at the uniqueness of the steep slope or the shape of the lot. In this case, it is pretty rectangular. The slope is not very steep to prohibit putting a structure there. Mr. Rinaldi needs to be convinced of a hardship here.

Mr. Furey thought there are other options on this property to place the shed. It could fit in the right hand corner in the back with five feet on each side and it would not interfere with the neighbor’s shrub.

The motion was denied by a 0 – 5 – 0 vote. The reason for denial is the shape or topography is not a unique situation and the applicant has other options that do not require a variance.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Kibbe made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________

Kevin Kibbe, Secretary

Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals

jmr