ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 25, 2006
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, September 25, 2006 in the Town Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
John Rinaldi
Edward Furey, Acting Secretary
Richard Scott Hozempa, Voting Alternate
David Alexander, Voting Alternate
Paul Thorogood, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Mr. Alexander made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the Minutes of July 31, 2006. The Minutes were approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE/STAFF REPORT
Mr. Giner reported Roger Alsbaugh is at home recuperating from heart bypass surgery. He also discussed the present under staffing of his department due to Neil Angus’ resignation.
Chairman Yarum stated Correspondence includes a letter from Branse, Willis & Knapp regarding the new state statute modifying notice requirements for land use hearings – P.A. 06-80. Mr. Giner informed the Board that this really does not affect the Zoning Board of Appeals. It requires the maintenance of a registry for the Planning and Zoning Commission and the registry is limited to if you are doing a zone change, a zone text or a plan of development. Anyone can request to be put on the registry and the town is obligated to send notices every time there are hearings. Mr. Giner noted for ZBA the town has always had the opportunity for people to sign up on the town’s web site to receive notices and other information. Mr. Giner stated he recently put the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda on line.
Chairman Yarum asked about the status of the workshop requested by this Board to be done either by the Connecticut Federation of Planning and Zoning Agencies or another agency. Chairman Yarum stated a workshop was planned for new members and as a refresher course for existing Board members. Mr. Giner will check on this.
PUBLIC HEARING(S)/PROCEDURAL AND POLICY STATEMENTS BY CHAIRMAN (Legal Notices for the following public hearings were published in the Journal Enquirer on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 and Monday, September 18, 2006.)
PUBLIC HEARINGS – CONTINUED [Appeals and/or Variances]
NONE
APPEALS – NEW
VARIANCES – NEW
READING OF THE LEGAL NOTICE
ZBA 2006-09-01 – Samuel and Doris Jacobs, Applicant/Owner, 26 West Shore Drive, Map 80, Lot 145, R-33 Zone, requesting: 1) 12” height variance for a proposed garage, 12 foot maximum allowed; 2) a variance to allow construction of the garage in the front yard instead of the required rear yard. - EZO Section 3.30.7 A i.
Chairman Yarum explained to the public how this evening’s meeting will be conducted.
Samuel Jacobs, 26 West Shore Drive, appeared before the Board regarding this variance request. He presented some pictures of his home for the Board’s information. Chairman Yarum stated entered into the record are three photographs of the applicant’s property showing his personal vehicle in relationship to West Shore Drive.
Mr. Jacobs stated they live on Shaker Pines Lake and there is no existing room to build a garage in the rear because of the lake and he is requesting to build it in the front. He noted the way that his vehicles are sitting is dangerously close to the street and gives both him and his wife problems backing out. He has an existing garage but his truck won’t fit into it due to its length and height. Mr. Jacobs stated he is asking for approximately one foot for the variance but he actually only needs about 8” to make it an eight-foot garage door that his truck will fit into. The end result would be it would be much safer for them driving in and out and it would add additional parking for guests that come to visit. Presently, guests have to park on the street because there is no parking. The present plan would allow four to six parking spots for someone to park off the street. Snow removal would also be much easier for Mr. Jacobs and the town.
Chairman Yarum asked how far off the road the garage is now. Mr. Jacobs responded about twenty-two feet. The new garage, because of the curvature of the road and the property, will be approximately thirty-five feet back. The entrance would be from the side driving into the garage. This allows backing out and going into the street instead of directly backing into the street.
Mr. Rinaldi asked how far Mr. Jacobs’ home is from the water. Mr. Jacobs stated his house sits at an angle and the closest to the water would be about twenty to twenty-five feet. On each side of the house, there is physically not enough room the way the house is sitting to actually get back into the garage even if you could put one in.
Mr. Rinaldi noted the proposed garage won’t be any closer to the road than the existing garage. The garage has been changed so that there is entry from the side instead of cars pulling out into the road.
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 ZBA 2006-09-01 of Samuel and Doris Jacobs, Applicant/Owner, 26 West Shore Drive, Map 80, Lot 145, R-33 zone, requesting: 1) 12” height variance for a proposed garage, 12’ maximum allowed; 2) a variance to allow construction of the garage in the front yard instead of the required rear yard.
Mr. Furey noted that properties along the shore present problems similar to this and the Board has had other similar requests. Because the front yard is on the lake, there is usually very little room. Mr. Furey felt the request is reasonable and it is also a safety issue. He did not feel twenty-two feet is much to back out with traffic and a treed area.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he visited the premises today and that buffer is pretty much right where the new pavement is. There is not much room there. As far as the setback, if anything Mr. Jacobs is pushing it farther from the road. The way the height of the garage is calculated, it is mid slope and the only way to accommodate the larger door to fit the truck would require a minimum variance of twelve inches.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote. The reasons for approval are the applicant is requesting the minimum for the particular zoning unique because of its lake front property. The existing nonconforming use is being improved for safety reasons
ZBA 2006-09-02 – John R. Durfree, Applicant/Owner, 260 Abbe Road, Map 86, Lot 101, R-88 Zone, variance to allow a gazebo in the front yard, 5’ from the front building line on a corner lot instead of locating it in the required rear yard. EZO Section 3.30.7 A ii.
John Durfree, 260 Abbe Road, appeared before the Board regarding this application. He presented some pictures along with his posting of the public hearing sign which he gave to Mr. Giner.
Chairman Yarum noted five photographs of the applicant’s property showing the location of the gazebo have been entered into the record of this hearing.
Mr. Durfree stated this property is different from most properties in the area. If you look at the gazebo, it is an eight foot gazebo that they purchased to use as a lawn ornament to replace an eight-foot wagon they had on the front of their lawn. The reason they put the wagon there was years ago when they widened Abbe Road, they did two things to that corner. One was to widen Abbe Road to 30’ and the other thing was they took Teach Street, the other street, and moved it away from their property almost forty-five feet creating a different angle. The result is it sets the property off and it is different from most corner lots in the Town of Enfield. They took the utility poles that were located on the east side of Abbe Road and for that two block area, including Mr. Durfree’s house, they located them to the west side of Abbe Road. In doing so, they placed an additional utility pole. Mr. Durfree now has two poles on his small corner lot with associated guide wires. Mr. Durfree has tried to make this area pleasing to the neighborhood and from the feedback he has received, they have been successful. The wagon needed to be replaced and they thought an eight-foot gazebo would be good. Mr. Durfree did not know it is required to be in the back of the house. The problem he has with the back of the house is that unlike most corner lots, his lot was originally listed as 1 Teach Street and not 260 Abbe Road. They could not fit the driveway in so they turned it ninety degrees. The previous owner changed the address to 260 Abbe Road. When this was done, the backyard was reduced to twenty-five feet. Mr. Durfree stated if he has to, he would move the gazebo to the back but the reason he is asking for the variance is to make the home aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood.
Mr. Durfree stated what makes this corner so different is that both streets were modified at the same time and the utility poles were switched to the opposite site of the street. The back property line instead of going parallel to the house goes at an angle which gives him very little property in the back.
Mr. Rinaldi asked where the information was obtained regarding Teach Street and the change to Abbe Road. Mr. Durfree stated the previous owner informed him about this and it was on the land records. Mr. Durfree also discussed his renovation which resulted in removal of the in-home hutch. On the back of the hutch was a notation saying 1 Teach Street.
Chairman Yarum stated according to the site plan, the property line that runs along Abbe Road is 163’ and along Teach Street it is 53’. The south property line is 158’ and the west is 125’. On the west property line, from the corner of the house, it looks like there is twenty-four feet. Mr. Durfree stated there are three foot high pine trees his neighbor installed along with a stockade fence. The fence is six to ten feet on his side of the property line. Chairman Yarum noted the fence on the west side and Mr. Durfree confirmed it is located on the property line.
Chairman Yarum asked if you were to look in the southwest corner of the home, what is the dimension. Mr. Durfree stated from the corner of his home to his neighbor’s fence is twenty-five feet. As you get more toward the south, it gets large but due to the slope of the land, it only gets to the largest point at 38’ from the house to the fence. However, the land is not workable land. Mr. Durfree originally had a twenty-four foot above ground pool located in his back yard and he had about nine feet left before he hit his neighbor’s yard.
Chairman Yarum summarized because of the topography on the western side of the house, the gazebo would not fit. Mr. Durfree stated it would not be feasible because it would be right in back of the house. Also, if he wanted to replace the swimming pool, he would have no room to do so. The land has about a ten-foot slope from the neighbor’s fence into his yard. With the southern side, with all the pine trees, it is extremely moist and mosquito ridden.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application.
Mr. Giner commented on accessory structures. If you think about accessory structures, you think about sheds and garages. He felt this was the reasoning behind requiring them behind the back line of the building if they were detached. Mr. Giner understands this is only an ornamental gazebo but it if were to be enclosed, it still falls as an accessory structure. Mr. Giner stated this may be something to consider in future regulation revisions – how to deal with open ornamental structures.
Mr. Furey did not feel such ornamental structures are permanent structures because they only last so many years.
Mr. Durfree stated his wife has always used these ornamental items with a theme for the particular seasons of the year.
Mr. Hozempa stated by the size of the gazebo, it seems ornamental and they would not be using it as a storage shed.
Mr. Alexander noted the gazebo is not screened and doesn’t have a door. It is similar to a wishing well type of ornament as opposed to a meeting house gazebo. The corner lot is also unique.
Mr. Furey stated the intent is to enhance the neighborhood and not detract from it.
Mr. Rinaldi focused on the property. He noted he visited it today and stated this lot is unique because it has a triangle of a backyard. Mr. Rinaldi would say the uniqueness is the shape of the lot and it definitely was not flat.
Mr. Furey stated the Board has seen a number of corner lots and they have always presented problems because the lot does not allow for an expansion in the back.
Chairman Yarum would be concerned by granting this variance that in the future the character of the gazebo could change. He favored an amendment regarding the gazebo which was later included in the motion.
Mr. Hozempa made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve ZBA 2006-09-02 – John R. Durfree, Applicant/Owner, 260 Abbe Road, Map 86, Lot 101, R-88 Zone, variance to allow a gazebo in the front yard five feet from the front building line on a corner lot instead of locating it in the required rear yard. An amendment was added to the motion by Chairman Yarum, seconded by John Rinaldi, that the approval is granted under the conditions that the gazebo remains ornamental and does not have a door, screening or permanent electrical. The amendment was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote. The main motion, as amended, was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reason for approval is due to the topography of the property and the location of the house, it doesn’t allow for structures in the back yard. To insure that the gazebo remains ornamental, conditions have been imposed.
ZBA 2006-09-03 – Blake Investments, LLC, Owner/Applicant, 2 Shaker Road, Map 64, Lot 70, BL Zone, variance to allow a second tenant sign below the main freestanding sign. – EZO Section 10.30.5.
Douglas Palmer, 315 Hitching Post Lane, Windsor, appeared before the Board regarding this application. He is the Director of Construction for Galaxy Development, the developer building this property for Lake Investments. Mr. Palmer discussed the hardship presented. If you are going eastbound on Route 220 for approximately 185’, this will greatly reduce the visibility of the second building that’s on the property. Mr. O’Brien did not realize the condition that would be created for the second building’s visibility when he donated the land and that is why Mr. Palmer is here.
Mr. Palmer stated they are not asking to make the sign any larger than is allowable under the ordinance. For a lot of their size which is 3.65 acres currently and will still be approximately 3.3 acres after the front triangle is dedicated to the town, they would be allowed a sign of fifty square feet. The two panels proposed total only forty-eight square feet.
Chairman Yarum confirmed that the applicant is seeking a variance and not an appeal since both applications were filled out.
Chairman Yarum stated there is reference in the application to when the intersection of Elm and Shaker is relocated. Mr. Palmer did not know the time frame regarding this relocation.
Mr. Giner also noted there is no current timing. The State Traffic Commission has been asking for plans and they did approve it with a future dedication. The idea was to try to line up the intersection with Ganny Terrace as closely as possible. However, the time frame for this occurring has not been determined. Mr. Giner has not received any definitive correspondence regarding this.
Mr. Palmer stated he has not received any definitive correspondence from the State Traffic Commission other than they required their engineer to prepare a layout plan.
Chairman Yarum asked if there is going to be any other freestanding signs other than the one proposed. Mr. Palmer stated although the two buildings have separate addresses, this is for 911 purposes only. Only one sign is allowed and that is all they plan to have.
Mr. Rinaldi asked what is allowable regarding a freestanding sign. Mr. Giner stated you are allowed one freestanding sign and for multi-use properties, if the building is set back 200’, you are allowed an additional sign per tenant not to exceed fifty percent of the freestanding sign that you can hang underneath. However, this application does not meet the 200’.
Mr. Rinaldi asked what the property is allowed. Mr. Giner stated they are allowed one freestanding sign per frontage. Mr. Giner stated they could locate a second sign on the second frontage. Mr. Palmer is only asking for a variance on the one main sign and any other frontage sign would have to comply.
Mr. Rinaldi stated in looking at the Town of Enfield sign permit, it states one entity per freestanding sign. Mr. Giner stated you would be allowed to put up a freestanding sign denoting the plaza name but you are not allowed to list all the tenants. The second sign proposed is for the bank building.
Mr. Palmer stated the second sign would be for the American Federal Eagle Credit Union and, at this time, additional space because they plan to rent only 3,000 square feet of the 4,500 square feet.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the sign allowed would be 50 square feet and he asked why it couldn’t be just on one sign. Mr. Palmer stated the way Mr. Alsbaugh explained it to him was that the sign should contain only one entity. Mr. Giner stated the intent is to not have all the tenants listed.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the hardship is that this bank building is tucked behind the main building. Mr. Palmer stated as it is now, if you are going eastbound and you are stopped farther back, you have a much clearer visibility of both buildings. Looking at the bank retail building, it is an angle of about seventeen degrees. If you move the stop line up, now you are better than a thirty-five degree angle and the cars waiting will be pretty much in front of you which will even further reduce the visibility of the second building.
Chairman Yarum stated the bank is only going to lease a portion of the building and there could be two tenants in the bank building. He asked if they are allowed a second sign to go under the Walgreen’s sign, what would that sign identify. Mr. Palmer stated it would identify the American Federal Eagle Credit Union that has signed the lease. If approved and allowed, they would cut the sign in half and allow space for the second tenant in that same panel. If the Board did not allow this, the sign would just identify the credit union. It would also be in the terms of the lease of the second tenant that they would not have space on the freestanding sign.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if the credit union will have a drive through. Mr. Palmer stated it has a drive up with no window. One aisle will be an ATM machine. The second one will be a drive up but it will not be a window.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if directional signs are allowed. Mr. Giner stated once inside the parking lot, the town does allow some directional signs. They can also install another sign on Elm Street. Mr. Rinaldi stated there could be a sign saying credit union or enter. Mr. Giner stated such signs would be pretty much directional and not advertising.
Mr. Hozempa asked if there could be another sign on the Elm Street side. Mr. Giner stated there could be.
Mr. Rinaldi stated legally another freestanding sign could be installed on the other frontage.
Some discussion followed on the address of the bank. Mr. Palmer stated the address is 211 Elm for the bank and Walgreen’s is 2 Shaker Road. Technically, this is only one piece of property that uses two addresses for 911 purposes only.
Mr. Alexander made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve ZBA 2006-09-03 – Blake Investments, LLC, Owner/Applicant, 2 Shaker Road, Map 64, Lot 70, BL Zone, variance to allow a second tenant sign below the main freestanding sign.
Mr. Rinaldi stated presently there are two frontages and there could be a sign on both frontages. The request is to have both entities on one sign. Mr. Rinaldi asked if in allowing this, there could be a condition regarding not allowing a second sign on the other frontage. Mr. Giner stated this could not be done and the applicant is entitled to what is in the regulations.
Mr. Palmer stated if the variance is approved, they will agree to a condition of no second sign on the other street.
Mr. Furey had a concern that by granting the variance, there could be two signs on both frontages.
Chairman Yarum had a concern about looking at this on a larger scale because this would set a precedent. The town could potentially have the larger scale retail uses requesting that their tenants be identified via a sign. This would create a safety issue. While this is a smaller scale request, this would be doing the same thing. The most logical action would be to call it a specific plaza for directional purposes. Today it is two names on a sign but tomorrow, it could be three names. Mr. Furey brought up the possibility of Walgreen’s moving and another sign pattern instituted.
Mr. Alexander stated he is concerned about granting this variance because of the possibility of the applicant coming back and wanting to install a third sign for the space next to the bank. The Board is not denying the applicant the right to post a sign identifying the bank on the other side of Elm Street. The applicant does have the opportunity to place signage on the road to advertise the business.
Mr. Furey agreed that granting this variance would be opening the door to problems down the road.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the only uniqueness he sees is this is a corner lot and they would be sacrificing two freestanding signs to one. He would only feel comfortable approving this if there was a condition restricting a second sign on the other road.
Mr. Alexander would not be in favor or adding a condition because you cannot deny an applicant something that is legally his right to request. Mr. Alexander also had a concern that a third sign would be requested in the future.
Mr. Hozempa asked if there is anything that would prevent the applicant from putting up another sign. This would mean having one sign on Shaker Road and ten feet away there could be another sign on Elm Street. Chairman Yarum stated this would be a Planning and Zoning Commission issue. Mr. Giner stated such a sign would have to be located on the associated frontage. Mr. Rinaldi stated what Scott is saying is that with this being on a corner, the frontage is Shaker and the frontage is also Elm Street. The possibility of having one sign on each frontage exists. Further discussion of this point followed.
Mr. Giner stated once the frontage is brought in, there may be two frontages close together. Mr. Rinaldi stated there is the possibility of doubling the width when the property line is moved. Chairman Yarum stated when the property line is moved, you would say that the sign is on Elm Street. However, normally your sign is put perpendicular to your flow of traffic when you have a two-sided sign. Based on the design of the sign, then your frontage is Shaker Road. If your frontage is Elm Street, then there is no need for two signs.
Mr. Hozempa raised the possibility of having another sign on Elm Street.
The motion was denied by a 0 – 5 – 0 vote.
The reason for denial is the applicant has other opportunities for signage. The applicant did not present a hardship on why two signs are needed. If the third business is located on the property, it raises the potential that a third sign could be proposed on Shaker Road if the variance was granted.
Some discussion followed on whether the applicant could request the same sign in the future. Mr. Giner stated the circumstances would have to change. Mr. Giner stated from a legal argument, you have to show there has been a material change or something that was not known at the time the Board first made their decision.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman Yarum had intended to ask why the meeting packet was in a different format but he now knows the reason why.
Chairman Yarum noted that the Board previously had the applications before them for signatures by the Chairman and Board members. Mr. Giner will draw up the variance after the notice of action and have it ready for Board signatures. Mr. Furey had a concern that the applicants would need all the signatures before proceeding. Mr. Giner will work with Mr. Bickley on this and have the items ready for signature at the next meeting.
Chairman Yarum brought up the update from the Town Attorney’s Office regarding the status of PZC v. ZBA. For the Board’s information, he did receive a letter from the Attorney’s office representing ZBA dated July 5, 2006. It was received in the Planning Office on July 17, 2006. Chairman Yarum read the letter enclosing the plaintiff’s brief in the case. A brief from the school was due on Monday, July 10. Oral argument is set for September 11, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. at Hartford Superior Court. Chairman Yarum has not received any follow-up information. Mr. Giner stated Mr. Bickley was at the hearing and it is in the judge’s hands. The judge has 120 days to make a decision. Some discussion followed on whether Board members would be involved in this case. Chairman Yarum stated if anyone would like to read the brief, he has it.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Hozempa made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Kevin Kibbe, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr