ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 28, 2005
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, November 28, 2005 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
Edward Furey
John Rinaldi
Elizabeth Ballard, Alternate
David Alexander, Alternate, Acting Secretary
ALSO PRESENT: Jose Giner, Director of Planning
MINUTES
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Alexander, to approve the Minutes of October 31, 2005. The Minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.
CORRESPONDENCE/STAFF REPORT
Chairman Yarum noted receipt of a memo from the Town Attorney’s Office for November and December. He brought the Board’s attention to Kaplan v. ZBA and informed the Board that it appears that no one on this Board will be brought in for a deposition. The case is scheduled for trial on January 11, 2006. Chairman Yarum stated the information regarding this case is privileged and if Board members have any questions, they should contact the Town Attorney only.
Chairman Yarum stated the Board has received a memo including the approved meeting dates for 2006. He added for this year’s annual report, all Board members will have their photographs taken which will be included along with a description of their function within the town. Also received were the notices of decision for the September 27, 2005 meeting.
NEW BUSINESS – NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
SUITABILITY OF LOCATION [new or used car sales, general repairer license, limited repairer license, gasoline service stations]
Chairman Yarum reported as of October 1, 2005, the Zoning Board of Appeals is no longer the local authority for new or used car sales, general repairer licenses, limited repairer licenses or gasoline service stations.
Chairman Yarum stated the annual report will include a description of the functions of the various boards and commissions. He asked if this document is final or is it presented for discussion. Mr. Giner was not aware of the status of the annual report but noted staff pictures were taken as late as last Tuesday so it is probably not the final version. Board members had no comments regarding this document.
NEW BUSINESS – PUBLIC HEARING(S)/PROCEDURAL & POLICY STATEMENTS BY CHAIRMAN (Legal Notices for the following public hearings were published in the Journal Inquirer on Monday, November 14, 2005 and Monday, November 21, 2005).
VARIANCES – NEW
ZBA 2005-11-01 – Carl Nelson, Applicant, and Estate of R. M. Alaimo, Owner, Property known as Map 26/Lot 58, D’Annunzio Avenue, R-33 Zone, requesting front yard setback and coverage variances for the construction of a new dwelling – EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Carl Nelson, 449 Washington Road, appeared before the Board regarding this application. He stated he is looking to build a new home on D’Annunzio Avenue but the front yard setbacks do not allow for any size house. He proposed fronting the house on D’Annunzio Avenue and keeping it in line with the other homes on the street. With the existing setbacks, which include a 35’ setback off Enfield Avenue and a 10’ side yard against the existing house abutting this home on D’Annunzio, it would only leave a 5’ width for a house. The proposal is to build a small cape. A front yard setback and coverage variances are necessary to fit the house and to keep the house in line with the other homes on D’Annunzio Avenue. The lot coverage would allow them to build a house that would fit this neighborhood. He presented pictures of the proposed home to the Board and briefly explained the design.
Chairman Yarum noted receipt of six photographs, four depicting the existing conditions of the property and two depicting a representation of a future home.
Mr. Rinaldi asked the size of the abutting lots and whether the lot proposed is typical for the neighborhood regarding size and frontage. Mr. Nelson presented a map showing the area and noted the proposed home is typical of the area. The existing lot is 50’ x 100’ and most of the abutting lots are close to that size.
Chairman Yarum entered into the record a map showing the intersection of the subject lot including Elm Street, the properties abutting those streets and the dimensions of the existing lots.
Chairman Yarum asked Mr. Giner when you have a corner lot which is considered two front lots, is there such a thing on that lot as a rear setback. Mr. Giner responded no. There are two front setbacks and two side setbacks. This is to match it with the homes on both sides of the street. You are, therefore, matching side yard to side yard on both sides.
Chairman Yarum stated within the plot plan submitted by Mr. Nelson dated October 5, 2005, revised November 1, 2005, it includes a note that the existing drive of the property to the north has an encroachment on this particular lot. He asked if Mr. Nelson is aware of that.
Mr. Nelson responded he is. He was just informed that this encroachment is an easement.
Chairman Yarum asked if this is an easement, are the percentages for site coverage and setbacks taken into consideration. Mr. Nelson responded they are not.
Mr. Giner clarified that in residential zones, only building coverage is considered. Impervious coverage would not make a difference. The setbacks would be to the property line and an easement would not affect the setbacks. The town does not have an impervious coverage requirement in residential zones. There is only a building coverage requirement of twenty percent.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if the variance is granted, would the easement and associated map filed for the previous easement be taken into consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Giner stated the request is not to unmerge a lot of record. The lot area is not in question and the lot exists. The regulations state as long as you have 5,000 square feet and 50’ of frontage, you can build on a preexisting, nonconforming lot. The practical problem is with this lot and no variances, you would have to build a 10’ wide house.
Mr. Rinaldi stated his concern is the proposed driveway would overlap that purchased easement. He wanted to verify the mechanism in place and if this matter is taken up by someone else. He asked what the Board can do should this go to Planning and Zoning. Mr. Giner stated this application will not go to Planning and Zoning. The next step would be to go to the Zoning Enforcement Officer for a zoning permit.
Mr. Giner suggested if the Board approves this variance, that they make sure that the final map that gets filed notes the easement on it. He added anyone doing a title search will see the easement and the map that was filed on the land records.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience.
Linda Nolan, 8 D’Annunzio Avenue, stated she wants to make sure the easement is shown on the new map. She has a permanent easement in writing at home.
Mr. Nelson admitted he was not aware of the easement. The surveyor did not research the land records. He is looking to purchase the lot if the variance is granted. He does not have any problem with the easement. A buyer would know that it is on the land records and would have to accept that when purchasing the home.
Mr. Rinaldi stated it is his understanding that by having an A-2 survey done, that deed research should have been a concern of the licensed surveyor but maybe he missed it.
Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request for a coverage variance of 2.7%, 0.0% existing, 22.7% proposed, 20% allowed, and two front yard setback variances – one for 14.5’, 0.0’ existing, 10.5’ proposed, 35’ required, and one for 10’, 0.0’ existing, 25’ proposed, 35’ required, all to construct a single-family residence – EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Reference is made to site plan titled “Plot Plan, Lot 6, D’Annunzio Avenue, prepared for Carl Nelson, Enfield, CT 06082, (and dated) 10-5-05”, showing existing and proposed conditions as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2005-11-01.
A condition of this approval is that the final map submitted to the Town of Enfield shall include the easement – Permanent Easement Volume 803, Page 0010.
Mr. Furey stated he is familiar with the property and his concern was the easement and the concerns of the neighbors. However, it is an empty lot of the same size as lots in the area. The proposed home Mr. Nelson intends to build will be an addition to the neighborhood. It is on a corner lot and while corner lots sometimes create difficulties, Mr. Furey does not see a problem granting this variance.
Mr. Rinaldi stated looking at the property individually it may not warrant a variance but looking at a copy of the assessor’s map of this area, this residential zone has the uniqueness of smaller lots which are not consistent.
Mr. Alexander stated the property would not be able to be used for a structure without granting this variance because of the uniqueness of the property. This property was grandfathered and a variance would allow development of this property. Regarding the easement, Mr. Alexander stated this was a concern to him but seeing that the easement will stay with the property being developed satisfies his concerns. Since easements run with the land, he is more comfortable granting this variance.
Chairman Yarum stated he had two concerns. The easement was one and that has been addressed. The second concern would be the proposed 10.5’ front yard setback. He did visit the property and noted the home directly to the south of this property which is also a corner lot has less than a 10.5’ side or front yard setback. This addressed Chairman Yarum’s second concern.
The motion, with the condition regarding the easement, was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
Mr. Rinaldi cited the reason for approval is the lot is conforming to the area and without the variance, construction on this property could not occur. Also, there is a uniqueness because this is a corner lot.
ZBA 2005-11-02 – Michael and Janene Bernier, Applicants and Owners, 150 Bernardino Avenue, Map 35/Lot 227, R-33 Zone, requesting front yard, side yard and coverage variances for a residence conversion from 3-family to 4-family – EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Michael Bernier appeared before the Board regarding this application. He stated he and his wife purchased the property at 150 Bernardino Avenue with two buildings in February, 2003. One building is a three-family home and the other building is a four-room home with a bath, gas and electric with the oldest records dated 1946. He stated shortly after buying this property, they started improving it. They applied for a permit on the second building. They received a cease and desist. They appealed it and on December 3 the appeal was denied. They have honored this appeal.
Mr. Bernier stated he has been working with town officials for a solution. They have guided him in the direction of connecting the two buildings with a roof to convert the three-family to a four-family. To do so, they have satisfied all the conditions with the exception of the front and side yard setbacks and lot coverage. The lot coverage is currently 25.1%. The roof connecting the two buildings will increase the coverage to approximately 28.4%.
Mr. Bernier stated this home was originally constructed around 1900 – 1910 or prior to zoning regulations. Mr. Giner stated these are all lots of record and prior to zoning, all these smaller lots were filed on the land records. Some of the lots are only 25’ wide and all the lots were merged into one ownership. Mr. Bernier stated Enfield Street is no longer on that side of the lot. When they put in the highway, they moved Bernardino Avenue to the other side of those lots which caused the lot to become nonconforming at that time. Mr. Bernier stated this property has been zoned Business A, Business G, R-17 and currently it is zoned R-33. Historically, this building was used as a residence. He has no knowledge when the building became nonconforming.
Chairman Yarum stated most of the Board members recall this application back in 2003. At that time, Board members were given a preliminary view of what this was all about. He appreciates Mr. Bernier working on the property and continuing to go forward in working with the town to come up with a solution.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the audience. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. Alexander made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to approve the request for the following variances:
1. A coverage variance of 3.4%, 28.4% proposed, 25% allowed – EZO Section 4.30.7B.
2. Front yard setback variances ranging from 38’ to 10’, all as specifically noted and limited on the submitted site plan named below, and;
3. A side yard setback variance of 4.8’, 5.2’ existing, 5.2’ proposed, 10’ required. – EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Reference is made to site plan titled “Boundary Map, 150 Bernardino Avenue, prepared for Michael Bernier, Enfield, CONN, (and dated) 4-8-05, Rev. 11-3-05”, showing existing and proposed conditions as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2005-11-01.
Mr. Furey stated in the 1940’s and 1950’s, this property was Rossi’s vegetable stand. The front was like a porch area and he was unaware when the property became a house. Mr. Furey’s concern is this piece of property is so close to Route 5. There are a lot of trucks exiting the highway to go south that go by this property.
Chairman Yarum stated he also visited the property. The front of the property faces Bernardino Avenue. The driveway into the property is on Bernardino but there is also an ingress and egress on Route 5. He is not concerned that much about the traffic flow on Bernardino and felt leaving the property would be similar to any other homeowner coming out on to Route 5 in the area. Anyone visiting a business will have to pull out on to Route 5 as well. Chairman Yarum does not see this as a traffic concern or a safety issue because there are two means of ingress and egress from the property.
Mr. Furey stated his concern is this property is too close to the road. He gave other examples such as cars hitting the barn in the area of Carson’s Farm on Enfield Street three times.
Mr. Rinaldi stated his concern is the negative front yard variance of minus 3.3’. He thought there has to be some mechanism in place to ensure that the applicant would go to the DOT to get a permit to build in the state right of way.
Mr. Giner stated it is clear this applicant will have to have an approval for whatever is done in the state right of way. There is a carport there now. They would be shoring up what is there now. However, when this has occurred in the past, the DOT has required people to come in and get permission for such improvements. Mr. Rinaldi stated it was his intent to bring this to the applicant’s attention. Mr. Giner stated this application would also have to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission for a special use permit. The applicant cannot make application for such a special use permit without the variance. The applicant would have to go to the Connecticut DOT and get their approval for any improvements made. Mr. Rinaldi noted such permits are available in Rocky Hill, Connecticut.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
Mr. Alexander stated the reason for approval is in order to comply with the regulations of the town, the applicant is joining two buildings to make them one which would thereby comply with the requirements.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Rinaldi, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
John LeDoux, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr