ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 26, 2005
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, September 26, 2005 in the Town Hall Council Chambers, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
John Rinaldi
Edward Furey
David Alexander, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Alexander, to approve the Minutes of July 25, 2005. The Minutes were approved by a 4 – 0 – 0 vote.
CORRESPONDENCE / STAFF REPORT
Chairman Yarum noted the Board has received the September and October Town Attorney’s reports. He reminded the Board that the issue involving the ZBA is privileged and communication should be between Board members and the attorney.
NEW BUSINESS - NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
SUITABILITY OF LOCATION [new or used car sales, general repairer license, limited repairer license, gasoline service stations]
NONE - final month as Local Authority prior to new statute effective date of Oct. 2005
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chris Brenner, General Manager of Lia Honda, appeared before the Board regarding this variance request.
Mr. Brenner stated because of the growth of Lia Auto Group and the increased volume in their Service Department, they are requesting a variance of 3% impervious coverage in order to operate their business properly. He stated the amount of cars that are loaded and unloaded on the site is not only for their dealership but for Lia Volkswagen, Lia Nissan, Lia Hundai and, occasionally, Gale Toyota, as a favor in the winter months. Their intent is to prevent trucks from loading and unloading vehicles on the street. Mr. Brenner stated there is also a safety issue involved.
Mr. Brenner stated when the pavement is removed, it makes it so that forty-three parking spaces are removed. He noted in a dealership with their high volume, they must carry an inventory of 150 to 200 new cars and about 100 used cars. When you take that amount and add it to the number of lease turn-ins dropped off at this dealership and parked behind their building, the 120 per day service customers that come and go with parking on the right side and the 60 or so employee vehicles, it makes it impossible to carry the necessary inventory to conduct business and to grow this business. They will have no choice without this variance but to encroach on the vehicle loading area which is already quite tight.
Mr. Brenner stated this property is the only property on Palomba Drive that has an access easy enough for a tractor trailer carrying anywhere from nine to twelve vehicles to come in, stop in the vehicle unloading area, unload, drive out and get back on the highway with as little traffic disruption as possible.
Mr. Brenner stated his wife is a paramedic and volunteers in Enfield. She has expressed a concern at this dealership because she is afraid of what would happen when there is a large amount of inventory on the site. This occurs typically in the winter. She questions how a fire truck would be able to get behind this building in an emergency. This space would free up a whole lot of space where traffic moves and that is the reason for the 3% variance request.
Chairman Yarum stated in reading the application, he is under the impression that everything that is in bold print is what is being requested. Mr. Brenner stated that is incorrect. He pointed out the proposed change on the site plan. He stated the islands are completed and those were done approximately two months ago. They surround the light poles. He pointed out the area on the plans where the variance request is being made.
Mr. Brenner stated if the area on the plans he pointed out which is now grass was turned into pavement, it would solve the problem. He further noted that the Lia Honda dealership is further back from the street than the dealerships on the other side of the street.
Mr. Rinaldi asked what the initial approval involved. Mr. Brenner stated the size of the building was increased slightly during the renovation to conform to Honda’s requirements. They did not touch the Service Department area. There is grass on either side and one area is paved and one is not in the canopy area. He pointed out the employee parking on the site plan.
Mr. Thorogood stated the Honda and Nissan dealerships switched locations recently. Mr. Brenner confirmed this and stated Nissan is now at 10 Palomba. He added he does not regularly park cars on grass because it is an environmental problem. He admitted he has had to do so in the past because of lack of space. They are very careful in terms of the inventory they order so they don’t have to triple park cars. He reiterated the emergency vehicle issue and the loading and unloading of vehicles is the reason for requesting this variance.
Chairman Yarum stated the original site plan shows large oblong islands. Mr. Brenner stated those were never built. Chairman Yarum asked if they received approval to build the smaller islands with the lights. Mr. Brenner stated he believes that was approved at a prior meeting and he was not in attendance. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he did not consider the islands. He further noted the map being used is an old map and he doesn’t think it has been updated. Mr. Brenner stated he is only looking for a small strip. The area is currently pavement. Mr. Alsbaugh noted the curb line was never moved and that was approved by Planning and Zoning as part of the original approval to move it. The only actual area of impervious coverage to be added is that current curb line that comes along the black one and then goes south and west. Mr. Brenner confirmed this and pointed out the existing curb on the site plan. By removing the small space on the site plan that says “loam and seed”, it would solve the problem. The intent is to leave the area the way it is.
Mr. Alsbaugh asked if there is anything else on the site plan that has to do with the impervious coverage request and Mr. Brenner confirmed the item he mentioned is the only request. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the proposed motion will have to be revised to indicate the shaded area. Chairman Yarum stated the Board does not know if that is equivalent to three percent. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board has to go by what Mr. Forish originally submitted in the application and they should make their decision based on the veracity of the information submitted. In additional discussion, Mr. Alsbaugh stated the percentage had been changed to two percent.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated this application was made somewhat confusing by the use of an old map of the site dated 2004. Mr. Brenner stated correspondence on this application would go to Forish Construction but he would like to be copied on any correspondence. Regarding who signed the application, Mr. Brenner stated it may be William Lia.
Mr. Brenner stated he is not here to compare businesses but they have anywhere from two to twelve car carriers a day come through this parking lot. Today there is no one unloading cars on the street and if they attempt to do so, they are stopped. The whole reason for this variance request is so that they have a place to unload the cars and so that emergency vehicles can get in to the site in the event of a fire. Mr. Brenner cited the additional problems they will face in the winter because every time it snows, the lot shrinks.
Chairman Yarum stated Mr. Brenner stated he allows other Lia dealerships to use this lot for vehicle unloading vehicles as well as Gale Toyota as a courtesy. Mr. Brenner stated Gale Toyota does not do it as a habit but occasionally particularly in the winter months.
Chairman Yarum questioned if the other Lia dealerships have sufficient area to bring tractor trailers to their sites. Mr. Brenner stated Lia Nissan unloads their parts into a delivery box truck that is permanently parked on Lia’s property because they cannot get the truck in or out. Mr. Brenner stated this is true of all the other dealerships. Lia Honda is loading and unloading for all the dealerships, both cars and parts and accessory products.
Mr. Brenner pointed out on the site plan the front of the building and noted the left hand side which states nine striped parking spaces. He stated there is a wall there. Right there is supposed to be where a tractor trailer can back up into and unload cars, oil and other items. They cannot back down there because there is nowhere for them to get out now.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if the vehicles are presently being unloaded in the area that says “vehicle unloading area.” Mr. Brenner stated that is correct. There is enough room to get two vehicles side by side and they have parked their cars that way so that people could drive in or out. The location where it says “vehicle unloading area” or a little bit to the right is the area where the vehicles are unloaded. The truck drivers pull their truck up as far as they can to where they exit and they back the cars out and park them right where it states 6966SF Display (on the site plan). They back them up and park them there and then they are moved to the appropriate areas.
Mr. Rinaldi asked what will occur if the variance is not granted. Mr. Brenner stated there are no cars in the 6966 area right now. If there were cars in that spot, the tractor trailer driver would have nowhere to unload the vehicles. If his truck was there, there would be no way for another vehicle to get by. What they did is they took that little area and they leave it open. If you drive through the lot now, there is 40’ between where the cars are parked on the front line and where the first two light poles are. The area remains open for unloading the vehicles. If this variance is not granted, that space will all be taken up by cars and there will be double rows of cars resulting in no space for a tractor trailer driver to back up the cars and it will cause a problem.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if the variance is granted and they had parking spaces in three rows, would the parking spaces in the area where it says 6966 square feet be eliminated and would it be designated for loading only. Mr. Brenner stated that is what they are doing now. Mr. Rinaldi asked if they are parking spaces right now. Mr. Brenner stated technically they could be considered parking spaces but it really depends on the current inventory situation. In the winter there are more cars on the lot resulting in a tighter parking lot situation.
Mr. Rinaldi asked how many parking spaces will be added. Mr. Brenner stated none because it is what is there right now. Mr. Rinaldi asked if parking spaces exist right now where it says “loam and seed.” Mr. Brenner stated that is correct. Mr. Rinaldi asked how many will be eliminated if they have to loam and seed the area. Mr. Brenner responded fifty spaces along the line plus the ones that are on the ends. Looking at the lot today, there are trucks parked in one area, an alley way and cars that are parked. He pointed out the loam and seed area and noted there is a big alley way there where a fire truck could access the site right now. If the loam and seed area is done and a curb installed, it will make the lot shrink to a point where it is almost useless. While it would not add any parking spaces, it will eliminate some and make business difficult.
Chairman Yarum noted there are no audience members present to speak. He closed this public hearing.
Mr. Thorogood made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the request for an impervious coverage variance of 2 %, 65% existing, 68% proposed, 66% allowed, in order to go forward with an as yet un-submitted site plan modification application - EZO Section 5.10 Table.
Reference is made to a site plan titled “Site Plan Modification, PH #2466 (old #, not new modification application), LIA Honda Dealership, 20 Palomba Drive, Enfield, Connecticut, Prepared for LIA Auto Group, J. R. Russo & Associates, Sheet 1 of 1 (and dated) 7-20-04, revised 9-9-04”, and stamped “Received Planning Department Enfield - Sep - 8, 2005”, showing a highlighted area for proposed conditions by the applicant as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2005-09-01.
Mr. Thorogood stated there are two major issues for the Board to consider. The first is the emergency vehicles and safety. He is familiar with the area and it is a little tight. Opening up the area by not going through with the loam and seed and eliminating the couple of spaces on the corner will give more access all the way around. He stated even with two lanes going down Palomba Drive, it is still tight. Granting the variance and opening up the area would address the safety issue.
Mr. Furey stated he thinks the request is reasonable and conforms to what other people have requested. His primary concern is the safety issue for people using Palomba Drive and also the safety on the adjoining property. Nothing much will change on the site because the loam and seed was never completed.
Mr. Alexander stated he agrees regarding the safety issues. There’s a lot of traffic on Palomba Drive and unloading the vehicles on the street creates a dangerous situation. The applicant did make a strong argument on why the variance should be granted. Mr. Alexander does not think the two percent is unreasonable and the space would be used for unloading the vehicles and also for access by fire trucks if an emergency did occur.
Mr. Rinaldi stated safety sounds like an issue and it is a minimal request but what is to prevent the next owner from filling this spot with cars as parking spaces. Mr. Rinaldi suggested a condition to maintain the area as an emergency access because the main issue seems to be safety.
Chairman Yarum stated he is not sure if it is safety for that area as much as it is safety for another parking area. By not using this, he can then use that area. To have a truck unloading vehicles in the vehicle unloading area and to have a number of cars in the same area is a safety issue. Mr. Rinaldi stated he is not referring to only the loam and seed area but he is questioning what is to prevent another owner in the future from filling every possible space with parked cars rather than keeping anything open that would add to the safety.
Mr. Thorogood stated there are still requirements from the Fire Department for emergency access. He understands that opening this area up gives more space for the loading and unloading process. The applicant would be eliminating any type of loading or unloading in the street and that is the issue.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the seventeen parking spaces would not have to be utilized by leaving the bituminous pavement and in that way the unloading area would be wider. If someone else came in and parked where it says “loam and seed” and then added 17 cars, it would reduce the unloading area.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated there are two issues. The strip along the south side of the parking area is really not a safety or fire access issue. Fire access is for around the building. Regarding being concerned with trying to condition the permanent removal of those seventeen spaces, Mr. Alsbaugh does not think the issue is to get rid of them but to give options. The applicant may have to use them when there are more cars on the lot. What the applicant is talking about is leaving the seventeen spaces available for loading and unloading cars and picking up additional spaces on the south side. It is not a matter of permanently confining parking options to particular areas but to open up options necessary to maintain the off street loading and unloading.
Mr. Rinaldi stated his concern would be if this variance was granted, what if all of a sudden there is a large inventory and all the area that was to be loamed and seeded has cars and then the seventeen spots in the loading area have cars. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this could happen but the Board needs to keep in mind that the final site plan approval would go to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a modification of the site plan. If the dealership then exceeds the capacity that is approved, that is between the Planning and Zoning Commission and the owner of the property. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the only thing he can see happening tonight is opening up a slightly larger set of options for moving things around on the site.
Mr. Rinaldi stated with the Artioli situation, the Board granted a variance due to loading and unloading but it was the adjacent property that was newly purchased. They knew they were going to move their cars over to the adjacent lot so that it would free up the area for loading and unloading and it would not have to take place on the street.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated on an individual basis, the Board cannot anticipate all the possible scenarios. The potential exists for the abuse of an approved site plan and that would be dealt with by Planning and Zoning. The Board has to decide whether this application meets the criteria for the variance.
Mr. Rinaldi stated safety is not coverage but it is use and the Board is considering safety.
Chairman Yarum stated the Board has had a number of applications where the regulations have been looked at as well as the safety issues involved in those regulations. The applicant before the Board is stating he has a safety concern. This is what he is addressing and safety is the issue. It is not whether the spaces will be used temporarily at any other time when they are not unloading. He has a safety issue and if he brings a tractor trailer in there filled with vehicles, it creates problems.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated he understands Board members’ reluctance because it is obvious from the conditions that the site does at certain times during the year come to full capacity. He stressed that is an issue that they will have to deal with before Planning and Zoning.
Chairman Yarum commented on his personal experiences at the Nissan dealership noting since the two garages changed locations, there is a difference in the access to the site and there is no way emergency vehicles would be able to get by.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
The reasons for approval were safety, there were no negative impacts and it is consistent with the area. Also, it is the minimum required to address the issue of safety.
The Board made a request that a map that has been highlighted in the same manner as the one in the file be forwarded to the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission for the eventual application to avoid confusion. Mr. Alsbaugh noted the variance has been granted in reference to the map that was submitted and there is a need to make sure that the map that the Board looked at and the area that was approved transfers correctly to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairman Yarum initialed the map in the file and another to go to the eventual PZC application file.
ZBA 2005-09-02 - Richard & Martha Dziadul Doak, Applicants and Owners, 82 Middle Rd., Map 65 / Lot 92, R-44 Zone, requesting a frontage variance of 55 ft. (120 ft. proposed, 120 ft. existing, 175 ft. required) to allow further subdivision of the parcel - EZO Section 4.10 Table
This application was withdrawn on September 19, 2005.
OTHER BUSINESS
· Review of Yearly Report comments re the ZBA
· Picture taking for the Yearly Report
· Update: Front porches & lake overlay zones for accessory structures
Mr. Alsbaugh reported the Planning and Zoning Commission has started the process and requested information from the Planning Office on the front porch issue. At the same time, he expects they will forward the issues for the possible lake overlay zones to deal with the accessory structures. Mr. Alsbaugh will keep the Board informed.
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Alexander, to approve the 2006 Meeting Dates for the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
Some discussion followed about possible dates for the upcoming litigation. Mr. Alsbaugh will check on this with the Town Attorney’s Office.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Alexander, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
John LeDoux, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr