ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
JULY 25, 2005
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, July 25, 2005 in the Council Chambers, Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. Chairman Peter Yarum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Peter Yarum, Chairman
Edward Furey
John Rinaldi
Elizabeth Ballard (left the meeting at 7:30 p.m.)
David Alexander, Alternate
Paul Thorogood, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
MINUTES
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Alexander, to approve the Minutes of June 27, 2005. The Minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.
CORRESPONDENCE / STAFF REPORT
Chairman Yarum stated Correspondence includes the Town Attorney’s report for July. He added the information regarding Kaplan vs. ZBA is privileged. Also, there is a memo from Roger Alsbaugh to the Zoning Board of Appeals members regarding the Annual Report. Pictures will be taken for the Annual Report and Chairman Yarum asked that all members be present for the September meeting when the Board’s photograph will be taken.
NEW BUSINESS - NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
SUITABILITY OF LOCATION [new or used car sales, general repairer license, limited repairer license, gasoline service stations]
ZBA 2005-07-04 – 809 Enfield Street, LLC d.b.a. Artioli Used Cars, 809 Enfield Street, Map 29 / Lot 72, BG Zone: Request for Certificate of Suitability – Used Car Dealer License. – CGS Section 14-54 and EZO Section 11.00C. (NOTE: Amendment Sec. 70 to the state budget affecting suitability of location statutes reinstates the ZBA as the required approver of a certificate of location. Sec. 10 of the original PA 03-184 remains in effect; that section repealed CGS 14-55 that required a public hearing.)
Dana Steele from J. R. Russo appeared before the Board regarding this application. He stated he is the engineer who prepared the site plan for the car dealership to be located at 809 Enfield Street. This property was at one time a car dealership. It was formerly a Brake King and has received approval again for a car dealership from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Steele is present this evening representing the Artioli family. They are requesting approval of this location for a car dealership which at this time will be known as Artioli Used Cars. It may also have a name brand at some time in the future.
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, to approve the request for a Certificate of Suitability – Used Car Dealer License. – CGS Section 14-54 and EZO Section 11.00C., for the operation of a Used Vehicle Dealer License under the applicant’s ownership. Said operation is to be at the described location [809 Enfield Street], as delineated on the site plan submitted with the application, and as conditioned under Enfield Planning & Zoning Commission Special Use Permit PH #2454.
Reference is made to a plan sheet titled “SITE PLAN, Proposed Change of Use Motor Vehicle Sales Facility, 809 Enfield Street, Enfield, CT, Prepared for 809 Enfield Street, LLC, 525 Enfield Street, Enfield, CT”, Sheet 1 of 3, Scale: 1”=20’, by J. R. Russo & Associates, dated 5-19-04, revised to 8-2-04, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA2005-07-04. The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Ballard and Thorogood voting.
NEW BUSINESS - PUBLIC HEARING(S) / PROCEDURAL & POLICY STATEMENTS BY CHAIRMAN (Legal Notices for the following public hearings were published in the Journal Enquirer on Wednesday, July 13, 2005, and Monday, July 18, 2005.)
Dave Fredrick, representing Ridgewood Homes of CT LLC, appeared before the Board regarding this application. They are requesting a variance on two lots at the end of Yale Court. The regulations require 150’ of frontage for an R-33 lot. They are requesting a frontage variance of 43.1’ or a reduction in frontage to 106.9’. In all other respects, these two lots will meet the R-33 requirements. They are meeting the side yard, front yard and back yard requirements. The end of Yale Court is now terminated by a street going in. They are proposing a cul-de-sac going into these two proposed lots. Mr. Fredrick has discussed this proposal with John Cabibbo. He felt this proposal will be favorably received because it will enable the town to bring in refuse and emergency vehicles when needed.
Mr. Fredrick stated in 1996 he made a similar request on Campania Road where he requested a variance for four lots from 150’ to 115’. That variance was granted and the information is included in the meeting packet. Mr. Fredrick has done additional research and found out that the average lot in this neighborhood is approximately 11,000 square feet. They are proposing two lots that will be approximately three acres or well in excess of the R-33 requirement. Mr. Fredrick added his additional research showed that in 1997 there were two lots created on Yale Court. The two lots requested were 2 Yale Court owned by Jason and Mrs. Haley with a frontage request of 108’ and 4 Yale Court with a frontage requested of 140.59’. Mr. Fredrick stated these are the same numbers he is requesting with this application.
Mr. Fredrick stated the request this evening is consistent with requests that were made in the past and granted by the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Rinaldi stated it mentions on the subdivision plan that there are angular lines and he asked if those are actually the property lines. Mr. Fredrick confirmed that they are. He thought that the frontage would be literally measured from north to south but that is not the case. His surveyor indicated that the dimensions are perpendicular to the radius of the cul-de-sac and this is why the Board has been given revised figures this evening which are 106.9’ and 138.3’ for the two frontages.
Mr. Fredrick stated he mailed the neighbors correspondence in which he informed them of what is being proposed on Yale Court. He did receive some phone calls from the neighbors and they seemed to be fairly satisfied with his openness.
Chairman Yarum asked if the cul-de-sac being proposed abuts the rear yard of abutting property owners Carl and Sherry Rinaldi. Mr. Fredrick stated he believes so. The distance between the cul-de-sac and their home is quite a distance but Mr. Fredrick did not have the exact figure. He estimated it is over 100’.
Mr. Thorogood stated he viewed this area and the property is almost 300’ in the back and there is a lot of room. He initially had a concern about this but the abutting house is centrally located or right in the middle of the lot.
Chairman Yarum stated the abutting property at 3 Yale Court has a frontage of 89.1’, R-5, and R-2 is 105’. Mr. Fredrick confirmed that R-5 is 2 Yale Court and L-5 is 4 Yale Court.
Mr. Alexander questioned the permanent easement that comes off Yale Court and whether it is created by this variance or has it been there. Mr. Fredrick stated that is a permanent sewer easement from the back of the Enfield Montessori School south to Yale Court.
Mr. Fredrick requested that the street cards he submitted tonight be entered into the record of this hearing.
Mr. Thorogood asked about the size of the proposed homes. Mr. Fredrick stated they could be 3,000’ square foot colonials. The intent is to propose a building envelope of 30’ front to back, 48’ wide with a two-car garage L-shaped off the front 24’ x 24’ and in the back a Florida room 20’ x 30’. The options are they could be large colonials or they could also be raised ranches.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the public.
Sherry Rinaldi, 1390 Enfield Street, stated when they purchased their home, on the back property line of their home there was a Schedule 'A' attached to the property that included a 50’ buffer from their property line to where the proposed cul-de-sac is located on the westerly side. Paperwork was included that no structure would be built. The other stipulation was that should emergency vehicles go into the area, they could not get another access out and they were going to purchase 50’ of the Rinaldi property on the side between the two homes. Ms. Rinaldi’s question is from their back property line with the 50’ buffer, is the cul-de-sac going to go further back or to the west or will the 50’ set aside be taken by this development. Ms. Rinaldi stated she was not sure the Board had this paperwork or was aware of it.
Mr. Fredrick responded to Ms. Rinaldi’s questions and stated she is referring to the Alaimo contract that does not exist because the application for the Alaimo subdivision was never a reality for whatever reason. He added if one were to take a look at the proposed two-lot subdivision, one can see the end of the Rinaldi property and it is almost 300’ from Enfield Street to the dotted line going north and south at the east end of the cul-de-sac area. As one can see, there’s an area that is indicated as north and south 250.58’, 62.36’ on the south side and that is to be retained by the developer. Mr. Fredrick added in terms of emergency apparatus, this is proposed to be a traditional cul-de-sac and will eventually be able to accommodate emergency vehicles and town vehicles that require access.
Ms. Rinaldi stated this is not answering her question. She showed Board members the documents she has. Her concern is what will be located behind her. She read from the agreement stating that “the grantors or successors and assigns agree in covenant not to construct any sheds, buildings or other like housing structures within 50’ of the westerly boundary of the property herein conveyed.” She noted this stipulation was put in place when they purchased their home. Mr. Fredrick asked who Ms. Rinaldi had the agreement with and she responded that she assumed the people she purchased the house from. She read further from the agreement which states “in the event that the grantors elect to exercise said option, they agree to notify the grantees, their heirs, etc. consideration for the conveyance at $50,000 at each occurrence.” Ms. Rinaldi added it had to be built by 1992. She stated the two stipulations she has outlined were two separate stipulations when they purchased the property. Her question is looking at her back property line on the westerly side and the location of the proposed cul-de-sac, there is not 50’ and if they went in 50’ from their property, it would be cutting into the proposed cul-de-sac. Ms. Rinaldi asked if the proposed cul-de-sac would be pushed back because of this stipulation or is this null and void. Also, with the drainage and piping presently in the area, will the proposed cul-de-sac impact that so that flooding continues down Broadleaf. She stated there is a tremendous flooding problem in the area.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board should review the documents from Ms. Rinaldi. From what she read about structures, Mr. Alsbaugh did not think that applies to a road. That same issue came up with the new cul-de-sac that went in at the bottom of Bridge Lane where someone’s side yard became a front yard. Mr. Alsbaugh suspects that if this does become an issue, it is something that Planning and Zoning would be dealing with and not this Board. Any issue that Ms. Rinaldi would have on the appropriateness of a subdivision and its components would be before Planning and Zoning. The application tonight is to decide if there is a hardship that exists for the variance being requested. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he will forward the documents from Ms. Rinaldi to the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission.
Ms. Rinaldi asked if their 50’ buffer be taken away from them. Mr. Alsbaugh stated what he is hearing tonight is Ms. Rinaldi has a 50’ buffer under a contract with a previous landowner which seems to be a condition of a subsequent approval of a subdivision that never happened.
Ms. Rinaldi stated there are two separate stipulations. She presented the documents to Chairman Yarum. Ms. Rinaldi further noted that Schedule A is also on their mortgage agreement which they signed.
Ms. Ballard left the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and Mr. Alexander will be the Alternate voting in place in Ms. Ballard.
Chairman Yarum stated this Board is deciding a variance request from Mr. Fredrick which would allow him to go forward to the next approval step with Planning and Zoning. Whether or not there is a buffer and whether or not there is a 50’ right of way within that area are Planning and Zoning Commission issues. If Mr. Fredrick’s application is approved tonight, he will go before the Planning and Zoning Commission at which time Ms. Rinaldi should be present to notify Planning and Zoning of the documents she has. Ms. Rinaldi asked that she be notified of this Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this will not be on the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda until September at which time it will be accepted and scheduled for a public hearing at a later date.
Chairman Yarum asked if Ms. Rinaldi would like the information she submitted to be included as part of the Planning and Zoning Commission packet. She stated she would.
Chairman Yarum entered into the record the Schedule A and related documents submitted by Mrs. Rinaldi showing a conveyance in regard to the abutting property.
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Thorogood, to approve the request for a frontage variance of 43.1 ft. (106.9 ft. proposed Lot ‘A’, 150 ft. required) and a frontage variance of 11.7 ft. (138.3 ft. proposed Lot ‘B’, 150 ft. required) for a proposed subdivision of the subject parent lot - EZO Section 4.10 Table
Reference is made to a site plan titled "Subdivision Plan for Ridgewood Homes of Connecticut, LLC, Fredrick / Tallarita, Yale Court, Enfield, CT 06082, L. P. Consultants, Gary B. LeClair, Licensed Land Surveyor, LLC, sheet 1 of 1, and dated7-05-05", showing existing and proposed conditions by the applicant as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2005-07-01.
John Rinaldi agreed with staff and stated the Board is looking at a variance request and any subdivision approval is the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission at which time Ms. Rinaldi’s concerns will be addressed. He noted these are proposed Lot A and proposed Lot B. There are over 20 abutting lots to this property right now that have frontage under 70’. The area is unique in its shape due to the cul-de-sac and the Board should consider the safety of this cul-de-sac for emergency vehicles.
Chairman Yarum felt this Board should always consider safety as an issue when it affects the general public.
John Rinaldi stated considering the over 20 abutting lots with a frontage under 70’, this is not inconsistent with the surrounding properties.
Chairman Yarum concurred and also noted if you look at what is on Yale Court, there is no property that is over 105’ in frontage.
Mr. Thorogood added the consistency is there. Both lots seem to exceed the overall plan of Yale Court and complete it. Mr. Thorogood also felt the legal document presented by Mrs. Rinaldi should be reviewed by Planning and Zoning. The request is two homes and this meets certain criteria which finishes off this area.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote with Alternates Alexander and Thorogood voting.
The reason for approval is the approved variance is consistent with the neighborhood , consistent with previous requests, and there is a uniqueness in shape due to a cul-de-sac. Public safety is also a consideration.
ZBA 2005-07-02 - Benderson Property Development & Sullivan Hayes Companies NE, Applicants, and Town of Enfield, Owner, Phoenix Ave., Map 45 / Lot 12, BR Zone, requesting a landscape buffer variance of 40 ft. (10 ft. proposed, 50 ft. required); a front yard variance of 30 ft. (70 ft. proposed, 100 ft. required); and a minimum building size variance of 15,000-sq. ft. (65,000-sq. ft. proposed, 80,000-sq. ft. required) to construct a hotel, restaurant, and related amenities - EZO Sections 10.10.7.A.iii & 5.10 Table.
Attorney Susan Hays, Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, appeared before the Board along with Dan Bragnini of Sullivan Hayes Companies regarding this application. She presented a signed affidavit to Mr. Alsbaugh stating the proper posting of the public hearing signs.
Attorney Hays stated they are seeking three variances. This property is the last parcel left in the Industrial Park and she provided the complete location to the Board. She stated they have been working with the town since 1999 with respect to the proposed development of the parcel. They applied for in 2001 and obtained an inland wetlands permit for the site which they had extended a couple of times. They are back in front of the Wetlands Commission again because the plan has changed somewhat since 1999.
Attorney Hays stated the variances they are requesting are in the area where there is a dedicated right turn lane from Hazard Avenue on to Phoenix Avenue. In the BR zone, if you have a parking lot of 100 spaces or more, there is a requirement for a 50’ setback of the parking from the edge of the right of way. In addition, in the BR zone, the building setback is 100’. She noted the property line on the plans and pointed out the edge of the pavement measured from the property line. What they have at their closest point is about ten feet from the edge of the property line. If you measure it from the edge of the paved area, they are almost 50’ along the entire frontage with the exception of a few areas where it goes below 50’. Attorney Hays pointed out the building line on the plans and stated they had requested a reduction from 100’ to 70’. She added she was being very conservative in determining that because she was unsure how people would calculate what constituted the building. This does include the entrance area and the vestibule and the paved waiting area outside the front entrance. The actual building itself is probably about 85’.
Attorney Hays stated the third variance being requested is a minimum size requirement. The BR zone has a minimum size requirement of 80,000 square feet. They are requesting to have that decreased to 65,000 square feet.
Attorney Hays stated the reason for all of these variances is the site itself is 18.67 acres but the blue line on the plans delineates the edge of the wetlands. She pointed out the extent of the wetlands and stated there are small areas of uplands in two areas which she noted on the plans. The developed portion of the site is 2.35 acres and the impervious surface coverage on the site is approximately thirteen percent of the site.
Attorney Hays stated because of the location of the wetlands, the only developable area of the site is in a corner of the property. There are wetlands in this area also but they are isolated wetlands that are of marginal quality. In 2001 the Inland Wetlands Commission did approve the filling of these isolated wetlands areas provided that there was ‘one for one’ mitigation in connection with that filling.
Attorney Hays stated their hardship is the fact that approximately seventy-five percent of the site is wetlands. The abutting area is pretty much all developed. She pointed out the edge of pavement and stated they will be meeting the buffer requirement or have the look of the buffer requirement because of the distance from the edge of the pavement. It would blend in with the other areas and Attorney Hays is unsure if there is anything along Hazard Avenue that has those buffer requirements because it’s been developed for some time and those requirements are fairly new.
Mr. Furey asked to see the map presented by the applicant. He stated his concern is the area coming off the ramp.
Attorney Hays pointed out the area that will be an area of wetland mitigation. There is a stream and they will be restoring that and planting wetlands plantings and doing restoration. Other than a temporary road of about 600 square feet to get through the area, there won’t be any work done in this area.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he is assuming the 50’ parking setback variance is only granted for the actual parking spaces and not the entire property. Mr. Alsbaugh confirmed this to be the case. Attorney Hays stated the applicant would have no issues being tied into the plan that was submitted. Mr. Alsbaugh stated this Board has dealt with such areas specifically and motions have always been crafted to take that into consideration.
Chairman Yarum opened this hearing to the public. No one spoke in favor or against this application. Chairman Yarum closed this public hearing.
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Alexander, to approve the request for a landscape buffer variance of 40 ft. (10 ft. proposed, 50 ft. required); a front yard variance of 30 ft. (70 ft. proposed, 100 ft. required); and a minimum building size variance of 15,000-sq. ft. (65,000-sq. ft. proposed, 80,000-sq. ft. required) to construct a hotel, restaurant, and related amenities - EZO Sections 10.10.7.A.iii & 5.10 Table
Reference is made to a site plan titled "PROPOSED HOTEL COMPLEX, Phoenix & Hazard Avenue, Town of Enfield, Hartford County, Benderson Development Company, LLC, Property 4028JH1, (and dated) JAN. 24 2005 ", showing the site and the proposed locations of the requested variances under ZBA 2005-07-02.
Chairman Yarum noted that within the staff comments, Mr. Alsbaugh stated a map should be submitted with the formal Planning and Zoning application. Mr. Alsbaugh stated following approval of this variance, the actual site plan submitted under the Zoning Board of Appeals’ approval needs to be part of the official Planning and Zoning Commission submittal as well.
Mr. Rinaldi asked why the 50’ parking setback is that distance and why that regulation was put in place. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the intent was to screen a large parking area from the travel way. Mr. Rinaldi stated if safety is an issue, it would be appropriate within that section of the property that would be granted a variance to have a condition applied that there should not be any curb cuts.
Chairman Yarum questioned if they were looking for another curb cut, wouldn’t that be a separate application. Mr. Rinaldi stated it would be DOT permits for Hazard Avenue. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he thinks the placement of the driveway reflects the safety concerns of the Town Engineering Department, the DOT and the Police Department. He did not think this would be a safety issue but it would be more of an aesthetic issue. Mr. Alsbaugh added the Planning and Zoning Commission would be able to adjust their requirements for buffering materials if they feel there is an issue involved.
Mr. Rinaldi stated the majority of land to be buffered is a non access state right of way and he questioned the need to buffer compared to residential and stated it would be more for aesthetics. He is in favor of granting the variances.
Mr. Rinaldi asked about the square footage variance. Mr. Alsbaugh stated that covers the minimum footprint requirement. That requirement was intended to ensure the maximum utilization of a property zoned such as this. However, because of the extreme encumbrance of wetlands, a variance is being requested.
The motion was approved by a 5 – 0 – 0 vote.
Chairman Yarum requested that the scaled site drawing be submitted as part of the Planning and Zoning package.
Mr. Alsbaugh advised the applicant to submit this map to Planning and Zoning with the variances included on the final plan. Attorney Hays stated they have already made their submittal but they will make sure this plan is included prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing their application at the second meeting in September.
The reason for approval is the plan submitted is appropriate for the area taking care to develop the property by preserving the environmental concerns of the community, fulfilling the requirements of this unique area and taking into consideration the abutting state property.
ZBA 2005-07-03 - Reginald & Sally Leonard, Applicants / Owners, 42 Fairfield Rd., Map 53 / Lot 54, R-33 Zone, requesting a coverage variance of 3 %, 22% existing, 23% proposed, 20% allowed, to construct an 8’ by 13’ addition - EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Reginald and Sally Leonard appeared before the Board regarding this application along with Marcia Hildigran, their builder. Mr. Leonard stated they have been property owners at 42 Fairfield Road for forty-four years or since 1961. Their intent is to upgrade their bathroom to make it larger and more convenient to access. It will include a Jacuzzi whirlpool tub and walk-in shower. They would like to be able to stay where they are. They have neighbors on their left and right and they have no concerns with the proposed upgrade. Mr. Leonard presented a petition signed by the two neighbors on the left and the two neighbors on the right stating they have no problems with the Leonard’s proposed improvements.
Mr. Leonard stated he has some immediate health concerns. He has a handicapped sticker and a doctor’s notification of his health reasons. It would be therapeutic and beneficial for him to upgrade his property. Mr. Leonard stated he is a member of Health Trax and he uses their pool and their hot tub. Heat and pulsating water do more for his condition than any medication available. He goes there twice a day to use the hot tub.
Mr. Leonard stated his wife has been a health care professional for thirty-five years and a retired emergency room manager. He is also a just retired health care professional from Hartford Hospital after being the Director of Materials Management. The proposed variance will allow them to stay where they are and address health concerns.
Mr. Leonard stated as Mr. Alsbaugh notes, the calculations indicate a slight change. The existing coverage is 22.8’. The proposed is 23.6’ and that is only .8’ they are requesting.
In response to a question from Mr. Alexander, Mr. Leonard stated the proposed bathroom would be handicapped accessible.
Mr. Rinaldi stated when the Board grants a variance, it stays with the property. He focused on the property itself which extends to I-91. Mr. Leonard confirmed the property to the rear is wetlands and there have been attempts to develop it but they were rejected every time. The abutting property is fifty acres comprised of half industrial zoning and half residential. No one has attempted to build on this property in recent years because of the extent of the wetlands.
Chairman Yarum noted to the rear of the property, there is an addition. Ms. Leonard stated the existing sun room is 18’ x 22’ and then there is an 18’ x 18’ deck. This is over what the current zoning allows but it was allowable in 1993. Ms. Leonard stated they are now asking for an additional 104 square feet to complete the bathroom addition or .8%.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated there is an above ground pool on the property. Chairman Yarum added it is a 24’ pool and it is 452 square feet. The proposed addition is 8’ x 13’ or 104 square feet. Mr. Alsbaugh noted the above ground pool takes up some of the coverage.
Mr. Leonard stated when Ledger Starr was building he did not own the land in the back. There is a right of way buffer zone that Mr. Starr personally told him in 196 6 was there. This right of way is approximately 12’ to 15’ and runs the entire length of Fairfield Road. No one knows who owns it. It is not figured into any of these calculations. Mr. Leonard stated he has tried to find out the purpose and ownership from Planning and Zoning and they could not give him any information.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated you would have to go back and research all the deeds. They are usually farm access roads to wooded lots or land locked pieces or just a way to get across the land.
Ms. Leonard presented a signed affidavit regarding the sign.
Mr. Leonard presented two additional exhibits: a letter from his neighbors and a copy of his medical condition report.
Chairman Yarum opened this public hearing to the audience. 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 coverage variance of 3.6 %, 22.8% existing, 23.6% proposed, 20% allowed, to construct an 8’ by 13’ addition - EZO Section 4.10.2H
Reference is made to a hand drawn site plan from a building permit application form by Mr. and Mrs. Leonard, and stamped “Received Planning Department Enfield - July 8, 2005”, showing existing and proposed conditions by the applicant as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2005-07-03.
Mr. Thorogood stated the indication regarding the medical need and the information regarding the lack of impact to the neighbors are pertinent and safety and health are the two major issues. He doesn’t have any problem with approving this variance.
Mr. Rinaldi stated this is a prime example of a minimum variance request and the applicant is not requesting anything unreasonable.
Chairman Yarum stated another consideration is that the Board has seen this type of application in the past where someone owns a smaller lot but it has been rezoned R-33 or higher and the site coverage percentage is unrealistic. In addition, the Board has also seen where someone has come in with a disability and under state regulations disabilities are a priority in looking at hardships when you are granting a variance.
Mr. Thorogood stated the disability hardship is a major consideration and granting this variance would have no impact to the overall coverage when considering the area and the lot size. Also, the neighbors do not have a problem with this addition. Mr. Thorogood stated the proposed addition will not be visible and from a health standpoint, it would be a good move.
Mr. Furey added granting the proposed variance will not adversely affect anyone else’s property.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Furey made a motion, seconded by Mr. Alexander, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 8:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
John LeDoux, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr