ENFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2005
A Regular Meeting of the Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, April 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
Paul Thorogood, Alternate
ALSO PRESENT: Roger Alsbaugh, Assistant Town Planner
MINUTES
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to approve the Minutes of March 28, 2005. The Minutes were approved by a unanimous vote.
ZBA 2005-03-02 – Robert Chester, Applicant and Owner, 46 School Street, Map 92/Lot 15, R-33 Zone, requesting a side yard variance of 15’ (25’ existing, 10 feet proposed, 25 feet required) to construct an addition – EZO Section 4.10 Table.
This application was withdrawn.
ZBA 2005-03-03 – Leonard Shortz, Applicant and Owner, 10 Gammello Avenue, Map 34/Lot 104, R-33 Zone, requesting a side yard variance of 9’ (12’ existing, 1’proposed, 10’ required), and a coverage variance of 112.5% (25.4% existing, 32.5% proposed, 20% allowed) to construct a carport – EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Leonard Shortz appeared before the Commission regarding this application. He stated he is requesting a variance in order to make life easier for his wife during the winter months. He noted his wife is under prescribed medication for her heart, they have two cars and have lived in their home for over fifteen years. They are not looking to do anything that will downgrade the neighborhood.
Chairman Yarum asked what is the specific hardship. Mr. Shortz stated he doesn’t have enough room on the side of his home to build a garage or carport. Thus, the hardship is the size and configuration of his lot. They presently have a fairly long driveway and park their two cars side by side.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if there is any other possible location for the garage. Mr. Shortz cited the need for a two-car garage and noted it would take up too much of the lot area if the garage were located in the back yard. They are, therefore, requesting a variance to allow them to construct a carport.
Chairman Yarum asked when the Shortz home was built. Ms. Shortz stated it was built in 1990 and it is a modular home. Mr. Shortz stated this home was located on property owned by his father and given to him. Mr. Shortz added that the home to the west of his was built ten or eleven years ago.
Responding to questions from Chairman Yarum, Mr. Shortz stated that the deck was put on the home two years after his wife was hospitalized. There are now two decks and the second deck was built shortly after the first. Mr. Shortz confirmed that he did not get a variance for either of these decks.
Chairman Yarum noted this property was rezoned to R-33 in approximately 1987. He questioned the building permit process for Mr. Shortz’s property. He added that the existing setbacks would have been grandfathered when the zone was changed. Chairman Yarum observed Mr. Shortz previously stated that a detached garage on this property would require an even larger percentage of a coverage variance than what he is requesting tonight for a building with no permanent foundation. Chairman Yarum felt it is the lesser of what it would take for Mr. Shortz to deal with what he is proposing.
Chairman Yarum asked if the variance is granted and in the future the property owner decides to enclose the carport and make it a permanent garage, what is the process. Mr. Alsbaugh stated depending on whether things were being changed structurally, it would require a building permit. If the variance is granted for the carport and no conditions are placed on it, there would not be any issues as far as the Building Department and zoning official are concerned.
Mr. Rinaldi stated that Mr. Shortz has other properties on the street and it appears like the property that is the subject of this application has 70’ to 80’ of frontage. Mr. Shortz confirmed that the existing homes on the street are all about the same size but that he has a little more frontage.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if the other property previously owned by Mr. Shortz’s father, an existing frame house with a 10’ setback, has had any additions. Mr. Shortz stated there have been no changes.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he sees a uniqueness because the applicant owns both properties. He asked if this Board can legally consider this. He added that Mr. Shortz proposes to go almost right up to the line with this variance request.
Mr. Alsbaugh stated the ownership goes with the property and is not relevant regarding a variance. As far as legality, granting of a variance has nothing to do with the person who owns the property.
Mr. Rinaldi asked if this Board could propose an agreement to keep the 10’ on the other property. Mr. Alsbaugh stated the Board can impose conditions on this decision but not on an abutting property.
Mr. Rinaldi noted that if the variance is granted and the property next door is sold, one would not be able to put up a ladder or a scaffold to maintain the carport because there would be only a 1’ setback.
Mr. Alsbaugh gave as an example fences and the fact that applicants for such fences are told they have the right to install such a fence right on their property line. However, the staff recommends putting a fence back one to two feet so that property owners do not have to go on another’s property to maintain the fence. Mr. Alsbaugh noted this is a civil issue and not something for this Board to consider.
Mr. Thorogood asked how wide the stairs are. Mr. Shortz responded approximately three feet and they go down towards the driveway and the road.
Mr. Furey stated the proposed carport is 14’ x 35’. He asked if the cars would be parked one behind the other.
Mr. Shortz responded to additional comments and stated they like their house. The requested variance is just to make it easier for both his wife and himself. They also want their home to look good.
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 the request for a 9’ variance of the side yard setback (1’ proposed, 12’ existing, 10’ required), and a coverage variance of 12.5% (25.4% existing, 32.5% proposed, 20% allowed) to allow the addition of a carport to the main structure/dwelling – EZO Section 4.10.2H.
Reference is made to two site plans, one titled “#1 Map Submitted by Mr. Shortz, 3/10/05 – RA”, and one titled “#2 Site Plan drawing submitted by Mr. Shortz, 3/10/05 – RA”, showing existing and proposed conditions by the applicant as submitted for this application, and to all documentation and discussion under ZBA 2005-03-03.
Mr. Rinaldi stated his concern is regarding the very small side setback that would remain after the reduction the applicant is requesting.
Chairman Yarum stated in his opinion part of this has been self-imposed given that the lot is small to begin with and the home is very large for this lot. According to the applicant’s testimony, it was a home built for him under his specifications. As far as the site coverage, the decks were added on which in turn put the applicant over the twenty percent mark. In Chairman Yarum’s opinion, this is self-imposed.
Mr. Thorogood stated while he sees the concern about one foot remaining, the carport is pretty much open alleviating some of the health and safety issues.
Mr. Furey noted the applicant does own both properties at this time but that could change quickly. He proposed a condition that the proposed carport cannot be converted to a garage.
Mr. Rinaldi added the primary issue here is the property itself because this variance would stay with the property.
The variance was denied by a 1 – 3 – 0 vote. Mr. Thorogood voted in favor. Chairman Yarum, Mr. Rinaldi and Mr. Furey voted against. The reason for denial is the hardship is self-imposed.
Further discussion followed on other precedent setting cases that have come before this Board.
CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Alsbaugh noted Correspondence includes two letters sent to applicants regarding the Board not being able to conduct a public hearing due to a lack of a quorum at a previous meeting. There is also a letter of withdrawal.
Chairman Yarum stated the meeting packet contains a copy of the answer and the return of record regarding the Planning and Zoning Commission v. the Zoning Board of Appeals. Also included in the Board’s packet is information regarding Kaplan v. the Zoning Board of Appeals. He noted both of these are privileged and he asked that Board members review this information.
OTHER BUSINESS
a) Application form – review
Mr. Alsbaugh presented a revised application form to the Board and briefly discussed the changes. Chairman Yarum stated he would like to see the proper steps taken so that this application form is put into effect for June 1, 2005. Mr. Alsbaugh stated he will call an organizational meeting for next month in order to make this application part of the Board’s bylaws so that there is continuity in the way applications are done and how business is conducted. Mr. Rinaldi requested that the word “must” be underlined on the application.
b) Roberts’ Rules of Order, Newly Revised - discussion
Mr. Alsbaugh noted this Board already uses a revised informal process during their meetings. However, if the Board chooses to go with the newly revised Roberts’ Rules of Order, he will add this item to the next organizational meeting.
c) Attendance – discussion
Chairman Yarum suggested that for those Board members who cannot follow through with their commitments, it would be in the best interests of the town and the public that they consider resigning.
Mr. Rinaldi stated he will be absent from the June Regular Meeting. Chairman Yarum will be absent from the August meeting.
d) ‘Local Authority’ – discussion
Mr. Alsbaugh stated this Board sent a memo the Connecticut planning professionals regarding local authority. The status today is the ZBA is still the local authority. There is no requirement for public hearings and there is no criteria regarding suitability of location for new or used car sales, general repairer licenses, limited repairer licenses or gasoline service stations. The public hearing statute was repealed but this Board still remains as the local authority by definition.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Rinaldi made a motion, seconded by Mr. Furey, to adjourn. Following a unanimous vote, the Board adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
John LeDoux, Secretary
Enfield Zoning Board of Appeals
jmr